Tertullian On Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah Questioning The Parting of The Ways Between Christians and Jews PDF

Tertullian, On Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah
Jewish and Christian

Perspectives Series
Editorial Board
David Golinkin – Alberdina Houtman
Marcel Poorthuis – Joshua Schwartz
Freek van der Steen
Advisory Board
Yehoyada Amir – David Berger – Shaye Cohen
Judith Frishman – Martin Goodman
Clemens Leonhard – Tobias Nicklas – Eyal Regev
Gerard Rouwhorst – Seth Schwartz – Yossi Turner
Volume 22
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/jcp

Tertullian, On Idolatry and Mishnah
Avodah Zarah
Questioning the Parting of the Ways
between Christians and Jews
By
Stéphanie E. Binder
Leiden • boston
2012
Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, Israel
Bar-Ilan University
Ingeborg after the
Rennert Center forIngeborg Rennert
Jerusalem Center
Studies, Israelfor Jerusalem
Bar-Ilan
Studies University, Israel
Bar-Ilan
University University, Israel
of Tilburg: Faculty
University
The editors gratefully acknowledge of Tilburg:
the financial support of the of
Faculty ofCatholic
Catholic
Ingeborg Theology,
Theology,
Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies.
The Netherlands
The Netherlands
University of Tilburg: Faculty of Catholic Theology,
This book is printed on Schechter
acid-free
The paper.
Netherlands
Protestant Theological
Institute University,
of Jewish TheIsrael
Studies, Netherlands
Schechter
Ingeborg Institute
SchechterRennert of Jewish
InstituteCenter
of Jewish
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Studies,
for Studies,
Data Jerusalem Israel
Israel
Studies, Israel
Interaction
The editors between
gratefullyJudaism and Rennert
acknowledge
Ingeborg Christianity
the financial in history,
Center support
for religion,
of the
Jerusalem art andIsrael
literature
Ingeborg
Studies, Rennert/ edited
Center for
by Marcel
Jerusalem Poorthuis,
Studies. Joshua Schwartz, Joseph Turner.
The editors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies.
p. cm. — (Jewish and Christian perspectives series ; v. 17)
Library of Congress
TheIncludes
editors Cataloging-in-Publication
bibliographical
gratefully acknowledge references. Dataof the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies.
the financial support
This book978-90-04-17150-3
ISBN is printed on acid-free paper. : alk. paper)
(hardback
Binder, Stephanie E.
1. Judaism--Relations--Christianity—History.
Tertullian, 2. : Christianity andparting
other religions—
This book ison idolatry
printed onand Mishnah
acid-free ‘Avodah zarah
paper. questioning the of the ways between
Library
Christians ofand
Congress
Judaism—History. Cataloging-in-Publication
Jews inI.late
Poorthuis,
antiquityMarcel, 1955- II.
/ by Stephanie Data
E. Schwartz,
Binder. Joshua. III. Turner, Joseph.
p. cm. — (Jewish and Christian perspectives series ; v. 22)
Library
Includes of bibliographical
Interaction
BM535.I4856 Congress
between Cataloging-in-Publication
2008Judaism and index. inData
and Christianity
references history, religion, art and literature / edited
by296.3’9609—dc22
ISBN Marcel Poorthuis, Joshua
978-90-04-23478-9 (alk.Schwartz,
paper) — Joseph Turner.
ISBN 978-90-04-23548-9 (e-book)
1.Interaction
Tertullian, between
p. cm. ca.
— 160–ca.
(Jewish Judaism
230.
andDe and Christianity
idololatria.
Christian in history,
2. Idolatry.
perspectives ;religion,
3. Mishnah.
series art and
v. 17)Avodah literature / edited
zarah—Criticism,
2008031295
byIncludes
Marcel Poorthuis,
interpretation, etc. 4. Joshua
ChristianitySchwartz,
bibliographical references. and otherJoseph Turner.
religions—Judaism. 5. Judaism—Relations—
Christianity.
p. cm.
ISBN I.—Title.
(Jewish and Christian
978-90-04-17150-3 (hardbackperspectives
: alk. paper)series ; v. 17)
1.Includes bibliographical references.
Judaism--Relations--Christianity—History.
BR65.T349B56 2012 2. Christianity and other religions—
ISBN 978-90-04-17150-3
Judaism—History.
261.2’609015—dc23 (hardback
I. Poorthuis, Marcel,: 1955-
alk. paper)
II. Schwartz, Joshua. III. Turner, Joseph.
1. Judaism--Relations--Christianity—History. 2. Christianity and other religions— 2012031142
Judaism—History.
BM535.I4856 2008 I. Poorthuis, Marcel, 1955- II. Schwartz, Joshua. III. Turner, Joseph.
296.3’9609—dc22
BM535.I4856 2008 2008031295
This296.3’9609—dc22
publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters
ISSN 1388-2074
covering
ISBN 978 Latin,90IPA, Greek,3and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in2008031295
04 17150 the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
Copyright
ISSN 1388-20742009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke
ISBN Brill NV incorporates
978-90-04-23478-9 (hardback)the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC 978-90-04-23548-9
ISBN Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
(e-book)
Copyright
All rights 2012 by Koninklijke
reserved. No part ofBrillthisNV, Leiden, The
publication may Netherlands.
be reproduced, translated, stored in
Koninklijke
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or byGlobal
Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Oriental,
any means, Hotei Publishing,
electronic, mechanical,
ISSN
IDC 1388-2074
Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
ISBN 978 90 04 17150 3
All
ISSNrights1388-2074
reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
Authorization
aCopyright
retrieval to photocopy
system, itemsinfor internalororbypersonal use iselectronic,
granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
ISBN 9782009
90 04 byor17150
transmitted
Koninklijke
3 Brillany form
NV, Leiden, any means,
The Netherlands. mechanical,
provided that recording
photocopying, the appropriate
or fees arewithout
otherwise, paid directly
prior to Thepermission
written Copyright fromClearance Center,
the publisher.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
IDC Publishers,
Copyright
Authorization 2009 Martinus
by
to photocopy Nijhoff
Koninklijke Publishers
Brill NV, and
Leiden, VSP.
The Netherlands.
Fees are subject to change.items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
Koninklijke
provided thatBrill NV incorporates
the appropriate fees arethepaid
imprints
directlyBrill, Hotei
to The Publishing,
Copyright Clearance Center,
All
IDC
222 rights reserved.
Publishers,
Rosewood Drive, No
Martinuspart
Suite ofDanvers,
Nijhoff
910, this Publishers
publication
MA 01923,may
and be reproduced, translated, stored in
VSP.
USA.
printed in the netherlands
a retrieval
Fees system,
are subject or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
to change.
photocopying, recording
All rights reserved. No partor otherwise, without may
of this publication priorbe written permission
reproduced, from the
translated, publisher.
stored in
This book issystem,
a retrieval printedorontransmitted
acid-free paper.
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
Authorization
photocopying, to photocopy
recording or items for internal
otherwise, withoutorprior
personal use permission
written is granted by Koninklijke
from Brill NV
the publisher.
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 RosewoodtoDrive,
Authorization Suite 910,
photocopy itemsDanvers, MAor01923,
for internal USA.
personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
Fees are subject
provided that thetoappropriate
change. fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
printed
Fees are in the netherlands
subject to change.
printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................... ix
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
Part one
General Background
1. Christians in Carthage .............................................................................. 7
2. Jews in Carthage: Between Palestine and the Diaspora ................ 11
3. The “Parting of the Ways” ........................................................................ 21

Making the Borderlines Clearer Following the Destruction
of the Temple .................................................................................... 22
Obvious Separation between Judaism and Christianity
Does Not Prevent Ongoing Contacts ......................................... 26
Judaism and Christianity Remain Intertwined ............................ 29
The Failure .............................................................................................. 35
The Comparison of Tertullian’s De Idolatria with Massekhet
Avodah Zarah as a Case Study .................................................... 37
4. Scholarship on the Possible Jewish Influence on Tertullian’s

Texts .......................................................................................................... 39
Claiming a Jewish Influence on Tertullian .................................... 39
Denying Jewish Influence on Tertullian ......................................... 44
Part two
Direct Context
5. Tertullian’s Heresies .................................................................................. 49
A Jewish Experience? ........................................................................... 49
A Particular Case in a Particular Environment ............................ 52
Montanist Schism? ............................................................................... 53
What Kind of Montanism Did Tertullian Know? ....................... 57
vi contents
6. Tertullian’s Place among Other Christian Authors:

Views on Idolatry in Comparison .................................................... 61
A Short Survey of the Different Ways the Pagans Envisaged
Their Idols .......................................................................................... 61
Logical Explanations ....................................................................... 61
Critics of Religion ............................................................................ 63
The Symbolists .................................................................................. 64
Generalities ............................................................................................. 67
The Character of the Speech on Idols ............................................ 68
Other Common Themes ..................................................................... 75
Miscellaneous .................................................................................... 75
Immorality in Idolatry .................................................................... 81
On the Jews’ Observances and on Meats Offered to Idols . 82
7. Tertullian in a Graeco-Roman World .................................................. 89

The Nature of Philosophy from the First to the Third
Century ce ......................................................................................... 89
Tertullian and Stoicism ....................................................................... 90
Direct Cultural Influences on Tertullian ....................................... 92
8. The Issue of the Jews’ Involvement within the Wider

Graeco-Roman World ....................................................................... 104
The Jews and the Graeco-Roman World ....................................... 104
Final Remarks about the Background of the Comparison ....... 106
The Maccabees and Figurative Representations .................... 106
Openness and Withdrawal ................................................................. 107
Part three
Tertullian and the Jews on Idolatry
Introduction to Part Three ............................................................................ 113
9. Comparison .................................................................................................. 117
Social Relationships ............................................................................. 117
Public Festivals ................................................................................. 117
Private Festivals ................................................................................ 122
Commensality ................................................................................. 127
Immorality in Idolatry .................................................................. 130
contents vii
Other Entertainments ................................................................... 134

Bathhouses .................................................................................. 134
Shows and Games ..................................................................... 136
Garments ...................................................................................... 140
Commercial Relationships ................................................................ 142
The Name of the Idols .................................................................. 142
“The Alleged Ban on Greek Wisdom” ................................. 142
Practical Applications When Living among the
Pagans ...................................................................................... 144
Trading Products ............................................................................ 152
Outsmarting the Law? .............................................................. 152
Working with the Pagans ........................................................ 159
Neutral Space ........................................................................................ 167
The Lure of Idolatry ....................................................................... 167
Dedication to Idolatry ................................................................... 177
Coexistence ...................................................................................... 182
Finding the Neutral Space ....................................................... 183
Justifying the Neutral Space ................................................... 189
10. Contribution of the Comparison: Jews and

Christians in Contact .......................................................................... 195
Did Jewish and Christian Communities Meet in Carthage? . 197
Tertullian’s Feelings towards the Jews .......................................... 201
Does Tertullian Refer to Real Jews? ............................................... 203
Do the Results of the Comparison Challenge Common
Opinions about “Jewish Proselytism”? ..................................... 207
Jews and Christians Allied against the Pagans ........................... 214
Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 217
Appendices
Appendix One Identification of the Festivals Quoted in Mishnah

Avodah Zarah I, 3 ...................................................................................... 221
Appendix Two Genousia and Other Celebrations ............................. 224
Appendix Three Intermarriage................................................................... 226
Appendix Four ‫ בימוסיאות‬........................................................................ 228
Appendix Five Mandell vs. Lieberman .................................................. 230
Appendix Six Clothing ................................................................................ 233
viii contents
Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 235
Index of Sources ............................................................................................... 247
General Index .................................................................................................... 253
Acknowledgments
This book is a slightly revised version of my Ph.D. dissertation (2009), which

was written under the supervision of Prof. Ranon Katzoff, from my home
Department of Classical Studies in Bar-Ilan University, and Prof. Albert
Baumgarten, from the Department of Jewish History (Bar-Ilan University).
I would like to acknowledge their very patient and helpful support from
my very first reflections on the subject up to its present shape. In addition,
I wish to thank Prof. David Schaps, former chairman of the Department of
Classical Studies, for his good advice in a number of different fields and
Dr. Gabriel Danzig, current head of the department, for his help in the last
stages of the revision of the present work. I would like to thank my edi-
tors, especially Dr. Susan Weingarten, for the tireless and invaluable work
they provided to make this work pleasurable reading. I am also indebted
to numerous scholars whom I contacted to discuss issues in which they
specialise, or whose works I consulted to enrich my knowledge in differ-
ent areas. Though I do not always quote their remarks or mention them
personally in the final version of this work, I want to express my gratitude
for their attention and desire to help. A special thanks is dedicated to the
rabbis of the Institute for Advanced Torah Studies of Bar-Ilan University for
their teaching and encouragement throughout my studies. Moreover, my
thoughts go to the relatives and friends who supported the elaboration of
my work in varied ways. I am grateful to the editors of the Brill series Jewish
and Christian perspectives for their various comments, and particularly to
Prof. Joshua Schwartz, who was appointed as one of the judges of my doc-
toral dissertation and, trusting it could become a book intended for a wide
audience, urged me to revise it. Finally, special thanks are dedicated to the
Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture and to the Center for Research in
Jewish History of the Ben Zvi Institute of Jerusalem for the financial support
that enabled me to revise my dissertation for publication.
Introduction
As its title indicates, the object of this study will be to compare the mish-
naic treatise, Avodah Zarah, with Tertullian’s roughly contemporaneous
text, De Idolatria. Since both works date from approximately the same
time and have a common theme, the comparison seems, at first glance,
quite obvious. Despite this, the two texts have only prompted isolated
comparative remarks: there has never yet been a systematic comparison
of all of the themes of these two works, nor a thorough examination of
where they are similar and where they differ. Indeed, the general tendency
in comparing these texts has been to emphasise their similarities, rather
than accounting for their differences.
This study aims at making an important contribution to the scholarly
literature in two respects. First, with regard to Tertullian studies, it will
provide a wide overview of the themes dealt with in the De Idolatria and
the reasons that might have led Tertullian to raise these specific subjects.
A comparison of the two texts will allow us to reassess and recontextualise
Tertullian, and to observe the ways in which he fits into or diverges from
the general mentality of his time. This work is in no way a mere repetition
of the excellent analysis of Waszink and Van Winden, who have estab-
lished a definitive text for the De Idolatria, analysing its diction, grammar
and subtleties but touching only briefly on the background against which it
was written.1 My aim is rather to give a general picture of Tertullian’s state
of mind when he wrote this work. Secondly, the comparison between the
Mishnah and the De Idolatria is related to the wider scholarly discussion
of the “parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity, including
the question of the existence of continuing contacts between proponents
of the two religions after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jeru-
salem. The inherent interest of such a comparison is to investigate the
historical issue through a particular and precise example, and not through
theoretical hypotheses scarcely supported by factual testimonies.
1 Tertullianus De Idololatria, Waszink J.H., and Van Winden, J.C.M., eds. (Leiden, 1987).
For a discussion of the titles De Idolatria and De Idololatria and of the irregularity of the
orthography of the term in the manuscripts, see Waszink (op. cit.) 7–8. Throughout the
present work, the simple form Idolatria is adopted.
2 introduction
The central concern in a comparison of both texts is not to try to prove

that one side influenced the other, but to survey how both, within a com-
mon context—namely the idolatrous environment that threatened the
integrity of the monotheistic faiths—confront the same questions and
respond to them, each with respect to its own problems. The main ques-
tion of this study will be to determine whether or not the resemblances
and differences between the Mishnah and the De Idolatria testify to exist-
ing contacts between Jews and Christians, at least in Carthage during the
second and third centuries ce. If such contacts can be discerned, the aim
will then be to define their nature. Finally, this study will be the appropri-
ate place to ask how far such a comparison can enlighten us about rela-
tions between Jews and Christians in the third century, in general: were
they different and isolated from each other, or similar and intermingled?
Putting Tertullian in context demands a wide-ranging introduction and
much background material. First of all, we must delineate the figures of
the protagonists presumably involved in the texts being compared. Pre-
paring the scenery of the De Idolatria implies defining the Carthaginian
Christians. As for the Mishnah, since it is known to have originated in
Palestine, a rapid account of its direct intended audience can be given,
but the most important issue here is to emphasise its link with the Jews
of Carthage, with whom the Carthaginian Christians would have been in
contact, if the existence of such contacts can be pointed out. The predomi-
nance and extensive influence of the rabbis, as leaders of the main stream
within Judaism in the second and third centuries, is taken for granted in
the present study and constitutes the point of departure for the compari-
son between Jewish and Christian approaches to idolatry in Carthage.2
I do discuss and corroborate this point here and there, and not system-
atically, but it is not the theme of the present work, although obviously
I must concede that a comparison based on the hypothesis that the rab-
binical movement was weak in Tertullian’s time would lead to different
conclusions. In any event, I will endeavour to show that even if rabbinical
Judaism was only one among other movements current in Judaism at that
2 As far as I know, the most recent publication to date surveying the scholarship on the
rabbis’ role in ancient Judaism is, M.D. Herr’s article against the revisionism that tends to
make rabbinism marginal within Judaism: “The Identity of the People of Israel During the
Second Temple Times and after its Destruction: Continuity or Change? Trends in the Study
of Jewish History of the Late Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Periods,” Cathedra 137
(2010) 27–62 [in Hebrew].
introduction 3
time, it was precisely this movement which reached Carthage. Following

this, the different theories about the “parting of the ways” must be exam-
ined in order to clarify the context in which the results of the comparison
will be considered. The last point of this first part of my study will be a
survey of the different statements made by scholars concerning a pos-
sible Jewish influence on Tertullian’s writing, followed by an assessment
of Tertullian’s character, including his general attitudes and the proce-
dural methodologies he uses when he writes. All of this should enable an
understanding of the text of the De Idolatria itself, with all its subtleties.
Thereafter, the contents of the De Idolatria and the ways in which they
are treated thematically will be compared with similar subjects found
in the writings of other Christian authors who are Tertullian’s predeces-
sors, his contemporaries, or even, in certain cases, his direct disciples. But
Tertullian was neither born nor raised as a Christian, and thus echoes of
his classical education will be sought in his approaches to idolatry. At
the same time, this study will outline the state of Jewish involvement in
Graeco-Roman culture. Finally the study will reach its main concern: the
comparison proper between Mishnah Avodah Zarah and the De Idolatria.
I shall conclude with a survey of the contributions that this comparison
makes to the literature.
Part one
General Background
chapter one
Christians in Carthage
In the year 35 bce, Carthage became the seat of the Roman provincial
governor, and hence the administrative centre of the province of Africa.
Thereafter Carthage and Rome were closely bound to one another. There
was a distinctive Carthaginian local identity, but the Carthaginians also
“stake[d] a claim to an important share in the Empire for themselves.
Their claims were in turn recognised by the central powers in Rome.”1 The
positive relationships between both cities can be seen from the generosity
of Marcus Aurelius to Carthage: the Emperor bestowed a temple on the
city, and games which required his authorisation took place. Furthermore,
the city was allowed a certain degree of autonomy with respect to religion
and private cults. Indeed, there was no real official religion in Carthage:
individuals were free to believe and practise as they wished. As in most
places in the Empire, there was little active central involvement or super-
vision of local public religion and even of the imperial cult in Carthage:
“The religious pluralism, not to say the anarchy, of the Empire reflected
the absence of any organised system of religion.”2 A social, ethnic and
religious cosmopolitism gave rise to extremely varied religious options in
the city.3 As in Rome itself, there was a profusion of oriental mystic cults:
some were attracted to astrology, while others were attracted by Apuleius’
discourses on the gods, or Albinus’ philosophy. “Many groups are com-
pletely private and had minimal connection with the local authorities,
while to some, a certain amount of public recognition was extended.”4
Among the various religious groups in Carthage, there were also
a number of Christians. Scholars of African Christianity have made
1 J.B. Rives, Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage from Augustus to Constantine
(Oxford, 1995) 169. See also David Rankin, Tertullian and the Church (Cambridge, 1995)
9: “North Africa, was as the granary of Rome, a significant region of the Empire, both
militarily and economically.” Rankin also adds that it was the second city of the Empire
after Rome.
2 Rives, Religion 63, 245, 246; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain: leur condition
juridique, économique et sociale (Paris, 1914) 248.
3 C. Aziza, Tertullien et le judaïsme (1977) 2.
4 Rives, Religion 204.
8 chapter one
umerous attempts to determine the origins of this Christian community

n
in Carthage, and most of them now accept that there was a multiplicity
of factors which led to the creation of the different Christian groups in
the city.5 The most important factor was the Roman influence, due to
the close relations between Rome and Carthage. Roman Christianity was
probably brought by Roman missionaries and perhaps developed in the
Jewish communities between Rome and Carthage. However, this factor is
generally thought to have been mixed with oriental influences.6 Here it
has been noted that the African liturgy was closer to the oriental liturgy
than to the Roman, and that the Semitic (oriental) cult of Baal Hamon
traditionally dominated religious life in Carthage.7 In other parts of the
Empire, there is evidence of relations between the Christians of the little
inland city of Lugdunum in Gaul, and those in Asia and Phrygia. If this
was the case, then Carthage, being a large open port, was even more likely
to be linked with the East, and merchants could have discussed or even
imported Christian beliefs through this opening. The Jewish channel is
unlikely to have been exclusively external, importing views from Rome or
from oriental merchants. Indeed, it has been suggested that African Jewish
pilgrims who went to the Holy Land might have brought back Christian-
ity from Palestine to Carthage.8 Tertullian himself never speaks about the
beginnings of the African Church, which would seem to indicate that he
knew nothing about them and that they dated from well before his con-
version. In fact, Tertullian tries to give the impression that North African
Christians were numerous, writing in Ad Scapulam 5.2: “if all the Chris-
tians in Carthage were to be executed, the city would be depopulated.”
As in the rest of the Empire, the Christians in Carthage were sometimes
free and at other times persecuted, and all we know for certain is that
the first dated testimony of an event involving African Christians is the
report on the trial of the Scillitan martyrs in 180 ce. Despite the fact that
5 W. Telfer, “The Origins of Christianity in Africa,” Studia Patristica 4 (1961) 516, P. Mon-
ceaux, Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne I (Paris, 1901) 8–9.
6 R. Braun, Approches de Tertullien: vingt-six études sur l’auteur et sur l’œuvre (Paris,
1992) 2; J.-C. Fredouille, Tertullien et la conversion de la culture antique (Paris, 1972) 271.
7 Rives, Religion 225, W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia, 1984) 348
and W.H.C. Frend, “A Note on Tertullian and the Jews” Studia Patristica 10 (1970) 292.
Frend, “Jews and Christians in Third Century Carthage,” Paganisme, Judaïsme, Christian-
isme. Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique. Mélanges offerts à Marcel Simon,
E. de Boccard ed. (Paris, 1978) 185–94; E.S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans
(Cambridge, 2002) 155.
8 Barnes, Tertullian 64.
christians in carthage 9
the proposal above sounds eminently reasonable, in fact no one really

knows how Christianity began in North Africa in general or in Carthage
in particular.9
Regardless of its origins, the Christian community in Carthage was very
much like Carthaginian society at large. First, like the cities themselves,
the Churches of Rome and Carthage were in continuous contact and were
at the forefront of Latin Christianity as a whole.10 Secondly, the Carthagin-
ian Church, like the rest of African Christianity, was the object of sectarian
propaganda from Rome or the East and characterised by pluralism. Thus
it would seem that there was not just one unified Christian community
in Carthage, but several different Christian groups which co-existed. 11 The
very fact that Tertullian wrote against the numerous heretics with whom
he disagreed shows he had a direct and localised interest in delegitimis-
ing them. Although the Romans and Carthaginians were on good terms,
a parallel between the processes of Christianisation and Romanisation at
Carthage has been suggested.12 More precisely, Christianity might have
been an option chosen in response to, or—perhaps even more likely—as
a rejection of the Romanisation of North Africa. With this option in mind,
it has been proposed that everything Tertullian wrote must have been
polemical, since his becoming a Christian could have been a way of deny-
ing Roman civilisation and ideology:13 his attraction to Christianity might
thus be the mark of his revenge. Indeed, in one of Tertullian’s works, the
De Pallio, a certain nostalgia for the time when Carthage was Carthage
and not a mere imitation of Rome has been identified on the part of
the people of the city.14 All this could partly explain Tertullian’s general
severity towards the involvement of Christians in the pagan environment.
9 T.D. Barnes, Tertullian (Oxford, 1985) 68.

10 Tertullian, De Praescriptione 36; the Church of Carthage takes the Church of Rome
as a model.
11 Braun, Approches 9; Barnes, Tertullian 64; Rives, Religion 228; Telfer, “The Origins,”
8–9.
12 Frend, Rise 348: “Romanization of their chief God (of the Carthaginians) alienated
some of his worshippers and made them think of a Christian alternative.” See also David
Wilhite, Tertullian the African (Berlin, 2007), about Tertullian’s non-Roman-ness and
African-ity, despite his accommodation of much from Graeco-Roman literature, laws, and
customs. See also G. Schöllgen, “Der Adressatenkreis der grieschischen Schauspielschrift
Tertullians,” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 25 (1982) 22–27, about the possible orien-
tal audience that Tertullian addressed in Greek before he began to write in Latin.
13 Braun, Approches 19–22.
14 Frend, passim.
10 chapter one
However, Tertullian also writes as the leader of his own community in

Carthage, trying to make it the only Christian group in the city. From this
is clear that he would be opposed to Judaism, as he is to the other Chris-
tian streams, so that he remains the leader of the only legitimate mono-
theistic group in Carthage.
chapter two
Jews in Carthage: between Palestine and the Diaspora
What kind of Judaism and which Jews would Tertullian have encountered
in Carthage? This question is part of a wider one concerning the general
relationships between the Jews of Palestine and those of the Diaspora at
the end of the second and the beginning of the third century ce. Before
the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, there were two clear links
between the Jews of the Palestinian capital and the other Jews scattered
over the world: a tax was paid to the capital, and pilgrimages to the Tem-
ple were routine.1 But despite this continuous connection, well before the
destruction of the Temple, life in the Diaspora was organised indepen-
dently of the functioning of the Jerusalem Temple. In fact, in Palestine
itself, the Pharisaic movement tended to focus Judaism around the law,
and not around the Temple.2 Thus the destruction of the Temple had no
real influence on the everyday life of the Jews of the Diaspora.3 In the
cities of the Diaspora, Jews needed to learn to live with pagans. As in the
mixed cities of Palestine, they needed to reach a compromise between
respecting their ancestral traditions and leading an ordinary life where
they resided. That is why affinities have been seen between the Palestin-
ian Pharisees—and later the rabbis— and Diaspora Jews in their tendency
to justify innovations according to ancestral law, rather than forbidding
them.4 In other words, “It seems only logical that Jews sought out means
whereby to legitimise a Diaspora existence that most of them inherited
from their parents and would bequeath to their descendants.”5 In fact,
in the cities of the Diaspora, “Jews and pagans lived amidst and among
1 This is well established throughout the scholarly literature; see, for instance, J. Bar-
clay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora (Edinburgh, 1996) 422, and Gruen, Diaspora 121.
2 M. Simon, Verus Israël, étude sur les relations entre chrétiens et Juifs dans l’Empire
romain (135–425) (Paris, 1964) 27. See, as well, Daniel Schwartz’ article, “The Jews of Egypt
between the Temple of Onias, the Temple of Jerusalem, and Heaven,” Center and Diaspora,
Y. Gafni ed. (Jerusalem, 2004) 48, 54, where he brings allusions to the Egyptian Jews’ lack
of interest in the Temple and in sacrifices.
3 Gruen, Diaspora 135, 234.
4 Simon, Verus Israel 32; especially in “Le judaisme berbère dans l’Afrique Ancienne,”
Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuse (1946) 1–145, Simon points to the links that
bind African Jewry to Palestine during the first Christian centuries.
5 Gruen, Diaspora 234.
12 chapter two
each other.” This is demonstrated by the evident attraction the synagogue

held for the local populations, and the acceptance by Jews of the pres-
ence of curious outsiders in their synagogue activities and their desire
to be on neighbourly terms with them.6 Despite its openness to all, the
synagogue nevertheless secured Jewish interests and “negotiated a path
between integration (in the surrounding society) and segregation to serve
the sacral and secular needs of Jewish society in Diaspora settings.”7 Thus
maintaining a Jewish identity in the Diaspora implied two things: first,
knowing how to manage one’s life within a pagan environment, and sec-
ond, the active practice of Judaism. Of course, there were some Jews who
broke the links with their ancestral faith and assimilated into their host
culture. Others remained loyal to their faith, however, and for them one
component of Jewish identity consisted of an attachment to Eretz Israel,
and to Jerusalem in particular. This related to various different aspects of
life, even if very often the reactions of Diaspora Jewry to events occurring
in the homeland were not obvious. Sometimes “exiled” Jews were clearly
affected by such events, and sometimes they were silent when they might
have been expected to express vociferous support for their Palestinian
co-religionists.
All over the Diaspora, living a Jewish life involved some sort of links
to Eretz Israel. Gatherings bound each community together,8 and every-
where the same Jewish festivals were celebrated, and the same charac-
teristic laws respected, including circumcision, Shabbat observances, and
dietary laws, although we can sometimes identify slight differences in the
way people put the religious rules into practice.9 Moreover, as can be seen
from Mishnah Rosh HaShanah, for instance, the Palestinian rabbis saw it
as their job to set the Jewish calendar for the entire Jewish population
6 P. Fredriksen, “What Parting of the Ways? Jews, Gentiles and the Ancient Mediter-
ranean City,” The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the
Early Middles Ages, A.H. Becker and A.Y. Reed, eds., Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism
95 (Tübingen, 2003) 52, 56.
7 Gruen, Diaspora 121.
8 Barclay, Jews 416–7.
9 Concerning the Sabbath as a fast day and special ways of tithing see R. Katzoff, “New
Christians and Old Fellowships (Havurot) (I Corinthians 7:12–14),” Along the Paths of Jew-
ish History. Research and Reminiscences in Honor of Dr. Zvi Gastwirth, Eds. Zion Ukashy
et al. (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 2006) 143–153; R. Katzoff, “The Laws of Rabbi Eliezer in Ancient
Rome,” Essays in Jewish Studies in Honor of Professor Shamma Friedman, ed. David Golinkin
et al., (Jerusalem, 2007) 344–357; R. Goldenberg, “The Jewish Shabbath in the Roman World
up to the time of Constantine the Great,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischenWelt II.19.1
(1979) 414–47.
jews in carthage 13
all over the world, while Diaspora synagogues were physically oriented
toward Jerusalem from a very early stage.10 To sum up, the “Diaspora
communities participated in a ‘common Judaism’ related to the Judaism
of every other community.”11 On the political level, the authority of the
Patriarch is supposed to have given some uniformity to the Diaspora com-
munities, but scholars are divided on what the power of the Patriarch
really was, how he would have put this into action, and, especially, when
this was effective. For those scholars who accept that the Patriarch gained
some real power, the hesitation is mainly chronological, with suggestions
varying from the end of the second century to the late fourth century, via
a significant stage in the third century.12 Despite the disagreement on the
exact time of its occurrence, most scholars agree on the process. Some
time in the second, third or fourth century, or all through this period,
the Patriarch’s authority is recognised, rabbinic Judaism becomes much
more central to Palestinian Jewish society and spreads throughout the
Diaspora. Following this, the Patriarchs send their messengers or missi
10 Barclay, Jews 422; the pilgrimages to the place of the Temple of Jerusalem that assured
a tight connection between the Diaspora and the centre were forbidden after the Roman
destruction of the Temple, and this is one of Tertullian’s strongest arguments to prove the
truth of Christianity to the Jews. See Adversus Judaeos 3 and 13, for instance. Neverthe-
less, a rabbinic text, Midrash Qohelet Rabbah parashah 11, tells a story occurring after the
destruction, in which the Jews do make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for their festivals. It may
be that this is only an error on the part of the writer, since this is a late text, but it may
also be evidence that the habit of going to Jerusalem continued, despite the interdiction.
In this case, pilgrimages would still be on the list of evidence pointing to the close links
between Palestine and Diaspora. Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1.13.4, states that the Christians
pray towards the east; regarding this point, also see Clement of Alexandria Stromata 7.7.
11 S. Fine, Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeol-
ogy (Cambridge, 2005) 214. For further studies on “common Judaism,” see, among others,
A. Mendelson, “Did Philo Say the Shemah? And Other Reflections,” in Sanders, Judaism:
Practice and Belief, The Studia Philonica Annual Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 6 (1994)
160–71; L. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (New Jersey, 1993) 420; and
D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity
(Tübingen, 1994) on the role of the Patriarch. Some slight differences are attested in the
way the Jews observed their laws, for instance, some used to fast on the Sabbath. For fur-
ther information see R. Katzoff ’s article [in Hebrew] and bibliography there: “The Laws
of Rabbi Eliezer in Ancient Rome,” Essays in Jewish Studies in Honor of Professor Shamma
Friedman, ed. D. Golinkin et al. (Jerusalem, 2007) 344–57.
12 According to the order of quotation: Simon, Verus Israël 54, 210, 501; Rives, Religion
266–7; and finally, Y. Baer, “Israel, the Christian Church and the Roman Empire,” Studies in
History, Alexander Fuks and Israel Halpern, eds. (Jerusalem, 1961) 123, Rives, Religion 266–7.
For the rabbinic character of the Patriarchal activity, see for instance A. Baumgarten, “The
Politics of Reconciliation: The Education of R. Judah the Prince,” Jewish and Christian Self-
definition. Volume II: Aspects of Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period, E.P. Sanders et al., eds.
(Philadelphia, 1980) 213–25.
14 chapter two
domici to all the Jewish communities of the Diaspora. There, they gauge
loyalty to Judaism as they envisage it, in line with the orthodox talmudic
framework, teaching and correcting Jewish beliefs with the aim of making
Judaism uniform. In other words, there are “assumptions that the west-
ern Diaspora was administered or controlled by traveling rabbis from
Palestine.”13
Thus the question of the links between Palestinian and Diaspora Juda-
ism also involves the question of what sort of Judaism existed in Palestine.
A large group of scholars have recently cast doubts on the real place of the
rabbis in Jewish society.14 Some claim that the rabbinic movement was no
more important than any other kind of Judaism, and that contemporary
groups were divided into several factions of equal strength. In that case,
the talmudic narratives about the history of early rabbinic Judaism, and
the claims to antiquity of the movement, going all the way back to Moses,
would then be mere inventions to justify the talmudic rabbis’ claims to
authority.15 Along the same lines, other scholars assert that rabbinic Juda-
ism, far from being central, was actually quite marginal, because Judaism
scarcely even existed until it reappeared in the talmudic period in answer
to the development of Christianity.16 I am thus well aware that if these
theories are accepted, the rabbinic texts can only be evidence of rabbinic
ideas, and not of Judaism as a whole, from the time of the destruction of
the Temple until around the time of the editing of the Babylonian Talmud.
However, accounting for the place and role of the rabbis in early Judaism
is not the main concern of the present work. Rather, since our concern is
a rabbinic text compared with a contemporaneous Christian Carthagin-
ian text, it is the rabbinic ideas themselves that are important, no mat-
ter whether rabbinic prescriptions were or were not widely observed by
Jews, and no matter whether other sects in Judaism might have existed,
or what they might have written regarding the selfsame issues. At any
13 S. Jones and S. Pearce, “Introduction: Jewish Local Identities and Patriotism in
the Greco-Roman Period,” Jones, S. and Pearce, S., eds., Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-
Identification in the Greco-Roman Period (1998) 16.
14 Among these are Jacob Neusner, Shaye Cohen, Seth Schwartz, and Daniel Boyarin.
Further details will be provided later in this study.
15 See, especially, D. Boyarin, Border lines: the Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadel-
phia, 2004), as well as Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Juda-
ism (Stanford, 1999).
16 S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton, 2001);
S. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley and
Los Angeles, 1998), and “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis and the End of Jew-
ish Sectarianism,” Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984) 27–53.
jews in carthage 15
rate, it is argued here that the ideas of the Mishnah were disseminated
within rabbinic circles well before the final redaction of the text in the
third century—probably from 70 ce on. The question we are dealing with
then becomes more precisely, “to what extent was the Jewish community
in Carthage affected by religious developments in Palestine, and notably
the rise of rabbinic Judaism?”17 Or, in other words, were Carthaginian Jews
in contact with the Palestinian rabbis who dealt with rules concerning
idolatry, and did these Carthaginian Jews transmit these rabbinic prescrip-
tions to their Carthaginian fellow-Jews? The answers to the last questions
will help to determine what kind of Jewish thought Tertullian might have
been familiar with, and then to see if there are any indications of contact
with these modes of thought in his writings.
It has been suggested that Carthage, because of its Semitic character,
had a natural tendency to be friendly to Jewish culture. It has even been
claimed that Carthage was the centre of African Judaism, and that this
was facilitated by the close connection between the Hebrew and Punic
languages.18 Even if Hebrew was not the usual language of the Carthag-
inian Jews, who spoke Latin,19 nevertheless the large Jewish population
of Carthage was still using Hebrew in some ways by Tertullian’s time.20
Most scholars do in fact recognise a strong link between Palestinian and
Carthaginian Jews.21 The main arguments in favour of such a link are
based in particular on the method of burying the dead in the Carthaginian

18 Simon, Verus Israel 352, Recherches d’histoire judéo-chrétienne (Paris, 1962) 31–3;
P. Monceaux, Les Africains (Paris, 1894) 104.
19 Braun, Approches 4 especially and passim; Y. LeBohec, “Inscriptions juives et juda-
ïsantes de l’Afrique romaine,” Antiquités Africaines 17 (1981) 165–207 and “Juifs et Judaïsants
dans l’Afrique romaine: remarques onomastiques,” Antiquités Africaines 17 (1981) 209–29.
K. Stern, Inscribing Devotion and Death. Archaeological Evidence for Jewish Populations of
North Africa (Leiden, 2008), basing her argument on epigraphic finds, states that there is
no material indication of extensive Jewish use of Hebrew in Carthage. The word ‫ שלום‬is
frequently found on tombstones by itself, used as a kind of motif to point to the Jewish
origin of the deceased, but only one or two inscriptions make wider use of the language.
20 Frend, Rise 347, “Jews and Christians in Third Century Carthage,” in Paganisme, Juda-
ïsme, Christianisme. Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique. Mélanges offerts à
Marcel Simon (Paris, 1978) 185–94.
21 Frend, Rise passim and generally in his works, Rives, Religion 219–20, Simon, Verus
Israel and Recherches. See also Aziza, Tertullien, which T. Rajak, in “The Jews Under Roman
Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian; Prolegomena to the Study of the Second Jewish Revolt
(A.D. 132–135): Tertullien et le Judaïsme,” Journal of Roman Studies 69 (1979) 193, considers
as “biased and ill-argued,” but which still remains the most extensive work concerning
Tertullian’s nexus with the Jews and offers, in my opinion, many interesting and stim-
ulating ideas. See also L.I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue (New Haven/London, 2005)
303 n. 178.
16 chapter two
Jewish cemetery of Gammarth, which seems to draw upon a tradition

shared by the Palestinian rabbis, which is later detailed in the Babylonian
Talmud.22 Secondly, both Talmudim name some qualified rabbis as being
“from Carthage.” However, scholars are divided as to the implications of
the data. Some deduce that the mention of named rabbis as coming from
Carthage gave the city “some reputation as a rabbinic centre.”23 On the
other hand, others have claimed that even if the Jewish community of
Carthage seemed to be aware of and favourable to Palestinian rabbinic
developments, this was “different from supposing that the rabbinic tradi-
tion was flourishing in Carthage itself.”24 However, since rabbis travelled
from Carthage to Palestine to study and later returned to Carthage, in
their opinion, “the development of rabbinic Judaism in Carthage lagged
only slightly behind that of Palestine itself.”25 But the ‘facts’ themselves
are not taken for granted by all scholars. Aziza, for example, one of the
most vehement scholars who generally supports the theory of an actual
Carthaginian origin of the rabbis quoted as such in the Talmudim and
tries to show from Tertullian’s writings that the Carthaginian Jewish com-
munity was talmudic and tended towards the Pharisees, suggests in a note
that the expression “from Carthage” could be understood as meaning from
Cartagena in Spain, where a Jewish community flourished in the second
century.26 Arye Edrei and Doron Mendels even suggest that since the rab-
bis “from Carthage” have a Palestinian mode of studying, they must be
Palestinian. According to them, the rabbis’ families must have originally
come from Carthage—hence the reference to their origins—and then
settled in Palestine, but the rabbis themselves would have had no other
connection to Carthage.27
Edrei and Mendels’ article challenges what it terms the “scholarly claim
of an ongoing connection between the Greek-speaking diaspora in the
west and the centre in Israel,”28 which is closer to the eastern Diaspora.
They also claim that most of the Jews of the western Diaspora disappeared
after the destruction of the Second Temple, because they did not keep up
22 Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 100b–102b; unlike what appears, for example, in the
Roman catacombs.
23 Frend, Rise 347.
26 Aziza, Tertullien 31 and 15 n. 87.
27 A. Edrei, D. Mendels, “A Split Jewish Diaspora: Its Dramatic Consequences,” Journal
for the Study of the Pseudepigraphia 16 (2007) 103 n. 18.
28 Edrei, Mendels, “A Split” 130.
jews in carthage 17
with Palestinian developments in Judaism. Since North African Carthage

was closely linked to Rome, it should indeed be seen as belonging to the
western Diaspora. However, by Tertullian’s time, which is a little later
than the period mainly dealt with by the article, its Jews are Latin-speak-
ing (as is the case for the whole province of Africa).29 On the other hand,
the Semitic origins of the city are very characteristic of its culture, so that
Carthage should be seen as a unique case in the Diaspora world. It is nei-
ther a Greek-speaking community nor a part of the eastern Diaspora,
which comprised mainly Egypt, Babylonia and the lands across the Jor-
dan.30 Moreover, Carthage was a very important port city, open to influ-
ences from all over the world. That is why, in my opinion, there is no
reason why Palestinian ideas could not have reached the city, and why the
Jews of the second century should not be considered the heirs of earlier
Jewish settlers in Carthage, rather than newcomers who came to replace
them. With regard to this last point, the Jews of nearby Djerba have a
popular tradition that a Jewish population settled in this city after the
destruction of the First Temple, joining other local Jews who were already
settled there. The synagogue of the Ghriba in Djerba is claimed to date
from this period. The tradition further tells that some of this community
accompanied the Phoenicians and helped to found Carthage. More Jews
would have come to Carthage after the destruction of the Second Temple,
and indeed the Jewish cemetery of Gammarth dates from this period.31
We may refer here to the concept of ‘port Jews,’ Jews who settled (much
later, between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries ce) in port cities
and made trade connections and established routes for commerce across
the seas. Perhaps we can see the first signs of the establishment of a Jew-
ish merchant community of this sort of character in third-century
Carthage.32 But even if it was not the Carthaginians themselves—Jews or
non-Jews—who brought back the culture of Palestine, other merchants
and travellers coming from Palestine would have been able to update
29 See W.H.C. Frend, “Heresy and Schism as Social and National Movements,” Schism,
Heresy and Religious Protest, Baker, ed. (Cambridge, 1972) 40: “Roman Africa was ostensibly
Latin.”
30 Edrei, Mendels, “A Split.”
31 For a complete account of the legends see Stern, Inscribing Devotion 48 and chapter 2.
32 D. Sorkin ‘The Port Jews: Notes Toward a Social Type,’ Journal of Jewish Studies 50
(1999) 87–97. These ‘port Jews’ are generally of Sephardi origins. North Africa was one of
the main places, if not the main place, where Jews fleeing from Spain and Portugal settled
after the expulsion. This identity of place, and probably of origin is one more seductive
argument for suggesting that the Carthaginian Jews already conformed to this social model
as early as Late Antiquity.
18 chapter two
them concerning developments there. It is widely testified in all the stud-

ies on Roman Carthage that the city was thronged with travellers and the
evidence of both Talmudim testify that the rabbis and their disciples went
out teaching from city to city and from country to country. Even if stories
about Rabbi Aqiva or the Patriarch’s travels are wholly or partly legendary
(not to mention Matthew 23:15 which accuses the Pharisees of crossing
the seas to make converts and to diffuse their faith, or Josephus’ story of
the conversion of the royal family of Adiabene in AJ 20. 49–53), simpler
accounts such as Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 8a, which tells of stu-
dents tiring of going from place to place, show that Carthage may have
been quite easily accessible by sea. Moreover, the ideas of the Mishnah
must have been disseminated from very early on, as we have noted above,
and by the time of Tertullian they would have already been at least partly
crystallised, whether in written or oral form. Thus Edrei and Mendel’s
acknowledgment that there was a “sporadic connection” between Pales-
tine and the western Diaspora, together with their recognition that the
Mishnah was “the cornerstone of Torah Study”33 is enough to indicate that
Carthaginian Jews were most probably well aware of the main tannaitic
rabbinic statements about idolatry. At any rate, the Jews who left Pales-
tine after the destruction of the Second Temple could also have brought
with them knowledge of rabbinic discussions and might even have been
rabbinic Jews themselves. Although I do not want to linger over this the-
sis, it may be useful to note that evidence of rabbinic influence in Carthage
might also, from another point of view, be a clue to the strength of the
pharisaic-rabbinic movement already soon after the destruction of the
Second Temple, when Jews escaped from Palestine to North Africa. A fur-
ther claim of Edrei and Mendels is that the early western Diaspora could
not have been aware of Palestinian developments because of the linguis-
tic gap. Here again, Carthage is not implicated because, as seen above, at
least some Carthaginian Jews knew Hebrew.34 A final assertion in this
article that is relevant here, is that the western Diaspora did not develop
an oral law of its own, and thus there was an opening for Christianity,
which had an advantage over rabbinic studies because it was taught in
Greek:35 Jews believing they were being updated with new Palestinian
religious developments actually became Christians. However, if the Jews

34 And possibly even Aramaic, for those who escaped from Palestine after the destruc-
tion of the Second Temple, and according to some evidence found in the cemetery.
jews in carthage 19
in Carthage were, as I believe, closely connected to Palestine and its rab-

binic movement, they would not have needed to develop an oral law of
their own, because they recognised Palestine as the centre, and relied on
the innovations of the Palestinian rabbis in religious regulations. We may
conclude from these few points that Jews were to be found in Carthage
from very early on, certainly from before the advent of the first Christians,
and that the Carthaginian Jews were easily and regularly kept aware of
developments occurring in Palestine. It seems clear that a strong Jewish
group was in place, awaiting, as it were, the conflict with the Christian
movement in Carthage, and not ready to collapse with its appearance.
Moreover, it seems likely that Carthaginian Jews tended to accept rab-
binic authority. Thus Tertullian would have met Jews at least partly affili-
ated with the Palestinian rabbis in his own city, and some at least would
have been familiar with the main ideas of the Palestinian Mishnah
massekhet Avodah Zarah. Through contact with those Jews, Tertullian
would most probably have been aware of the rabbinic ideas in Mishnah
Avodah Zarah while writing his own treatise on idolatry. Indeed, the
strongest proof of the character of the Carthaginian Jewish community
remains the burial ground in Gammarth, which seems to follow rabbinic
imperatives. The scholarly discussion about the cemetery at Gammarth
generally revolves around the question of whether it was only Jewish, or
both Jewish and Christian. Keren Stern, an archaeologist, has now shifted
the debate. Having studied the material remains of Jewish culture in North
Africa and tried to determine what characterised the Jewish North African
population in late antiquity, she has concluded that, on the one hand,
there is not enough evidence to allow reconstruction of Jewish life of the
time, and secondly, that on the basis of the funerary finds, it can be said
that the Jewish community was totally embedded in its surrounding Afri-
can culture. On the basis of her findings, that little or nothing remains of
the Jewish material culture of late antiquity in North Africa, she rebukes
those scholars who attempt to reconstruct the character of the Jewish
community according to Christian polemic literature. For example, she
argues that no material evidence proves that Jews and Christians were in
contact, nor does any evidence indicate whether or not the Carthaginian
Jews were rabbinic. In short, she denies the possibility of saying anything
specific about Jewish life in Carthage in Late Antiquity. Nevertheless she
allows herself to “speculate” about what social realities could have been
in this geographical region, and she states that “ ‘interaction,’ then, is not
a possibility, but an implicit necessity; it is not a datum, but a point of
departure for the dynamics of ancient society.” Jews must, then, have been
20 chapter two
part of the wider culture, and were neither segregated nor in closer rela-
tions with other Jews around the world than with their immediate neigh-
bours. Obviously, what Stern claims about the role of Africans in general
in the African Jewish environment must also be true of Christian Africans,
who, after all, were part of the Jews’ immediate surroundings; hence the
Jews were most likely in contact and interacted with them.36
36 Stern, Inscribing Devotion passim and more precisely 42 and 49. During the discus-
sion following a lecture she gave at Tel-Aviv University on 30th November 2009, Stern
acknowledged that, whereas two years before, given the lack of material evidence, she
would not have accepted speculation about the neighbourly relations of Christians and
Jews in everyday life in Carthage in the second and third centuries, today she was more
inclined to consider conjectures based on Christian literature or the situation in other
places.
chapter three
The “Parting of the Ways”
The “parting of the ways” is now the conventional title attributed to any
discussion about early Christianity and its relationship with Judaism. Of
course, such a generic title covers a wide range of scholarly approaches
to this issue and the conclusions drawn from them. Nevertheless, it can
be said that the phrase is almost always used to oppose more traditional
ideas, which envisage an immediate and dramatic schism between the
religions as soon as Christianity emerges. The main theories of the parting
of the ways paint a picture of a multi-faceted Judaism or Judaisms—and
this is often the locus for arguments about the real strength or normative
role of the rabbis in the Jewish world—in which Christianity is nothing
more than another option for being Jewish. It was only over many years,
perhaps even centuries, that Christianity and Judaism constructed their
own separate and distinct identities. It is generally accepted that by the
fourth century this differentiation was complete, and that only sporadic
relations between these religious entities persisted. This way of envisag-
ing the history of the separation between Christianity and Judaism sug-
gests a slow evolution of the situation, rather than a sudden revolution.1
A nuance of this theory proposes envisaging several partings of the ways,
namely several occasions when the gap between Christianity and Judaism
was widened, at different times, places, and social levels, while at other
times, both religions, and in particular their members, remained some-
how intertwined.2 A large part of a recently published book on Tertullian
is devoted to a comprehensive survey of all the different arguments put
forth by scholars over the past two centuries regarding the “parting of
the ways” between Judaism and Christianity.3 Thus there is no need to
repeat the summary here. I would, however, like to illustrate the most
1 See, for instance, R. Kimelman, “Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an
Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity,” Jewish and Christian Self-Definition II,
E.P. Sanders et al., eds. (London, 1981) 226–44. For further discussion of Birkat Ha-Minim,
see Y.Y. Teppler, Birkat haMinim (Tübingen, 2007).
2 D. Boyarin, Border Lines, Dying for God, Gager, Becker and Reed, The Ways That Never
Parted 17, 371, 392.
3 G. Dunn, Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos; A Rhetorical Analysis (Washington, 2008), first
chapter.
22 chapter three
representative ideas of the different streams in the scholarly debate; these

ideas will be reviewed according to the chronological moment when the
definitive differentiation between Jews and Christians is posited. No mat-
ter at which juncture between the second and fourth century ce scholars
envision a complete separation between Christianity and Judaism, all of
them deal with the same issues of the creation of orthodoxy and heresy in
both faiths, and the way in which people are excluded from the religious
mainstream, or compelled to choose their camp, issues which may gener-
ally be equated with a theme of intolerance both within and between the
individual religions.
Making the Borderlines Clearer Following the

Destruction of the Temple
Some scholars envisage a clear separation between Judaism and Chris-

tianity, not from the day on which Christianity appeared, but relatively
soon after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem.4 The period
of the Second Temple is seen as an experimental stage during which a
struggle took place between different ideologies, aimed at enabling Juda-
ism to find the best way of ensuring its survival, along with respect for
its ancestral heritage.5 There was no need for unity and no opposition
to sectarian divergence. Each sect aspired to be the reformer and leader
of Judaism as a whole, still perceiving itself, as well as the other sects,
as members of the same group. That is why, at the beginning, Christian-
ity did not differ in any way from any other sect and was of no more or
less interest than any other sect within the framework of Judaism. After
the destruction of the Temple in 70 ce and after the great Jewish Revolt
headed by Bar Kokhba in 135 ce, the different sects lost their strength and
diverged.6 Some sects lost most of their members in the Roman repres-
sions, while others, like the Saduccees, were weakened as their movement
lost its essence with the destruction of the Temple. This situation enabled
the emergence of a Pharisaic hegemony. Pharisaism was the movement
whose leaders were able to preserve the heritage of Judaism while adapt-
ing its character to new circumstances. It seems that the remaining sects
4 L.H. Schiffman, Who Was a Jew?: Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish
Christian Schism (Hoboken, 1985).
5 Schiffman, Who Was a Jew? 2, 52.
6 Schiffman, Who Was a Jew?, Simon, Verus Israel.
the “parting of the ways” 23
then united behind the tannaim, the early rabbis, the heirs to the Sec-
ond Temple Pharisees, and together they tried to define what Judaism
should be, and to reorganise a Jewish life without the Temple. Originally,
the sages of Yavneh [Jamnia] carried on according to the ideology pre-
vailing during the Second Temple period, constituting a society in which
conflict and disagreement over theology and observances did not lead to
schism, in contrast to the Christian sects which excluded each other from
the right to be associated with or to belong to the Church when it came to
any dispute.7 Judaism tolerated plurality and divergence of opinions, and
none of the streams asserted that any other was either less Jewish or not
Jewish at all.8 It must nevertheless be emphasised here that even if the
major players named in the rabbinic literature of the time argued from
different positions, those individuals all belonged to the same framework.
Divergence was accepted, but within certain boundaries. In fact, rabbinic
literature transmits only those ideas which passed through the rabbinic
filter as being acceptable. There was some leeway for dispute, but only
within established rules.9 Other stances were so far beyond the lines that
they could not even enter a rabbinic discussion.
It is therefore likely that not all of the sects merged into the new order,
as the individualism of Christianity indeed seems to suggest. What did
not comply with the rules is not even alluded to in rabbinic literature.
The demonstration that there must have been ways of thinking that
did not integrate with rabbinic texts is the very fact of the existence of
Christianity, which appears as a kind of non-rabbinic interpretation of
Scripture.10 The followers of Jesus were not looking for separation or for
7 S.J.D. Cohen, “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis and the End of Jewish
Sectarianism,” Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984) 29, 50–1; “A Virgin Defiled: Some
Rabbinic and Christian Views on the Origins of Heresy,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review
36 (1980) 3; D. Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Juda-
ism (Stanford, 1999) 66.
8 Schiffman, Who Was a Jew? 3, 49, 52; G.F. Moore, “The Rise of Normative Judaism,”
Harvard Theological Review 17 (1924) 372.
9 D. Boyarin, Border Lines: the Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia, 2004) 153,
173; Schremer, “The Lord” 71, 193, on Genesis Rabbah 36.1 (Albeck, ed. 334). For the talmudic
period, see for instance C. Hayes, on theoretical and practical pluralism in “Theoretical
Pluralism in the Talmud: A Response to Richard Hidary,” Dine Yisrael: Studies in Halakhah
and Jewish Law 25 (2010).
10 Schwartz, Imperialism 49: “The Christians illustrate the proposition that there were
limits to acceptable diversity in ancient Judaism, for those who remained Jewish did so by
affirming their adherence to the Torah and at least to the idea of a temple, while the rest
in short order ceased to regard themselves as Jews.”
24 chapter three
the foundation of something new, but rather for the renewal of Israel.11
There may have been other sects of this kind, trying to confront the new
coalition for the definition of Judaism, but the only evidence for ongoing
competition for the leadership of the Jewish people comes from Christian
sources. Christianity, then, eventually opening up to non-Jews, gained in
strength and developed as the “something new” it did not mean to become.
Its literature that has come down to us shows divergent opinions which
were not accepted within normative rabbinic literature. Rabbinic Juda-
ism, which was at the time a pluralistic assembly of Jewish ideas, almost
succeeded in unifying the populace, but this ‘almost’ became intolerable
and was thought to risk the future of Israel. Thus the rabbis were forced
to adopt more stringent decisions and to expel anyone who threatened
the achievement of their mission to unify Judaism under the same gen-
eral rules for all. Rabbinic literature presents the bounds of allowable
divergence, alludes to the punishments imposed on heretics who wish to
return to the consensus, and tries to frighten those who are thinking of
leaving the new community.12 Despite this, the literature remains silent
regarding other possible groups who may have disagreed vehemently
about being part of the overall consensus. The most obvious exception
here once again is Christianity, which retained enough strength to persist
in the battle against rabbinic Judaism for hegemony over the Jews. It is
the only sect whose name and motivations have not disappeared from
history. To begin with, the tannaim knew only Jewish Christians, includ-
ing, in particular, Hellenistic Jews who saw Christianity as merely one of
a number of variations of Judaism.13 Once there was a majority of Gen-
tiles and former semi-proselytes, who “reject[ed] circumcision, the Jewish
laws of conversion, and the requirements of life under halakhah,” and who
became dominant in the early Christian movement, rabbinic halakhah
sharpened the definition of who was a Jew. Christianity was now desig-
nated as a separate religion and no longer as a group of Jews who had
gone astray.14 De facto, Christians no longer fitted the rabbinic criteria of
11 W. Horbury, Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh, 1998) 11.
12 See, for instance, Reuven Kimelman’s, “Birkat Ha-Minim,” argument that the minim
alluded to in the Birkat haMinim are sectarian Jews.
13 Schiffman, Who Was a Jew? 7, 53.
14 Schiffman, Who Was a Jew? 54: the rabbis also apply legal restrictions to the heretics
who challenge Rabbinic Judaism “while remaining, from a halakhic point of view, within
the fold,” 76.
Judaism:15 both Christians and Christianity exceeded the bounds of the

divergence tolerated within the Jewish framework.
Following this line of thinking about the way Judaism and Christian-
ity parted, two slightly different views have been proposed. In one view,
Christians actively separated themselves from the Jews, while in the other
it was rather the Jews who expelled the Christians from their community
after they failed to comply with the requirements of what made a Jew
Jewish.16 Conciliating both points of view, the middle way suggests that
the impulse to separate came from both inside and outside the Christian
religious entity.17 Anyway, those who insisted that they were the only pos-
sessors of the truth in the face of all opposition, and who would tolerate
no discussion excluded themselves, or were excluded, from within the
community that agreed to disagree. “Two categories of people could not
be incorporated into the Yavnehan coalition: those who insisted upon a
sectarian self-identification, and those who refused to heed the will of the
majority.”18 At Yavneh, after having tolerated discussion about the way
the law should be applied, a practical decision was taken according to
the opinion of the majority, and this compelled everyone. From another
point of view, it was the Christians who appeared to remain careful about
Judaism and its ideas, and to take them into account when discuss-
ing internal Christian matters, whether this was because the wider and
more influential Jewish group threatened to annihilate Christian ideals,
or because Christian self-esteem was not confident enough to despise
Jewish opinions.19 This would support the idea that it was the Christians
who wished to dissociate themselves from the rest of Judaism in order to
secure their views. As for the rabbis, they dealt carefully with Christian-
ity only as long as it was a heretical stream within Judaism, but once it
became a separate entity, it worried them less than did Roman dominion,
15 Schiffman, Who Was a Jew? 76: “The ultimate parting of the ways for Judaism and
Christianity took place when the adherents to Christianity no longer conformed to the
halakhic definitions of a Jew.”
16 Schiffman, Shaye Cohen are representative of the first theory and A. Schremer of
the second, for instance, “ ‘The Lord Has Forsaken the Land’: Radical Explanations of the
Military and Political Defeat of the Jews in Tannaitic Literature,” Journal of Jewish Stud-
ies 59 (2008) 183–200 and his lecture at Bar-Ilan University, “‫מינות ומינים בעולמם של‬
‫התנאים‬,” 30.05.2005.
17 Horbury, Jews and Christians 11.
18 S.J.D. Cohen, “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis and the End of Jewish
Sectarianism,” Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984) 49.
19 Schremer; L. Rutgers, Making Myths: Jews in Early Christian Identity Formation (Leu-
ven, 2009) 127.
26 chapter three
and did not require much of their attention until the point at which the
Romans lost their power. Jews defined themselves with respect to Roman
culture and did not take Christians into account, as they had no interest
for them. Finally, most of the scholars who agree that there was an early
separation between Judaism and Christianity generally cite the similari-
ties between later Jewish and Christian developments as evidence for a
natural tendency of these two monotheisms—based, as they were, on
the same moral principles and existing within the same framework—to
reach, almost inevitably, the same patterns of thought and, ultimately, the
same rules, without any need for actual contact, much less influence.20
Obvious Separation between Judaism and Christianity

Does Not Prevent Ongoing Contacts
One of the ways of defining the expression “parting of the ways,” has been
to stress “the continuing influence of the Jewish tradition upon Christian
teaching and practices,” which is indeed appropriate to the concerns of the
present work.21 The powerful members of a community do not form sects;
instead, they reform the community so that it fits their requirements.22
Weak individuals are those who have to leave and withdraw into groups
of their own creation, which better represent their aspirations. Had Chris-
tianity been strong enough, rabbinic Judaism would have had to with-
draw. Here it can be noted again that to begin with, it was not in the
interests of Christianity to create something new. Christians were Jews,
and they were not looking for converts from outside the Jewish world.
They simply wanted to impose their way of envisaging Judaism on the
rest of the Jews. Further, as sectarians, the Christians clung to Judaism
and refused to be regarded as anything but ‘the real Israel,’ which is why
they wanted to prove to the rabbis that Christianity was more “faithful
to the true teaching and practice of Israel.”23 This is the rationale behind
all of Christian literature, including exegesis, justifying and proving the
validity of Christian positions. It is because of this that there is an ongoing
20 A. Baumgarten, “Marcel Simon’s Verus Israel as a Contribution to Jewish History,”

Harvard Theological Review 92 (1999) 478, and Barnes, Tertullian 92.
21 S. Spence, The Parting of the Ways: the Roman Church as a Case Study (Dudley,
2004) 358.
22 Spence, Parting 239, 352.
23 Spence, Parting 352.
relationship and resemblance between Jewish and Christian approaches

to morality, theology, and exegesis.
All of this can be seen in Tertullian, who bases his explanations of
Christianity on the Old Testament. Far from denying the link between
the Hebrews (the Jews, as they appear in the Bible) and the Christians,
he even stresses it. He is convinced that it is the Christians, and not the
rabbis—or rabbinic Jews—who possess the true understanding of God’s
message to His people. The rabbis go astray because, although they began
in the right way, by accepting the Old Testament—in which the Chris-
tian message already exists and which pre-figures Christianity—they are
wrong in refusing to understand the realisation of its promises and the
follow-up to God’s message, i.e. the renewal of His interaction with His
people, and they do not accept His new covenant in place of the former
one. From this point, Christianity changes from a Jewish sect, destined for
the Jews, into a cult which was adopted and adapted by the citizens of
the occidental world, as would have been the case with any oriental cult.
Yet the story does not end here, because within the Church itself, sectar-
ians, Christians of Jewish origin, go on meeting with cultists, Christians
of Gentile origin, and fight over the Church’s self-identity.24 The attempt
to underline the differences between Judaism and Christianity after the
Jewish revolts which aroused Roman animosity against the Jews, could be
imputed to the “ethnic Gentiles” (converts to Christianity from a gentile
background), who no longer needed Judaism in order to gain legitimacy
and tried to get rid of a past that was not theirs. But it was the “ethnic
Jewish” (converts to Christianity from a Jewish background) stream in
the Church which motivated an ongoing fight between rabbinic Jews
and Christians. The message of the Church was that the Christians were
in fact the true Israel, and that they were replacing the Jews. But since
the so-called former Israel still existed, it proclaimed to Jewish converts
to Christianity that they were wrong in their decision to leave Judaism.
As for Judaism itself, in this view it almost never attacked Christianity
and seldom engaged in debate with it, but its very existence was enough
to threaten Christianity as a whole, whether it was of Jewish or Gentile
origin.25 The Church that was supposed to supplant Judaism could thus
only co-exist with it. Judaism was a problem for the Church because there
24 Spence, Parting 352.

25 The recent discussions upon the identification of the minim in rabbinic literature
almost always end saying that the persons in question are generally not, or at least prob-
ably not, Christians.
28 chapter three
could not be two Israels which were special to God, and Judaism did not
renounce its primary identity.
This, then, was the strength of the Jewish Diaspora, which allowed
Judaism to remain in the arena.26 The Jews of the Diaspora could not
withdraw into themselves because, as a minority, they could not live
autonomously within their environment. Moreover, they were as skilled
as the Christians in assimilating into general society; their education was
influenced by the surrounding culture, and they understood the ways in
which their neighbours thought and how to communicate with them, just
as the Christians did. That meant that even after its triumph, Christian-
ity still needed to fight the attraction of Judaism.27 Since the Jews were a
theological problem for the Church, Christianity could not refrain from
dealing with Judaism, and needed to justify the continued existence and
power of the Jews. Some scholars argue that Judaism had no vitality when
Christianity was born, but if this were the case, it is not clear why Chris-
tianity should have needed to attack an essentially dying institution. The
vehemence of Christian attacks against Judaism is clear demonstration
that Judaism remained alive and well throughout the development of
Christianity.28 Christianity thus invented new roles for Judaism and expla-
nations for its continuing existence: Jews must live to see the final victory
of Christianity; they must eventually accept the New Covenant at the End
of the Days; they must suffer until they recognise their error and comply
with the message of Christianity; and they must either witness the success
of Christianity or be punished on earth for their sins and refusal to believe
in Jesus.29 The Christians felt frustration and disappointment in the face
of the vitality of Judaism,30 and a combination of repulsion and attraction
for this sibling religion.31 In any event, they were compelled by historical
necessity to remain aware of the evolution of Judaism. Thus, contacts and
links between both religions were inevitable. An ongoing desire on the
part of Christianity for interaction with Judaism is expressed even when
the Church acquired great strength. “The Church exercised continuous
26 Spence; W. Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate (Northvale, 1993) 185;

Simon, Verus Israel 238.
27 Simon, Verus Israel 120.
28 Harnack and followers argue for weak Judaism, as opposed to Simon and followers
for lively Judaism. See Jacobs in Reed, The Ways 101.
29 See, for instance, Simon, Verus Israel 119.
30 Baumgarten, “Marcel Simon” 470.
31 Aziza, Tertullien 226.
pressure to keep this rival [the Jews] under control.”32 Rejected by rab-
binic Jews, Christianity found much more success among pagans through-
out the wider world. But becoming a state religion did not put an end to
the discomfort felt in the Church because it had not been accepted, in
its own cultural cradle, by its very own relatives. The Church still wanted
to prove that it was right and that the Jews were wrong. No matter what
its achievements were, nor how many adherents it had, it still wanted to
convince the Jews of their errors, and it became a theology aimed at sav-
ing people from their errors against their own will. The Christians, in fact,
meant to take advantage of being the stronger.
Judaism and Christianity Remain Intertwined
Taking the idea of ongoing contacts between Judaism and Christianity

still further, some scholars have suggested that seeing Christianity only
insofar as it was influenced by Judaism—and not as something that influ-
enced Judaism as well—points to a flaw in the notion that Judaism was
the mother religion of Christianity, rather than its sister religion. The lat-
ter analogy is justified by the fact that both early Christianity and the
Judaism of the Mishnah developed and were shaped together, at the same
time and within the same context and background.33 Thus when it comes
to ideas which are found in both Christian and Jewish thought, only those
for which there is testimony in very early Jewish sources can be seen as
being of definitively Jewish origin. In any other case, it is claimed, it can-
not be stated that they originate in one or the other camp. Christian and
Jewish writings are in a kind of ping-pong game with endless exchanges,
each borrowing (and re-adapting) from the other in order to respond to
its attacks.34 Thus, dialogic relations and intertextuality between Jew-
ish and Christian texts and traditions, rather than influence, account for
resemblances. In this reasoning, rabbinic literature is seen as developing
as an answer to the birth of Christianity. One of the questions that the
different theories of the “parting of the ways” address is how two dis-
tinct entities ultimately stem from a common mass that was divided into
32 Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism 185.

33 I. Yuval, “The Haggadah of Passover and Easter,” Tarbiz 65 (1996) 12 [Hebrew] [incor-
porated in I. Yuval, Two Nations in your Womb. Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late
Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berkeley, 2006) 68f.].
34 I. Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb [Hebrew] (Tel-Aviv, 1999) 105 and Boyarin, Bor-
der Lines 11, 63–6, 149; similarly, S. Schwartz, Imperialism.
30 chapter three
numerous small groups that were both close to, and different from each
other. In practice, since both Judaism and Christianity were based on the
same Bible, the only difference between them lay in their different inter-
pretations of the same texts.35 The ongoing dispute between them was
thus about whose interpretation of the Scriptures was correct. What was
at stake was proving who the true Israel was, and who would continue to
be God’s only chosen people. The theological struggle was also a political
fight between clans. The group which proposed the most convincing argu-
ments to explain how and why it was Israel, would finally be considered
the true historical nation of Israel. The main feature that finally enabled
Jews and Christians to be distinguished from each other was the pres-
ence or absence of the belief that the Messiah has already come, thereby
putting an end to the need for biblical laws of practice (but not to the
moral ones). Christians tried to prove that the Jewish rules had no more
reason to exist, while Judaism became an orthopraxy in answer to this
claim.36 This descent from a common background explains why a Chris-
tian author such as Tertullian can be close to Jewish teachings. In fact,
both teachings use nearly the same tools and methods and have the same
aims and audience. Their messages differ mainly with respect to the two
points alluded to above—the Messiah and the mitzvot—and if their theol-
ogy differs somewhat, their moral principles are identical.37 The New Tes-
tament, in essence, becomes the Christian oral law. The Christian authors
who interpret the Old and New Testaments answer and engage with the
Mishnah, which comprises the “mysteries” of Judaism, ensuring that the
Jews, at least in their own view, are the only ones who truly know God’s
will.38 Both Jews and Christians use the same stories, the same elements
adapted to their own message, to answer each other. For example, each
presents its own interpretation of the significance of the festivals carrying
its own message and in contradistinction to what is said on the other side.
Each of the religions wants to appropriate the common heritage, but each
of them clings to it and does not renounce it. Each offers its interpretation
of the text according to the principles it defends, which is why Christian-
ity and Judaism try to part decisively from one another, but barely manage
to do so, because they cling to the same cultural background.
35 Yuval, Two Nations [Hebrew] 40 and G.D. Dunn, Tertullian (London, 2004) 67–8.
36 See Simon, Verus Israel 437.
37 See M. Spanneut, Tertullien et les premiers moralistes africains (Paris, 1969) 21.
38 Midrash Tanhumah, ki tissa 34.
Thus we find here a practical theological and political conflict between

opposing groups. Before gaining strength and becoming intolerant of any-
thing that did not fit their ideals, the Christians suffered from intolerance
in the same way the Jews did, and were the first ones to preach the virtues
of tolerance.39 At the very beginning, as long as it was not clear to Jews
and Christians themselves what the precise differences between them
were, this could not be clear to the Romans either.40 Both Jews and Chris-
tians, following different impulses, undertook to explain their differences
to the surrounding pagans in the way that best suited their interests. Both
groups tried to gain and use the support of the local authorities in order
to compete with each other successfully. The struggle was theological and
practical, and concerned the survival of the groups that were challenged.
Both fought, at first, to convince Jewish believers of the truth of their posi-
tions, but they also attempted to convince those pagans who were initially
interested in Judaism but soon found a greater attraction in Christianity.41
Each religion, indeed, contested the other’s right to exist.
Since Antiquity right up to present-day scholarship, it has often been
surmised that the Jews themselves may have been responsible for pro-
voking Roman animosity against Christianity. It is possible that they
may have tried to make the Christians lose the advantages they received
through their affiliation to the synagogue, by claiming that they were not
accepted as Jews by the real Jewish community. Especially during the
time of Nero’s revenge on the Christians, it is thought likely that the Jews
enjoyed a situation in which they could complain vociferously about the
39 G. Stroumsa, “Tertullian and the Limits of Tolerance,” Tolerance and Intolerance in
Early Judaism and Christianity, G.N. Stanton and G.G. Stroumsa, eds. (Cambridge, 1998) 173.
40 The details of the scholarly debate about the extent to which Romans were or were
not confused about the difference between Jews and Christians is not the concern of this
work. For further inquiry: S. Benko, “Pagan Criticism of Christianity during the First Two
Centuries A.D.,” H. Temporini, ed., Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II 23 (1974)
1055–118, who states that Romans did not see any difference; Simon, Verus Israel 129–30
about the balance in Roman tolerance or intolerance for both Jews and Christians; Baer
proposes (throughout his works) that persecutions sometimes occurred against the Chris-
tians and at other times against the Jews, showing that they were the same group in the
pagans’ eyes, though, there is no undeniable proof of such persecutions against the Jews
as Baer argues for; in answer to Baer: Urbach, E.E, “The Laws of Idolatry in the Light of
Historical and Archeological Facts in the 3rd Century,” Eretz Israel, Archeological Historical
and Geographical studies 5 (Jerusalem, 1958) 189–205. Urbach, E.E, “The Rabbinic Laws of
Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light of Archaeological and Historical
Facts,” Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959) 149–65/ 229–45.
41 Aziza, Tertullien 31 states that until the third century some of the Jews of the Diaspora
were not entirely convinced that adopting rabbinic-normative Judaism, instead of their
sectarian faith, was the best choice.
32 chapter three
troubles that the Christians caused in the Jewish community in order to

shift negative attention onto their rivals. However, even if the Jews might
have been happy to encourage Roman hatred of the Christians, it would
have been preferable not to actually instigate the persecutions against
them. Moreover, after the Jewish revolts, it is likely that the Jews them-
selves would have preferred to be discreet and not to attract attention to
the Christians, since this could have risked a Roman reaction that would
be bad for them as well,42 since both groups were still hard to distinguish
from each other, at least from an outsider’s standpoint. The Christians,
however, were no less opportunistic.43 Just as the Jews tried to deflect
Roman anti-Jewish sentiments onto the Christians, the Christians like-
wise tried to benefit from Roman anger against the Jews after the Jew-
ish revolts. Thus hopefully they could gain their independence from the
synagogue without losing their legitimacy, and demonstrate their loyalty
to the Romans by joining them in their opposition to the rebellious Jews
as common enemies.
Once again, it is obvious that Jews and Christians appeared to be simi-
lar in many respects and that is the reason why parting from one another
was so complicated. They had the same goals and the same modus ope-
randi, and might, in fact, have remained indistinguishable forever, bound
together in an everlasting struggle, had the decisive factor of political
power not made its intrusion into their history. The drive to domination
and imposing the truth of their beliefs was very strong among the Chris-
tians. Even if they found success in places where they least expected to
find it, they knew how to exploit it for their own benefit. First the Chris-
tians acquired the support of the authorities, but soon they became the
authorities themselves. In their position as leaders, under the guise of the
Roman government, they could take their revenge on the Jews by ill-treat-
ing them. The Christians acquired a kind of international power, tran-
scending borders, and so could pursue Jews wherever they were under
Roman rule. The Jews did not renounce their claims, but had no other
choice than to suffer the Christians’ will. Although the Christians failed
to become the leaders of Judaism because they accepted too many adher-
ents into their ranks from among the “nations,” they gained nonetheless
because of their strength of numbers, and this enabled them to become
the leading religion in Rome. They wanted to lead and they did in fact
42 Simon, Verus Israel 145–8.

43 Aziza, Tertullien 31, 90; Simon, Verus Israel 90 n. 2, 118, 147.
lead. This was the inevitable outcome of the struggle between Jews and
Christians for the same locus of power. Had the Jews been in the situation
of the Christians, they would presumably not have behaved differently
and would have harassed and persecuted their rivals too.44 This theory
can be verified throughout the mention of curses against the heretics in
the liturgy, and the constantly voiced hopes of the Jews to finally defeat
and take revenge upon their enemies. This echoes the statement in the
Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah: “For the fish of the sea: whoever is
bigger than his fellow swallows his fellow. So in the case of human beings,
were it not for fear of the government, whoever is bigger than his fellow
would swallow his fellow.”45 This demonstrates that while Jews readily
accepted the outcome of their battle as the natural way in which things
had to occur, they did not give up hope of changing the situation with the
help of their true God, who would defeat their enemies as His own.
Parallel to statements that Judaism and Christianity remained engaged
with one another until political factors and the acquisition of power made
them clearly distinguishable, partisans of another stream argue for per-
petual interaction between Jews and Christians, even after Christianity
became the official religion of the Roman Empire and should then have
been in a position to define itself as something independent of Judaism.46
The process of disengagement between the two religions was initiated by
the elite groups on both sides, at a time when ordinary members of these
two religions remained unaware of, or even reluctant to acknowledge, the
separation over a long period of time. This means that at different social
levels, people perceived the separation between Judaism and Christianity
differently. Even if from early on, members of the elite felt the need to
impose a distinction, the common people still continued their everyday
lives without being bothered by the slight divergences in their conception
of their religion. It is interesting to recall that before the establishment
of rabbinic orthodoxy, interpretations that would be later qualified as
“Christian” were to be found among Jewish sects. Moreover, the Christian
method of overlooking the ritual obligations of Judaism and of emphasis-
ing the moral rules was the one applied by the Jews of Diaspora to the
semi-proselytes.47 In this view, there has been no “natural parting of the
44 Yuval, Two Nations 149.

45 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 4a.
46 Schwartz and Boyarin best represent this tendency.
47 Simon, Verus Israel 121.
34 chapter three
ways,” but rather, the strong imposed their will on the weak.48 Since Chris-
tianity and Judaism really did wish to part, but did not manage to do so as
long as they shared most of the same religious characteristics, the leaders
of both sides decided to redefine the principles of their groups and impose
rules that would erect a barrier between their respective members.49 Until
then, the boundaries between the numerous religious groups had been
blurred, but now some prominent individuals undertook to create guide-
lines that would establish criteria of orthodoxy to separate the mass of
different beliefs into two main branches. Whoever did not conform to
the requirements of either group would be denied the right to claim that
he belonged to one or the other and be called a heretic: each side’s self-
definition clarified who was in and who was out. This endeavour has been
described as “a conspiracy between the two orthodoxies to exclude the
middle,”50 since people were forced to choose a camp—in particular in a
world where it was untenable to be seen as an atheist and even worse to
be deprived of communitarian belonging.51 It seems that the fact that peo-
ple were compelled to choose their side, namely Judaism or Christianity,
is what made both institutions distinguishable.52 Through this description
of delineation, the picture of rabbinic Judaism as a reaction to the birth of
Christianity can also be completed: “Rabbinic Judaism is the end product
of an extended struggle for hegemony.”53 The transition from the situation
of competing sects to that of orthodoxy on the Jewish side was the result of
the struggle for religious supremacy between the two groups, and of the
allocation, as it were, of the designation of being orthodox to the win-
ners and of being heretics to the losers.54 As Christianity stemmed from a
Jewish sect, the same applies as well, though as a further step, to the case
of the two opposed orthodoxies, which were, in effect, both the winners
of the same battle. One more way of summarising the situation is to say
that Judaism and Christianity were invented to explain the fact that there
were both Jews and Christians; all of the believers shared one feature,
48 Boyarin, Border Lines 1.

49 Boyarin, Dying for God, Simon, Verus Israel 238.
51 G. La Piana, “The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century,” Harvard Theo-
logical Review 18 (1925) 240: “The process by which faith had to become doctrine could not
be stopped, and the necessity of taking sides was becoming more and more urgent.”
52 Spence, The Parting of the Ways 8.
54 A. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: an Interpreta-
tion (Leiden, 1997) 16.
reliance upon the Bible, but any subgroup “might share the features [that
characterise it] with any other [subgroup] but not all the features with
any.”55 At any rate, the fact that both communities forged their own inde-
pendent identities at the same time does not mean that they broke away
from any form of contact.56 They invented differences, but the underlying
resemblance between them somehow kept them tied together. Moreover,
if for members of the elite, as appears for instance in Tertullian’s treatise
against the Jews, it was obvious that Jews and Christians belonged to two
distinct institutions, the separation was not felt so strongly by the ordi-
nary members of each group, who had only been asked to decide whether
or not they believed in Jesus and his message, and who were still used to
being in contact with those who had chosen the other option.
Within this framework, how do two institutions ultimately emerge
from the mass of these groups? Judaism created an orthodoxy because it
was challenged by Christianity, which needed a Jewish orthodoxy against
which to define itself.57 Rabbinic Judaism was the form designated to take
on the role of Jewish orthodoxy because it was able to provide answers
in the dialogue with Christianity. When Judaism reached a stable form
of self-definition, after a time when Christianity could have been a com-
munity within the broader Jewish community, the Christians had to leave
because most of the Jews refused to accept their message.58
The Failure
Leaving Palestine for the broader expanses of the world at large, Christi-
anity gained in importance, power, and number of adherents. Christian-
ity was a far-reaching movement, yet in the battle for supremacy over
the Jews there could only be one winner. If it was the normative-rabbinic
stream which obtained the leadership of Judaism, that could only mean
that Christianity was the loser. But, in the light of its other achievements,
it must be recognised that both rabbinic Judaism and Christianity should
be envisaged as winners, with the only difference being that Christian-
ity won something it was not looking for. It intended to win complete
55 Boyarin, Border Lines 21–2. See, as well, J. Smith, Imagining Religion (Chicago, 1982),
Chapters one and two.
56 Dunn, Tertullian 67.
57 Boyarin, Border Lines 76, 219; Schwartz, Imperialism.
58 A.D. Nock, Conversion (London, 1961) 188.
36 chapter three
l eadership over all the Jews, but it was precisely this which it did not
obtain, despite its success with the Gentiles. Evidence of this failure is
seen in the continuing developments within the parallel Jewish commu-
nity. How did the strength of Christianity collapse in the face of rabbinic
Judaism? It now seems obvious that Christianity failed in its attempt to
take over the Jewish leadership because of its tendency to open its ranks
to too many Gentiles, thus losing its Jewish spirit. Both rabbinic Judaism
and Christianity needed to gather troops for the fight against each other,
but the rabbis established rules and definitions that unified them and
surrounded them with people from a common background, with com-
mon aspirations. Christianity, on the other hand, found itself accepting,
at random, people from extremely varied spheres merely because they
were interested in its message. Christianity therefore renounced the basic
requirement for its adherents to become Jewish before becoming Chris-
tian, apparently because the halakhic definition of a Jew came from its
rabbinic opponents, but also because it wanted to offer opposing solu-
tions in any given area so as to stress the differences between itself and its
rival. Thus Christianity acquiesced in its own defeat. The Gentiles brought
their own individual backgrounds and identities to Christianity and did
not need the Jewish one; they were interested in what Christianity was
at that point in time, and not in its remote origins. Christianity missed
its aim: it would never lead the Jews who submitted to rabbinic rule, but
instead it created something new that forced it to redefine its goals in a
way that was adapted to its new audience. Had the rabbis gone on accept-
ing semi-proselytes or relaxed their standards, “Christians would quickly
have become the majority within the expanded community of Israel.”59
This is, in any case, the appropriate place to mention the Protestant
view of the same narrative. This holds that it was actually Judaism which
failed in not becoming Christianity. In their view, Judaism—especially in
the Diaspora—had the potential for becoming a missionary and univer-
salist religion of the same kind as Christianity, opening the door to pagan
minds and holding their interest. However, in practice Judaism did not
manage to free itself from its bonds of nationalism, ethnocentrism, and
orthopraxy, which is why it eventually closed itself off to wider culture.
Those who did not become Christians returned to a closed and severe
Judaism.60
59 Schiffman, Who Was a Jew 77.

60 This point of view has been expressed by Harnack who remains its main repre-
sentative. See on those points S.J.D. Cohen, “Adolph Harnack’s ‘The Mission and Expan-
The Comparison of Tertullian’s De Idolatria with Massekhet

Avodah Zarah as a Case Study
In order to determine which of the many models of the parting of the ways
between Judaism and Christianity is best illustrated by Tertullian and the
Mishnah we shall be using a comparison between the texts themselves.
First, however, some general preparatory remarks are in order here. To
begin with, even though the rabbis of the Mishnah and Tertullian did not
live in the same place or even the same country, they both faced a similar
reality, confronted with Roman dominion and culture, including its idols
and its cults. Both the rabbis and Tertullian relied on biblical verses as the
basis for their conclusions about idolatry. Secondly, what is true concern-
ing the general framework of Jewish-Christian relations is also reflected
in particular examples of how both Judaism and Christianity viewed and
dealt with idolatry.
It should be emphasised that the Carthaginian Jewish and Christian
populations met each other as neighbours in their daily civic life and may
even have tried to convert each other. In such a situation, ideas could
easily spread from one side to the other. Apart from this, some echoes of
the Palestinian Mishnah are likely to have reached the Jews of Carthage,
if not in the treatise’s finally redacted form, at least somehow crystallised
enough to survive the transfer from one place to another. This means that
if one work did influence the other, it must have been an influence of the
already formed Mishnah on Tertullian’s work in progress. Indeed, given
that Jews were to be found in Carthage before the Christians, they must
have been present in the city when Tertullian was writing. It is likely that
Carthaginian Jews were also influenced by Christian attitudes to idolatry,
but since no Carthaginian Jewish written work is extant—if, in fact, any
such work ever existed at all—it is impossible to measure the effects of
any possible Christian influence on the Jews. Thus scholars divide into
two groups, the first claiming that Jewish influence is to be found in
Tertullian’s De Idolatria and the other asserting that no such influence is
even imaginable.
From Tertullian’s work in general it looks as if he contests the Jews’
interpretations of biblical texts because he is certain that he is right and
they are wrong. Tertullian seems to genuinely believe in his cause: he does
sion of Judaism’: Christianity Succeeds where Judaism Fails?,” The Future of Early Church,
B. Pearson, ed. (Minneapolis, 1991) 163–9, especially 168–9.
38 chapter three
not simply use apologetic tools to cover up unconvincing arguments, so

that he can be the winner in polemics. He is careful to preserve the existing
link between Judaism and Christianity, perhaps partly because it is useful
within the Roman framework, where novelty is not always appreciated,
but particularly because it is his personal conviction that the link must be
maintained. Tertullian speaks of himself as a member of Israel, devoted to
its God, in particular when he defends the Old Testament against Marcion,
who wants to erase the Christian link to the Hebrew Bible. For Tertullian,
it is obvious that Christianity takes the place of the biblical Israel, and is
its continuation. In the context of his originally pagan thought it was logi-
cal that Judaism had to evolve, and that it finally found its true expression
in Christianity. Tertullian, indeed, grew up as a gentile, ignorant of any
biblical practice, and thus found it easier to accept the Christian approach
toward religious practices, which is essentially a moral approach, more
modern and free than Jewish orthopraxy.
If the present work reaches the conclusion that Jewish ideas in Tertul-
lian’s work, or at least evidence for Judaeo-Christian contacts, can in fact be
demonstrated through a comparison of the Mishnah and the De Idolatria,
this may mean that the theory of the strong and weak, wherein the former
impose their will on the latter or compel them to part ways, can also be
applied to Tertullian. Tertullian may have been one of those individuals
who were not accepted within Judaism because he had certain ideas that
did not fit in with the general mode of thought of the majority. This could
be why he had to renounce conversion to Judaism—an endeavour some
scholars have tried to prove. Instead, he constructed his own path within
a Christianity that accepted him and his ideas, just as it accepted all those
who were interested in Judaism but still believed that the truth was to
be found elsewhere, outside the rabbinic stream of thought and practice.
There still remain some scholars who believe that Tertullian left Christi-
anity for a number of different sects, although it is increasingly accepted
that this was not the case. Even if this view is accepted, the explanation is
the same. Even if Tertullian had preferred to stay particularly close to the
Jewish movement, this was not the general feeling of the Christians, and
since Tertullian did not have the strength to reform Christianity, he had
no alternative but to found sects that better represented his own views. In
any case, these matters will be re-examined later in this study.
chapter four
Scholarship on the Possible Jewish Influence

on Tertullian’s Texts
By way of background, I would like to present, at this juncture, the debate

between scholars on the question of Tertullian’s affinities with real Jews,
Jewish material, and Jewish ideas. The statements examined below in par-
ticular, are those which have a direct relationship with the De Idolatria.
These scholarly views are organised by theme rather than by chronology
because, although the very latest research tends to find Jewish echoes in
Tertullian, generally speaking there is no single dominant approach to the
subject, and scholars either argue for a Jewish influence on Tertullian or
for the absence of such an influence, depending on the message they wish
to convey. The following survey might sometimes appear like a catalogue,
but is needed to conceptualise the scholarly context in which the present
study is sited.
Claiming a Jewish Influence on Tertullian
William H.C. Frend is the most active defender of the statement that the
Jews did influence Tertullian, in particular with respect to his treatise on
idolatry.1 For Frend, it is not surprising that Tertullian did not acknowledge
his borrowings from the Jews, given that, in antiquity, no-one systemati-
cally quoted his sources, especially if those sources were his competitors.
He concludes, therefore, that “it is evident that many of the regulations
through which [Tertullian] sought to insulate the Christians from the
surrounding pagan world, discussed in the De Idolatria, could only be
derived from current Jewish practice.”2 Frend explains that Tertullian had
no problem accessing rabbinic teachings since, as he notes from Tertul-
lian himself, the Carthaginian Jews regarded the Christians as a Jewish
group, or at worst, a schismatic one and behaved towards them as towards
1 W.H.C. Frend, “A note on Tertullian and the Jews,” Studia Patristica 10 (1970) 292–4;
“The Seniores Laici and the Origins of the Church in North Africa,” Journal of Theological
Studies 12 (1961) 283; The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia, 1984) 349.
2 Frend, “A note on Tertullian and the Jews,” Studia Patristica 10 (1970) 293.
40 chapter four
other Jews.3 Moreover, Frend finds “a surprisingly detailed acquaintance

of current Jewish arguments and practices” in Tertullian, as does William
Horbury, who also stresses that Tertullian not only knows of Jewish argu-
ments, but uses them and counters them in his writing.4 Frend, moreover,
argues that the North African Church as a whole was very close to Juda-
ism and that its ethical code bore “a striking resemblance to the Jewish
halakhah of the day.”5 He justifies this assertion by the statement that
“at least some of the recruits to the Church in Carthage came from Juda-
ism and that the links between the two religions were close,”6 a point he
notes from Tertullian’s assertion itself: nos quoque ut Iudaicae religionis
propinquos—“we too as we are close to Judaism.”7
A second very enthusiastic supporter of the thesis of a Jewish influ-
ence on Tertullian was Yitzhaq Baer.8 Baer picks out several rabbinic
statements throughout Jewish literature, and concludes that it is unlikely
that Tertullian did not base his discussion of idolatry on rabbinic teach-
ings in Mishnah and baraitot. For him, the resemblance between Tertul-
lian’s De Idolatria and massekhet Avodah Zarah is neither a coincidence
nor a question of parallels, but reflects the influence of the Jews on this
Christian author.9 Oded Irshai has pointed out that Baer’s position is the
target of some of Ephraim Urbach’s studies.10 For Baer, Jewish influence
on Christianity was paralleled by Christian influence on the shaping of
Judaism, whereas Urbach believes that the rabbinic world developed as
the product of internal Jewish dynamics, and not out of interaction with
external cultural streams.
Josephine Massingberd-Ford and Daniel Boyarin also believe that it is
possible to demonstrate Tertullian’s acquaintance with rabbinic thought
as well as the relationship between Jewish and Christian communities,
3 Frend reaches this conclusion from the fact that Tertullian testifies that the Jews
call his community “Nazarenes” (see Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem IV.8.1), a group that
originates from Palestine, like the other Jewish groups.
4 Frend, Rise 349; W. Horbury, “Tertullian on the Jews in the Light of De Spectaculis XXX
5–6,” Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972) 455–9; and Horbury, Jews and Christians.
5 Frend, “The Seniores Laici and the Origins of the Church in North Africa,” Journal of
Theological Studies 12 (1961) 283.
6 Frend, “A note” 292.
7 Tertullian, Apologeticum 16.3.
8 Baer, “Israel” 79–149.
9 Baer, “Israel” 89.
10 O. Irshai, “Ephraim E. Urbach and the Study of Judeo-Christian Dialogue in Late
Antiquity—Some Preliminary Observations,” How Should Rabbinic Literature Be Read in
the Modern World?, Krauss, M., ed. (New Jersey, 2006) 167–97.
scholarship on the possible jewish influence 41
as does Claudia Setzer, who reaches the conclusion that Tertullian knew
Jews and their way of thinking.11 Massingberd-Ford even believes that
Tertullian was in contact with several different forms of Judaism, and
that his Montanism and Tertullianism were inspired by Jewish thought.12
René Braun, for his part, posits that Tertullian was aware of Jewish tradi-
tions and exegeses through discussions with Jews.13 He writes that Tertul-
lian appears to be loyal to a Hebraic line of thought in his conception of
God, of God’s anger, and on matters such as creation ex nihilo, as well as
the ontology of the created and uncreated. Stroumsa agrees that Tertul-
lian might possibly have been aware of “Jewish patterns of thought and
behavior towards idolatry,” but thinks that it is unlikely that there was any
“direct literary influence,” since Tertullian did not know Hebrew.14 If we
accept Braun’s reconstruction, we can counter this with the argument that
Hebrew was not the current language of the Carthaginian Jews either, and
that it was no more a linguistic barrier for Tertullian than it would have
been for the Jews, who would probably have held discussions in Latin.
The claim that any close similarity between De Idolatria and massekhet
Avodah Zarah is not the product of haphazard influence, but rather of
direct or indirect conversations between Tertullian and the rabbis of
Carthage, has been made by Claude Aziza.15 This historian contends
that Tertullian was acquainted with rabbinic texts directly or indirectly,
through reading, through personal contacts, or even by way of rumour.16
Sometimes, however, Aziza’s arguments are forced. For instance, he pro-
poses analysing a passage from Against Marcion, claiming that Tertullian’s
statement that the Hebrews did not rob the Egyptians, but only collected
the salary that they had earned, comes directly from rabbinic literature.17
11 J. Massingberd-Ford, “Was Montanism a Jewish-Christian Heresy?,” Journal of Ecclesi-

astical History 17 (1966) 155; Boyarin, Dying for God 35 n. 10; C. Setzer, “Jews, Jewish Chris-
tians, and Judaizers in North Africa,” Putting Body and Soul Together: Essays in Honor of
Robin Scroggs, Wiles et al., eds. (Valley Forge, 1997) 185–200.
12 Massingberd-Ford, “Was Montanism” 153.
13 Braun, Approches 33.
14 Stroumsa, “Tertullian” 180.
17 Aziza, Tertullien 168, quoting Adversus Marcionem II.20.3: “Quid iudicabis, optimi dei
elector? Hebraeos fraudem agnoscere debere, an Aegyptios compensationem? Namet aiunt
ita actum per legatos utrinque, Aegyptiorum quidem repetentium vasa, Iudaeorum vero
reposcentium operas suas. Et tamen vasis iustitia renuntiaverunt ibi Aegyptii. Hodie adver-
sus Marcionitas amplius allegant Hebraei, negantes compensationi satis esse quantumvis
illud auri et argenti, si sexcentorum milium operae per tot annos vel singulis nummis diurnis
aestimentur.” [“What shall be your verdict, you discoverer of the most good God? That the
42 chapter four
In fact what Tertullian actually writes here is that the Egyptians renounced
their claim to the items the Jews took, and this argument can also be
found in Josephus.18 Clearly Tertullian knows this Jewish author since he
mentions him by name in another work (Apologeticum 19.6: Iudaeus Iose-
phus, antiquitatum Iudaicarum vernaculus vindex—“the Jew Josephus, the
native vindicator of the ancient history of his people”). Thus his knowl-
edge of this exegesis does not necessarily stem from contact with (origi-
nally Palestinian) rabbinic literature as such. This scenario becomes even
more likely in view of the fact that Tertullian’s predecessor, and frequent
source of inspiration, Irenaeus, has a similar reference to the Egyptians’
debt to the Jews, and the same argument is also used by his contemporary
Church Father, Clement of Alexandria.19 It is, then, possible that Tertul-
lian heard the argument from Josephus, either by reading him himself or
via Church tradition. Nevertheless, Aziza insists on the fact that Tertullian
describes a specific detail which only appears in rabbinic literature, that
is, the mention of a trial of the Jews over their theft from the Egyptians.20
The only allusions to a trial in Tertullian’s passage appear in the fact
that Marcion is seen as a judge from the beginning of the paragraph and
maybe in the “aiunt” before the mention of the Egyptian renunciation
of their property, following the discussion between Jewish and Christian
ambassadors. This might mean that Tertullian is somehow acquainted
with the Jewish tradition of the trial in front of Alexander the Great. Any-
way, Aziza is very consistent in his statements. He also examines Tertul-
lian’s positions on Jesus’ reappearances after his death, and finds them
different from those of Celsus, for example. He concludes that Tertullian is
probably answering objections he had heard from the Jews in real contro-
Hebrews must admit the fraud, or the Egyptians the compensation? For they maintain
that thus has the question been settled by the advocates on both sides, of the Egyptians
demanding their vessels, and the Hebrews claiming the requital of their labours. But for
all they say, the Egyptians justly renounced their restitution claim then and there; while
the Hebrews to this day, in spite of the Marcionites, reassert their demand for even greater
damages, insisting that, however large was their loan of the gold and silver, it would not be
compensation enough, even if the labour of six hundred thousand men should be valued at
only ‘a farthing’ a day a piece [sic].” Text and translation, Ante-Nicene Fathers, http://www
.tertullian.org/anf/index.htm. For parallels to this argument throughout Jewish-Christian
literature, see note 260 therein.
18 Josephus Flavius, Antiquitates 2.14, http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/historiens/Flajose/
juda2.htm#_ftnref119.
19 Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 4.30, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdf.
20 The trial in front of Alexander the Great, Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 91a, and its
parallel in Megillat Taanit.
versies with them, hence the difference.21 For Aziza, Tertullian’s attacks
and objections often bear the mark of Jewish writings: they are directed by
Jewish arguments that he knows and adopts,22 and “if as a Montanist he
adopts certain Jewish principles, as a writer, he shows in his method evi-
dence for rabbinic thought.”23 Aziza reinforces his argument that Tertul-
lian has higher esteem for Jewish doctrines than for Graeco-Roman ones
by quoting the following: divina doctrina ex Iudaea potius quam ex graeca
oriens, the divine doctrine originates in Judaea rather than in Greece.
This, in his view, demonstrates that Tertullian had at least a minimum of
knowledge of what constitutes Jewish divine doctrine.24 Finally, Aziza lists
all the instances where Tertullian speaks about the Jews, and finds that
the works most influenced by the Jews are actually those that quote them
the least, as he writes, “when the moralist is most subjected to a strong
Jewish influence, he must quote the Jewish religion even less.”25
John Nolland lists Jewish habits known to Tertullian, habits that Tertul-
lian seems to know from his own experience.26 William Weinrich reviews
Aziza’s book without stating his own opinion precisely, but he elaborates
on Aziza’s contention that not only does Tertullian’s treatment of idolatry
presuppose the rabbinic argument in massekhet Avodah Zarah, but also
that Tertullian probably knew other rabbinic treatises as well.27 This makes
sense, and fits in with the scholarship that deals with the time frame for
the editing of the Mishnah. From the moment when the rabbis decided
to record the Oral Law, they probably wrote several treatises at once and
wanted to complete the endeavour as quickly as possible. If what moti-
vated their enterprise was fear that the Jews would forget the Oral Law,
once they began, they had to finish their work, which means that, indeed,
if some skeleton of massekhet Avodah Zarah reached Carthage, probably
more treatises at the same level of crystallisation accompanied it. As a
final instance in this overall debate, Boyarin states, “It is perhaps in their
avoidance of idol worship that ‘orthodox’ Christians most appropriated
their ‘Jewish’ patrimony,” echoing Charly Clerc’s assertion that “the radical
21 Aziza, Tertullien 125 n. 136.

24 Aziza, Tertullien 193 n. 356; Tertullian, De Anima 3.4.
26 J. Nolland, “Do Romans Observe Jewish Customs?,” Vigiliae Christianae 33 (1979) 2.
27 W.C. Weinrich, “Aziza’s Tertullien et le judaïsme,” Jewish Quarterly Review 71 (1980)
118–20.
44 chapter four
character of the Christian controversy against idolatry is inseparable from

the Jewish one.”28
Denying Jewish Influence on Tertullian
In 1979, Tessa Rajak claimed that Aziza’s theories concerning any Jewish
influence on Tertullian’s writings were poorly argued and full of precon-
ceptions, so that, in her view, Barnes’ arguments against the possibility of
any such influence would remain valid until a more credible theory could
be proposed.29 Barnes is indeed the most fervent opponent of the posi-
tion that there are any Jewish features to be found in Tertullian’s works,
asserting that the Jewish community in Carthage had no influence either
on Tertullian or on the development of the Christian community in the
city.30 He states that Tertullian seems to have had no knowledge of Jewish
habits or ideas apart from those he could infer from biblical sources and
that, therefore, “any similarity which he displays to contemporary Juda-
ism does not originate in direct derivation.” He further makes clear that
“the undeniable affinities between Tertullian and Judaism may be ana-
logical, not genealogical.”31 Arnoldo Momigliano, who reviewed Barnes’
book, concurred with him that Tertullian was unfamiliar with Jewish rab-
binic thought.32 However, in the second edition of his book on Tertullian,
Barnes revised his former position and recognised that the Christian author
probably knew the Jews of his city.33 But Barnes regards the Carthaginian
Jewish and Christian communities only as “rivals and competitors” and
still thinks of “Tertullian . . . as fixing the Jews with a gloomy and baleful
gaze, but not as engaging them in conversation, still less as seeking their
company in social or intellectual gatherings.”34 Dunn asks a very relevant
question, namely how Barnes could possibly define both communities as
28 Boyarin, Dying for God 149 n. 2; C. Clerc, Les théories relatives au culte des images chez
les auteurs grecs du IIème siècle ap. JC (Paris 1915) 125 (the translation is mine).
29 T. Rajak, “The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian; Prolegomena to
the Study of the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 132–135): Tertullien et le judaïsme,” Journal of
Roman Studies 69 (1979) 193.
30 Barnes, Tertullian 92–3.
31 Barnes, Tertullian 92 n. 10.
32 A. Momigliano, “Review of T.D. Barnes’ Tertullian,” Journal of Roman Studies 66
(1976) 273–6.
34 Ibid.
rivals if there was no point of contact between them.35 If Barnes believes

that there was a hostile relationship between the communities, this still
means that there was in fact a relationship, since hating someone presup-
poses some direct or indirect knowledge about him. Israel Yuval explains
that the ability to engage in disputation on any matter presupposes the
use of common tools.36 Two people or two communities can exchange
ideas when they have a common language and, at the very least, even in
a minimal sense, a common cultural background. There is a need for basic
agreement and mutual recognition on which to build the discussion.
James Rives, like Barnes, considers that Tertullian was unlikely to have
discussed his positions on idolatry with the rabbis who shared their ideas
with their Palestinian co-religionists, but he admits that some aspects of
rabbinic ideas on the topic could have reached Tertullian via the local
Jews.37 Rives nevertheless attributes the similarities between the De Idola-
tria and massekhet Avodah Zarah to “the developments from a common
source, the biblical injunctions against idolatry.” This statement leads
our discussion to those scholars who argue for a kind of coincidence in
the resemblance between the texts. Two representatives of this camp are
Mireille Hadas-Lebel, who suggests that Tertullian follows the Palestin-
ian rabbis’ methodology without knowing it, and Pierre Petitmengin, who
states that the tannaitic rabbis and the moralistic Christians elaborate
very similar precepts independently of each other.38 Petitmengin goes
even further, proposing that Tertullian’s thoughts should be viewed as
those of a rabbi. For him, Tertullian reaches an experimental Judaism, as
it were: his natural tendency is toward a Jewish way of thinking. Eventu-
ally, in response to Massingberd-Ford’s belief that Tertullian’s Montanism
and Tertullianism derive from Judaism, Douglas Powell argues that this
is unlikely, and that they must derive from Montanus; this will be the
subject of further discussion later on in this study.39 Finally, Marie Turcan
believes that Tertullian and the rabbis both reacted independently to the
same reality. In her study of Tertullian’s treatise De Spectaculis, On the
Shows, she recounts in detail the example of the shows that threatened
35 Dunn, Tertullian.
38 M. Hadas-Lebel, “Le paganisme à travers les sources rabbiniques des IIe et IIIe siècles.
Contribution a l’étude du syncrétisme dans l’empire romain,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der
römischen Welt II 19 (1979) 399; P. Petitmengin, “Tertullien et la religion romaine,” Revue
des Etudes Latines 45 (1967) 49.
39 D. Powell, “Tertullianists and Cataphrygians,” Vigiliae Christianae 29 (1975) 33–5.
46 chapter four
the monotheistic faiths, and the violence of the games that threatened
the quiet spirit of their disciples. She describes all the places in Carthage
where these shows took place and the large number of days on which they
occurred, in an attempt to prove that Tertullian and the rabbis could not
avoid dealing with such a reality, but must have reacted in the same way
to the same facts without being influenced by one another. However, Tur-
can seems to forget that the rabbinic prescriptions concerning the shows
did not originate from Carthage.40
40 Marie Turcan, Tertullien, Les Spectacles (Paris, 1986) 51.

Part two
Direct Context
chapter five
Tertullian’s Heresies
A Jewish Experience?
The next issue that must be dealt with is what type of information the
presence or absence of Jewish influence in Tertullian’s thought can pro-
vide. We must also ask of what and whom Tertullian is representative. If
we follow those who perceive the presence of Jewish motifs in Tertullian,
it could be argued that his closeness to Jewish thought demonstrates that
Christianity and Judaism were still so intertwined that they appeared to be
the same religion at the end of the second century ce and the beginning
of the third. There were indeed slight differences between them, charac-
teristic of two branches stemming from a common trunk, but over major
concerns, such as how to deal with idolatry, they were still in agreement
on principles. However, it would only be possible to make such claims
if Tertullian’s closeness to the Jews were generally characteristic of the
entire Church, everywhere, during the entire period, but this is unlikely.
Moreover, Tertullian has a reputation for being a schismatic and heretic.
This reputation refers not merely to one heresy, but to several, making
Tertullian, metaphorically speaking, a butterfly, flitting from one heresy
to another. However, a more precise image would be to compare him to
a bee that gathers ideas, like nectar, from all schools of thought in his
environment, from which he constructs his own truth.1 Tertullian must
therefore be examined from all angles of his multi-faceted identity before
we can apply a historical dimension to his methods.
First of all, the reasons that might have led Tertullian to include Jew-
ish features in his works need to be investigated. A distinction has been
established between two streams in Christianity. First, there are the “eth-
nic Jews.” In spite of the fact that the members of this group are regarded
as sectarians by the “Jewish” Jews, they still remain meticulous in their
affirmation of Israel’s religious beliefs and practices in the Church. Sec-
ondly, there are the “ethnic Gentiles,” who are cultists, i.e. people from
1 On Tertullian’s quest for truth see the detailed analysis of C. Rambaux, L’accès à la
vérité chez Tertullien (Bruxelles, 2005).
50 chapter five
a gentile background, who adopt Christianity just as they would adopt

any other novel oriental cult. This group would stress any possible links
between the Church and their native Graeco-Roman culture.2 Further-
more, a number of scholars conclude that at least part of Carthaginian
Christianity began within the Jewish community.3 This would mean that
Tertullian was probably acquainted with some, if not all, groups of “ethnic
Jews,” or at least with recent converts to Christianity affiliated with ethnic
Jewish churches who had a Jewish background and habits. On the one
hand, Tertullian was used to adapting his words to the audience he was
addressing, which can partly explain his use of Jewish motifs to appeal to
this sort of Christians.4 On the other hand, Tertullian actually belonged to
the Christian community of Carthage, as he found it when he converted
to the new religion. Tertullian’s knowledge of Christianity was shaped
within the community he joined, so that it is only logical that he would
adopt some of its features, which were, in this case, influenced by Jewish
ideas. Tertullian’s arguments in defence of Christianity appear to accord
with the Carthaginian mainstream’s views about the religion in its attacks
against what it viewed as heresies. Moreover, it is important to remember
that Tertullian is often suspected of using Christianity as a tool to fight
acculturation and the Roman intellectual invasion of Carthage. This, then,
would fit in with his use of “ethnic Jewish” arguments instead of “ethnic
gentile”/Graeco-Roman ones.5
It would appear that the Jewish community was quite important in
Carthage, considering that, among other things, it had its own cemetery,
and was both strong enough and learned enough to disseminate its own
culture. It was clearly also skilled enough in discussing the issue of idolatry
for its positions to be familiar to and shared by the Christians. This echoes
the scholarly position according to which the minorities—referring here
to the new Christians—never imposed anything on the majorities—that
is, the longstanding Carthaginian Jewish community.6 It would also mean
2 Spence, The Parting 13.

3 See Frend, throughout his works (as per the bibliography).
4 Wilhite, Tertullian 27, 60; Dunn, Tertullian 8–9; E. Osborn, Tertullian: First Theologian
of the West (Cambridge, 1997) 34, 119, 256; Rankin, Tertullian 9–19; Braun, Approches 22;
Aziza, Tertullien 37; Fredouille, Tertullien 21, 268, 288, 341; R. Evans, “On the Problem of
Church and Empire in Tertullian’s Apologeticum,” in Studia Patristica 14; E. Livingstone ed.,
Papers Presented to the Sixth International Conference on Patristic Studies, Part 3 (Oxford,
1971–Berlin, 1976) 21–36.
5 For example, Braun, Approches, Wilhite, Tertullian.
tertullian’s heresies 51
that even if Tertullian managed to gather members for his church, he

would still have to deal with the real attraction of the well-established
Carthaginian Synagogue, which tended to adopt rabbinic principles. He
would have needed to handle carefully the general Judaizing sensitivity
of both the Christian “ethnic Jews” and potential converts who were hesi-
tating and shifting between Judaism and Christianity. This is one more
justification for finding Jewish features in Tertullian’s works: he would
have yielded to what the most numerous group wanted to hear, and been
sensitive to the general atmosphere.
Another theory, which is close in spirit to the foregoing supposition,
stems from the examination of Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos, a work that
provided the Christians with apologetic arguments to counter the attacks
of Judaism against Christianity. In this text, Tertullian presented further
thoughts on the questions raised when a Carthaginian Jew defeated a
Christian during a religious disputation. Tertullian wanted Christians to
know how to answer Jews, who were aggressive about their faith, should
other occasions arise or polemical meetings take place. It has been sug-
gested that Tertullian’s ironic stance in his Adversus Iudaeos with respect
to the proselyte Jew who once defeated a Christian stems from the fact
that he himself had almost been this proselyte.7 There is a whole list of
examples of Jewish practices that Tertullian seems to know from inside
the Jewish community, such as descriptions of religious services that sound
as if they came from someone who actually participated in them.8 Aziza
even goes as far as to propose that Tertullian began to be interested in
Judaism, came close to the religion, but later left it for Christianity. Tertul-
lian found in Christianity a messiah who had already begun the salvation
of humanity, and a religion more open to universal culture than Juda-
ism, but which kept Judaism’s moral principles. In addition, the numerous
constraints of the Jewish laws, the mitzvot, are absent from Christianity,
which made it more accessible and attractive for a proselyte from the
Gentile community. It has also been suggested that Tertullian was too
ascetic and mystical for Judaism, which was why he looked for some-
thing more closely adapted to his aspirations. In fact, Tertullian found

8 Aziza, Tertullien 222 comments on services and other practices in Tertullian, Ad
Nationes 1.13.4, Adversus Marcionem V.4.6, and especially De Ieiunio 16.6, among others.
Frend, “Jews and Christians” 192 links the passage of the De Ieiunio with Mishnah Taanit
ii, 1, which would bring one more piece of evidence that Carthaginian Jews were aware of
rabbinic developments and followed their prescriptions.
52 chapter five
in Christianity an alternative interpretation of the same basic principles

that were to be found in Judaism. He certainly remained loyal to the Jew-
ish method of biblical exegesis, which would explain why his works are
stamped with Hebraisms and biblical attitudes.9 According to this theory,
Tertullian examined both Catholic and Montanist beliefs, accepting them
in full awareness of the arguments of all the heresies he rejected. Tertul-
lian thus made a choice between what suited him and what did not. It is
possible to visualise Tertullian leaving Judaism for Christianity, turning
to an ethnic Jewish community, feeling that he was thereby remaining
loyal to his initial sentiments and simply adhering to a slightly different
mode of Judaism. He would have integrated into a sect close to the main
(Jewish) community. Indeed, attention has been called to patristic schol-
ars’ frequent accusation of Tertullian as being “too Jewish.”10
A Particular Case in a Particular Environment
The general population of Carthage combined both local African culture

and Graeco-Romanisation of this culture. It was part of the particular char-
acter of the Carthaginian Christian community that its members added
Jewish elements to this cultural mix. The African Church, as a whole, has
been described as tending toward sectarianism and hostility to normal
social life, which led it to the “denial of duties to the state, including mili-
tary service, sense of brotherhood, acceptance of martyrdom, including
voluntary martyrdom, a readiness to model conduct on the example of
the Maccabees and a fanaticism that could vent itself on more moderate
attitudes.”11 Tertullian seems both to have inspired and have been inspired
by the general character of the African Church. Tertullian’s portrait has
also been drawn as characteristic of African Christianity in his reasoned
intransigence and his fear of being corrupted by the pagans’ stain of sin.12
But besides belonging to the African Church, Tertullian remains a
unique case. He demanded that the human mind always be active,
which is why he continually inquired into new ways of thinking, and
adopted from every stream he observed what seemed to him to be true
and constructive.13 Tertullian was a man consumed by religious fervour,
9 Aziza, Tertullien 213; Frend, “Jews and Christians in Third Century Carthage” et al.
10 Stroumsa, “Tertullian and the Limits of Tolerance” 181.
11 Frend, “Heresy” 42.
12 Petitmengin, “Tertullien” 49.
13 Tertullian blames lack of cerebral activity in Apologeticum 1.8, Ad Nationes 1.1.3.
who grasped at everything that could help concretize his feelings. It was
his own nature that pushed him to an incessant and uncompromising
quest for perfection, even at the price of individualism or alienation.14
Such a character as Tertullian’s, in a perpetual search for truth and ruth-
lessly attacking any lie, finally remains isolated and does not attract the
crowds.15 Tertullian’s seeking for every spark of truth shows even in his
use of his pagan culture not only for the structure of his writings, but also
for their material content, whenever he sees something of value in them.
This also holds true for his use of a variety of Christian and non-Christian
sources and a vast array of African and non-African sources, alongside his
wide use of quotations from the Scriptures.16 “Classical culture provided
[Tertullian] with a language and a methodology and it furnished him with
the material against which he could react and develop his own position.”17
Tertullian’s numerous sources and his ways of adapting them testify to
his multifaceted identity.18 His religious evolution has been described as
a quest for the absolute,19 which is why he must have deliberated and
hesitated a great deal before choosing to convert to Christianity. In effect,
Tertullian found in every religious stream that he investigated some ele-
ments of faith which he had apprehended himself before he even knew
that others were propounding them.20 Tertullian generally found in each
school expressions of what he was looking for, rather than wholly new
ideas that were revealed to him and influenced him: he adopted those
novelties that suited his own positions. The resolute tendency of his mind
and the consistent direction of his quests allowed him to distinguish
between and to contest those whom he believed were wrong.
Montanist Schism?
On the whole, the questions, hypotheses, and answers surrounding Tertul-

lian’s Montanism are very close to those concerning his Judaism. The
common wisdom about Tertullian tells us that he was first a pagan, and
that he then began to inquire into Judaism, followed by his conversion
14 Dunn, Tertullian 10; Turcan, Tertullien 64; Osborn, Tertullian 255.

15 Fredouille, Tertullien 440.
16 Wilhite, Tertullian.
20 Braun, Approches 54 among others.
54 chapter five
to Christianity, his subsequent abandonment of orthodox Christianity

for Montanism, and eventual dissatisfaction with his experiences which
caused him to found his own sect, Tertullianism. But designating Tertul-
lian as a schismatic “does not seem sustainable today.”21 Most scholars,
even if they still try to measure the extent of Montanist ideas in Tertul-
lian’s writings, agree that “a formal schism should have left unambiguous
traces in polemical writings which deal with the very matters at issue.”22
Since this is not the case, it is currently taken for granted that Tertullian’s
attraction to Montanism did not put an end to his relationship with the
Church. Tertullian, indeed, was always quite vehement in his attacks
against heretics throughout his career as an apologist. He never consid-
ered himself as separated from the Catholic Church. It is unlikely that
Tertullian would have left the Church but continued to defend it: what
Tertullian wanted was official recognition of the New Prophecy, whose
prescriptions he observed.23 Tertullian could hardly have termed others
heretics and schismatics if he were considered one of these himself. In
fact, the New Prophecy appears to be the only truly Montanist feature
relevant to Tertullian’s Montanism.24 The New Prophecy demonstrated
that Christianity was still active. Montanism was then an “ecclesiola in
ecclesia,” a little church within the Church, and Tertullian thus still
belonged to the Church and accepted its rules. Observing more strin-
gent rules would not necessarily have separated the Montanists from the
rest of the Christians.25 Tertullian’s real problem was not with Catholi-
cism itself, but with the ecclesiastical hierarchy.26 As such, even dur-
ing his Montanist period—which essentially means that period of time
when he gave prominence to Montanist ideas in his works rather than
the time after his conversion to Montanism and separation from the
Church—Tertullian tried to defend the Christians against the hostility of
the pagans and against the seductive ideas of the numerous heretics.27 At
that point in time, Montanism and Catholicism were not two separate
22 Powell, “Tertullianists” 35.
25 Powell, “Tertullianists” 34; See Braun, Approches 48 on Montanism as being more
rigorous than the Church on flight in time of persecution, and on second marriage, fasts,
and atonement.
26 See, for instance, Tertullian, De Pudicitia 21, De Baptismo 17.2; Rankin, Tertullian 38,
Osborn, Tertullian 176, and La Piana “The Roman Church” 220.
congregations. Moreover, neither Montanus nor Tertullian calls Montan-

ism a “Church.”28 This means that Tertullian must have remained loyal to
the universal Church, since he believed that Catholic truth surpasses all
human wisdom.29 The New Prophecy does not contradict the apostolic
tradition.30 This is what allowed Cyprian to choose him as his master,
which he could not have done had Tertullian truly been schismatic. It
can be pointed out that “no work of Tertullian is unorthodox. They may
be unusual and extreme but they are not heretical.”31 In fact, “Tertullian
the Montanist was Tertullian the Montanist Catholic:”32 for Tertullian,
Montanism and the Church were compatible. It has even been suggested
that it was precisely Tertullian’s Montanism that helped him to rescue the
Catholic Church from heresy.33 Actually, the fact that Tertullian calls the
Catholics “psychics” has been the main argument used to demonstrate his
aversion for the Church, but, as always, Tertullian adapts his discourses to
his audience and to the issues at hand, since he always looks for whatever
the truth is, in his opinion. He therefore attacks the Church whenever he
finds flaws in its thought, just as he attacks philosophy when it is wrong—
even after he has praised its virtues—and just as he attacks the Jews after
using their words to promote his own interests. Tertullian’s arguments
depend on the circumstances in which he writes. Thus “it seems better to
say that Tertullian did not leave the Church.”34 Montanism actually con-
sists in the taking of a side in a dispute within the Catholic community,
and not in a schism or a heresy.35 This approach to Tertullian’s religious
wanderings is in opposition to that presented by the older school, which
sees in Tertullian a tendency to schism, and according to which the use of
nos—or “we”—in contradistinction from vos—or “you”—and the gener-
ally violent tone in the controversies between Montanists and Catholics
are interpreted as the mark of a real schism.36
28 Ancient Christian Writers: Tertullian, Treatises on Penance and on Purity 28 (1959),

translation W. Le Saint n. 667, P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste (Paris, 1913) 60, 136.
29 Tertullian, De Anima 1.6, Osborn, Tertullian 117.
30 The idea occurs several times in Tertullian’s writings against the different heretics
and in De Resurrectione Carnis 11; see Frend, Rise n. 73.
32 C. Trevett, Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy (Cambridge, 1996) 69.
34 Osborn, Tertullian 251; see also 176.
35 Rankin, Tertullian 27, 32; Powell.
36 Braun, Approches 49, Labriolle, La crise.
56 chapter five
Concerning Tertullianism, it has been suggested that the Montanists of

Carthage, being Tertullian’s followers, got the name Tertullianistae.37 In
actuality, however, the origins of Tertullianism are obscure.38 It is even
possible that those called Tertullianists learned from Tertullian’s teach-
ings, but had no other link to him.39 It could be that Tertullian never knew
the Tertullianists, and never even had any idea that they were using his
name. Those theories are contrary again to the belief that Tertullian went
from heresy to heresy until he founded his own, i.e. that in the end he
became a heresiarch and created Tertullianism. It has even been argued
that the entire Montanist community of Carthage followed Tertullian,
which was the reason why Montanism disappeared from Africa.40 At any
rate, when and how the Church expelled Montanism, or Tertullianism—or
whether both are the same thing—is not at all obvious. There is no evi-
dence either for any excommunication of the Tertullianists by the Church,
nor any opposing evidence of the rejection of the Church by Tertullian:41
the Montanists did not want to separate themselves from the Church.
Montanists/Tertullianists seem to go on meeting and sharing in the activi-
ties of the Christian Church. An event during which a bishop was close
to officially recognising the New Prophecy as belonging to the Church,
but was convinced at the last minute not to do so, is reported by Tertul-
lian himself.42 Montanism appears to have been still acceptable in 203 ce,
after the bishop of Rome condemned it.43 The Church of Rome did not
accept the New Prophecy as one of its features, but it did not condemn it
either. In sum, the Montanists were not systematically excluded from the
Church. Apparently the bishops did not easily condemn the New Proph-
ecy supported by some of the believers, “lest they should deny a true ele-
ment in Christianity.”44
To conclude, it seems that Montanism was neither a heresy, nor an
entity separated from the Church. Tertullian, therefore, never left the
Church and could still be considered a Montanist. Apparently, Tertullian
found what he was looking for in Montanism, and had no need to found
his own sect to satisfy his expectations. ‘Tertullianism’ is either indepen-
37 Powell, “Tertullianists” 33; Barnes, Tertullian 258.

38 Rankin, Tertullian 37.
42 Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 1; La Piana, “The Roman Church” 245.
44 Ford, “Was Montanism” 151.
dent of Tertullian or is the African name for Montanism, and not Tertul-
lian’s own heresy or institution. Modern scholarship acknowledges that
Tertullian does not change between his pre-Montanist period and his
Montanist period.45 He merely found what he was seeking in Montan-
ism, and in particular took from Montanism only what he wanted to find.
For such reasons, Tertullian has been qualified a “Montanist by instinct.”46
And indeed, Montanist ideas can be found in Tertullian’s writings dating
from before his affiliation with Montanism.47 In conclusion, “Tertullian’s
theology is a consistent whole which finally found its home within Mon-
tanism, which supported his rigorist practices and principles.” In other
words, Tertullian found in Montanism the ideas and practices that best
suited him.
What Kind of Montanism Did Tertullian Know?
Despite the foregoing conclusions, the question remains as to whether

Tertullian adhered to the ideas of the real, official Montanism that oth-
ers adopted and which emerged from Montanus and his prophetesses,
or if he settled for what he found convenient in Montanism in line with
his own interests. In the latter case, even those who term Montanism a
heresy would not consider Tertullian to be schismatic if he only made
use of some Montanist arguments while remaining within the Church.
Here again, the chronology of the scholarship is less important than the
ideas proposed, since the debates that the subject provokes have not yet
been definitively concluded, and all the arguments on both sides of the
issue are constantly being re-used. The discussion can be opened with
the assertion that Montanism in Africa differed from Montanism in Asia
Minor, and with the question of whether Tertullian’s idea or conception
of Montanism is accurate.48 Some aspects, such as the regula fidei or
the Trinitarian faith, seem to be truly Montanist, but nevertheless some
scholars are doubtful about the occurrence of any meeting or even about
the existence of any contact between Tertullian and Montanist centres.
The possibility has been suggested that Tertullian knew only an exported
45 Wilhite, Tertullian 169; Osborn, Tertullian 177; Dunn, Tertullian 9.

46 Trevett, Montanism 68.
48 Osborn, Tertullian deals with the difference and Braun, Approches 46, is the first to
ask the question of the accuracy.
58 chapter five
form of Montanism, already modified, and not the actual source. Along
the same lines, it has been argued that Tertullian was unlikely to have
ever met a real Montanist, and that he was acquainted with Montanism
only through his readings.49 Some tend to accept that Tertullian’s Mon-
tanism is not the original faith,50 whereas others believe that Tertullian
knew exactly what Montanism was, and that when he modified the origi-
nal Montanist message, he did it on purpose.51 Also, one scholar argues
for direct and constant contacts between Tertullian and the Montanists,
whereas another rejects his proofs, saying that his translation of one pas-
sage of Tertullian’s De Jejunio as meaning that the Christian author takes
part in Montanist councils is unacceptable.52 As always with Tertullian,
the correct understanding would seem to be somewhere in the middle.
It is reasonable to suppose that Tertullian was a real Montanist, familiar
with and representative of the origins and doctrines of the movement, but
we should also be aware that he was generally an independent thinker
who selected only what fitted his agenda from Montanism, as from any
other stream, while rejecting the rest. He thereby created his own kind of
Montanism.53
Further observations in the present discussion will focus on the ques-
tion of Jewish influences on Tertullian. Here again, scholars are divided.
Those who deny any Jewish influence in Tertullian’s writing remain faith-
ful to their convictions, while others combine Montanism with Judaism
and try to see in this new association the origin of Jewish echoes in the
works of this Church Father. For example, it has been suggested that the
New Prophecy in Phrygia and Tertullianism in Africa developed from Jew-
ish Christianity.54 According to this opinion, Tertullian’s Montanism is
not the original faith, since Tertullian puts a light emphasis on prophecy,
on an imminent parousia, and omits any mention of Pepuza as the New
Jerusalem. In this view also, the prominent position of women—who are
not excluded from education or community exercises—is reminiscent of
the customs of the Jewish community of Qumran, as well as of Karaism
or of the Therapeutae. Furthermore, it is proposed, the Montanists “seem
to follow the Jewish solar calendar and to claim precedence for their
49 Osborn, Tertullian 212, as well Schöllgen, “Der Adressatenkreis” 22.

50 Following Powell, “Tertullianists.”
51 Among them Labriolle, La crise.
52 Labriolle attacked by Braun, Approches 46.
53 As already noted by C. Micaelli, “Tertulliano e il montanismo in Africa,” Africa cristi-
ana: storia, religione, letteratura 20, M. Marin and C. Moreschini, eds. (Brescia, 2002) 15.
54 Massingberd Ford, “Was Montanism” 148–58.
f asting regulations from the same source.” These arguments are based on
Tertullian, De Jejunio Adversus Psychicos 13.6: Aspice ad Iudaicos fastos et
inuenies nihil nouum—“Look at the Jewish calendar, and you will find it
nothing novel.” Tertullian answers accusations of novelty by referring to
similar Jewish habits. The “divina doctrina” of Tertullian’s De Anima is also
believed to be of Jewish inspiration, since it is not Hellenistic.55 Eventu-
ally, Montanist xerophagy—the avoidance of juices, moist food, and wine,
except for the Eucharist—is said to originate in Mishnaic injunctions.56
Earlier scholars have also suggested that some Montanist features of the
Day of Revenge and millenarianism are of Jewish inspiration.57 Montanist
abstinence from bathing has also been equated with Jewish mourning
customs. Others tend to believe that it was the influence of African Jews
which contributed to the success of Montanist ideas in Carthage.58 In con-
clusion, while there does not seem to have been any direct influence from
any Jewish sect, it seems almost certain to some scholars that Montanism
developed out of some Jewish-Christian stream or from the “heterodox
Jewish background of Asia Minor” that provided the Montanists with
material and practices that had no place in the wider Church. One opin-
ion is that Montanism was in contact with various kinds of Judaism, and
that what explains the differences between Tertullian’s Tertullianism and
Montanus’ Montanism is that the two movements sprang from different
kinds of Judaism, for example the Babylonian type, as opposed to the
African one.59 Opposition to the stance that envisages a Jewish-Christian
origin for Tertullian’s movement has also been manifested alongside argu-
ments for Montanus as the basis for Tertullian’s Montanism, whatever
changes he may have imposed on his source. The fact that Tertullian rec-
ognised and quoted the Montanist prophetesses who were at the basis of
Montanism has been cited as demonstration of this position.60
This overview of the problems linked to Tertullian and his writings
could lead to the conclusion that Tertullian was a unique case within the
Church, with distinctive positions, distinctive approaches to religion, and
55 Massingberd Ford, “Was Montanism” 158; concerning the actual presence of women
in the sects of Qumran, see the works of Prof. Eyal Regev, for instance, Sectarianism in
Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Berlin-New York, 2007).
56 Ford, “Was Montanism” 179; she refers to Nedarim and Nazir, but see also Mishnah
Avodah Zarah ii, 4, v, 2.
57 See Renan ap. Labriolle, La crise 94.
58 Frend and Baer.
59 Massingberd Ford.
60 Powell.
60 chapter five
distinctive affinities with Jews and “other sectarians.” Such peculiarities

would then be characteristic of him alone and at best would be close, in
some way, to the general character of the African Church, but not repre-
sentative of the whole Church. However, it should already be clear from
the different questions raised in the present study that at least in Tertul-
lian’s time, there was no definite general character to the Church. There
were different kinds of churches, or several streams of religious belief—as
demonstrated by Tertullian’s attacks against some of them—as well as
people building communities around their own individual personalities.
On the Jewish side, whether one accepts that there were several co-exist-
ing or competing Jewish streams, or that Judaism was open to plurality
within a common but unique framework, no general Jewish character can
be identified either.
chapter six
Tertullian’s Place among Other Christian Authors:

Views on Idolatry in Comparison
A Short Survey of the Different Ways the Pagans

Envisaged Their Idols
The foregoing discussion has focused on Tertullian’s distinctiveness and

uniqueness. The next issue to be dealt with will be to what extent Tertul-
lian’s views also differ from or are consonant with pagan and Christian
ideas on idolatry. Before analysing how Christian authors dealt with
idolatry, the context in which they wrote must be established. Indeed,
these authors could not be free of contemporary ideas, especially when
they were addressing their non-Christian contemporaries, given that they
themselves were raised within a Graeco-Roman framework and only
later converted to Christianity. In order to be understood, they would
have needed to use the accepted concepts with which their audience
was familiar. Some of the ways in which the pagans envisaged the divine
which were known to the Church Fathers and exploited by them for their
own purposes in their works, are detailed below.
Logical Explanations
Reflection on religion—on its utility and meaning—was the occupation
of pagan intellectuals, rather than ordinary individuals. Some of these
intellectuals tried to reform traditional pagan religion by inventing new
features that were consonant with the expectations of their time. The
general atmosphere, before and at the beginning of Christianity, tended
toward mysticism: people were in need of solace, miracles, promises of
salvation and better days, and religion brought them ethics, morals, and
hope. Oriental cults attracted the masses, and those Romans who wished
to safeguard their traditional religion needed to adapt it to the new atmo-
sphere. The intellectuals therefore used religion as a tool, on the one hand
to comfort people and bring them the answers they expected, while on the
other they used fidelity to religion to maintain political and social order in
the interest of the State. Some of these intellectuals invented new kinds of
mediators between human beings and the divine and semi-divine entities,
62 chapter six
such as devils and wise men, as a means of maintaining civil order and
governing the masses. Others fought for traditional religion and wanted
to manage with the concepts already present and provided. The key to
their approach was interpretation: every aspect of former belief that did
not fit new expectations and needs was given a new interpretation. Seem-
ingly unsuitable elements of religion were presented not as useless, but as
badly understood, which was why they could not fulfill their essential role
properly. In a time of philosophers, new life was given to the same reli-
gious elements by attributing to them new meanings and interpretations,
in the guise of giving them back their true original sense, which had alleg-
edly been set aside for a long time or misunderstood. This trick gave rise
to a game of ping-pong between the Christian apologists, who mocked
the pagans’ devotion to their sculpted gods, and the pagan intellectuals,
who mocked the Christians for believing that the pagans really saw their
statues as gods. To illustrate the latter point, let us take the example of
Porphyry. After his explanations that the worshippers of animals do not
really see them as gods, but, rather, likenesses and symbols of gods, Por-
phyry attacks Jews and Christians for their ignorance and stupidity, since
they cannot understand that statues and images are not only the material
they are made of, but also the idea transcending the material.1 Another
example of the various other ways pagans invented to give rational expla-
nations to their beliefs was a method of giving physical or natural expla-
nations to the myths and their heroes, otherwise called “physiologizing.”2
Tertullian, for his part, set an innovative tone to the discussion by loudly
unveiling the pagans’ tactic of modernisation in his Adversus Marcionem:
Ipsa quoque vulgaris superstitio communis idololatriae, cum in simulacris de
nominibus et fabulis veterum mortuorum pudet, ad interpretationem natu-
ralium refugit, et dedecus suum ingenio obumbrat
The very superstition of the crowd, inspired by the common idolatry, when
ashamed of the names and fables of their ancient dead borne by their idols,
1 Porphyry’s work about the images of the gods quoted in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evan-
gelica book 3. For a survey of the Roman critical approach to idolatry, see C. Ando, The
Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire. The Transformation of the Classical
Heritage (Berkeley, 2008), Chapter 2, “Idols and their Critics.” See the chapter on religion
in C. Guignebert, Tertullien: Etude sur ses sentiments à l’égard de l’empire et de la société
civile (Paris, 1901).
2 A. Baumgarten, “Euhemerus’ Eternal Gods: Or, How Not to be Embarrassed by Greek
Mythology,” Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, R. Katzoff et al., eds. (Ramat Gan,
1996) 91, On re-arranging and correcting the meaning of myths, see E. Bickerman, “Origines
Gentium,” Classical Philology 47 (1952) 73.
tertullian’s place among other christian authors 63
has recourse to the interpretation of natural objects, and so with much inge-
nuity cloaks its own disgrace.3
For Tertullian, however, such a sublimation of the idols did not cleanse
the ancient religion of its stain of idolatry since, for him, as for some other
Church Fathers, idolatry could also exist without idols. The best demon-
stration of this was that idolatry existed before idols were invented, a
point on which Porphyry would not have disagreed.4
Critics of Religion
The Fathers of the Church found allies in their fight against idolatry in the
Graeco-Roman world. Iconoclasts such as Lucian, Heraclites and even to a
certain extent Plutarch, served Christian interests when they ridiculed the
worship of inanimate statues. Tertullian was not alone when he proudly
claimed about the philosophers that
et deos vestros palam destruunt et superstitiones vestras commentariis quoque
accusant laudantibus vobis
they [the philosophers] openly overthrow your gods, and in their writings
they attack your superstitions; and you applaud them for it.5
The Church Fathers established their intentions openly. Thus Eusebius
makes his agenda very clear in the introduction to his Praeparatio Evan-
gelica. He intends to use anything that he finds useful for the attack on
paganism in the works of the pagan thinkers themselves. For what is bet-
ter than cornering the enemy with his own weapons? This is the method
of Philo of Byblos as well. These two authors are only examples illustrating
a wide stream vivid among the Fathers of the Church, who were delighted
to quote poets and philosophers who tended to believe in a certain unity
of the divinity—even in one supreme God—and to mention as often as
possible euhemeristic theories claiming endlessly that the pagan gods were
deceased human beings. Respected pagan philosophers attacked idolatry
in the same the way as the Christians did, thus demonstrating the truth
3 Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, I.13. See Baumgarten,“Euhemerus’ ” 100–1, about the

methods for dealing with the embarrassment caused by Greek mythology that already
existed by the end of the sixth century bce (for instance, in the writings of Theagenes of
Rhegium, as attested to by Porphyry, or in Metrodorus of Lampsacus).
4 enim et sine idolo idolatria fiat—idolatry can be also without an idol, Tertullian, De
Idolatria 3; Porphyry’s work about the images of the gods quoted in Eusebius, Praeparatio
Evangelica Book 3.
5 Tertullian, Apologeticum 46.4.
64 chapter six
of Christian doctrine, which in turn, they believed, should be accepted

by all and not lead to persecution of Christians. Christianity is against
anthropomorphism, against the vile material representation of the divin-
ity: if the statues are made of expensive materials, they attract thieves and
need human protection, and if they are made of a cheap material, they
are like the most common objects, and, in both instances, are unworthy
of representing divinity. Moreover, for those among the apologists who
accepted the existence of devils, the statues were a medium for those
devils to perpetrate their malevolent miracles and to get closer to human
beings in order to drive them away from the right path. This is also close
to some pagan ideas that the material statues were a medium for the gods
to be in direct contact with human beings, and were not actually gods
themselves. The only difference is that Christians believed that they were
the Devil’s messengers, while the pagans believed that they were envoys
of the benevolent gods.
The Symbolists
The symbolist stream is the last to be described here, because it provided
the Church Fathers with tools that can be nicely summarised as:
Nur philosophisch gebildete Menschen, die über einen glasklaren Verstand
verfügen, können die zu diesem Zwecke mit höchstem Aufwand betriebene
Inszenierung durchschauen.6
One of the representatives of this stream was Maximus of Tyre, a very
religious thinker, for whom it was fundamental that people believe in
and worship the divinity, no matter through what medium they do it.
In brief, Maximus’ fifth dialogue says that “all have a conception of the
supreme God though all envisage Him differently,” which explains Maxi-
mus’ motivation in conferring a role on idols.7 Earlier, there were no idols,
but since simple-minded people could not envisage a god without any
6 D. Elm von der Osten, “Die Inszenierung des Betruges und seiner Entlarvung: Divina-
tion und ihre Kritiker in Lukians Schrift Alexandros oder der Lügenprophet,” in Elm von
der Osten, J. Rüpke, et al., eds. Texte als Medium und Reflexion von Religion im römischen
Reich (Stuttgart, 2006) 146. She says this concerning people considered by Lucian to be
able to see through the fraud of Alexander’s shows, but the sentence fits the stance of the
intellectuals dealt with here concerning all of the material cults.
7 M. Trapp, “Philosophical sermons: the Dialexeis of Maximus of Tyre,” Aufstieg und
Niedergang der romischen Welt II 34 (1997) 1945–76.
shape, they needed statues to materialise the notion of God.8 This is actu-
ally “misrepresentating God by means of an object.”9 Statues, which are
useless for the wise, are thus kept as necessary symbols because of human
weakness. For Porphyry, a statue is a memento, a sign of respect for the
god it represents. Dio Chrysostom explains that statues are both a custom
and a gift for the gods: even if the gods need nothing, the statues indicate
human zeal and attention toward them, and this cannot be condemned,10
even if it would be better to contemplate heavenly matters without any
intermediary.11 Maximus undertook to legitimise the existence of the stat-
ues as the medium through which most people became pious and learned
to know the gods.12 For him, the makers of idols have the same role as
poets in giving beautiful, comprehensible shapes to difficult notions.13
Intellectual weakness looked for divinity and for information about the
divinity in the statues, and the statues also evoked the divine being and
the idea behind it: “elle [the carved image] parle à la croyance et à la raison
qui interprète.”14 The images were aimed at making the invisible divinity
visible, at fostering perception of the divinity, and at making the eye able
to discern what it otherwise could not see. Images of the gods, therefore,
did not aspire to represent a reality with any value, but to make abstract
general ideas comprehensible through common, accessible shapes. The
8 Tertullian, De Idolatria 3, also remarks that before there were no idols; in De Idolatria
11, Tertullian even makes clear that idolatry needs no idols to be performed: “even now,
the work of idolatry is perpetrated, for the most part, without the idol”—et nunc fere sine
idolo opus idololatriae.
The biblical event of the golden calf also gets the same explanation as Maximus gives to
idols through the verse in Exodus 32: “When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the
calf and announced, ‘Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD (Yahweh)’ ” or even,
“These be thy god who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt”; see further details in Jan
Assmann’s introduction to Representation in Religion: Studies in Honor of Moshe Barasch,
J. Assmann and A. Baumgarten, eds. (Leiden/Boston/Köln, 2001) xiii–xiv.
9 R. Liong-Seng Phua, Idolatry and Authority. A Study of Corinthians 8.1–11.1 in the Light
of the Jewish Diaspora (London/New York, 2005) 31–7.
10 Dio Chrysostom, Oratio 31.15.
11 Dio Chrysostom, Oratio 12.59 and also Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 6.19:
‘φαντασία’ ἒϕη, ‘ταῦτα εἰργάσατο σοφωτέρα μιμήσεως δημιουργός’. Μίμησις μὲν γὰρ
δημιουργήσει, ὅ εἶδεν, φαντασία δὲ καὶ ὅ μὴ εἶδεν, ὑποθήσεται γὰρ αὐτὸ πρὸς τὴν ἀναφορὰν τοῦ
ὂντος . . . ἀλλὰ τὰ εἲδη τῶν θεῶν καταλείπειν τοῖς τὰ ἱερὰ ἐσφοιτῶσιν—‘Imagination,’ Apollo
nius said, ‘a better artist than imitation, drove him’. Imitation indeed represents what it
has seen, imagination what it has not. It will imagine it according to reality [. . .] but let
people in the temples imagine the images of the gods as they wish.”
12 Clerc, Les théories 239.
13 See Dissertation 4 (in the numbering of Trapp, Maximus of Tyre. The Philosophical
Orations (Oxford, 1997)).
14 Clerc, Les théories 8.
66 chapter six
images allowed the mind to physically capture concepts. Such a pragmatic

explanation of the images also appears in Tertullian’s discussion on the
military ensigns which call for the devotion of soldiers in time of war.15
Thus the symbolists try to give intellectual explanations for the survival of
material religious objects. For them, the images are tools for the simplest
people, which offer nothing, or almost nothing, to the wise. But Plutarch
and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who also fight for rational ideas about
religion, do not agree with the idea of the complete vanity of the statues.
They think that the representations of the divinity really do have a divine
role to fulfill among human beings. Plutarch, for example, argues there are
divine entities on earth which need to express themselves through such
media. This is why a statue is not something completely empty, but some-
thing sacred, like the sanctuary in which it is to be found and the altars
that are dedicated to it. The artist who makes the idols is divinely inspired;
he sees the god in a dream and creates its shape when awake.16 Plutarch
acknowledged that in his time, statues could no longer be observed speak-
ing to or hitting men or being hit by men, who see them as being alive,
but this does not prevent him from dealing with questions such as when,
precisely, life enters the statue.17 Nevertheless, neither Plutarch nor Philo-
stratus nor Dio nor Maximus really challenge the legitimacy of the exis-
tence of the images. All of them try to explain their true meaning, but
never say that they are totally useless and should be destroyed. The use of
idols is far too old to be questioned. The Graeco-Roman symbolists, more-
over, boast of their race’s sharpness in giving human shapes to their gods,
the shape the gods prefer, and not the shapes of animals or of transient
natural elements.18 All of those writers belong to the faction fighting for
the preservation of the images, and stand up against those who want to
destroy them, even among the pagans, because they are ridiculous. The
Church Fathers often mention the symbolists’ theories, even if they do
not view them seriously. Indeed, the symbolists find their audience only
among themselves. Simple-minded people are not used to seeing reality
through art, and they cannot understand the intellectual explanations the
15 Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1, Apologeticum 16.

16 Exodus 35; Bezalel fashioning the cherubs in the biblical story also receives divine
intelligence.
17 The question of knowing when a statue becomes sacred interests the Jews and Chris-
tians as well. For instance, see Minucius Felix, Octavius 23, Tertullian, Apologeticum 12, De
Idolatria 15, De Spectaculis 13, and further in this study for discussion of this point.
18 Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 6.19, but also Dio and Maximus.
symbolists give.19 For such people, there are only two theories, either a
superstitious belief in the idols’ true powers or a destructive belief claim-
ing that the idols are nothing: there is no middle path. Thus the Christian
apologists do not really take into account symbolist positions, not because
they do not understand them, but because such ideas will not reform any-
one’s understanding of religion.
Generalities
We now turn to compare Tertullian’s De Idolatria with the works of

his Christian predecessors, contemporaries, and those regarded as hav-
ing learned from him. The authors examined in this comparison are all
included in the volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and were important
in the early crystallisation of Christian identity.20 The aim of this com-
parison is to understand their roles as well as Tertullian’s in this process,
and to see to what extent their methods are identical or opposed. The
authors—both Tertullian’s predecessors, as well as his contemporaries—
who do not mention idolatry at all or who allude to it only in one or
two sporadic instances, are excluded from the comparison. The authors
are presented chronologically, as they appear in the volumes of the Ante-
Nicene Fathers: Melito of Sardis and Marcianus Aristides, whose works
were added to the collection later on, are put back in their chronological
place. When authors from different periods express the same ideas, they
are introduced together, thematically and not chronologically.
The Catholic Encyclopedia already gives us an initial idea of the results
of our comparison when it states that “there were isolated cases of per-
sons who feared the ever-growing cult of images [both images within the
Church as well as images from the surrounding world] and saw in it dan-
ger of a return to the old idolatry.”21 However, even among those “isolated
cases,” no-one devotes an entire treatise to the question of idolatry, except
for Tertullian and his disciple Cyprian. Apart from this, it is possible to
19 M. Arnold, Culture and Anarchy (London, 1869), e-text from the first edition: http://
www.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/writings/4.html, 153–164, states that the Greeks and
Romans were not ready to live by the premature Hellenic conception of human nature
(and thus, in my opinion, of divinity as well) and that they needed Christianity to give
them back a framework they could understand.
20 Ante-Nicene Fathers, Early Church Fathers, digitized version: http://www.ccel.org,
especially volumes 1 to 5, and one author from volume 8, one from volume 9.
21 Catholic Encyclopedia, www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm, re. “veneration of
images.”
68 chapter six
identify a number of parallel themes related to idolatry in Tertullian and

the other authors. The resemblances and differences between them will
be noted, together with some biographical details about the other authors
when this sheds light on the results of the comparison.
The Character of the Speech on Idols
The first case study is the author of the Epistle to Diognetus.22 The aim of
this letter is to praise Christianity and to convince Diognetus to convert.
The second chapter of the letter deals with the vanity and absurdity of
idols and their worship. The passage is a mockery of idolatry. While at
first glance it looks very much like chapter 12 of Tertullian’s Apologeticum,
dealing with the despicable material of which idols are made, the violent
treatment the artists impose on the “gods” when they fashion them, and
so on, it is nonetheless different from the account of idolatry in the De
Idolatria. Only the list of the artists recruited in idol-making given in the
Epistle to Diognetus 2.3 is somewhat reminiscent of the list of De Idola-
tria 8. But the De Idolatria is not a contemptuous mockery of idolatry at
all. Tertullian’s work is a guide addressing Christians to make it clear to
them how and where they have to avoid idolatry while living in a pagan
environment. Idolatry is dangerous and must be feared; it is not a subject
for laughter.
Melito of Sardis and Marcianus Aristides both write about idolatry,
attacking especially those philosophers who say that idols are made in
honour of God.23 Both of them come out strongly against the ideas in vogue
in their time and are more concerned with reproving the adoration of vain
idols, which are actually dead people—the euhemerist aetiology—than
offering a guide for proper Christian behaviour. Melito lingers on the
“stone-nature” of idols and on the idolatry of stones. Tertullian, in De
Idolatria 4, also mentions the idolatry of stones, and the Mishnah is full
of details concerning revered stones. The veneration of stones proper
belonged to the primitive Roman cults, as well as to autochthonous Afri-
can cults, and tends to disappear in time, even if some reminiscences of
it appear occasionally among the lower social classes. Melito, in his Apol-
ogy addressed to Marcus Aurelius, thus seems to portray a cliché of what
paganism appears to be in the eyes of monotheists. Melito concentrates
22 B. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers 2 (Cambridge, 2003).

23 Compare Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1, Apologeticum 16.
on detailing the deeds of the pagans, while Tertullian prefers to make it

clear how Christians must behave practically, taking into account the real-
ity of the facts. Melito writes of the punishments awaiting idolaters, while
Tertullian does not mention any punishment but that of “mourning later”
for those Christians who have become like the pagans, since the time for
rejoicing with all humanity has not yet arrived.24 The difference between
both works sounds rather like that between Mishnah massekhet Avodah
Zarah and Mishnah massekhet Sanhedrin.25 While Sanhedrin deals with
the penalties for taking part in idolatrous activities, Avodah Zarah only
recommends, a priori, a certain type of behaviour that will prevent people
from becoming involved in idolatry.
Next comes Justin, who, in the ninth chapter of the first book of his
Apology, deals with the folly of idol worship. Again, the aim of an apol-
ogy is to defend Christianity by praising its strong points, and one of the
most popular tools employed is turning the attacks of the pagans back
on themselves and on their own religion. Justin despises idols as “things
that are corruptible, and require constant service”—ϕθαρτοῖς καὶ δεοµένοις
θεραπείας πράγµασιν. He mocks the fact that the gods need to be watched
and cared for by human beings and, generally speaking, the material offer-
ings that are made to them, since, even if offerings were made to the One
true God, He provides everything for mankind and, of course, does not
need to receive anything from them. Justin also appears to be well aware
of the theories of his time concerning idols. He is clearly referring to the
concept of euhemerism when he says that idols are “soulless and dead”—
ἂψυχα καὶ νεκρὰ—and he also despises those who assert that when they
worship idols, knowing full well that these are not true divinities, they are
in fact honouring God. Indeed, he argues that such idols are an insult to
God. Justin also stresses that the best thinkers among the Gentiles oppose
the pagan cults and that their views are close to those of the Christians,
which surpass all other human wisdom. Again, in his work on resurrec-
tion, he elaborates on the materiality of the idols and uses pagan theories
to demonstrate to the pagans the extent to which idols are empty of any
meaning.26 As for Irenaeus, he considers that the Gentiles are capable
of reaching the truth, but that they change the truth into error through
24 See, for example, Tertullian, De Idolatria 13.

25 For the distinction between both tractates, see Hadas-Lebel, “Le paganisme” 398 and
S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and
Manners of Palestine in the Ist Century B.C.E.–IV Century C.E (New York, 1962) 116.
26 Justin, On the Resurrection 6.
70 chapter six
idolatry: immutant . . . per idolatriam.27 Tatian, for his part, in his Address

to the Greeks, attacks Greek culture as a whole, accusing the Greeks of
having stolen everything they boast about from the peoples of the ori-
ent. He systematically demonstrates the stupidity of the Greek philoso-
phers and asserts that, being so ignorant, people of Greek culture should
not despise the Christians, who are worthier. Tertullian does not actually
mention philosophy in his De Idolatria. His opinions on it vary from one
treatise to another: philosophy can be the worst evil in the world, or a
very useful thing, depending on whatever subject he is dealing with at the
time—we have already noted Tertullian’s versatility in this respect. Like
Tatian, Tertullian sometimes also stresses that oriental wisdom is bet-
ter than Greek wisdom,28 but he is less sarcastic than Tatian. For Tatian,
Moses was the master of all the wise men of the world.29 This argument is
also known from Jewish literature, through Philo and Josephus, and from
most of the Jewish Hellenistic literature. It even agrees with Plato himself
in the Timaeus, where Plato puts on the stage an oriental—Egyptian—
protagonist who mocks the Greeks for being young and knowing nothing
of history and thus having to rely on the knowledge of the orientals, even
for Greek history itself. Tatian was an avid defender of oriental wisdom.
He was an Assyrian who converted to Christianity in Rome, where he was
in contact with Justin, later leaving for Antioch. He was proud of being a
barbarian, despised everything belonging to Hellenistic culture, and was
rigorous in his attacks against all aspects of this culture. Tatian can be
contrasted with Justin as representing two different Christian modes of
thought regarding Hellenistic philosophy. Tatian actually illustrates an
entire group of orientals who despise Greek wisdom and Greek preten-
sion to cultural superiority over other populations. Other examples can
be found in the reactions of the Indians to Apollonius of Tyana’s sensible
and modest behaviour, which they did not expect from a Greek, and in
the writings of Philo of Byblos.30 With Justin and Tatian, the one mode
27 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.22.1; passage still extant in Latin, Textus Minores XLVIII:
Iranaeus of Lyons versus Contemporary Gnosticism, A Selection from Books I and II of Adver-
sus Haereses, J.T. Nielsen, ed. (Leiden, 1977).
28 For instance, Tertullian, De Anima 3.
29 Tatian, Address to the Greeks 40.
30 E. Renan, Marc Aurèle ou la fin du monde antique, digitized version: “VI—Tatien—Les
deux systèmes d’apologie,” http://www.mediterranee-antique.info/Renan/Marc_Aurele/
MA_06.htm. On Apollonius of Tyana: Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana; Philo of
Byblos (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 1.10.29). See also Bickerman’s account, “Origines
Gentium” 74.
r epresented consists of apologists of Hellenistic origins who accept the

culture of pagan society, even if they rebuke this society for its way of life,
while the second mode, comprised of Africans and Syrians (= orientals),
will always sarcastically mock the absurdity and low level of Hellenis-
tic culture, preferring barbarian wisdom. Though African—and though
sometimes rather critical of Roman culture—Tertullian does not really fit
the criteria of the second category noted above. He admits that all general
culture is good for educating Christians as human beings and accepts the
idea of learning from his neighbours as long as this does not contradict
Christian faith. In this he is different from Tatian, and, once again, the
character of their works is different. Tatian both addresses the Greeks—
even if only indirectly through his Christian audience—and mocks them,
while in the De Idolatria Tertullian addresses Christians in order to show
them the elements of the good way of life.
Another oriental Christian who writes about idolatry is Theophilus of
Antioch. He also addresses the Greeks, and he too reminds them that their
idols are actually dead men; he mocks the material nature of idols, and
the fact that, in order to be fashioned, these idols are hit, broken, sculpted,
and carved by human beings.31 He speaks of the stupidity of idolatry, but
does not give any advice on how to avoid it. What is worth noting is that
his account of idolatry includes elements judged to be idolatrous particu-
larly in the Bible and the Mishnah, as well as in Tertullian.32 Some schol-
ars believe that Theophilus was familiar with Jewish ideas through earlier
Church Fathers, and not from direct information from Jews.33 Neverthe-
less, it was Theophilus’ deliberate choice to derive his information from
Church Fathers who were aware of Jewish sources, just as he chose to be
close to Ebion’s Jewish-Christian school and to follow Jewish exegesis in
his own explanations of Genesis and in his quotations from the Bible.34
But other scholars hold that Theophilus, writing in a Hellenistic Jewish
31 Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 1.9–10, 2.2, 2.4, 2.34.

32 Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 2.35, 3.10, the “sun, moon, stars, earth, fountains, rivers,
graven images” must not be worshipped. See, for instance, Mishnah Avodah Zarah iii, 3
for references to the moon and sun, and see passages on the baths and faucets and graven
images, as well as the detailed comparison between the De Idolatria and the Mishnah. Of
course, for Tertullian everything can be seen as idolatrous, but the stars (in the case of the
schoolmaster) and the graven images and the rest are deserving of particular treatment
in the De Idolatria.
33 R. Grant, “The Problem of Theophilus,” Harvard Theological Review 43 (1950) 180.
34 R. Grant, “The Problem” 185, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia,
1988) 157–9.
72 chapter six
environment, was directly influenced by Jewish ideas.35 On the other

hand, a link has been proposed between Theophilus and Tertullian, both
of whom write against Hermogenes, since we find the same reading of
Genesis in both authors on several occasions.36 The article on Hermo-
genes in the Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of
the 6th Century, however, notes that there is some evidence that Tertul-
lian was personally acquainted with Hermogenes, in which case he would
not have needed inspiration from Theophilus. Moreover, some scholars
believe that Irenaeus used Theophilus in his Against Marcion, and it is
widely recognised that Tertullian was influenced by Irenaeus.37 However,
there are others, even if they agree that Irenaeus and Theophilus have
parallel themes in their works, who doubt that Irenaeus was indebted to
Theophilus.38
Athenagoras wrote a defence of Christianity addressed to emperors-
philosophers to show how they believe in unfounded ideas and would
be better off adopting Christianity, which is greatly superior.39 In chap-
ters 15 to 17, Athenagoras expounds on the material nature of statues, and
the ridiculous fact that gods need men in order to be brought into exis-
tence. In chapters 18 and 24 to 26, he shows clearly that he is well aware
of the various theories about idols. He considers the claim that images
are a medium between God and men to be absurd; he knows that many
poets and philosophers agree that there is only one God; and he knows
that while some consider the images to be demons, others regard them
as mere material objects, and others conceive of them as entities which
were once men. Athenagoras wants to demonstrate the absurdity of idol-
atry, not to write a guide for Christians, like Tertullian. He stresses the
parallels between Greek philosophy and Christian theology in order to
demonstrate they are actually close to one another.40 In summary, in his
treatise Athenagoras uses the opinions of the Greeks about their gods to
argue against idolatry, and despises the lack of meaning in idols, but he is
of no help to Christians who wish to avoid idolatry, and his main aim is
to convince others that Christianity is a good thing.
35 Frend, Rise 252.

36 R. Grant, “Patristica,” Vigiliae Christianae 4 (1949) 228.
37 Among very numerous others, Rankin, Tertullian 206.
38 W.C. Weinrich, “Review of Rick Rogers, Theophilus of Antioch, the Life and Thought of
a Second Century Bishop,” Journal of Early Christian studies 9 (2001) 601–3.
39 Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis.
40 Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 24–25.
Among the authors supposed to have influenced Tertullian is Clem-

ent of Alexandria.41 Clement followed Tatian to the East, traveled through
Egypt, went to Greece, Italy, Palestine, and other eastern regions to learn
from the great teachers of Christianity, but he does not write about
idolatry in the same way that Tertullian does either. Even when Clem-
ent quotes, twice, the same biblical passages as Tertullian in relation to
idolatry, he does not make the same use of them.42 In his Exhortation to
the Heathens, he seeks to convert pagans to Christianity by demonstrating
that idolatry is absurd and ridiculous, and must be abandoned. Like Ath-
enagoras, Clement endeavours to sketch the history of idolatry, describing
the materials from which idols are made and who fashioned each famous
image.43 Like numerous Christian authors, he mentions Varro’s account of
the beginning of idolatry, when the gods were represented only by their
attributes, and not yet by human shape. Clement also stresses euhemeris-
tic ideas, asserting that “the objects of your worship were once men, and
in process of time died”—οἱ προσκυνούµενοι παρ᾿ ὑµῖν ἂνθρωποι γενόµενοι
ποτε εἶτα µέντοι τεθνᾶσιν. He despises the stonecutters, sculptors, painters
and craftsmen, and poets—οἱ λιθοξόοι καὶ οἱ ἀνδριαντοποιοί ψραϕεῖς τε αὖ
καὶ τέκτονες καὶ ποιηταί—for inventing and giving shape to a crowd of
vain divinities. He also reiterates that most of what people consider to be
gods are actually God’s handiwork, and that there is no reason to revere
these idols. Sometimes Tertullian is ready to admit that the heathen phi-
losophers do not like idols and that they approach the truth through their
philosophy;44 Clement, in the fifth chapter of his Exhortation, also sug-
gests that these philosophers can occasionally catch a glimpse of truth,
but this is by chance, while in his work the Instructor he continues repeat-
ing that the idols represent dead people.45 In the Miscellanies, Clement
says once again how ridiculous idolatry is and how idols can be envisaged
only through their material characteristics, because art cannot be sacred
and divine: οὐκέτ’ οὖν ἱερὰ καὶ θεῖα τῆς τέχνης τὰ ἔργα.46
41 See Rankin, Tertullian 206, for example.

42 Exodus 20:4 and Psalms 96:5.
43 Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 4; the text used is Clementis Alexandrini Protrep-
ticus, Marcovich, ed. (Leiden, 1995).
44 Tertullian, Apologeticum 46.4, for instance which is, as its title indicates, apologetic
and not really representative of the ideas Tertullian would transmit inside the Christian
community.
45 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 2.8.
46 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7.5; the text used is Clément d’Alexandrie, Les Stro-
mates, A. Le Boulluec, ed. (Paris, 1997).
74 chapter six
It is unclear exactly when Minucius Felix wrote his Octavius. Scholars

are divided on this question, though the prevailing opinion is that Tertul-
lian was the one who wrote first and that Minucius was inspired by him.
Nevertheless, opinions that they were contemporaries or that Minucius
was the one who inspired Tertullian because he wrote much earlier still
appear from time to time.47 The Octavius presents ideas which are to be
found in Tertullian’s Apologeticum and Ad Nationes, but also in the De Tes-
timonio Animae. Like Tertullian, Minucius depends on Seneca and Cicero,
but he relies much more on Latin literature than Tertullian does. In fact,
while Tertullian is clearly a Christian author, Minucius is more often con-
sidered to be a traditional Roman writer. That is why even if Minucius
did write before Tertullian, the latter would still be considered to be the
founder of Christian Latin literature, particularly because his writings are
much more extensive. At any rate, Minucius’ discourse on idolatry is also
an apology for Christianity. Minucius does not rely on Scriptures for his
demonstration of the absurdity of idolatry, but uses arguments that would
be intelligible to and persuasive for a Roman audience. He reviews secular
theories on idolatry, such as euhemerism, and defends Christians from the
accusations against them by also attacking idolatry and pagan worship as
ridiculous.
Cyprian is the only author other than Tertullian who has a complete
treatise devoted to idolatry, the De Idolorum Vanitate. In fact, the com-
parison goes even further, since he also wrote a treatise on the public
shows that parallels that of Tertullian. The similarity between Tertullian’s
De Idolatria and De Spectaculis will be dealt with later in this chapter.
In his treatise on the shows, Cyprian focuses precisely on the games and
shows which are forbidden for Christians because they are surrounded
by idolatry and dedicated to it, but he does not enlarge the discussion
with other examples of places or occasions where idolatry can be found.
This treatise is also very much a mocking attack of idolatry. It is closer
to Tertullian’s De Spectaculis than to his De Idolatria. The attribution of
the treatise on the vanity of idols to Cyprian has often been discussed,
but it now seems widely agreed that Cyprian is indeed its author. In this
treatise, as is the case with most of the Christian authors when they deal
with idolatry, Cyprian aims to demonstrate that idols are ridiculous, and
attacks them. He also mentions the theory that idols were formerly men.
47 For one survey of the state of the scholarship, see: “Did Tertullian Use Minucius Felix’
Octavius?,” www.Tertullian.org/minucius/mf.htm (2001), Roger Pearse, ed.
I must stress here yet again that Tertullian does not mock or sarcastically
attack idolatry in his De Idolatria. Moreover, though aware of pagan theo-
ries concerning the nature and significance of the images, Tertullian never
gives a learned or detailed account of them, as numerous other Christian
writers do. Tertullian lets his knowledge of the ideas appear only inci-
dentally, without lingering on the details. He describes what an idol is,
what Christians must avoid, and only through the natural development
of his text and the sentences he writes—and not as one more piece of
information—does he state, for example, that idols represent great dead
men; this belongs to the formal definition of idolatry. Cyprian’s text on
idolatry does not focus on idolatry in the same way as Tertullian’s does.
Cyprian says that idols are bad and dangerous, but he does not provide
tools to help Christians avoid their influence. Moreover, he concentrates
on the virtues of Jesus and of God, an approach which is not found at all
in Tertullian’s De Idolatria. Whenever Tertullian mentions God, it is only
to stress how much He is offended by idolatry and by disloyal Christians,
or to remind his readers of God’s laws and to describe His servants’ rela-
tionship with Him.
From this initial inquiry, then, it appears that although Tertullian occa-
sionally uses some elements that are also employed by other Christian
authors, his work is unique in being the only one addressed to a purely
Christian audience to guide it in its daily life among the pagans. Moreover,
the intended audience of the De Idolatria is made up of Christians who
are convinced that their faith is right and good, and that idolatry is wrong
and dangerous, so that Tertullian does not need to praise the virtues of
Christianity or criticise the flaws of paganism at length for them. Tertul-
lian’s aims differ from those of his co-religionists, even if the tools they
employ are sometimes similar.
Other Common Themes
Miscellaneous
We now turn to examine what sort of tools Tertullian has in common
with other Christian authors. To begin with, the author of the Epistle to
Diognetus states that the Christians are “unknown and condemned”—
ἀγνοοῦνται, καὶ κατακρίνονται.48 Tertullian also notes that the pagans know
48 Ehrman, The Apostolic, “Epistle to Diognetus” 5.4.

76 chapter six
nothing about the Christians and that even “if they did know” them—
etiamsi nossent—they would not take part in their celebrations lest they
should appear to be Christians themselves.49 In the same paragraph, the
author of the Epistle asserts that the Christians are in no way different
from the other inhabitants of the places they live in: they use the same
things, speak the same languages, and do nothing extraordinary at all,
and “follow the local customs,” even in their “clothing, food or the rest
of life”—τοῖς ἐγχωρίοις ἔθεσιν ἀκολουθοῦντες ἒν τε ἐσθῆτι καὶ διαίτῃ καὶ τῷ
λοιπῷ βίω. Such a fact is not so obvious to Tertullian, who discusses in
the De Idolatria precisely whether a Christian should partake of his pagan
compatriots’ habits, and wonders “whether a servant of God is allowed to
share with the pagans themselves in matters of this kind, either in dress,
or in food, or in any other kind of their gladness.”50 Tertullian changes
his opinion about the answer throughout the treatise, according to the
varying circumstances, but in principle he prefers Christians to avoid
anything engaged in by idolaters. The difference between the author
of the Epistle and Tertullian is consistent throughout the paragraphs
quoted. The author of the Epistle asserts: µετέχουσι πάντων ὡς πολῖται—
“they [the Christians] share in all things as citizens.” Tertullian, on the
other hand, asks for Christians not to take part in civil tasks that might
involve idolatry or assume any public role, either in the army or elsewhere.
For Tertullian, Christians must remain as much as possible on the margins
of society. Tertullian and the author of the Epistle, however, concur when
they each claim that Christians are denigrated by their pagan neighbours.51
The author of the Epistle also writes that Christians “pass their days on
earth, but are citizens of heaven,”52 and that “the soul dwells in the body,
yet is not of the body; and Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the
world.”53 This is precisely Tertullian’s position, which he supports by the
example of Saint Paul throughout De Idolatria 14. One further difference
must be emphasised: unlike Tertullian, the author of the Epistle makes no
use of biblical quotations.
49 Tertullian, De Idolatria 14.7.

50 De Idolatria, 13.2: an cum ipsis quoque nationibus communicare in huius modi seruus
dei debeat siue habitu siue uictu uel quo alio genere laetitiae earum.—But see Apologeti-
cum 42.2 “So we sojourn with you in the world, abjuring neither forum, nor shambles,
nor bath, nor booth, nor workshop, nor inn, nor weekly market, nor any other places of
commerce.”
51 Tertullian, De Idolatria 14.2, Ehrman, The Apostolic, “Epistle to Diognetus” 5.
52 Ehrman, The Apostolic, “Epistle to Diognetus” 5.
53 Ehrman, The Apostolic, “Epistle to Diognetus” 6.
Οὕτος ἐστιν ὁ τῆς Ἀσίας διδάσκαλος, ὁ πατὴρ τῶν χριστιανῶν, ὁ τῶν ἡµετέρῶν
θεῶν καθαιρέτης, ὁ πολλοὺς διδάσκων µὴ θύειν µηδὲ προσκυνεῖν
This is the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, the destroyer of our
gods, who teaches many neither to offer sacrifice nor to worship.54
It was because of his opposition to idolatry that Polycarp was sentenced
to be burned. Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians is not very close to
Tertullian’s De Idolatria, in shape and form, but both authors share some
general ideas. Where Tertullian states that idolatry is the basis of all evil in
the world and is a general term that encompasses all sins, Polycarp attri-
butes all evil to the love of money.55 Love of money in turn leads to bad
behaviour, and a man will not be able to resist the sin of covetousness,56
through which he will be ab idolatria coinquinabitur et tamquam inter gen-
tes judicabitur—“defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as one of the hea-
then,” even if he still professes to believe in Christ.57 This means that, like
Tertullian, Polycarp advises his audience to avoid behaviour that will lead
to idolatry. Also, Polycarp’s use of ψευδοµαρτυρίας or “false-witnessing,”58
which also means lying, sounds like Tertullian’s idolatria fraudem deo
facit honores illi suos denegans et conferens aliis—“idolatry commits fraud
against God by denying Him the honours due to Him and offering them
to others,” or qui falsis deis servit, sine dubio adulter est veritatis, quia omne
falsum adulterium est—“whoever serves false gods, undoubtedly commits
adultery against truth, since all falsehood is adultery,”59 where idolatry is
also a kind of lie or false-witnessing, which is theft from the truth.
For Barnabas, idolatry heads his list of “things that destroy the soul”:
εἰδωλολατρεία, θρασύτης, ὕψος δυνάµεως, ὑπόκρισις, διπλοκαρδία, µοιχεία,
ϕόνος, ἁπαγή, ὑπερϕανία, παράβασις, δόλος, κακία, αὐθάδεια, ϕαρµακεία, µαγεία,
πλεονεξία, ἀϕοβία θεοῦ
idolatry, over-confidence, the arrogance of power, hypocrisy, double-heart-
edness, adultery, murder, rapine, haughtiness, transgression, deceit, malice,
self-sufficiency, poisoning, magic, avarice, want of the fear of God,
54 Ehrman, The Apostolic, “Martyrdom of Polycarp” 12.

55 For instance, Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians 4.
56 Tertullian, De Idolatria 11, for the connection between covetousness and idolatry.
57 Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians 11; text preserved in Latin, K. Lake, The Apostolic
Fathers 1 (Cambridge, 1912–13).
58 Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians 2, 4. Assmann, Representation xiv about idolatry
in Judaism as false religion, paganism, false forms of worship, and worship of false gods:
“They destroy divine presence because they impose a presence and power of their own.”
59 Tertullian, De Idolatria 1.3, 1.2.
78 chapter six
whereas for Tertullian, all of those things would be included under the
designation of idolatry. Another theme both have in common is an inter-
est in fasts, although Barnabas is opposed to all kinds of fasts and inter-
prets biblical texts so that they would seem to mean that there is no need
for fasts,60 while Tertullian defends the fasts and even writes his De Jejunio
to demonstrate that he is right to keep them. However, if we take into
account Tertullian’s Contra Marcionem and Adversus Judaeos, we may
note that both authors also speak of the celebration of the Jewish Day of
Atonement and describe it in the same manner.61 Finally, Barnabas con-
cludes his epistle by claiming that “the day is at hand on which all things
shall perish with the evil.” This sounds like Tertullian’s warning that those
who rejoice with the unrighteous will ultimately mourn. Barnabas also
writes about Moses’ brazen serpent, which infringes on the prohibition of
making images, as a sign announcing Christ on his cross, just as Tertullian
speaks in a positive tone about this serpent, as do many other Church
Fathers.62
Justin is yet another example of a Church Father who makes the ser-
pent into a sign signifying the end of idolatry and the beginning of faith
in Christ.63 In his first Apology, Justin asserts that Christians do not hon-
our deities made by man, and specifically that they do not honour them
with sacrifices or with garlands. Tertullian’s discussion of garlands is
much more extensive: Justin simply remarks that pagans generally use
garlands in their worship, whereas Tertullian tries to eradicate this very
real habit from Christian practice.64 Some Christians did indeed decorate
their doors with garlands on the days dedicated to festivals in honour of
the Emperor, so as not to incur the accusation of disloyalty to the State.
Nevertheless, the majority of the Carthaginian Christian community did
not comply with this practice, since Tertullian still has to justify in his
Apologeticum why Christians refuse to decorate their homes on the festi-
vals dedicated to the Emperor.65 Minucius Felix, for his part, speaks about
the garlands the Christians wear around their necks in order to enjoy their
60 The Epistle of Barnabas 3, 5, 7.

61 Tertullian, Contra Marcionem III.7, Adversus Judaeos 14; The Epistle of Barnabas 7.
62 The Epistle of Barnabas 12.
63 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 94.
64 Justin, Apology 1.9. The text used is Apologie pour les Chrétiens, C. Munier, ed. (Paris,
2006).
65 Apologeticum 35.4. See on this: G. Schöllgen, “Die Teilnahme der Christen am
städtischen Leben,” Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchenge-
schichte 77 (1982) 18–9.
fragrance, in contrast to what he calls the stupid pagan habit of wearing

them on their heads, with no perceptible utility. Justin next describes the
idol makers as intemperate persons involved in every possible sin, and
Tertullian agrees because, for him, idolatry encompasses all the different
kinds of sins. Tertullian speaks more precisely about idol makers when
he says that such people should not be accepted in the church.66 Justin
rebukes the pagans for corrupting their daughters when they make them
work with them in the trade of idols, just as Tertullian rebukes the pagans
for taking their daughters to the shows, which are forbidden to Christians
precisely because they are dedicated to idolatry.67 Furthermore, in his first
Apology, Justin is interested in the Gentile way of life in general, and in
the interactions of Gentiles with Christians.68 Tertullian distances himself
from this, trying to avoid contact between Christians and their idolatrous
neighbours. Justin also emphasises that Christ taught civil obedience, and
he stresses the necessity for this. However, accidentally or on purpose, he
fails to mention possible situations in which civil obedience might con-
travene a Christian’s duties or faith. Tertullian, on the other hand, begins
with the affirmation that civil obedience is laudable as long as it is com-
patible with Christianity, but advises disobedience in most instances, or
at least avoidance of positions which might entail active civil obedience
that could lead to idolatry.
Both Theophilus and Tertullian are concerned with the issue of cul-
ture. Theophilus claims that Hellenistic culture is useless, unlike Tertul-
lian, who disagrees, since he believes that secular culture is indispensable
to a Christian’s overall humanity.69 However, despite his claims and his
attacks on philosophy and idolatry, Theophilus uses Homer, Hesiod, and
Plato as part of his argument, and is also influenced by Stoicism.70 In fact,
Theophilus is addressing educated potential converts in an idiom which
66 Tertullian, De Idolatria 7; it is noteworthy that the idea of prohibiting access to the

church to idol-makers is also found in the Traditio Apostolica (II.16.16) attributed to Hip-
polytus: Si quis est sculptor vel pictor, doceantur, ne faciant idola: vel cessent vel reiciantur—
“If someone is a sculptor or a painter, let them be instructed not to make idols: let them
either stop or be sent away.” This paragraph also deals with the ban on Christians holding
civil functions. Tertullian does not forbid the holding of the functions themselves, but
because he forbids what surrounds the functions, which might imply idolatry, he actually
makes being a civil official impossible. However, the attribution of the Traditio Apostolica
to Hippolytus is controversial, which is why I have only noted this as a footnote.
67 Tertullian, De Spectaculis 17.1, 21.2; Justin, Apology 1.9.
68 Justin, Apology 1.17, 1.54.
69 Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 3.2.
70 Grant, “The Problem” 179.
80 chapter six
meets their needs. Tertullian uses the same method: he addresses his dif-
ferent audiences with discourses that are carefully adapted to them.
At least twice in the De Idolatria, Tertullian says clearly that there was
a time when idols did not exist.71 This he has in common with Athena-
goras, who derides the fact that the gods had to wait for human inven-
tion of sculpture and other arts in order to come into existence and be
worshipped.72 Tertullian also shares certain concerns with Clement of
Alexandria. First, Clement warns against drunkenness, which is associ-
ated with idolatry in Tertullian’s treatise.73 Secondly, Clement makes a
list of unnecessary superfluities, including, among other things, crowns,
a parallel to Tertullian’s garlands, as well as jewels and costly clothing.
To begin with, Clement does not mention their associations with idola-
try, but having tried hard to convince Christians that they do not need
those things, he finally links jewels to the incident of Israelite worship of
the Golden Calf in the book of Exodus.74 In addition, crowns become a
symbol of the dead—meaning that they become a symbol of idols, since
idols are said to be dead men—and rich clothes become the objects of a
veneration that should be given only to Christ’s teachings. Finally, at the
end of his discourse, Clement describes idolatry in the same situations
as Tertullian. To begin with, Clement does not emphasise the idolatrous
nature of certain elements which Tertullian regards as idolatrous, but he
later recognises that these elements are in fact idolatrous. In addition, it is
interesting to note that in Stromata 7.12, Clement describes idolatry as one
of the three types of fornication, while Tertullian calls fornication a kind of
idolatry. In other words, they arrive at this issue from opposite directions,
even if, from a practical perspective, their conclusion is the same. Clem-
ent leaves the subject of the baths out of his discussion when he deals
with the field of superfluities: there is a lack of modesty in the baths, and
hence they should not be used without very good reason. Tertullian also
considers the baths to be unnecessary for Christians, but this is because
of the idolatry to be found there. He mentions that the entrances to the
baths are revered,75 and advises Christians participating in the building of
bathhouses not to construct any niches in which idols could be placed.76
71 Tertullian, De Idolatria 3; 11.

72 Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 17.
73 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 2.7–11; 3.5; 3.9; 3.11.
74 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 2.13.
75 Tertullian, De Idolatria 15.6 and Appendix 5a.
Finally, Clement agrees with Tertullian that human knowledge is indis-

pensable in the education of a Christian.77 Clement deals with philosophy
and the sciences, but he does not mention the problem of the idolatry
implied in secular literary studies.
Immorality in Idolatry
The Church Fathers all agree with the statement in Psalms 96:5: “For all
the gods of the nations are idols.”78 The quotation—one that they use
widely—is subjected to some changes in the texts of the apologists, but
basically in all the varying instances in which this quotation appears we
are told that the gods of the nations are δαίμονες or daemones, demons,
or, more precisely, idols are demons, or demons make the idols,79 or even
that idols are the property of demons.80 Justin asserts that the demons lead
people away from the right way of life,81 and that it is they who invent the
mythologies that parallel the story of Jesus but instead involve the sons of
the pagan gods in order to make Christ’s story appear to be both false and
banal. For Irenaeus, idols are the medium through which the Antichrist
tries to divert worship from the true God to himself (Against Heresies
5.25). But even if Tertullian agrees that demons are behind the images,
he believes that it is man’s duty to protect himself from the influence of
such spirits. A Christian believer has no excuse for being involved in sins
that are all included in the definition of idolatry, which is associated with
demons (De Idolatria 1.1). This is why Christians must keep as far away as
possible from idolaters.
Tertullian further links idolatry generally with all kinds of sins, but
especially with adultery and fornication, as will be seen in the comparison
of this concept with the parallel Jewish idea. Tertullian does not quote any
specific Old Testament verse to support his connection between fornica-
tion and idolatry.82 While he does quote Revelations twice,83 he makes it
77 Tertullian, De Idolatria 10, Clement, Stromata 9.

78 Justin, Apology 1.5, Dialogue with Trypho 55, On the Resurrection 5; Tertullian, De
Idolatria 6,7, Apologeticum 22–23, De Corona 7; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.6.3, 5.25; Clem-
ent of Alexandria, Protrepticus 3, Paedagogus 2.1, 2.8; Minucius Felix, Octavius 38; Origen,
Contra Celsum 8.30.
79 Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 1.10.
81 Justin, Apology 1.54.
82 Tertullian, De Idolatria 1.1;1.3; De Spectaculis 3, 20; Adversus Marcionem IV.9; De Bap-
tismo 4; Adversus Hermogenem 1.
83 Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum 33; De Paenitentia 8.
82 chapter six
clear in his De Pudicitia that he draws this link from his own understand-
ing of the order of the Ten Commandments themselves.84 He even sees a
hierarchy in an unbreakable chain of sins in which “the adulterer, [is] the
successor of the idolater, the predecessor of the murderer.” It is interesting
to note the fact that most of the Church Fathers, while associating forni-
cation with idolatry, generally rely strongly on verses from the Scriptures
that make this link explicit.85 Nevertheless, some of them occasionally
allow themselves to speak of idolatry as fornication without referring to
the quotations they used earlier in their texts.86 Theophilus and Cyprian,
however, like Tertullian, feel no need for precise scriptural proof in their
association of fornication with idolatry.87 For Theophilus, the immorality
of idolatry finds its expression in the mythologies about idols that tell
such shameful stories that a Christian cannot even mention them, and
these stories have a deleterious influence on human beings. Hermas and
Tertullian both consider it unpardonable to imitate the bad behaviour of
the heathens, which would be tantamount to being an idolater. Marcianus
Aristides also speaks about the immorality of the gods in his Apology.88
On the Jews’ Observances and on Meats Offered to Idols

The main difference between Tertullian’s attitude to the Jews and that
of the other Christian authors is that Tertullian sees Jewish practices in
a positive light before Jesus put an end to the need for them. The other
Christian authors believe that Jewish practices were invented because the
Jews’ religious character did not allow them to live according to Natural
Law, unlike the Christians. In other words, Christians were superior to the
Jews because they were able to follow God’s true will without the need
for boundaries and religious rules. Both the author of the Epistle to Diog-
netus and Clement of Alexandria see Judaism as ridiculous childishness.89
84 Tertullian, De Pudicitia 5.
85 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 2.1; 2.7; 2.8; 3.4; 3.5; Irenaeus, Against Heresies
4.27.4; 5.11; 5.12; Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.24.
86 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 3.18; 5.5; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.24.5; 1.26.3;
1.28.2; 3.12.14; 4.24.1.
87 Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 1.10;2.9; 3.3, Cyprian, On the Public Shows 5; and Justin, in
his Dialogue with Trypho 132, shows this sort of connection between idolatry and fornica-
tion, denouncing the Hebrews as fornicating with the daughters of the strangers and serv-
ing their gods. This is nevertheless a biblical warning for the Jews not to mix with idolaters
lest they wind up worshipping their gods.
88 Hermas, Commandement 4.1, Tertullian, De Idolatria 1.1, 14.
89 Epistle to Diognetus 4; Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1.6.
Barnabas, Justin, and Irenaeus believe that the Mosaic laws were given
to the Jews because they were not able to follow Natural Law. The Jews,
they believe, are hard-hearted idolaters unable to understand either God’s
will or even the Scriptures, and that is why God had to accommodate His
laws to them so that the Jews would be able to respect them. Thus He
even invented sacrifices for them so that they would not need to turn
to other idolatries.90 Justin claims that the Scriptures belong only to the
Christians, who understand them, and not to the Jews, and he opposes
every Jewish interpretation of them. Irenaeus, on the other hand, does
see unity between the Gospels and the Old Testament, that is, between
the Christians and the Jews, who rely on the same basic authority. That
is why, in his opinion, it is easier to convert Jews to Christianity than it is
to convert Gentiles.91 It is only in De Praescriptione Haereticorum 15.3, 17,
and 18 that Tertullian proposes this idea that the Scriptures belong only to
the Church, but, in general, this is not a position that he defends. Irenaeus
also states that the Jews, like the other heretics, do not understand the
Scriptures and interpret them incorrectly.92 Justin and Irenaeus consider
that there is no need at all for Jewish practices, but they still accept within
the Church those Christians who do observe them, as long as they do not
try to convince others to observe them as well.93 For Tertullian, the link
between Judaism and Christianity is one of natural succession. Tertullian,
unlike Cyprian, does not emphasise vociferously the infidelity of the Jews
to their God, nor does he claim that it is their inability to fulfill God’s
will which has caused them to be replaced by loyal Christians. On the
contrary, Tertullian believes that what the Jews did prior to the advent
of Christ was excellent, but it is no longer needed. The only problem that
Tertullian has with the Jews is that they do not recognise Christ, who,
he believes, put an end to the need for their former observances, but he
has no problem at all with these observances when they were practised
at a time when God wanted them (De Idolatria 14). Originally, this was
the way in which people had to behave; now things are different, and
behaviour has to be adapted to the renewed principles and teachings of
90 Epistle of Barnabas; Justin, Apology 1, Dialogue with Trypho 12, 19, 22, 67; Iranaeus,
Against Heresies 4.14.3, 4.15.
91 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 19; Iranaeus, Against Heresies 4.24; R. Grant, Irenaeus of
Lyons (London/New York, 1997) 6, 29.
92 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21; Marcianus Aristides also claims in his Apology 12 that
the Christians understand God’s commandments better than do the Jews, Greeks, and
other pagans.
93 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 19; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.12.1.
84 chapter six
Christianity. Tertullian thinks that the original law was given to Adam
and Eve. It was replaced temporarily by the written Mosaic Law, which
God finally transmuted into the laws that restore the original universal
law that He always intended to give. As their author, He is free to change
them whenever and however He wishes.94 It could be argued that the
fact that Tertullian asserts that God adapts his commandments to differ-
ent peoples and different times is similar to the assertions of Justin and
other Christians that the Jews were not ready or able to live according to
the Law that is good for Christians. But the other authors mock the Jews
because they are unable to limit themselves and thus need laws so as to
avoid abusing their liberty, while Tertullian argues that even Christians
would abuse their liberty without specific restrictions, and he always pro-
poses bounds beyond which no Christian should venture. In his Adversus
Iudaeos, Tertullian aims to free divine Natural Law from Jewish claims of
exclusivity in order to universalise it, and confirm the temporary char-
acter of Jewish practices.95 This means that he is consistent in his belief
that Christianity is the continuation and evolution of Judaism. Moreover,
Tertullian claims in De Idolatria 24:
Propterea spiritus sanctus consultantibus tunc apostolis uinculum et iugum
nobis relaxauit, ut idololatriae deuitandae uacaremus
The reason why the Holy Spirit did, when the apostles at that time were
consulting, relax the bond and yoke for us [the Christians in general, that
is, “Israel” after the advent of the Christ and gentile Christians], was that we
might be free to devote ourselves to the shunning of idolatry.
Hence there is a major reason for the end of most Jewish practices. This
also explains why the Jews are so bad at trying to avoid idolatry: they have
too many commandments to respect and therefore cannot fulfill this one
properly. Here, it is important to recall the statement in Babylonian Tal-
mud Avodah Zarah 2b–3a, where the rabbis say that the Gentiles [‫]בני נֺח‬
were so incapable of keeping even the seven Noahide laws that God gave
them, that He had to release them from all the laws. Since the passage
is introduced as a baraita, it must therefore be no later than Tertullian’s
94 See Dunn, Tertullian 112–3. See, as well, G. Dunn, “Pro Temporum Condicione: Jews
and Christians as God’s People in Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos,” Prayer and Spirituality in
the Early Church 2, P. Allen et al., eds. (Brisbane, 1999) 315–41, especially 323–5.
95 Sabrina Inowlocki-Meister in a conference paper on “The Law of Adam and Eve in
Paradise in some Christian Texts” at a colloquium organised by the Center for the Study
of Christianity on the theme of “Paradise among Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity” at
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on 31.03.08.
time. Tertullian may be trying here to explain away the fact that Christians
do not observe Jewish laws as a reaction to the Jewish approach which he
may have heard about. If this really is an answer to the Jewish approach, it
would then mean that Tertullian understands the term “Gentiles” as used
by the Jews as meaning gentile Christian proselytes for whom the need for
observance of Jewish laws has been cancelled, as reported in Acts 15:1–31.
In any case, Christian law is better, says Tertullian, because it allows
its believers to concentrate on their duty to avoid idolatry, from which
all sins stem. Perhaps hidden assertions against the Jews of Carthage in
Tertullian’s time also appear here. Tertullian might be trying to argue that
the Jews of the city are too lenient in their contacts with idolaters and in
their constant attempts to lighten their prescriptions concerning relations
with the pagans, while the Christians are better at always hardening their
attitude towards their neighbours. However, it will become evident from
our comparison between the De Idolatria and the Mishnah that the Jew-
ish relaxation of restrictions and the Christian hardening of its position
on idolatry led Jews and Christians to behave in approximately the same
way with respect to idolatry.
A last point to be noted here is the Roman Christian Hippolytus’
account of the Essenes’ behaviour towards images. This author is well
aware of Jewish practices concerning artistic idolatry and he discusses
their habits. His account seems to rely, directly or indirectly, on that of
Josephus.96 Tertullian mentions the Jews only sketchily in the De Idolatria,
and speaks of them only to compare them with the pagans, who are far
worse. Tertullian also knows Josephus, at least partly, since he mentions
him (Apologeticum 19.6). But although Tertullian sometimes sounds close
to the Essenic principle described by Hippolytus concerning the right to
observe others doing something that is forbidden,97 for example, his gen-
eral precepts do not follow the sectarian Jewish prohibitions recounted
by the latter author.
Almost all Christian authors before Tertullian mention the prohibition
on eating the meats offered to idols. In fact the subject of sacrificial meat
takes us back to Paul’s position in Romans 14:1–3, where he states: “Accept
him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
96 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 9; Josephus Flavius, De Bello Iudaico 2.8;

A. Baumgarten, “Josephus and Hippolytus on the Pharisees,” Hebrew Union College Annual
55 (1984) 1–25, argues for the existence of a pro-Pharisaic oriented revision of Josephus’
account of the Jewish sects which would be the basis on which Hippolytus draws.
97 For instance, Tertullian, De Idolatria 16.
86 chapter six
One man’s faith allows him to eat everything [here: either meats from
sacrifices or non kosher], but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only
vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who
does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn
the man who does, for God has accepted him.” Paul, who considers idols
to be mere nothings, permits Christians to eat from the flesh of animals
sacrificed to these non-beings, but he still takes into account that some
recent converts could be affected by eating from idolatrous offerings, and
would not be able to detach themselves from the ostensibly sacred char-
acter of such an act. Thus in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul’s position is more bal-
anced. One may eat from sacrificed flesh, but not if this will lead one’s
neighbour into error and affect his faith negatively. This is also why many
Church Fathers after Paul prefer to forbid the consumption of such meat.
It is nevertheless important to recall here that, in antiquity, the sacrificial
activity of the temples was the main—if not the only—source for fresh
meat. People offered animals to their deities, ate as much as they could of
the meat, and organised several crowded banquets to share it with others,
for the meat could not be refrigerated and kept for later use. But when
they could not finish the sacrificial meat, or when the temple personnel
received as payment portions of meat that were too large to be consumed
immediately, it was sold in the city markets to people who were interested
in eating meat without first having to take part in the festivities that were
organised in the temples.
In one instance, in the De Idolatria 10, Tertullian quotes the verse used
by all, which asks the Christians not to “eat of that which is sacrificed to
idols.” But Tertullian quotes it only to say that the schoolmaster’s salary
dedicated to an idol is not literally a violation of this prescription. All
other writers refer to its literal meaning, either in contexts of commensal-
ity with idolaters, or simply in relation to meat bought in the marketplace.
Irenaeus rebukes those who eat meat that comes from sacrifices, as well
as those who attend sacrifices and the public shows.98 Concerning shared
meals, on several occasions he cites the example of Peter, who ate with
Gentiles, when, being a Jew, he should have abstained from such an activ-
ity, but he explains that Peter had the right to do it. On the other hand,
he forbids eating even with a Christian if that Christian is a fornicator or
covetous or an idolater or a drunkard etc. (Against Heresies 4.27). Clement
of Alexandria and Origen also forbid eating meat dedicated to idolatry
and partaking in meals with demons, which, by association, are the meals
98 Iranaeus, Against Heresies 1.6.3; 1.24.5; 1.26.3; 1.28.2.

of fornicators and idolatrous adulterers.99 Marcianus Aristides merely tes-

tifies that Christians do not eat what has been sacrificed to idols;100 and
Hippolytus only notes the interdiction against eating such food.101 As for
Tertullian, he hardly broaches the theme of eating meals with pagans.
He permits attendance at pagan social festivities, even if sacrifices are
included in the merrymaking, as long as Christians do not take part in
the sacrifice itself, but he does not mention what behaviour is accept-
able concerning the food served on these occasions. Tertullian may be
following Paul’s position which allows eating of meat even after it has
been offered to idols, or it might be obvious to him that Christians simply
will not eat meat from pagan sacrifices. But it is his duty, as a guide, to
mention this, and he does not omit other obvious details, such as the ban
on blessing people in the name of the idols as one among many examples,
in order to clarify all of the situations where Christians must watch their
behaviour. While it seems illogical that he does not expand on the topic
of meat from sacrifices, especially when all of his predecessors do, it might
be argued that Tertullian, siding with Montanist xerophagy,102 does not
even consider the possibility of eating meat at all, much less meat derived
from sacrifices. This argument, however, will not hold, since Tertullian is
writing for all Christians, and he knows that not all of them abstain from
meat. It is thus surprising that Tertullian does not touch the problem of
meat from sacrifices. The surprise is even greater when we read Clem-
ent of Alexandria’s more general exhortation urging Christians to abstain
from “things” offered to idols, and not only from food.103 The reasons why
Tertullian does not refer at all to any interdiction regarding the enjoy-
ment of “things” related to idolatry, when his predecessors do deal with
such matters in their writings, as do the rabbis—whose thoughts concern-
ing idolatrous matters Tertullian seems to know, at least in part—will be
explored below.
In conclusion, we may observe here that even if Tertullian uses the
same motifs and examples as the other Church Fathers, it is generally
for different purposes, and even when he has the same targets in mind,
he generally uses different tools. Of course, echoes are to be found in
99 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 2.1, Origen, Contra Celsum 8.24; 8.30; 8.31.
100 Marcianus Aristides, Apology 15.
101 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.24.
102 See for instance Trevett, Montanism 25, 106, 120, 145, 155; W. Tabbernee, Fake Proph-
ecy and Polluted Sacraments (Leiden, 2007) 148; Tertullian, De Jejunio.
103 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 2.7; Stromata 4.8.
88 chapter six
Tertullian’s works, generally speaking—even if the subject of idolatry is

focused on here—and those of his contemporaries. The Christian culture
of his time is not foreign to Tertullian, but he has his own way of dealing
with the matters he broaches, as well as his own set of arguments and
examples, while most of the other Church Fathers share different com-
mon interests and explore them in similar ways.
chapter seven
Tertullian in a Graeco-Roman World
The survey of pagan theories about idols set out above sheds light on
the undeniable links between ideas commonly accepted in the ancient
world and the way in which the Church Fathers try to explain and defend
their religion. They take into account the pagans’ own criticism of pagan-
ism and, in order to praise Christianity, emphasise those aspects that are
opposed to the pagan criticisms. The pagan contemporaries of the first
Christians were also seeking moral help and social guidance. Some found
the comfort that they craved in traditional religion, but most people
turned to the oriental cults whose concepts of salvation and self-claimed
faculties of healing were newly disseminated throughout the Roman
Empire, while the intellectuals adapted philosophy to their new expecta-
tions, making it practical enough for it to be possible to live everyday life
by its principles.
The Nature of Philosophy from the First to the

Third Century ce
Stoicism seems to be the philosophical school that best answered the

expectations of its time.1 It was austere, which means that it dealt seri-
ously with people’s malaise, and it proposed clear, comforting rules of
behaviour that were intended to lighten the burden of life. Moreover, its
philosophical reflections sought to answer questions about the meaning
and aim of life. It also appears that throughout this time period, all phi-
losophies tended to merge into Stoicism, or, to put it differently, Stoicism
tended to adopt all the good points it found in all philosophies and became
a synthesis of the principles by which people should live.2 As Seneca him-
self said, first-century philosophy dealt with morality, and did not invent
1 Osborn, Tertullian 230: Because “ethics were a special concern to Stoicism.”

2 M. Spanneut, Le stoïcisme des pères de l’Eglise, de Clément de Rome à Clément
d’Alexandrie (Paris, 1969) 50, 75, states that Stoicism becomes the “philosophie-type”; the
satirist Lucian attacks the sanctimonious Stoic as representative of common philosophy
in contradiction with himself, the unbelieving Epicurean. Seneca, in his 64th Letter to
Lucilius, shows that a Pythagorean is actually just a Stoic.
90 chapter seven
or support any particular system.3 At this time, the terms “philosophy”

and “Stoicism” became nearly synonymous. Stoicism was easily accessible
and filled handbooks, which is why all of the Church Fathers, even the
Platonists, appear to have been inspired by Stoicism.4 In fact, Stoicism
was a first step in Christology before 250 ce, before neo-Platonism began
to take root in it. The Church Fathers were not always aware of their own
connection to Stoicism since it stemmed from the general ideas that were
in vogue in their environment. At first they used Stoic ideas in reaction
to attacks, as defensive tools. Only later did Stoicism become a way to
change Christianity and make it rational.5
Tertullian and Stoicism
Tertullian, however, is not like the other Fathers of the Church. If he some-
times uses Stoicism as a defensive mode, his knowledge of it is neither
superficial nor merely reflective of common culture. He seems to have
devoted much time and effort to learning, understanding, and internalis-
ing the precepts of Stoicism. First, Tertullian always builds his arguments
in a way that fits the topic he addresses and the mindset of his audience
extremely precisely.6 Stoicism thus becomes a way to reach a particular
target. Since he lives in a Stoic world, Tertullian’s writing is severe and
Stoic. He tries to get the intellectual elite of the Roman world to convert
to Christianity and discover the light, as he did. Generally speaking, the
converted apologists’ theological discourses and arguments specifically
address the educated members of their former pagan culture, and not the
uneducated, converted masses, who had no interest in theological discus-
sions and philosophical discourses.7 The apologists speak to enlightened
pagans, using their own philosophical language. This is also the case with
3 Seneca, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 64.8: Animi remedia inventa sunt ab antiquis;
quomodo autem admoveantur aut quando nostris operas est quaerere—“The medicines of
the soul have been found by the ancients; it is our duty to look for how and when they
should be applied.”
4 Spanneut, Le stoïcisme 431, 434.
5 Spanneut, Le stoïcisme 432.
6 Rankin, Tertullian 208.
7 J. Lebreton, “Le désaccord de la foi populaire et de la théologie savante dans l’Eglise
chrétienne du IIIe siècle,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 19 (1923) 481–506; Rankin, Tertul-
lian 18–19.
tertullian in a graeco-roman world 91
Tertullian, who uses the Stoic education he received to address and try to
convince a society formed by Stoicism as well.8
Scholars see in Tertullian a paradigm of the synthesis of pagan back-
ground and Christian commitment. Tertullian “shows that a Christian can
take his pagan intellectual inheritance with him into his new faith,”9 and
he demonstrates that the conversion of the soul does not immediately
bring with it the conversion of the culture.10 Tertullian’s conversion is
gradual, and includes curiosity and doubts. His works display “an aston-
ishing erudition in everything the current classical education could offer,
deep knowledge of pagan literature and probably a long adherence to
Stoicism before his conversion,”11 enabling Tertullian to emphasise the
cleavage between paganism and Christianity. There are indeed quite a
number of scholarly studies dealing with Tertullian’s Stoicism and the way
he uses pagan tools.12 For example, Tertullian uses on the one hand, com-
mon pagan classical cultural ideas such as those found in Varro or Cicero’s
treatises in order to defend Christianity but on the other hand, and in the
same manner, he hurls pagan attacks against the Christians back at the
pagans themselves. The examples are quite numerous, but Apologeticum
9.2, where Tertullian accuses the Africans of sacrificing children offers one
concrete example.13 Like other Fathers of the Church, Tertullian some-
times also uses the anti-philosophic side of the pagans’ own tradition as
found in Aristophanes, Horace, Laberius, Petronius, and Lucian just for
the pleasure of defeating the pagans with their own tools. But even when
they rely on classical sources, these patristic authors, as defenders of Chris-
tianity, carefully avoid diffusing the Roman religion. In fact, Tertullian
8 Osborn, Tertullian 230; Spanneut, Le stoïcisme 429.

10 Fredouille, Tertullien 410. Turcan Tertullien, 61, asserts that there is no conflict
between Tertullian’s Christian culture and his secular one: he employs both to serve the
truth.
11 Frend, Rise 349.
12 Osborn, Tertullian passim and 226; Fredouille for instance in Tertullien 30–1; P. de
Labriolle, La réaction païenne, étude sur la polémique antichrétienne du Ier au 4ème siècle
(Paris, 1948) 49; Spanneut, Tertullien 185; and R. Cantalamessa, La cristologia di Tertulliano
(Freiburg, 1961) 148; Dunn, Tertullian.
13 J. Rüpke, “Literarische Darstellungen römischer Religion in christlicher Apologetik.
Universal- und Lokalreligion bei Tertullian und Minucius Felix” in Texte als Medium und
Reflexion von Religion im römischen Reich, E. von der Osten and J. Rüpke et al., eds. (Stut-
tgart, 2006) 209–223. For Cicero and Varro’s theories about the gods, see Hubert and Hil-
degard Cancik’s article, “The Truth of Images. Cicero and Varro on Image Worship,” in
Representation in Religion, J. Assmann and A. Baumgarten, eds. 43–61.
92 chapter seven
meticulously interprets and adapts every piece of knowledge he has to the

advantage of his arguments: he never leaves his sources unchanged.14
However, despite his large-scale use of his pagan intellectual inheri-
tance, Tertullian sometimes confronts situations in which paganism and
Christianity remain obstinately opposed and no agreement between them
is possible.15 At any event, he does not use pagan material in order to
build bridges or mediate between paganism and Christianity, but to “make
more effective and more telling his defense of the Christian sect.”16 Tertul-
lian represents a middle path between Classical Antiquity and Christian-
ity proper, where “middle is neither merely a revision of the beginning
nor simply an anticipation of the end, but a statement in its own right,
which may enable to move between the two designated extremes to be
understood.”17 Thus Tertullian is not “an afterthought or a prelude, but has
to be understood in his own right,” when he introduces classical thought
that is not found in the New Testament into Christian exegesis.18
Direct Cultural Influences on Tertullian
Since it has been established by many scholars that he had a sound pagan
cultural background, it is interesting to ask whether Tertullian might be
seen as the Christian counterpart of some Roman author. At first glance,
it would be tempting to view Tertullian the Stoic as a reflection of Seneca
the Roman. Of course, Tertullian knows Seneca through the Roman edu-
cation he received and through his personal affinities with Stoicism, and
he himself is aware of the proximity between his own thought and that
of this Roman figure, as he writes of him in De Anima 20: Seneca saepe
noster—“Seneca whom we often find on our side.” Seneca himself cannot
be envisaged without his Ciceronian influences, and these too are found
in Tertullian’s writings: his portraits and characters are Ciceronian and
come from his secular culture, his methods of demonstration and persua-
sion are inspired by Cicero and Quintilian, and he is also an imitator of
the classical models and a convinced adept of the modern school of his
time, “Asianism.”19 It should not be forgotten that Cicero himself tried
14 Rüpke, “Literarische Darstellungen” 221; Fredouille, Tertullien 304; Osborn, Tertullian 230.
15 Osborn, Tertullian 254; Fredouille, Tertullien 160.
16 Frend, Rise 349; also Osborn, Tertullian 226–254.
17 Osborn, Tertullian 254.
18 Osborn, Tertullian 254.
19 G. Boissier, La Religion romaine d’Auguste aux Antonins (Paris, 1874); Fredouille,
Tertullien 42; 172; 412.
his hand at this genre when he wrote his first discourse, inspired by the
Asiatic Hortensius Hortalus.
Despite Tertullian’s use of general Roman culture, it seems obvious
that it is more than coincidental when his words and ideas sound like
Seneca. First of all, Seneca and Tertullian are the same kind of authors:
both write handbooks telling people how to behave in every circumstance
and how to remain faithful to high ideals; both want to help people live
properly.20 Seneca is an educator, a spiritual leader;21 Tertullian similarly
deals with all aspects of daily life in order to give advice and lead his audi-
ence to proper behaviour. As a good Stoic of his time, Seneca borrows
ideas from all the philosophies. Every truth is good to learn, no matter
where it comes from. Similarly, Tertullian borrows every grain of truth or
sensible idea from any field that can possibly serve his interests.22 The fact
that Tertullian chooses to use only what fits his aims is not a sign either of
inconsistency or a means of displaying his skills, but is motivated by the
need to harmonize the requirements of his faith with the demands of his
culture.23 Both Tertullian and Seneca, finally, see no difference between
religion and morality. Tertullian attacks and mocks all philosophies, as well
as heretical—or even orthodox—Christian streams when they err.24 Both
Seneca and Tertullian love truth and honesty and defend their opinions
vigorously. Seneca, often accused of not living according to the principles
he preached (e.g. De Vita Beata 23), recognised that he was proposing an
idealised picture of what human life should be and that, even though he
himself tried hard to become a sage, he had not yet achieved this ideal.
Tertullian also recognised that he used to mock the Christians until he
20 Seneca, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 58. There are practical consequences to be

learned from philosophy.
21 Spanneut, Le stoïcisme 49.
22 Seneca, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 2, is only one instance of the profusion of
philosophies that are to be found in the letters: Hodiernum hoc est quod apud Epicurum
nanctus sum—soleo enim et in aliena casta transire, non tamquam transfuga sed tamquam
explorator (“here is what I found today in Epicurus—since I am used to enter the oppo-
site camp, not as a betrayer but as an explorer”). See also letter 33: patet omnibus veritas
nondum est occupata (“the truth is open to all, it has not been settled yet”); letter 45:
qualescumque sunt tu illos sic lege taquam verum quaeram adhuc non sciam et contumaciter
quaeram. Non enim me cuiquam emancipavi nullius nomen fero (“and whatever they are
[Seneca’s books], read them as those of my looking for truth, not knowing it and looking
for it obstinately. I do not abandon myself to anyone, I am not called after the name of
anyone”). As for Tertullian, he uses Christian ideas as well as Graeco-Roman concepts and
also oriental and Jewish examples when needed.
24 The psychici is the name Tertullian gives to the ecclesiastical hierarchy when he dis-
agrees with its deeds and thoughts.
94 chapter seven
himself was drawn to Christianity and converted—and what drew him

specifically was the Christian way of life. Morality cannot be separated
from religion either in Christianity or in Stoicism. But Christianity and
Stoicism do not have the same goals and objectives. For example, char-
ity is for Seneca an exercise which enables the sage to get used to the
vanity of his material wealth, since the supreme aim, for the sage, is se
contentus est sapiens—“The Wise suffices himself ” (Epistulae Morales ad
Lucilium 9). For Christianity, in contrast, taking care of others is a moral
way of life and an aim in itself.
Within the same socio-cultural context, it is normal to find more or
less the same tonalities in all the ideas of the major protagonists of that
particular period, and it is very difficult to determine whether one side
influenced the other or whether perhaps both sides underwent a paral-
lel development without any clear nexus between them. While scholars
accuse one another of “parallelomania” or “parallelophobia,” I simply
wish to make three general observations and then to note some paral-
lels between Seneca and Tertullian which lead to more or less balanced
conclusions. The first observation is that in all religions the symbols look
very much like one another, since human nature generally aspires to the
same things everywhere, even if there is no perceptible link between the
different populations. Secondly, Christianity did not emerge in a vacuum
and could not revise every way or mode through which religious feeling
was expressed before its advent, and it was thus obliged to use gener-
ally agreed-upon symbols in order to be understood. Lastly, similarity of
ideas—or of practices—may sometimes be explained by a community of
origin and not by reciprocal influences.
Bearing in mind these caveats, it is now possible to continue with the
parallels between Seneca and Tertullian. The direct link between them,
then, is not mandatory, even if I believe that the fact that Tertullian himself
fully recognises his knowledge of Seneca’s work calls—at the very least—
for acceptance of the thesis that Tertullian could have been inspired by
them. Tertullian and Seneca have in common the definition of vices as a
disease of the soul, and the De Idolatria presents a number of Stoic fea-
tures concerning health and wealth.25 The themes treated by Seneca open
the way to Christian ideas: he encourages people to endure torture and
to brave misery (Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 18, 64, 110). He praises pov-
25 Fredouille, Tertullien 387, 466. He sees no Christian originality in Tertullian’s De

Paenitentia in relation to what the moral pagans have always condemned and ibid. 107 he
defines Tertullian’s Ad Uxorem as “à la façon de Sénèque” and full of “cicéronianisme.”
erty, condemns oriental cults and mythological stories (De Superstitione),

blames the supernatural, and clings to his doctrines. On other points,
however, Tertullian contradicts Seneca: for example, Cicero claims that
an orator should be able to imitate a passion he is not allowed to feel
truly. Seneca writes a treatise, De Ira, in which he agrees with Cicero that
anger is forbidden for the sage. Tertullian, however, believes that justified
anger should be permitted and explains his point of view in Stoic words,
while the notion of anger itself is anti-Stoic.26
Of particular significance to the present study is the fact that Tertullian
and Seneca think alike on the matter of the statues of the gods.27 The sim-
ilarity between Seneca and Tertullian on this subject is best illustrated by
the resemblance between Seneca’s seventh letter to Lucilius and Tertul-
lian’s treatise De Spectaculis. Indeed, this treatise could even be seen as
Tertullian’s version, or imitation, of Seneca’s letter and the De Idolatria as
his appropriation, or personalisation, of the ideas and their better adapta-
tion to a Christian context. Tertullian himself seems to allude to this in
the De Spectaculis (19.5), where he explicitly addresses the pagans: sed
haec ethnicis respondi (‘but this I answer to the Nations’), while in the De
Idolatria he is not at all interested in what the ‘Nations’ think or say. De
spectaculis 3.3 also takes into account both the pagans’ attitude to the
shows and the attitude of (new or weak) Christians who want to go on
attending the shows legitimately. Even if it could be argued, of course,
that the pagans would never read such a Christian treatise themselves,
the arguments proposed in the De Spectaculis are tools Tertullian offers
to his disciples so that they can answer the pagans’ accusations against
their religion. The De Spectaculis thus targets both a pagan and a Chris-
tian audience at one and the same time, while the De Idolatria is clearly a
guide for Christian use on every aspect of daily life among pagans.28 The
only opponents whom Tertullian quotes in the latter treatise are lenient
Christians who wish to normalise social interaction between Christians
and pagans. But Tertullian makes it his duty to prevent Christians from
26 See Fredouille, Tertullien 163; Platonists and Peripatetics for their part accept that
anger may be the ratio’s ally: Rambaux, L’accès 154.
27 Tertullian, De Spectaculis, De Idolatria; Seneca, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 41, let-
ter 110. Seneca also says that there is no need for gods, and in letter 115 he says that the
gods do not demand sacrifices; De Ira 2, De Beneficiis 4, the gods cannot and do not want
to harm human beings. Cicero prefers that people respect their parents rather than unani-
mated statues.
28 Schöllgen, “Die Teilnahme” 3 already described the De Idolatria as an “innerge-
meindlichen Schriften.”
96 chapter seven
becoming involved in idolatry, showing in detail where idolatry is con-

cealed and prohibiting close relationships or interaction with pagans,
such as taking part in pagan festivals or other secular activities, regulat-
ing how to eat or bathe with them, and the like. Tertullian’s address to
pagans in the De Spectaculis may justify his use of classical resources and
notions familiar to them in this treatise. Tertullian does not want to sound
like a stranger speaking about strange ideas, because this way he would be
unable to convince anyone of the truth of his beliefs. It has been proposed
that the Greek version of the De Spectaculis alluded to in De Corona 6.3
was intended for learned recent converts to Christianity who did not want
to renounce the pleasures of the shows (in theatres and circuses).29 The
assumption is that Tertullian wrote in Greek to show his opponents that
he too was learned, on their own intellectual level, and able to conduct
discussions with them in the language of educated men. Nevertheless, I do
not believe that Tertullian is addressing an audience of recalcitrant Chris-
tians exclusively in this way, but rather an audience of learned pagans.
Like the pagan Apuleius in his speeches, Tertullian uses the prestigious
Greek language, together with Latin, in order to reach a wider audience
and, in particular, those educated people—either pagan or Christian—
who boast about their knowledge of both languages. The fact that nothing
from the Greek version of the De Spectaculis has survived demonstrates
that it was of no special importance to the Christian community.
It must be emphasised that the De Spectaculis and the De Idolatria are
in a sense the same tractate. They are inseparable and complementary. In
De Idolatria 13, Tertullian notes that he has already dealt with the shows
in a previous essay and thus says that he will not deal with them again in
his current treatise. But the entire De Spectaculis explains that Christians
cannot take part in shows and games because they are idolatrous and that
Christians must not be involved in idolatry, which is precisely the theme
of the De Idolatria. In sum, the theme of both treatises is why Christians
should avoid public displays involving idolatry. In addition to similari-
ties of theme, the literary tools used in both works are also the same. For
instance, in both Tertullian refers to what Scriptures tell about idolatry
and shows and to the spirit underlying the written law, which obviously
forbids them. In De Spectaculis 3 we read:
29 Schöllgen, “Der Adressatenkreis,” 25–26.

plane nusquam invenimus, quemadmodum aperte positum est: ‘non occides,

non idolum coles, non adulterium, non fraudem admittes,’ ita exerte definitum:
non ibis in circum, non in theatrum, agonem, munus non spectabis
Well, we never find it expressed with the same precision, ‘Thou shalt not
enter circus or theatre, thou shalt not look on combat or show;’ as it is
plainly laid down, ‘Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not worship an idol; thou
shalt not commit adultery or fraud.’
But it is still obvious that Christians are not allowed to take part in them.
And in De Idolatria 6 he writes: si nulla lex dei prohibuisset idola fieri—
“if no law of God had prohibited idols to be made,” still the Christians
may have followed their faith and understand that such a craft contradicts
it. In both cases, Tertullian seems to take into account the arguments of
those who would like to allow Christians to attend shows and he counters
them in the same way.
De Spectaculis 28 and De Idolatria 13 are parallel again in their explana-
tion of the verse [ John 16:20], saeculum gaudebit, uos uero lugebitis (“The
world shall rejoice, but ye shall grieve”): the time has not yet arrived for
Christians to merge with the nations, lest they regret it later. As for the
vocabulary employed, the De Spectaculis generally uses crimen to denote
idolatry, while the De Idolatria uses the word stuprum, but the terms are
interchangeable and point to a similar way of seeing idolatry.30 Both trea-
tises often bring the accusation of diaboli pompa, or “the Devil’s proces-
sion,” to describe idolatrous situations.31 Finally, both works use the same
images to illustrate moral interdictions in physical terms. For instance,
if a Christian is not allowed to take part in an idolatrous ceremony, his
eyes, hands, and mouth are not allowed to see, touch, or speak to idols.32
30 Tertullian, De Spectaculis 7 and passim, De Idolatria 1 and passim.

31 Re. the Devil’s pomps, see Tertullian, De Spectaculis 12, 14 and passim, and De Idola-
tria 10, 18 and passim.
32 For example, see: De Idolatria 6.2: “can you have denied with your tongue what you
profess with your hand?” (Potes lingua negasse quod manu confiteris), as well as chapter 5,
about the hands that should not make the Christians sin; chapter 7, about the hands that
worship idols and then dare to take part in the true God’s worship afterwards; chapter 23,
about the hand that writes things the spirit should not even think about; and the tongue
that is also involved in idolatry when it utters idolatrous words or that remains quiet when
it should oppose idolatrous claims; De Spectaculis 2.10: “and yet both in soul and body
he has severed himself from his Maker. For we did not get eyes to minister to lust, and
the tongue for speaking evil with, and ears to be the receptacle of evil speech, and the
throat to serve the vice of gluttony, and the belly to be gluttony’s ally, and the genitals for
unchaste excesses, and hands for deeds of violence, and the feet for an erring life; or was
the soul placed in the body that it might become a thought-manufactory of snares, and
fraud, and injustice?” (et tamen et corpore et spiritu desciit a suo institutore. neque enim
98 chapter seven
De spectaculis 15.8 and De Idolatria 14.5 offer again similar passages, con-
cerning the errors of the time.33
The main difference, then, between the De Idolatria and the De Spec-
taculis is that the first seems to be an original treatise by Tertullian, and
the latter looks very much like Seneca’s letter. From its first paragraph
on, the De Spectaculis already sounds like Seneca’s writing: people should
readily accept the idea of death, a concept that can be found in Seneca’s
fourth letter, and even throughout the first, second, and eighth letters to
Lucilius, as well as in many others. In letter 7.6, Seneca states:
Subducendus populo est tener animus et parum tenax recti: facile transitur ad
plures. Socrati et Catoni et Laelio excutere morem suum dissimilis multitudo
potuisset.
oculos ad concupiscentiam sumpsimus et linguam ad maliloquium et aures ad exceptaculum

maliloquii et gulam ad gulae crimen et ventrem ad gulae societatem et genitalia ad excessus
impudicitiae et manus ad vim et gressus ad vagam vitam, aut spiritus ideo insitus corpori, ut
insidiarum, ut fraudium, ut iniquitatium cogitatorium fieret); De Spectaculis 13.5: “If, then,
we keep throat and belly free from such defilements, how much more do we withhold our
nobler parts, our ears and eyes, from the idolatrous and funereal enjoyments, which are
not passed through the body, but are digested in the very spirit and soul, whose purity,
much more than that of our bodily organs, God has a right to claim from us” (si ergo gulam
et ventrem ab inquinamentis liberamus, quanto magis augustiora nostra, et aures et oculos,
ab idolothytis et necrothytis voluptatibus abstinemus, quae non intestinis transiguntur, sed
in ipso spiritu et anima digeruntur, quorum munditia magis ad deum pertinet quam intes-
tinorum); and other examples implying the body which abound throughout both the De
Idolatria and the De Spectaculis. For one more example of the resemblance between the
two treatises, see R.W. Daniel, “A Note on Tertullian’s De Idolatria,” Vigiliae Christianae
39 (1985) 63, regarding P.G. van der Nat’s proposition of possible similarity of structure
between an alleged subtitle in the De Idolatria and those to be found in the De Spectaculis,
but Daniel concludes, in contrast to van der Nat, that the expression they deal with is not
a subtitle.
33 De Idolatria 14.5 ceterum de mundo exiretis, non utique eas habenas conuersationis
inmittit, ut, quoniam necesse est et conuiuere nos et commisceri cum peccatoribus, idem et
compeccare possimus. Vbi est commercium uitae, quod apostolus concedit, ibi peccare, quod
nemo permittit. Licet conuiuere cum ethnicis, commori non licet. Conuiuamus cum omnibus;
conlaetemur ex communione naturae, non superstitionis. Pares anima sumus, non disciplina,
compossessores mundi, non erroris. “ ‘Otherwise ye would go out from the world,’ of course
he does not so slacken those reins of conversation that, since it is necessary for us both to
live and to mingle with sinners, we may be able to sin with them too. Where there is the
intercourse of life, which the apostle concedes, there is sinning, which no one permits. To
live with heathens is lawful, to die with them is not. Let us live with all; let us be glad with
them, out of community of nature, not of superstition. We are peers in soul, not in disci-
pline; fellow-possessors of the world, not of error.” De spectaculis 15.8, utinam ne in saeculo
quidem simul cum illis moraremur! sed tamen in saecularibus separamur, quia saeculum dei
est, saecularia autem diaboli. “Would that we did not even inhabit the same world with
these wicked men! But though that wish cannot be realised, yet even now we are separate
from them in what is of the world; for the world is God’s, but the worldly is the devil’s.”
The young character, which cannot hold fast to righteousness, must be res-
cued from the mob; it is too easy to side with the majority. Even Socrates,
Cato, and Laelius might have been shaken in their moral strength by a
crowd that was unlike them.
This sentiment is also found in the second paragraph of the De S pectaculis,
where Tertullian states:
voluptatem etiam sapiens ut datam non contemnit, cum alia non sit et stulto
et sapient vitae gratia nisi voluptas.
The wise man does not look with contempt on pleasure, regarding it as a
precious gift—in fact, the one blessedness of life, whether to philosopher
or fool.
I interpret Tertullian’s passage as meaning—like Seneca’s—that even
the wise man can be seduced from the right path by pleasure. The word
‘voluptas’ itself is recurrent in Seneca as, for instance, in Epistulae Morales
1.7.2: tunc enim per voluptatem facilius vitia subrepunt, “for then it is that
vice steals subtly upon one through the avenue of pleasure.” Moreover,
Seneca enjoins his audience to avoid the shows, especially because of the
turba, the crowd, which is a danger for the ataraxia of the one who wants
to be a sage:
numquam mores quos extuli refero; aliquid ex eo quod composui turbatur,
aliquid ex iis quae fugavi redit.
for I never bring back home the same character that I took abroad with me.
Something of that which I have forced to be calm within me is disturbed;
some of the foes that I have routed return again,
which parallels De Spectaculis 15.5–6:
non tamen immobilis animi est et sine tacita spiritus passione. Nemo ad
voluptatem venit sine affectu, nemo affectum sine casibus suis patitur.
still he is not undisturbed in mind, without some unuttered movings of the
inner man. No one partakes of pleasures such as these without their strong
excitements; no one comes under their excitements without their natural
lapses.
Here, it is not idolatry that is in question, either for Seneca or for Tertul-
lian, but man’s inner stability. Tertullian, in De Spectaculis 15, also uses
words from Seneca’s lexicon in encouraging people to avoid the public
games and shows:
100 chapter seven
deus praecepit spiritum sanctum, utpote pro naturae suae bono tenerum et
delicatum, tranquillitate et lenitate et quiete et pace tractare, non furore, non
bile, non ira, non dolore inquietare.
God has enjoined us to deal calmly, gently, quietly, and peacefully with the
Holy Spirit and not to vex Him with rage, ill-nature, anger, or grief.
Seneca not only uses these terms in his seventh letter—especially quies
and tranquilitas—but he also wrote treatises bearing these names: De Ira
and De Tranquilitate Animi, for example. Both Tertullian and Seneca also
term the circus games homicidia, and, in addition, Tertullian uses the word
populus, instead of Seneca’s turba, in this treatise, perhaps because this is
a word he is more used to, since Christians do not differentiate between
the elite and people of lower social status, as the Romans do, but rather
between Christians and non-Christians.34 Thus, he uses the more neutral
word populus, rather than the pejorative term turba. It is also just possible
that he is trying deliberately to minimise the impression of the entire trea-
tise that he is imitating Seneca. Finally, both Seneca and Tertullian pres-
ent the rationale used by those who would like to attend the public shows
in the same fashion,35 namely that the punishment meted out to some
of the gladiators killed in the circus is justified because they are crimi-
nals: letter 7, sed latrocinium fecit aliquis—“But this one made a crime,”
and De Spectaculis 19, bonum est cum puniantur nocentes—“It is good that
criminals would be punished.” Both authors ask why the innocent should
suffer in viewing such a criminal show. In letter 7.5, Seneca says: tu quid
meruisti miser ut hoc spectes—“and you unfortunate what did you do to
deserve such a show?;” and in De Spectaculis 19, Tertullian writes: et tamen
innocentes de supplicio alterius laetari non oportet—“And yet the innocent
should find no pleasure in another’s sufferings.” In summary, to attend
this kind of spectacle is bad for the soul of the sage or Christian.
Many scholars have tried to argue that Seneca was uniquely familiar
with Christian ideas that influenced his writing, that he was in contact
with the apostle Paul, and that he was, perhaps, even his disciple. It seems
unlikely, however, that Seneca, who was never afraid to say what he
34 I owe this remark to Professor D. Schaps of the Department of Classical Studies at
Bar-Ilan University. Compare Tertullian De Spectaculis 19.4 and Seneca, Epistulae morales
1.7.3, for instance. It is indeed one of Tertullian’s beliefs that Christ died for all men without
discrimination, and that no nation is alien to God: Adversus Marcionem V.17, De Anima 49,
De Carne Christi 12.
35 See Schöllgen, “Der Adressatenkreis” 25–6, where he deals with people who want to
go on visiting the theaters and circuses after their conversion to Christianity.
thought, would not have had at least one word—good, bad or neutral—to
say about the Christians, had he actually known them. Seneca’s hatred for
the Jews and his scorn for their Sabbath are clearly expressed, (for exam-
ple Epistulae Morales 95, or quoted by Augustine, De Civitate Dei 6.11) and
hence it is unlikely that, had he been familiar with Christians, he would
have remained silent about them. Moreover, the relatively early Christian
author Lactantius expresses regret that Seneca did not know the Gospel,
claiming that Seneca would surely have become a fervent Christian had
he been familiar with it, which only goes to show that the assumption that
Seneca was familiar with Christianity is not accepted by everyone.36
A detailed and well-documented contribution to this debate raises all
sides of the discussion of the question of whether Seneca knew Saint Paul
and was initiated into Christianity by him.37 This study does not reach any
definitive conclusion, but finally it is stated that a meeting between Seneca
and the apostle is not unlikely, even though Seneca’s early treatises, Ad
Marciam de Consolatione and Ad Polybium de Consolatione, which clearly
predate Paul’s arrival in Rome, present as many ‘‘Christian’’ ideas as do
his later works, such as the Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium. Indeed, if there
are Stoic ideas to be found in the writings of Christian apologists, this is
more likely to be because these apologists were aware of the theories of
the Stoic school and found inspiration in them, and not because the Stoics
learned from Christian writers.
What can we now infer from the redundancy of theme and argument in
the De Idolatria and the De Spectaculis, and from the similarity of the De
Spectaculis to Seneca’s letter? Clearly, the similarity between the positions
of Christian author and Roman writer is much more than a mere coinci-
dence. Tertullian is, in general, well acquainted with Stoicism and its the-
ories, and, indeed, he actually acknowledges his familiarity with Seneca’s
texts, in case anyone were to doubt that Seneca was included in the list
of authors whom Tertullian studied while acquiring his secular education.
Tertullian’s ease in dealing with Stoic ideas, moreover, provides evidence
for the scope of his education. Tertullian’s education is generally taken
36 Lactantius, Diuinae Institutiones 4.24. Actually, the first Christian author who men-
tions Seneca’s purported acquaintance with St. Paul is St. Jerome, in the fourth century ce.
His remarks concerning their relationships, as well as those of modern scholars who sup-
port the idea that Seneca did know St. Paul, are clearly based on an obviously apocryphal
correspondence between the philosopher and the apostle.
37 Boissier, La Religion.
102 chapter seven
for granted without being based on precise examples; here, then, is one
example that demonstrates it. Yet another point that Tertullian empha-
sises, in De Spectaculis 19.5, is that the De Spectaculis is not exclusively
addressed to a closed circle of Christians, but is intended for anyone who
would like to hear about the harmful nature of public shows and spec-
tacles. I believe that Tertullian first endeavoured to fight idolatry in the
name of Christianity in his De Spectaculis, approaching the theme through
the shows which were only a pretext for broaching the wider issue of
idolatry itself. While dealing with these spectacles, Tertullian appears to
have remembered this letter by Seneca that he had once read, studied,
or perhaps even copied or explained as an exercise at school. This letter
may then have become his model for treating the same theme. Tertullian’s
De Spectaculis is, accordingly, Tertullian’s adaptation, or even imitation,
of Seneca’s letter. Later, Tertullian frees himself from the bonds of such
a heavy Senecan influence and tries to rewrite his attack on idolatry in
a more Christian manner. The De Idolatria is, in this sense, Tertullian’s
re-appropriation or personalisation of the ideas he shares with Seneca,
and their integration into a framework that now addresses an exclusively
Christian context and audience.
A few final examples show once again that Tertullian is well aware of
the fashionable intellectual thought of his time. Tertullian often offers his
audience explanations from the genre of euhemerism or etiology. Here
again, it is typically Stoic to give rational explanations to legends. It has
been stated that in fact, euhemerism and Stoicism oppose one another,
differing in the way they envisage and perceive classical pagan religion,
but that in the end they offer the same tools to answer the same ques-
tions.38 There are many occurrences of this euhemerist and rationalising
tendency in Tertullian’s work, and three obvious examples, from the works
we are especially interested in, will suffice to illustrate this point: first, De
Idolatria 9: Saturni et Martis et cuiusque ex eodem ordine mortuorum—
“Saturn, or Mars, and whomsoever else out of the same class of the dead”;
secondly, De Idolatria 15: omnem idololatrian in homines esse culturam,
cum ipsos nationum homines retro fuisse etiam apud suos constet—“let us
again consider that all idolatry is a worship done to men, since it is gener-
ally agreed even among their worshippers that aforetime the gods them-
selves of the nations were men”; and thirdly, De Spectaculis 12, where the
entire paragraph deals with the euhemerist idea.
38 Baumgarten, “Euhemerus.”
Tertullian’s writing, then, is well integrated into the current intellec-

tual climate of his time. He uses widely disseminated ideas in order to
be understood by his contemporaries, but also because he is a product of
his time. His education and models are the same as those of his contem-
poraries, and their language is natural to him: it is part of his personality
and very likely the only mode he knows. Tertullian’s Christian knowledge
is in addition to his pagan background, not instead of it, and for the most
part, his Christianity does not really influence his style, which would have
been the same if he had been a regular pagan moralist. It is interesting to
emphasise one last point: Tertullian’s endeavour to adapt the Latin lan-
guage to the ideas of the Church comes at a time when the Romans were
trying to establish their own Roman culture by putting a brake on Hel-
lenistic influences, especially in literature.
What can be concluded up to this point in the present study is that
Tertullian is a Christian writer who takes advantage of his secular knowl-
edge, as well as of his familiarity with Christian ideas, to forge his own
original way of addressing his different audiences. It is clear that Tertul-
lian uses every piece of information, every cultural element he is aware
of, to enrich his works. Tertullian despises nothing that might strengthen
his argument. The aim of our inquiry will now be to survey to what extent
Tertullian also uses Jewish material in his works, and to try to determine
the source of his knowledge of such material, when it can be determined
that it is indeed originally Jewish.
chapter eight
The Issue of the Jews’ Involvement within the Wider

Graeco-Roman World
The Jews and the Graeco-Roman World
It has been demonstrated that Tertullian was the product of Graeco-

Roman education, but that he added other elements to this in his works.
It would then be only logical to say that he probably had contacts with
some Jews, since the ideas found in his writings sound like those found
in Jewish thought accessible at that time, and thus derive from the Jews.
The flaw in this statement, however, is that Jewish thinking is not free of
contributions from its surrounding environment, just as, in effect, Graeco-
Roman thought is not free from oriental influence. Here I shall present
some assumptions which underlie the arguments of the present work.
To begin with the Jewish literature dating from the Hellenistic period, it
is clear that the stories of the meetings between Aristotle and the Jews,
between Alexander the Great and the Jewish High Priest, between the
Athenian and Palestinian Sages, and others of this sort mark an obvious
tendency on the part of the Jews to claim the existence of reciprocal rela-
tions between Jews and those who dominated world culture. Like other
oriental people, the Jews try to demonstrate their kinship with the Greek
world rulers. Some go as far as to adopt Greek names to show that they
belong to the world-wide culture, and many of them speak Greek.1 Some
scholars do see a real influence of the Jews on their neighbours in the
time of Plato, Aristotle, and Philo, but it seems more likely that the Jews,
like members of other surrounding cultures, were actually interested in
creating the illusion of belonging to the dominant culture.2 The Jews
thus invent a literary reality in which they are integrated into the wider
1 See, for instance, II Maccabees. On the letter sent by the Jews to their “brothers” the
Spartans, see R. Katzoff, “Jonathan and Late Sparta,” American Journal of Philology 106
(1985) 485–89, and E. Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees (New York, 1962)
154–6.
2 G. Bohak, “Ethnic Stereotypes in the Greco-Roman World: Egyptians, Phoenicians and
Jews,” World Congress of Jewish Studies, 12, B (2000) 7–15. Also Bickerman, From Ezra 75 on
the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Phoenicians, who adapt the tales of their history to Greek
taste.
the issue of the jews’ involvement 105
c ulture—a culture which, for its part, is not really interested in the Jewish
world before the advent of Christianity—while remaining loyal to their
ancestral faith. Thus the Jews learn to know the world in which they are
interested, rather than actually influencing it: they adopt and adapt Hel-
lenistic culture.3 Judaism enriches itself with new and foreign ideas that
it adapts to the Jewish system, and some Jewish writing is influenced by
Hellenistic features.4 This, in essence, is the exegesis of the biblical state-
ment that God would give beauty to Yefet—the Greeks—and that this
beauty will dwell in the tents of Shem—the Jews.5 Traditional scholarship
has argued that at the end of the Hellenistic period, the Jews withdraw
and close themselves off within their own community, avoiding every
kind of contact with external culture. Nevertheless, it can be seen that,
later, Jews still acknowledge a debt to Roman culture. This supports mod-
ern scholarship that argues that the Jews never completely turned their
backs on the Gentile world and culture. For example, they recognised that
the Romans’ claim of universal human brotherhood was worth adopting,
and they illustrated, through anecdotes, those cases to which Jews should
apply this principle. Often, the authors of the anecdotes emphasise that
the basic principle was actually to be found in the Torah, but that the Jews
did not apply it properly and needed the Romans to remind them of it.6
In line with the same pattern of external influence upon Judaism, it
is clear that Christianity also makes an impression on Judaism. Whether
through conflicts with Christian arguments or through daily contact with
Christians of Gentile origin and cultural background, some Christian ideas
3 See Gruen, Diaspora 227–231.

4 Bickerman, From Ezra 59–68, 181; E. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (London,
1994) 161 sqq.
5 Babylonian Talmud Megillah 9b, based on the biblical verse in Genesis 9:27.
6 The examples are very obvious in two texts at least. The edited texts are a little late,
but nevertheless refer to a reality in which the Jews were subject to Roman dominion. In
the Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 19a, the representatives of the Jews who want
the Roman government to cancel some prohibitions preventing the proper application of
Judaism ask a famous Roman matron for advice. The matron makes them hold a demon-
stration, shouting the Roman principle of “We are all brothers.” The argument is indeed
accepted by the Romans, and the prohibitions are cancelled. In Midrash Qohelet Rabbah
parasha 11, a shipwrecked naked Roman asking the Jews for some clothes claims his broth-
erhood with them. At the end of the passage, the same Roman reminds the Jews that
this principle—to help one’s brother/fellow—can be found in their Torah and that they
should apply it. S.J.D. Cohen, “Conversion to Judaism in Historical Perspective: From Bibli-
cal Israel to Postbiblical Judaism,” Conservative Judaism 36 (1983) 39, states that the rabbis
maintained towards the outside world an ambiguous stance that combined disdain with
admiration and separation with openness.
106 chapter eight
enter Jewish thought. It can be concluded that ideas migrate between the
different cultures and undergo certain transformations during this pro-
cess, so that it is very difficult to determine the precise origin of an idea
and the media through which it reaches one particular culture. This also
means that Christianity can be familiar with Jewish ideas because it is
based on Judaism and uses Jewish texts. This, then, is the contribution
of Christians of Jewish origins to Christianity throughout generations of
Christian thought and even through Church heritage. On the other hand,
Christianity may have received Jewish ideas, if not from direct contact
with Jews, then through Roman ideas that incorporated Jewish principles.
Thus Judaism is not totally free of Hellenistic influence, and Jewish ideas
adopted from Graeco-Roman culture found in Tertullian do not inevita-
bly demonstrate the existence of contacts between Jews and Christians,
but rather that both Jews and Christians might adopt the same principles
from their surrounding culture.
Final Remarks about the Background of the Comparison
The Maccabees and Figurative Representations

While both Tertullian and the rabbis condemn images, Christianity is very
well known for its rich figurative ornaments, whereas archaeology has
uncovered numerous images decorating ancient synagogues and other
Jewish buildings. Some scholars have tried to explain this apparent para-
dox on the Jewish side through the Hasmonean politicisation of images.7
According to this approach, the Maccabees presented the exclusion of
idolatry as the main element of Jewish communal self-definition in their
rebellion against the presence of the coloniser in the Jewish land. But, as
in Mishnah Avodah Zarah iii, what really matters is the idolatrous char-
acter of the figures imposed by the invader: merely decorative elements
are accepted, especially when they can scarcely be avoided. Images are
forbidden because they are venerated, and not simply because they are
images.8 At any rate, the assertion that “the politicisation of images lost
most of its vigor once the battle was lost”—and indeed, the re-iterated
claims that the Jews, including the rabbis, were not “aniconic,” “icono-
7 Fine, Art 37, 70, 79, 80, 82, 111.

8 Fine, Art; G.J., Blidstein, “The Tannaim and Plastic Art; Problems and Prospects,” Per-
spectives in Jewish Learning 5 (1973) 13, 17.
clastic,” and “iconophobic,” but rather “anti-idolic,” as well as the mention

that secular art per se was not problematic—finds echoes in the fact that
throughout rabbinic literature and liturgical texts, Jews are not shocked
to hear that God has a body, and that there are many descriptions of its
different members, such as His strong hand or arm.9 In the decoration of
their synagogues, Jewish artists “had to cast into visible form what had
hitherto been expressed only in words,” and they do this by using the
motifs they learned in the same schools of art as Greek artists.10 Thus,
besides a real and potential fear of the idolatrous character of the foreign
art in their land, what motivates Jewish rejection of this art is, in particu-
lar, hatred for the invader and a nationalistic feeling. This analysis of the
state of the Hasmonean mind has led several scholars to see the African
Church as a whole as the heirs of the Maccabees, since they identify much
common ground between the African Christians and the Palestinian Jews
of the Hasmonean period. Indeed, just as the Jews, who once enjoyed free-
dom in their land, could not tolerate the presence of Greek or Roman con-
querors and reacted against the invader, so Tertullian, who was opposed
to a wholesale swallowing up of African traditions by Roman culture, is
seen to have adopted the Judaic Hasmonean model of resistance to the
invader through rejection of its idolatrous culture.11
Openness and Withdrawal
The question of the extent of the influence of Hellenistic culture on the

nature of Judaism at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple
and on the birth of Christianity is still disputed nowadays. The discus-
sion begins with the well-recognised accusation of xenophobia against the
Jews. The Jewish people are seen to be intolerant and closed up within
themselves, their aim being the eradication of paganism from their land
and strenuous attempts to “create a ‘safe’ and isolated community of wor-
shippers protected from the seductions of other rituals and worldviews.”12
9 Fine, Art 122 and passim; as well Blidstein.

10 Fine, Art 49.
11 For instance: Frend, “Heresy” 40–1 and see Boyarin, Dying 63 n.77; Bickerman, From
Ezra. The idea has already been detailed above under the subtitles “Christians in Carthage”
and “A Jewish Experience.”
12 M. Halbertal, “Coexisting with the enemy: Jews and Pagans in the Mishnah,” Toler-
ance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, G. Stanton and G. Stroumsa, eds.
(Cambridge, 1998) 162.
108 chapter eight
At one moment in its history, this group confronts an idolatrous Helle-

nistic invader. Many Jews fall victim to this cultural seduction and begin
to make concessions to the main world culture, while at the same time
managing to remain as much as possible within the circumference of Jew-
ish rules. At the very beginning, these Jews were aware of their ancestral
legacy and tried to adopt Hellenism without renouncing their own par-
ticular laws. But as the attraction of Hellenistic culture increases, some
Jews tend to adapt their Jewish traditions more and more, up to the point
where they cross the fence and are no longer Jewish. This, for example,
is the theory of Goodenough and his followers, that these Jews were so
thoroughly Hellenized that they became the basis of the Christian move-
ment. Seeing the situation in which some Jews left their commitment to
the Law, the more faithful Jews became frightened and hardened their
position and respect for this Law abandoned by the others, and that was
the time of the withdrawal. The remaining group of Jews thus curled itself
up anew, became very suspicious of everything coming from outside the
community, and avoided any contacts with the outside world.13 Thus in
this view, political and cultural Hellenism was the catalyst of what became
a “doctrinal Judaism.” Nevertheless, the idea that Judaism was never her-
metically sealed against foreign culture is well represented in the scholar-
ship on this topic.14 Moreover, some scholars see a difference between the
approaches of the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees, in their
view, tend to encourage openness to Hellenistic culture and, in the long
term, provide Christianity with converts who believe that Christianity is
only a variety of Judaism that accepts Hellenistic features, as the former
semi-proselytes do. The Pharisees, on the other hand, are defined as those
who see in Hellenism the same harmful attraction as in the idolatry of
biblical times, and it is they who withdraw and harden their anti-foreign
stance.15 Another scholarly thesis suggests that the Jews could have been
extremely Hellenized while nevertheless remaining Jews, without any
concomitant, obligatory shift to Christianity (Philo is a good representa-
tive of this phenomenon in the Egyptian Diaspora).16 The obvious attrac-
tion of synagogues for the native populations of the Diaspora, and the
welcome provided by the Jews to these populations inside the doors of the
13 See L. Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’Eglise II (Paris, 1910).

14 E. Will and C. Orrieux, Ioudaïsmos-Hellénismos (Nancy, 1986) 226–8.
15 Schiffman, Who Was 2, 53.
16 Fine, Art 54; Dr Sylvie Honigman, the Department of History, Tel-Aviv University,
personal discussions.
synagogues, demonstrates in itself that the Jewish community was not as

closed as some wish to believe. Apart from this essentially passive aspect,
some scholars even assert that there were Jewish groups that remained
missionary as late as the Middle Ages.17 Contact with Hellenism was
not the end of Jewish openness to the world, and the observance of the
Jewish rules constituted a fence or barrier that prevented Judaism from
being swallowed up by the pagan environment from which it adopted and
adapted a great deal, and by which it was influenced in many fields.
17 Simon, Verus Israël 69, 335, 433 and followers.

Part three
Tertullian and the Jews on Idolatry

introduction to part three
Our comparison between the Mishnah Avodah Zarah and the De Idola-
tria is now firmly anchored within its contextual framework and within
the scholarly reflections surrounding this framework. “Difference makes
a comparative analysis interesting; similarity makes it possible.”1 At first
glance, the titles of Tertullian’s De Idolatria, “on idolatry,” and of the rab-
binic massekhet Avodah Zarah, “the treatise on idolatry,” are similar enough
to provoke our curiosity. It is a truism to state that Christianity and Juda-
ism are not alien to each other in this respect. Even if Tertullian does not
quote the rabbis anywhere, it is not unlikely that his work is influenced
by Jewish ideas.2 De Idolatria has been described as “a treatise about all
the forms of idolatry,” and massekhet Avodah Zarah, since this treatise
only discusses the laws and precepts as “preventive measures,” as “a col-
lection of prescriptions on how to behave with all the idolaters.”3 Mishnah
Avodah Zarah focuses on the prohibition of enjoyment of anything to do
with idolatry, in contrast to massekhet Sanhedrin, which deals with the
legal aspects of idolatry and with the punishment of Jews participating
in idolatry. The same is true of Mishnah Makkot, which completes the
rules of Mishnah Sanhedrin. The rabbinical laws are a “universalized [. . .]
ban against idolatry.” Here they differ from the biblical injunctions which
only concerned idolaters in Eretz Israel, for the Mishnah’s rules are rel-
evant for Jews all over the world.4 Like massekhet Avodah Zarah for Jews,
Tertullian’s De Idolatria is a guide for proper Christian behavior in a pagan
environment.5 In this guide, “Tertullian likes to foresee everything, to con-
trol everything, because he knows human weakness and perversity and
fears that the human being would escape through the side where the road
1 F.J.P. Poole, “Metaphors and Maps: Towards Comparison in the Anthropology of Reli-
gion,” Journal of American Academy of Religion 54 (1986) 417, the same idea appears in
Smith, Imagining 1.
2 Baer, “Israel” 112, asserts that it is the habit of the Christian authors not to quote their
Hebraic sources. Actually, most ancient authors do not quote their sources and it is when
they do that the modern reader is surprised.
3 Aziza, Tertullien 178; Hadas-Lebel, “Le paganisme” 398; S., Lieberman, Hellenism in
Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in
the Ist Century B.C.E.–IV Century C.E. (New York, 1962) 116; H. Albeck, The Six Books of the
Mishnah: Neziqin (Jerusalem, 1959).
4 Halbertal, “Coexisting” 161.
5 Halbertal; Barnes, Tertullian 93; Baer, “Israel” 88.
114 introduction to part three
has not been drawn and where no safeguards have been established.”6
In general, Tertullian is not very interested in pagans. The only interest
he has in them is when he tries to convert them, or at least to convince
them that Christians are correct in their beliefs. On the other hand, there
are many ways to inspire Christians to live a life of faith properly, without
the need for a discussion of the various forms of idolatry. It is possible to
refer to idolatry via numerous subjects, and allusions to it are often latent
in many interdictions or in advice about Christian life. A treatise dealing
only with idolatry is thus somewhat surprising. It is possible that the very
theme of this treatise was inspired by the existence of the Jewish work.
Further comparisons here are aimed at showing the similarities and dif-
ferences between the ways in which Tertullian and the Rabbis deal with
idolatry, and describing the themes and examples they have in common,
as well as those that differ from one work to the other. Finally, I shall try
to account for these similarities and differences.
I have deliberately chosen to try to remain, as far as possible within
the bounds of the primary works being compared throughout the com-
parison, with no additional reference to external literature. Tertullian, as
already noted, adapts his discourse and arguments to his audience and to
the matter on hand. Thus even if, on the whole, his ideas are coherent,
there is a very large variety of demonstrations, accusations, nuances and
tonalities throughout his writings. This is also the case for the rabbinic
literature. And, as always, it is true that whatever one looks for in this
massive body of writing, it is almost impossible not to find at least one
argument in its favour. “Rabbinic literature,” indeed, was produced over
the course of many of years and during a number of different periods of
history. The stories and examples were adapted to the circumstances in
which they were written, and even more importantly, the texts were writ-
ten by a number of different rabbis. Even if all of the rabbis whose texts
survive belong to the same stream, their opinions on particular subjects
can vary, not only from one rabbi to the other, but even between a single
rabbi’s youth and his old age. Thus it is clear that there is almost nothing
that cannot be found either in Tertullian or in rabbinic literature for those
who are seriously looking for contextual support for their arguments. For
these reasons, this comparison will focus on internal elements of the
two primary texts, and not involve elements from other texts that have a
6 P. de Labriolle, Histoire de la littérature latine chrétienne I (Paris, 1947) 126 (my transla-
tion from French).
introduction to part three 115
different history and different motivations. Nevertheless, on some occa-

sions some external examples will be introduced to illustrate the fact
that there are other texts which present the same ideas as the ones under
observation. However, we must not forget that examples can similarly be
found in other texts which demonstrate ideas that contradict, or are even
in total opposition to those being debated. It is thus best to remain within
the framework of the two particular examples, i.e. the two primary texts
under observation, to try to illustrate and arrive at wider conclusions.
Although the Mishnah contains earlier material, its composition is sup-
posed to have dated approximately from the time of Tertullian. The way
in which it deals with idolatry, and the kinds of idolatry with which it
deals, are therefore relevant to the time when Tertullian’s contempora-
neous text was edited, and thus the comparison is justified. I adopt the
view that the Tosefta is constituted of passages which were elaborated at
the same time as the mishnaic ones, but which for diverse reasons were
not integrated into the final corpus of the Mishnah. That is why paral-
lel, balanced, or added passages from the Tosefta are taken into account
within my comparison as elements shedding light on its double, the text
of Mishnah. As for the treatises of the Talmudim bearing the same title,
which are an expansion and explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah, they
must be dealt with carefully. It has been said that the Babylonian Talmud
Avodah Zarah brings “an additional message of its own, one that puts into
perspective and imparts depth and significance to the Mishnah.”7 The
Babylonian Talmud is a good example of the type of text that stems from
a mishnaic basis but that has different goals and a different background
motivating its discussions. Moreover, even when it quotes the ideas of
rabbis who are supposed to be contemporaries of Tertullian and of the
tannaim, scholars are divided as to how far these quotations genuinely
reflect the original thoughts of the rabbis. That is why quotations from
the Babylonian Talmud will be used only rarely and with all due caution.
Whenever a clue from the Babylonian Talmud might add elements to
the comprehension of the mishnaic world but is problematic from other
points of view, I discuss its character in a footnote. The Jerusalem Talmud,
for its part, is closer in time and place to the Mishnah than the Babylonian
Talmud, and is regarded as more reliable in its allusions to matters which
date back to times which precede the period in which it was edited. This
7 J. Neusner, The Talmud of Babylonia. An Academic Commentary XXV. Bavli Tractate
Avodah Zarah (Atlanta, 1994) 376.
116 introduction to part three
Talmud is quoted when needed for more elements, clues, examples, or

parallels.
I have used the following editions in this work. First of all, the Latin text
used for Tertullian’s De Idolatria is that established by Waszink and Van
Winden.8 Whenever I have decided to emend their choice with the ver-
sions of other manuscripts they rejected, this is specified, explained, and
the source is quoted. The translations are usually mine, unless otherwise
specified. For Tertullian’s other texts, I generally use the versions offered
by Roger Pearse’s wonderful site www.Tertullian.org, which is already
a must in Tertullian studies,9 and I provide the exact link. For the text
of the Mishnah, I use as reference texts the editions of William Elmslie
and Philip Blackman10 with translations—translations that I sometimes
adapt—and commentaries, as well as David Rosenthal’s critical edition.11
All other sources are detailed in the footnotes.
8 Waszink, Van Winden, Tertullianus.

9 See Dunn, Tertullian and Wilhite, Tertullian for more details about the scholars who
have decided to make use of this site as a valuable source for their research.
10 W.A.L. Elmslie, The Mishnah on Idolatry, ’Aboda Zara (Cambridge, 1911), and P. Black-
man, Mishnayoth: Pointed Hebrew Text, Introductions, Translation, Notes, Supplements,
Indexes (London, 1951–6).
11 D. Rosenthal, Mishnah Avodah Zarah, Mahadurah Bikortit [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1981).
chapter nine
Comparison
Social Relationships
Public Festivals
‫“—ואלו אידיהן שלגוים קלנדא וסטרנורא וקרטיסים‬And these are the festivals
of the idolatrous: the Calends and the Saturnalia and the Kratesis.”1 As is
clear from Deuteronomy Rabbah 7.7, where they are compared with the
most important Jewish celebrations, these pagan festivals are a generic
way for the rabbis to designate the main idolatrous religious festivals:
‫ אנו יש לנו קלנדא סטרגילים וקרטיסים‬.‫אנו יש לנו מועדות אתם יש לכם מועדות‬
‫“—ואתם יש לכם פסח עצרת וסוכות‬We have our festivals, you have your
festivals. We have the Calends, the Saturnalia and the Kratesis and you
have Passover, Pentecost and the Feast of the Tabernacles.” It has been
suggested that these particular pagan festivals were those best-known in
the oriental world under Roman dominion, because it was these festivals
which were imported and celebrated there by the Roman army and other
settlers.2 And in spite of their Roman connections, some scholars have
even proposed that the pagan rites alluded to in the Mishnah have an
adapted oriental character and not a proper Roman one.3 However, when
the rabbis of the Talmud discuss laws about idolatrous rites they specifi-
cally describe those with Roman names as being Roman, as distinct from
other particular non-Roman places of idolatry, where rites are carried on
throughout the year, and to which they wish to apply the same regula-
tions.4 In any case, the festivals mentioned by the rabbis are also mainly
of a political kind, and are characterised by the organisation of games
1 For the identification of the festivals quoted in Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 3, see
appendix 1.
2 E. Friedheim, Rabbinisme et paganisme en Palestine romaine. Etude historique des
realia talmudiques (Ier–IVème siècles) (Leiden-Boston, 2006) 159, 310, 343; Hadas-Lebel, “Le
paganisme” 477; Rives, Religion 62; Elmslie, The Mishnah, commentary on mishnah i, 3.
3 Friedheim, Rabbinisme, passim and see the beginning of appendix 1 on the identifica-
tion of the festivals quoted in Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 3.
4 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 11b, ‫[“—הני דרומאי‬those festivals we mentioned in
the Mishnah] are the Romans’ ones.”
118 chapter nine
which would have attracted Jews more than the actual ritual aspects of
the celebrations.5
What in fact, then, are Jews forbidden to do in connection with the
pagan festivals mentioned by the Mishnah?
‫לפני אידיהן שלגוים שלשה ימים אסור לשאת ולתת עמהם להשאילן או לשאול‬
‫מהן להלוותן וללוות מהן לפרען ולהפרע מהן‬
For three days before the idolatrous festivals of the idolaters it is prohibited
to have business dealings with them—neither to loan to them nor to borrow
from them, neither to lend [money] to them nor to borrow [money] from
them, neither to make payment to them nor to get payment from them
[during these three days].6
Apart from the issue of trade, it is forbidden to take any advantage of or
to provide any benefit to idolators and idolatry. But harmonious relation-
ships must be preserved in cities inhabited by both Jews and pagans, and
social interaction must be made possible within the framework of Jewish
law. This leads to a certain kind of relaxation in the rabbis’ rulings. First,
while the first mishnah forbids three days of trade with pagans every time
they have celebrations— . . . ‫“—לפני אידיהן שלגוים שלשה ימים אסור‬For three
days before the idolatrous festivals of the idolaters this is prohibited”—
the third mishnah limits the range of the interdiction and specifies only
those celebrations, which are actually strictly forbidden:
‫ואלו אידיהן שלגוים קלנדא וסטרנורא וקרטיסים ויום גנוסיא של מלכים ויום‬
‫יום תגלחת זקנו ובלוריתו יום שעלה בו מן הים ויום שיצא‬ . . . ‫הלידה ויום המיתה‬
‫מבית האסורין‬
And these are the festivals of the idolatrous nations: the Calends and the
Saturnalia and the Kratesis and the day of the anniversary of the emperors
and the day of birth and day of death . . . and the day of the shaving of his
beard and his lock of hair, the day on which he came back from the sea and
the day on which he left prison.7
Without this relaxation it would have been impossible for Jews to have
almost any contact with pagans. Secondly, the Tosefta is also less stringent
than the first mishnah. It reduces the number of days forbidden for trade
with pagans to one instead of three for non-recurring festivals:
5 Friedheim, Rabbinisme 346–355.

6 Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 1; for a survey of the origin of the number three, number
of days forbidden for trade, see Friedheim, “A New Look,” 12–14. Friedheim also stresses
the antiquity of the rule described in the first mishnah that might reflect a reality already
known to the Palestinian Jews from the second century bce and on.
7 Already noticed by Friedheim, Rabbinisme 330; concerning genousia see appendix 2.
comparison 119
‫נחום המדי אומר יום אחד בגליות לפני אידיהן אסור במה דברים אמורים באידיהן‬
‫הקבועים אבל באידיהן שאינן קבועים אינו אסור אלא אותו היום בלבד אף על‬
‫פי שאמרו ג' ימים‬
Nahum the Mede says that in the Diaspora communities one day before the
idolaters’ festivals is forbidden; about what this is said? About recurrent fes-
tivals but for their festivals, which are not recurrent, only the very day itself
of the festival is forbidden [for trade] even though they said three days.
This is roughly tantamount to the third mishnah’s restriction: ‫וגוי שעשה‬
‫“—משתה לבנו אינו אסור אלא אותו היום ואותו האיש בלבד‬A Gentile who
organised a banquet for his son: it is not forbidden [to trade with Gen-
tiles] except on this very day and with this specific man.”8 Furthermore,
the Tosefta reduces the ban on trade to one day before any of the Gen-
tiles’ festivals in the Diaspora communities, an opinion found again in the
Jerusalem Talmud: ‫נחום המדי אומר יום אחד בגליות אסור בדקו ומצאו שהן עושין‬
. . . ‫“—צרכיהם ליום אחד ואסרו יום אחד‬Nahum the Mede says: one day in the
Diaspora communities; they checked and found that they make their idol-
atrous arrangements on a single day, so they forbade one day. . . .”9 In the
Jerusalem Talmud, the rationale, “for the sake of peace”—‫ מפני דרכי שלום‬10
is invoked on a number of occasions to allow the Jews to have contacts
with celebrating pagans. This argument aims to avoid a situation which
could arouse hostility among the pagans and put the Jewish community at
risk.11 There was also an opposing position, which stated that Jews should
be forbidden to take part in the Saturnalia, for example, precisely because
of the risk of provoking anti-Jewish feelings.12 The example of the Sat-
urnalia is given specifically, because the Romans were afraid of Saturn
and regarded the Jews as his henchmen because of their weird behavior
8 Tosefta Avodah Zarah i, 1, Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 3.

9 Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 39a.
10 For instance, Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 39a, a Jew who enters a celebrating
city celebrates with the inhabitants; see also Seth Schwartz, Imperialism 165: “The rabbis
who needed to take the pentateuchal horror of paganism very seriously in formulating
their own views also needed to develop a mechanism to allow them to live in the cities and
to participate in some of the cities’ public activities, pagan though they are.” In Jerusalem
Talmud Avodah Zarah 39c, Jews are ordered to behave with respect to dead and ill pagan
people the way they would behave within their own community.
1 1 G. Blidstein, Rabbinic Legislation on Idolatry—Tractate Abodah Zarah, Chapter 1
(New York, 1968) x–xi. In the Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 6b, Judah Nesiah and
Resh Lakish are confronted with the same problem of carefully handling the feelings of
pagans without transgressing Jewish rules—as when Resh Lakish urges Judah Nesiah to
lose, ostensibly by mistake, the gift he got from a min so that this one would neither rejoice
and thank his gods for Judah’s acceptance of the gift nor hate the Jews for despising his
gifts—but the argument “for the sake of peace” is not mentioned.
12 Friedheim, Rabbinisme 360.
120 chapter nine
on this god’s day—Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. Thus the Romans could
have reacted violently had they encountered any Jews attending the
Saturnalia celebrations.
Now, what is common to both Tertullian’s De Idolatria and to the Mish-
nah Avodah Zarah concerning the main public festivals? First of all, in De
Idolatria 13–14 Tertullian deals with the question of “whether a worship-
per of God is permitted to take part in festivals and special celebrations of
the Gentiles,” a concern he has in common with the Mishnah.13 Secondly,
he illustrates his discussion with numerous examples from oriental mys-
tery religions. It seems to be easier for Tertullian to fight against religions
that clearly appear to be a travesty of true religion.14 Of course, it could be
that oriental religions were in fact the main competitors to Christianity in
Carthage, so that he was well acquainted with them and could use them
as examples. However, at the same time it also points to a conceptual
starting point which is common to both Tertullian and the rabbis, since
rabbinic knowledge of foreign cults also displays a particular acquain-
tance with oriental rituals. Thirdly, the main festivals mentioned by the
rabbis are the Saturnalia and the Calends. It is generally accepted that, for
the rabbis, ‘Calends’ refers in particular to the Calends of January, which
marks the Roman New Year’s Day.15 Tertullian also writes that the main
festivals a Christian must avoid include first and foremost Saturnalia et
kalendas Ianuarias—“Saturnalia and the Calends of January, i.e. New
Year’s Day.16 He wants people to avoid getting New Year’s gifts, munera et
strenae,17 just as Resh Lakish wants Judah Nesiah to dispose of the denar
13 Baer, “Israel” 89.

14 Petitmengin, “Tertullien” 47–49.
15 Appendix 1, also Friedheim, Rabbinisme 334.
16 Tertullian, De Idolatria 14.4, as well as ibid. 10 and 14.6. Tertullianus. Waszink and Van
Winden, Tertullianus, argue that Tertullian looks at the Saturnalia and Calends of January,
two ‘gift-days,’ from two different points of view. The first shows the Christians taking part
in heathen celebrations with the heathens, and the second shows the Christians celebrat-
ing heathen festivals among themselves. They infer from chapter 13.4: “There are certain
days on which presents are given,” Sunt quidam dies munerum, the argument of those
Christians who claim the right to share in heathen festivities when they are part of a nor-
mal social behavior and Tertullian rejects this claim saying (15.1) that it is a hidden way
for the Christians to conceal their Christian identity from their idolatrous neighbours. In
14.6–7, they say that Tertullian speaks of Christians celebrating the heathen festivals (inter
fraters, “among brethren”), presumably giving presents to each other and having meals
together on those special occasions especially on the Saturnalia and Calends of January.
comparison 121
he got from a min, most likely as a New Year’s gift.18 One more analogy is
to be found in the attitude to garlands and other decorations on display
in shops and houses. Tertullian regards lamps and wreaths on entrance
doors to be a sign of reverence to an idol: lucernis et laureis . . . idoli
honor est—“lamps and wreaths . . . [are] an idol’s honour,”19 and forbids
Christians to share in this practice. In fact Tertullian deals with all the
reasons why people might decorate their doors with lamps and wreaths
and reaches the conclusion that such symbols can only be idolatrous. For
Tertullian, lamps and wreaths are both of an idolatrous nature by their
very essence, as well as being part of an idolatrous belief in the gods of
the threshhold. As part of the decoration, they testify to religious practices
in honour of these gods. In spite of this, in chapter 8.5, Tertullian allows
Christians to trade in wreaths as long as this is not related to idolatry. This
is yet another case in which Tertullian is “dominated by that with which
he is immediately concerned.” As we have already noted, Tertullian deals
separately with each of the subjects he wants to discuss. Indeed, he some-
times contradicts himself from one paragraph to another; using the same
arguments and examples for different purposes, interpreting them accord-
ing to his needs in each case.20 The Mishnah and Tosefta, on the other
hand, forbid Jews to buy from shops decorated with wreaths, because the
wreaths demonstrate that these shops are taking part in a fair dedicated
to a pagan god. The Talmudim discuss the nature of the wreaths, which
implies an anathema on those shops.21
18 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 6b; concerning the strenae or coins of good luck
wishes for the Calends of January, see Blidstein, Rabbinic Legislation XX, 56–61.
19 Tertullian, De Idolatria 15.
20 Waszink and Van Winden, Tertullianus 155; see Schöllgen’s opinion concerning the
decoration of the doors on the festivals dedicated to the Emperor “Die Teilnahme.”
21 Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 4; Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 9d, Babylonian Tal-
mud Avodah Zarah 12b, 13a. The concern of both the Mishnah and the Talmudim is to
prevent Jews from benefitting from idolatry. Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 13a states
that shops taking part in the fair get a reduction in the taxes they have to pay, and that in
order to show clearly that they are taking part in this fair dedicated to idolatry they have
to be adorned with wreaths. Jews should not encourage those shops and should not buy
in them, because the owner might be tempted to thank the divinity for the reduction of
his taxes. However fairs were not always dedicated to divinities in Palestine, and this is a
point the rabbis want to check every time, as witnessed in the Jerusalem Talmud (Z. Saf-
rai, “Fairs in Eretz Israel in the Period of the Mishnah and Talmud,” Zion 49 (1984) 134–58
[Hebrew]). Further, the Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 12b–13a understands that shops
taking part in the fair had to pay a tax to idolatry: this is the way they share in idolatry.
But Resh Lakish concludes with an innovation that a ‘benefit from idolatry’ could come
even from the very fact of breathing in the pleasant fragrance of the wreaths dedicated to
idolatry in the displays of shops which were decorated with them. He then establishes a
122 chapter nine
Private Festivals
It is obvious that both the Mishnah and Tertullian distinguish between
the feriae publicae, public festivals, and private festivals, feriae privatae.
It has been stated above that the main public festivals known and men-
tioned are similar in both the Mishnah and the De Idolatria. As for the
private ceremonies indicated, they are not exactly the same, and hence it
might seem difficult to compare the opinions about them. However, there
are some general remarks which do indicate some analogies, and, in any
case, all private celebrations have enough in common to require similar
patterns of behaviour.22
The Mishnah prohibits conducting business affairs with a pagan rejoicing
on a special occasion, since it implies an idolatrous ritual celebration:23
‫יום תגלחת זקנו ובלוריתו יום שעלה בו מן הים ויום שיצא מבית האסורין וגוי‬
‫שעשה משתה לבנו אינו אסור אלא אותו היום ואותו האיש בלבד‬
The day of the shaving of his beard and of his lock of hair, the day on which
he came back from the sea and the day on which he went out of prison and
a Gentile who organised a banquet for his son, it is not forbidden [to trade
with the Gentiles] except on this very day and [with] this specific man.
The aim is to reduce intimate contact and social interaction between Jews
and pagans to the minimum, in order to avoid assimilation and intermar-
riage.24 This is the way people who are not in a position to destroy idola-
try can avoid it.25 From the Christian standpoint, intermarriage between
distinction between several kinds of wreaths, concluding that Jews should be permitted
to buy only in those shops adorned with non-fragrant wreaths. Independently, Blidstein,
Rabbinic 373 remarks that Lieberman (Yevanit veYavnut 257–259) had already analysed the
use of wreaths as a popular way to mark festivities even among the Jews. In one instance
in Mishnah Bikurim iii, 2–3, ‫[“—וקרניו מצופות זהב ועטרה של זית בראשו‬the ox was led to
sacrifice] with his horns covered with gold and an olive-wreath on its head.”
22 Blidstein, Rabbinic 73; A. Steinfeld, Am Levadad: Mekhkarim beMassekhet Avodah
Zarah (Ramat Gan, 2008) 12–24, 305 will be mentioned below for his discussion of private
celebrations.
23 Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 3.
24 Halbertal, “Coexisting” 164, also Elmslie, The Mishnah on Mishnah Avodah Zarah ii, 6;
some instances in Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 20a, 31b, 35b. This idea is based on
Exodus 34:15–16, see appendix 3 “Intermarriage.”
25 Halbertal, “Coexisting” 164 on Midrash Tannaim, Hoffman ed. 58: Rabbi Yohanan
ben Zakkai asks the Jews not to destroy the pagan temples lest they will have to rebuild
them by themselves. Halbertal comments: “instead of destroying pagan reality, a Jew has
to avoid either supporting or benefiting from pagan worship directly or indirectly.” Con-
cerning Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai’s warning and its relation to events which occurred
in his time, see J. Neusner, A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, ca. 1–80 C.E. (Leiden
1970) 147–8. Neusner reports Philo’s account of the Emperor Gaius’ decision to place an
comparison 123
non-Christians and Christians, though disapproved in some Christian

texts, does not appear to be as severe a sin as it is for the Jews. Tertullian,
for his part, dealing with private celebrations in De Idolatria 16, tends to
allow Christians to mix with pagans on occasions which are simply social
functions:
Circa officia uero priuatarum et communium sollemnitatum, ut togae purae,
ut sponsalium, ut nuptialium, ut nominalium, nullum putem periculum obse-
ruari de flatu idololatriae, quae interuenit. [2] Causae enim sunt consideran-
dae, quibus praestatur officium
As regards the attendance, however, at private and public ceremonies, such
as that of donning the white toga, betrothals, weddings and name-giving, I
should think that no danger can be noticed in the breath of idolatry which is
mixed up with them. For one should consider the reasons that social duties
are fulfilled . . .26
A Christian can thus take part in a celebration implying an idolatrous
ritual as long as he has been invited for the celebration, and not for the
ritual itself, and as long as the celebration is not dedicated overall to an
idol. Here Tertullian manifests the opposite attitude to the one he has
already presented in De Idolatria 14 on public festivals. There he urged
Christians not to take part in the festivals, noting that they did not aban-
don the Jewish festivals—“which were once appreciated by God”—a deo
aliquando dilectae—for idolatrous festivals, which lack any sense and are
even an insult to God.27 He further argued on the subject of public festivals,
that pagans do not bother to learn what Christian celebrations are like,
and that, even if they did know about them, they would not take part in
them. His final argument on public festivals is that Christians should have
more than enough with their own religious celebrations. But Tertullian is
more lenient about private festivals, probably because of the missionary
character of Christianity. In general, Tertullian’s writings show him seek-
ing to strengthen, protect and guide Christians rather than to make new
converts. However, as we have already seen in the comparison between
imposing statue in the Temple to punish the Jews, about whom his subjects complained
“exaggeratedly” because they had destroyed an altar they had erected; the Jews were, in
any case, ordered to rebuild it. Philo concludes the passage stating: “On this event Yohanan
commented: ‘Do not destroy their altars so that you do not have to rebuild them with your
own hands.’ Do not destroy those of bricks that they may not say to you ‘Come and build
them of stone.’”
26 Tertullian, De Idolatria 16; officium means, in this context, social duties, as translated
in Waszink, Tertullianus.
124 chapter nine
the De Idolatria and the De Spectaculis, when Tertullian writes he takes

full advantage of his own considerable ability to relate to the mind-set of
non-Christians in order to be able to attract them as potential converts
to Christianity. On a practical level as well, Christians would need close
personal contacts with pagans to convey and expand their new religion.
Private celebrations have a social role rather than a religious one, which
is only a characteristic of public celebrations. It would appear that Tertul-
lian’s motivation in permitting such social contacts is to leave an opening
for pagans who might be attracted to Christianity. As for the rabbis, they
allow only very general relations with pagans so as not to isolate Jews
completely, as will be noted in detail below, but they have no interest
in—or desire to risk—close personal contacts between Jews and pagans.
These differences in the attitudes of Tertullian and the rabbis can be
illustrated by a common example. The Mishnah prohibits contacts with
someone who is making a wedding, ‫ משתה לבנו‬28 while Tertullian sees no
danger of idolatry in celebrations such as weddings, that is, in “conjunctio
maritalis.”29 It is not quite clear what we should understand by “banquet
for his son.”30 Is this a generic example for all the private occasions on
which the Gentiles rejoice and that are forbidden to Jews? Is its function
to illustrate more exactly the concept of private festivities using a precise
example? Or does it only refer to the specific and somehow problematic
case of the banquet for the son? These hesitations relate both to the real
meaning of the example in the Mishnah, but also to its further re-adapta-
tion in the Talmud. What is clear, however, is that the Mishnah is dealing
with the feast a father organises for his son’s wedding. This proposition
is supported by the use of the term ‫“—משתה לבנו‬a banquet for his son”
in other Jewish sources, where it is generally related to the celebration of
weddings (see, for example, Babylonian Talmud Ketuboth 4a about the
“seven days of the banquet” following a wedding, ‫)שבעת ימי המשתה‬. The
Jews, then, are not allowed to be involved in pagan celebrations of wed-
28 Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 3 and parallels Tosefta Avodah Zarah i, 4, Babylonian Tal-
mud Avodah Zarah 8b, Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 39c. I relate to the banquet as
an integral part of the text, although some would argue that it is a late supplement. See
L.Vana, “Les relations sociales entre Juifs et Païens à l’époque de la Mishna: la question du
Banquet privé,” Revues des Sciences Religieuses 71 (1997) 147–70, where she discusses this
point, and stresses in particular that the Jews of the Diaspora were allowed to take part
in private festivals until the third century, even if Palestinian Jews always rebuked them
for doing so.
30 See A. Steinfeld, Am Levadad: Mekhkarim beMassekhet Avodah Zarah (Ramat Gan,
2008).
comparison 125
dings, which inevitably involve rituals of idolatry. The Talmudim, for their
part, show a picture of Jews outside the Land of Israel who do participate
in such celebrations, and they rebuke them for doing so. Nevertheless,
it is interesting to note that Tosefta Avodah Zarah i, 4 does not speak
about “a banquet for his son” or ‫משתה לבנו‬, but only about ‫יחיד אפילו יום‬
‫“—המשתה שלו ויום שנעשה בו שלטון‬an individual, even on the day of his
banquet and on the day on which he gets high functions.” In other words,
it is dealing with any kind of banquet organised by a pagan that has the
potential to involve idolatrous rituals. Thus I wish to conclude that the
case of the banquet in the Mishnah is representative of all private celebra-
tions and it is therefore justified to use this element as a reference in the
comparison with the De Idolatria. In particular, the “banquet for his son”
could be seen as illustrating a general prohibition against eating with a
Gentile, applicable to any occasion when a Gentile would invite a Jew to
a celebration. The talmudic statement on the same event, on the other
hand, would seem to mean that the interdiction of eating with a Gentile is
particularly aimed at the festivities he has organised for his son’s wedding,
while, on other occasions, commensality is permitted. The ways in which
the Talmud reaches its own position, prohibiting such proximity only in
delimited cases, are beyond the framework of the present discussion.31
This conclusion about Jewish and Christian approaches to private cel-
ebrations which notes a Christian tendency to missionize and a relatively
cautious Jewish stance may well be seen as challenging the position of a
whole scholarly school which believes that the Synagogue was very strong
until the end of Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages.32 These scholars
identify what they propose as a well-developed Jewish missionary activity
among Gentiles, with Jews engaging in disputations with Christian pros-
elytes. I will develop this point later in the last chapter of this work: here I
shall only sketch the outline of some initial points. In fact Tertullian’s mis-
sionary attitudes have interesting modern parallels in a model described
in Stark and Bainbridge’s sociological survey of the Mormons’ method of
attracting new recruits.33 The Christians of Tertullian’s time, as we may
infer from the illustration provided by the De Idolatria where close social
31 Steinfeld, Am Levadad.
32 Simon and his followers. See D. Rokeah’s review of old and new theories concerning
Jewish proselytism in “Ancient Jewish Proselytism in Theory and in Practice,” Theologische
Zeitschrift 52 (1996) 206–24; more details are provided below.
33 R. Stark and W. Bainbridge, “Networks of Faith: Interpersonal Bonds and Recruit-
ment to Cults and Sects,” American Journal of Sociology 85 (1980) 1376–95.
126 chapter nine
contacts are allowed, may have sought potential new converts by activat-
ing networks of interpersonal relationships. As with the present-day Mor-
mons, third-century Christians might first have become acquainted with
Gentiles, attending their private celebrations, and maybe later inviting
them to their own. But, just as in the case of the Mormons, religious dis-
cussion would not have been initiated before people had actually forged
bonds of friendship. Only then could the early Christians initiate their
friends and/or relatives into their faith and, making their testimonials
to the “true” faith attractive, could tempt them to convert. Thus people
were drawn to the ideology because of their ties to the group.34 It is also
possible that what motivated Tertullian in his leniency towards personal
celebrations was the fact that numerous new converts to Christianity
were still in contact with their original pagan families and still wanted to
take part in the secular expressions of their lives.35 They were therefore
allowed to take part in social activities on condition that the pagan mem-
bers of the family did not invite them to participate in the actual sacri-
fices implied by such festivities. It could be that Tertullian tended to be
more stringent in fields such as business or civil functions because it was
simply easier for the Christians to stay apart from these since they had
never really been obliged to be in the foreground as active protagonists.
In the familial circle, on the other hand, they did have a specific role to
play and it was more difficult for them to renounce both this and their
families’ proximity.36 I do not think that this point contradicts Tertullian’s
missionary agenda as I conceive it. Tertullian had no interest in permit-
ting relationships with their former families other than keeping the new
converts within the fold of the Church. Otherwise he could simply have
ruled that adopting Christianity puts an end to any former relationship
with non-Christians. He would then have lost the less convinced of his
members who were unable to stand by such a requirement—as Jesus did
in the Gospels, and as is roughly the rabbis’ position concerning gentile
converts to Judaism. Moreover, in permitting such relationships Tertullian
34 Stark, Bainbridge, “Networks.” M. Goodman, Mission and Conversion (Oxford, 1994)

5, speaking of the Jews, says that they “tried to inform, educate or recruit into their mem-
bership specific individuals such as relatives, household slaves or friends with whom
they already had social relations,” and he adds that there is “no evidence of a missionary
impulse towards total outsiders.” But Goodman denies any movement initiated by Jews
towards potential converts and argues that Jews converted only those people who actually
approached them and really wanted to become Jews.
35 Schöllgen, “Die Teilnahme” 23–7.
36 Schöllgen, “Die Teilnahme” 28.
comparison 127
keeps a door open that could allow for further new conversions, as in
Stark and Bainbridge’s model.
Thus the early Christians set out to solicit Gentile interest in their mes-
sage, perhaps in reaction to the Jewish missionary approach. It may be
that Jews did not actively attempt to forge bonds with their neighbours
in their homes, but their synagogues and community activities were open
to the curious. Jews were more interested in people who had a primary
tendency to inquire about Judaism rather than attempting to convince
the incredulous. Similarly, Tertullian did not send his disciples to convert
complete strangers either, but only people whom they knew: in De Idola-
tria 14.7 he says explicitly that pagans are not interested in mixing with
Christians on their public festivals and that none of the participants would
be interested in the Christians’ celebrations should they hear about them.
Tertullian sends his disciples out to engage in missionary work only if it
is likely to be successful and not if it could somehow threaten the Chris-
tians’ faith. People were attracted to the synagogue, which was the most
salient element of an old religion everyone had heard about. Carthagin-
ian people were quite unchurched, once their civic religious duties had
been performed, and in a position to adhere to any belief that attracted
them, so the Jews had only to wait for those who were interested in com-
ing to their place of worship and then please them with their practices.
Only then would they initiate conversions without investing too much
effort in looking for proselytes. In brief, Jews waited for converts to come,
while Christians went out to look for them. The missionary fight for pros-
elytes between Jews and Christians described by M. Simon and his fol-
lowers may have concerned potential recruits to the synagogues, who had
already begun to inquire about Judaism and whom the Christians came to
canvass and attract within the Jewish framework in order to divert them
from Judaism and offer them Christianity in exchange.37
Commensality
The issue of private festivals opens the discussions about regular meals,
and the rules Christians and Jews were confronted with when they wanted
to share food and drink with pagans. Fundamentally, the principle should
have been the same as for the festivals: Tertullian should allow every-
thing but active participation in sacrifice, and the rabbis should forbid
37 This is roughly the situation presented on the stage of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho.
128 chapter nine
everything. But this is not exactly the case. To begin with Tertullian, he
wonders whether, from a practical point of view, Christians should eat
with pagans, even if, basically, there is no formal interdiction. He reaches
the conclusion that Christians should abstain from eating with pagans
because idolatry is too odious and harmful however one participates in
it, and he justifies this with a verse from John 16:20: “I tell you the truth,
you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but
your grief will turn to joy.”38 The time to eat with the pagans has not yet
arrived:
Gaudere cum gaudentibus et lugere cum lugentibus de fratribus dictum est
ab apostolo ad unanimitatem cohortante. [3] Ceterum ad haec nihil commu-
nionis est lumini et tenebris, uitae et morti, aut scindimus quod est scriptum:
saeculum gaudebit, uos uero lugebitis. Si cum saeculo gaudemus, uerendum
est, ne cum saeculo et lugeamus. [4] Saeculo autem gaudente lugeamus et
saeculo postea lugente gaudebimus.
To rejoice with the rejoicing and to mourn with the mourning (Romans 12:15)
was said about the brethren by the Apostle, when he exhorted [them] to
be of one mind. But as concerns the matters at hand, nothing is shared
between light and darkness, between life and death; otherwise we rescind
what is written, the world will rejoice, you however, will mourn. If we rejoice
with the world, it is to be feared that we shall also.mourn with the world.
But let us mourn while the world rejoices, and we shall rejoice when after-
wards the world mourns.39
Here Tertullian appears to be addressing occasions where there is a greater
risk of Christians being contaminated by idolatry than of idolaters being
attracted to Christianity, and his prescriptions are thus similar to those he
made for public festivals. For the rabbis, the Jewish dietary laws are their
strongest tool preventing “loyal” Jews from assimilating.40 Thus, like them,
38 Tertullian, De Idolatria 13, and also in the De Spectaculis 13: quia non possumus cenam
dei edere et cenam daemoniorum—“because we cannot eat at the same time from God’s
table and from the devils’ table.” Avoiding idolatry must involve all of the human bodily
functions, as well as mind and spirit, including mouth and stomach. In De Spectaculis 28
the same argument is drawn from the Gospel of John.
39 Tertullian, De Idolatria 13. For commensality as an inner-communitarian cultic prac-
tice among the Christians, see I. Henderson, “Early Christianity, Textual Representation
and Ritual Extension,” Texte als Medium und Reflexion von Religion im römischen Reich,
E. von der Osten, J. Rüpke et al., eds. (Stuttgart, 2006) 91.
40 J. Barclay, “Who was Considered an Apostate in the Jewish Diaspora?,” in G. Stanton
and G. Stroumsa, eds., Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity (Cam-
bridge, 1998) 88; see also Simon; Verus 69: “On voit ici la solide barrière qui empêche ce
judaïsme très hellénisé de se dégrader, de se diluer dans l’ambiance païenne à laquelle
il doit tant: la barrière des observances. Protégé par elle, le judaïsme sauvegarde son
comparison 129
Tertullian prevents his community from mixing with pagans. Mishnah

Avodah Zarah emphasises the risk of food becoming contaminated with
non-kosher elements from Gentiles who would have prepared it without
Jewish supervision.41 The Babylonian Talmud takes this a step further, and
rules that the invitation itself to a shared meal with pagans is forbidden:
‫ משעת קריאה‬or “from the moment of the invitation on,” even if the food
could be kosher if the Jews brought their own food and servants.42 For the
rabbis, to eat in a pagan’s home is almost always tantamount to sacrific-
ing to an idol; Tertullian, in contrast, at least on certain occasions, can
envisage a possible separation between the fact of eating and the fact of
sacrificing at the same celebration. But while Tertullian is more stringent
than expected concerning table matters, the rabbis appear more lenient.
The Tosefta and Babylonian Talmud show a reality in which Jews actually
do take part in pagans’ festivities:
‫גוי שעשה משתה לבנו וזימן כל היהודים שבעירו אף על פי שאוכלין משלהן‬
‫ושותין משלהן ושמש שלהן עומד לפניהם מעלה עליהם הכתוב כאילו אכלו מזבחי‬
‫מתים שנאמר וקרא לך ואכלת מזבחו‬
A Gentile who made a banquet for [the wedding of ] his son and invited all
the Jews of his city: even though they bring and eat their own food and drink
their own wine and their own servant serves them, Scripture regards them
as though they had eaten from the sacrifices of corpses, as it is said: ‘He shall
invite you and you shall eat from his sacrifice.’43
The rabbis rebuke them for doing so. However, Mishnah Avodah Zarah
also gives detailed rules about how to behave while eating with a Gentile,
which shows that this can also be envisaged in a neutral way, with neither
blame nor praise.44 Moreover, further on in the Babylonian Talmud, the
Roman Emperor is presented eating with and bringing food to Rabbi.45
originalité. Grâce à elle, il peut s’ouvrir impunément, sur le plan intellectuel, à toutes les
influences du dehors.” Of course, this is not true for all Jews and some overstep the laws,
assimilating this way completely in the surrounding culture while others close themselves
off totally—or almost totally since they still need to know the enemy in order to resist it
efficiently—from foreign culture. The Jew envisaged here stands at the midpoint between
two extremes (his earlier representation might be a Philo, for example).
41 Mishnah Avodah Zarah ii.
42 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 8a, also Tosefta Avodah Zarah iv, 6.
43 Ibid.
44 Mishnah Avodah Zarah v.
45 In fact Rabbi Judah II Nesiah, grandson of Rabbi Judah haNasi, redactor of the Mish-
nah; Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 10b–11a, see also Genesis Rabbah 11.4: ‫רבינו עשה‬
‫“—סעודה לאנטונינוס בשבת‬Rabbi made a meal for Antoninus on Shabbat.”
130 chapter nine
Once again, situations in which a Jew would eat with a pagan can be
envisaged.
Tertullian and the rabbis, then, are very close in their way of deal-
ing with social interaction with pagans. Both prefer to avoid it, but both
permit it in special circumstances and with precise restrictions. In fact,
even if the final result is the same on both sides, the motivations do differ
somewhat. Both want to demonstrate a good way of life to their disciples,
but the rabbis, confronted with reality, must lighten their interdictions in
order to make daily life practically possible for Jews in a pagan society,
whereas Tertullian restricts the liberty given to Christians and wants to
reduce contact with Gentiles because of his ideology: his theology and
convictions do not allow close relationships with confirmed idolaters,
whatever the cost of Christian insularity may be.
Immorality in Idolatry
The bitterness shown by the rabbis toward idolatry “is found at the same
extent in Tertullian and is surely due to the horror of a religious system
which led to such immorality as is reflected in Avodah Zarah ii, 1.”46 The
rabbis assumed—or rather wanted to assume—that Gentiles practised
“bestiality, bloodshed, and fornication without limit or restriction.”47 Does
Tertullian, a convert from the pagan world who knows idolatrous prac-
tices from the inside, provide the same picture of idolatry as the rabbis
who reconstruct their ideas about idolatry from the few snatches of infor-
mation they obtain from the outside?
De Idolatria opens with a fervent attack on idolatry as the site and the
generic term for all the sins of the world, which coincides with the rab-
bis’ accusations.48 For Tertullian, idolatry is the worst of the sins, coming
just before adultery and homicide.49 Similarly, the rabbis, enjoin Jews to
46 Elmslie, The Mishnah, on mishnah i, 4.

47 J. Neusner, The Talmud of Babylonia. An Academic Commentary XXV. Bavli Tractate
Avodah Zarah (Atlanta, 1994) 381.
48 Tertullian, De Idolatria 1. Idolatry is a crimen, crime, a delictum, fraud, an adulte-
rium, adultery, a stuprum, fornication, homicida, homicide. Cf. D. Efroymson’s article,
“Tertullian’s Anti-Jewish Rhetoric: Guilt by Association,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review
36 (1980) 25–87, where he shows how Tertullian uses the adjective “Jewish” to speak of
immorality, impatience, empty ritual, continual defilement, carnal practices, excess, inef-
fectiveness and idolatry.
49 Already noticed by Friedheim, Rabbinisme 44 n.137. Tertullian, De Idolatria 1: Princi-
pale crimen generis humani—“The principal crime of the human race”; Tertullian, De Pati-
entia 5.21: Haec ut principalia penes dominum delicta—“These [I mention] as the principal
delinquencies in the sight of the Lord”; De Spectaculis 2.9: atquin summa offensa penes
comparison 131
die rather than commit these three sins, in the same order.50 Moreover,
Tertullian says that idolatry is like homicide and “fraud against God, by
denying Him the honors due to Him and offering them to others”—
idolatria fraudem deo facit honores illi suos denegans et conferens aliis.51
Similar ideas can be identified in the story of Pinhas as presented by the
rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 81b–82a, based on the bib-
lical story in Numbers 25. Pinhas killed his compatriot Zimri in the act
of intercourse with an idolatrous woman. Traditional commentators’ and
scholars’ explanation of Pinhas’ act say that idolatry and, especially, inter-
course between a Jewish man and an idolatrous woman are like homicide,
because they represent a theft, as it were, of children from Israel: the idol-
atrous woman’s child being considered as non-Jewish, this represents the
loss of future Jews.52 On the other hand, in this same story, Pinhas is not
criticised for killing Zimri since he acted in order to make reparation of
‫חילול השם‬, blasphemy.53 Zimri’s blasphemy is intrinsic in his participation
in idolatrous relationships. Thus this rabbinic explanation has the same
meaning as Tertullian’s paragraph 1.3.
De Idolatria 1.4 demonstrates one more step in the analogies between
Tertullian and the rabbis’ attitudes towards idolatry when Tertullian
describes idolatry as a locus for activities full of wine and drunkenness.
Most of the rules established by the Mishnah concern the Gentiles’ wine—
libation wine especially—and the behaviour a Jew must adopt toward it.
The rabbis forbid libation wine because of its implication in idolatry, and
not precisely because of the drunken behavior it fosters. Nevertheless, we
illum idolatria est—“idolatry in His eyes is the crowning sin”; idolatry is the main sin. See
Tertullian, De Pudicitia 5.5, for the three worst sins, that are the same as those envisaged
by the rabbis, in the same decreasing order of gravity.
50 ‫“—יהרג ואל יעבור‬he is to be killed and not transgress,” Tosefta Shabbat xv, 17, Babylo-
nian Talmud Sanhedrin 74a, Babylonian Talmud Ketuboth 19a, Babylonian Talmud Avodah
Zarah 27b, Babylonian Talmud Yomah 82a, Babylonian Talmud Pesahim 25a–b, and other
examples or parallels in the Jerusalem Talmud. The Talmud further discusses whether a
Jew must die to avoid those sins, even if no one can see him, or only if he is required to
transgress Jewish laws in public, in order to sanctify God’s name.
51 Tertullian, De Idolatria 1.3; see, for example, Tertullian, De Idolatria 1.1: idolatres homi-
cida est—“idolatry is an homicide”; 1.2 idolatren homicidum fecisse—“the idolater makes
an homicide”; 1.3 iam in his aeque idolatria de homicidii reatu non liberatur—“yet as well
idolatry cannot be freed of the charge of homicide.”
52 See as a parallel to the commentaries on this sugya, discussion piece in the Talmud,
Schiffman, Who 16.
53 Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Avodah Zarah, 14.9 ‫מי שגידף את השם בשם עבודה‬
‫ קנאין פוגעין בו והורגין אותו‬,‫זרה‬, “someone who blasphemed the name of God through
idolatry, the zealous attack him and kill him.”
132 chapter nine
cannot ignore the fact that the rabbis might have envisaged some unspo-
ken danger in getting drunk together with idolaters. Without sobriety,
Jews risk being implicated in idolatry in words and deeds, without being
aware of it, and following idolaters in their practices without being aware
of their idolatrous character.54 A similar concern can be noted in the
rabbinic prohibition against Jews’ partaking of idolaters’ bread.55 Tertul-
lian goes further: drunkenness does not simply stand alone, but is linked
to lustfulness, lasciviae et ebrietates—“lustfulness and drunkenness.”56 For
the rabbis, idolatry is similarly seen as closely related to fornication, ‫זנות‬.57
Of course, demonization and accusations of immorality are tools com-
monly used in polemics between opposing streams in general, and are not
particular to Judaism and Christianity against paganism. Indeed, attacks
between competitive groups often focus on sexual immorality. To describe
an opponent in an exaggerated fashion as being amoral in his private life
is a stereotyped way of discrediting him. Despite the hackneyed character
of such accusations, the rabbis continue to stress that idolaters have ten-
dencies to fornication—and bloodshed—which put them under constant
suspicion: they are unreliable and dangerous. Because of this, a Jewish
woman may not stay alone with pagans: ‫ולא תתיחד אשה עמהן שחשודין על‬
‫“—העריות‬and a [Jewish] woman may not remain alone with them since
they are suspected of lewdness,” nor a Jewish man, lest they kill him. This
is why a Jew cannot have his hair cut by an idolater, why idolaters can-
not deliver a Jewish woman’s baby, and why the baby cannot stay alone
54 A demonstration that the rabbis could indeed envisage such circumstances appears
in a story told in Sifre leBamidbar, Horovitz 171, when a Jew gets drunk in an idolatress’
house and finally accommodates her request to uncover his bottom in front of an image
of the Peor, which is the way the Peor should actually be revered.
55 Cf. appendix 3.
56 Tertullian, De Idolatria 1.4; Tertullian, De Idolatria 1 passim: idolatry also implies
concupiscence, or “concupiscentiae,” fornication, or “stuprum,” adultery, or “adulterium”
as one example: “And thus it is that the Holy Scriptures use the designation of fornication
in their upbraiding of idolatry”—Atque adeo scripturae sanctae stupri uocabulo utuntur in
idololatriae exprobratione.
57 In the Bible, in Exodus 34:15, Isaiah 1:21, Jeremiah 3:3, for instance, the cult of Baal
Peor is very representative of fornication in idolatry for the rabbis, and the Bacchanals
are well known for their depravations in the Graeco-Roman world. Neusner, The Talmud
385, states that the Babylonian Talmud contrasts opposites, and among them Torah study
as opposed to lewdness and other sins. Giulia Canedi, “Problemi di convivenza: spunti
per un confronto tra il ‘De Idololatria’ di Tertulliano e ‘Mishnah Abodah Zarah’,” Quaderni
del Ramo d’Oro online 1 (2008) 77, strongly emphasises demonization of polytheists as a
feature which leads to similar Jewish and Christian principles concerning cohabitation
with pagans.
comparison 133
with idolaters.58 When a Jewish man walks together with an idolater, he

must be ready to pull out a weapon in case the idolater attacks him. Ani-
mals are not spared either, and cannot be left under an idolater’s exclu-
sive supervision: ‫אין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקאות של עובדי גלולים מפני שחשודין‬
‫“—על הרביעה‬Cattle may not be left in inns of idolaters because they are
suspected [of using the beasts] for carnal connection.”59 When it comes
to healing, Jews can take advice from idolaters and let their beasts be
healed by them, but may not do the same when it comes to human beings:
‫“—מתרפאין מהן רפוי ממון אבל לא רפוי נפשות‬It is possible to make one’s
property be healed by them, but not human beings.” Circumcision by an
idolater is also forbidden because it is dangerous: ‫גוי לא ימול את ישראל מפני‬
‫“—שחשודין על הנפשות‬a Gentile will not circumcise a Jew since he is sus-
pected of being a murderer.”60 A further, though less dangerous, concern
relates to the unreliability of idolaters: a Jew cannot leave his wine with an
idolater without supervision because the Gentile is suspected of making
bad use of it and rendering it unfit for Jewish use. Similarly, for Tertul-
lian, idolatry “contaminates” Christians.61 The Babylonian Talmud also
tells a story which equates idolatry and lewdness, when Rabbi Hanina and
Rabbi Jonathan hesitate whether to take a path that passes by a brothel
or one that passes a pagan temple.62 There is also another talmudic story
of Rabbi Meir’s sister-in-law, who found herself in an idolater’s brothel,
which once again makes clear the link the rabbis made between idolaters
and sexual immorality.63
But while the rabbis seem to truly believe—or want Jews to truly
believe64—that idolaters commit all sorts of abominations, Tertullian
58 Mishnah Avodah Zarah ii, 1 as compared with Tertullian, De Idolatria 1.2 and the
Gentiles’ concupiscence: adulterium et stuprum in eodem recognoscas—“you see in the
same person adultery and fornication”; sic et stupro mergitur—“he thus sinks into fornica-
tion”; stupri vocabulo utuntur in idololatriae—“[the Scriptures] use the word ‘fornication’
for idolatry,” and further examples from Mishnah Avodah Zarah ii, 1–2. In the Book of
Revelation 2:20—and Tertullian is among the earliest authors who mention this book—
fornication and idolatry are also linked with one another; the idea, though from a Jewish
background permeates Christian writings.
59 Mishnah Avodah Zarah ii, 1–2, Tosefta Avodah Zarah iii, 2.
60 Mishnah Avodah Zarah ii, 2, Tosefta Avodah Zarah iii, 4; Tosefta Avodah Zarah iii, 12.
61 Tertullian, De Idolatria 7.2: contaminant, contaminaverunt.
62 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 17a–b.
63 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 18a.
64 For close arguments concerning the rabbinic construction of the image of the
Gentiles as diabolic in order to secure a separation between them and the Jews, see
S. Fishbane, Deviancy in Early Rabbinic Literature (Leiden-Boston, 2007) 121–41, “Descrip-
tive or Prescriptive: The Case of the Gentile in Mishnah.”
134 chapter nine
cannot honestly say that the only interest of idolaters is in crime and forni-
cation. It is true that there is a general tendency for retrospective accounts
of their rejected past made by former insiders to be exaggerated.65 Such
exaggeration allows the reformed witness to testify about the amount
of the progress he has made: though he once belonged to a horrendous
world, he has now achieved much worthier principles to live by. Thus the
first part of the De Idolatria presents this sort of exaggerated testimony,
whereas the function of the second chapter is to soften the black picture
Tertullian has painted of idolatry. This was necessary because none of the
potential converts to Christianity still engaged in an idolatrous life, nor
former pagans recently converted to Christianity, would give any credence
to such lies told by a Church Father. They might even have deterred them
from the new faith. Tertullian therefore grants that idolatry can express
itself in really horrible acts, but indicates that the sins he enumerates can
also be understood allegorically. Idolatry represents the spirit of those sins
and not necessarily their actual literal practice. As in the New Testament,
idolatry and sin can be found behind acts and ideas that seem inoffensive,
such as a glance or a word.
Other Entertainments
Bathhouses
Are Jews and Christians allowed to enjoy the public baths? Tertullian’s
most unambiguous claim that Christians do use the baths without any
problem appears in Apologeticum 42.2:
Itaque non sine foro, non sine macello, non sine balneis, tabernis, officinis,
stabulis, nundinis vestris ceterisque commerciis cohabitamus in hoc saeculo
So we sojourn with you in the world, abjuring neither forum, nor meat mar-
ket, nor bath, nor shop, nor workshop, nor inn, nor weekly market, nor any
other places of commerce.66
65 Schöllgen, “Die Teilnahme” 9 and passim, throughout his article emphasises several
passages of the De Idolatria where he thinks that Tertullian exaggerates and uses dispro-
portionate polemical tones and arguments.
66 As is often the case, Tertullian offers in this sentence, in a particular apologetic con-
text, arguments he would contradict elsewhere, under other circumstances: it is not the
main intention of the De Idolatria to shed light on Christian-Gentile interaction. On the
contrary, it generally tends to try to restrict to the minimum any possibility of unnecessary
friction between Christians and pagans.
comparison 135
However, every other allusion he makes to the baths includes a rebuke.

Christians do use the baths, but they are full of idols; they are an unneces-
sary caprice and they are superfluous in the life of a Christian.67 As for the
Jews, they are allowed to frequent the baths under special conditions: if
the baths belong to an idol, entrance to the baths must be free, so that a
Jew will not finance idolatry; if the baths belong to human beings, they are
permitted, and if they are co-owned by people and idols, they are permit-
ted even if there is an entrance fee.68 But a Jewish owner of baths cannot
hire them out to a non-Jew: ‫“—לא ישכיר לו את המרחץ‬he will not rent to
him the baths.”69
Neither the Mishnah nor Tertullian forbids the participation of Jews or
Christians, respectively, in the construction and non-figurative decoration
of public baths. However, neither Jews nor Christians may take part in the
construction of the niche in which an idol will be placed.70 It has nev-
ertheless been asserted that such a rule is not practical because Roman
bathhouses had several niches in each of their rooms, which makes a Jew
unable to construct anything at all, since he would have to stop any time
he begins to construct such buildings.71 That is perhaps the reason why the
Talmud permits his payment, a posteriori, to a Jew who had constructed a
niche: ‫“—אם בנה שכרו מותר‬if he already built, his wages are permitted.”72
Tertullian, however, is more stringent concerning the interdiction against
building niches, since he is not interested in ensuring economic subsis-
tence for the Christians, as the rabbis are in ensuring wages for the Jews.
Christians should find occupations that do not involve idolatry at all, even
though in Tertullian’s eyes everything that is not Christian is idolatrous.
However, despite the idolatrous figures decorating them, baths are nev-
ertheless permitted for Jewish and Christian use.73 Another consideration
67 Tertullian, De Spectaculis 8–9, De Paenitentia 11.1, De Corona Militis 3.3, De Idolatria

15.6, De Idolatria 8, De Virginibus Velandis 12.3–4.
68 Mishnah Avodah Zarah iv, 3.
69 Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 9.
70 De Idolatria 8.1, Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 7 (parallels in Babylonian Talmud Avodah
Zarah 19b, Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 9d). See appendix 4.
71 Blidstein, Rabbinic Legislation 292.
72 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 19b.
73 The fact is illustrated, for instance, by the story of Rabban Gamaliel in the baths of
Aphrodite in Mishnah Avodah Zarah iii, 4. Literature abounds on the attitudes of the Jews
of the time of the Mishnah and of the Talmud regarding the baths and especially on
the baths of Aphrodite in Acco. See the rich secondary literature cited in Y. Eliav, “Did the
Jews First Abstain from Using the Roman Bath” [Hebrew], Cathedra 75 (1995) 5–35; “The
Roman Bath as a Jewish Institution: Another Look at the Encounter Between Judaism and
the Greco-Roman Culture,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 31 (2000) 426–54; “Idolatry in
136 chapter nine
concerning the baths which is common to both Tertullian and the rab-
bis relates to the figurative shapes of the fountainheads. Tertullian refers
to these pejoratively in De Idolatria 15.6: Nam et alia ostia in balneis
adorari videmus74 as one more futile object of the pagans’ adoration. The
rabbis discuss the matter in the Tosefta, where they specify the condi-
tions under which a Jew is permitted to drink from such fountainheads
without giving the impression that he reveres the idols they represent.75
The Talmud treats them as it does roads and the like, as examples of pub-
lic conveniences that cannot be forbidden for Jewish use.76 The rabbinic
intention in the avoidance of public idolatrous manifestations was aimed
at demonstrating disdain for idolatry, but such behaviour could actually
be interpreted from the outside in the opposite way, as showing fear and
respect for its sanctity.77
Shows and Games

Tertullian is a fervent opponent of pagan spectacles and games. In his De
Idolatria, he only sketchily reminds the audience of what his positions
are and sends the reader back to the earlier work he dedicated to the
subject, his De Spectaculis: De spectaculis autem et uoluptatibus eiusmodi
suum iam uolumen impleuimus—“about spectacles and pleasures of that
sort, we have already filled a special volume of its own.”78 In fact this ear-
lier work is nothing more than a wholesale criticism of idolatry. Shows,
games, amphitheatres, and the like are despised because of their idola-
trous character. Although Scriptures do not forbid them in and of them-
the Roman Bathhouse—Two Comments” [Hebrew], Cathedra 110 (2003) 173–80; as well
as A. Yadin, “Raban Gamliel, Aphrodite’s Bath, and the Question of Pagan Monotheism,”
Jewish Quarterly Review 96 (2006) 149–17 and C. Hezser, “Palestinian Rabbis’ Encounter with
Graeco-Roman Paganism: Rabban Gamliel in the Bathhouse of Aphrodite in Acco (M.A.Z.
3:4),” http://www.jnjr.div.ed.ac.uk/Primary%20Sources/rabbinic/hezser_palestinianrabbis
.html.
74 “For we see that other entrances/sources/fountainheads (fashioned faucets) are
worshipped in the baths.” Actually, the signification of this passage in Tertullian is the
subject of a controversy between Saul Lieberman’s supporters and his opponents. For fur-
ther details see appendix 5 a.
75 Tosefta Avodah Zarah vi, 5–6.
76 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 48b, 59a (R. Yohanan in the name of R. Shim’on
b. Yehotzadak).
77 S. Lieberman, “Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries,” Jewish Quarterly Review
36 (1946) 369 [=Texts and Studies (New-York 1974) 152) n. 283]; G.J. Blidstein, “R. Yohanan,
Idolatry, and Public Privilege,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 5 (1974) 159.
78 Tertullian, De Idolatria 13. The link between Tertullian’s De Idolatria and De Spec-
taculis has already been discussed in the second chapter of the present work.
comparison 137
selves, they exist for idolatry and because of it, and no one can take part
in them and avoid engaging in idolatry.79 Here is the first parallel with
rabbinic thought. Mishnah Avodah Zarah itself does not say a word about
attending shows and deals only with building places for them. Only in i, 7
does it specify that it is forbidden for Jews to sell dangerous animals to
pagans: ‫“—אין מוכרין להם דובין ואריות וכל דבר שיש בו נזק לרבים‬it is prohib-
ited to sell them bears, or lions and anything that might cause injury to
many people.” At first glance, it looks as if this is a general stipulation
that has no connection or relevance to the spectacles. However, the Jeru-
salem Talmud establishes the link indirectly, in that a discussion of the
spectacles immediately follows the interdiction against selling danger-
ous animals.80 The beasts referred to in the interdiction were very likely
to be used in gladiatorial displays, and it is a little strange that this is
not clearly addressed there. The connection is made explicit in Tosefta
Avodah Zarah, which cites Rabbi Meir’s words: ‫העולה לתרטיאות של גוים‬
‫“—אסור משום עבודה זרה‬He who goes up into the Gentiles’ [amphi]the-
atres, this is forbidden on the grounds of idolatry.”81 The first reason,
then, for avoiding such manifestations is the same for both Tertullian and
the rabbis. But the Tosefta immediately adds: ‫אם אינם מזבחין אסור משום‬
‫“—מושב לצים‬If they are not actually making a sacrifice it is still prohib-
ited, on the grounds of seating oneself with scoffers.” This very same verse
from Psalm 1:1 is used by Tertullian to refer to the theatre audiences in
De Spectaculis 3.3, where he writes: felix vir . . . qui non abiit in concilium
impiorum et in via peccatorum non stetit nec in cathedra pestium sedit—
“Blessed is the man who has not gone into the assembly of the impious,
nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of scorners.”82 Like the
79 See Friedheim, Rabbinisme 26, who asserts that from the second century on, the
Roman events lose their original idolatrous burden in the interest of more pragmatic con-
cerns: panem et circenses, bread and games.
80 Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 40a.
81 Tosefta Avodah Zarah ii, 5; parallels in Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 18b, Jeru-
salem Talmud Avodah Zarah 40a.
82 It should be mentioned here that Tertullian sees the “assembly of the impious” as
representing the group of Jews who deliberated upon the fate of Jesus and decided on
his death. Could this be a veiled message to the rabbis, asserting that, despite his use of
the same sources, Tertullian does not mean to fight exactly in the same camp as they do?
Turcan, Tertullien 104, states that the understanding of the “seats of scorners” as theatres
is probably of Jewish origin.
Neusner, The Talmud 385, states that the Babylonian Talmud contrasts opposites and
among them Israel’s probity and dignity with gentile buffoonery.
P. Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique (Leiden, 2006) 40–50, explains why it
is more likely that Tertullian draws on Jewish exegesis than on the Church tradition via
138 chapter nine
rabbis, Tertullian interprets this verse as referring to gladiatorial displays

in amphitheatres and circuses, and forbids Christians to join the “scoff-
ers” in the theatres. However, both Tertullian and the rabbis allow Chris-
tians or Jews to enter pagan theatres for an “honest reason.”83 Both also
condemn the pagans for taking their daughters to the amphitheatres,
which are full of sin and immodesty.84 They agree once again upon the
fact that someone who attends violent shows is as guilty as if he were vio-
lent and a killer himself.85 Finally, Tertullian argues that the shows injure
Clement (Paedagogus 3.11. 76.3; Stromata 2.15.67.4), though Clement was particularly close
to Jewish thinking.
83 Tertullian, De Spectaculis 8.8: nam non sola ista conciliabula spectaculorum, sed
etiam templa ipsa sine periculo disciplinae adire servus dei potest urguente causa simplici
dumtaxat, quae non pertineat ad proprium eius loci negotium vel officium—“For not only
the places for show-gatherings, but even the temples, may be entered without any peril
of his religion by the servant of God, if he has only some honest reason for it, uncon-
nected with their proper business and official duties.” Tertullian does not give examples
of justified reasons, and even permits access to pagan temples when no ritual activity
is held there. In Tosefta ii, 7, the rabbis allow the presence of Jews at the shows during
the representations for two reasons: first, helping the loser in the games to stay alive by
shouting in his favour, and secondly, to testify to the death of a Jew in order to allow his
widow to remarry (a Jewish woman cannot remarry if her husband’s fate is unknown or
unclear: she must either be divorced or people must know for certain that her husband
has died in order for her to be free to remarry. Without those conditions, she remains
under the risk of being married, wherever her husband may be and she is deemed to be
abandoned, ‫עגונה‬.).
84 Tertullian, De Spectaculis 17.1: similiter impudicitiam omnem amoliri iubemur. Hoc igi-
tur modo etiam a theatro separamur, quod est privatum consistorium impudicitiae, ubi nihil
probatur quam quod alibi non probatur—“Are we not, in like manner, enjoined to put away
from us all immodesty? On this ground, again, we are excluded from the theatre, which
is immodesty’s own peculiar abode, where nothing is in repute but what elsewhere is
disreputable”; 21.2: ut et qui filiae virginis ab omni spurco verbo aures tuetur, ipse eam in the-
atrum ad illas voces gesticulationesque deducat—“he who carefully protects and guards his
virgin daughter’s ears from every polluting word, takes her to the theatre himself, exposing
her to all its vile words and attitudes”; Ruth Rabbah 2.22 ‫בתי אין דרכן של בנות ישראל לילך‬
‫“—לבתי תיאטראות ולבתי קירקסיאות שלהם‬my daughter, it is not in the habits of Jewish
maidens to go to their theatres and circuses” [text from Midrash Rabbah; Ruth (Jerusalem
2001)], and other examples, for instance 1.6.
M. Lerner, The Book of Ruth in Aggadic Literature and Midrash Ruth Rabba (Ph.D. Jeru-
salem) adopts the version ‫אין דרכן של ישראל לילך‬, “it is not in the habits of the Jews to
go” instead of ‫בתי אין דרכן של בנות ישראל‬, “it is not in the habits of Jewish maidens”
though he records four different sources that show the version ‫בנות‬, “maidens.” In the
parts of his work called “misconduct of the generation” and “modesty,” he does not
comment this sentence. Concerning the word ‫שלהם‬, “their,” Lerner records in the manu-
scripts the version ‫של גויים‬, “of gentiles.”
85 Tosefta Avodah Zarah ii, 7: ‫“—היושב באיסטרטון הרי זה שופך דמים‬he who sits in
amphitheatres is guilty of bloodshed” (also Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 18b for
‫ ;היושב באיסטרטון‬Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 40a); Tertullian, De Spectaculis 18, 20
where the spectator is a reus, a criminal.
comparison 139
the Christians’ tranquility of soul, while the rabbis assert that they divert
the Jews from the study of the Torah, which should be their delight: “his
desire is in God’s Torah,” ‫בתורת ה' חפצו‬.86 Besides these similarities, a dif-
ference should be emphasised. Tertullian describes the shows as being
bad in and of themselves, as well as bad for Christians specifically because
of their very nature. The rabbis attempt to frighten Jews by presenting the
shows as morally and physically hazardous because the shows frequently
made Jews the object of insult and mockery, thereby endangering them
if they attended these spectacles. The shows are not a place for Jewish
people; they and their faith are attacked and ridiculed there both on the
stage, and from the audience, where drunken pagans sit all the time.87 We
86 Tertullian, De Spectaculis 15, Tosefta Avodah Zarah ii, 6; Babylonian Talmud Avodah
Zarah 18b; Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 40a.
87 Lamentations Rabbah introduction 17 (17 ‫ )פתיחתא‬on Psalm 69:12:
‫ישיחו בי יושבי שער אלו אומות העולם שהן יושבין בבתי תרטיאות ובבתי קרקסיאות ונגינות‬
‫שותי שכר מאחר שהן יושבין ואוכלין ושותין ומשתכרין הן יושבין ומשיחין בי ומלעיגים בי‬
‫ואומרים בגין דלא נצרוך לחרובא כיהודאי והן אומרין אלו לאלו כמה שנים את בעי מחי‬
‫והן אומרים כחלוקא דיהודאי דשבתא ומכניסין את הגמל לטרטיאות שלהם והחלוקים שלו‬
‫עליו והן אומרין אלו לאלו על מה זה מתאבל והן אומרים היהודים הללו שומרי שביעית‬
‫הן ואין להם ירק ואכלו החוחים של זה והוא מתאבל עליהם ומכניסים את המתים (מומוס‬
‫) לתיטרון שלהם וראשו מגולח והן אומרין אלו לאלו על מה‬see below in the translation
‫ראשו של זה מגולח והוא אומר היהודים הללו שומרי שבתות הן וכל מה שהן יגעין כל‬
‫ימות השבת אוכלין בשבת ואין להם עצים לבשל בהן והן שוברין מטותיהן ומבשלין בהן‬
. . . ‫והם ישנים בארץ ומתעפרים בעפר‬
(Text from Midrash Ekhah (Lamentations) Rabbah, S. Buber, ed. (Vilna, 1899; repr. Tel Aviv,
1964):
They who sit in the gate gossip about me’ this refers to the nations of the world who
take their seats in theatres and circuses. ‘And I am the song of drunkards’ after they
take their seats and eat and drink they sit and gossip about me and make fun of me
saying ‘we do not have to eat cheap food such as carobs like the Jews.’ And they say
to one another ‘How long do you want to live?’ and they say ‘like a Jew’s Sabbath
coat.’ And they bring a camel into their theatres and put their shirts on it and ask
‘why is the camel mourning?’ and they say ‘these Jews are observing the seventh
year so they do not have greens and they ate the thorns of this one and he is in
mourning on them.’ And they bring a clown into the theatre (probably not ‫ מתים‬but
μῖμος-‫מומוס‬, a comic actor, a mime as in Genesis Rabbah 80: ‫ צריכין אנו להחזיק‬,‫רבי‬
‫“—טובה לאומות העולם שהן מכניסין מומסין לבתי טרטייאות ולבתי קרקסאות‬Rabbi, we
must be grateful to the nations who bring in comic actors in their theatres and cir-
cuses . . .”) with his head shaved and they say to one another ‘How comes this one’s
head is shaved?’ and he says ‘these Jews keep the Sabbath. They do not have wood to
cook with so they break their beds and use the wood for cooking and then they sleep
on the dirt and get covered with dust.
Elmslie, The Mishnah 26: “Especially in Syria where the Jews made a subject for mockery
and ill-usage in the theater or the arena. In the theater their religion was constantly scoffed
at, and Jewish women were forced to eat swine’s flesh on the stage.”
See also Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge 51, on the Jews as subjects of mockery in the shows in
two papyri CPJ II 94 and 118; on Philo, Flaccus 38; and on Sifra Leviticus 18.3 explaining the
biblical injunction not to follow the customs of the gentiles as not going to their games and
140 chapter nine
should note here De Idolatria 14.2: “the whole circus assaults the name [of
the Christians’ God] with its wicked voting.”
Garments
Tertullian asks in De Idolatria 13.2: an cum ipsis quoque nationibus com-
municare in huius modi seruus dei debeat siue habitu [. . .]—“whether a
servant of God ought to share with the very nations themselves in matters
of this kind . . . in dress [. . .]” Tertullian’s answer to his own question is
divided into several stages. At first, in De Idolatria chapter 14, he is really
against any Christian participation in pagan life, and in his treatise De
Virginibus Velandis, he asks for young Christian women to be veiled as a
sign of modesty, but also ipso facto as a distinctive sign of their Christian-
ity. The second step is De Idolatria 16, where Tertullian suddenly asserts
that the only interdiction concerning dress is the biblical ban on female
garments worn by a man. As for the rest, he “do[es] not find any dress
cursed by God”—nullum denique cultum a deo maledictum invenio. That is
why there is no danger of idolatry in the white toga that is called “manly,”
or virilis. In fact, this recalls Tertullian’s usual ruling permitting Christian
members of pagan families or Christians with high social status to remain
connected to the social aspects of their former lives as long as no idola-
try proper is involved and as long as they proclaim loudly that they are
Christians. Tertullian also devotes his entire De Pallio to the kinds of com-
mon garments that are most recommended for Christian use. Eventually,
Tertullian draws parallels between the garments and the superstitions
they represent, and then a Christian wishing to avoid pagan beliefs must
also refrain from wearing the garments that characterise them. The last
point is that Tertullian obviously sees in garments a mark of social status,
just as the rabbis do.88
The biblical injunction concerning clothing, or rather, the gentile way
of life, to which Tertullian and the rabbis are referring is expressed twice
spectacles. He also expounds on the fact that, in the Hellenistic period, the Jews shared in
the cultural life of their cities (55) and that as late as the sixth century (46 on CIJ II n748)
some graffiti testifying to the presence of Jews in theatres could be found in the tiers,
despite the rabbinic opposition to such involvement in those places.
88 Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 145b. Also in Qohelet Rabbah parasha 11, the Roman
protagonist recognises Elazar ben Shamuah’s status thanks to his garments and in Sifre on
Deuteronomy pisqa 343: “disciples of the wise are recognised by their manner of walking,
their speech and their outdoor dress”; Cohen, The Beginnings 30 writes that “at least some
rabbis wore distinctive clothing that marked them out as rabbis”; and Urbach’s repeated
statement that the sages were ‘a class apart’. For further discussion on dress in Tertullian
see Wilhite, Tertullian chapter 5.4.
comparison 141
in Leviticus: in 18:3, “Do not follow their practices,” and in 20:23, “You must
not live according to the customs of the nations.” First, in the traditional
comments on the passage beginning with ‫“ צא ולמד‬Go forth and learn” in
the Jewish Haggadah of Passover, for example, the Jews are praised for
keeping their names and characteristic garments during their slavery in
Egypt.89 Some other rabbinic sources are more characteristic of the rab-
binic approach to clothing. For instance, Genesis Rabbah 82 reports the
story of “two disciples of R. Yehoshua [who] changed their cloaks at the
time of [the Hadrianic] persecution.” The traditional explanation of this
anecdote is that Jews had characteristic Jewish clothing which they could
exchange for secular undistinguishable clothing to avoid persecution. This
would demonstrate that Jews were recognisable as Jews, wearing typical
garments. But another possibility of interpreting this story is to conclude
that the sages were distinguishable from other Jews by their clothing. Rely-
ing on literary sources and archaeological finds, it is indeed possible that
some clothes marked the high status of a person, while commoners wore
the same garments as their non-Jewish neighbours.90 Indeed, the lack of
recommendation of any particular Jewish garment in rabbinic sources, the
silence of non-Jewish contemporary authors who never comment on dis-
tinctive Jewish clothing and the fact that, when people wanted to discrimi-
nate against the Jews, they had to impose distinctive symbols on them, are
evidence that Jews wore “regular” clothes and, in general, looked exactly
like their non-Jewish contemporaries. Some scholars have even claimed
that tzitzit and tefillin did not make the Jews remarkable as Jews.91 The
commentaries recorded by the Encyclopedia Talmudit almost all converge
on the same principles.92 Jews are not obliged to wear anything character-
istically Jewish, but only to have modest clothes and to be distinguished
generally from the surrounding idolaters. Forbidden clothing is clothing
specific to idolatrous rites. A Jew is not allowed, in his everyday life—
i.e. when there is no danger—to dress as his non-Jewish neighbours if he
does this on purpose to look like a non-Jew; or if this is a way to deny his
Jewishness; or if this could lead him to imitate his neighbours’ idolatrous
behaviour in any way and to take part in idolatrous cult.
89 See appendix 6.
90 Cohen, The Beginnings 30 and sqq., W.H.C., Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the
Early Church (New York, 1967) 146, argues that Jews were distinguishable from non-Jews
also because they were dressed differently.
91 Cohen, The Beginnings (among others).
92 ‫ ערך חקות הגויים‬17 ‫ אנציקלופדיה תלמודית כרך‬with bibliography ad loc.
142 chapter nine
In summary, both Tertullian and the rabbis hesitate about the position
they should adopt toward clothing fashion. The main features that appear
on both sides are that Christians and Jews can wear whatever garments
they wish as long as they do not abjure their religion or try to hide their
identity. They must avoid any garment accompanied by idolatrous conno-
tations which would endanger their faith. And finally, they should avoid
being indistinguishable from idolaters.
Commercial Relationships
The Name of the Idols
“The Alleged Ban on Greek Wisdom”93

Deos nationum nominari lex prohibet, non utique, ne nomina eorum pronun-
tiemus, quae nobis ut dicamus conversatio extorquet
The law forbids naming the gods of the heathens; [this is] not [that it for-
bids], in any case, that we pronounce their names, which conversation
requires us to say,94
writes Tertullian. Mishnah Avodah Zarah is not concerned with this prob-
lem, but the parallel Tosefta Avodah Zarah deals with it, basing itself on
the biblical injunction, “Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not
let them be heard on your lips.”95 Tertullian limits his ban to cases where
the names of the idols cannot be avoided. Thus he permits the use of their
names as long as it is only a manner of speaking and does not indicate any
reverence for the divinity of the idols named:
Nam id plerumque dicendum est: in templo Aesculapii illum habes, et, in uico
Isidis habito, et sacerdos Iouis factus est, et multa alia in hunc modum.96
93 This is the title of a chapter in Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine; the fur-
ther quotation of Tertullian, De Idolatria 20.2 is discussed by Lieberman on page 112.
D. Rokeah, Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict (Jerusalem-Leiden, 1982) 200–5, is very crit-
ical of Lieberman and others’ expansion of the meaning of “hochmat yevanit” (Greek—the
language, as it appears in some rabbinical texts) to Greek wisdom. However, the grammat-
ical form of this term allows us to nuance the translation of the expression in several ways.
94 De Idolatria 20.2. See appendix 5 b.
95 Exodus 23:13, Tosefta Avodah Zarah vi, 11.
96 Tertullian, De Idolatria 20.2. Tertullian, De Idolatria 10.6: Deos ipsos hoc nomine obsig-
nat, “By calling them gods, he seals, confirms, their divinity.” What is actually forbidden
according to Tertullian is to call the divinities of the heathens “gods.”
comparison 143
For quite often one has to say things like ‘you will find him in the temple
of Asclepius,’ or ‘I live in the quarter of Isis,’ or ‘he has become a priest of
Jupiter’ or many other expressions of this nature.
The rabbis of the Tosefta, for their part, state:
‫לא יאמר אדם לחבירו המתן לי בצד עבודה זרה פלונית ואני אמתין לך בצד‬
.‫עבודה זרה פלונית שנאמר ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו‬
One should not tell his fellow: ‘wait for me next to the idol so-and-so, and
I will wait for you next to the idol so-and-so’ because it was said: ‘Make no
mention of the names of other gods.’97
Thus the rule in fact seems to have been the same for the rabbis as for
Tertullian: the prohibition applied only when another option was avail-
able for avoiding any mention of the names of the idols.98 When no other
option existed, mentioning the name of an idol, without referring to them
in their denied quality as “gods,” was not considered to be idolatry by
either the rabbis or Tertullian. Nevertheless, there is a spectrum of opin-
ions in the rabbinic literature. First, in the Babylonian Talmud, Rava criti-
cises Ullah for saying an idolatrous name.99 For him, unavoidability is no
excuse, and in this he illustrates a position more extreme than that of
Tertullian. Second, Rabbi Yohanan rules that only the idolatrous names
appearing in the Torah can be said and that it is forbidden to mention the
others;100 thus contemporaneous divinities get biblical names when rab-
bis who follow his ruling need to designate the gods of the pagans. Finally,
both Tosefta Avodah Zarah and the Mekhilta have a tendency to make the
mention of idolatrous names acceptable by ridiculing them, encouraging
wordplay and changes in the names which avoid having to say those names
correctly.101 The Church Fathers must have had the same tendency to ridi-
cule the names of idols since “it was not in vain that the emperor Julian
issued his famous decree forbidding Christians to teach classic literature.”102
97 Tosefta Avodah Zarah vi, 11.

98 Baer, “Israel” and Lieberman (concerning the position of ‘later rabbis’ only), Helle-
nism 112 who quotes the interpretation of this text by the 17th century Rabbi Yair Chayim
Bacharach in his Havvot Yair siman A: ‫ועוד נראה דאין איסור רק במזכירו באיזה ענין שלא‬
‫לצורך‬, “and further it seems that there is no interdiction except in saying it when there
is no need.”
99 Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 63b.
100 Ibid.
101 Tosefta Avodah Zarah vi, 4, Mekhilta Mishpatim 20, ed. Horowitz (Jerusalem, 1959)
332.
102 Lieberman, Hellenism 113; Julian, Letter 36, 423b: “Yet, though I think this absurd,
I do not say that they ought to change their opinions and then instruct the young. But
I give them this choice: either not to teach what they do not think admirable, or, if they
144 chapter nine
However, in actual fact, Mishnah Avodah Zarah, like other rabbinic writ-
ings, is full of the names of the idols. The Merkolis (= Mercury) and the
asheras (= Astarte) and even Aphrodite herself are mentioned throughout
the work without any hesitation. It has even been stated that the rabbis’
frequent mention of Mercury “suggests that this name served the rabbis as
a generic term for idolatry.”103 On the other hand, on several other occa-
sions, the rabbis do comply with the exhortation to transform the names
of idols and to replace them with others.104
Practical Applications When Living among the Pagans
The Profession of Schoolmaster and Teacher

Tertullian’s first reservation about the employment of a Christian as a
schoolmaster in gentile schools concerns the festivals in which a teacher
must participate.105 The main problems he finds with this function derive,
first of all, from the fact that the teacher has to decorate his school with
garlands for idolatrous celebrations, and, like the rabbis, Tertullian forbids
wish to teach, let them first really persuade their pupils that neither Homer nor Hesiod
nor any of these writers whom they expound and have declared to be guilty of impiety,
folly and error in regard to the gods, is such as they declare. For since they make a liveli-
hood and receive pay from the works of those writers, they thereby confess that they are
most shamefully greedy of gain, and that, for the sake of a few drachmae, they would
put up with anything”—ὅστις οὖν ἕτερα μεν φρονεῖ, διδάσκει ἕτερα τοὺς πλησιάζοντας, αὐτὸς
ἀπολελεῖφθαι τοσούτῳ δοκεῖ τῆς παιδείας ὅσῳ καὶ τοῦ χρηστὸς ἀνὴρ εἶναι [. . .] ἐπει δ᾽ἐξ ὣν
ἐκεῖνοι γεγράφασι παρατρέφονται μισθαρνοῦντες, εἶναι ὁμολογοῦσιν αἰσχροκερδέστατοι καὶ
δραχμῶν ὀλίγων ἕνεκα πάντα ὑπομένειν.
103 Lieberman, “Palestine” 370, Yevanit veYavnut 248.
104 Friedheim, Rabbinisme 178: ‫טימי‬/‫ תימי‬for Τύχη, 218: ‫ קטיסין‬for ‫דיאוניסין‬. The discus-
sion on whether the rabbis did or did not say idolatrous names is related to the debate on
the prohibition for Jews to study Greek wisdom. For a further discussion on this subject,
see Rabbi Yehoshua in Tosefta Avodah Zarah i, 20, where he permits the study of Greek
wisdom only at a time that is neither day nor night. Although this time does not practi-
cally exist, the interdiction is not absolute. The Talmud also allows writing the Holy Scrip-
tures in Greek (Babylonian Talmud Megillah 9a), and in the early second century, Rabban
Gamaliel’s disciples learned Greek wisdom in order to be able to deal with the pagans
(Babylonian Talmud Sotah 49b). Some 2500 to 3000 words of Greek origin can be found
in the Talmud. (See S. Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnworter im Talmud, Midrasch
und Targum (repr. Hildesheim, 1964), Feldman, Jew 31–38, 419 and further research on the
subject by Shai Heijmans in his Ph.D. dissertation submitted in 2009 on The Phonology of
Greek and Latin Loanwords in the Mishnah, Tel-Aviv University). Simon, Verus 342–4, states
that despite Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yishmael’s anathema on the pagans’ language in
the second century, the Jews of the Diaspora could not renounce their mother tongue,
which was Greek and which was used in the synagogues until the fifth or sixth century
at least.
comparison 145
such marks of participation in idolatrous festivities.106 A second objec-

tion is to receiving presents in the name of the idols, presents which the
teacher is supposed to dedicate to the idols. Here again this problem is
shared by the rabbis, since, as noted above, Resh Lakish forbids enjoy-
ment of the denar a ‘min’ sent on the occasion of his festival to R. Judah
Nesiah.107 The third reservation concerns the actual naming of the pagan
gods. As we have noted, Tertullian allows Christians to use the names of
the gods, but not to call them gods: Deos ipsos hoc nomine obsignat—“By
calling them gods, he seals, confirms, their divinity.”108 Moreover, Tertul-
lian cannot approve a teacher’s praising of the pagan gods, a failing the
schoolmaster cannot avoid while teaching classical literature. Neverthe-
less, even if a Christian cannot teach classical literature, he is allowed
to learn it. The rabbis in contrast do not permit sending a child to the
Gentiles to be educated, so that he can learn wisdom or a profession: ‫אין‬
‫“—מוסרין לו תינוק ללמדו ספר וללמדו אומנות ולהתייחד עמו‬it is prohibited to
hand a child over to him to teach him reading, to teach him a craft and
to be alone with him.”109 However, it appears from the rabbinic literature
that the sages do have a certain knowledge of external pagan culture, and
the reason given for the ban on sending children to idolatrous teachers is
the risk of pederasty. This point reinforces the theme of the immorality
that characterises idolatry: the rabbis try to frighten Jews so that they will
distance themselves from idolaters. Indeed, sexual deviance in Graeco-
Roman educational systems might have been a reality (think of Socrates
or of the Roman pedagogues, who accompanied the children to school
and whose role was to impede problematic behaviour),110 as it nowadays
appears that pederasty is often a very real problem in all-male schools. But
again, behind this sort of justification given by the rabbis, the real expla-
nation still remains that the less often Jews are in contact with idolaters,
the smaller the danger of contamination by idolatry will be, and this does
not mean that the sages really believe that all the idolaters will rape their
106 As discussed above. Waszink, Tertullianus 180 adds that during the Quinquatria, the
schoolmaster wears an emblem consisting of a tablet on which seven idols/planets appear,
in order to be recognised as the schoolmaster and, on the one hand, to receive part of his
salary and, on the other hand, to attract new pupils.
107 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 6b; concerning the strenae or coins of good luck
wishes for the calends of January, see Blidstein, Rabbinic Legislation XX, 56–61.
109 Tosefta Avodah Zarah iii, 2.
110 On Socrates’ actual sexual deviancy see G. Danzig, Apologizing for Socrates: How
Plato and Xenophon Created Our Socrates (Lanham, 2010).
146 chapter nine
children. Nevertheless, pederasty is presented as a reality in the idolaters’

schools, but not in the Jewish ones. The issue is plainly dealt with in the
Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin 82a (expounding on Mishnah Qiddushin
iv, 12–13) which implies that such behaviour was inconceivable in Jew-
ish circles: an unmarried man, or a married man whose wife does not
live with him, is not allowed to teach children. Why is this so? Because
there is a risk that he will be sexually attracted to the children’s mothers
when they come to take them home from school. It is further stated that
obviously Jewish teachers are not suspected of homosexuality (with the
children they teach, nor of zoophilia, another argument implying the idol-
aters’ lack of morality) which is why the argument of the mothers is given
to explain the ban. From another point of view, the Jews, living within
a well-organised community, have their own educational system and so
have no need to learn from the idolaters. As for Tertullian, he knows that
there is no real fear of immoral behavior among his former coreligionists
and that he would not be able to convince new proselytes that they need
to fear it. Thus he allows a Christian who “already realises who he is”—
iam sapit qui sit,111 to study with Gentiles because a Christian pupil can
avoid idolatrous manifestations, on the one hand, although the teacher
cannot, while, on the other, there is no danger for him in secular educa-
tion because his Christian learning protects him from the temptations of
idolatry.112 Tertullian’s approach to secular wisdom is also expressed in his
De Corona,113 as well as in the De Idolatria:114 no-one can live in the con-
temporary world, or confront it, or even understand what it means to be
a Christian if he is closed to classical humanism. This once again demon-
strates that Tertullian allows his disciples to go on living in the world they
were once a part of, and that he wants them to know and understand it.
This may also show that the Christian community was still not organised
enough to take care of the entire educational process of its members and
continued to rely on secular support from teachers outside the fold. As for
the Jews, their sages were indeed interested in the culture that surrounded
them. The rabbis understood that they needed to have contacts with the
pagans and to learn about their culture in order to understand them and

112 See Fredouille, Tertullien 421.
113 Tertullian, De Corona 7.3.
comparison 147
to know how to handle their relations with them.115 Hence the education
of the disciples of Rabban Gamaliel’s household and the stories about the
contacts between Jewish sages and Greek philosophers, or between Jew-
ish leaders and the Roman authorities. The ban on using the names of the
idols forbids both Jews and Christians to teach pagan wisdom, but both
are permitted to learn it, since it is essential to human education.
The schoolmaster was not the only professional who faced difficulties
in uniting his faith and his work. As noted above, construction workers
and artists were also limited in the way they could do their jobs. But apart
from this, any kind of social advancement became difficult for a believer.
On the one hand, Jews were slowed down in their ascent towards civic
honours and power by the restrictions on the contacts they were allowed
to make with pagans and in particular, “loyal Jews resist[ed] social
advancement by remaining faithful to Jewish food laws.”116 Tertullian also
often viewed a “Christian identity and a Roman identity as incompatible
alternatives.”117 And indeed, Tertullian deters Christians from engaging
in official functions in which it would be difficult to avoid idolatry and
they might even be compelled to assume sacrificial duties; or to enroll in
the army.118 Fundamentally, Christians are allowed to take part in the life
of the Gentiles. However, in actuality, Tertullian lists such a large num-
ber of conditions without which a Christian is not allowed to engage in
public life that actual participation in the pagans’ life becomes impos-
sible for whoever respects all of them. Once again, public life is closed to
Christians.
Swearing by the Name of the Idols

The worst possible sin for both Jews and Christians is the normal wor-
ship of an idol or the performance of unambiguously cultic acts;119 after
this comes the acclamation of a god, demonstrating one’s acceptance of
this god;120 and second-order worship acts indicating ambivalences. One
situation which Tertullian reads as indicating the tacit acceptance of an
115 Lieberman, Hellenism 112 even asserts that the rabbis studied Homer—as fairy
tales.
116 Barclay, “Who Was” 88.
118 Tertullian, De Idolatria 17, 19.
119 Schwartz, Imperialism 165.
120 As in Mishnah Sanhedrin vii, 6: “the idolater [is culpable] no matter whether
he . . . accepts it as his god or says to it ‘Thou art my god’”; Tertullian, De Idolatria 10.6: Deos
ipsos hoc nomine obsignat—“By calling them gods, he seals (confirms) their divinity.”
148 chapter nine
idolatrous god by a Christian is the signing of a contract. Thus a Christian

is not allowed to sign a contract which invokes the names of idolatrous
gods.121 Tertullian asks several times: “Can you have denied with your
tongue what you profess with your hands?”—Potes lingua negasse quod
manu confiteris.122 One cannot sign such a document and “deny being
conscious”—negant se scire123—that he is swearing by the idols men-
tioned. Tertullian’s treatment of the contradictions between what one
thinks or believes and what one makes public appears to be close to the
discussions found in both classical and Jewish sources concerning oaths
in general.124 Cicero’s opinion in De Officiis 3.29 is that one is obliged by
his oath only as long as he himself feels compelled by what he is swearing
at the time of the oath:
Quod enim ita iuratum est, ut mens conciperet fieri opportere, id servandum
est: quod aliter, id si non fecerit, nullum est periurium
for an oath sworn with the clear understanding in one’s own mind that it
should be performed must be kept; but if there is no such understanding, it
does not count as perjury if one does not perform the vow.
This is the lax stance. In contrast, the talmudic sources often try to pre-
vent fraud and the twisting of the words of the oaths by warning an indi-
vidual who takes an oath that his words will be interpreted according to
their apparent, literal meaning, as can be readily discerned by everyone,
and especially by the judges, and not according to special “secret” clauses
he himself might have in mind. Nevertheless, it seems that in some par-
ticular cases, such as imminent danger or several types of coercion, one
is allowed to apply hidden decisions or intentions that one has in mind
in order to cancel the meaning of what one is actually swearing. In both
Palestinian sources and in Cicero, cases can be found where swearing in
such situations does not oblige the person who takes an oath. Thus Jewish
sources seem to be situated somewhere between Cicero’s lenient posi-
tions and Tertullian’s far stricter ones.
For Tertullian, what counts is what a person professes in words and
deeds, and not what he keeps to himself, secretly, in his mind, whatever
the situation is, whether or not it implies danger. The Christian’s lack of
belief in what he is signing does not count if, through the act of signing,

122 Tertullian, De Idolatria 6.2 and chapter 23.
124 S. Lieberman, Yevanit veYavnut 100–1 n. 129.
comparison 149
he apparently agrees with it. As in most of the cases of Jewish rulings,

one’s idea must be articulated to be effectively taken into account; if the
idea is kept secret, the deeds speak in its stead and testify to one’s inten-
tions. According to Tertullian, a Christian signing a document which
invokes the names of the gods recognises those gods and betrays his faith,
while Jewish rules provide a loophole that can justify, a posteriori, a Jew’s
involvement in idolatrous oaths. The general rule is the same for Tertul-
lian and the rabbis, but Tertullian brooks no exceptions, while the rabbis
learn to deal with the reality according to their principles.
More passive acts have the same consequences. Tertullian forbids
Christians to be blessed in the name of the idolatrous gods, and compels
them to transfer the benediction to God:
Aeque benedici per deos nationum Christo initiatus non sustinebit, ut non
semper reiciat immundam benedictionem et eam sibi in deum conuertens
emundet
Equally, one who has been initiated into Christ will not tolerate to be blessed
in the name of the gods of the nations, so as not always to reject the unclean
benediction, and to cleanse it out for himself by converting it Godward.125
Of course, cursing in the name of an idol in answer to a curse in the name
of an idol is to attribute some measure of existence and power to that same
idol, thus, even becoming angry because of such a curse is a sin.126 And if
one remains silent in the above-mentioned cases, either when one listens
to idolatrous gods being called gods or is implicated in oaths taken in the
names of idolatrous gods, he is also culpable of “passive” idolatry: Omnis
patientia ejusmodi idololatria—“All passivity of this kind is idolatry.”127 For
the rabbis, a simple “Amen” becomes a word of acceptance, and makes
a Jew culpable of accepting idolatry, just as this same little word can
allow a Jew who has sinned to reintegrate into his community with full
remission of his deeds.128 One more step in Tertullian’s avoidance of

126 Tertullian, De Idolatria 21.4–5.
128 Mishnah Sanhedrin vii, 6: “the idolater [is culpable] . . . whether he accepts it
as his god or says to it ‘You are my god,’ ‫המקבלו עליו לאלוה‬ . . . ‫העובד עבודה זרה אחד‬,
‫ ”והאומר לו אלי אתה‬stresses the ease with which one can be considered to be an idol-
ater. But the Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 119b stresses, on the other hand, how easily
one can obtain remission and be considered again as a Jew in every respect—especially
if he was compelled by circumstances, such as persecutions, to get involved in idolatry:
‫אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי כל העונה אמן יהא שמיה רבא מברך בכל כחו קורעין לו גזר דינו שנאמר‬
'‫(שופטים ה) בפרוע פרעות בישראל בהתנדב עם ברכו ה' מ"ט בפרוע פרעות משום דברכו ה‬
150 chapter nine
participation in idolatry is expressed in his intolerance of common

expressions that are actually oaths in the name of idolatrous gods, such as
Me deus fidius—“help me the god of faith”—or Me Hercule!—“By Hercu-
les,” an intolerance also shown by those rabbis who forbid the mention
of idolatrous names.129
But if Jews and Christians must not be involved themselves in any way
in the mention of pagan gods, neither may they provoke a pagan into
invoking or thanking his gods: Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 1
‫שמח הוא‬ . . . ‫ אסור מלשאת ומלתת עימהן‬,‫לפני אידיהן של גויים שלושה ימים‬
‫לאחר זמן‬
For three days before the idolatrous festivals it is prohibited to have trade
with them [. . .] after a while he (the idolater) rejoices;
Tertullian, De Idolatria 22.2:
‫רבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן אפילו יש בו שמץ של עבודה זרה מוחלין לו כתיב הכא בפרוע‬
‫פרעות וכתיב התם (שמות לב) כי פרוע הוא אמר ריש לקיש כל העונה אמן בכל כחו פותחין‬
‫לו שערי ג"ע שנאמר (ישעיהו כו) פתחו שערים ויבא גוי צדיק שומר אמונים אל תיקרי שומר‬
.‫“—אמונים אלא שאומרים אמן מאי אמן א"ר חנינא אל מלך נאמן‬Said Rabbi Joshua ben Levi,
“whoever says the formula ‘Amen, may his great name be blessed,’ with all his strength—
they tear up for him his decree that has been issued against him: ‘When retribution was
disannulled in Israel, for the people offered themselves willingly, Bless you the Lord.’ Why
was ‘retribution annulled’? because ‘the people offered themselves willingly.’ Rabbi Hiyya
bar Abba said Rabbi Yohanan said, ‘Even if he is marked by a taint of idolatry, they for-
give him”—there it is written, ‘when retribution was annulled’ and elsewhere, ‘And Moses
saw that the people had broken loose for Aaron had let them loose [and the words for
annulled and broken loose correspond]. Said Resh Lakish, Whoever responds ‘Amen’ with
all his might—they open for him the gates of the Garden of Eden: ‘Open you the gates,
that the righteous nation, which keeps the truth may enter.’ Do not read the letter that
yield ‘that keeps truth’ in that way, but as they bore vowels to yield, ‘that say amen.’ What
does ‘Amen’ means? Said Rabbi Hanina, the three letters stand for God Faithful King”
(translation, J. Neusner, The Talmud of Babylonia. An Academic Commentary. Bavli Tractate
Shabbat (Atlanta, 1994) 545). See, on this matter, Boyarin, Dying 121. See also Feldman’s
statement (in Jew 444) that Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish asserted that the fire of Gehenna had
no dominion over Jewish apostates and tried to win them back to Judaism.
129 Tertullian, De Idolatria 20.5. In fact, common people, both Jews and Christians,
swore in the names of the pagan gods. Tertullian himself stresses that most of the time
they do it because they do not understand what they are saying. In papyrus P.Yadin 16
from the Judean desert, the Jewish Babatha swears by the “Τύχη,” luck, of the Emperor.
Some will argue that Babatha was illiterate and that scribes or civil servants writing down
in her stead were those who added the oath. In my opinion, this sort of expression was
so common that I see no reason for doubting that Babatha said it by herself in the official
context emanating from the document. Herr, “The Identity” 44, suggests that Babatha did
indeed swear by the luck of the Caesar using the Aramaic word ‫גַ ָדא‬. Much later we still
find St. Augustine rebuking the African Christians for swearing all the time by the names
of the idols.
comparison 151
Si cui dedero eleemosynam uel aliquid praestitero beneficii, et ille mihi deos
suos uel coloniae genium propitios imprecetur, iam oblatio mea uel operatio
idolorum honor erit, per quae benedictionis gratiam compensat.
If I give an alms or confer a benefit on him, and that man prays that his gods
or the genius of the colony may be propitious to me, my gift or benefit will
therewith be a homage to the idols in whose name he returns to me bless-
ing, which is his thanks.130
This is the reason why Christians and Jews must avoid paying their debts
to pagans or being repaid by them on the days of their festivals:
Sunt quidam dies munerum, quae apud alios honoris titulum, apud alios mer-
cedis debitum expungunt. [5] Nunc ergo, inquis, recipiam meum uel repen-
dam alienum. Si hunc morem sibi homines de superstitione consecrauerunt, tu
extraneus ab omni eorum uanitate quid participas idolothyta sollemnia, quasi
tibi quoque praescriptum sit de die, quominus id, quod homini debes uel tibi ab
homine debetur, citra diei obseruationem luas uel recipias.
There are certain days on which presents are given, nullifying for some a
reason to pay homage, for others a debt of wages. ‘Now, then,’ you say, ‘I
shall receive back what is mine, or pay back what is another’s.’ If men have
consecrated for themselves this custom from superstition, why do you,
estranged as you are from all their vanity, participate in solemnities conse-
crated to idols; as if for you also there were some prescript about a day, short
of the observance of a particular day, to prevent your paying or receiving
what you owe a man, or what is owed you by a man?
The same ban is to be found in the Mishnah: ‫לפני אידיהן שלגוים שלשה ימים‬
‫לפורען ולפרוע מהן‬ . . . ‫“—אסור‬For three days before the idolatrous festivals
it is prohibited . . . to make payment to them and to accept repayment
from them.”131
All this is because the pagans consider these days to be particularly
favourable for contracts and transactions and would therefore not miss
any opportunity to thank their gods for their success during this period.132
130 Mekhilta Kaspa 4: a Jew must not swear by an idol nor make a pagan swear by the
name of his divinity; Friedheim, “A New Look at the Historical Background of Mishna
Aboda Zara I, 1,” Zion 71 (2006) 289–90, wants to see an exact parallel between Si . . . praes-
titero beneficii—“If . . . I confer a benefit on him,” that is, in Friedheim’s opinion, through
business dealing with the idolater, and the mishnaic interdiction to have business dealings
with idolaters (but this refers only to the three days preceding their festivals, while Tertul-
lian warns Christians against this sort of involvement in idolatry in all cases).
131 Tertullian, De Idolatria 13.4–5, Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 1; nevertheless, in Tosefta
Avodah Zarah i, 1 repayment must not be accepted by a Jew on a pagan festival if the loan
is secured by a written testimony, but if it is not secured, the Jew can accept it, lest the
pagan should decide later to ignore his debt to the Jew.
132 Friedheim, Rabbinisme 327, “A New” 298.
152 chapter nine
Mishnah Avodah Zarah forbids any contact between Jews and pagans
on idolatrous festivals so that there will be no Jewish encouragement of
idolatry. Tertullian encourages Christians not to engage in special busi-
ness transactions on pagan festival days, and to wait for ordinary days
for their dealings with them. But like the Jerusalem Talmud, which, for
the reasons that will be detailed in the following paragraph, sometimes
adopts a lenient position toward those days, Tertullian also points out
that some Christians use various excuses to be allowed to deal with the
pagans on their festivals.133
Trading Products
Outsmarting the Law?
In the Graeco-Roman world surrounding both the rabbis and Tertullian,
religion and trading were often an integral part of one another. When
pagans are successful in business, they thank their gods and organise
ceremonies for them, and when they are happy, for instance on the days
of their festivals, they organise fairs where they can make good transac-
tions and then thank their gods, etc. It has even been pointed out that
the mishnaic “festivals,” or ‫איד‬, during which Jews cannot work with the
pagans, appear in the parallel passages of the Tosefta as “fairs,” or ‫יריד‬.134
An initial look at the rabbis’ rulings shows that they are more lenient in
commercial matters than in social situations; a more detailed study, how-
ever, demonstrates that this is not systematic. Nevertheless the rabbis’
general tendency is to permit business as much as possible within the
framework of the Jewish religion. Tertullian, on the other hand, wants
Christians to avoid a business nexus with pagans as much as possible. In
De Idolatria chapter 11, the principle expounded is the same as in Mishnah
Avodah Zarah i: Christians, like Jews, must avoid any act that would ben-
efit idolatry or one which would give themselves any benefit stemming
from idolatry. Just as the Mishnah forbids selling products that would be
used in pagan worship; selling victims for sacrifices; buying in shops tak-
ing part in idolatrous activities; helping to transport libation wine; taking
part in the building of convenient places for the installation of idols; and
the like, Tertullian, too, forbids providing pagans with goods for worship
or victims for sacrifices; working or building for idolatry; or doing any-
133 Tertullian, De Idolatria 14.1: Ne nomen blasphemetur—“So that God’s name will not
be blasphemed.”
comparison 153
thing that would help others do what the Christian is not allowed to do.
But while Tertullian is not ready to make life among the pagans easier for
Christians, the rabbis find ways of circumventing the biblical laws. For
example, both Tertullian and the rabbis cite incense as an item that may
not be sold to idolaters. For Tertullian, one who does sell it is a procura-
tor idolorum—an “agent of the idols,” with no way out. For the rabbis, a
priori, it is a sin to sell incense as stipulated in Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 5.
However, in certain circumstances, Jews are allowed to sell products to
pagans and to overlook the use pagans intend to make of them. This
includes even incense. For example, a Jew can sell incense to a pagan,
even though it is commonly used in idolatrous rites, as long as he does not
think that it will be used for idolatry, and as long as the pagan does not
specify why he wants the incense: ‫“—סתמן‬their purpose is unspecified.”
The Jew need not ask too many questions. A Jew is allowed to sell incense
to a doctor or to anyone else who is supposed to need incense for non-
ritual use; a Jew is also allowed to sell incense to a wholesaler, whether
or not the wholesaler will then sell it to individuals for idolatrous wor-
ship.135 The Jew is simply not required to think about this. For Tertullian,
it does not matter that certain products—particularly incense, as in the
example quoted—can be used for non-idolatrous purposes. A Christian is
not allowed to play the idolaters’ game in any way:
si eaedem merces, tura dico et cetera peregrinitatis ad sacrificium idolorum
etiam hominibus ad pigmenta medicinalia . . .,
If the selfsame merchandises—frankincense I mean and all other foreign
productions—used as sacrifice to idols, are of use likewise to men for
medicinal ointments . . .
nevertheless, the Christian cannot sell it. The white cock which is also a
common offering in sacrifices is in the same category.136 Once again, a
Jew is allowed to close his eyes regarding the use the cock is destined for,
as long as the pagan does not make it clear. But the game has its limits;
and if it is obvious that the pagan wants some products for idolatrous
worship, the Jew is allowed to sell them only if he can make them unfit
for idol worship before he hands them over to the idolater.137 In the same
135 Tosefta Avodah Zarah i, 21, Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 14a, Jerusalem Talmud
Avodah Zarah 9d; Tertullian, De Idolatria 11.
136 Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 5. Note that Tertullian obviously faces the same reality as
the rabbis and quotes the cock as a common offering, for example, in Apologeticum 46.
137 For instance, he can cut off one of the toes of the cock, Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 5.
154 chapter nine
register of the rabbis’ relaxed rulings about trade with pagans, we find
that Jews are allowed to deal with those pagans who are not celebrat-
ing on pagan festivals. Moreover, according to the principle “it is as if he
flatters them”—‫כמחניף להם‬, and “for the sake of peace”—‫מפני דרכי שלום‬,
the Jerusalem Talmud permits business with a habitual pagan partner
on the days of his festivals.138 If a Jew forgot the prohibition of dealing
with pagans on their festivals, he can nevertheless enjoy the proceeds of
the transactions he made on these days. The rabbis even tend to permit
business dealings with the wives of the celebrating pagans, who are ori-
ental native women who married Roman soldiers but do not share their
faith and beliefs.139 It would seem that the rabbis’ aim is commercial and
economic:140 they are trying to find a way for Jews to coexist with pagans.
The motivation for the rabbis’ leniency in numerous commercial matters
is to avoid excessive financial losses for the Jews. When it comes to the
task of circumventing the aim of the law, the Talmudim go even farther
than the Mishnah and permit forbidden results by circumventing acts
which are explicitly forbidden. For instance, dealing with the idolaters’
wives, rather than with the idolaters themselves, which is the concern of
the interdiction, allows the Jews to provide the pagan worshippers with
the goods they need on the days of their festivals, despite the prohibi-
tion of the Mishnah. Tertullian’s positions are much more stringent, since
he is not interested in commercial relationships with pagans. There are
several ways of looking at these stances. First, it would seem likely that
Tertullian provides a distorted picture of reality in his apologetic works,
and even sometimes almost lies about the actual situation. For example,
in Apologeticum 42.1–3, he gives a full account of Christian involvement in
all fields of the secular business life, whereas in the De Idolatria he seeks to
erase these facts.141 Some commentators have tried to show that complete
economic isolation of Christians from the heathen world was impossible.
In my opinion, Christian-Gentile commercial interaction is simply not
Tertullian’s concern. Christians certainly bought food and all other neces-
sities from pagans when no Christian trader could provide them with the
138 Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 39b.

139 Blidstein, Rabbinic xxi.
140 H. Cancik, “Wahrnehmung, Vermeidung, Entheiligung, Aneignung: Fremde Reli-
gionen bei Tertullian, im Talmud (AZ) und bei Eusebius,” Texte als Medium und Reflexion
von Religion im römischen Reich, E. von der Osten, J. Rüpke et al., eds. (Stuttgart, 2006)
227–232; G.J. Blidstein, “Nullification of Idolatry in Rabbinic Law,” Proceedings of the Ameri-
can Academy for Jewish Research 41–42 (1973–1974) 19–20; Blidstein, Rabbinic x, 46, 142.
141 Schöllgen, “Die Teilnahme” 3–4; as always, Tertullian adapts his arguments to his
purposes and audience.
comparison 155
products they wanted. Perhaps this is part of the solution to the puzzling
fact that Tertullian almost never deals with what a Christian should do
about products coming from an idolatrous framework, in contrast to the
Mishnah. Indeed, Tertullian prefers to emphasise the ideological and theo-
logical essence, rather than practical details, such as how Christians could
possibly live without having any business relationships with idolaters. On
the contrary, regulating social relations is important in order to enable
conversion from the pagan side to the Christian side, while avoiding con-
tamination of the Christian group by idolaters. The principles Tertullian
draws from the social framework also apply to the social aspects of com-
mercial relationships when idolatry is involved. However, in actual fact,
Tertullian’s Christians must have generally done whatever was necessary
in order to earn a living, including being involved in trade with their pagan
neighbours. Another aspect of this issue is to envisage an intentional pol-
icy in Tertullian’s leniency over social intercourse and the social aspects
of commercial relations.142 He aimed to keep his followers together within
the fold of Christianity. He would have had no hope of being obeyed by
his disciples had he demanded the termination of all relations with their
former relatives. However, it is obvious that this approach is a conces-
sion to reality, and not Tertullian’s ideal. His statement about trade in De
Idolatria 12: fides famem non timet, “faith does not fear hunger,” has been
cited by scholars to show that, in principle, Tertullian would not allow his
disciples to do business with the idolaters, both to protect the Christian
faith, and as a kind of spiritual readiness to suffer for God.143 My point is
twofold: first, Tertullian deals only with matters he chooses to deal with,
and keeps silent about problematic fields (and this is his advantage over
the rabbis: he invents his own rules, whereas the rabbis have to soften or
adapt existing rules); and secondly, Christians were inevitably involved
in commerce, and Tertullian had no hope of preventing them from con-
tinuing to practise their professions, so long as their idolatrous charac-
ter was not obvious. As far as the Jewish side is concerned, archaeology
tends to support the assumption that the Jews of Africa did work and were
involved in the material life of the place where they lived.144
There is nevertheless an important difference between Christian
converts in a Roman province and the Jewish settlers in this province.
142 Urbach, E.E., “The Laws of Idolatry in the Light of Historical and Archeological
Facts in the 3rd Century,” Eretz Israel, Archeological Historical and Geographical studies
5 (Jerusalem, 1958) 203.
143 Urbah, ibid.
144 Based on Stern’s (Inscribing) interpretations of archaeological finds.
156 chapter nine
Since Tertullian allows his disciples to remain in close contact with their
pagan families, it is likely that those families ensured their Christian mem-
bers a decent level of living. Such an intuition is reinforced by Irenaeus’
testimony:
For from what source do we derive the houses in which we dwell, the gar-
ments in which we are clothed, the vessels which we use, and everything
else ministering to our every-day life, unless it be from those things which,
when we were Gentiles, we acquired by avarice, or received them from our
heathen parents, relations, or friends who unrighteously obtained them?—
not to mention that even now we acquire such things when we are in the
faith. For who is there that sells, and does not wish to make a profit from
him who buys? Or who purchases anything, and does not wish to obtain
good value from the seller? Or who is there that carries on a trade, and does
not do so that he may obtain a livelihood thereby? And as to those believing
ones who are in the royal palace, do they not derive the utensils they employ
from the property which belongs to Cæsar; and to those who have not, does
not each one of these [Christians] give according to his ability?145
In contrast, the Jews, as an isolated community closed in on itself, can
count only on their own ability to take part in the business life of the
city in order to earn the money that will allow them to live decently. Of
course, it could be assumed that some of the pagan families rejected those
of their relatives who converted to Christianity, but usually they did not.
Moreover, Tertullian takes great care to smooth relations between his
disciples and their families, and it must be stressed that even if certain
pagan family members rejected their Christian relatives, there were still
more family members who tried to stay in contact with them. Other new
Christian members could have entered the community with a high social
status of their own, which was generally not the case for the Jews who
were immigrants. For those few Christians who could not count on any
familial help, there were enough other Christian members with familial
support within the community to take care of them (as stated by Irenaeus
145 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.30, in the Latin version: Unde enim domus in quibus hab-
itamus et vestimenta quibus induimur et vasa quibus utimur et reliqua omnis ad diuturnam
vitam nostram ministratio, nisi ex his quae, cum ethnici essemus, de avaritia acquisivimus
vel ab ethnicis parentibus aut cognatis aut amicis de injustitia acquirentibus percepimus, ut
non dicamus quia et nunc in fide exsistentes acquirimus? Quis enim vendit et non lucrari vult
ab eo qui emit? Quis autem emit et non vult utiliter se cum agi ab eo qui vendit? Quis autem
negotians non propterea negotiatur ut inde alatur? Quid autem et hi qui in regali aula sunt
fideles, nonne ex eis quae Caesaris sunt habent utensilia, et his qui non habent unusquisque
eorum secundum suam virtutem praestat? On wealthy African Christians, see also: D. Groh,
“Tertullian’s Polemic against Social Co-optation,” Church History 40 (1971) 7–14.
comparison 157
above). At any rate, Tertullian allows employment in professions that do

not involve idolatry, and in that way those people could still earn their
living: it is for these same few people that Tertullian details the regula-
tions concerning the different professions in which a Christian can or can-
not engage. It is also possible that Tertullian may not have had to worry
about Christians’ economics because they had on their own the critical
mass required for a flourishing independent economy, which the Jews
did not have. Jews could only arrive at high status and a good standard
of living thanks to the relative liberty the rabbis opened up to them. This
may demonstrate that the rabbis had some sort of political and social role,
and thus felt a responsibility not only for halakhic correctness, but also for
the economic well-being of their people.146 Tertullian, for his part, refused
to recognise economic problems as justifying leniency but this was obvi-
ously also because economic problems were not a severe concern to the
Christians he addressed.
Tertullian’s De Idolatria 8, then, even sounds like a criticism of the rab-
bis’ methods: Si ita necessitas exhibitionis extenditur—If the necessity of
sustenance is given such emphasis—and it is clear that this is not a real
problem for Christians, as stated above—Therefore, we must guard also
against this, that with our knowledge a product of our manual work be
demanded by anyone for the service of idols and if we make concessions
and if we do not make use of the so obvious remedies, then, to my mind we
are not free from the contamination of idolatry, because it is by no means
without our knowledge that our hands are caught in serving the demons, or
in treating them respectfully—hoc quoque cauere debemus, ne quid scienti-
bus nobis ab aliquibus de manibus nostris in rem idolorum postuletur. Quod si
concesserimus et non remediis iam usitatis egerimus, non puto nos a contagio
idololatriae uacare, quorum manus non ignorantium in officio uel in honore
et usu daemoniorum deprehenduntur.147
As for the rabbis, they have no other choice but to close their eyes to
some deviations from the basic ruling, in order to allow Jews to live with-
out excess difficulty. Rabbinic leniency in Judaism has been qualified as
“tolérance de nécessité,”148 particularly because Jews in antiquity were
faced with economic hardships. Dealing with Jewish leniency when trade
is involved might sound like an anti-semitic cliché to an ill-intentioned
ear, but it is in a totally neutral light that I want to note this fact in the
146 A. Oppenheimer, Rabbi Judah haNasi [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 2007), claims that Rabbi
Judah haNasi manipulated halakhah to ensure economic well-being in Eretz Israel.
148 E. Will and C. Orrieux, Prosélytisme juif ? Histoire d’une erreur (Paris, 1992) 214.
158 chapter nine
view of the different attitudes adopted in social contexts, and different

Christian behaviour in the same circumstances.
Despite his despising the rabbis’ behaviour in commercial matters,
Tertullian feels free to use the same tricks as the rabbis do about social
relationships, which are very important for him. The rabbis, as we have
seen, encourage Jews not to ask pagans what they want to do with the
products that Jews sell to them if they do not make it clear themselves.
Similarly Tertullian, in order to permit Christian participation in pri-
vate celebrations which will obviously include idolatrous rituals, states:
Plane ad sacerdotium et sacrificium vocatus, non ibo—“Invited clearly to a
priestly service or sacrifice, I won’t go”; and Si propter sacrificium vocatus
adsistam, ero particeps idolatriae—“If I am invited for a sacrifice proper
and attend it, I would take part in idolatry . . .”149 In other words, if a
host does not state that a Christian is invited to the sacrifice itself, the
Christian can go to the celebration even if he clearly knows that he will
attend idolatrous ceremonies there. However, in some extreme cases the
rabbis can also be very stringent, as they demonstrate in their ruling in
Mishnah Avodah Zarah iii, 9, where they look seriously for solutions for
Jews to manage within a pagan framework, but without any opening for
leniency or pretence of not knowing what consequences one’s acts can
imply. When products are obviously entangled with enjoyment from idol-
atry, for instance bread baked using a fire provided by wood dedicated to
149 Tertullian, De Idolatria 16.5; the trick is even more obvious in comparison with
Tertullian’s statement one paragraph earlier. I believe that it can be understood that
there Tertullian deals with festivities given in the honour of a man. But in De Idolatria 15,
Tertullian states that it makes no difference whether a man or an idol is celebrated since,
anyway, idols were formerly human beings and he advises Christians not to take part in
such ceremonies: “If it is for a man’s sake, let us again consider that all idolatry is for man’s
sake; let us again consider that all idolatry is a worship done to men, since it is generally
agreed even among their worshippers that aforetime the gods themselves of the nations
were men; and so it makes no difference whether that superstitious homage be rendered
to men of a former age or of this”—Si hominis causa est, recogitemus omnem idololatrian
in hominis causam esse. [2] Recogitemus omnem idololatrian in homines esse culturam, cum
ipsos deos nationum homines retro fuisse etiam apud suos constet. Itaque nihil interest, supe-
rioris an huius saeculi uiris superstitio ista praestetur; and then he contradicts himself in
16: “it will be lawful for us to be present at some ceremonies which see us doing service to
a man, not to an idol”—licebit adesse in quibusdam, quae nos homini, non idolo, officiosos
habent. It can be argued that idols are men, while men are not idols, but here the argument
sounds forced because of the context, and it seems obvious that the same idea is used
twice for different purposes. Waszink and Van Winden (Tertullianus) 238, comment on the
passage from chapter 15, saying that, actually, the emperor is a medium between men and
demons or that “by means of the emperor the demon draws man’s worship away from the
one God to himself.” That would mean that chapter 15 differs from 16 in that that it does
not deal with the same kind of beings.
comparison 159
idolatry, getting rid of them cannot be avoided. In such a case there is no

solution: there is no possibility of allowing a Jew to benefit from what is
clearly idolatrous and the only thing to do with it is for him to ‫יוליך הנאה‬
‫“—לים המלח‬. . . cast the benefit into the Salt Sea,” which ensures that no
enjoyment or benefit would be had from idolatry.
Working with the Pagans

One of the common bases of both De Idolatria and massekhet Avodah
Zarah is that of the biblical injunctions against idols and idol making.150
But astonishingly, this seems to be so obvious to the Mishnah that it
does not mention it even not once, whereas Tertullian expounds on it
again and again. It must be argued that it is the current character of this
rabbinic collection to assume that people who learn its rules are already
familiar with the basic biblical ordinances, and look in it only for solutions
to problematic situations or for specific practical and pragmatic applica-
tions of the wide-ranging biblical injunctions. This would stress the fact
that Tertullian, for his part, cannot take for granted that all of his disciples
know the Bible, so that he needs to remind them of its basic, fundamental
principles before dealing with the ideological or practical implications. In
fact the presence or absence of biblical quotations also points to two dif-
ferent ways of dealing with the reality. In De Idolatria 3–8 and 11–12, which
comprises a third of the entire composition, Tertullian sets out arguments
against those Christians who earn their living from idolatrous matters and
whom he clearly has to face:151 besides the making of idols proper, those
150 Exodus 20:4: “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in
heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below”; Exodus 34:17: “Do not make
cast idols”; Leviticus 19:4: “Do not turn to idols or make gods of cast metal for yourselves. I
am the LORD your God”; Leviticus 26:1: “Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred
stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it.
I am the LORD your God”; Deuteronomy 4:15–18: “You saw no form of any kind the day
the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully,
16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any
shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird
that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the
waters below”; Deuteronomy 5:8: “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of
anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below”; Deuteronomy
7:26: “Never bring a disgusting idol into your house. If you do, you and the idol will be
destroyed. Consider it detestable and disgusting. It must be destroyed”; Deuteronomy
27:15: “Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol—a thing detestable to the
LORD, the work of the craftsman’s hands—and sets it up in secret.”
151 Tertullian reiterates his ideas several times throughout his work, while Mishnah Avo-
dah Zarah is generally divided into three main, very distinct categories: [Neusner, The Tal-
mud 381, Cancik, “Wahrnehmung” 229] 1. Commercial relationships; 2. Matters pertaining
160 chapter nine
Christians engage in the construction and decoration of temples or other

places of idolatry; in making decorations for the statues; in providing goods
for idolatrous worship; and the like. Tertullian is not ready to accept eco-
nomic pretexts in order to allow such idolatrous activities, and encourages
Christians to use their talents in easier professions, such as the decoration
of private houses—with non-figurative motifs—or the making of decora-
tive objects for human beings. For him, iam caput facta est idolatriae ars
omnis, quae idolum quoquomodo edit—“every form of art producing an
idol in any way became a summit of idolatry.”152 The Mishnah for its part,
without stressing the fact in any special way, shows a reality in which the
Jews have, make and even sometimes worship idols. The Mishnah itself
offers openings for Jewish sculptors to take for granted an authorisation to
engage in the trade of image-making if they leave “a small feature unfin-
ished to satisfy the objection against this art,”153 since one may deal with
damaged idols, which are supposedly improper for worship. Making and
selling images to other Jews seems usual among Jews.154 If the Mishnah
simply “forgets” to forbid idol making, it still prohibits deriving any advan-
tage from idolatry, which could be understood as including the interdic-
tion of making idols. But benefit may be derived from the idol of the Jew
as long as it has not been worshipped: ‫] של ישראל אין אסורה‬. . .[ ‫עבודה זרה‬
‫“—עד שתיעבד‬the idol [. . .] of the Jew is not forbidden as long as it has not
been worshipped.”155 Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 8 goes even farther than
the “omission” and permits some kinds of business transactions involving
decorative accessories and objects related to idol worship. “Jewish crafts-
men no doubt gave economic justifications,”156 and what does not work
for Tertullian becomes a valid excuse for the rabbis. Hence, Rabbi Eliezer
allows the Jews to make ornaments, in all consciousness that they are
destined for idols, in exchange for a salary. When money is involved in
the discussion, the rabbis’ view toward idolatry in the tractates on Avodah
Zarah tends to be more lenient, and this despite the fact that, elsewhere,
there are far more stringent rabbinic sources opposing idols.157 Neverthe-
to idols, which is the most relevant to this part of the work; and 3. Prohibitions concerning
libation wine; nevertheless these three themes are also to be found in Tertullian’s work.
153 Elmslie, The Mishnah, on Mishnah Avodah Zarah iv, 4.
154 Blidstein, Rabbinic 221.
155 Mishnah Avodah Zarah iv, 4.
156 Urbach, “The Rabbinical” 161.
157 See, for instance, Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Jethro, bahodesh 6, ed. H.S. Horovitz, (Jeru-
salem, 1970) 224, where the rabbis enhance a ban on every kind of figurative representation.
comparison 161
less, in the field of idolatrous worship proper, when no other arguments

are involved, Tertullian and the rabbis once again share close views.
For Tertullian, idolatry is to be found not only in the effective perfor-
mance of ritual acts, but in nearly everything.158 He sees as his task the
necessity to shed light upon hidden aspects of idolatry, so that Christians
can avoid them in their daily lives among pagans.159 A Christian involved
in indirect forms of idolatry through his participation in social life is guilty.
However, Christians have enough freedom within the scope of Tertullian’s
regulations concerning secular social life to be particularly careful about
its idolatrous aspects and to avoid only those aspects, since they do not
have so many interdictions, in general, to focus on.160 In Mishnah San-
hedrin vii, 6, it also appears from the rabbis’ statement that any kind of
indirect participation in idolatry—anything that can be envisaged simply
as helping idolaters and not necessarily as actual worship—is idolatry:
“the idolater [is culpable] no matter whether he is the worshipper or the
sacrificer or the burner of incense or the pourer of a libation or the one
who bows himself down to it or the one who accepts it as his god or says
to it ‘Thou Art my God’”—‫העובד עבודה זרה אחד העובד ואחד הזובח ואחד‬
‫המקטר ואחד המנסך ואחד המשתחוה ואחד המקבלו עליו לאלוה והאומר לו אלי אתה‬.
Tertullian deals with such cases in relation to the Christian slave of an
idolater who would have to assist his master in his cult, and forbids him
to be implicated in such practices. In a sentence which is structured in a
very similar way to Mishnah Sanhedrin, Tertullian states in De Idolatria
3.2–3 with respect to the manufacture of idols:
Neque enim interest, an plastes effingat, an caelator exculpat, an phrygio
detexat [. . .] Quando enim et sine idolo idololatria fiat.
it makes no difference whether a modeller forms the idol, an engraver chis-
els it out or an embroider weaves it [. . .] since even without an idol there
may be idolatry.
Calling idols “gods” is also idolatry, as Tertullian states in several occur-
rences. Again, indirect actions, whatever non-idolatrous meaning can be
Steinfeld, Am Levadad 315 also concludes his study of Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah
with the assertion that, over time, prescriptions against idolatry, and practical rules concern-
ing relationships with the Gentiles, develop from more stringent to always more lenient.
159 See Stroumsa, “Tertullian” 171.
160 Tertullian himself stresses the fact that Christians must concentrate on the interdic-
tion against being involved in idolatry. Concerning release from other kinds of rules, see
Tertullian, De Idolatria 24.
162 chapter nine
attributed to them, are idolatrous as soon as they supply idolatry with its
necessities. The laws of Mishnah Avodah Zarah also stress indirect forms
of idolatry through their interdictions of using products derived from
enjoyment from idolatry, such as bread cooked with idolatrous wood or
garments made on a loom made of idolatrous wood, and the like.161 This
leads to a similar discussion about professions that are forbidden because
they imply idolatry. De Idolatria 3 simply forbids every job concerning
an idol: restrictions are made for the builder, who cannot build anything
for worship—including buildings, altars, or shrines—or for the painter,
who cannot decorate such places. Makers of idols are blamed and asked
to stop their work; astrologists and traders are rebuked for not avoiding
idolatry; teachers and public men are given proofs they cannot continue
with their professional functions without participating in idolatry.162 The
rabbis speak of the same professions and apply the same restrictions as
Tertullian does, adding more rules to frame Jewish and pagan collabora-
tion in every professional field.163 The rabbis state how and under what
circumstances a Jew can work for an idolater, what the conditions are
when a Jew works with an idolater in the wine business, and even how a
Jewish hairdresser should deal with the haircut of a pagan, or how a Jew
is allowed to have a haircut at a pagan establishment. At any rate, Tertul-
lian appears to be more concerned to separate Christians and pagans than
the main position of the Church actually required in his time—as we
have seen in the comparison between Tertullian and the other Christian
writers.164
161 Mishnah Avodah Zarah iii, 9.

162 Schöllgen, “Die Teilnahme” 10, states that only marginal occupations—“wie Magier,
Astrologen, die Akteure und Helfer der verschiedenen spectacula und vielleicht noch
Lehrer, sind den Christen verschlossen”—are really closed to the Christians and explains
how the restrictions concerning traders and builders are either not a problem for the
Christians, because they are anyway not implied in such occupations, or that they are
exaggerations in Tertullian’s speech that find milder expression in the facts, and that
Christians do engage in these jobs despite Tertullian’s rhetorical restrictions. He concludes
his argumentation contending that there is no way the Christians of Carthage could live
in an economic autarchy, closed within their own community, and that they had to work
with their non-Christian neighbours, despite all the dangers Tertullian points to. Neverthe-
less, since Tertullian deals with the professions of builder, trader, and schoolmaster in the
De Idolatria, those professions still appear as problematic from a Christian standpoint.
163 Among the examples: Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 7 for restrictions for the builder,
concerning the teachers see above, in this work, the section on schoolmasters and teachers.
164 Perhaps this is due to his Montanist affinities. See on this: Schöllgen, “Die Teil-
nahme” 2.
comparison 163
Tertullian and the rabbis concur again when it comes to the concept of
“do not make a temple of your door”—ne feceris templum ianuam tuam.165
Tertullian wants Christians to avoid any behaviour similar to that of the
pagans, to avoid decorating their doors with ornaments that could be
interpreted as being idolatrous: in sum, he wants them to prevent any
form of idolatry from entering their homes. Mishnah Avodah Zarah deals
with this matter several times. The first occurrence is in Mishnah Avodah
Zarah i, 8–9,166 where it says that a Jew is allowed to sell his house to
a pagan only “outside the Land of Israel”—‫בחוצה לארץ‬, but forbids him
to rent a dwelling house to a pagan, “for he [the idolater] might intro-
duce an idol into it, as it is said: ‘Thou shalt not bring an abomination
into thy house’”—‫מפני שהוא מכניס לתוכו עבודה זרה שנאמר לא תביא תועבה‬
‫אל ביתך‬. Mishnah Avodah Zarah iii, 6 deals with the laws concerning a
Jewish dwelling “adjoining a house for idolatrous worship”—‫סמוך לעבודה‬
‫זרה‬. The Jew must put an end to this situation as soon as possible: if the
wall common to both houses falls down, the Jew cannot rebuild it, and he
must move away from the idolatrous building in order to avoid sharing
anything with idolatry. In the Jerusalem Talmud, Avodah Zarah 43a, Rabbi
Yohanan explains that a “house for idolatrous worship” is not specifically
a shrine, but can be a private house, and he gives the example of a convert
to Judaism who inherits his pagan father’s house, and his neighbouring
165 Tertullian, De Idolatria 15.11; the entire paragraph deals with the worship of doors
and entrances.
166 Parallels in Tosefta Avodah Zarah ii, 8–9 and in the Talmudim; it is interesting to
note that, even if the Mishnah and Tertullian discuss the same reasons and both propose
ways for Jews/Christians not to introduce idolatry into their private homes, the Mishnah
deals with the sanctity of the Holy Land and the levels of sanctity of other places. Such a
matter is not Tertullian’s concern, for the Christians have no sacred place, and the rules
concerning homes and lands are everywhere the same, for the same reasons. As for the
Jews, they cannot allow any takeover by foreigners in the Land of Israel, and this is not
only a problem of idolatry, but also of nationalism. According to a first opinion, Jews can
neither rent nor sell their Land of Israel houses and fields, while according to a second
opinion, they can rent, but not sell, houses. In Syria, where the Jews were settled and
well established for a long time and felt that they had some rights since King David had
conquered it (Bartenura), it is claimed that the level of sanctity is lower and the rules
change, but are still restrictive. Anywhere else, i.e. throughout the pagan world, sales are
permitted, since anyway the Jews demand nothing of a property in countries in which
they are foreigners according to the opinion of the Mishnah, but clearly, the Jews of the
Diaspora would have thought otherwise of their own status in their adoptive countries.
According to the first opinion, even abroad, Jews cannot sell their fields to idolaters but
only rent them out, while they do not rent out houses apparently. Anyway, even if they
rent out houses anywhere, Jews cannot rent them as dwelling houses for idolaters, since
they would settle in them with their idols. Jews must be careful that their houses do not
become places of idolatry.
164 chapter nine
pagan brother who inherits a second house that shelters idols and adjoins
the first. Mishnah Avodah Zarah iii, 7 makes it clear what kinds of houses
are used “for idolatrous worship”: some are intrinsically idolatrous and
cannot be readapted for Jewish use, while others can be purified of their
idolatrous character. Thus there is a common agenda among the Jewish
and Christian mentors who want their respective audiences to avoid idol-
atry in their homes.
Further, it is also interesting to note some real differences between
Mishnah Avodah Zarah and De Idolatria. First, the Mishnah often deals
with edible goods. It divides them with great care into two categories:
goods prohibited for use and benefit—‫אלו דברים של גוים ואסורן אסור‬
‫“—הנאה‬these are the Gentiles’ things that are prohibited and they are
prohibited for benefit”—and goods prohibited for use, but permit-
ted for trade—‫“—אלו דברים של גוים ואין אסורן אסור הנאה‬these are the
Gentiles’ things that are prohibited, but their prohibition does not concern
benefit.”167 The first category includes, in particular, goods connected to
libation wine or meat from idolatrous sacrifices, as well as crockery from
the same general context of idolatry, and it echoes the category of goods
a Jew is not allowed to sell to idolaters.168 The second category involves
the Jewish dietary laws. Mishnah Avodah Zarah ii, 6 forbids foodstuffs on
which a pagan worked without any Jewish supervision: when he milked
alone: ‫חלב שחלבו גוי ואין ישראל רואהו‬, “the milk a Gentile milked without
a Jew’s supervision;” or baked bread alone: . . . ‫“ ;והפת והשמן שלהן‬and the
bread and their oil,” particularly because s/he could have contaminated
these products with other food forbidden for Jewish use. Other elements
connected with dietary laws are to be found in Mishnah Avodah Zarah
v, 12, which relays information about how to adapt cooking utensils that
once served Gentiles to Jewish use. It is obvious why Tertullian does not
allude to the second category—Christians do not observe Jewish dietary
laws. However, we could have expected him to deal with the enjoyment
167 Mishnah Avodah Zarah ii, 3–6. Steinfeld, Am Levadad 27, 47, observes the distinction
made since the time of the Jerusalem Talmud between two genres:—products prohibited
because of the risk of being mixed with other forbidden elements, which are permitted for
trade; and products prohibited because of their very own essence, which are prohibited
for enjoyment in any case. The last category is implied in idolatrous contexts. Steinfeld’s
study shows how the Talmud lightens the interdictions in linking the reasons of a risk of
contamination to products the Mishnah prohibits in and of themselves.
168 According to the context, the stone, pine cones and white figs forbidden for sale
in Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 5 clearly belong to the sacrificial framework; however, Fried-
heim, Rabbinisme 218 adds that besides this point, those products are dedicated to the cult
of Dionysus, the god of wine.
comparison 165
of products implied in or issued from idolatrous worship, since even the

other Church Fathers do handle the subject. The reason he does not
deal with these might be that, in contrast to Tertullian’s prescriptions—
or even justifying Tertullian’s issuing of these prescriptions—Christians
were indeed involved in the commercial life of Carthage and did have to
deal with the types of merchandise that might have been used in idola-
trous contexts.169 The fact that Tertullian does not deal with products of
that type might be his concession to the realities of contemporary life, so
as not to deter too many proselytes with too many severe rules that would
impede them in their daily activities. But Tertullian does not elaborate
on the fact that he leaves this matter aside, in contrast to the rabbis, who
do recognise the reasons for their leniency. The fact is that the rabbis
confront existing laws and obviously make them less strict, while Tertul-
lian, having no specific rule to observe, is free to impose the prescriptions
he wants and not to mention anything about issues where he does not
wish to make rules. This might also explain why Tertullian does not raise
the problem of eating meat from sacrifices when attending pagan private
celebrations. Once he authorises his followers to attend such celebra-
tions—and even expects that social links will be formed on those occa-
sions and bring new members to the Church—he cannot order them not
to eat the food offered there. The reason could be simply that Tertullian
does not want the pagans to be vexed by the Christians’ behaviour pre-
cisely when he is trying to initiate a rapprochement between them by
permitting Christian participation in those festivals. On the other hand,
it could have been so obvious to Tertullian that meats from sacrifices are
idolatrous that he feels no need to remind his disciples of this fact, and
he counts on their discernment and good judgment in not eating from
them, since they know they should avoid matters that are specifically
idolatrous.
There are also differences in the attitudes to property. The rabbis estab-
lish that Jews are not allowed to sell their cattle to Gentiles, who will make
them work on the Sabbath day, but Jews are allowed to buy slaves from
idolaters even on the days of their festivals, in order to shield those slaves
from idolatry and to place them under God’s protection. Tertullian, for his
part, considers that becoming a Christian is in and of itself deliverance
from slavery. Everyone can free himself by accepting Christian truth, even
169 Based on Schöllgen.
166 chapter nine
a slave, no matter what the consequences will be for him if he refuses to

fulfill, tasks in connection with idolatry for his master.
Finally, both the rabbis and Tertullian claim that all images are idol-
atry.170 But, while Tertullian details what is idolatrous in every kind of
image, the rabbis pursue the discussion by detailing what sort of images
are actually not idolatrous:
‫ וחכמים‬.‫כל הצלמים אסורים מפני שהם נעבדים פעם אחת בשנה דברי רבי מאיר‬
‫ רבן שמעון בן‬.‫אומרים אינו אסור אלא כל שיש בידו מקל או ציפור או כדור‬
.‫גמליאל אומר כל שיש בידו כל דבר‬
all images are prohibited since they are worshipped once a year, this is Rabbi
Meir’s opinion. And the Sages say only such is forbidden as bears in its hand
a stick or a bird or an orb. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says any image that
has anything in its hand [is forbidden].171
The rabbis thus try to lighten the general approach to images, while
Tertullian clings steadfastly to the generalising case that allows him, as
always, to reduce to the minimum any friction with the non-Christian
idolatrous world. However, when it comes to the “reptile,” “dragon,” or
“serpent,” the roles are reversed: Tertullian is lenient and the rabbis are
strict. Thus in De Idolatria 5.4 Tertullian defends Moses’ fashioning a
serpent of bronze. On the one hand, he points out, Moses made the serpent
following a divine order—et tu imitare Moysen, ne facias adversus legem
simulacrum aliquod nisi et tibi deus jusserit—“and you imitate Moses also
in that you do not make any image against the law unless God commands
so to you,” which justifies the exceptional circumstance of his making it,
extraordinario praecepto—“by way of an exceptional commandment,”
since the making of images is generally forbidden. On the other hand, the
serpent was believed to be a symbol prefiguring Christ’s cross: designasse
dominicae cruces—“designated the Lord’s cross.” In contrast with this,
Mishnah Avodah Zarah iii, 3 forbids commonly used objects bearing the
images of the sun, moon, or a “dragon”: ‫המוצא כלים ועליהם צורת חמה צורת‬
‫“—לבנה צורת דרקון יוליכם לים המלח‬the one who finds utensils and on them
appears the shape of the sun or the shape of the moon or the shape of a
dragon shall cast them into the Salt Sea.”172 Once again Mishnah Avodah
170 Tertullian, De Idolatria, passim and especially chapters 3 and 4, Mishnah Avodah

Zarah iii, 1.
171 Urbach, “The Rabbinical,” links the description with the Imperial cult.
172 Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 42c deals with what a dragon is and what the rules
are for other kinds of reptiles; Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 42b: “icons of all figures
are permitted except for that of a dragon.”
comparison 167
Zarah iii, 6 equates the uncleanliness inherent in idolatry precisely with

that of a “creeping thing,” or unclean reptile, a ‫שרץ‬, which could include
a serpent or dragon. It has been suggested that these different approaches
to the character of the serpent reflect a discussion between the approving
Tertullian and the critical rabbis, each of whom is aware of the other’s
positions on that point.173
Neutral Space
The Lure of Idolatry

The question is now to measure the real power of the idolatry which the
rabbis and Tertullian are fighting. The biblical Jewish people, to whom
both the rabbis and Tertullian feel a certain bond, was very well-known
for its regular devotion to foreign gods, in parallel to or instead of being
dedicated to its own God, beginning with the episode of the Golden Calf
and continuing with examples cited in the numerous diatribes of its proph-
ets. Different scholarly approaches explain what motivated the fierceness
of both the rabbis and Tertullian against idolatry. One approach proposes
that, in view of Israel’s loaded history, the religious leaders of the second
and third centuries still feared the lure of idolatry and the ease with which
it attracted people.174 The rabbis and Tertullian coped with this fear by
recalling and denouncing past errors in order to avoid new occurrences.
They even prevent fallacious objections with their exegesis of those bibli-
cal passages in which idolatry seems to be permitted, showing that these
cases are actually there to reinforce the ban on idolatry.175
In a second approach, the rabbis use one more tool against idolatry:
they deny its existence. The Babylonian Talmud invents the story of the
173 Aziza, Tertullien 180. In De Cultu Feminarum 1.6.2–3, Tertullian equates the serpent-
serpente/dragon-draconum with the devil, so that Aziza sounds right when he asserts that,
especially in De Idolatria, Tertullian is provocative on purpose when he portrays the reptile
in a positive light and that the rabbis are confronting this Christian portrait when they
denigrate this sort of positive approach towards the serpent.
174 Hadas-Lebel, “Le paganisme” 456: idolatry remains “une tentation non négligeable
pour les juifs”; Clerc, Les théories 132: the rabbis had “une terreur secrète de l’idolâtrie”;
Friedheim, Rabbinisme 48–9.
175 For instance, Tertullian, De Idolatria 3, mentions the Golden Calf; De Idolatria 5
explains why Moses was allowed to make a serpent of bronze. Mekhilta Yitro 10: explains
why not to make cherubim.
168 chapter nine
marvellous end of the attractive character of idolatry in the days of the

second Temple:176
‫ויצעקו אל ה' אלהים בקול גדול מאי אמור אמר רב ואיתימא ר' יוחנן בייא בייא‬
‫היינו האי דאחרביה למקדשא וקליה להיכליה וקטלינהו לכולהו צדיקי ואגלינהו‬
‫לישראל מארעהון ועדיין מרקד בינן כלום יהבתיה לן אלא לקבולי ביה אגרא‬
‫לא איהו בעינן ולא אגריה בעינן נפל להו פיתקא בינן מרקיעא דהוה כתב בה‬
‫אותיבו בתעניתא תלתא יומין ותלתא לילואתא מסרוהו ניהליהו נפק‬ . . . ‫אמת‬
‫אתא כי גוריא דנורא מבית קדשי הקדשים אמר להו נביא לישראל היינו יצרא‬
‫דעבודה זרה שנאמר (זכריה ה) ויאמר זאת הרשעה בהדי דתפסוה ליה אשתמיט‬
‫ביניתא ממזייא ורמא קלא ואזל קליה ארבע מאה פרסי אמרו היכי נעביד דילמא‬
‫חס ושלום מרחמי עליה מן שמיא אמר להו נביא שדיוהו בדודא דאברא וחפיוהו‬
‫לפומיה באברא דאברא משאב שאיב קלא שנאמר (זכריה ה) ויאמר זאת‬
.‫—הרשעה וישלך אותה אל תוך האיפה וישלך את אבן העופרת אל פיה‬
“They cried with a loud voice unto the Lord.” What was said?—and some
deem that Rabbi Yohanan said that: ‘Woe! Woe! The tempter to idolatry
has destroyed the Temple, has killed all the just men, and exiled Israel
from their land, and we see him yet among us. Why hast thou created the
tempter? To reward us more for overcoming him. We wish neither him
nor the greater rewards.’ Then fell down a billet from Heaven, whereon
was written: ‘Emeth’ [Truth]. . . . They fasted three days and three nights.
Then he [the evil spirit] was delivered into their hands. So they saw how
a lion-cub of fire went out from the Holy of Holies. Then the prophet said
to them: ‘Here is the evil spirit of idolatry.’ As it is written [Zechariah v.
8]: ‘This is the wickedness.’ They caught him. When a hair was torn out
from his mane, he issued a cry, which was heard at the distance of four
hundred parsas. They said: ‘If he cries so loud, what can we do to him?
Lest he be pitied in Heaven, what shall we do that his voice be not heard?’
They were then advised to throw him into a leaden pot, as lead muffles
the voice. They put him into a leaden pot, and covered it with a leaden
lid, as it is written [ibid.]: ‘And he said, this is the wickedness.’ And he
cast it into the midst of the ephah, and he cast the weighty lead cover
upon the mouth thereof. [And since then idolatry ceased among Israel.]
The Palestinian rabbis of the third to fourth century, without recourse
to any apocryphal stories detailing a magical event that puts an end to
176 Babylonian Talmud Yomah 69b; denying the power of idolatry is already being a Jew
and applying the rules of the Torah: Babylonian Talmud Hullin 5b and Rashi on Bityah,
Pharaoh’s daughter, who married Caleb ben Yefuneh. She was deemed a Jewess because
she renounced idolatry, Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 19b, commentary based on Babylo-
nian Talmud Megillah 13a (Rabbi Yohanan bar Nappacha states that one who renounces
idolatry is already a Jew). For Simon, Verus 323, too, the reason why renouncing idolatry
was enough to become a Jew is that the lure of idolatry was very strong.
comparison 169
idolatry, also think that attraction to idolatry was eradicated at this time.177
The Babylonian Talmud reports a rabbinic decision stating that the Gen-
tiles are no longer idolatrous; they merely follow their ancestors’ customs.178
Thus Jewish participation in their art, among other forms of social mixing,
is permitted. In the same vein, it reports the story of Rabbi Hanina and
Rabbi Yonatan who must choose between a road passing a brothel and
one passing a pagan temple.179 They state that the desire for idolatry was
exorcised long ago and does not threaten them at all, so they choose to
walk past the brothel in order to fight the attraction of promiscuous sex.
However, most scholars see the numerous mentions of rabbinic abhor-
rence of idolatry as evidence that the rabbis in fact feared it as a real and
seductive danger that could lead to the loss of Jewish identity, betrayal of
the Jewish God, and total assimilation.180 In such a case, then, the rabbis
would be fighting against a reality in which idolatry is very strong and
attractive, and they want to counteract this strength in their discourse.
Scoffing at idolatry, the rabbis draw its portrait for their Jewish audience
as something passé, claiming that no-one but a fool would still believe
in idolatry, which was eradicated from the roots a very long time ago,
since its power of attraction had been neutralised.181 Why should Jews be
tempted by something that has no significance for anyone anymore? This
first approach, then, consists in saying that the rabbis’ repeated insistence
on the vanity of idolatry suggests that Jews still saw idols as attractive and
worthy of being worshipped. It has been suggested that the story of Zunin
was written to illustrate this. Zunin, a Jew and even perhaps as a rabbi,
and Raba bar Rav Yitzhaq hesitate and wonder how an idol has the power
to heal: Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 55a:
‫אמר ליה זונין לרבי עקיבא לבי ולבך ידע דעבודה זרה לית בה מששא והא קחזינן‬
.‫גברי דאזלי כי מתברי ואתו כי מצמדי מאי טעמא‬
177 See Friedheim, Rabbinisme 34–6 and his references—through Urbach’s writings

especially—to Midrash Eliyahu Zutah 8 and Song of the Songs Rabbah 7.13, among others to
show how idolatry had no more influence on the Jews of the time of the second Temple.
178 Babylonian Talmud Hullin 13b. Urbach, “The Rabbinical”.
179 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 17a–b.
180 Blidstein, Rabbinic iv, xi.
181 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 41a: “Rav Ashi raised the question, ‘if it was
holding in its hand a piece of excrement, what is the law? Do we maintain that in the
idol’s view, everybody is like excrement? Or perhaps, in everybody’s view, the idol is like
excrement?’”—‫עלמא זילו באפי כי צואה‬. ‫בעי רב אשי תפש בידו צואה מהו? מי אמרינן כולי‬
?‫ או דלמא הוא מיהו דזיל באפי כולי עלמא כצואה‬The question is not answered.
170 chapter nine
Zunin said to Rabbi Aqiva: in my heart and in your heart we both know that
there is no substance whatsoever in idolatry. But lo, we see people go into a
shrine crippled and come out cured. How come?
The impression arising from this anecdote is that if the wise among the
Jews hesitated about the significance of idolatry, certainly the common
people could still indeed be attracted by it. And again:
‫אמר ליה רבא בר רב יצחק לרב יהודה האיכא בית עבודה זרה באתרין דכי‬
‫מצטריך עלמא למטרא מתחזי להו בחלמא ואמר להו שחטו לי גברא ואייתי‬
‫מטרא שחטו לה גברא ואתי מטרא‬
Raba bar Rav Isaac said to Rabbi Judah: There is a temple to an idol in our
locale. When there is need for rain, the idol appears in a dream and says to
them: kill someone for me and I shall bring rain. So they kill someone for
her and she brings rain.182
So, fearing the strength of idolatry, the rabbis resort to the fabrication
of the non-existence of idolatry. But then an embarrassing flaw appears
in this construction through the apologetic Mishnah Avodah Zarah iv, 7,
in which the rabbis try to argue why idolatry can still be found indeed in
the world:
‫ אמרו‬.‫ מפני מה אינו מבטלה‬,‫ אם אין רצונו בעבודה זרה‬,‫שאלו את הזקנים ברומי‬
‫ הרי הם עובדין‬.‫ היה מבטלו‬,‫ אילו לדבר שאין לעולם צורך בו היו עובדין‬,‫להן‬
‫ אם‬,‫ אמרו להן‬.‫ מפני השוטים‬,‫ ולכוכבים ולמזלות; יאבד עולמו‬,‫ וללבנה‬,‫לחמה‬
,‫ אמרו להן‬.‫ ויקיים דבר שצורך לעולם בו‬,‫ יאבד דבר שאין לעולם צורך בו‬,‫כן‬
‫ שהרי אלו‬,‫ תדעון שהן אלוהות‬,‫אף אנו מחזיקין ידי עובדיהן של אלו; ויאמרו‬
.‫לא בטלו‬
The elders were asked in Rome: ‘If He does not want idolatry, why does he
not cancel it?’ They answered them: ‘Were people revering things useless in
the world, he would cancel them. But they revere the sun and the moon and
the stars and the planets. Is He to destroy His world because of fools?’ They
were told: ‘If so, let Him put an end to that which the world does not need
and leave what the world does need.’ They answered them: ‘Then we would
confirm the worshippers of these things, in that they would say “know ye
that these be gods,’ for behold! These are not destroyed.
The Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 4a also appears to be apologetic
when expounding the two different schemes according to which Jews and
pagans are judged by God:
‫והיינו דאמר רבי אלכסנדרי מאי דכתיב (זכריה יב) והיה ביום ההוא אבקש‬ . . .
‫להשמיד את כל הגוים אבקש ממי אמר הקב"ה אבקש בניגני שלהם אם יש להם‬

comparison 171
‫זכות אפדם ואם לאו אשמידם והיינו דאמר רבא מאי דכתיב (איוב ל) אך לא‬
‫בעי ישלח יד אם בפידו להן שוע אמר להן הקב"ה לישראל כשאני דן את ישראל‬
'‫אין אני דן אותם כאומות העולם דכתיב (יחזקאל כא) עוה עוה עוה אשימנה וגו‬
‫אלא אני נפרע מהן כפיד של תרנגולת דבר אחר אפילו אין ישראל עושין מצוה‬
‫לפני כי אם מעט כפיד של תרנגולין שמנקרין באשפה אני מצרפן לחשבון גדול‬
‫[שנאמר אם בפידו] להן שוע [דבר אחר] בשכר שמשוועין לפני אני מושיע אותם‬
‫והיינו דאמר ר' אבא מאי דכתיב (הושע ז) ואנכי אפדם והמה דברו עלי כזבים אני‬
‫אמרתי אפדם בממונם בעוה"ז כדי שיזכו לעולם הבא והמה דברו עלי כזבים והיינו‬
‫דאמר רב פפי משמיה דרבא מאי דכתיב (הושע ז) ואני יסרתי חזקתי זרועותם‬
‫ואלי יחשבו רע אמר הקב"ה אני אמרתי איסרם ביסורין בעולם הזה כדי שיחזקו‬
.‫זרועותם לעוה"ב ואלי יחשבו רע‬
. . . That is in line with what Rabbi Alexandri said: What is the meaning of
the verse, ‘and it shall come to pass on the day that I will seek to destroy
all the nations’—‘Seek’—seek permission from whom? Said the Holy One,
blessed be He, ‘I shall seek in the records that deal with them to see whether
there is a cause of merit on account of which I shall redeem them but if not
I will destroy them.’ That is in line with what Raba said: What is the mean-
ing of the verse “howbeit he will not stretch out a hand for a ruinous heap
though they cry in his destruction?” Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to
Israel, “When I judge Israel, I shall not judge them as I do the Gentiles, for it
is written, ‘I will overturn and overturn it,’ rather, I shall exact punishment
from them as a hen pecks. Another matter: even if the Israelites do not carry
out a religious duty before me more than a hen pecking at a rubbish heap, I
shall join together [all the little pecks] into a great sum: “although they pick
a little they are saved.” Another matter: “as a reward for their crying out to
me, I shall help them.” That is in line with what Rabbi Abba said: ‘What
is the meaning of the verse “though I would redeem them, yet they have
spoken lies against me?” I said that I would redeem them through [inflict-
ing a penalty] on their property in this world, so that they might have the
merit of enjoying the world to come, yet they have spoken lies against me.’
That is in line with what Rav Pappi in the name of Raba said: ‘what is the
meaning of the verse “though I have trained [and] strengthened their arms,
yet they imagine mischief against me.” Said the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘I
thought that I would punish them with suffering in this world, so that their
arm might be strengthened in the world to come, yet they have spoken lies
against me.’
This suggya, talmudic passage, is an encouragement to Jews who have no
supremacy in the world. Indeed, the rabbinic sources often try to comfort
the Jews, especially those living in a world totally submitted to the power
of the idolatrous Romans (who are the archetypical pagans, even in the
Babylonian Talmud). The scheme of the apologetic passages is often the
same: it is true that for a period of time God seems to favour the nations,
in general, over the Jews, but the Jews must be confident and encouraged
because, at the End of Days, God will save His loyal people who accept, study
172 chapter nine
and carry out the Torah—at least partly—and destroy Gentile idolatry.183
As a result, the Jewish people will finally reign over the former idolaters,
who have ill-treated them. Thus they should not worry about their current
situation because, whether in this world or in the world to come, they
will be rewarded. As is clearly illustrated here, the general target of the
Babylonian Talmud is to promote Torah study.184 The Babylonian Talmud
also repeats Mishnah Avodah Zarah and adds its personal message for the
promotion of Torah study, which becomes the antidote to idolatry, and
promises recompense: at the end Israel will vanquish and lead the world if
it does not cease to study the Torah. It is true that the idolaters’ strength is
difficult to understand, but loyal Jews will be rewarded for their study and
performance of the precepts of the Torah, even if this is not perfect. Here
the aim also appears to be to frighten Israel, to make the Jewish people
cling to their own faith and not be tempted by other options that only
bring punishment in the end. This sounds exactly like Tertullian’s calls to
be patient and to avoid contacts with the idolaters because, in the end,
the pagans will mourn and the Christians will rejoice and assume their
destined role as the leaders of the world.185
But we must ask whether the disappearance of idolatry is really no
more than a mere rabbinic construction. The Babylonian Talmud Hullin’s
statement that now pagan cults are more secular, rather than being actual
testimonies of faith in idolatry,186 finds echoes in the Babylonian Talmud
Avodah Zarah’s claim that transactions are permitted, on the holidays
themselves, with those pagans who do not observe the festivals.187 Their
183 Neusner, The Talmud, on Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 4a as a summary (see

there the discussion on: ‫“—והיה ביום ההוא אבקש להשמיד את כל הגויים‬And it shall come
to pass on that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations”) and 10. See also Schremer,
“The Lord.”
184 Neusner, The Talmud 376.
185 Tertullian, De Idolatria 13, Frend, “Heresy” 40 states that Tertullian has “the same
hope for the reversal of roles in one final day of reckoning” as the Palestinian Jews during
the Maccabean period.
186 Babylonian Talmud Hullin 13b.
187 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 8a; this is Rabbi Yohanan’s ruling. R. Yohanan
gives a restrictive interpretation to the Mishnah here. As always, some scholars would
doubt that his ruling can be accepted without any caution as a relevant historical testi-
mony for Tertullian’s days, even if Rabbi Yohanan is supposedly his contemporary. The
question might be asked here whether Rabbi Yohanan really stated his permission in his
time and concerning his time, or whether later disciples attributed to him a ruling they
wanted to apply in their own time. But since R. Yohanan is reported identically in the
Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 1.2; 39c, and since Rabbi Yohanan describes a Roman
reality, his ruling can be used at least as a clue to what the situation was admitted to have
been in his days.
comparison 173
non-observance does not mean that they do not keep ancestral habits
such as giving strenae as a New Year gift, but that this type of act has lost
its religious resonance. Even if economic reasons motivate such a claim,
this does not seem to be a complete invention, but rather a comment on
the reality of the situation. Several scholars tend to accept that the rab-
bis really felt that the pagan gods were no longer a threat because the
heathens themselves were entirely indifferent to their rites.188 Indeed, the
different intellectual streams among the pagans generally tend to confirm
a self-interested, but secular view of religious practices. At least the elite
among the pagans accepted more practical, philosophical, and intellec-
tual kinds of religion than their ancestors did. Even if the common people
clung to their habitual mystical rites, the general tendency was to look
for solutions more suited to the needs and metaphysical questions of the
time. This is also the state of mind that opened the gates of the Classical
world to the successful dissemination of Christianity. The pagans actu-
ally renounced nothing in their conversion to Christianity, and adopted
a way of life that brought them the answers and spiritual comfort they
were looking for.
Nevertheless, despite his awareness of the changes characterising the
mindset of his time, which can be seen throughout his works, Tertullian
attacks idolatry ruthlessly. Just as some rabbis invent, or at least exag-
gerate, a picture of the total non-existence of idolatry in order to neutra-
lise its attraction for the Jews, it is possible that Tertullian increases the
power of attraction of idolatry as a literary tactic, and makes it into a kind
of monster from which one has to flee, at any price, in order to prevent
any Christian contact or closeness with it (except in very specific cases in
which Tertullian’s precise ruling permits Christians to attract idolaters,
instead of being defiled by them). In both cases, reality is exaggerated:
idolatry may still have been in vogue in the world, but with a moder-
ated influence. Moreover, what might have been powerful in idolatry is its
political aspect or its philosophical schools, even perhaps the mysticism
in its daily-life expression, but not the outdated idolatrous cultic practices.
However, I cannot ignore here the existence of some pagan intellectual
streams which worked to safeguard idolatry, and which were powerful
and supremely operative in the time of Tertullian and the rabbis of the
Mishnah. Among the pagan intellectuals, in contradistinction to those
188 Among them, Blidstein, “Nullification” 19–20; S., Lieberman, “Rejoinder,” Jewish

Quarterly Review 37 (1946–7) 331.
174 chapter nine
opposed to the faith of their fathers, there were some who defended the
meticulous practice of the ancestral customs, not indeed out of a faithful
religious motivation, but simply as a guarantee of good civic and politi-
cal order. These people were interested in a different agenda from those
who were motivated by true religious feelings. Whatever the motivation
may have been, however, many wished to keep idolatrous practices and
beliefs alive.
A modern view among scholars is that the rabbinic ruling was, in gen-
eral, compelled by the reality of the time and adapted to the facts. The
Jews as a nation did not exist in the days of the Mishnah, which was, in
fact, a construction of the rabbis for the rabbis, and which did not leave
the walls of the rabbinic study house. In particular, the Mishnah was of no
interest to idolatrous and dispersed Jews who had no reason to recognise
the authority of halakhic regulations over their lives.189 Such revolution-
ary ideas concerning the nature of the Jewish people and the rabbinic
leadership in the second to third centuries are generally widely debated,190
but as long as the laws of Mishnah Avodah Zarah are concerned, the ideas
exposed are consonant with suggestions of more conservative scholars
who state, for example, that during the second (third) century there must
have been numerous Palestinian Jews who did not live up to rabbinic reli-
gious standards or refused the rabbis’ authority.191 And, of course, if this
is the case in Palestine, the situation must have been paralleled in the
Diaspora, which was even more distant from the rabbinic centre.
189 Schwartz, Imperialism, passim and especially 172; the theory is also close to that of
Goodenough. For S.J.D. Cohen, “The Rabbi in Second Century Jewish Society,” The Cam-
bridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period, W. Horbury et al., eds. (Cambridge,
2000) 961–76, especially, and in other articles in general, the rabbis were also not central
to Jewish society, and the Jews accepted their religious authority only sometimes and only
in some particular matters. Boyarin, Border lines, for his part, deems that the whole rab-
binic tradition back to 70 ce was invented by the rabbis of the Talmud. On the other hand,
D. Goodblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (Cambridge, 2006), reacts against this
entire stream of thought and tries to demonstrate that the ancient Jews not only envisaged
themselves as a nation, but that they could also display, on certain occasions, nationalistic
behaviour.
190 The opponents to this theory, whether in the scholarship of the two past centuries
or in the modern one, are too numerous to draw an exhaustive list. As illustration I will
only quote the works of Z. Safrai who claims that during the generation of Yavneh the rab-
bis already constitute the dominant elite within the Jewish people, while the effectiveness
of the rabbinic halakhah began to gain strength; Katzoff’s works on testimonies to respect
of the rabbinic halakhah in the desert of Judaea; Herr, whose position is summarised in
“The Identity.”
191 Lieberman, Hellenism 113. So Rives, Religion 267.
comparison 175
It is therefore not clear to what extent the rules in Mishnah Avodah

Zarah were actually followed.192 Supporters of the new tendency in schol-
arship claim that the rulings won no adherence at all, considering the
Jews of the time of the Mishnah and Talmudim to have been polytheists,
or at least very concerned with the paganism around them.193 There are
indeed numerous clues throughout rabbinic literature pointing to the fact
that Jews were attracted by idolatry. A few examples are enough here to
show that the rabbis did not exclude the possibility of Jews becoming
idolaters in their own time. However, these stories which feature Jews
diverted from the right path by idolatry might be simply a literary con-
struct. Since stories about Jews worshipping idols generally appear in
narrative passages, it could be suggested that these were invented as a
form of admonition or of warning, and that they did not reflect real situ-
ations. As such, the examples are there to illustrate the interdiction con-
cretely, while the framework stories are there to divert loyal Jews from
the behaviour depicted. Take, for instance, the “story,” or ‫מעשה‬, of the
man “who rented his ass to a gentile woman”—‫שהשכיר את חמורו לאשה‬
‫גויה‬. In this case the framework story is there to warn the Jewish reader:
Look! What a situation a Jew has entered into, and here is what it led
him to—the example proper—: “he entered and wiped his bottom with
Peor’s nose”—‫נכנס וקינח עצמו בחוטמו של פעור‬. But this is the normal way in
which Peor is depicted as being worshipped in the talmudic sources, and
it is forbidden for a Jew to do this, as is known from an earlier and very
similar case, where it is ruled that “someone who uncovers his bottom
in front of the Baal Peor, this is the way it is revered”—‫המפעיר עצמו לבעל‬
‫פעור זו היא עבודתו‬. Jews should not risk their faith by proximity to pagans
because horrible things happen to those who are tempted to be close to
pagans. The framework story always presents a situation in which the Jew
risks contaminating his faith with a foreign cult, since “as the nail cannot
leave the door without taking [with it some of its] wood, the Jews cannot
leave the Peor without leaving [with it some of their] spirit”—‫כשם שאי‬
‫ כך אי אפשר להם לישראל לפרוש מן‬,‫אפשר לו למסמר לפרוש מן הדלת בלא עץ‬
‫הפעור בלא נפשות‬. Then come the examples showing the horrible actual
defilement of Jewish law, and the framework story thereafter concludes
that what has happened is bad, or that that is the reason why Jews should
192 Blidstein, Rabbinic xxxviii; 161–2; Barclay, Jews 435.

193 Friedheim, Rabbinisme 65; S. Schwartz.
176 chapter nine
avoid mixing with pagans, or other moral statements of this kind.194 This
may be only a tool aimed at frightening the Jewish audience, rather than
a reflection of situations that the rabbis actually fear. This tactic is used,
for example, with an educational or monitory aim, in the biblical story
of the prophet Jonah, which praises the great merit of the pagan sailors
who repent. This kind of parable, if such a term is acceptable here, aims
to exhort Jews to become at least as good as those Gentiles, but it is not
anchored in a historic reality.195 Nevertheless, Mishnah Avodah Zarah,
for its part, does propose laws practically adapted to reality, rather than
mere admonitions or intellectual reflections about faith. Though the fact
that something is forbidden does not prove that people used to do it, but
only that people may have been tempted to do it, it would seem from
the rulings of the Mishnah that Jews did indeed make statues in the real-
ity it confronted, since there are prescriptions expounding how to make
them while remaining within a Jewish legal framework, and they probably
also participated in the building of pagan cult edifices. The Babylonian
Talmud Avodah Zarah, in fact, even describes Jews on a pilgrimage to
worship idols.196
So what can be inferred from the picture the Mishnah draws of idola-
try? First, it would seem that idolatry still existed to a certain extent in
its time, so that the mishnaic ruling forbids what is really involved in
valid, contemporaneous idolatrous practice. Secondly, the real danger for
Judaism is not idolatry proper, but overly stringent rabbinic rules imped-
ing Jewish daily life in a pagan environment, which would deter Jews from
continuing to observe their ancestral rules: the danger is that Jews would
completely give up Judaism. Hence the Mishnah must find appropriate
ways to forbid only what is really, and dangerously, idolatry. Finally, non-
mishnaic literature, such as the Talmud or Midrash, proposes further ways
to try to keep Jews within their religious framework by promising rewards
194 For this, and several other examples (of a Jew attracted by the cult of the Baal Peor),
see Sifre leBamidbar, Horovitz, ed. (Leipzig 1917) 171, (parashat Balak 25) / Yalkut Shim’oni
parashat Balak. The rabbis tell numerous stories of Jews undressing in front of the Baal
Peor or throwing stones at statues of Merkolis (Hermes/Mercury) in order to make it clear
to loyal Jews that this is the normal worship of those deities, and to warn them that they
are engaging in idolatry if they do behave that way (see one example in Tosefta Avodah
Zarah vi).
195 See B. Bar-Kochva, The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature (Berkeley/Los Angeles/
London, 2010) 188 n. 111, on fictions as a means of compelling people to obey the laws, even
at night and even when there are no witnesses, through the example of the character of
Sisyphus in a tragedy attributed to Critias.
196 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 32b–33a.
comparison 177
to loyal Jews or warning potential betrayers of their faith about imminent

punishments.
Dedication to Idolatry
When does something become “consecrated” to idolatry? Tosefta Avodah
Zarah answers:
‫ איזהו‬.‫ איזה הוא נעבד כל שעובדין אותו בין בשוגג בין במזיד‬.‫משנעשה בו מעשה‬
‫ אבל אמר שור זה לעבודה זרה בית זה לעבודה זרה‬.‫מוקצה המוקצה לעבודה זרה‬
.‫לא אמר כלום לפי שאין הקדש לעבודה זרה‬
From the moment when an act is perpetrated on it. What is worshipped?
Anything worshipped whether inadvertently or deliberately. What is set
aside? Anything set aside for idolatry. But if one has said, ‘this ox is for idola-
try,’ ‘this house is for idolatry,’ he has said nothing whatsoever. For there is
no such thing as an act of consecration for idolatry.197
Tertullian in his Apologeticum mocks the images of the gods that are made
of the cheapest materials, like any common piece of furniture. He states
that the gods are not angered when an artist hits the material from which
they are fashioned, breaks it, and reorganises it. Tertullian then concludes
that for pagans images are consecrated only after they are given their final
shape and are worshipped.198 In the De Idolatria he states again that it is
the actual worship that comprises consecration to idolatry: Si idoli honor
est, sine dubio idoli honor idolatria est—“If it is an honour to an idol, then
undoubtedly this honour to an idol is idolatry.”199 Thus, at first glance,
the rabbis and Tertullian agree on the precise moment when an object
becomes idolatrous. Nevertheless, the Mishnah makes room for a first
restriction to the principle.200 It rules that the idolater’s image is “prohib-
ited forthwith”—‫אסורה מיד‬, which means that the very fashioning of the
image implies further worship, and that it follows that every image would
be forbidden for Jewish use, but, on the other hand, every image coming
197 Tosefta Avodah Zarah v, 9–10. See also Babylonian Talmud Temurah 29a ‫עד שייגזז‬
‫ויעבדו בו‬.
198 Tertullian, Apologeticum 12; this parallels the biblical Isaiah 4:4. Concerning the
pagans’ religious and legal approach to the topic and their positions on the acts of dedica-
tion vs. consecration, see E. Friedheim, “The Roman Public Bath in Eretz Israel: Research
Dilemmas relating to its Definition as a Sacred Institution,” Cathedra 119 (2006) 173–80.
199 Tertullian, De Idolatria 15.1; see also Neusner, The Talmud 273, where he states that
it is human will that transforms the objects; human will transforms a piece of wood into
an idol through the desire to worship.
200 Mishnah Avodah Zarah iv.
178 chapter nine
from a “Jew is permitted until worshipped”—‫ושל ישראל אינה אסורה עד‬

‫שתעבד‬.201 The Mishnah introduces several lenient points of view. First,
following the sages’ position, it restricts the list of the forbidden images
to a few specific images:
‫ וחכמים‬.‫ דברי רבי מאיר‬,‫ מפני שהן נעבדין אחת בשנה‬,‫כל הצלמים אסורין‬
‫ או כדור; רבן שמעון בן‬,‫ או ציפור‬,‫ אינו אסור אלא כל שיש בידו מקל‬,‫אומרין‬
.‫ כל שיש בידו כל דבר‬,‫גמליאל אומר‬
All images are forbidden because they are worshipped once a year—accord-
ing to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, ‘only those which grasp in the hand a
staff, a bird or an orb.’ Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says any image that has
anything in its hand [is forbidden].202
And in addition, it permits the idolatrous character of the idolaters’ prop-
erty to be nullified by an idolater.203 However, the facts referred to in the
Mishnah itself do not fit the rules it establishes itself.204 Mishnah Avodah
Zarah iii, 4 tells the story of Rabban Gamaliel bathing in front of a statue
of Aphrodite, already noted above. Rabban Gamaliel justifies his pres-
ence there by saying that the statue is not idolatrous. First, Mishnah Avo-
dah Zarah iv, 4 rules that a pagan statue is always idolatrous. Secondly,
Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 7 rules specifically in the case of bathhouses
that a Jew must not construct the niche in which an idol will be set up:
‫ אסור‬,‫אבל בונין עימהן דימוסיות ומרחצאות; הגיעו לכיפה שמעמידין בה עבודה זרה‬
.‫“—לבנותה‬but they may construct with them pedestals or bathhouses;
when they have reached the niche wherein they set up an idol, it is pro-
hibited to build it,” which demonstrates that images in the baths were
considered to be idolatrous. Thirdly, it is possible to understand from Rab-
ban Gamaliel’s answer:
‫אם נותנים לך ממון הרבה אי אתה נכנס לעבודה זרה שלך ערם ובעל קרי ומשתין‬
.‫ וזו עומדת על פי הביב וכל העם משתינין לפניה‬.‫בפניה‬
Even if you were given much money you would not enter before your idol
naked or suffering from a discharge and to urinate in front of her. And this
one stands at the mouth of the gutter and all people urinate in front of
her,
201 This leads the Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 52a, to a discussion on the cases
when even the Jew’s images would be forbidden.
202 Mishnah Avodah Zarah iii, 1.
203 Mishnah Avodah Zarah iii, 10; iv, 4.
204 Friedheim, Rabbinisme 99.
comparison 179
that he sees the idolatrous character of the statue as being nullified. But
Mishnah Avodah Zarah iv, 5 states that urinating in front of an idol does
not desecrate it:
‫ זרק בה את הצואה—הרי זו אינה בטילה‬,‫ גיררה‬,‫השתין בפניה‬
If he urinated before it, dragged it or threw excrement at it, this is not disan-
nulment [of its sanctity by desecration],
just as being naked in front of an idol does not desecrate it either, since
it is well-known from rabbinic sources that this can be a kind of worship,
as in the case of the Baal Peor:
‫המפעיר עצמו לבעל פעור זו היא עבודתו‬
someoneone who uncovers his bottom in front of the Baal Peor, this is the
way it is revered.205
Rashi, commenting on the episode in the Babylonian Talmud, wants Rab-
ban Gamaliel’s answer to be a way of getting rid of the heathen who asks
him questions and not to be the real justification of his act: ‫ דחהו‬:‫גנובה‬
‫“—בקש‬it is not a real answer: he pushed him away with a straw.” Never-
theless the Mishnah rejoins the discussion it has in iii, 1, concluding with
the fact that only particular statues are made for idolatry proper, and that
all the others are merely decorative, and it ends the present story with the
new principle of “what is not treated as a god is permitted”—‫את שאינו נוהג‬
‫ בו משום אלוה מתר‬which opens the way to many lenient rules.
The main difference between the rabbis and Tertullian lies in their
definitions of idolatry. What appears from those definitions is that: “The
rabbis discussed in detail what constituted forbidden imagery within
contexts controlled by Jews and definitions were elastic. For as example,
the mere fact of being formed like an animal or even a human being
did not automatically qualify an artifact as an idol (as it would for Jose-
phus and his fellow travellers), the question for the rabbis was limited to
whether or not it was worshipped.”206 This interpretation is verified by
the fact that common utensils are permitted for Jewish use even when
they bear images, because they have no reason to be used for any kind
of worship. Then, again, it was the sanctity attached to an object and its
205 One instance in Sifre leBamidbar, ed. Horowitz 171; see also Babylonian Talmud Avo-
dah Zarah 44b.
206 Fine, Art 118.
180 chapter nine
function which made it idolatrous, not its physical shape.207 Furthermore,

the rabbis’ tendency to adapt the exigencies of reality in a way that enables
Jewish life within a pagan context finds expression in their endeavours to
make enjoyment from some products possible, denying some idolatrous
features, while discussions leading to the conclusion that such products
must be destroyed are avoided as much as possible. Indeed, the rabbis
based their rulings on facts: if an object is worshipped, it is forbidden for
Jewish use; if an object is not worshipped—a clue that, in reality, nobody
really cares about this object—it is permitted. The description of the real-
ity dictates the behaviour that is adopted toward it.208 Jews must not look
for what is not obvious or apparent, as seen in the example when the
Mishnah itself encourages Jews not to ask the idolaters to whom they sell
goods what these goods will be used for, if the idolaters have not made
it clear. What is forbidden is “what actually serves idolatry”;209 the only
real rule is not to contribute anything to idolatry or derive enjoyment
from it. And the fact of having precise definitions allows the rabbis to
find many solutions for Jewish coexistence with the pagans. This enables
circumvention of the rules, as in the example of permission to deal with
the wives of the celebrating pagans, who, for their part, do not celebrate,
since the interdiction itself is not infringed; this enables a venue whereby
permissions can be granted in cases in which interdictions might have
been expected, and allows for a certain disguised leniency. “It seems char-
acteristic of Jewish iconoclastic behavior that just enough of the image
was removed so as to render it acceptable and no more,”210 but this is
indeed the definition the Mishnah establishes for the desecration of idols.
The precise definitions simplify the Jews’ life in an idolatrous setting,
but do not only permit lenient ruling. In fact the definitions are given to
determine very precisely the borderlines of what is forbidden. Every ele-
ment found outside the borderlines of the interdiction is permitted, but
if something is found to belong within the fixed definitions, the ruling is
inflexible. Once something pertains to the definition, there is no way to
modify it or transgress it. What fits the precise terms of the prohibition is
forbidden, while what can be interpreted otherwise, so that it differs from
207 Blidstein, “Nullification” 4–8.

208 This justifies the possibility of evolution of Jewish halakhah over time.
209 J. Neusner, Judaism. The Evidence of the Mishnah (Brown Judaic Studies 129) (Atlanta,
1988) 96.
210 Fine, Art 94.
comparison 181
the terms of the prohibition, is permitted. This is the general rule applied
by the rabbis to idolatry.
While, a priori, Jewish laws hinder any Jewish contact with pagans, in
their practical application the rabbis prove to be aware that Jews cannot
live under totally insulated conditions. Tertullian, in contrast, prefers to
forbid everything tainted with even the smallest degree of idolatry, rather
than to establish subtle nuances between the permitted and the forbidden.211
For him, the situation is different. He would very much like to forbid any
contact between Christians and idolaters. If the rabbis suit their rulings
to the demands of reality, Tertullian invents the reality. He sees idola-
try in everything, in every word and gesture. Not only is what looks like
idolatry actually idolatry, but idolatry has hidden, unsuspected forms, as
when doors, when decorated, become idols,212 and a glance or gesture
becomes a sin that pertains to idolatry:213 in sum, idolatry is latent and
present in all aspects of life. Of course, one cannot live outside the world,
but he recommends Christians to live as much as possible in parallel with
the pagans who populate the same world, but not to mingle with them.214
While Tertullian invents the presence of idolatry lurking behind the facts,
the rabbis ignore idolatry, even when it is clearly present behind the facts.
To sum up: “For the Jews, unlike the Christians, idolatry is essentially the
cult of idols; it has less the quality of ubiquity.”215 Every contact with idol-
atry being condemned, this ubiquity of sin minimises to the utmost the
spectrum of possible Christian interactions with the surrounding pagans.
The rabbis demand obedience to precise rules of behaviour, and noth-
ing further. That is why they feel they are allowed to adapt their rules,
which they deduce from the basic biblical laws, to the reality. For Tertul-
lian, the ruling regarding relations with idolaters is a question of faith and
belief—a question of theology.216 What interests him is not the practical
211 Turcan, Tertullien 58.

214 Tertullian, De Idolatria 14; Schöllgen, “Die Teilnahme” 27, states that the Carthagin-
ian Christians, unlike the members of the community of Qumran, never meant to leave
their city. He therefore concludes that Tertullian’s exhortations to the Christians to sepa-
rate themselves from the Gentiles were only partly applied in actual daily life.
215 Stroumsa, “Tertullian” 179.
216 Tertullian, De Idolatria 12, 24; Schwartz, Imperialism 166 sees a matter of faith appear-
ing in massekhet Sanhedrin’s dealings with idolatry. Canedi, “Problemi,” also stresses in her
article that the De Idolatria is more interested in theology and in dealing with the ubiq-
uity of idolatry than in practice. I nevertheless believe that Tertullian’s theology in the De
Idolatria aims to provide practical answers for the Christians’ daily life. Contrary to Canedi
182 chapter nine
application of technical rules, but the spirit of the biblical injunctions

impacting on each of the believer’s deeds. The rabbis’ Mishnah is a guide
making clear precisely what is allowed and what is forbidden; it is a col-
lection of simple rules that a Jew must obey. Tertullian, on the other hand,
writes a treatise about morality. For the rabbis, obedience to the law aims
to protect Jewish identity, while for Tertullian, obedience to the law aims
to put to the test the Christian faith. Practically speaking, the Jews, who
must respect the biblical laws or mitzvot, simplify them so as to render
their application possible in everyday life, and actually break some of
their chains and open themselves to the world. The Christians, who are
not compelled by any mitzvah, look for rules to frame their everyday lives
and want to restrict, on their own, their freedom and contact with the
wider world, and thus they invent the laws that set them apart from the
rest of the world. Coming from two opposite extremes—on the one hand,
too many stringent rules, and, on the other, a complete lack of rules—the
rabbis and Tertullian meet halfway and agree on the same principles, that
is, on the same rules that ease the basic rules of the one and strengthen
the positions of the other.
Coexistence
In a society including many pagan members, both Tertullian and the
rabbis wonder about what the place of Christians and Jews should be.
We can give two different interpretations of the rabbis’ way of making
room for Jews in this mixed society. The first approach sees in the rabbis’
attitude a deliberate effort to make Jewish life possible within a pagan
framework. The second approach explains it as their compliance with an
existing reality in which, de facto, the Jews are already a part of the pagan
environment. Tertullian, for his part, deals with a Christian population
that is indeed a part of the surrounding society, and he wants to put an
end to this situation. Christians cannot live with pagans as long as they
are pagans: they must either break off every contact with those pagans or
convert them to Christianity.
(ibid.) 83, who believes that common ideas concerning idolatry led Jews and Christians to
different models of cohabitation, it appears to me, as I state in the present work, that both
reach in most of the cases the same practical applications of common moral principles.
comparison 183
Finding the Neutral Space

We turn now first of all to examine the claim that the rabbis do want
to find a place for Jewish-pagan interaction. The rabbis are aware of
pagan evolution and of the new reality in which a distinction can be
made between cultic performances motivated by religiosity and between
those motivated only by habit, as cultural and secular actions.217 Part of
the operation of the cult becomes social and cultural, and loses its reli-
gious aspects. Thus the precise definitions of what idolatry is, and what
is actually forbidden, given by the rabbinic laws on idolatry, including an
express ruling on common work with pagans and techniques for nullify-
ing idolatry,218 allow for the creation of a “neutral space” in which Jews
can coexist and interact with pagans as social human beings, ignoring the
religious nature and aspects of both sides.219 The creation of this neutral
space implies a kind of fabrication. The rabbis aim to make Jewish life
in a pagan environment manageable and bearable; they want to prevent
“pollution through contact with idolatry without paralyzing necessary
contact.”220 In the given situation in which the pagans are pagans, the
Jews must learn to live side by side with them. The role of the Mishnah is
the continuation of “a form of struggle in forced coexistence by distancing
217 Babylonian Talmud Hullin 13b; Blidstein, Rabbinic xi, 139; Hadas-Lebel, “Le pagan-
isme” 429; see Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 8a, where Rabbi Yohanan prohibits trade
only with the worshippers, and allows it with the other pagans on the days of the festivals;
the same permission is to be found in Tosefta Avodah Zarah i, 4: ‫העושין אסורין ושאין עושין‬
‫“—מותרין‬those who perform are forbidden and those who do not perform are permit-
ted.” For further literature concerning the distinction between the gentile in his quality of
farmer, merchant, borrower . . . and the gentile as idolater, see J.D. Rosenblum, Food and
Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge, 2010) 82 n. 173 [especially his quotation of
G. Porton, Goyim: Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (Atlanta, 1988) 243].
218 For instance, Mishnah Avodah Zarah iii, 10 on the cancellation of the idolatrous
character of an ashera; iv, 5 on the cancellation of the idolatrous character of an idol; v,
on laws for the Jews working with pagans, especially concerning work related to wine or
including it as payment.
219 Schwartz, Imperialism 169 n.16; Halbertal, “Coexisting” 163.
220 Stroumsa, “Tertullian” 180. As for the Christians, the principle would then be to pre-
vent “pollution through contact with idolatry” by paralysing unnecessary contact; Neusner,
Judaism 202: “The basic conception behind Avodah Zarah is explicit in Scripture, the prob-
lems of the tractate are independent, defined in response to contemporary realities . . . all
emerges from everyday transactions.” Friedheim, “A New Look” 291, sheds light upon the
facts that the interdictions to be found in the first mishnah concern only various types of
business dealings because, he says, this was the field in which Jews were most likely to
need a relationship with idolaters, more so than in any other field. This is in contrast to
the case of the Christians, as has been demonstrated, who were more likely to be involved
in social interaction with pagans than in other kinds of relationships.
184 chapter nine
and by creating a space for legitimate interaction.”221 The rabbinic laws

for a shared or common life with pagans deal especially with economic
aspects.222 The question of the Mishnah is only to determine whether
and how Jews can use products involved in idolatrous practices.223 “The
mishnah-tractate restates the written Torah’s theology of idolatry and
imparts to it a practical and concrete character.”224 The Mishnah does
not mention the biblical exhortations to eradicate idolatry at all, but looks
for ways to manage Jewish life within the given framework. The neutral
space created is the place of tolerance that does not ask for a “complete
withdrawal and maximum reduction of the points of friction and contact”
nor for an “open war until the mixed cities have been abolished.”225 One
way of inventing a neutral space is to be found in the example of the
rabbinic position on image making. The rabbis must fix a set of norms
defining how the biblically-forbidden images so rampant in the Graeco-
Roman world can be tolerated within the framework of Jewish law. The
creation of the neutral space introduces a distinction between cultic and
aesthetic aspects in the images, and even allows for the further step of
neutralising the cultic aspect of an object so as to leave it with only its
aesthetic character.226 This is made possible despite the fact that “at least
some rabbis recognised that decoration was never merely decorative” and
that the real motivation is that “the rabbis’ acceptance of most non-cultic
manifestations of Greco-Roman pagan culture permitted them [the Jews]
to live in the cities.”227 The opposite viewpoint is represented by Rabbi
Eliezer,228 who asserts that the unstipulated intentions of a Gentile are
always intended to serve idolatry, as seen in Mishnah Avodah Zarah iv, 4,

222 Cancik, “Wahrnehmung” 229: “Die Regelung der Ökonomie ist das wichtigste.”
223 Ibid. 230.
224 Neusner, The Talmud 379. Rosenblum, Food 89, deals with the case of the prohibited
gentiles’ olive-oil (a dietary staple), which was allowed, to his opinion, as “the Tannaim
balance the desire for a food deemed to be a staple against the desire to construct a dis-
tinct identity via food practices” (the related footnote there enhances the influence of
economic factors on halakhah).
226 Halbertal, “Coexisting” 169; Dunn, Tertullian 42, asserts the same distinction in Tertul-
lian’s text, even if, as will be seen below, Tertullian gives no possibility of application of
the distinction. “There was a division between secular and sacred, between what belonged
to Caesar and what belonged to God. Christians were to be obedient to civil authority,
except where idolatry was concerned.” See as well Canedi’s, “Problemi” 81, treatment of the
concern for the aesthetic and the cultural in the framework of a “neutral space.”
227 Schwartz, Imperialism 172–4.
228 Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 32b.
comparison 185
which prohibits a pagan’s idol from the moment it is fashioned, and by

Rabbi Nahum, who refuses to look at an image on a coin,229 despite the
Tosefta’s assertion that images on insignificant objects are in any case per-
mitted. Rabban Gamaliel’s attitude in the bathhouse appears in line with
the Tosefta, as well as that of Rabbi Yohanan, who permits every image
appearing on public equipment, and this is also the case with Mishnah
Avodah Zarah iii, 8 permitting a Jew to pass under an idolatrous tree if it
encroaches upon the public road, and permitting other specified images.
To summarise this approach, the rabbis play on the interpretation of the
biblical texts and arrange them so as to permit the creation of a place or
space in which Jewish interaction with pagans can not only be possible,
but also legitimate.
Tertullian, for his part, claims Convivamus cum omnibus—“We [the
Christians] live with everybody.”230 In principle, Christian life is compat-
ible with a pagan framework. The Christians can cooperate with their
neighbours as long as they avoid all kinds of idolatry. Tertullian asserts
that the Christians have to cope with the world as it is, since they cannot
live out of the world: ceterum de mundo exiretis—“otherwise you should
have to go out of the world.”231 On the other hand, however, Tertullian
does everything to make Christian life in a pagan environment impossible.
First of all, idolatry is present behind every aspect of life; it infects every-
thing. Tertullian has no tolerance for any kind of idolatrous manifestation.
In contrast to the rabbis, he does not see any aesthetic aspects in art, but
only religious ones, since he sees the idolatrous nature of any behaviour,
object, place or word. His ideal seems to be to die like Christ and for
Christ, and, in his Christian daily life, he fears and avoids everything.
Tertullian is interested in pagans only as long as he can envisage them as
229 This attitude can be justified by Tosefta Shabbat xviii, 1 prohibiting looking at

images; this is reminiscent of Tertullian, De Idolatria 6, where Christians are urged to avert
their senses from idolatrous manifestations. Blidstein, Rabbinic liv, characterizes Rabbi
Nahum’s attitude of “sectarian trend” and claims, “The Tannaim” 16, that there is “no gen-
eral ban on the making of images with no cultic significance,” as well as (ibid. 13) “the main
stream of tannaitic opinion did not oppose secular art.” Then, for Blidstein, Rabbinic 1,
Rabban Gamaliel’s attitude means that “an esthetic object may be constituted entirely by
an idolatrous subject and yet retain an exclusively esthetic character.”
230 Tertullian, De Idolatria 14.5; Sigismondus Gelenius’ manuscript adopted in Waszink
(Tertullianus) 50.
231 Tertullian, De Idolatria 14.5. Turcan, Tertullien 231, expounds that Tertullian’s dream
is that Christians would be able to live in the world totally separated from the idolaters
but that he knows it is impossible. This idea in De Idolatria 14.5 parallels De Spectaculis
15.8 and De Anima 35.2.
186 chapter nine
potential converts to Christianity. In any framework that would not allow

him to attract them to his faith, he prefers to avoid them totally. Tertullian
rejects every actual contact with pagans when they are useless for his pur-
poses. He rejects peaceful coexistence, fearing the impact a secular life
could have upon his disciples. He wants to break with civic society, which
he defies by his refusal to cooperate with it.232 Tertullian finds ways to
forbid a large number of a priori non-problematic professions, arguing
against participation in social life, against sharing in public or military
honours and functions, and against taking part in some kinds of social
entertainments, since he forbids games and shows, and criticises bath-
houses. The rabbis had constructed their own custom-built neutral space,
a secular place and civic locus in which all people are tolerated indepen-
dently of their faith. Tertullian, in contrast, looks for a space like this
ready-made and ready for use, as if there was such a space extant already
which did not need to be fashioned.233 But he does not succeed in finding
a place like this, since it cannot exist for someone who is not ready to
accept any concessions, which would leave some room for it to appear.
The neutral space is not something that is really there already, as Tertul-
lian seems to believe: it has to be constructed by unilateral motivation,
good will, and efforts to cooperate that come from the minority that is
interested in interaction with the majority. But Tertullian is not ready to
concede anything to idolatry, and idolatry is inherent in everything: noth-
ing is neutral for him, and everything idolatrous threatens the integrity of
the Christian faith. Thus even if he writes that Christians cannot live out
of the world, he is not interested in being contaminated by the surround-
ing world, and pretends to believe that Christians can live in autarchy.
Tertullian therefore has to forbid all contact with pagans, making his
Christian followers isolated and closed in on themselves as long as idola-
try jeopardises Christianity. If, however, Christianity can successfully
overcome idolatry, he is indeed interested in exploiting the occasion.
Perhaps this is in fact his real aim, for a number of scholars assert that
Tertullian may be using his Christianity as a tool to fight Romanisation.234

233 For Tertullian’s endeavour to find a neutral space, see Petitmengin, “Tertullien” 48.
234 Braun, Approches 19–22, for instance, Frend, Rise 348, Wilhite, Tertullian and others
see in Tertullian’s Christianity a rebellion against the colonialist Roman power. It is worth
noting that often in the rabbinic literature the enemy is represented by the Roman, who is
the pagan the Jews know the best and the target of Jewish hatred for the Gentile coloniser.
Thus the Palestinian rabbis and Tertullian are allied by a common hatred for the Roman
invader. Nevertheless, Tertullian often asserts that the Roman Emperor received his power
from God (for example, Apologeticum 32) and that thanks to his gathering of the peoples
comparison 187
Tertullian is ideologically opposed to Roman involvement in every field of

life, and perhaps sees religion as a way to escape from Roman power and
to defy it with a stronger tool, namely God. This way he avoids the neces-
sity of being part of Roman society. Nevertheless, the De Idolatria remains
an “attempt to create a set of norms that will guide the Christians in their
interaction with pagans.”235 On the other hand, besides his current intran-
sigence, Tertullian sometimes shows an astonishing leniency, which he
justifies by Licet convivere cum ethnicis, commori non licet—meaning that
Christians are allowed to live with gentiles, but not to die with them, in
other words, they should not sin with them.236 And in fact Tertullian has
rulings which define permitted personal contacts between idolaters and
Christians. There is no concession possible to the idolaters, and there can
be nothing in common between Christians and pagans as long as they
remain idolatrous.237 But pagans suddenly become of interest to Chris-
tians if regarded as potential converts to Christianity.238 In contrast to
Jews, Christians are not interested in coping with the given situation and
living with it insofar as is possible: they want idolaters to renounce their
false beliefs and adopt the true God. Thus they need to preserve some
occasions on which they can meet and interact with idolaters. This is why
Tertullian’s ruling concerning individual contact with pagans is less strin-
gent than that of the rabbis. And the very fact that Tertullian, unlike the
rabbis, does not really rule on being cured by or being delivered of babies
by pagan doctors,239 or about such everyday occupations as haircutting or
buying in the market, and the like, demonstrates that he does not seek to
of the earth under one dominion, Christianity can spread easily and quickly. The rabbis,
for their part, often wonder about the explanation for Roman strength on earth and try to
comfort the Jews, promising that one day God will make his loyal people stronger than this
invader, who will be punished. See, on this point, Schremer, “The Lord” 183–200.
235 Halbertal, “Coexisting” 161 n. 2.
237 See Tertullian, De Idolatria 14, 16–20 and Spanneut, Tertullien 27. Canedi “Problemi”
84, states that, in contrast to the Jews who seem to have abandoned any missionary activ-
ity—this is not the place to deal with this assertion—the reason of being of Christianity
is to make proselytes. Later, Canedi (ibid.) explains that it is precisely the universality
of the Christian message and the claim to be the only holder of the universal truth that
makes Christianity closed in on itself and intolerant of anyone who refuses to join its
ranks, whereas Judaism is closed in on itself because it fears outsiders.
238 Dunn, Tertullian 41: “He [Tertullian] wanted his readers not to get the impression
that Christians were somehow a separatist sect, even though they refrained from involving
themselves in pagan religious activities, affairs of state or the spectacles of public enter-
tainment (Apologeticum 37.5–6; 38; 42.4–7).”
239 Tertullian, De Anima 39, nevertheless states that “Hence in no case (I mean of the
heathen, of course) is there any nativity which is pure of idolatrous superstition”—Adeo
nulla ferme natiuitas munda est, utique ethnicorum.
188 chapter nine
prevent mixing of Christians and pagans in their daily life in practice. It is

likely that he does not do this because he cannot. On the one hand, the
picture he draws of what reality should be must be exaggerated, as it is
barely conceivable that the Christians of Carthage would have followed all
his prescriptions to the letter.240 On the other hand, it is possible that his
tactics differ here from those of the rabbis. The latter lighten their rules so
as to make them tolerable for their disciples, taking into account that too
strict demands would deter people from observing any rules at all. It is
possible that Tertullian has chosen another approach here, whereby he
deliberately demands more in order to obtain less. Thus his requests are
exaggerated, in the hope that at least some of them will be answered. In
this way he gives Christians the impression that they are really fulfilling
almost nothing of what they are supposed to do, and that the Christianity
they have adopted is no burden. Anyway, a Christian remains a Christian
even when he does not adopt a very stringent line of conduct, whereas a
Jew is not a Jew anymore if he renounces the basic mitzvot of Judaism. In
fact, a clear picture of Christian involvement in the life around them is
alluded to in De Idolatria 14 itself: first, idolatry is present in everything;
secondly, Christians must avoid idolatry and hence everything in life; and
thirdly, they have no choice but to live in this world or die, so that they
cannot avoid idolatry completely. The best option, according to Tertul-
lian, would indeed be to die rather than to get involved in idolatry, but he
realises that such a demand from his co-religionists would not lead to any
successful outcome. The main difference between the rabbis and Tertul-
lian is thus that Tertullian has to deal with Christian life in the Roman
Empire, including public functions, honours, military obligations, and
the like, where Christian life is already an intrinsic part of this whole. The
rabbis, in contrast, have to deal with external Roman influence on the
management of the internal daily life of their community, an influence
which is spread over every field of endeavour, such as buying or selling
land and homes, trading objects, food, slaves, etc. Jewish laws must be
made compatible with the surrounding world (making the Jewish com-
munity more open), while the Christians need laws in order to differentiate
themselves from the surrounding world (making the Christian commu-
nity more closed). Unlike the Jews addressed by the Mishnah who had
their language, land, (clothes) and dietary laws to make them different
from the Roman invader, Christians needed an obvious demarcation line
240 As is Schöllgen’s position, in “Die Teilnahme.”

comparison 189
that would make clear to themselves and to others what the difference
was between themselves and pagans.241 What is actually to be found in
Christianity concerning idolatry is more or less the moral laws of Judaism,
after the practical laws, the mitzvot, have been abandoned.242
Justifying the Neutral Space

The second way of interpreting rabbinic endeavours to create a neutral
space that allows for interaction with pagans is to say that, de facto, this
space must exist since it is currently used by Jews. The rabbis then try to
give institutional religious and legal legitimisation to this reality, but also
to demonstrate their leadership by giving credible justification for their
ostensible leniency on certain points. According to this version, this leni-
ency is, in fact, dictated by the actual behaviour of Jews, which leaves no
other choice for the rabbis than to pretend to back it up if they want to
continue to appear to be the leaders of the Jewish community. For exam-
ple, the Mishnah opens up the way to the trade of image-making because
Jews do engage in this anyway.243 By the same token, nullification of the
idolatrous character of goods and objects is also a way to give legitimacy
to the use being made of them anyway, and the Talmudim even permit
desecration of objects that the Mishnah wants to be thrown into the
Dead Sea. Public faucets decorated with images, public roads, idolatrous
trees, and stones used by the public are permitted because no Jew would
complicate his daily life by avoiding them, with or without the agree-
ment of the rabbinic ruling. The Talmudim justify their lenient stance by
explaining that avoiding public services might be interpreted as respect
for their sanctity, which is the opposite of the rabbinic intention, while
nullification of the sanctity of objects involved in idolatry is explained as
avoidance of economic problems.244 Thus the mishnaic discourse aiming
to reinforce the conception of the one and only true God as opposed to
vain idols may well have been directed at latitudinarian Jews no less than
the heathen enemy.245 And in fact, in some ways Avodah Zarah seeks to
legitimise part of their laxity as the “tannaitic discussions indicate, on the
241 See Frend, “Heresy” 40; Canedi, “Problemi” 85; Schöllgen.

242 Simon, verus 98 and passim; Spanneut, Tertullien 21; Aziza, Tertullien 92.
243 Schwartz, Imperialism 172, states that permitting dealings with damaged idols is
“apologetic”; Simon, Verus 44, concerning the images, states that “l’autorisation rabbinique
n’a fait que consacrer un usage établi.”
244 Fine, Art 114, for instance.
245 Elmslie, The Mishnah, on Mishnah Avodah Zarah iv, 4, as well Blidstein, “The Tan-
naim” 19.
190 chapter nine
whole, great willingness to permit the utilisation of idolatrous objects and

artifacts by the Jews.”246 The rabbis change the rules using solid argumen-
tation in order to accommodate them to the facts, but de facto, the rules
were already changed because of the way they were applied. It was clearly
better to allow for some leniency than to lose the whole of the Jewish
nation because of laws so stringent that nobody can keep them. The rab-
bis find ways to make concessions to the cultural reality when the prohi-
bitions designed to curb external influence turn out to be inefficient and
unproductive.247 What the rabbis fear in the pagan world is moral and
social dangers, since Jews are more attracted by the different, free pagan
ways of life than by idolatry proper.248 Thus the rabbis have to formulate
accessible and realistic rules of conduct, which can really be observed by
the average man, in order to protect what remains of Judaism. The choice
in front of the rabbis of both the Mishnah and Talmud is either to lighten
the weight of the existing laws to ensure a minimum of respect for sim-
ple rules delineating the Jews’ particular character, or to see a wholesale
abandonment of everything that makes a Jew Jewish, and with it, the final
end of Judaism because of rules too stringent to apply.249 Such rules allow
only for the binary possibility of being a Jew, or of not being one: leniency
permits one to remain a Jew while participating in the life of the world
at large. The rabbis do not justify every form of behaviour, and, as noted
above, whatever belongs to the definition of an interdiction and cannot be
interpreted otherwise remains forbidden. The rabbis, then, accept what-
ever can simplify daily life within a pagan framework without challenging
Jewish particularities. In this way of envisaging rabbinic neutral space, the
question which remains is where the boundary lies between the rabbis’
willingness to adapt themselves to real facts, and their being compelled by
these facts. Thus reality fashioned the rabbinic laws and the laws in their
246 Blidstein, “Nullification” 27; the same in Fine, Art 118.

247 Friedheim, Rabbinisme 172, concerning another point, but this may be applied to
rules on idolatry as well.
248 Urbach, “The Rabbinical” 242.
249 The Babylonian Talmud’s way of encouraging Jews to realise their Jewish identity
is generally especially expressed by the exhortation to study Torah. See Neusner, The Tal-
mud. However, Urbach, “The Laws of Idolatry in the Light of Historical and Archeological
Facts in the 3rd Century” Eretz Israel, Archeological Historical and Geographical studies 5
(Jerusalem, 1958) 181–4, claims that the rabbis had to apply the rules concerning idolatry
both because the Jews of their time tended to be attracted by idolatrous practices, and
also in response to the Christians’ tendency to demolish the barriers between them and
the Gentiles.
comparison 191
turn came to fashion anew the reality.250 Tertullian meets the rabbis with
the same “middle-way” solution, but coming from the opposite side: he
protects Christian identity by inventing rules based on the same biblical
injunctions which the Jews were now taking more lightly, but without
being so stringent as to deter Christians or potential Christians—he does
not deal with some burning issues for instance.
In the preceding paragraphs, I have tried to show analytically that there
are several ways of understanding how some rabbinic laws concerning
idolatry become more lenient over time. Though the evidence for the
process can be interpreted in various ways, the end result is the same,
whatever motivated the leniency. These are the actual rules, independent
of the history which made them, which are compared with Tertullian’s
prescriptions to the Christians.
In summary, what can we see from the study of the parallels between the
De Idolatria and massekhet Avodah Zarah? First, it is clear that Tertullian
and the rabbis face the same questions in a similar environment. Secondly,
Tertullian and the rabbis use the same methods for answering these ques-
tions and hence often reach similar solutions. Nevertheless, the motiva-
tions of both sides differ, even when they reach the same conclusions and
practical applications of the same principles. The main difference between
them is that the rabbis need practical ways for the Jews to survive—in the
pragmatic meaning of the word—in a pagan world, while Tertullian needs
theological answers for the Christians to remain faithful to Christianity in
the surrounding world. The rabbis are dealing with the concrete implica-
tions of life among idolaters in order to safeguard Jewish particularities,
and Tertullian is dealing with the ideological implications in order to safe-
guard Christian faith. Stemming from this basic difference, there is a sec-
ond distinction to be made between the approaches of Tertullian and the
rabbis. We have shown that an almost impenetrable fence stands between
the ways in which both deal with social and interpersonal relationships,
on the one hand, and commercial ones, on the other. The De Idolatria has
a multi-valent approach to social relationships. Although this treatise was
designed for internal communitarian use, its prescriptions have practical
external consequences. Tertullian, therefore, tries to show consideration
for all the people who might be concerned or affected by his advice. First
of all, he must provide a well-defined framework for Christians living in
250 Herr, “The Identity” 46.

192 chapter nine
an idolatrous world to safeguard what makes them Christians, and hence

different from idolaters. Secondly, Tertullian must take into account that
newly-converted Christians—or lenient members of the faith—are not
ready to renounce all aspects of their former lives, so that if he lays down
rules that are too stringent, he will lose people for Christianity. Thirdly,
Tertullian must be careful about the image he wants his community to
have: Christians are different from idolaters, but only because they have
higher moral principles and faith in something really true, not because
they are a separatist sect of incomprehensible people. Despite the fact
that they are not allowed to take part in displays of idolatry, Christians
are not anti-social—in contrast to the charge levelled at them by associa-
tion with the Jews, who were regularly accused of amixia and xenophobia.
Pagans should not be afraid of Christians, for they can check or evalu-
ate their sanity on the numerous social occasions when Christians are
allowed to attend and meet them. Thus Tertullian keeps the doors open
to potential new converts because he does not deter pagans from being in
contact with Christians on an individual, interpersonal level. However, he
does restrict contacts at the level of the state, and on public and political
occasions where Christianity would have no strength. Tertullian is even
more stringent over Christian involvement in commerce. What is idola-
trous is forbidden for Christians, and this is not open to discussion. In this
way, Tertullian avoids what could really and deeply defile the Christians’
commitment to their faith, and he is intransigent on this point. It must
be stressed, nevertheless, that Tertullian is dealing here with particular
examples that are very problematic for him, especially professions and
products which are linked to idolatry proper, while he keeps silent about
domains where he knows he would lack any influence. This method is
consonant with his approach to public and private festivals: in the first
case, he has no influence, so he avoids being involved in them; in the
second, he might have something to gain, so he exploits the occasion.
However, both the rabbis and Tertullian are dealing with theoretical ideal
behaviour they would like their followers to adopt, whereas the applica-
tion of their instructions in reality might well differ somewhat from their
guidelines. However, whether or not the laws were actually respected or
had any influence in practice is not relevant to our comparison between
the different theoretical guidelines.
In other words, Tertullian simply remains silent over minor dangers to
the Christian faith: things which are less important to himself, or tenden-
cies he knows he cannot fight, such the reluctance of converts to renounce
certain things when they convert to Christianity. When he knows that his
comparison 193
stringencies will not be successful, Tertullian simply does not broach the
subject. Furthermore, when the barrier between social and commercial
life is crossed, and when social elements are involved in business rela-
tionships, Tertullian is sometimes led in the direction of more leniency,
while he becomes more stringent toward Christians who simply want to
exploit the openness of social relations in order to become involved in
idolatrous trade. Tertullian seeks to define the boundaries of a Christian
community which would be swallowed up by the wider pagan world if
there were no restrictions at all. The rabbis prescribe for the Jews almost
the same behaviour as Tertullian prescribes for the Christians, but from
the opposite end of the spectrum. The Jewish community is very well
defined, numerous interdictions demarcate the boundaries between Jews
and pagans, and members of the Jewish community are kept continu-
ally aware of the nature of their own theology. What the rabbis fear in
the pagan world is not really idolatry proper, because they believe that
their ideological answers are much more cogent than the absurdities of
the idolaters, but rather the free and liberal way of life of the pagans that
could attract their followers (and, to a certain extent, the desacralisation
of Judaism). Everything is permitted for the Gentiles: they can do what-
ever they want, whenever they want, however they want, and that is the
real attraction for the Jews, who are, as it were, prisoners of stringent bib-
lical rules (though the rabbis try to make the Gentiles’ situation appear to
be bad, explaining such freedom merely as the Gentiles’ lack of morals).
Moreover, the biblical rules can often simply not be applied in daily life,
and they must be interpreted in order to find a way of expressing them
in practice. And when deciding how to interpret a biblical rule, the rabbis
have the choice of making it easy or difficult to apply. Since their interest
lies in keeping both more and less observant Jews within the same Jewish
framework, the rabbis take the stand of forbidding overly close social con-
tacts with pagans, who could attract Jews and convince them to abandon
their ancestral practices—though not necessarily to adopt their own—
thereby erasing the characteristic features of Judaism to the point where
there would be no difference apparent between secular Gentiles and Jews.
Furthermore, the rabbis are lenient when it comes to commerce, as long
as no obvious idolatry is involved, in order to satisfy the desire of some
Jews to feel that they belong to the world around them, and are not mar-
ginalised in society. They are aware of the danger that such Jews might
fear that they are destined to disappear if they do not abandon Judaism
because they cannot even supply the material needs of their families since
everything is forbidden to them. In this way, all Jews are kept within the
194 chapter nine
same Jewish framework. The social aspects of the community are pre-
served from the impact of idolatry, and those who are interested in tak-
ing part in the activity of the wider world can do so legitimately, without
renouncing their faith. The mission of Judaism is to face the necessity of
ensuring its adherents’ fidelity to its ideals, without asking them to deny
the culture that surrounds them.251
251 S.J.D. Cohen, “Was Judaism in Antiquity a Missionary Religion?,” Studies in Jewish

Civilization 2, M. Mor, ed. (Lanham, 1992) 14, 17. Canedi, “Problemi” 85.
chapter ten
Contribution of the Comparison:

Jews and Christians in Contact
Earlier studies have confirmed that Tertullian received a traditional clas-

sical education and displays in his works an ability to use both its back-
ground and arguments when it is useful to him to do so. Furthermore, it is
undeniable that Tertullian draws his Christian stance from Church tradi-
tion and teachings. But can we deduce from the comparison between the
De Idolatria and massekhet Avodah Zarah that he was familiar with Jewish
thought? Although the present study has stressed a community of themes
used by Tertullian and the rabbis, and even common responses and com-
mon methodological tools used to reach those same answers, it is clearly
impossible to argue from this study for a rabbinic influence on Tertullian’s
treatise. Nevertheless, the fact that Tertullian was in close proximity to a
Jewish community, that he founded his arguments on sources that he had
in common with this community, and that he did this in a shared environ-
ment, reaching roughly the same conclusions as the Jewish community,
and all at the same time, surely cannot be completely coincidental. The
inevitable conclusion is that Tertullian must have been aware of at least
some of the ideas that were dealt with, and the way in which they were
dealt with, within the Carthaginian Jewish community. The further sugges-
tions I intend to offer in this direction would have remained totally specu-
lative without the conclusions of Geoffrey D. Dunn’s rhetorical analysis of
Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos.1 And I propose that, in the light of his highly
convincing study, the fact that I have also reached the same conclusions
in my own examination of the De Idolatria that Dunn reached through a
different work of Tertullian, makes the conclusions almost irrefutable.
First, it is imperative to recognise that the survey of Tertullian’s entire
corpus, has already led to the conclusion that the more Tertullian depends
on Jewish ideas and methodological tools in any particular work, the more
he avoids mentioning the existence of Jews (and even their names) in that
work.2 This seems to be precisely the case in the De Idolatria. Indeed, both
1 Dunn, Tertullian’s. Turcan, Tertullien 50, agrees that the Adversus Iudaeos demon-
strates the existence of relations between Jews and Christians in Carthage.
196 chapter ten
rabbinic themes and tools—or at least themes and tools very close to those
associated with the rabbis—appear throughout the work, but Tertullian
never mentions contemporary Jewish practices. Only twice does he men-
tion Jews, and then only incidentally, not to say anything about them, but
to show the extent to which idolaters are worse than Jews, who, for their
part, do not reach the level of Christians.3 On one other occasion he terms
them “Populus,”4 or “the People,” but here again he does not linger on
anything regarding them or their theology or way of life, but only alludes
to a biblical event to illustrate his argument.
Secondly, it must be recalled that Tertullian is a very particular case.
He is a kind of outsider, despite his claim to belong to the mainstream
“orthodox” Church. He is open to influences from numerous streams of
thought and uses arguments from all venues, as long as they serve his
interests. Moreover, Tertullian is an active Church Father at a time when
Christianity still needs to be defined precisely. To keep as many options
as possible open, in terms of attracting potential converts and acquiring
legitimacy for the Church, Tertullian stresses differences between Jews
and Christians, while at other times he behaves as if there were no dif-
ferences between them. Even in his own texts, they are sometimes distin-
guishable, while at other times hardly at all. Tertullian acts as if the Jews
no longer exist, and as if he stood in their stead, or, even more precisely,
as if he were continuing their work according to the same principles. That
is why, when necessary, Tertullian might use Jewish themes and tools to
display closeness to Judaism or on other occasions might rather remain
distant from the Jews if it enables him to influence and lead the Christians
effectively.
Thirdly, we need to examine the relevance of Dunn’s conclusions. One
of the main questions Dunn wants to answer is whether the Adversus
Iudaeos testifies to real contacts between Jews and Christians, or whether
Tertullian’s Jews in the Adversus Iudaeos are only a stereotyped invention.
At first glance, Dunn seems to support the position that what Tertullian
writes about the Jews is based only on what he can infer from biblical
texts.5 But while this point is generally stressed to say that Tertullian has
no acquaintance with contemporary Jewish attitudes, Dunn, in contrast,
uses it to argue that Tertullian does know his Jewish neighbours, and
has some kind of contact with them. Tertullian does not want his work
3 Tertullian, De Idolatria 7 and 14 “Iudaei,” “Iudaeis.”

5 As a representative: Barnes, Tertullian.
contribution of the comparison 197
to become merely a contemporary polemical attack. On the contrary,

he wants it to remain part of a permanent, ongoing, intellectual discus-
sion, and this is the reason why he does not attack or even openly refer
to his Jewish neighbours. One of his motivations in particular is that he
intends to reach a Jewish audience, at least indirectly, and he does not
want to arouse their antagonism. Dunn’s conclusion is that Tertullian in
fact wants to prepare Christians for encounters with the Jews of the city,
and wants them to have at hand proper arguments suitable for debates
with them, arguments that are already prepared. Tertullian builds these
arguments to provide the answers the Christians lacked to counter Jew-
ish arguments in earlier encounters of the same kind. Dunn also shows
throughout his work that Tertullian knows exactly what to say about the
Jews and how, demonstrating in this way his acquaintance with the sensi-
tivity and customs of his Jewish neighbours. If Dunn has achieved his goal
of demonstrating that Carthaginian Jews and Christians were in contact in
the context of the Adversus Iudaeos—and I believe that he has—then this
solves the problem of the De Idolatria. Carthaginian Jewish and Christian
communities must either have known each other, or not. If they know
each other in the context of the Adversus Iudaeos, then they must also
know each other in the context of the De Idolatria, and therefore the Jew-
ish shadow hanging over the De Idolatria is not merely accidental, but
a true demonstration that Tertullian benefited from Jewish inspiration
while writing his treatise.
Did Jewish and Christian Communities Meet in Carthage?
It is now possible to come back to the question of contacts between Jews

and Christians in Carthage and to observe how the information stemming
from the comparison between the De Idolatria and Massekhet Avodah
Zarah fits in with Dunn’s conclusions. We still need to know whether or
not such contacts were likely in Carthage. As I noted in some detail in the
first chapter of the present study, the origins of the Church in Africa are
obscure. Two suggestions are generally widely accepted, one being that
Carthaginian Christianity was inspired by Rome, and the other that ori-
ental influences reached this harbour city, where the Semitic mood easily
accepted the new religion.6 The Jewish features which form the basis of a
6 On the generally close relations between the city of Carthage and Rome, see for
instance: Rankin, Tertullian 9–19; also D. Wilhite, Tertullian 30.
198 chapter ten
large part of the Roman Church, in particular its proximity and familiarity
with Jewish traditions, have led some to believe that Christianity in Rome
began within the well-established Roman Jewish community.7 Hence, if
we accept the proposal of close links between Carthage and Rome, it is
not unlikely that the Carthaginian Church preserved at least some of the
Jewish character of the Christianity it inherited from the Romans. Since
Jews were also established in Carthage itself before the first evidence of
the presence of Christianity there, it may be proposed that in Carthage,
too, the Christian community developed out of the Jewish one.8 The Latin
language used by both Jews and Christians in Carthage points to another
link, or even a bridge between them.9 It has even been suggested that
the Carthaginian Christians began to use Latin because the Jews used
it,10 though the general Roman tendency to put a brake on the Helleniza-
tion of secular Roman literature may point to another motivation for the
Latinisation of the Church.11 Nevertheless, the Latinisation of the Church
comes under the impulse of Victor of Rome, a bishop of African origin.
From a scene between R. Abbahu and R. Safra it can be understood that
the Christian communities needed the rabbis for precise pronouncements
on the Hebrew language. There, the Palestinian R. Abbahu states he must
know biblical exegesis because he has to confront the minim on Old Testa-
ment exegetical matters, in contrast to the Babylonian R. Safra, who does
not have to and is, anyway, not an expert in biblical matters.12 This sort of
scene provides an example of what could have taken place in Carthage as
well, where the African Christian community might have asked the rab-
bis to arbitrate exegetical disputes. A further conclusion of such a claim
is that Tertullian would have needed the rabbis for his understanding of
the Bible. This has been suggested indeed, for example in the context of
7 Spence, The Parting 10, 17. See Paula Fredriksen concerning the expansion of Christi-
anity through the synagogues in H. Koester et al., eds., Why Did Christianity Succeed? From
Jesus to Christ. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/appeal
.html. Also Nock, Conversion 188.
8 This is reminiscent of the theories of Edrei and Mendels, “A Split.”
9 Simon, Verus 220–1.
10 Braun, Approches 4, 312; Frend, “Jews” 189 agrees on this point with G. Quispel, “The
Discussion on Judaic Christianity, Additional Note,” Vigiliae Christianae 22 (1968) 81–93,
that the Christians “who at one time formed part of the synagogue may have inherited the
local Latin translation of the Hebrew text (of the Old Testament).”
11 La Piana, “The Roman” 231, 274.
12 Simon, Verus 220–1. Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 4a; Simon considers the minim
here as to referring to the Christian community and suggests that the Babylonian Jews do
not have to confront them. Yuval, Two Nations [Hebrew] 40, nevertheless points at the fact
that some kinds of Christians can also be found in Babylonia.
Tertullian’s defence against Marcion and other heretics’ objections to the

Old Testament. Tertullian would have needed the services of the rabbis,
who could be easily found in Carthage, to fill in his lack of knowledge
on biblical matters. Moreover, Tertullian and the Montanists in general
have been rebuked for not standing in a firm enough opposition to the
synagogue.13
As for the contacts in daily life, between the communities, the social,
ethnic, and religious cosmopolitanism of Carthage must have prevented
any total separation between Jews and Christians in the city.14 Minucius
Felix’ Octavius 38.1 and Tertullian’s Apologeticum 9.13, as well as De
Monogamia 5.4, are even quoted as evidence that African Christians may
have bought their meat from Jewish butchers.15 In Lugdunum, (present-
day Lyon in France) indeed, Christians bought their meat from Jews, as
do Muslims nowadays in regions where the Jewish communities are larger
and better organised than Muslim ones. Nevertheless, it would seem that
the communities in Carthage were not as dependent on one another as in
Lugdunum, as implied in Tertullian’s Apologeticum 21.2, where he states
that Christians do not share the Jews’ dietary laws. One position even sug-
gests that in third-century Carthage relations between the communities
were of rivalry and competition, with these feelings displayed more on
the Christian side than on the Jewish. This might demonstrate that the
Carthaginian Jewish community was more self-confident than the Chris-
tian one, since the need to discriminate against others is characteristic of
a group’s low self-esteem.16 But in fact we can find echoes of “both nega-
tive and positive sides of the Jewish-Christian relationships” in Tertullian.17
Anyway, rivalry itself does testify to actual contacts between the com-
munities and even if this was one-sided, this could be because Christians
appeared more as sinners or heretics than as members of a new religion
to the Jews of Carthage.18 Thus it is no wonder that a Father of the Church
appears close to the Jewish way of thinking when he fights idolatry.
13 Ford, “Was Montanism” 154. Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History (London 1926–1932)
V.XVI.12–16; Stroumsa, “Tertullian” 181, reminds us that patristic scholars often accused
Tertullian of being “too Jewish.”
15 Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, V.I.26; Frend, “Jews” 186.
16 Barnes, Tertullian 330; L. Rutgers, Making Myths: Jews in Early Christian Identity For-
mation (Leuven, 2009) 127.
17 Frend, “A note” 296.
18 Fredouille, Tertullien 270; see also Frend, “Heresy” 40: “For some years, too, the Chris-
tians were regarded by the Carthaginian Jews as ‘Nazarenes,’ that is, schismatics from their
own body” (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem IV.8.1).
200 chapter ten
Rabbinic literature even suggests on several occasions that merely reject-

ing idolatry is equivalent to accepting and applying the whole Torah.19
Thus at the community level, there might have been some uncertainty
about what makes a Christian different from a Jew, despite the fact that
the elite members of the community do try to emphasise the differences
between Jews and Christians.20 To summarise, the existence of some sort
of relations between Jews and Christians in Carthage is almost certain,
even if it cannot be stated unequivocally that those relations were good
and peaceful or bad and aggressive. However, theological controversies
were certainly a part of them. Some archaeologists and scholars want to
see in the cemetery of Gammarth the resting place of both Jews and Chris-
tians. If this were the case, it would obviously attest to very good relation-
ships between the communities, but no definitive proof of this can be
offered and the suggestion remains controversial.
We have already proposed above that Tertullian can be compared with
a noteworthy figure of Roman culture, namely Seneca.21 We may also ask
with what kind of Jewish thinker he could be equated. There is a ten-
dency to compare Tertullian to Rabbi Aqiva, because of his dealings with
matters such as marriage laws, incest, martyrdom, women, and the like.22
Besides these common fields of interest, a common general methodology
can be observed in both thinkers. In his De Praescriptione Haereticorum,
Tertullian advises Christians not to debate hermeneutics with heretics so
as to avoid destabilising or endangering legitimate interpretations. Rabbi
Aqiva has the same approach of avoiding opening the way to heretical
expression: for example, in dealing with the prescriptions concerning the
sacrifice in massekhet Kippurim, or in the several passages of discussion
with Rabbi Pappias, Rabbi Aqiva silences him so as not to engage in mat-
ters that could be problematic.23 The second Jewish figure appearing to
be similar to Tertullian is Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai. Both figures are “great
19 Babylonian Talmud Megillah 13 a–b, Sanhedrin 19b, Hullin 5b.

20 Boyarin, Dying 101: “The rabbis themselves understood that in notably significant
ways there was no difference between Christians and Jews and the difference had to be
maintained via discursive force, via tour de force.”
21 See in the second chapter of this study the part on Tertullian and Seneca.
22 Ford, “Was Montanism” 155. Boyarin, Dying 63.
23 Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael Beshalakh parasha 6; A. Schremer in a lecture at Bar-Ilan
University—‫מינות ומינים בעולמם של התנאים‬, 30.05.2005; it can be stated here that
Rabbi Aqiva is deemed to have a very important role in the organisation of the material
of the Mishnah. In De Praescriptione Haereticorum 15.3, Tertullian states that the Scripture
belongs only to the Church, and further developments of the idea appear in 17 and 18.
rejecters of Rome,” and of intransigent and uncompromising characters.24

At any rate, the link between Aqiva and bar Yohai is obvious, the latter
being the former’s disciple.25 But it cannot be asserted here that Tertullian
is inspired to the same degree by those figures as he is by Seneca.
Tertullian’s Feelings towards the Jews
Tertullian’s hatred of the Jews is often referred to and taken for granted,
but can it really be convincingly demonstrated? The truth is that, concern-
ing the Jews, as in every other field, numerous contradictory elements
can be found throughout Tertullian’s writings. Two rules can be observed
about those contradictory points: the first is that Tertullian always writes
in order to combat some opponent, and the second is that he adapts his
writings to his topic and audience.26 Thus, Tertullian’s apparent hatred of
the Jews is just one more tool for him. He likes them when it serves his
interests, as when he endeavours to demonstrate to the Gentiles the legiti-
macy of Christianity through its links with ancient Judaism, suppressing
the fact of the relative newness of Christianity from his pagan audience
and treating Christianity as if it were an ancient faith and simply the con-
tinuation of Judaism. In this context, this argument also serves to counter
those heretics who deny any link between Judaism and Christianity and
in this case, he even praises and defends Jewish practices.27 On the other
hand, however, elsewhere he denigrates the Jews in order to demonstrate
to a Jewish audience that their faith and practices are outdated, praising
the novelty of the Christian faith and trying to convince potential converts
that Christianity is superior to Judaism. When addressing these poten-
tial pagan converts to Christianity, however, he avoids mentioning that
Christianity is the heir to Judaism, since pagan culture tends to scorn the
Jewish faith, and such new converts would be afraid of becoming part
24 Boyarin, Dying n. 79, n. 85. Aziza, Tertullian 29.

25 See Babylonian Talmud Pesahim 112a on bar Yohai’s visit to Rabbi Aqiva in jail.
26 Braun, Approches 22; Dunn, Tertullian 9 gives one more sense to the notion of con-
troversy in Tertullian’s writings: “Everyone of Tertullian’s treatises is controversial . . . in
each of them there was a situation that he saw as a problem and to which he responded
with a literary solution. Each of his works deals with some controversy . . . he preached,
interpreted Scripture and wrote in order to argue.”
27 Against Marcion, Tertullian speaks of himself as a Jew, and against the Jews he boasts
about being from the other nation descended from Rebecca. For some examples of Tertul-
lian’s hatred towards the Jews, see Ad Nationes 1.14.1, Scorpiace 10.10, and for his interest in
familiarity with them, Apologeticum 16.11, 19.2, 21.1, 16.3.
202 chapter ten
of what they have always despised.28 The same method can be observed
concerning philosophy, among other examples. In some of his treatises,
Tertullian mocks philosophy, claiming that it is the foundation of all
heresies, while in others he praises Christianity as the best philosophy,
encouraging Christians to don the philosopher’s cloak.29 In other cases,
he reproaches philosophy for its errors, just as he criticises the Church for
certain poor pronouncements, even though he generally feels duty-bound
to defend orthodox Christianity against heretics. As for Rome, the city is
sometimes depicted in a positive light by Tertullian, but is denigrated by
him elsewhere. This contradictory approach is likewise seen in his views
of marriage and martyrdom, to name only a few topics. Thus those who
want to know what Tertullian really thinks should almost be warned not
to rely on his writings!30 Or at least we should not rely on only one work,
since every kind of statement can be found throughout his writings. What
explains Tertullian’s seemingly contradictory positions in his works is that
he uses certain arguments and exegeses in one case, while opposing them
in another, because his characteristic apologetic rhetorical strategy is to
adopt the language of his opponents with respect to each distinct issue
with which he is engaged.31 What is important for Tertullian is to prove
and claim the truth of the new faith—Christianity—with whatever tools
he has at his disposal, as long as they enable him to reach this truth. Tertul-
lian takes on numerous identities and adapts them according to each case
he defends, changing both his tone and arguments to suit his audience.32
What is important is the end result, rather than the method chosen for
achieving this result, and in this Tertullian is always consistent—always
28 Nolland, “Do Romans” 9, Simon, Verus 147.

29 Tertullian, De Pallio 6.2 melior philosophia, whereas in Ad Nationes 2.1.7, philosophy
supports idolatry, in De Anima 3.1, philosophers are the fathers of heresy, and philosophy
leads to belief in lies. Adversus Hermogenem I8.3, De Praescriptione Haereticorum 7.3.
30 Braun, Approches 22; Dunn, Tertullian 8: “One cannot refer simply to one passage
in one text to demonstrate Tertullian’s opinion on a matter.” Tertullian himself is aware
that interpretation cannot be given for one occurrence of an idea in one context without
taking into account other occurrences of the same idea in different contexts: “oporteat
secundum plura intellegi pauciora”—“whereas the only proper course is to understand the
few statements in the light of the many” (Adversus Praxean 20.2, translation Holmes 1870
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Early Church Fathers, http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-43
.htm#P10374_2906966).
31 Wilhite, Tertullian 27, 60; Osborn, Tertullian 34, 119, 256; Rankin, Tertullian 43, 208;
Fredouille, Tertullien 21, 288, 341; Evans, “On the Problem” 21–36; Aziza, Tertullien 37; see
also Dunn, Tertullian 8, there also: “Tertullian was a writer whose thinking about issues
changed or intensified over the years.”
achieving the same goal, namely the defense and praise of Christianity.
Tertullian’s differing strategies are thus precisely adapted to his audience
and to the matters he addresses, as are his argumentative tools. Therefore
his hatred of the Jews should not be taken at face value, for it is only one
aspect of his apologetics in one specific given framework.33
Does Tertullian Refer to Real Jews?
Once it is agreed that there are Jews in Carthage, that there are Christians
in Carthage, and that they are probably in contact, what could possibly
motivate any suspicion concerning the reality of the Jews who appear
in Tertullian’s texts? Nevertheless, an important stream in scholarship
questions the authenticity of the Jews portrayed in anti-Jewish polemi-
cal literature in general, and in Tertullian in particular.34 Their doubts—
and conclusions that the Jews in polemical literature are constructed
stereotypes—are answered by a counterstream, which thinks that Tertul-
lian’s texts correspond with the real contacts that should have existed in
Carthage between Jews and Christians.35 In their opinion, the vagueness
of Tertullian’s knowledge about some Jewish practices is explained by the
33 Fredouille, Tertullien 268, asserts that, in a general way, Tertullian is never very
aggressive towards the Jews and tries rather to convince them to adopt the new religion
than to attack them. Dunn, Tertullian’s Adversus 53, also states that Tertullian does not
show open hostility towards the Jews so as not to limit the range of his persuasiveness
upon them if they happened to hear, directly or indirectly, the ideas that are to be found
in his writings.
34 A. von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den Ersten Drei
Jahrhunderten (Leipzig 1902). Guy Stroumsa, “From Anti-Judaism to Antisemitism in Early
Christianity?” in Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics Between Christians and
Jews, O. Limor and G. Stroumsa, eds. Texts and studies in Medieval and Early Modern Juda-
ism 10 (Tübingen 1996) 3, explains the long-lasting, unresolved conflict between Harnack’s
disciples, who assert that the Jews in doctrinal treatises are imaginative archetypal figures
(see Dunn, Tertullian’s Adversus 21, who, following Stroumsa and Carleton Paget, lists in
this group: Harnack, Barnes, Rokeah, Schreckenberg, Ruether, Taylor, Johnson, Gaston,
Efroymson) and those of Simon, who argue that the descriptions deal with real existing
Jews. They point at the difference between scholars who deal with a focus on Christian
self-definition and think that the treatises are addressing Christians, and between those
who argue for social interaction between Jews and Christians and assert that the treatises
might really have been read by Jews (see Dunn, Tertullian’s Adversus 17, who, following
Stroumsa and Carleton Paget, lists in this group: Juster, Simon, Krauss, Williams, Parkes,
Blumenkranz, Wilken, Blanchetière, Horbury, de Lange, Wilson and MacLennan). See, as
well, J. Carleton Paget, “Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity,” Zeitschrift für Antikes
Christentum I (1997) 195–225.
35 Fredouille, Tertullien 255; Simon, Verus 167.
204 chapter ten
fact that some Jewish groups in the Diaspora adhered to the general spirit
of the religion more than they did to its details.36 In response, members
of the first stream insist anew on the fact that the Jewish habits known
to Tertullian can be inferred from the Bible.37 For them, this points at
Tertullian’s lack of real acquaintance with Jewish traditions, since he does
not need real contact in order to assert what he does about the Jews of
his time. Besides their general statements, Tertullian’s “stupidity” is also
mocked; for instance, his “wrong” assertion, among others, that Jewish
women are veiled.38 This might be not an error, but a fact that Tertullian
knows about directly—from the reality he confronts—or indirectly. How-
ever, the first stream finds support for its arguments in the observation
that the texts the Fathers of the Church use and know are generally chris-
tologically useful ones and that this does not denote a wider knowledge of
Jewish texts: “early Christian texts rarely demand more Bible knowledge
than they supply.”39 It argues that the Church Fathers’ knowledge about
Jewish habits stems from Church tradition, and not from current contacts
36 Simon Simon, Verus 56.

37 Barnes, Tertullian 92; J. Lieu, “History and Theology in Christian Views of Judaism,”
in The Jews Among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, rev. ed., J. Lieu et al. eds.
(London 1994) 86–7, states as well that even if he knew the real Jews of Carthage, Tertul-
lian was not interested in them, but used rhetorical figures of Jews in his works who served
the purposes of his writings. Setzer, “Jews” 187 answers such arguments by saying that
“there is no either-or view of biblical Jews or of contemporary Jews, but rather a tendency
to project one on top of the other, or to understand one in the light of the other”; the
same in Rutgers, Making chapter three. Dunn uses the same argument about Tertullian’s
exclusive use of Scripture in his dealings with the Jews to show that he indeed knew some
of his Jewish contemporaries and tried to spare their sensitivity. While her focus is not on
the actual relationships between Jews and Christians, Fredriksen [Augustine and the Jews:
A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism. (New Haven/London, 2010)] tends to reinforce
the impression that, as late as Augustine’s time, the adversus Iudaeos literature was only
rhetorical and that it did not reflect the reality of Jewish-Christian everyday contacts (and,
as she argues, Augustine would have been the first author who tried to reconcile the real
Jew with his literary image).
38 Tertullian, De Corona Militis 4.2, De Oratione 22.8; Aziza, Tertullien 21 compares De
Virginibus Velandis 17.22 concerning veiled women in Arabia with Mishnah Shabbat vi, 6
about Jewish Arabian women being veiled. Setzer, “Jews” 190, also elaborates that concern-
ing the veiling of women (and ritual bathing as well) not every one of Tertullian’s argu-
ments can be found in biblical prescriptions. Therefore, she believes he knows the Jews
of his city. Also Cohen, Beginnings 31, who states that it is likely that the Jewish women
in Carthage, coming originally from the eastern Roman Empire where all women used to
be veiled, were distinguishable by their veil. This would be one more clue that Tertullian
knew his contemporary Jewish neighbours. Aziza, Tertullien 280–5 argues that Tertullian
makes a difference between the biblical “Hebrews” and the more contemporary “Jews” or
“Israelites.”
39 Henderson, “Early Christianity” 84.
with the Jews. Nevertheless, this fact does not prevent them from envisag-
ing Jewish-Christian contacts at an individual level.40
Despite the positions of those scholars who would deny any contact
between Tertullian and the Jews, because of the presence in Carthage
of Jews, Christians, and proselytes hesitating between both religions, it
would seem impossible that Tertullian would consciously lie about the
Jews. Some state that by Tertullian’s time, the synagogue of Carthage, avid
for converts, was very actively missionary and represented a real danger
for the Church.41 The Church and the synagogue were fighting for pros-
elytes.42 “Tertullian attempted to show that Christianity was the genuine
heir of Israel in order to persuade the sympathetically inclined to join the
new religion rather than becoming Jewish proselytes.”43 It may indeed be
possible that Tertullian himself did not know Jews personally. It is also
likely that the Jews themselves did not read Tertullian’s works. But, in
everyday life, Jews and Christians who lived in the same city met and
probably discussed specific matters dear to their hearts. It is even unnec-
essary to specify that the fact that they were both monotheists might
have made them feel closer to one another than to other Carthaginians.
Tertullian therefore would have felt the need to provide arguments that
would be relevant to their discussions. This also means that Tertullian
could have been updated about Jewish arguments without having any
direct contact with the Jews. Just as Jews would describe real events to
their rabbis in order to obtain rabbinic rulings on matters in which the
rabbis were not personally involved and might never confront directly,
40 Spence, The Parting 348.

41 Simon, Verus 337 and passim, Recherches 34; Baumgarten,“Marcel Simon’s” 466 (on
Simon’s positions), 472; Fredouille, Tertullien 254; Braun, Approche 8.
42 The synagogue had the disadvantage of the Roman interdiction against circumcising
people who were not originally Jewish, a problem that was not relevant to the Church.
Moreover, such a difficult demand as circumcision, even if it were allowed or ways to cir-
cumvent the laws had been found, made the Church far more attractive for the interested,
since it does not require it. Similarly, the ideas proposed by both Jews and Christians are
roughly the same, but adherence to the Church, where the most difficult biblical injunc-
tions are not required, is much easier for gentile converts (see E. Will, and C. Orrieux,
Prosélytisme 121). On the other hand, the lasting existence of Judaism itself would seem to
demonstrate to the inquiring converts that the Christian message is flawed. It must also be
stressed that castration did not deter people from devoting themselves to the cult of Attis.
J. Nolland, “Uncircumcised Proselytes?,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 12 (1981) 173–94,
and Goodman, Mission 67, 82, even discuss the possibility that some proselytes could be
seen by the Jews as completely converted to Judaism despite their not undergoing circum-
cision. The conclusion is that the case must have been very rare, but plausible.
43 Barnes, Tertullian 92 see also 285.
206 chapter ten
so it is likely that Tertullian’s community would have referred to him for

advice and informed him of the context of the arguments. Here again,
we consider that archaeology and sociology are useful to understand the
process that took place in Carthage.44 The situation is similar to that of
the later Jewish commentator, Rashi. Christians mock and attack their
Jewish neighbours on matters of exegesis or practice, so Rashi through
his teaching and commentaries provides his community with tools and
ready-made answers to help them defeat the Christian arguments in fur-
ther encounters. Tertullian himself describes this sort of reality in his
treatise against the Jews and even if someone wants to maintain that
this work is not really Tertullian’s, this sort of reality is also described
in contacts with the different heretics whom Tertullian attacks.45 It has
been shown that Tertullian was familiar with contemporary Jewish anti-
Christian arguments, and that he takes them into account and provides
answers to them.46 Within this framework there are three protagonists or
major players who would have prevented Tertullian from giving fallacious
arguments. These are the Jews, the Christians, and the potential converts.
Beginning with the Jews and the Christians, the Jews knew their traditions
and, in the general missionary climate, the Christians came to them and
tried to convince them that they are wrong in clinging to their old faith.
On the one hand, the Christians would have reported the Jews’ true argu-
ments to Tertullian, who then had no reason to construct fictional ones.
On the other hand, Tertullian had to give strong and true answers that
the Jews could not mock and easily destroy. As for the potential converts,
they would have been inquiring into both religions, and maybe even into
44 A method cherished by Rutgers, Making 7ff.

45 Dunn, Tertullian’s Adversus, tries to demonstrate from a rhetorical perspective, first,
the authenticity, integrity, and Tertullian’s authorship of the treatise against the Jews, and
second, that Tertullian wants his work to be a contribution to the debate between Jews
and Christians and to provide arguments and debating points to his fellow Christians in
their encounters with Jews. (Ibid. 51), Dunn contends concerning the Adversus Iudaeos,
that the author addresses a Christian readership and through it a Jewish audience, but this
can be applied to Tertullian’s entire canon.
46 Horbury, Jews 179, “Tertullian on the Jews,” 455–9. For instance, in his treatise against
the Jews, chapter 10, Tertullian seems to know indeed exactly what Jewish beliefs are.
Horbury in fact believes that Tertullian does have some direct contacts with the Jews in
Carthage. Thus, if Tertullian knows about Jewish controversies and attacks against the
Christians—even if some scholars would claim that the Jews are hardly interested in the
Christians and almost never write against them—he might also be aware of other Jewish
discussions. It is possible that ideas from the Mishnah Avodah Zarah reached his ears.
Boyarin, Dying 63 n. 77, also states that “it is not impossible that Tertullian had contact
with contemporary Hebrew tradition as well.” See also Aziza, Tertullien 20.
Judaism before Christianity, because it is older. Tertullian could not lie to

them either, because they knew what Judaism proposes, and they always
had the option of asking the Jews directly whether Tertullian’s answers
are valid. Here again, Tertullian had to use solid arguments to convince
hesitating potential converts to choose Christianity rather than Judaism,
and even to persuade hesitating neophytes that they had made the cor-
rect choice in becoming Christians, demonstrating to them that the Jews
were wrong. It seems most probable that the picture we see from the lat-
ter arguments shows the Jewish and Christian Carthaginian communities
forced into a relationship with each other, and Tertullian, in his position
as a Christian apologist, well aware of Jewish thought and ideas.
Do the Results of the Comparison Challenge

Common Opinions about “Jewish Proselytism”?
A study entirely devoted to inquiring into the bases of the theory of Jewish
proselytism has led to the conclusion that neither biblical nor traditional
Judaism has ever advocated the notion of proselytism, in other words,
Judaism has never had a mission to convert people to Judaism.47 It was
only around 1900 that it became taken for granted that it was part of the
essence of Judaism to be missionary. This was under the influence of Prot-
estant and sometimes anti-semitically-oriented scholarship, that wanted
to see in Judaism’s proselytism the source of Christian missionary endea-
vours.48 The stance that Judaism was missionary and prepared the field
for Christianity gained strength among scholars.49 But modern scholars
deny that this characterises early Judaism.50 Their only concession to
active Jewish proselytism is that after the conquests of the Maccabees in
the second century bce—and only then—“some” of the newly conquered
subjects were made Jews.51 According to talmudic sources, it is possible
that certain Jews of the late third century were attracted by the notion
of converting people to Judaism, but the tendency was not unanimous
and some ambivalence towards the converts was to be found among the
47 E. Will and C. Orrieux, Prosélytisme.

48 Ibid. 212, 286.
49 Mainly Simon, Harnack, Schürer (before his revision of his work), Juster, and to a
certain degree, Feldman.
50 Cohen (“Adolph Harnack,” “Conversion,” “Was Judaism”), “Did Ancient Jews Mission-
ize?,” Bible Review 19 (2003) 40–7, Goodman, Mission.
51 Cohen.
208 chapter ten
rabbis. Even if they accepted proselytes, the rabbis had no theological

mission to proselytize. Moreover, the rabbis tried to deter people from
conversion to Judaism and converted only those who were steadfast in
their decision to convert. Of course, I do not deny the attestations to con-
verts to Judaism. There were indeed Romans (women especially, as in the
case of all the oriental mysteries that attracted them at that time) who
converted, and several Roman authors complain about this phenomenon.
In other places as well, “God-fearers” came close to Judaism; this is even
noted by Philo in the Hellenistic period. In the period between the main
Jewish revolts in Palestine (70 and 135 ce), the movement of conversion
to Judaism seems to have reached a climax. After the second revolt, a kind
of vacuum was left, in which Christianity found its appropriate place.52
Notwithstanding the existence of some converts, it is not really a large-
scale movement that is in question here. In fact Judaism had no ideologi-
cal need to convert the Gentiles since, in any event, God had provided
the Gentiles with seven Noahide laws especially elaborated for them, and
righteous Gentiles deserved a share in the world to come.53 Last but not
least, Jews had enough to do just making sure that their fellow Jews would
be pious, without making new Jews, who would simply add to the number
of potential sinners.54
In this light, the sources that have generally been used to demonstrate
active Jewish proselytism can be approached anew as not proving any-
thing. When dealing, for instance, with Hellenistic Jewish literature that
was held to have been written with the aim of converting the Graeco-
Roman world to Judaism, it is its apologetic character and its defence of
the religion which is now emphasised, rather than a missionary character
and attempt to convert, which is rather different.55 The argument is that
the aim of such literature was to defend or praise the qualities of Juda-
ism, and not to make converts. Of course, this does not contradict the
fact that, if such texts appealed to some people who wanted to convert to
Judaism, these people were certainly welcome as proselytes. But it seems
to have been enough for the Jews to gain influential “sympathisers” in
the pagan cities where they lived in order to have some support in the
52 Herr, “The Identity” 51.

53 See Goodman.
54 See, for instance, L. Feldman, “Was Judaism a Missionary Religion in Ancient Times?,”
Studies in Jewish Civilization 2, M. Mor, ed. (Lanham 1992) 25. Tosefta Avodah Zarah ix, 4.
55 Cohen, “Was Judaism” 15, Goodman, Mission chapter 4–5, Will and Orrieux, Prosé-
lytisme 16.
face of potential hostilities from the surrounding population. In summary,

the modern trend contends that Jews in antiquity were not missionary
and not interested in making converts, even if they accepted among their
ranks the most persistent of the people who wished to join them. Juda-
ism was not actively missionary, but a “host proselytism.”56 As has been
detailed several times above, the comparison between the De Idolatria
and massekhet Avodah Zarah indeed draws a picture of a Judaism lacking
interest in the conversion of foreigners and concentrating on the practi-
cal needs of its own members, whereas Christianity seems eager to entice
proselytes into its fold.
One more point in this discussion remains to be examined. Numerous
Church Fathers, through the latter part of Late Antiquity and even at the
beginning of the Middle Ages, complain about the “Judaizing” character
of some of their members. On the one hand, this might be the original
character of the Christianity those members adhered to, but on the other
hand, what might have happened is that Judaism developed the mission-
ary features the scholars point to, precisely in reaction to the expansion
of Christianity and to its missionary methods, though such features basi-
cally were not characteristic of Judaism. Despite such a logical solution,
the very existence of Judaizing Christians supports the conclusions of the
present work, which state that Jews and Christians remained intermingled
and involved with one another for a long time, even after it was clear that
Judaism and Christianity were two different religions. The ordinances of
the Councils of Nicaea in 325 ce and of Antioch in 341 ce, which aimed
at preventing Judaizing streams within the Church, show that Judaism
remained a problem for the Church.57 Judaism was still strong enough to
attract and convince hesitating proselytes to choose Judaism rather than
Christianity; the boundaries between both religions still appear blurred
enough to make them appear to be two close, even if slightly different,
faces of the same religious option. Support for this argument can be found
in Codex Theodosianus 16.8.1 and 16.8.7, where the law makes provision for
sanctions against Christians who wish to turn to Judaism. Once again, this
demonstrates closeness between both groups: in other words, it argues for
the existence of contacts, links, and mutual influence. More evidence for
56 As termed by M. Hadas-Lebel, in a conference: “Quelques aspects de la conversion

au judaïsme” http://www.akadem.org/sommaire/themes/liturgie/3/2/module_8217.php:
“un prosélytisme d’accueil.”
57 Feldman, Jew 443, attributes the Judaizing tendencies in the Church to the action of
Jewish missionaries.
210 chapter ten
such conclusions stems from the scandal aroused in the Middle Ages by
the conversion to Judaism of some Christian clerics whose names have
made history.58
It might be argued that the foregoing arguments contradict the modern
opinions that deny a missionary character to Judaism and demonstrate
that Jews did indeed seek to make converts. I would rather propose a
middle path that puts all the pieces of evidence together and, in essence,
supports recent scholarship. It looks as if Judaism did have a kind of mis-
sionary face, but that it did not address people at random. In fact, I believe
that what we see here is that Judaism took a missionary stance toward
those who were already a part of their community. The aim is to preserve
Jewish members and encourage prospective Jews outside the community,
who have already begun to get close to Judaism. It is enough to quote Acts
to recall that the synagogues were places where Christians attempted to
attract potential converts.59 What seems to happen within the synagogue
is that the leaders of the Jews do have a missionary attitude that consists of
convincing hesitating people that Judaism is better than Christianity and,
in a general way, of protecting their affiliated members from Christian
influence. Such a Jewish mission is, once again, not interested in acquiring
new members, but rather in taking good care of those who became close
to Judaism through their own initiative.60 The mission seeks to keep those
who have already undertaken to inquire about Judaism within the fold of
Judaism. It is possible to demonstrate, even from Jewish sources, that the
Jews did not solicit proselytes, but waited for them to approach, or, even
more so, merely accepted them when they insisted on being welcomed.
For instance, Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 47a details the behaviour the
Jews should adopt in the face of a proselyte who seeks to become a Jew,
but gives no hint of instructions for acquiring new members. Further, the
word “proselyte” itself, etymologically speaking, means “one who came
58 See Goodman, Mission 150 and B. Blumenkrantz, Juifs et chrétiens dans le monde
occidental 430–1096 (Paris, 1960) 159–211. See as well A. Edrei, D. Mendels, “A Split Jewish
Diaspora: Its Dramatic Consequences II,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigraphia 17
(2008) 167: “A study of Christian laws from this period reveals a well-known trend that
the Church tried vigorously to create legal barriers between Christians and Jews. . . . One
can, however, conclude, based on the efforts of the Church to create barriers, that such
barriers did not naturally exist in practice. The prohibitions imposed by the Church imply
that Jews and Christians actually did business with each other, ate together, celebrated
together, mingled socially, and even married each other.”
59 Acts 9:20/13:5/14.
60 See, for two examples (among the numerous instances in the works of Goodman,
Will and Orrieux and Cohen), Cohen “Conversion,” 40, Goodman, Mission 86.
and joined” a movement, not one who was taken in. In Roman literature,
it is noticeable that authors like Horace or Persius rebuke Romans for
being attracted by Judaism, but do not say a word against the existence
or influence of any Jewish mission. Commodian, too, some time between
the third and the fifth century, testifies to Jews welcoming pagans who
come to learn about their religion.61 This is consonant with the asser-
tion that Jews invested in apologetics, but not in propaganda toward the
outside world. The way in which Jews probably behaved towards poten-
tial converts has been reconstructed according to a number of possible
models.62 As far as the communities of the Diaspora in the second and
third centuries, are concerned, and especially for Carthage in Tertullian’s
time, one of these models seems to fit the best. This model suggests that
Jewish teachers directed their activity toward the community of native
Jews. Only Gentiles who expressed a particular interest in things Jewish
received their teachings. It is obvious from Mishnah Avodah Zarah that
Jews, their faith, and the behaviour they must adopt are the main preoc-
cupation of the rabbis, and that they do not look actively for proselytes
even though they might have accepted, or even welcomed, motivated out-
siders who decided to join them (but only when those outsiders took the
first steps toward the synagogue on their own). Conversion was not the
main concern of the Jews, especially in the Diaspora, and the essential
fight was an internal one.
The internally-oriented mission of the Jews in Tertullian’s time is
mainly concentrated against the influence of the Christians who came to
their community to appropriate, as it were, Jewish members and their
proselytes. This demonstrates not only that there were contacts, links, and
mutual influences between Christians and Jews at that time, but also that
the members of both religions were still very involved with one another.
As for the sources that allowed some scholars to propose a Jewish mis-
sion to convert Gentiles, it has been demonstrated that none of these can
demonstrate any obviously missionary character that can be attributed
to Ancient Judaism. The only passage that really retains the attention is
Matthew 23:15:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel
over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you
make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
61 Commodianus, Instructiones 1.37.10.

62 Cohen, “Was Judaism” 15.
212 chapter ten
One of the exegeses of this verse presents it as Christian mockery directed

at the Pharisees, who appear incompetent at attracting proselytes and win
only one after enormous efforts. But this is not the most widely accepted
explanation. It has been suggested by modern scholarship that, since
before 380 ce a certain variety within Judaism was still taken for granted,
this verse is simply one more sign that Jewish missionary efforts were ori-
ented internally, towards fellow Jews.63 The verse quoted shows only that
in a clash between Jewish groups for supremacy over all of the Jews, the
Pharisees were those who missionized even outside Palestine to bolster
their troops. This enables us to add to our picture of the relations between
Carthaginian and Palestinian Jews discussed above. It is quite possible
that some of these “Pharisees,” the forerunners of the rabbis, reached
the easily accessible harbour city of Carthage and made contact with the
local Jewish community. Similarly, it is well known that the missionar-
ies whom the Patriarch sent to the communities of the Diaspora were
supposed to reinforce the Jewish communities and connect them with
his authority, rather than to make new members.64 Those communities
had to be defended first and foremost against themselves, and the role of
the missionaries from the Holy Land was to re-organise and strengthen
them by encouraging loyalty to the faith and discouraging extreme latitu-
dinarianism. Indeed, it is clear from our study of Mishnah Avodah Zarah
above that the rabbis were seriously concerned with securing Judaism. It
is likely that the same methods used in the Mishnah were also used by
Palestinian representatives around the world. Their original mission was
not to increase the number of Jews, but to prevent Christian churches
from increasing their numbers by attracting the Judaizing relatives of the
Jewish communities of the Diaspora. This supports my opinion that, in
Carthage, the Jewish mission was essentially to prevent those affiliated
with the synagogue from being attracted by Christianity, which was so
closely related to it, as well as by other modes of religion that threatened
the integrity of Judaism. This also gives the impression that Christians
were still seeking converts within the Jewish community and that they
had not completely abandoned this source of proselytes in favour of
Gentile sources. Tertullian’s De Fuga 6.2–3, where he encourages preach-
ing Christianity to the Gentiles, and not only to the Jews as Matthew rec-
ommended, in fact demonstrates that Christians were still to be found in
63 Goodman, Mission 111 and passim. See, as well, Cohen, “Was Judaism” 14.
64 Will and Orrieux, Prosélytisme 17, 122, 214.
the synagogues of Carthage in Tertullian’s time. Some Carthaginian Chris-

tians, then, still believed that people found in synagogues were poten-
tial converts to Christianity. This seems to reflect the state of mind of
Tertullian’s disciples, who still regard Jews as their primary target, and
accessible to their message. This would mean that Jews were not yet eas-
ily distinguishable from Christians, and were closer to them than to the
Gentiles. Tertullian’s exhortation to renew the aims of their mission is a
testimony to his endeavour to change the nature of Christian proselytiz-
ing and make the borderlines between Judaism and Christianity clearer
to their respective members: in brief, to define Christian identity in rela-
tion to Judaism. This tendency is also clear from the De Idolatria’s relative
openness on social matters, which is intended to allow Christians to find
potential converts among the Gentiles. This desire to be concerned with
groups other than Jews gives the impression that the natural tendency
was, in fact, to deal with Jews. Indeed, it would seem from Tertullian’s
attitudes towards proselytism that Christianity in his time is still naturally
and strongly oriented towards the Jewish community, and that it does
not yet automatically look for converts mainly among the Gentiles. Once
again, the De Idolatria does not mention Jews and is concerned only with
idolaters, their practices, and the way in which Christians must behave
toward them. With his prescriptions about how Christians should behave
in a pagan environment, Tertullian is in fact outlining ways of approaching
them and eventually attracting them to Christianity, without being defiled
by their practices. He is thus re-orienting Christian interest towards Gen-
tiles rather than Jews, to make Christian separation from the Jews more
effective. Finally, from another point of view, we may argue that Tertul-
lian is nevertheless trying one last time to attract Jews to Christianity by
writing a treatise on idolatry which is close to the Jewish Mishnah, and in
this way demonstrating to Jews that they need not renounce their prin-
ciples concerning pagans if they become Christian.
In this re-organisation of the aims of Christianity, the Jewish influ-
ence that still challenges Tertullian’s disciples and their potential pagan
converts seems to remain as much a problem as the idolatry which is
the concern of the De Idolatria. This may be the reason why Tertullian
himself adopts rabbinic attitudes toward idolatry in order to appear as
close as possible to the rabbis so as to be able to compete with them over
the same potential converts, and perhaps even to try and win over the
rabbis’ disciples themselves. Claiming that Christians must be interested
from now on in avoiding pagan influence and in converting Gentiles,
rather than Jews, might be another way to arouse interest from the Jews.
214 chapter ten
In consequence, Christian missionizing works on two levels at the same

time: the internal level, which seeks members from within the Jewish com-
munity, and the external one, which turns toward the Gentiles. For Juda-
ism, active proselytizing is internal only, and Christianity is simply one
more sub-group within Judaism that orthodoxy must deal with.65 In the
face of the challenge of Christianity, Jews must take care of the members
of their faith, as well as of the other specific individuals who are interested
in joining them. The Jews have enough to do, in light of this mission, with-
out taking the initiative to look for more people to add to their ranks, for
whom they would also need to fight in the future. At any rate, the picture
we have drawn here would demonstrate that the Jews and Christians of
Tertullian’s time are not only in contact with each other, but also closely
involved with one another, not only in Carthage, but most probably in
other locations where both Jews and Christians can be found as well.
Jews and Christians Allied against the Pagans
When speaking about the clashes between different religious bodies

within the overall population of the Roman Empire at the turn of the sec-
ond and third centuries, it is generally assumed that the Jews joined the
pagans against the Christians,66 or that the Christians joined the pagans
against the Jews.67 But a shared repugnance for idolatry unified Jews and
Christians in one common faction against the pagans. The Christians actu-
ally showed more hatred for pagans than for Jews. In Tertullian’s words,
Apologeticum 25.1: de falsa et vera divinitate—“the fake and the true
divinity,” the intention is to describe the Christian faith in opposition
to paganism, and not in relation to Judaism. In De Idolatria 7, he even
states that the Jews hurt Christ only once, whereas the pagans hurt Him
65 The absence of frankly anti-Christian Jewish literature might also reflect an internal
fight between close groups that were not very well separated.
66 Even if it is now generally admitted that the Jews had no real part, or at least not
always, in the persecutions against the Christians (a question much debated by scholars),
the Jewish-pagan association remains a group one thinks about when one hears about
attacks against the Christians. Moreover, the punishment of the Christians after the event
of the fire in Rome under Nero is still sometimes explained as the result of a Jewish endea-
vour to transfer the common hatred against them to the Christians they themselves hate.
Similarly, Celsus or the Emperor Julian seeks the help of the Jews against the Christians.
67 After the revolts in Judaea, the Christians take advantage of the general animosity
towards the Jews to dissociate themselves from them and to enhance their own different
character.
every day.68 In numerous cases, Tertullian refuses to tolerate any Christian

compromise with the pagan world, because it is pagan.69 Nevertheless,
Tertullian wants Christianity to interact in a certain way with contem-
porary culture. He needs to find access to the Gentile and Roman mind.
First he abandons the Hebraisms he has inherited from biblical tradition
in favour of more Hellenized, modernised, and open terms.70 Secondly,
Tertullian and Christianity, in general, concede that worldly affairs have
to be conducted by one governor—the Roman Emperor—in parallel to
the One governor who rules on spiritual matters. Most of the Jews in
Tertullian’s time, in contrast, were not ready to accept Roman dominion
and its culture which implied idolatry. We have already seen above that
Tertullian, both as an African and in his own right, also has some diffi-
culties with Romanisation. Despite some Christian concessions to Roman
dominion, it is noteworthy that Jews and Christians fight together against
the common enemy, using almost the same weapons, even if their inter-
pretations sometimes differ a little.71 Tertullian even tries to kill two birds
with one stone. He notes his agreement with the Jews in the particular
case of idolatry; their common deliberations on how to live their religious
lives in the context of a pagan world; and the fact that he uses the same
sources as they do, and then uses all this to discreetly demonstrate the
continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and the replacement of the
latter by the former.72 As a Christian, Tertullian can live with Rome as
long as idolatry is evicted. So why does he need to search for common
ground with the rabbis?73 In Tertullian’s time, calumnies against Juda-
ism still had an impact on Christianity, so that by defending Judaism, he
protects Christianity. Tertullian has apologetic imperatives that require
him to demonstrate the link between Judaism and Christianity to both
pagans and heretics, but he also seems to take this link very seriously,
and does not only see it as a tool in controversies. He defines Christianity
in relation to Judaism in positive, as well as in negative aspects, and only
68 Petitmengin, “Tertullien” 47–9. F. Blanchetière, “The Threefold Christian Anti-

Judaism,” Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, G. Stanton and
G. Stroumsa, eds. (Cambridge, 1998) 204.
69 Frend, Rise 350; also Spanneut, Tertullien 27.
70 Braun, Approches 125, for example, ethnicus instead of gentes.
71 Frend, “A note” 296; Labriolle La réaction 459; Clerc, Les théories, 125; W.C. Weinrich,
“Aziza’s,” 118–20; Baer, “Israel” 112, 117.
72 See, for instance, De Idolatria 4 for the biblical quotations and 14 for how Christianity
suddenly takes the place of Judaism.
73 Aziza, Tertullien 3, 91, 103; In certain cases he even defends Judaism and does not
attack it.
216 chapter ten
sometimes as also in opposition to Rome. He must therefore have a very

clear knowledge of his main referent.
For numerous roughly contemporary Jewish literary sources, Rome is
idolatry; Rome is the opponent. Israel defines its religious questions in
relation to the idolatrous Romans, and looks for explanations for Roman
strength and power over Israel and for the astonishing apparent abandon-
ment by God of His people to the hands of those pagans. Judaism must
provide answers to this situation and encourage Jews to continue to avoid
idolatry, and, even more importantly, convince them to avoid assimila-
tion into the wider, non-Jewish world.74 In the Jewish view, Christians can
still rejoin the mainstream of Judaism. They are not perceived as being a
real problem in and of themselves; they only manifest some problematic
issues and statements (against which Jews nevertheless need to be pro-
tected). Thus if Christians want to fight against paganism together with
the Jews, their contribution to the battle will be accepted and welcomed.
At this time they are not yet the main concern of the Jews, unlike the
idolatrous Romans.
In line with these considerations, and taking into account Dunn’s simi-
lar remarks concerning Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos, it would appear that
Tertullian is familiar with Jewish thought as epitomised in Carthage. On
the subject of idolatry, the Carthaginian Jews received instructions from
the Palestinian rabbis which were intended to help them in their daily
behaviour in a pagan city. Thus they had no need to create a literature of
their own. Even though Jews in Carthage might also have been influenced
in the way they perceived idolatry by their relations with the Christians of
the city, no proof of this can be provided.75 On the other hand, it can be
concluded here that it is very likely that Tertullian was somehow aware of
Jewish ways of dealing with idolatry, directly or indirectly. Since there is
written testimony of Tertullian’s prescriptions on this matter, it is legiti-
mate to look for clues for this sort of rabbinic inspiration in his De Idola-
tria. When we find passages that sound Jewish, even if it can in no way
be unequivocally denied that Tertullian wrote them independently, logic
dictates that their presence must be more than a mere coincidence and
that Tertullian did indeed use Jewish elements in his work.
74 This is seen in the Midrashim and in the Babylonian Talmud in statements such as
that at the End of Days, the idolaters will be punished and Israel will rule over them all.
See Schremer, “The Lord.”
75 Stern’s, Inscribing, position can also be applied here. She claims that some still extant
types of evidence might have originated from Jews, but that they are “so locally conven-
tional that they remain completely unidentifiable.”
Conclusions
This study has focused particularly on Tertullian’s cultural background and

his general methods of writing, in order to try to find out whether there is
any link to be found between his thought and that of the rabbis. It would
seem that most of the probabilities converge toward the inescapable con-
clusion that Tertullian was probably inspired by actual Jewish elements
in his redaction of the De Idolatria, and that it is not by chance that such
elements only seem Jewish in this treatise. Even accepting the theory that
it was Jewish features in Montanism, which inspired Tertullian, it is clear
that those features remain real Jewish elements which Tertullian knows
and decides to use, in full consciousness of their Jewish origins, since he
is aware of what Jewish thinking is. And since it is not likely that Tertul-
lian’s Montanism was considered a heresy at this time, Tertullian’s views
remain representative of the wider Church of his time. From another
point of view, the comparison between the De Idolatria and massekhet
Avodah Zarah illustrates, from a Christian perspective, a model which
regards Judaism and Christianity as still engaged with each other at the
end of the second century ce, at least on a social level. The final question
this study raises is what such almost provisory conclusions concerning
the relationship between the De Idolatria of the Carthaginian Tertullian,
who appears to be personally and particularly closely related to Judaism,
and the rabbinic massekhet Avodah Zarah can really tell us about wider-
ranging Jewish-Christian relationships of that period. The only definitive
conclusion that can be inferred from the study is that when both Jew-
ish and Christian communities live in the same place, even though their
respective leaders work hard to maintain a clear boundary when it comes
to theology, on the interpersonal, individual, and social levels they are
still intertwined and share their ideas and religious experience. This is
especially true because they remain so close together and, at the same
time, so hostile to one another on certain points, in an environment that
is so alien to their nearly common way of life. Their relationship is one of
proximity, but of rivalry as well, because each still competes to be more
correct than the other, precisely in those aspects where they differ. Such
proximity in their daily lives leaves an imprint that is strongly felt in the
writings each addresses to their own community. Christian leaders still
need to take into account Jewish positions on certain issues and even, on
218 conclusions
occasion, Jewish attacks against Christianity. On the other hand, the more
the Church spreads its message and gains in power, the more the Jews
need to deal with and defuse Christian problematics, and develop apolo-
getic local literature appropriate to the character of the Christianity they
have to face. It is no longer possible simply to adopt some of the attractive
Christian ideas and try to tint them with Jewish colours; Christian posi-
tions must be confronted and dealt with seriously. Eventually, in order
to be strong enough in the face of a Christianity that becomes more and
more organised and consistent throughout the world, Judaism also must
learn to define, defend, and cling to a roughly common line of thought in
every place where it encounters Christianity.
Appendices
Appendix one
Identification of the Festivals Quoted

in Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 3
Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 3. Also see its parallels in Tosefta Avodah Zarah
i, 4, Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 39c, Babylonian Talmud Avodah
Zarah 6a.
‫ אידיהן‬Friedheim, Rabbinisme et paganisme en Palestine romaine. Etude
historique des realia talmudiques (Ier–IV ème siècles) (Leiden/Boston, 2006)
313, tends to identify an oriental character in the pagan rites alluded to
in the Mishnah. He discusses the possibility of adopting, instead of ‫איד‬
that would allude to the Roman Ides, the written form, ‫עיד‬, referring to
the Syro-Aramean and later the Muslim celebrations known as ‫עידא‬. See
the orthographic discussion also in the Jerusalem Talmud 39c, Babylonian
Talmud 2a, where Rab and Samuel also discuss the possibility of ‫אידיהם‬
as meaning “their calamities.” Elmslie, in The Mishnah on Idolatry, ’Aboda
Zara (Cambridge, 1911) 18–19 translates ‫ עידיהן‬as “their witnesses,” but also
as sometimes meaning “unclean rag,” and he explains that it is frequent
for people, and not for the rabbis in particular, to substitute a contemptu-
ous term for the real one in order to mark their disapproval. For Elmslie,
the term probably derives from the Roman Ides that mark the beginning
of the third part of the month, and he notes that these are usual and
recurrent, and thus well known to Jews under Roman rule. Nevertheless,
Elmslie does not deny that there may well have been an influence from
the Syriac ‫עידא‬, or “feast,” on the Hebraized Roman term. For a survey of
the scholarship on the term, see E. Friedheim, “A New Look at the Histori-
cal Background of Mishna Aboda Zara I, 1,” Zion 71 (2006) 273–300.
The manuscripts provide many variants of the orthography of the
terms for the three main festivals alluded to. In his critical edition of
Mishnah Avodah Zarah, D. Rosenthal, Mishnah Avodah Zarah, Criti-
cal Edition (Jerusalem: the Hebrew University, 1981) [Hebrew] sur-
veys all the different occurrences in the manuscripts. In the case of
the three festivals, he finds: ,‫ קלנטס‬,‫ קלנדיס‬,‫ קלאנדיס‬,‫ קלאנדיר‬,‫קלנדס‬
,‫ סטרנריא‬,‫ סטרנליא‬,‫ סטורנורא‬,‫ סטרנליה‬,‫ סטרנלייא‬,‫ סטרנוריא‬/ ,‫קלנדים‬
.‫ קרטיסין‬,‫ קרטסיס‬,‫ קראטיסס‬,‫ קרטיס‬,‫ קרטיסים‬,‫ קרטיסיס‬/ ‫ שטרנדדיס‬,‫שנטורניא‬
In fact these variants have little importance, since all commentators, both
222 appendix one
traditional and modern scholars, tend to agree on the identification of the

celebrations. The first festival implying a prohibition of trade for three
days is considered to be the Roman Calends, which was a monthly festi-
val marking the beginning of every month. A.L. Elmslie, The Mishnah on
Idolatry, ’Aboda Zara (Cambridge, 1911) 19 explains that the festivals imply-
ing three days of cessation of trade and relationships between Jews and
pagans are called feriae publicae, public festivals, and he states that the
monthly celebrations of the Calends were no more than private ones. He
therefore proposes that the rabbis are referring to the Calends of January,
which was a real public festival celebrating the New Year. According to
the two Talmudim, Adam, the first man, was the founder of this celebra-
tion. The Jerusalem Talmud, Avodah Zarah 39c, explains:
‫קלנדס אדם הראשון התקינו כיון דחמא לילייא אריך אמר אי לי שמא שכתוב בו‬
‫] כיון דחמא איממא‬. . .[ ‫הוא ישופך ראש ואתה תשופנו עקב שמא יבוא לנשכיני‬
‫ארך אמר קלנדס קלון דיאו‬
The first man [= Adam] instituted the Calends. When he saw the nights
were getting longer, he said: ‘Woe is me!’ Perhaps it concerns of whom it is
written he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel, perhaps he
is going to come and bite me. . . . When he saw the days were growing longer
he said, ‘Kalondeo.’
This anecdote implies that the world was created in the month of Tishri
and at that time Adam did not know that from the end of December on,
the days would grow longer again. His claiming of “Kalondeo” is thus
supposed to occur in January, that is, when the days become longer at
the beginning of the Roman year. Hence the rabbis seem to consider the
Calends of January and no others as one of the main Roman festivals.
The Jerusalem Talmud, Avodah Zarah 39c, also tells a further story, about
the death of the general of the Roman army ‫יינובריס‬, i.e. “January,” in hon-
our of whom the celebration is instituted. At any rate, regardless of the
origin of the festival, everyone agrees that it occurs in January. The Baby-
lonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 8a, places it eight days after the “period,” or
‫תקופה‬, which is in the month of Tevet, hence the end of December. Fol-
lowing the Talmudim, the commentators do not hesitate about identify-
ing the “Calends” with the celebration of the Roman New Year. Moreover,
Friedheim, Rabbinisme et paganisme en Palestine romaine. Étude historique
des realia talmudiques (Ier–IV ème siècles) (Leiden/Boston, 2006) 334 n. 1315,
analysing Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 3 in the light of Deuteronomy Rabbah
7.7, remarks that the Calends are paralleled there by Passover, which is
the biblical New Year time (Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 1 and the New Year
identification of the festivals 223
of the kings). This is one more demonstration that the rabbis were dis-
cussing the Calends of January, the New Year period.
The second festival is identified with the Saturnalia. Elmslie (op. cit. 21)
describes them as the “most remarkable of the heathen festivals” that
imply “unrestrained merrymaking.” According to the two Talmudim, the
commentators place them “eight days before the period,” ‫שמונה ימים לפני‬
‫תקופה‬.
The third festival is identified as κράτησις. According to the Jerusalem
Talmud Avodah Zarah 39c, this was the day on which Rome took over the
world-empire, ‫ יום שאחזו בו את המלכות‬and a similar statement with slightly
different wording is found in Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 8b, ‫יום‬
‫שתפשה בו רומי מלכות‬, “the day on which Rome seized the empire.” Dif-
ferent interpretations of what that day could be have been proposed, but
the most widely accepted is that it is the celebration in honor of Augustus’
victory in Actium. Elmslie (op cit. 22) follows H. Blaufuss, Römische Feste
und Feiertage nach den Tractaten über fremden Dienst (Nürnberg, 1909), in
his remark concerning the plural form ‫קרטיסים‬. For them, there are several
kratisim, or at least two, that would be Dies Imperii or Empire days, the first
in commemoration of the commencement of the Principate, and the sec-
ond a ‘Coronation day’ commemorating the assumption of imperial office
by the reigning Caesar. According to D. Sperber, Dictionary of Greek and
Latin Legal Terms (Ramat Gan, 1984) 195–6, the form ‫ קרטיסים‬stems from
the misunderstanding that the word is a plural and should be ‫קרטיסיס‬,
from the Greek κρατήσις, a “Roman festival commemorating the conquest
of eastern countries.” Both S. Lieberman, Yevanit veYavnut beEretz Israel
(Jerusalem, 1962) [Hebrew] 8, and D. Rosenthal, Mishnah 241–242 reach
the conclusion that the expression, “the day on which Rome seized the
empire”—‫יום שתפשה בו רומי מלכות‬, explains the term ‫קרטיסיס‬, and means
the day on which Augustus captured Alexandria.
Appendix two
Genousia and other celebrations
There are hesitations concerning the interpretation of genousia. The vari-

ants are ‫ כנוסיא‬,‫ גניסייה‬,‫ גינוסיא‬,‫ גנוסיא‬,‫ גיניסיא‬,‫ גיניסייא‬,‫ גניסייא‬,‫( גניסיה‬see
Rosenthal, Mishnah Avodah Zarah, Mahadurah Bikortit (Jerusalem 1981)).
The Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 10a, states that it is ‫יום שמעמידין בו‬
‫“—עובדי כוכבים את מלכם‬the day on which the idolaters place their king
into his functions.” Further, the sentence, ‫“—ויום הלידה ויום המיתה‬And the
day of the birth and the day of the death,” is problematic. Some think this
is Rabbi Meir’s explanation in Hebrew of the term genousia. See Jerusalem
Talmud, Avodah Zarah 39c, ‫יום הלידה ויום המיתה עד כאן לציבור מכאן ואילך‬
‫“—ליחיד‬the day of birth and the day of death up to that for the public
festivals, from this point on private festivals,” Rosenthal (ibid.) 251–2, E.
Urbach, “The Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Cen-
turies in the Light of Archaeological and Historical Facts,” Israel Explora-
tion Journal 9 (1959) 240. Elmslie, The Mishnah on Idolatry, ’Aboda Zara
(Cambridge, 1911), and P. Blackman, Mishnayoth: Pointed Hebrew Text,
Introductions, Translation, Notes, Supplements, Indexes (London, 1951–
6) 23 interprets γενέσα as a funeral festival. He explains that in Jewish
sources (Philo, Josephus) the term has the meaning of a birthday feast. It
becomes the equivalent of the Latin dies natalis, which means both the
birthday and the day of the Apotheosis of an emperor (natalis dei). Then
the genousia is the celebration in honour of both the birth and death of
the emperors. Rabbi Meir’s words could be interpreted as referring to the
birth and death of private persons, since it is apposite to the discussion
concerning other private festivals. Nevertheless, Elmslie maintains that it
is an error to believe this, and that the genousia represent the anniversary
festivals observed in commemoration of certain emperors’ birthdays and
days of death, of those who were deified on their deaths.
From this point on, the Mishnah deals with private festivals making it
forbidden for Jews to trade with the rejoicing person alone, and then only
on the very day of his celebration. Friedheim, Rabbinisme et paganisme en
Palestine romaine. Etude historique des realia talmudiques (Ier–IVème siècles)
(Leiden/Boston, 2006) 365, remarks that in contrast to the public festivals
designated by foreign names, the private ones are given Hebrew names.
genousia and other celebrations 225
The first of the private celebrations is the shaving of the beard and of the
lock of hair. While nearly all of the hair was cut, a single lock of hair was
left behind the head and removed only during a cult ceremony. Friedheim
(ibid.) believes that this lock was removed once a year, while Elmslie, The
Mishnah, suggests that it was removed only once, during the ceremony of
“the coming of age.” Elmslie says that in practice this lock of hair, once
cut, was consecrated to Apollo, Heracles, or some river-god. The Jerusa-
lem Talmud, Avodah Zarah chapter 2, adjures the Jewish hairdresser not
to cut the pagan’s lock, so as not to be involved in an idolatrous celebra-
tion: ‫המספר לנכרי מספר עד שמגיע לבלורית וכיון שמגיע לבלורית הרי זה מושך‬
‫“—את ידיו‬Someone [Jewish] who cuts the hair of a Gentile, cuts until he
reaches the lock of hair, and once he reaches the lock of hair, he takes his
hands away.”
The second ceremony is celebrated in honour of a safe return from a
sea journey. The ceremony implied offerings and sacrifices to thank the
gods for their protection. The third one is organised by someone coming
out of the “prison house.” Elmslie, The Mishnah 25, argues that a literal
meaning here is doubtful, though there is evidence for prisoners making
a dedication once they were released from jail. Elmslie would rather fol-
low Blaufuss, Römische Feste und Feiertage nach den Tractaten über frem-
den Dienst (Nürnberg, 1909), who thinks that the Mishnah is dealing with
accused persons after they are acquitted by a court of law, who then offer
sacrifices of thanks and rejoice. Elmslie has also suggested that the Mish-
nah might be speaking about former slaves offering gifts to thank the gods
for their manumission.
Appendix three
Intermarriage
The idea of reducing intimate contacts and social interaction between

Jews and pagans to the minimum in order to avoid assimilation and inter-
marriage is based on Exodus 34:15–16:
Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when
they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will
invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. And when ‘you choose some
of their daughters as wives for your sons, ‫ ולקחת מבנותיו לבניך‬and those
daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to
do the same.
Professor A. Steinfeld in his research [Am Levadad: Mekhkarim beMassekhet
Avodah Zarah (Ramat Gan, 2008)] has queried whether the pretext
“because of marriage” is the true reason for the laws in the Mishnah, or
whether it is hiding other reasons. I offer here some insights into tradi-
tional and scholarly Jewish comments on this issue. The Rambam in his
Mishneh Torah, Sefer Kedushah, Hilkhot Maakhalot Assurot 17.6, states:
‫ ואף על פי שאין לאיסורן עיקר מן‬,‫ אסרו אותן חכמים‬,‫ויש שם דברים אחרים‬
‫ ויבואו‬,‫ גזרו עליהן כדי להתרחק מן הגויים—עד שלא יתערבו בהן ישראל‬,‫התורה‬
;‫ ואפילו במקום שלא לחוש ליין נסך‬,‫ אסרו לשתות עימהן‬:‫לידי חתנות; ואלו הן‬
‫ ואפילו במקום שלא לחוש לגיעוליהן‬,‫ואסרו לאכול פיתן או בישוליהן‬
and there are there other things the sages forbade, and though their prohibi-
tion has not its principle in the Torah, they enacted those prohibitions to
separate from the Gentiles, so that the Jews would not mix with them and
come to marriage. These are the prohibitions: it is prohibited to drink with
them, even when there is no suspicion concerning libation wine; and it is
prohibited to eat their bread or from their cooking even when there is no
suspicion concerning their forbidden mixtures.
He adds, concerning the prohibition to eat from the Gentiles’ bread, 17.12:
‫ יבוא לסעוד אצלן‬,‫“—שעיקר הגזירה משום חתנות; ואם יאכל פת בעלי בתים‬the
essential point in the prohibition is the matter of intermarriage. If a Jew
came to eat the Gentiles’ bread, at the end he will join meals in their
homes.”
In other words, if Jews were to feel comfortable enough to eat the Gen-
tiles’ bread, they would become used to visiting their homes. They would
intermarriage 227
thus risk, on the one hand, eating other foods that may not be permitted
under the Jewish dietary laws, and on the other hand, far worse, in the end
they would marry the Gentiles’ daughters. Urbach, Collected Writings in
Jewish Studies ( Jerusalem, 1999) 181 [“The Laws of Idolatry in the Light of
Historical and Archeological Facts in the 3rd Century,” Eretz Israel, Arche-
ological Historical and Geographical studies 5 ( Jerusalem, 1958)], holds the
same position: in private celebrations it is intermarriage which is to be
feared, and not the sacrifices themselves. In this context, it is interest-
ing to note Elisha Qimron’s article, “The Halacha of Damascus Covenant:
An Interpretation of ʿAl Yitʿarev,” Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress
of Jewish Studies, Division D (Jerusalem, 1986), 1:9–15 [Hebrew], where he
emphasises that the root ‫ערב‬, “to mix,” in certain contexts, means (or
at least involves) the idea of marriage or sexual intercourse, and hence
“becoming impure” because of the ‫טומאה‬, “impurity,” ensuing from such
relations. On the dietary laws that set a fence between Jews and Gentiles,
and on the ban on marrying non-Jews, see also: Bickerman, From Ezra
105. The possibility that idolatry was perceived by the rabbis in terms of
ritual impurity, raised by Büchler and Alon, and discussed in extenso by
Christine Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and
Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford, 2002) 131–8, is intrigu-
ing and deserves separate treatment. J.D. Rosenblum, Food and Identity
in Early Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge/New York, 2010) 145, observes that
purity concerns are only relevant to interactions between rabbinic and
non-rabbinic Jews, whereas idolatry represents the greatest threat of
socialising with non-Jews. He also explains Tosefta Avodah Zarah iv, 6 as
suggesting that commensality leads to idolatry and illicit sexual relations
(p. 91sqq.). Rosenblum plays on the words avodah zarah, “foreign worship”
as a metaphor for “foreigners.” Following this, and joining Qimron’s inter-
pretation, he states that sharing one’s table with a foreigner is the first
step towards sharing one’s bed with a foreigner, which in turn leads to
foreign(ers’) worship, i.e. idolatry. This can also be reversed: idolatry and
commensality lead to foreignness, to the absence of Jewishness.
Appendix four
‫בימוסיאות‬
‫אין בונין עמהם בסיליקי גרדום ואיצטדיא ובימה אבל בונים עמהם בימוסיאות ובית‬
‫“—מרחצאות‬one may not build with them a basilica nor a platform nor a
stadium nor a stand but one may build with them pedestals and bath-
houses.” Mishnah Avodah Zarah i, 7.
There are three possibilities of interpretation of the word ‫בימוסיאות‬:
1] Rosenthal, Mishnah Avodah Zarah, Mahadurah Bikortit ( Jerusa-

lem, 1981) 252–4, discusses the form ‫בימוסיאות‬. He proposes to turn
it into ‫דימוסיות‬, from the Greek δηµόσις, “a public building.” Thence,
the Mishnah would permit Jews to build with the idolaters both
‫דימוסיות‬, “public bathhouses,” and ‫בית מרחצאות‬, which would then
mean “private bathhouses.”
According to Rosenthal, the Mishnah intends to say that one is not
permitted to build public buildings such as a basilica, for instance,
together with idolaters, but when it comes to other public edifices in
which idolatry should not be involved, one may participate in their
building.
2] Later in this chapter of Mishnah Avodah Zarah (i, 7), Rabban Gamaliel
is found bathing in a ‫מרחץ‬, a bathhouse that is obviously a public
establishment and not a private one, unless we accept Elmslie’s [The
Mishnah on Idolatry, ’Aboda Zara (Cambridge, 1911) 14] explanation,
that private bathing establishments are “places for the use of which a
small fee was charged,” and not necessarily, as we might have under-
stood, the property of a single person in his own house exclusively
for his own use. As noted already above, it is indeed permitted to pay
for the use of a bathhouse belonging to a human being. Elmslie (ibid.
13) translates the whole passage regarding buildings that a Jew cannot
build with the words “law-courts, seats of an amphitheatre, a stadium
and a judge’s tribunal.” Elmslie rejects the version ‫בימוסיאות‬, making
the word derive from βωµός, which means “altar” or “pedestal.”
3] According to the traditional commentator Bartenura, the places named
by Elmslie involve either idolatry or danger for human beings. Bartenu-
‫ בימוסיאות‬ 229
ra’s explanation of ‫ בימוסיאות‬as “buildings that are destined neither to

idolatry nor to kill people” recalls Rosenthal’s idea. The Mishnah would
then mean that “one may build with them public edifices that are not
destined for idolatry, and bathhouses” and not necessarily “public and
private bathhouses.”
Appendix FIVE
Mandell vs. Lieberman
a. In Appendix One in J. Neusner, Why There Never Was a “Talmud of

Caesarea”: Saul Lieberman’s Mistakes (Atlanta, 1994) 137–46, “Did Saul
Lieberman Know Latin or Greek?,” Sarah Mandell, disparaging Lieber-
man’s knowledge of ancient Greek and Latin, criticises, among other
passages, his translation of De Idolatria 15.6. Nam et alia ostia in balneis
adorari videmus is translated by Lieberman in Texts and Studies (New
York, 1974) 305 as: “For we see that other sources are worshipped in the
baths,” which Mandell corrects in her article to read as: “For we even see
that some fountainheads are worshipped in the public baths,” while the
generally accepted translation is “For we see that other entrances, too, are
worshipped, in the baths” [see Waszink, Tertullianus 53, The Ante-Nicene
fathers: Translations of the writings of the fathers down to A.D. 325, Alex-
ander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., Vol. 3 De Idolatria 15, http://
www.tertullian.org/anf, E.-A. De Genoude, Oeuvres de Tertullien (Paris,
1852)] and this is because of the first ‘entrances’ the paragraph deals with.
Lieberman wanted to make his point in a parallel between this passage
from Tertullian and others in the Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 14.14 (14d)
and the Babylonian Talmud, 47a, where the sources of rivers are wor-
shipped, which is why he translated ostia as “sources” in a brief note to
M. Kasher, Torah Shelema: Talmudic-Midrashic Encyclopedia of the Penta-
teuch, Exodus, vol. 8 T9, 50, where Tertullian’s passage was not the essence
of the argument. This does not mean that Lieberman denied that those
“sources” were actually represented by heads, but only that he envisaged
the spirit behind the figurative representations, and the fact that there
really were heads did not prevent people from envisaging a spirit or even
an entity behind them. The source was not worshipped for its sanctity,
but as incarnating a divinity. Hence Mandell’s corrections are not neces-
sary, especially when she concedes on page 139 that there is a numen, a
spirit, behind the icons, and that ostia can be understood as “entrances”
as well. Her arguments against Lieberman are attacked by Jacobson [Saul
Lieberman (1898–1983). Talmudic Scholar and Classicist, Meir Lubetski,
ed. (2002)], who finally conceded that Lieberman was mistaken, and by
Marblestone in the same volume. In fact, Mandell also cannot decide
how to translate the word precisely. The art of translation compels one
to use only one word to transmit in another language a word that may
mandell vs. lieberman 231
be loaded with many ideas and connotations in the original language.

The Italian claim “traduttore, traditore,” “translator, traitor” is very well
known. This is the reason why footnotes exist; for instance the volume of
the Ante Nicene Fathers (above) that translates ostia as “entrances” adds:
“The word is the same as that for “the mouth” of a river, etc. Hence Oehler
supposes the ‘entrances’ or ‘mouths’ here referred to, to be the mouths of
fountains, where nymphs were supposed to dwell. Nympha is supposed to
be the same word as Lympha. See Hor. Sat. i. 5, 97; and Macleane’s note.”
No-one denies the existence of figured faucets, and no-one denies that
some divinity could be envisaged behind them, and it is indeed difficult
to encompass both of these in one English word.
b. De Idolatria 20.2: Deos nationum nominari lex prohibet, non utique, ne

nomina eorum pronuntiemus, quae nobis ut dicamus conversatio extorquet.
The translation of this a priori simple sentence is made uneasy by Man-
dell’s attacks against Lieberman. [Appendix One in J. Neusner, Why There
Never Was a ‘Talmud of Caesarea’: Saul Lieberman’s Mistakes (Atlanta, 1994)
137–46, “Did Saul Lieberman Know Latin or Greek?” and Lieberman, Hel-
lenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and
Manners of Palestine in the Ist Century B.C.E.–IV Century C.E (New York,
1962)]. Lieberman translates:
The law forbids to name the gods of the nations, not, of course, that we
are not to pronounce their names, the mention of which is required by
conversation.
And Mandell emends:
The law does not forbid, without qualification, the gods of the nations to be
called by name. Conversation (itself ) drags their names out of us, so that
we must say them.
First, Waszink and Van Winden’s [Tertullianus De Idololatria, (Leiden,
1987)] edition of the Latin text opts for Sigismondus Gelenius’ manuscript,
giving non utique ne nomina . . . instead of the non utique nomina . . . used
by Lieberman and Mandell. This meaningful change makes superfluous
any further discussion of Mandell’s assertion that prohibet serves two dif-
ferent functions, so that it is a part of two separate phrases, which is made
evident thanks to the ne. Mandell then accuses Lieberman of not dealing
with non utique. The literal translation of the term is “not in any case,” and
I believe that Lieberman’s reference to the non utique can be found in his
“not of course that,” which does not appear in the Latin words; Waszink
and Van Winden’s translation,
232 appendix five
The laws forbids us to mention the gods of the heathens. Its sense, of course,
is not that we should not pronounce their names, which every-day life forces
us to use.
makes the same use of “of course [. . .] not” without any other addition
that could be interpreted as being put for non utique. The Ante-Nicene
Fathers (A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds., Vol. 3 De Idolatria 15, http://
www.tertullian.org/anf) proposes the same “not of course that.” Baer,
“Israel, the Christian Church and the Roman Empire,” Studies in History,
A. Fuks and I. Halpern, eds. (Jerusalem, 1961), gives a detailed explana-
tion of non utique and finally reaches the same conclusion as Lieberman
for the sentence. One of Mandell’s other accusations aims to make clear
for the reader that deos nationum nominari is an infinitive passive clause.
Jacobson [Saul Lieberman (1898–1983). Talmudic Scholar and Classicist,
Meir Lubetski, ed. (2002)] has already demonstrated that it is ridiculous to
believe that Lieberman thought nominari to be an active form; his active
translation of the sentence is only the appropriate way to translate such a
sentence into English, as everyone who learns Latin learns to do. Finally,
did Sarah Mandell know Latin? She translates Deos nationum nominari
lex prohibet as “the law does not forbid.” After all her accusations against
Lieberman, saying that he does not provide literal translations and does
not put them into proper English, she herself reaches the zenith of mis-
translation here, and her only justification is “once it has been resolved
that non qualifies prohibet,” but she does not resolve this enigma any-
where. I can understand what meaning she wishes to transmit through
those words, but she could have translated the phrase as “the law forbids
the gods of the nations to be called by names” (cannot Sarah Mandell see
that her translation into English means that the gods are allowed or not
allowed to be called by names, as if Judaeo-Christian law intended to for-
bid the non-existent other gods anything?) as is indeed written in the text,
and have added “but not without qualification.” She wants to enhance
the meaning of the sentence in her translation, exactly as Lieberman has
done, while criticising him for so doing. At any rate, here, as for Mandell’s
other accusation against Lieberman that I have detailed (appendix 5.a),
the defence is easy. Lieberman does not linger over a textual explanation
of Tertullian’s sentence and over its finesses. He quotes Tertullian, by the
way, to illustrate the ideas he puts forward. To make his example clear,
Lieberman translates the words without any sophisticated exegesis. His
aim is to provide the general meaning of the sentence in order to empha-
sise the parallel with the Jewish source he is actually dealing with.
Appendix six
Clothing
Later sources, Ritbah, Yalkut Shimoni, Abravanel and Rambam, all note
that the Israelites preserved their traditional Jewish clothing in Egypt. The
note in Genesis Rabbah parashah 1 that Moses wore Egyptian garments
but was nevertheless a Jew would also point to the existence of some sort
of typically Jewish clothing. Some scholars claim that this sort of com-
ment stressing the preservation of Jewish clothing in Egypt might be only
modern, i.e., post-Enlightenment. In his translation Menachem Kasher,
Torah Shelemah Shemoth (New York, 1954) 239, offers several arguments
against these assertions. To begin with the most convincing for the case
in hand, Kasher quotes Zephaniah 1.8: “On the day of the Lord’s sacrifice,
I will punish the princes and the king’s sons, and all those clad in for-
eign clothes”—‫על כל הלובשים מלבוש נכרי‬, and emphasises that the idea of
keeping one’s original customs, which includes characteristic garments,
to ensure loyalty to one’s faith was known to the rabbis from the Bible.
Kasher recognises that the traditional commentaries do not note the idea
that the Jews kept their customary garments. It is not present in 1. Leviti-
cus Rabbah 32.5:
‫בשביל ארבעה דברים נגאלו ישראל ממצריים שלא שנו את שמם ואת לשונם‬
‫ולא אמרו לשון הרע ולא נמצא ביניהן אחד מהן פרוץ בערוה‬
Israel were redeemed from Egypt on account of four things; because they
did not change their names, they did not change their language, they did not
go tale bearing and none of them was found to have been immoral.
‫ פרוץ בערוה‬might have been understood as being related to clothing had
not the Midrash made it clearer by mentioning the story of a woman who
became loose and brought disgrace upon her whole family as the excep-
tion confirming that all the other Jews behaved morally. 2. A parallel is
to be found in Song of the Songs Rabbah 4.24. 3. Numbers Rabbah 13.20:
‫“—שלא שנו את שמם ולא שנו את לשונם ושגדרו עצמם מן הערוה‬They did not
change their names, they did not change their language and they fenced
themselves against unchastity.” However Kasher fiercely opposes the
assertion that the idea of clothing is not implied anywhere, and quotes
1. Lekakh Tov Shemot 6.6 (which is a relatively late commentary, with
parts dating from the 11th to the 16th century ce): ‫כנגד ד' זכויות שבידם‬
234 appendix six
. . . ‫“—שלא שנו את לשונם ולא חילפו שמלותם‬in exchange for four credits they
had, that they did not change their language and they did not convert
their garments . . . ”; 2. Lekakh Tov parashat Tavo, Dvarim 26.5: ‫ויהיו שם לגוי‬
,‫ שהיו מלבושם ומאכלם ולשונם משונים מן המצרים‬.‫מלמד שהיו ישראל מצויינים שם‬
‫‘ “—מסומנים היו וידועין שהם גוי לבדם חלוק מן המצרים‬and they were there
a People’ teaches that Israel was marked there. That their clothing and
their food were different from the Egyptians’ ones, and they had signs
and were known as alone and separated from the Egyptians”; 3. Finally,
Kasher quotes Ritbah, Yalkut Shimoni, Abravanel and Rambam who all
stress that Israel kept its traditional clothing in Egypt, and says that since
this idea is based on rabbinical teaching, early commentators must have
known the idea from manuscripts which have now been lost.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Early Church Fathers, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2, (English

translation).
Apostolic Fathers (Early Christian collection). English and Greek, B.D., Ehrman, ed. (Cam-
bridge, 2003).
Biblia Sacra Latina: ex Biblia sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti V. et Clementis VIII: S. Bagster
(London, 1970).
Blackman, P., Mishnayoth: Pointed Hebrew Text, Introductions, Translation, Notes, Supple-
ments, Indexes (London, 1951–6).
Christian Authors: http://www.rassegna.unibo.it/autcrist.html (original texts and
translations).
Cicero, Marcus Tullius, The Speeches: In Catalinam, I–IV. Pro Murena. Pro Sulla. Pro Flacco,
Louis E. Lord, W. Heinemann eds. (London, 1937).
Constitutiones Apostolorum 380CE, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-39.htm.
Codex Theodosianus Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges novel-
lae ad Theodosianum pertinentes / consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae
Borussicae; ediderunt Th. Mommsen et Paulus M. Meyer Berolini: Apud Weidmannos
(1905).
Digesta Justiniani Augusti, recognovit adsumpto in operis societatem Paulo Kruegero, Th.
Mommsen Berolini: Apud Weidmannos (1870).
Elmslie, W.A.L., The Mishnah on Idolatry, ’Aboda Zara (Cambridge, 1911).
Eusebius, De demonstratio evangelica [microform]. Zug: Inter Documentation Co., [197–?].
11 microfiches originales Greek texts.
——, Die praeparatio evangelica, Akademie-Verlag, Die griechischen christlichen Schrift-
steller der ersten Jahrhunderte / hrsg. von der Kommission für Spatantike Religionsge-
schichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Berlin, 1954).
——, The Ecclesiastical History, with an English trans. by Kirsopp Lake Heinemann (Lon-
don, 1926–1932).
Hippolytus, Commentaire sur Daniel (Paris, 1947).
Irenaeus, Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis et martyris Detectionis et eversionis falso
cognominate agnitionis seu Contra haereses libri quinque (Turnholt, 1978).
Jerome, Hieronymi De viris inlustribus liber, accedit Gennadii Catalogus virorum inlus-
trium ; ex recensione Guilelmi Hesdingii, in aedibus Teubneri (Lipsiae, 1879).
Josephus Flavius, La guerre des Juifs contre les Romains (Paris, 1979).
——, Les Antiquités Juives (Paris, 1992).
Julianus, Juliani Imperatoris Epistulae selectae (Leiden, 1960).
Justin Martyr, Dialogue avec Tryphon (Paris, 1909).
Juvénal, Satires (Paris, 1951).
Lucien, Alexandre ou le Faux Devin, translation Longton Josephe, www.bcs.fltr.ucl.ac.be
/Alex/TM.html.
——, La Mort de Peregrinos, translation Renault Philippe, http://bcs.fltr.ucl.ac.be/LUCIEN/
Mort.html.
Marcovich, ed., Clementis Alexandrini Protrepticus (Leiden, 1995).
Minucius Felix, Octavius texte établi et traduit par Jean Beaujeu (Paris, 1964).
Nielsen, J.T., ed., Textus Minores XLVIII: Iranaeus of Lyons versus Contemporary Gnosticism,
A Selection from Books I and II of Adversus Haereses (Leiden, 1977).
Origenes, Contra Celsum (Cambridge, 1980).
236 bibliography
Orosius, Paulus Pauli Orosii Historiarum adversus paganos libri VII / ex recognitione Caroli
Zangemeister, in aedibus Teubneri (Lipsiae, 1889).
Patrologiae cursus completus: sive biblioteca universalis, integra, uniformis, commoda, oeco-
nomica, omnium SS. Patrum, doctorum scriptorumque ecclisiasticorum qui ab aevo apos-
tolico ad usque Innocentii III tempora floruerunt : Series Latina, in qua prodeunt Patres,
accurante, J.-P. Migne, (repr. Turnholt, 1956).
Philon, De specialibus legibus I et II (Paris, 1975).
——, Les Oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie (Paris, 1961).
Philostrate, Biographie d’Apollonius de Tyane, http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/roman/phili-
ostrate/table.htm.
Platon, La République (Paris, 1966).
Plutarque, Oeuvres Morales; Sur les Sanctuaires dont les Oracles ont Cessé, http://remacle.
org/bloodwolf/historiens/Plutarque/oracles.htm.
——, Isis et Osiris, http://mercure.fltr.ucl.ac.be/Hodoi/concordances/plutarque_isis_osiris/
lecture/default.htm.
Quodvultdeus, Opera Quodvultdeo Carthaginiensi episcopo tributa, Turnholti, Typographi
Brepols Editores Pontificii (1976).
Suetonius, Divus Claudius (New York, 2001) ed. by D.W. Hurley.
——, Divus Augustus (Bristol, 1982) ed. by J.M. Carter.
Tacitus, Annales (Paris, 1974).
——, Historiae (Paris, 1968).
Tertullian, www.Tertullian.org, writings, original texts and translations, R. Pearse, ed.
Tertullianus De Idololatria, J.H. Waszink and J.C.M. van Winden, eds. (Leiden, 1987)·
)‫מהדורה בקורתית (בצירוף מבוא) (ירושלים תשמ"א‬: ‫ משנת עבודה זרה‬,.‫ ד‬,‫רוזנטל‬
)1959 ,‫ ירושלים‬-‫ ילון (תל אביב‬,.‫ ח‬,‫ אלבק‬,.‫ עורכים ח‬,‫ סדר נזיקין‬:‫ששה סדרי משנה‬
Secondary Literature
Alfoldy., G., “The Crisis of the 3rd Century as Seen by Contemporaries,” Greek, Roman and
Byzantine Studies 15 (1974) 89–111.
Allenbach J., et al., eds., Biblia patristica: Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la
littérature patristique (Paris, 1975).
Alon, G., The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, 70–640 C.E. (Cambridge, 1989).
Anderson, G., Sage, Saint and Sophist: Holy Men and their Associates in the Early Roman
Empire (London/New York, 1994).
Ando, C., The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire. The Transformation of the
Classical Heritage (Berkeley, 2008).
Arnold, M., Culture and Anarchy (London, 1869), e-text from the first edition: http://www
.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/writings/4.html.
Assmann, J., and Baumgarten, A., eds., Representation in Religion: Studies in Honor of Moshe
Barasch (Leiden/Boston/Köln, 2001).
Aziza, C., Tertullien et le judaïsme (Paris, 1977).
Baer, Y., “Israel, the Christian Church and the Roman Empire,” Studies in History, Fuks, A.,
and Halpern, I., eds. (Jerusalem, 1961) 79–149.
Barclay, J., Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora (Edinburgh, 1996).
Bardy, G., “Les traditions juives dans l’œuvre d’Origène,” Revue Biblique 34 (1925) 217–52.
Bar-Kochva, B., The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London,
2010).
Barnes, T.D., “Legislation against the Christians,” Journal of Roman Studies 58 (1968)
32–50.
——, Tertullian: An Historical and Literary Study (Oxford, 1985).
Baumgarten, A.I., “The Politics of Reconciliation: The Education of R. Judah the Prince,”
Jewish and Christian Self-definition. Volume II: Aspects of Judaism in the Greco-Roman
Period Sanders E.P., et al., eds., (Philadelphia, 1980) 213–25.
bibliography 237
——, “Josephus and Hippolytus on the Pharisees,” Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984)
1–25.
——, “Euhemerus’ Eternal Gods: Or, How Not to be Embarrassed by Greek Mythology,”
Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, Katzoff, R. et al. eds. (Ramat Gan, 1996)
91–103.
——, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: an Interpretation (Leiden,
1997).
——, “Marcel Simon’s Verus Israel as a Contribution to Jewish History,” Harvard Theologi-
cal Review 92 (1999) 465–78.
Becker A.H., and Reed, A.Y., eds., The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late
Antiquity and the Early Middles Ages, Texts and studies in Ancient Judaism 95 (Tübingen,
2003).
Benko, S., “Pagan Criticism of Christianity During the First Two Centuries A.D.,” H. Tempo-
rini, ed., Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 23 (1974) 1055–118.
Bergmann, J., Judische Apologetik im Neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Berlin, 1874–1955).
Biale, D., ed., Cultures of the Jews: A New History (New York, 2002).
Bickerman, E.J., “La charte séleucide de Jérusalem,” Revue des Études Juives 100 (1935)
4–35.
——, “Origines Gentium,” Classical Philology 47 (1952) 65–81.
——, “Sur la théologie de l’art figuratif; à propos de l’ouvrage de E.R. Goodenough,” Studies
in Jewish and Christian History (Leiden, 1976).
——, “Les Hérodiens,” Revue Biblique 47 (1938) 184–97.
——, “The Name of the Christians,” Harvard Theological Review 42 (1949) 109–24.
——, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees (New York, 1962).
——, The Jews in the Greek Age (London, 1994).
Blidstein, G.J., Rabbinic Legislation on Idolatry—Tractate Abodah Zarah, Chapter 1 (New
York, 1968).
——, “The Tannaim and Plastic Art; Problems and Prospects,” Perspectives in Jewish Learn-
ing 5 (1973) 13–27.
——, “Nullification of Idolatry in Rabbinic Law,” Proceedings of the American Academy for
Jewish Research 41–42 (1973–1974) 1–44.
——, “Prostration and Mosaics in Talmudic Law,” Bulletin of the Institute of Jewish Studies 2
(1974) 19–39.
——, “R. Yohanan, Idolatry, and Public Privilege,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 5 (1974)
154–61.
Blumenkrantz, B., Juifs et chrétiens dans le monde occidental 430–1096 (Paris, 1960) 159–211.
Boccard, E. de ed., Paganisme, Judaïsme, Christianisme. Influences et affrontements dans le
monde antique. Mélanges offerts à Marcel Simon, (Paris, 1978).
Boer, W. den, “La polémique anti-chrétienne du 2ème siècle; la doctrine de vérité de Celse,”
Athenaeum 54 (1976) 300–18.
Bohak, G., “Ethnic Stereotypes in the Greco-Roman World: Egyptians, Phoenicians and
Jews,” World Congress of Jewish Studies, 12, B (2000) 7–15.
Boissier, G., La Religion romaine d’Auguste aux Antonins (Paris, 1874).
Boulluec (Le), A., La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque IIe–IIIe siècles (Paris, 1985).
Bompaire, J., Lucien écrivain. Imitation et création (Paris, 1958).
Boyarin, D., Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stan-
ford, 1999).
——, Border lines: the Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia, 2004).
Braun, R., Approches de Tertullien: vingt-six études sur l’auteur et sur l’œuvre (Paris, 1992).
Bray, G., “Tertullian and Western Theologists,” Great Leaders of the Christian Church,
Woodbridge, J.D., ed. (Chicago, 1988).
Canedi, G., “Problemi di convivenza: spunti per un confronto tra il ‘De Idololatria’ di Tertul-
liano e ‘Mishnah Abodah Zarah’”, Quaderni del Ramo d’Oro online 1 (2008) 73–87.
Cantalamessa, R., La cristologia di Tertulliano (Freiburg, 1961).
238 bibliography
Carleton Paget, J., “Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity,” Zeitscrift für Antikes Chris-
tentum I (1997) 195–225.
Catholic Encyclopedia www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm.
Cavalier, C., “Le judéo-christianisme dans l’Antiquité,” www.Chronicus.com, (2005).
Clerc, C., Les théories relatives au culte des images chez les auteurs grecs du IIème siècle ap.
JC (Paris, 1915).
Cohen, A., Les routes divergentes: le judaïsme et l’avènement du christianisme (Paris, 1956).
Cohen, S.J.D., “A Virgin Defiled: Some Rabbinic and Christian Views on the Origins of Her-
esy,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 36 (1980) 1–11.
——, “Conversion to Judaism in Historical Perspective: From Biblical Israel to Postbiblical
Judaism,” Conservative Judaism 36 (1983) 31–45.
——, “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis and the End of Jewish Sectarianism,”
Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984) 27–53.
——, “Adolph Harnack’s ‘The Mission and Expansion of Judaism’: Christianity Succeeds
where Judaism Fails?,” The Future of Early Church, Pearson, B., ed. (Minneapolis, 1991)
163–9.
——, “Was Judaism in Antiquity a Missionary Religion?,” Studies in Jewish Civilization 2,
Mor, M., ed. (Lanham, 1992) 14–23.
——, “‘Those Who Say They Are Jews and Are Not’: How Do You Know a Jew in Antiquity
When You See One?,” Diasporas in Antiquity, Cohen, S.J.D., and Frerichs, E., eds. (Brown
Judaic Studies 288) (Atlanta, 1993) 1–45.
——, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley/Los
Angeles, 1998).
——, “Did Ancient Jews Missionize?,” Bible Review 19 (2003) 40–7.
Daniel, R.W., “A Note on Tertullian’s De Idolatria,” Vigiliae Christianae 39 (1985) 63–4.
Danzig, G., Apologizing for Socrates: How Plato and Xenophon Created Our Socrates (Lan-
ham, 2010).
Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century, http://www
.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/.
Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie (Paris, 1924–1953).
Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, s.v. Carthage -J. Ferron, G. Lapeyre—
vol. 11 (1949) col. 1213.
Duchesne, L., Histoire ancienne de l’Eglise II (Paris, 1910).
Dunn, G.D., “Tertullian and Rebekah: A Re-Reading of an ‘Anti-Jewish’ Argument in Early
Christian Literature,” Vigiliae Christianae 52 (1998) 121–45.
——, “Pro Temporum Condicione: Jews and Christians as God’s People in Tertullian’s Adver-
sus Iudaeos,” Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church 2, Allen, P., et al. eds. (Brisbane,
1999) 315–41.
——, Tertullian (London, 2004).
——, Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos; A Rhetorical Analysis (Washington, 2008).
Dunn, J.D.G., The Partings of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Signifi-
cance for the Character of Christianity (London, 1991).
Eccles, R.S, Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough: A Personal Pilgrimage (Chico, 1985).
Edrei, A., Mendels, D., “A Split Jewish Diaspora: Its Dramatic Consequences,” Journal for
the Study of the Pseudepigraphia 16 (2007) 91–137.
——, “A Split Jewish Diaspora: Its Dramatic Consequences II,” Journal for the Study of the
Pseudepigraphia 17 (2008) 163–87.
Edwards, M.J., “Satire and Verisimilitude: Christianity in Lucian’s Peregrinus,” Historia 38
(1989) 89–98.
Efroymson, D., “Tertullian’s Anti-Jewish Rhetoric: Guilt by Association,” Union Seminary
Quarterly Review 36 (1980) 25–87.
——, Review of The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the
Early Middle Ages, Theological Studies 65 (2004) 641.
bibliography 239
Eliav, Y.Z., “Did the Jews First Abstain from Using the Roman Bath” [Hebrew], Cathedra
75 (1995) 5–35.
——, “The Roman Bath as a Jewish Institution: Another Look at the Encounter Between
Judaism and the Greco-Roman Culture,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 31(2000)
426–54.
——, “Idolatry in the Roman Bathhouse—Two Comments” [Hebrew], Cathedra 110 (2003)
173–80.
Elman, Y., “R. Zadok Hakohen on the History of Halakha,” Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox
Thought 21 (1985) 1–26.
——, “The History of Gentile Wisdom According to R. Zadok Hakohen of Lublin,” Journal
of Philosophy and Jewish Thought 3 (1993) 153–87.
——, “How Should a Talmudic Intellectual History Be Written?,” The Jewish Quarterly
Review 89 (1999) 371–82.
Evans, R., “On the Problem of Church and Empire in Tertullian’s Apologeticum,” Studia
Patristica 14, E. Livingstone ed., Papers Presented to the Sixth International Conference
on Patristic Studies, Part 3 (Oxford 1971–Berlin 1976) 21–36.
Encyclopedia Judaica.
Feldman, L., “Was Judaism a Missionary Religion in Ancient Times?,” Studies in Jewish Civi-
lization 2, Mor, M., ed. (Lanham, 1992) 24–37.
——, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (New Jersey, 1993).
Fine, S., Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology
(Cambridge, 2005).
Fishbane, S., Deviancy in Early Rabbinic Literature: a Collection of socio-anthropological
Essays (Leiden/Boston, 2007).
Francis, J., Subversive Virtue: Asceticism and Authority in the Second-Century Pagan World
(Pennsylvania, 1995).
Frankfurter, D., “Jews or Not? Reconstructing the “Other” in Rev. 2:9 and 3:9,” Harvard
Theological Review 94 (2001) 403–25.
Fredouille, J.-C., Tertullien et la conversion de la culture antique (Paris, 1972).
Fredriksen, P., Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New Haven/
London, 2010).
Frend, W.H.C., “The Seniores Laici and the Origins of the Church in North Africa,” Journal
of Theological Studies 12 (1961) 280–4.
——, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Mac-
cabees to Donatus, B. Blackwell, ed., (Oxford, 1965).
——, “A note on Tertullian and the Jews,” Studia Patristica 10 (1970) 291–6.
——, “Heresy and Schism as Social and National Movements,” Schism, Heresy and Reli-
gious Protest, D. Baker, ed. (Cambridge, 1972) 37–56.
——, “Claude Aziza, Tertullien et le judaïsme (1977),” Revista di Storia e Litteratura Religiosa
16 (1980) 148.
——, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia, 1984).
Friedheim, E., “The Roman Public Bath in Eretz Israel: Research Dilemmas Relating to its
Definition as a Sacred Institution,” Cathedra 119 (2006) 173–80.
——, Rabbinisme et paganisme en Palestine romaine. Etude historique des realia talmudiques
(Ier–IVème siècles) (Leiden/Boston, 2006).
——, “A New Look at the Historical Background of Mishna Aboda Zara I, 1,” Zion 71 (2006)
273–300.
Georgi, D., “The Early Church: Internal Migration or New Religion?,” Harvard Theological
Review 88 (1995) 35–68.
Goodblatt, D., The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity
(Tübingen, 1994).
——, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (Cambridge, 2006).
Goodman, M., Mission and Conversion (Oxford, 1994).
Grant, R., “Patristica,” Vigiliae Christianae 4 (1949) 225–9.
240 bibliography
——, “The Problem of Theophilus,” Harvard Theological Review 43 (1950) 179–96.

——, “Rectractio: The Problem of Theophilus,” Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952) 135.
——, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia, 1988).
——, Iranaeus of Lyons (London/New York, 1997).
Groh, D., “Tertullian's Polemic Against Social Co-optation,” Church History 40 (1971) 7–14.
Gruen, E.S., Diaspora, Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, 2002).
Gruenwald, I., “Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity,” pre-
sented to David Flusser on the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday, I., Gruenwald
et al., eds. (Tübingen 1992).
Guignebert, C., Tertullien: Etude sur ses sentiments à l’égard de l’Empire et de la société civile
(Paris, 1901).
Hadas-Lebel, M., “Le paganisme à travers les sources rabbiniques des IIe et IIIe siècles.
Contribution a l’étude du syncrétisme dans l’Empire romain,” Aufstieg und Niedergang
der römischen Welt II 19 (1979) 397–485.
Harnack, A. von, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den Ersten Drei Jahrhun-
derten (Leipzig, 1902).
Hayes, C., Between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds: Accounting for Halakhic Differ-
ence in Selected Sugyot from Tractate Avodah Zarah (New York, 1997).
——, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible
to the Talmud (Oxford, 2002).
——, “Theoretical Pluralism in the Talmud: A Response to Richard Hidary,” Dine Yisrael:
Studies in Halakhah and Jewish Law 25 (2010).
Hengel, M., War Jesus Revolutionär? (Stuttgart, 1970).
——, The Charismatic Leader and his Followers (Edinburgh, 1981).
Herford, R.T., Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (London, 1903).
Herr, M.D., “The Identity of the People of Israel during the Second Temple Times and after
Its destruction: Continuity or Change? Trends in the Study of Jewish History of the Late
Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Periods,” Cathedra 137 (2010) 27–62.
Hezser, C., “Palestinian Rabbis’ Encounter with Graeco-Roman Paganism: Rabban Gam-
liel in the Bathhouse of Aphrodite in Acco (M. A.Z. 3:4),” http://www.jnjr.div.ed.ac
.uk/Primary%20Sources/rabbinic/hezser_palestinianrabbis.html.
Hirschberg, H.Z., A History of the Jews in North Africa I (Leiden, 1974).
Horbury, W., “Tertullian on the Jews in the Light of De Spectaculis XXX 5–6,” Journal of
Theological Studies 23 (1972) 455–9.
——, Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh, 1998).
——, et al., eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period (Cambridge,
2000).
Irshai, O., “Ephraim E. Urbach and the Study of Judeo-Christian Dialogue in Late Antiq-
uity—Some Preliminary Observations,” How Should Rabbinic Literature Be Read in the
Modern World?, Krauss, M., ed. (New Jersey, 2006) 167–97.
Jones, S. and Pearce, S., eds., Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-
Roman Period (Sheffield, 1998).
Juster, J., Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain: leur condition juridique, économique et sociale
(Paris, 1914).
Kamesar, A., Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones
Hebraicae in Genesim (Oxford, 1993).
Katzoff, R., “Jonathan and Late Sparta,” American Journal of Philology 106 (1985) 485‑89.
——, “New Christians and Old Fellowships (Havurot) [I Corinthians 7:12–14],” Along
the Paths of Jewish History. Research and Reminiscences in Honor of Dr. Zvi Gastwirth),
Z. Ukashy, S. Rosmarin, I. Rozenson, eds. [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 2006) 143–153.
——, “The Laws of Rabbi Eliezer in Ancient Rome,” Essays in Jewish Studies in Honor of
Professor Shamma Friedman, ed. D. Golinkin et al. (Jerusalem, 2007) 344–57.
Kimelman, R., “Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish
Prayer in Late Antiquity,” Jewish and Christian Self-Definition II, E.P. Sanders et al., eds.
(London, 1981) 226–44.
bibliography 241
King, L.K., What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, 2003).

Koester H. et al., eds., Why Did Christianity Succeed? From Jesus to Christ http://www
.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/appeal.html.
Krauss, S., “The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers,” Jewish Quarterly Review 5
(1892–3) 122–57.
——, Griechische und lateinische Lehnworter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum (repr.
Hildesheim, 1964).
Labriolle, P. de, La crise montaniste (Paris, 1913).
——, “Christianus,” Bulletin du Cange, Archivum Latinitatis Mediiaevi 5 (1929–1930)
69–88.
——, Histoire de la littérature latine chrétienne I (Paris, 1947).
——, La réaction païenne, étude sur la polémique antichrétienne du Ier au 4ème siècle (Paris,
1948).
Lanfranchi, P., L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique (Leiden, 2006).
Lange, N. de, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century
Palestine (Cambridge, 1976).
Laupot, E., “Tacitus’ Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the Christiani and the
Nazoreans,” Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000) 233–47.
LeBohec, Y., “Inscriptions juives et judaïsantes de l’Afrique romaine,” Antiquités Africaines
17 (1981) 165–207.
——, “Juifs et Judaïsants dans l’Afrique romaine : remarques onomastiques,” Antiquités
Africaines 17 (1981) 209–29.
Lebreton, J., “Le désaccord de la foi populaire et de la théologie savante dans l’Eglise chré-
tienne du IIIe siècle,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 19 (1923) 481–506.
Le Coultre, J., “De l’étymologie du mot ‘chrétien’,” Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 40
(1907) 188–96.
Letocha, D., “L’affrontement entre le christianisme et le paganisme dans le Contre Celse
d’Origène,” Dialogue 19 (1980) 373–95.
Levine, L., The Ancient Synagogue (New Haven/London, 2005).
Lieberman, S., “Roman Legal Institutions in Early Rabbinics and in the Acta Martyrum,”
Jewish Quarterly Review 35 (1944) 1–57.
——, “Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries,” Jewish Quarterly Review 36 (1945)
329–70; 37 (1946) 31–54.
——, “Rejoinder,” Jewish Quarterly Review 37 (1946–7) 329–36.
——, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Man-
ners of Palestine in the Ist Century B.C.E.–IV Century C.E. (New York, 1962).
——, Yevanit veYavnut beEretz Israel [Hebrew], (Jerusalem, 1962).
——, Texts and Studies (New York, 1974).
Lieu, J., “‘The Parting of the Ways’: Theological Construct or Historical Reality?,” Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 56 (1994) 101–19.
——, “‘I Am a Christian’: Martyrdom and the Beginning of ‘Christian’ Identity,” Neither Jew
nor Greek? Constructing Christian Identity (Edinburgh, 2003).
——, et al. eds., The Jews Among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, (rev. ed.
London, 1994).
Liong-Seng Phua, R., Idolatry and Authority. A Study of Corinthians 8.1–11.1 in the Light of the
Jewish Diaspora (London/New York, 2005).
Loewe, R., “The Jewish Midrashim and Patristic and Scolastic Exegesis of the Bible,” Studia
Patristica 1 (1957) 492.
Macknight, S., A Light among the Nations: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple
Period (Minneapolis, 1991).
Marmorstein, A., “Les persécutions religieuses à l’époque de R. Yohanan b. Nappacha,”
Revue des Etudes Juives 76 (1923) 166.
——, “Judaism and Christianity in the Middle of the Third Century,” Hebrew Union College
Annual 10 (1935) 223–63.
242 bibliography
Massingberd Ford, J., “Saint Paul the Philogamist, 1 Cor. 7 in Early Patristic Exegesis,” New
Testament Studies 11 (1965) 326–48.
——, “Was Montanism a Jewish-Christian Heresy?,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 17
(1966) 145–58.
Mattingly, H., “The Origin of the Name Christiani,” Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1958)
26–37.
Mendelson, A., “Did Philo Say the Shemah? And Other Reflections on Sanders’ Judaism:
Practice and Belief,” The Studia Philonica Annual Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 6 (1994)
160–71.
Micaelli, C., “Tertulliano e il montanismo in Africa,” Africa cristiana: storia, religione, let-
teratura 20, Marin, M., and Moreschini, C., eds. (Brescia, 2002) 15–49.
Millar, F., “Review: Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict
from the Maccabees to Donatus by W.H.C. Frend,” Journal of Roman Studies 56 (1966)
231–236.
Mimouni, S.C., Les chrétiens d’origine juive dans l’Antiquité (Paris, 2004).
Momigliano, A., “Review of T.D. Barnes’ Tertullian,” Journal of Roman Studies 66 (1976)
273–6.
Monceaux, P., Les Africains (Paris, 1894).
——, Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne I (Paris, 1901).
Moore, G.F., “The Rise of Normative Judaism,” Harvard Theological Review 17 (1924)
307–373.
——, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim 1 (Cam-
bridge, 1927).
Neusner, J., Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge,
1987).
——, Judaism. The Evidence of the Mishnah (Brown Judaic Studies 129) (Atlanta, 1988).
——, The Talmud of Babylonia. An Academic Commentary XXV. Bavli Tractate Avodah
Zarah (Atlanta, 1994).
——, The Four Stages of Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1998).
Nicholls, W., Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate (Northvale, 1993).
Nock, A.D., Conversion (London, 1961).
Nolland, J., “Do Romans Observe Jewish Customs?,” Vigiliae Christianae 33 (1979) 1–11.
——, “Uncircumcised Proselytes?,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 12 (1981) 173–94.
Oppenheimer, A., Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 2007).
Osborn, E., Tertullian: First Theologian of the West (Cambridge, 1997).
Osten, E. von der, Rüpke, J., et al., Texte als Medium und Reflexion von Religion im römis-
chen Reich (Stuttgart, 2006).
Pagels, E., “Irenaeus, the ‘Canon of Truth’ and the Gospel of John: ‘Making a Difference’
Through Hermeneutics and Ritual,” Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2002) 339–71.
Parkes, J.W., The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Anti-
semitism (London, 1934).
Peterson, E., “Christianus,” Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati 1 (Città del Vaticano 1946)
355–72.
Petit, P., Histoire générale de l’Empire romain (Paris, 1974).
Petitmengin, P., “Tertullien et la religion romaine,” Revue des Etudes Latines 45 (1967)
47–9.
Piana, G. (la), “The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century,” Harvard Theological
Review 18 (1925) 201–277.
Poole, F.J.P., “Metaphors and Maps: Towards Comparison in the Anthropology of Religion,”
Journal of American Academy of Religion 54 (1986) 411–98.
Porton, G., Goyim: Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (Atlanta, 1988).
Potter, D.S., Prophets and Emperors. Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theo-
dosius (Cambridge, 1994).
Powell, D., “Tertullianists and Cataphrygians,” Vigiliae Christianae 29 (1975) 33–54.
bibliography 243
Quispel, G., “The Discussion on Judaic Christianity, Additional Note”, Vigiliae Christianae
22 (1968) 81–93.
——, “African Christianity Before Minucius Felix and Tertullian”—Actus: Studies in honour
of H.L.W. Nelson, J. den Boeft and A.H.M. Kessels, eds. (Utrecht, 1982) 257–335.
Rajak, T., “The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian; Prolegomena to the
Study of the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 132–135); Tertullien et le judaïsme,” Journal of
Roman Studies 69 (1979) 192–4.
Rambaux, C., L’accès à la vérité chez Tertullien (Bruxelles, 2005).
Rankin, D., Tertullian and the Church (Cambridge, 1995).
Regev, E., Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Berlin/New York, 2007).
Reimer, A., Miracle and Magic: A Study in the Acts of the Apostles and the Life of Apollonius
of Tyana (London, 2002).
Renan, E., Œuvres complètes de Ernest Renan (Paris, 1949).
——, Histoire des origines du christianisme (vol. 7) Marc Aurèle et la fin du monde antique
(Paris, 1882).
——, Marc Aurèle ou la fin du monde antique, digitized version http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Vi
sualiseur?Destination=Gallica&O=NUMM-89448 (Paris, 1997).
Richardson, P., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity (Waterloo, 1986).
Rives, J.B., Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage from Augustus to Constantine (Oxford,
1995).
Robert, L., A travers l’Asie Mineure: poètes et prosateurs, monnaie grecque, voyageurs et
géographie (Athènes/Paris, 1980) 393–421.
Rokeah, D., Jews, Pagans, and Christians in Conflict (Jerusalem, 1982).
——, “Ancient Jewish Proselytism in Theory and in Practice,” Theologische Zeitschrift 52
(1996) 206–24.
Romilly, J. de, Précis de littérature grecque (Paris, 1980).
Rosenblum, J.D., Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge/New York,
2010).
Rougier, L., Celse et le Discours vrai (Paris, 1965).
Rowley, H.H., “The Herodians in the Gospels,” Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1940)
14–27.
Rutgers, L.V., The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism: Essays on Jewish Cultural Identity in
the Roman World (Kampen, 1997).
——, Making Myths: Jews in Early Christian Identity Formation (Leuven, 2009).
Ruether, R.R., “Judaism and Christianity: Two Fourth-Century Religions,” Sciences
Religieuses/Studies in Religion 2 (1972) 1–10.
Sachot, M., “Comment le christianisme est-il devenu religio?,” Revue des Sciences Religieuses
59 (1985) 95–118.
Sanders, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Phila-
delphia, 1977).
——, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London, 1993).
Sandmel, S., The First Christian Century in Judaism and Christianity: Certainties and Uncer-
tainties (New York, 1969).
Schiffman, L.H., Who Was a Jew?: Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish Christian
Schism (Hoboken, 1985).
Schöllgen, G., “Der Adressatenkreis der grieschischen Schauspielschrift Tertullians,”
Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 25 (1982) 22–7.
——, “Die Teilnahme der Christen am städtischen Leben,” Römische Quartalschrift für
christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 77 (1982) 1–29.
Schremer, A., “‘The Lord Has Forsaken the Land’: Radical Explanations of the Military and
Political Defeat of the Jews in Tannaitic Literature,” Journal of Jewish Studies 59 (2008)
183–200.
Schürer, E., A History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) (Edin-
burgh, 1973–1987) ed. revised by G., Vermes and F., Millar.
244 bibliography
Schwartz, S., Imperialism and Jewish Society 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton, 2001).
Scott, J.M., Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (Leiden, 1997).
Segal, A.F., Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism
(Leiden, 1977).
——, Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge, 1986).
——, The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity (Brown Judaic Studies 127) (Atlanta, 1987).
Setzer, C., “Jews, Jewish Christians, and Judaizers in North Africa,” Putting Body and
Soul Together: Essays in Honor of Robin Scroggs, Wiles et al., eds. (Valley Forge, 1997)
185–200.
Simon, M., “Le judaisme berbère dans l’Afrique Ancienne,” Revue d’Histoire et de Philoso-
phie Religieuse (1946) 1–145.
——, Recherches d’histoire judéo-chrétienne (Paris, 1962).
——, Verus Israël, étude sur les relations entre chrétiens et Juifs dans l’Empire romain
(135–425) (Paris, 1964).
——, Benoit, A., Le judaïsme et le christianisme antique (Paris, 1968).
——, “La migration à Pella: légende ou réalité?” Recherches de Science Religieuse 60 (1972)
37–54.
Smallwood, E.M., The Jews Under Roman Rule: from Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden, 1976).
Smith, J., Imagining Religion (Chicago, 1982).
Smith, M., “Goodenough’s ‘Jewish Symbols’ in Retrospect,” Journal of Biblical Literature 86
(1967) 63.
Sonne, I., “The Use of Rabbinic Literature as Historical Sources,” Jewish Quarterly Review
36 (1945–6) 147–69.
Sorkin, D., ‘The Port Jews: Notes Toward a Social Type,’ Journal of Jewish Studies 50 (1999)
87–97.
Spanneut, M., Le stoïcisme des pères de l’Eglise, de Clément de Rome à Clément d’Alexandrie
(Paris, 1969).
——, Tertullien et les premiers moralistes africains (Paris, 1969).
Spence, S., The Parting of the Ways: the Roman Church as a Study (Dudley, 2004).
Sperber, D., Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature (Jerusalem,
1984).
Spicq, C., “Ce que signifie le titre de chrétien,” Studia Theologica 15 (1961) 68–78.
Stanton, G.N., and Stroumsa, G.G., eds., Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and
Christianity (Cambridge, 1998).
Stark, R., Bainbridge, W., “Networks of Faith: Interpersonal Bonds and Recruitment to
Cults and Sects,” American Journal of Sociology 85 (1980) 1376–95.
Steinfeld, A., Am Levadad, see in Hebrew below ‫שטיינפלד‬
Stern, K., Inscribing Devotion and Death. Archaeological Evidence for Jewish Populations of
North Africa (Leiden, 2008).
Stern, M., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem, 1974).
Stevenson, J., A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church to A.D.
337 (London, 1957).
Strack, H.L. and Stemberger, G., Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh, 1991).
Strack H.L. and Billerbeck P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch
(Munchen, 1922–1928).
Stroumsa, G., “From Anti-Judaism to Antisemitism in Early Christianity?,” Contra Iudaeos:
Ancient and Medieval Polemics Between Christians and Jews, O., Limor, G. Stroumsa eds.
Texts and studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 10 (Tübingen, 1996) 1–26.
Syme, R., Historia Augusta Papers (Oxford, 1983).
Tabbernee, W., Fake Prophecy and Polluted Sacraments (Leiden, 2007).
Telfer, W., “The Origins of Christianity in Africa,” Studia Patristica 4 (1961) 512–7.
Teppler, Y.Y., Birkat haMinim (Tübingen, 2007).
Tondriau, J., “L’avis de Lucien sur la divinisation des hommes,” Museum Helveticum 5
(1948) 124–32.
bibliography 245
Trevett, C., Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy (Cambridge, 1996).
Turcan, M., Tertullien, Les Spectacles (Paris, 1986).
Urbach, E.E., “The Laws of Idolatry in the Light of Historical and Archeological Facts in the
3rd Century,” Eretz Israel, Archeological Historical and Geographical studies 5 (Jerusalem,
1958) 189–205.
——, “The Rabbinic Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light
of Archaeological and Historical Facts,” Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959) 149–65/
229–45.
——, Collected Writings in Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1999).
Vana, L., “Les relations sociales entre Juifs et Païens à l’époque de la Mishna: la question
du Banquet privé,” Revues des Sciences Religieuses 71 (1997) 147–70.
Waszink, J.H., van Winden, J.C.M., “A Particular Kind of Idolatry: An Exegesis of Tertullian,
De Idololatria Ch. 23,” Vigiliae Christianae 36 (1982/3) 15–23.
Weinrich, W.C., “Aziza’s Tertullien et le judaïsme,” Jewish Quarterly Review 71 (1980)
118–20.
——, “Review of Rick Rogers, Theophilus of Antioch, the Life and Thought of a Second Cen-
tury Bishop,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001) 601–3.
Wilhite, D., Tertullian the African (Berlin, 2007).
Wilken, R., The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven, 1984).
Will, E., Orrieux, C., Ioudaïsmos-Hellénismos (Nancy, 1986).
——, Prosélytisme juif? Histoire d’une erreur (Paris, 1992).
Yadin, A., “Raban Gamliel, Aphrodite’s Bath, and the Question of Pagan Monotheism,”
Jewish Quarterly Review 96 (2006) 149–179.
Yuval, I., “The Haggadah of Passover and Easter,” Tarbiz—A Quarterly for Jewish Studies 65
(1996) 5–28 (Hebrew).
——, Two Nations in your Womb. Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and
the Middle Ages (Berkeley, 2006)
‫ “הלכות ע"ז והמציאות ההסטורית והארכיאולוגית במאה השנייה‬,'‫ א‬,‫אורבך‬
205–189 )‫ (תשי"ט‬5 ‫ ארץ ישראל‬,”‫ובמאה השלישית‬
.)‫ תשי"ט‬,‫אביב‬-‫ מבוא למשנה (תל‬,'‫ ח‬,‫אלבק‬
.)‫ תשי"ז‬,‫אביב‬-‫תל‬-‫ מבואות לספרות התנאים (ירושלים‬,‫ י"נ‬,‫אפשטיין‬
.)‫ תשכ"ד‬,‫אביב‬-‫תל‬-‫ מבוא לנוסח המשנה (ירושלים‬,‫ י"נ‬,‫אפשטיין‬
,‫ מחקרים במסכת עבודה זרה פרק א וביחס חז”ל ליצירת צורות‬,.'‫ י‬,‫בלידשטין‬
ANN ARBOR: UNIV. MICROFILMS, 1968
231–254 )‫” תרביץ לח (תשכ"ט‬,‫“וכולהו אליבא דרבי עקיבא‬,.‫ א‬,‫גולדברג‬
.)‫ תש"א‬,‫יורק‬-‫ פרושים וחידושים בירושלמי (ניו‬,.‫ ל‬,‫גינצבורג‬
‫ספר דברי הימים לבני ישראל‬: ‫ דורות הראשונים‬,.'‫ א‬.'‫ ב‬.'‫ א‬.'‫ י‬,‫הלוי‬
.)‫תשכ"ז‬ ,]‫[חש"מ‬ ,‫(ירושלים‬
.)‫ תש"ס‬,‫אביב‬-‫יהודים ונוצרים—דימויים הדדיים (תל‬: ‫ שני גויים בבטנך‬,.'‫ י‬.'‫ י‬,‫יובל‬
.(1962 ,‫ יוונית ויוונות בארץ ישראל (ירושלים‬,.‫ ש‬,‫ליברמן‬
.)‫ תש"ג‬,‫ פרקי מבוא לספרות התלמוד (ירושלים‬,‫ ע"צ‬,‫מלמד‬
)2006( ‫ ציון עא‬,"'‫הסטורי מחודש במשנה ראשונה דפרק 'לפני אידיהן‬-‫ "עיון ראלי‬,.‫ ע‬,‫פרידהיים‬
.300–273
.)‫ תשכ"ז‬,‫ מבוא לירושלמי (ירושלים‬,.'‫ ז‬,‫פרנקל‬
‫ מחקרים במדעי היהדות לכבוד‬,‫” תורה לשמה‬,‫“הלכות רבי אליעזר ברומא העתיקה‬,.‫ ר‬,‫קצוף‬
.344–357 '‫ תשסח) עמ‬,‫ (ירושלים‬,‫פרופסור שמא יהודה פרידמן‬
‫ארץ‬ :‫” מרכז ותפוצה‬,‫“יהודי מצריים בין מקדש חוניו למקדש ירושלים ולשמיים‬,.‫ ד‬,‫שוורץ‬
,‫ גפני (ירושלים‬.‫ עורך י‬,‫ המשנה והתלמוד‬,‫ישראל והתפוצות בימי בית שני‬
37–55 )‫תשס"ד‬
.(2008 ,‫ עם לבדד; מחקרים במסכת עבודה זרה (רמת גן‬,.‫ א‬,‫שטיינפלד‬
Index of Sources
Hebrew Bible
Genesis Deuteronomy
9.27 105n5 4.15–18, 5.8, 7.26, 27.15 159n150
Exodus Psalms
20.4 73n42, 159n150 1.1 137
23.13 142 69.12 139n87
32 65n8 96.5 73n42, 81
34.15 122n24, 132n57, 226
34.17 159n150 Isaiah
35 66 1.21 132n57
44 177n198
Leviticus
18.3 141 Jeremiah
20.23 141 3.3 132n57
19.4 159n150
26.1 159n150 Jonah 176
Numbers Zephaniah
25 131 1.8 233
New Testament
Matthew Romans
23 18, 211 12.15 128
John
16.20 97, 128
Greek and Latin Authors
Cicero Maximus
De Officiis Dissertationes 65
3.29 148
Philostratus
Dion Chrysostom Life of Apollonius of Tyana 65n11,
Oratio 66n18, 70n30
12.59 65n11
31.15 65 Seneca
De Beneficiis
Julian 4 95n27
Epistola De Ira
36, 423b 143n102 2 95, 100
De Superstitione 95
De Vita Beata
23 93
248 index of sources
Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 58 93n20

1 99, 100n34 64 89n2, 90n3, 94
2 93n22 95 101
7 98, 100 110 94
9 94 115 95n27
18 94
33 93n22 Plato
41 95n27 Timaeus 70
45 93n22
Hellenistic Jewish Literature
Josephus Flavius De Bello Iudaico

Antiquitates Judaicae 2.8 85n96
2.14 42
20.49–53 18 Philo
In Flaccum
38 139n87
Christian Literature
Athenagoras Cyprian
Legatio pro Christianis On the Public Shows
17 80 5 82
24–25 72
Epistle of Barnabas
Clement of Alexandria 12 78
Paedagogus 3, 5 78n60
1.6 82 7 78n61
2.1 81n78, 82n85, 87
2.7 80, 82n85, 87 Epistle to Diognetus
2.8 73, 81n78, 82n85 2 68
2.11 80n73 4 82n80
2.13 80 5 75, 76n51;n52
3.4 82n85 6 76
3.5 80n73, 82n85
3.9 80n73 Eusebius
3.11 80n73, 138n82 Praeparatio Evangelica 62n1, 63, 70
Protrepticus Historia Ecclesiastica 199n13;n15

3 81n78
4 73 Hermas
Commandment
Stromata 4.1 82n88
2.15 138n82
3.18 82n86 Hippolytus
4.8 87 Refutation of All Heresies
5.5 82n86 7.24 82n85, 87
7.5 73 9 85n96
7.7 13n10
7.12 80 Irenaeus
9 81n77 Against Heresies
1 70, 82n86,
Codex Theodosianus 209 86n98
index of sources 249
3 81n78, 82n86, Adversus Judaeos

83n92;n93 3 13n10
4 82n85, 82n86, 13 13n10
83n90;91, 86, 14 78n61
156
5 81 Adversus Marcionem
I 63
Justin II 41n17
Apology III 78n61
1 69, 78–9, 81, 83 IV 40n3, 81n82,
199n18
Dialogue with Trypho 78, 81, 82n87, V 51n8, 100n34
83n90;n91;n93,
127n37 Adversus Praxean 202n30, 56n42
On the Resurrection 69, 81n78 Apologeticum

1.8 52n13
Lactantius 12 66n17, 68, 177
Diuinae Institutiones 16 40, 66n15, 68n23,
4.24 101 201n27
19 42, 85, 201n27
Marcianus Aristides 21 199, 201n27
Apology 82, 83n92, 87 22–23 81n78
25.1 214
Martyrdom of Polycarp 32 186n234
12 77 35.4 78n65
37.5–6; 38 187n238
Minucius Felix 42 76n50, 134, 154,
Octavius 187n238
23 66n17 46 63, 73n44,
38 81n78, 199 153n136
Origen De Anima
Contra Celsum 81n78, 87n99 1.6 55n29
3 43n24, 70n28,
Polycarp 202n29
Epistle to the Philippians 77 20 92
35.2 185n231
Tatian 39 187n239
Address to the Greeks 40 70 49 100n34
Tertullian De Baptismo
Ad Nationes 13n10, 51n8, 4 81n82
52n13, 17.2 54n26
66, 68n23,
201n27, De Corona Militis
202n29 3 135n67
4 204n38
Ad Scapulam 5.2 8 6 96
7 81n78, 146
Adversus Hermogenem 81n82, 202n29
De Cultu Feminarum
1.6.2–3 167n173
De Idolatria De Paenitentia 81n83, 94n25,

1 77, 81, 82n88, 135n67
97n30, 130–1,
132n56, 133n58 De Pallio 9, 140, 202n29
2 101n158, 181n212
3 63n4, 65n8, 80n71, De Praescriptione Haereticorum
159, 160–2, 166, 7.3 202n29
167n175, 196 15.3 83, 200n23
4 68, 159, 166n170, 17 83, 200n23
215n72 18 83, 200n23
5 159, 166, 167n175 33 81n83
6 81n78, 97, 148n122, 36 9n10
159, 185n229
7 79n66, 133n61, 159, De Pudicitia
196n3, 214 5 82, 131n49
8 68, 80, 121, 21 54n26
135n67;n70, 157,
159 De Resurrectione Carnis
9 102 11 55n30
10 81n77, 86, 97n31,
142n96, De Spectaculis
144n105;n108, 146, 2 97n32, 99, 130n49
147n120 3 81n82, 95–6, 137
11 65n8, 77n56, 7 97n30
80n71, 152, 153n135, 8 135n67, 138n83
159 9 135n67
12 155, 159, 181n216 12 97n31, 103
13 69n24, 76n50, 13 66n17, 98n32,
96–7, 120, 128, 136, 128n38, 136
140, 151, 172n185 14 97n31
14 76, 82n88, 83, 98, 15 98–9, 139n86,
120, 123, 127, 140, 185n231
152n133, 181n214, 17.1 79n67, 138n84
185, 187–8, 196n3, 18 138n85
215n72 19 95, 100, 102
15 66n17, 80, 102, 121, 20 81n82
135n67, 136, 21.2 79n67
158n149, 163n165, 28 97, 128n38
177, 181n212, 230,
232 De Virginibus 135n67, 140,
16 85n97, 123, 124n29, Velandis 204n38
140, 158
17 147n118 Scorpiace 10.10 201n27
18 97n31
19 147n118 Theophilus
20 142, 150n129, 231 Ad Autolycum
21 149n126;n127 1 71n31, 81n79,
22 149–50 82n87
23 148n121;n122;n123 2 71n31;n32
24 84, 161n160, 3 71n32, 79n69,
181n216 82n87
De Ieiunio
16.6 51n8
index of sources 251
Mishnaic and Talmudic Literature
Babylonian Talmud Pesahim

Avodah Zarah 25a–b 131n50
2a 221 112a 201n25
2b–3a 84
4a 33, 170, 172, 198 Qiddushin
6a 221 82a 146
6b 9, 121, 145
8a 29, 172, 183, 222 Rosh Hashanna
8b 124n28, 223 19a 105n6
10a 224
10b–11a 129 Sanhedrin
11b 117n4 19b 168n176, 200
12b 121n21 63b 143
13a 121n21 74a 131n50
7a–b 169, 133 81b–82a 131
18a 133 91a 42
18b 137n81,138n85, 139
19b 135n70;n72 Shabbat
20a 122n24 47a 230
27b 131n50 119b 149n128
31b 131n50 145b 140
32b 176, 184
33a 176 Sotah
35b 122n24 49b 144n104
41a 169n181
42b 166n172 Yevamot
44b 179n205 47a 210
47a 230
48b 136 Yomah
52a 178n201 69b 168
55a 169 82a 131n50
59a 136
Jerusalem Talmud
Bava Batra Avodah Zarah
8a 18 39a 119
100b–102b 16 39b 154
39c 119n10, 124n28,
Chabbat 172n187, 221–4
145b 140 40a 137, 138n85,
139n86
Hullin 42c 166n172
5b 168n176, 200n19 43a 163
13b 169, 172, 183
Shabbat
Ketuboth 14d 230
4a 124
19a 131n50 Mishnah
Avodah Zarah
Megillah i 177n1;n3, 118,
9a 144n104 121n21, 122, 124n28,
9b 105 135, 137, 150, 151n131,
13a 168n176 152–3, 160, 162–4,
13b 200 178, 221–2, 228
ii 59n56, 122n24, 129, Shabbat vi, 6 204n38

132–3, 164
iii 71n32, 106, 135n73, Taanit ii, 1 51n8
158, 162–4, 166,
178, 183n218, 185 Tosefta
iv 135, 160, 170, Avodah Zarah
177n200, 178–9, i 119n8, 124n28, 125,
184, 189n245 144n104, 151n131,
v 59n56, 129, 164 153, 183n217, 221
ii 137, 138n85,
Makkot 113 139n86, 163n166
iii 133, 145
Bikurim iii, 2–3 122n21 iv 129, 227
v 177
Qiddushin iv, 12–13 146 vi 136, 142–3, 176n194
ix 208n54
Sanhedrin 69, 113, 161, 181n216
vii, 6 147n120, 149n128, Shabbat
161 xv, 17 131n50
xviii, 1 185n229
Rabbinic and Jewish Literature
Deuteronomy Rabbah ki tissa 34

7.7 117, 222
Numbers Rabbah 13.20 233
Eliyahu Zutah 8 169n177
Qohelet Rabbah 13n10,
Genesis Rabbah parasha 11 105n6,
parasha alef 233 140n87
11.4 129n49
36.1 23n9 Rambam
80 139n87 Mishneh Torah, Sefer Kedushah, Hilkhot
82 141 Maakhalot Assurot 17 226
Lamentations Rabbah Ruth Rabbah 2.22 138n84

introduction 17 139n87
Sifra
Lekakh Tov Leviticus 139n87
parashat Tavo, Dvarim
26.5 234 Sifre
Shemot leBamidbar 132n54,
6.6 233 176n194,
179n205
Leviticus Rabbah on Deuteronomy 140nn88
32.5 233 pisqa 343
Mekhilta Song of the Songs Rabbah

Jethro, bahodesh 6 160n157, 167n175 4.24 233
beshalakh parasha 6 200 7.13 169n177
Kaspa 4 151n130
Mishpatim 20 143n101 Torah Shelemah Shemoth 239 233
Midrash Tanhumah, 30 Yalkut Shimoni 233–4

General Index
Abbahu 198 Barnabas 77, 78, 83

Abravanel 233, 234 Bar Yohai 200, 201
Adam 84, 84n95, 222 Bath 59, 71n32, 76n50, 80, 96, 134–6, 178,
Adaptation 22, 27, 29–30, 36, 50–1, 53, 55, 185–6, 204n38, 228–30
61, 80, 83–4, 89, 92, 95, 102, 103–5, 108–9, Beasts 133, 137
114, 117, 124, 154n141, 155, 164, 147, 176, Belief/believers 7, 8, 14, 28, 30–5, 49, 52,
180–1, 190, 201–3 56, 60, 62–4, 67, 77, 81, 85, 89n2, 96,
Africa 7–9, 17, 52, 68, 71, 91, 107, 215 100n34, 108, 114, 121, 127, 140, 147–8, 154,
African Church 8, 9, 40, 52, 53, 57, 60, 169, 174, 181–2, 187, 206n46
107, 150n129, 156n145, 197–199 Bible 27, 30, 35, 37, 38, 71, 132n57, 159,
African-ity 9n12 198, 204, 233
African Jews 8, 11n4, 15, 18–20, 59, 155 Biblical 30, 38, 44–5, 52, 65n8, 66n16, 73,
African liturgy 8 76, 78, 82n87, 105, 108, 113, 131, 139n87,
and Montanism 56–59 140, 142–3, 153, 159, 167, 176, 177n198,
Albinus 7 181–2, 184–5, 191, 193, 196, 198–9, 204n37,
Amphitheatre 136, 138, 228 205n42, 207, 215, 222
Theatre 96, 97, 138n84, 139n87 Bishop 56, 198
Animals 62, 66, 86, 133, 137, 159n150, 179 Bityah 168n176
Antioch 70, 71, 209 Body 76, 97n32, 107, 128n38
Apollonius of Tyana 65n11, 70 Bread 132, 137n79, 158, 162, 164, 226
Appropriate/appropriation 30, 43, 95, Brothel 133, 169
102, 211 Burial 15, 19
Apuleius 7, 96
Aqiva 18, 170, 200, 201 Calendar 12, 58, 59
Aristophanes 91 Calends 117–8, 120–1, 145, 222–3
Aristotle 104 Carthage 2, 3, 7–11, 15–20, 37, 40–1, 43–4,
Army 76, 117, 147, 222 46, 50, 52, 56, 59, 85, 107, 120, 162n162,
Ashera 144, 183n218 165, 188, 195n1, 197–200, 203–6, 211–6
Asia 8, 57, 59, 77 Cemetery see: Gammarth
Asianism 92, 93 Church 9, 23, 27–9, 42, 49–51, 54–60,
Assimilation 12, 28, 122, 128, 129n40, 169, 67, 79, 82, 103, 126–7, 162, 165, 195–8,
216, 226 200n23, 202, 204–5, 209–10, 212, 217–8
Astrology 7, 162 of Africa, of Carthage 8, 9, 40, 52, 60,
Ataraxia 99 107, 197
Athenagoras 72, 73, 80 Church Fathers 42, 58, 61, 63–4, 66, 71,
Augustine 101, 150n129, 204n37 78, 81–2, 86–91, 106, 134, 143, 165, 196,
Authority 7, 31–32, 83 199, 204, 209
of the patriarch 13, 212 Christ 7–9, 83–4, 149, 185, 214
of the rabbis 13, 19, 174 antichrist 81
of the Romans 147, 184 Cicero 74, 91–2, 94n25, 95, 148
Circus 96–7, 100, 138, 139n87, 140
Baal Hamon 8 Civil 62, 76, 79, 126, 150n129, 184n226
Babatha 150n129 Classical 53, 91–2, 96, 102, 143, 145–6, 178,
Bacchanals 132n57 173, 195
Banquet 86, 119, 122, 124, 125, 129 Clement of Alexandria 13n10, 42, 73,
Baraita 40, 84 80–2, 86–7, 138n82
Barbarian 70, 71 Closed (in on itself) 36, 105, 107, 146–7,
Bar Kokhba 22 156, 162n162, 186, 187n237, 188
254 general index
Clothing (see also garment) 76, 80, 131n52, 137, 144n104, 148, 160, 162, 166–7,
105n6, 140–2, 156, 188, 233–4 179–80, 189, 192, 197, 200, 205, 206n46
Cock 153 Dominion 25, 37, 105n6, 117, 150n128,
Commandments 83, 83n92, 84,166 187n234, 215
Commentators 123n25, 131, 141, 154, Doors 78, 108, 121, 163, 175, 181
168n176, 179, 206, 221–3, 226, 228, 233–4 Entrances 80, 121, 136n74, 163n165,
Commercial 17, 50, 134, 142, 152, 154–5, 230–1
158–9, 165, 191–3 Drunkenness 80, 86, 131–2, 139
Common Judaism 13
Community 8–10, 12–19, 25–6, 31–2, 34–6, Edrei (and Mendels) 16–18, 198n8
40, 44–5, 50–2, 55–6, 58, 105–119, 127–9, Educationv3, 28, 58, 81, 91–2, 101–4, 145–7,
146, 149, 156, 162n162, 181n214, 188–9, 176, 195
191–200, 206–7, 210–4, 217 Egypt 11n2, 65, 70, 73, 104n2, 108, 141,
Consecrated see: sacred 233–4
Contacts 1–2, 9, 15, 19, 20, 26, 28–9, 35, Eliezer 160, 184
38, 41–2, 45, 57–9, 70, 79, 85, 100, 104–9, Elite 33, 35, 90, 100, 173, 174n190, 200
118–9, 122, 124, 126, 145–7, 152, 156, 172–3, Emperor 7, 72, 78, 118, 121n20, 122n25,
181, 187, 192–3, 195–9, 203–14, 226 129, 143, 150n129, 158n149, 186, 214–5, 224
Conversion/converts 8, 18, 24, 26–7, Enemy 63, 129n40, 186n234, 189, 215
37–8, 50–1, 153–4, 61, 68, 70, 73, 79, 83, Entrance see: doors
86, 90–1, 94, 96, 155–6, 163, 173, 182, Ethic 40, 61, 89n1
186–7, 192, 196, 201, 205–213, 234 Ethnic (= 1. people in Latin 2. adjective)
Council 58, 209 7, 27, 49–52, 95, 98n33, 156n145, 187, 199,
Critias 176n 195 215n70
Critics of religion 63 Euhemerus 63, 68–9, 73–4, 102–3
Cult/cults 7, 27, 49, 64n6, 67–9, 102,
120, 128n39–40, 132n57, 140–1, 147, 161, Faith 2, 12, 18, 22, 26, 31n41, 34n51, 46, 51,
164n168, 166n171, 172–3, 175–6, 181, 183–4, 53, 57–8, 71, 78–9, 85–6, 91, 93, 97, 105,
185n229, 225 108, 114, 126–7, 134, 139, 142, 147, 149–50,
Oriental cult 7, 8, 27, 50, 61, 89, 95 154–6, 172, 174–7, 181–2, 186, 191–4, 201–2,
Culture 3, 12, 15, 17, 19–20, 26, 28–30, 206, 211–2, 214, 233
36–7, 40, 45, 50–3, 70–1, 90–4, 103–8, Faucets 71n32, 136n74, 189, 231
135n73, 140n87, 145–6, 184, 190, 194, Festivals 12, 13n10, 30, 65n8, 78, 96, 144–5,
200–1, 205n42, 215, 217 150–2, 154, 172, 165, 183n217, 221–4
Cyprian 55, 67, 74–5, 82–3 Public 117–20, 123, 127–8, 192, 224
Private 122–24n28, 127, 192, 224
Daemons 81, 128n38, 157 Figurative 106, 135–6, 160, 230
Danger 67–8, 75, 99, 123–4, 132–3, 137, Food 59, 76, 87, 127, 129, 139n87, 147, 154,
139–42, 145–6, 148, 162n162, 169, 176, 190, 164–5, 184, 188, 227, 234
192–3, 200, 205, 228 Forbidden 11, 13n10, 74, 79, 85–6, 106,
Devils 62, 64, 97, 98n33, 128n38, 167n173 118–9, 121–2, 124, 127, 129, 131, 133, 135–8,
Definition 24–5, 34–6, 75, 81, 94, 106, 141–54, 160–6, 175–86, 190, 192–3, 224,
179–80, 183, 190, 203n34 226, 231–2
Denar 120, 145 Fornication 80–2, 86–7, 130, 134
Diaspora 11–4, 17–8, 28, 31n41, 33, 36, 108, Fountain 71n32, 136, 230–1
119, 124n28, 144n104, 163n166, 174, 204, Functions 79n66, 123, 125–6, 144, 147, 162,
211–2 180, 186, 188, 224
Dietary laws/kosher 12, 128, 129, 164, 188,
199, 227 Gamaliel 135n73, 144n104, 147, 178–9, 185,
Dio Chrysostom 65 228
Dionysius of Halicarnassus 66 Gammarth (cemetery) 16–7, 18n34, 19,
Dionysus 164n168 50, 200
Discussion 18, 23, 25, 40–2, 45, 62, 66, Garment (see also: clothing) 140–2, 156,
74, 78, 80, 90, 96, 101, 114–5, 120, 126–7, 162, 233–4
general index 255
God 27–8, 30, 33, 38, 41, 63, 65, 68–9, Incense (frankincense) 153, 161
72–3, 76–7, 81–6, 97–8, 100, 105, 107, 120, Inn 76n50, 133–4
123, 128n38, 131, 138n83, 139–40, 152n133, Inscriptions 15n19
155, 158, 161, 171, 184n226, 208, 216, 225 Interpretation 23, 30, 33, 37, 52, 55, 62–3,
Gods 7, 9n12, 62–6, 68–9, 72–3, 77, 65, 78, 83, 92, 121, 136, 138, 143n98, 148,
80–2, 91n13, 95, 102, 119n11, 120–1, 155n144, 163, 172n187, 179–80, 185, 189–91,
142–3, 147n120, 148–52, 158n149, 159, 193, 200, 201n26, 202, 215, 224, 227–8
161, 167, 177, 179, 208 Irenaeus 42, 69, 72, 81, 83, 86, 156
Greek 9n12, 16–8, 63n3, 67, 70–1, 83n92, Israel 12, 16, 24, 16–7, 30, 36, 38, 49, 80,
96, 104–5, 107, 142, 144n104, 147, 223, 228, 84, 113, 125, 131, 137n82, 150n128, 163,
230–1 167–8, 171–2, 204n38, 205, 216, 233–4
Groups (see also: sect) 7–10, 14, 19, 22,
24–6, 30–35, 37, 39, 40n3, 49–51, 70, 108–9, Jerusalem 11–3, 22, 58
126, 132, 137n82, 155, 199, 204, 209, 212–4 Jonathan 133
Guide (= handbook, guidance, guidelines) Judah (haNasi/Nesiah) 119n11, 120, 145,
(see also leader) 34, 68, 72, 75, 87, 89, 129n45, 145, 157n146, 170
93, 95, 113, 123, 182, 187, 192 Judaizing 51, 209, 212
Julian 143, 214n66
Hair 118, 122, 132, 162, 187, 225 Justin 69–70, 18–9, 81–4, 127
Halakhah 24–5, 36, 40, 157, 174, 180n208,
184n224 Kosher: see dietary laws
Hanina 133, 150n128, 169 Kratesis 117–8, 223
Harbour (see also port) 197, 212
Hatred 32, 101, 107, 119n11, 186n234, 201, Laberius 91
203, 214 Language 15, 41, 45, 53, 76, 90, 96, 103,
Hebraism 41, 52, 113n2, 215, 221 142n93, 144n104, 188, 198, 202, 230, 233–4
Hebrew 15, 18, 27, 38, 41, 42n17, 82n87, Latin 9, 15, 17, 41, 74, 96, 103, 116, 198, 224,
198, 204n38, 206n46, 224 230–2
Hellenization 24, 59, 67n19, 70–1, 79, Law 9n12, 30, 75, 82, 84–5, 96–8, 142,
128n40, 140n87, 198, 208, 215 165–6, 186, 209, 225, 231–2
Heresy 22, 49–57, 202, 217 Jewish law (see also mitzvoth and oral
Heretic 9, 24–5, 33–4, 49, 54–5, 83, 93, law) 11–2, 13n11, 18–9, 24–5, 108, 113,
199–201, 206, 215 117–9, 128, 129n40, 131n50, 147, 152–4,
Homer 79, 144n102, 147n115 162–5, 169n181, 174–8, 181–4, 188–92,
Honours 147, 186, 188 199–200, 205n42, 211, 226–8
Hope 33, 61, 155, 172n185, 188 Noahide law 84, 208
Horace 91, 211 Leader 2, 10, 22, 24, 32–6, 93, 147, 167, 172,
Hostile/hostility 45, 52, 54, 119, 203n33, 174, 189, 196, 210, 217
209, 217 Lenient/leniency 85, 123, 129, 148, 152,
House 121, 132n54, 156, 159n150, 160, 160, 161n157, 166, 178–80, 189, 191, 193
163–4, 177, 228 Lenient members (see also weak) 95, 192
Libation 131, 152, 160n151, 161, 164, 226
Identity 7, 12, 21, 25, 27–8, 35–6, 49, 53, Lighten
67, 120n16, 142, 147, 169, 182, 184n224, Laws 85, 130, 164n167, 166, 188, 190–1
190n249, 191, 202, 213, 221 Burden of life 89
Ideology 9, 23, 126, 130 Literature 9n12, 19, 20n36, 23–4, 26,
Ides 221 27n25, 29, 40–2, 70, 74, 81, 91, 96, 103–4,
Idol/s 37, 43, 61–75, 79–82, 85–7, 89, 97, 107, 114, 141, 143, 145, 150n129, 173, 175–6,
107, 121, 123, 129, 135–6, 142–5, 147–53, 186n234, 198, 200, 201n26, 203, 204n37,
157–64, 169–10, 175, 183n218, 185, 189 208, 211, 214n65, 216, 218
Images 62, 65–7, 71n32, 72–3, 75, 78, 81, Liturgy 8, 33
85, 106, 132n54, 159n150, 160, 166, 177–80, Loyal 12, 14, 32, 41, 52, 55, 75, 78, 83, 105,
184–5, 189 128, 147, 171–2, 175–7, 187n234, 212, 233
Immorality 81–2, 130, 132–3, 145–6, 233 Lucian 63, 64n6, 89n2, 91
256 general index
Lugdunum (Lyon) 8, 199 Painter 73, 79n66, 162

Lyon (see Lugdunum) Palestine 2, 8, 11, 13–9, 35, 40n3, 73,
121n21, 174, 208, 212
Mainstream 22, 50, 196, 216 Pappias 200
Majority 24–5, 36, 38, 50, 78, 99, 186 Parallels (parallelomania, parallelophobia)
Marcianus Aristides 67–8, 82, 87 9, 33, 36, 40, 42n17;n20, 68, 72, 74, 80–1,
Marcion 38, 41–2, 62, 72, 78, 199, 201n27 94, 97, 99, 115–6, 124n28, 125, 131n50;n52,
Marcus Aurelius 7, 68 135n70, 137, 140, 142, 151n130, 152, 163,
Market 76n50, 86, 134, 187 167, 174, 177n198, 181, 185n231, 191, 215,
Marriage (see also wedding) 54n25, 122, 221–2, 230, 232–3
200, 202, 226–7 Parousia 58
Martyrs/martyrdom 8, 52, 200, 202 Participation 51, 80, 113, 119n10, 125–8, 131,
Material 135, 140, 144–5, 147, 150–1, 158, 161–2, 165,
objects 15n19, 19, 20n36, 62, 64–6, 169, 176, 186, 190, 228
68–9, 71–3, 94, 155, 177, 193 Parting of the ways 1, 3, 21sqq, 26, 29, 37
written 39, 53, 59, 92, 103, 115, 200n23 Passover 117, 141, 222
Maximus 65–6 Paul 76, 85–7, 100–1
Meals 86–7, 120n16, 127, 129, 226 Peaceful 100, 186, 200
Meat 82, 85–7, 134, 164–5, 199 Pedestal 178, 228
Meir 133, 137, 166, 178, 224 Pederasty 145–6
Melito of Sardis 67–9 Peor 132n54;n57, 175, 176n194, 179
Mendels see: Edrei Persius 211
Methodology 3, 30, 43, 45, 49, 52–3, 62–3, Personal 38, 41, 60, 72, 92, 103, 124, 126,
67, 80, 92, 125, 157, 191–2, 195, 200, 202, 172, 187, 191–2, 205, 217
206n44, 209, 212, 217 Petronius 91
Middle path (halfway) 25, 67, 92, 182, Pharisees 11, 16, 18, 22–3, 108, 211–2
191, 210 Philo 104, 108, 122n25, 129n40, 139n87,
Military 7n1, 52, 66, 186, 188 208, 224
Min 119n11, 121, 145 of Byblos 63
Minority 28, 50, 186 Philosophy/philosophers 7, 55, 62–4, 68,
Minucius Felix 119n11, 121, 145 70, 72–3, 79, 81, 89–93, 99, 101n36, 147,
Mission 8, 24, 36, 109, 123, 125–7, 187n237, 173, 202
194, 205–14 Philostrates 65n11, 66, 70n30
Mitzvah/mitzvot (see also law) 30, 51, 182, Phrygia 99, 145
188–9 Pilgrimage 11, 13n10, 176
Money 77, 118, 156, 160, 178 Pinhas 131
Montanist/Montanism 41, 43, 45, 52–59, Plato/Platonism 70, 79, 90, 95n26, 104
87, 162n164, 199, 217 Plutarch 63, 66
Moral 26–7, 30, 33, 38, 43, 45, 51, 61, Poets 63, 65, 72–3
89, 93–4, 97, 99, 103, 139, 146, 176, 182, Polycarp 77
182n216, 189–90, 192–3, 233 Port (see also harbour) 8, 17
Moses 14, 70, 78, 150n128, 166–7, 233 Port Jews 17
Prescriptions 14–5, 46, 51n8, 54, 85–6, 113,
Nahum 119, 185 128, 133n64, 151, 161n157, 165, 176, 188, 191,
Nero 31, 214n66 200, 104n38, 213, 216
New Year 120–1, 173, 222–3 Profession 144–5, 147, 155, 157, 160, 162,
Nicaea 209 186, 192
Prohibition 78, 79n66, 85, 96–7, 105n6,
Oath (see also swearing) 148–50 113, 118, 122, 124–5, 132, 137, 142–5, 150–1,
Oral law (see also law) 18–9, 30, 43, 189 154, 160, 164, 166, 177–8, 180–1, 183n217,
Oriental 7–9, 27, 50, 61, 70–1, 89, 93n22, 184n224, 185, 190, 210, 222, 226, 231–2
95, 104, 120, 154, 197, 208, 221 Prophecy 54–9, 167–8, 176
Orthodoxy 14, 22, 33–5, 43, 54–5, 93, 196, Proselytism/proselyte 24, 33, 36, 51,
202, 214 85, 108, 125, 127, 146, 165, 187n237, 205,
Orthopraxy 30, 36, 38 207–14
general index 257
Psychics 55, 59, 93n24 Seneca 74, 89, 92–102, 200–1

Public 7, 74, 76, 86, 96, 99, 100, 102, Separation 21–6, 33–5, 44, 54, 56, 94,
119n10, 123, 124, 131n50, 134–6, 147–8, 162, 98n33, 105n6, 129, 133n64, 138n84, 162,
185–9, 192, 228–30 181n214, 185n231, 187n238, 192, 199, 213,
Punic 15 214n65, 226, 234
Serpent 78, 166–7
Quintilian 92 Shalom 15n19
Shop 121–2, 134, 152
Rabbinic Judaism 2, 13–6, 19, 24, 26, 29, Shows 45–6, 53, 64n6, 74, 79, 86, 95–102,
33–6, 38–40, 44, 51, 174 136–9, 189
Role of the rabbis 2n2, 13n11, 14, 21, 28, Sin/sinner 28, 52, 77, 79, 81–2, 85, 97n32,
35, 157, 212 98n33, 123, 131n49, 132, 134, 137–8, 147,
Rashi 168n176, 179, 206 149, 153, 181, 187, 199, 208
Reading 41–2, 58, 72, 75, 93n22, 95, 102, Slave (household) 126n34, 141, 147, 161,
136, 145, 150n128, 175, 187n238, 203n34, 165–6, 188, 225
205, 206n45 Social 7, 17n32, 19, 21, 33, 44, 52, 61, 68,
Reality 37, 45–6, 65–6, 69, 104, 105n6, 87, 89, 95, 100, 117–8, 120n16, 122–126,
149, 153n136, 154–5, 159–60, 169, 172–4, 130, 140, 147, 152, 155–8, 161, 165, 169, 183,
176, 180–3, 188–91, 203–4, 206 186, 190–4, 199, 203n34, 210n58, 213, 217,
Rejoice 78, 97, 119n11, 124, 128, 150, 172, 225 226–7
Resh Lakish 119n11, 120, 121n21, 145, Socrates 99, 145
150n28 Solace 61
Revolt 22, 27, 32, 208, 214n67 Solution 36, 155, 158–9, 166, 189, 211, 225
Ritbah 233–4 Soul 69, 76, 90n3, 91, 94, 97n32, 98n33,
Rites 117, 141, 153, 173, 221 100, 139
Rivalry 29, 32–3, 36, 44–5, 199, 217 Sources 24, 39, 42, 53, 59, 86, 91–2, 96,
Romanisation 9, 52, 186, 215 103, 137n82, 138n84, 141, 156, 195, 207–8,
Rome 7–9, 17, 32, 56, 70, 101, 170, 197–8, 211–2, 215
201–2, 214n66, 215–6, 223 Jewish sources 29, 44–5, 71, 113n2, 124,
Rules (see also laws) 12, 15, 23–4, 26, 30, 141, 148, 160, 171, 175, 179, 207–8, 216,
32–4, 36, 54, 82, 89, 104, 108–9, 113, 118n6, 224, 232–3
119n11, 126–7, 129, 131, 135, 143, 149, 155, of water 230
159, 161–6, 168n176, 175–82, 187–8, 190, Space 167, 183–6, 189–90
201, 215, 216n74, 221 Stability 99
State 29, 52, 61, 78, 107, 187n238, 192
Sabbath 12n9, 13n11, 101, 120, 139n87, 165 Statues 62–6, 72, 95, 123n25, 160, 176,
Sacred-consecrated 66, 73, 86, 151, 178–9
159n150, 163n166, 177, 179–80, 184n226, Stoicism 79, 89, 95, 101–2
189, 225 Strenae 120, 121n18, 145n107, 173
Sadducees 108 Swearing (sea also oath) 147–8, 150n129,
Safra 198 151n130
Sake of peace 119, 154 Symbol 62, 64–7, 80, 94, 121, 141, 166
Saturnalia 117–20, 223 Synagogue 12–3, 17, 31–2, 51, 106–9, 125,
Schism 21, 23, 39, 49, 53–5, 57, 199n18 127, 144n104, 198n7;n10, 199, 205, 210–3
School
stream 49, 53, 55, 71, 89, 92, 101, 125, 173 Tatian 70–3
place 102, 107, 144–6 Teacher (see also school and schoolmaster)
Schoolmaster (see also teacher) 71n32, 18, 73, 77, 144–6, 162, 211
86, 144–5, 162n162;n163 Temple 1, 2n2, 7, 11, 13n10, 14, 16–8, 22–3,
Sea 17–8, 33, 118, 122, 159, 166, 189, 211, 225 65n11, 86, 107, 122n25, 133, 138n83, 143,
Sect/sectarianism 9, 23, 26, 38, 49, 52, 54, 160, 163, 168–70
56, 60, 92, 187n238, 192 Tertullianism 41, 45, 54, 56, 58, 59
Jewish sects 14, 22–5, 31n41, 33–4, 49, Theatre see: amphitheatre
59, 85, 185n229 Theology 23, 27–31, 57, 72, 90, 130, 155,
Semitic 8, 15, 17, 197 181, 184, 191, 193, 196, 200, 208, 217
258 general index
Trade 17, 79, 118–9, 121–2, 150, 154–7, 160, Wives 146, 154, 180, 226
162, 164, 183, 189, 193, 222, 224 Working 76n50, 79, 134, 147, 152, 155, 157,
Tree 185, 189 159, 162, 164–5, 183
Worship 9n12, 43, 62–4, 68–9, 71n32,
Utensils 156, 164, 166, 179 73–4, 77–8, 80–2, 97, 102, 107, 120,
122n25, 127, 136n74, 147, 152–4, 158n149,
Veneration 68, 80, 106 160–6, 169–70, 175–80, 183n217, 230
Vessels 42n17, 156
Xerophagy 59, 87
Weak
individuals (see also lenient members) Yavneh (Jamnia) 23, 25, 174n190
26, 34, 38, 65, 85–6, 95, 113 Yohanan 122n25, 136n76, 143, 150n128,
Judaism 2, 22, 28n28 163, 168, 172, 183n217, 185
Wedding (see also marriage) 123–5, 129
Wholesaler 153 Zimri 131
Wine 59, 129, 131, 133, 152, 160n152, 162, Zoophilia 146
164, 183n218, 226 Zunin 169–70
Winner 34–5, 38

Tertullian On Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah Questioning The Parting of The Ways Between Christians and Jews PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Tertullian On Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah Questioning The Parting of The Ways Between Christians and Jews PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Tertullian, On Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah

Jewish and Christian

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/jcp

printed in the netherlands

2. Jews in Carthage: Between Palestine and the Diaspora ................ 11

3. The “Parting of the Ways” ........................................................................ 21

4. Scholarship on the Possible Jewish Influence on Tertullian’s

6. Tertullian’s Place among Other Christian Authors:

7. Tertullian in a Graeco-Roman World .................................................. 89

8. The Issue of the Jews’ Involvement within the Wider

Introduction to Part Three ............................................................................ 113

Other Entertainments ................................................................... 134

10. Contribution of the Comparison: Jews and

Appendix One Identification of the Festivals Quoted in Mishnah

This book is a slightly revised version of my Ph.D. dissertation (2009), which

The central concern in a comparison of both texts is not to try to prove

time, it was precisely this movement which reached Carthage. Following

­ umerous attempts to determine the origins of this Christian community

the proposal above sounds eminently reasonable, in fact no one really

9 T.D. Barnes, Tertullian (Oxford, 1985) 68.

However, Tertullian also writes as the leader of his own community in

Jews in Carthage: between Palestine and the Diaspora

each other.” This is demonstrated by the evident attraction the synagogue

17 Rives, Religion 219.

Jewish cemetery of Gammarth, which seems to draw upon a tradition

with Palestinian developments in Judaism. Since North African Carthage

them concerning developments there. It is widely testified in all the stud-

33 Edrei, Mendels, “A Split” 131.

in Carthage were, as I believe, closely connected to Palestine and its rab-

The “Parting of the Ways”

representative ideas of the different streams in the scholarly debate; these

Making the Borderlines Clearer Following the

Some scholars envisage a clear separation between Judaism and Chris-

Judaism:15 both Christians and ­Christianity exceeded the bounds of the

Obvious Separation between Judaism and Christianity

20 A. Baumgarten, “Marcel Simon’s Verus Israel as a Contribution to Jewish History,”

relationship and resemblance between Jewish and Christian approaches

24 Spence, Parting 352.

26 Spence; W. Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate (Northvale, 1993) 185;

Judaism and Christianity Remain Intertwined

Taking the idea of ongoing contacts between Judaism and Christianity

32 Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism 185.

Thus we find here a practical theological and political conflict between

troubles that the Christians caused in the Jewish community in order to

42 Simon, Verus Israel 145–8.

44 Yuval, Two Nations 149.

48 Boyarin, Border Lines 1.

59 Schiffman, Who Was a Jew 77.

The Comparison of Tertullian’s De Idolatria with Massekhet

not simply use apologetic tools to cover up unconvincing arguments, so

Scholarship on the Possible Jewish Influence

By way of background, I would like to present, at this juncture, the debate

Claiming a Jewish Influence on Tertullian

other Jews.3 Moreover, Frend finds “a surprisingly detailed acquaintance

11 J. Massingberd-Ford, “Was Montanism a Jewish-Christian Heresy?,” Journal of Ecclesi-

21 Aziza, Tertullien 125 n. 136.

character of the Christian controversy against idolatry is inseparable from

Denying Jewish Influence on Tertullian

rivals if there was no point of contact between them.35 If Barnes believes

40 Marie Turcan, Tertullien, Les Spectacles (Paris, 1986) 51.

a gentile background, who adopt Christianity just as they would adopt

2 Spence, The Parting 13.

that even if Tertullian managed to gather members for his church, he

umerous attempts to determine the origins of this Christian community

Judaism:15 both Christians and Christianity exceeded the bounds of the

to Christianity, his subsequent abandonment of orthodox Christianity

r epresented consists of apologists of Hellenistic origins who accept the

meticulously interprets and adapts every piece of knowledge he has to the