(6) Some of the audience responds with disgust at the person carrying the "Jewish load."

The first object of disgust was the use of a joke that was so overused that it had become tiresome. "The thing that was said" was the old joke, known as early as Aristophanes, of calling a phallus a "load." The second object of disgust was "the man who is seen"; i.e., the Jew himself. A third object of disgust was probably the "Jewish load" itself. The speaker was interrupted immediately after referring to the "Jewish load." This indicates that the "Jewish load" was probably the focus of the reaction of the audience.

(7) The "Jewish load" is a concrete object that can be seen. This would seem at first to present an insuperable obstacle to identifying the "Jewish load" with a circumcized phallus. Jewish males normally did not walk around naked. This obstacle easily can be overcome when one recalls that Greco-Roman athletes normally appeared nude in an athletic context. This is precisely the context that dominates the subject matter of the text.

The ease with which the crowds could see the Jewish individual's complete anatomical structure indicates that he was probably naked. The nudity of the individual indicates that he was an athlete. The text presents us with the image of a circumcized Jewish athlete in a Greek gymnasium.

5. The Jewish Athlete in the Speaker's Discourse

A variety of attitudes are expressed toward the Jewish athlete by the speaker and his audience. The Jewish athlete played a positive role in advancing the speaker's argument. If the question about proper order in lines 24-25 applied to an individual rather than the crowds, then there may have been some comparison between this individual and the Jewish athlete. The larger context suggests that the speaker's main concern is the defense of decisions made concerning some athlete other than the Jewish athlete. The sudden reaction of the audience to the Jewish athlete implies that he had made an appearance on stage only at the moment he appears in our text. He was probably not even mentioned before.

Despite the temptation to see circumcision in the "bodily deformity," it is much more likely that the Jewish athlete in lines 18-23 and the bodily deformity in lines 38-39 were two completely unrelated illustrations.

The Jewish athlete appears to have played a genuine role as an illustration in the speaker's argument. Such an illustration would have lent no support to the speaker's argument if Jewish athletes did not exist in the historical setting that the mime was supposed to represent.

6. The Relation of the Mime to Historical Reality

Much of the comedy in ancient mimes derived from a distortion of reality just as much as from honest satire. But Philo and other sources give ample evidence that Jews did participate in athletics. Ancient playwrights used comedy as a focal point for commentary upon the social tensions at work in the members of the audience. It is precisely in the jokes and the points at which the audience of a mime erupted into laughter that one is often able to identify issues that were current sources of conflict in the audience.

In our papyrus fragment the speaker asks, "Why are you laughing? And why are some of you disgusted. . . ?" (lines 20-23). It is at this point that the reaction of the speaker's interlocutors in our text merges with the reaction of the audience in the theater. The point at which this occurrs coincides with the appearance of the Jewish athlete in the mime. The image of a Jewish athlete in a Greek gymnasium gave concrete expression to social tensions that operated in the world outside the theater.

7. The Sitz im Leben of the Text

Line 64 seems to refer to a site named Neapolis. Pauly-Wissowa lists 27 locations known in antiquity as "Neapolis." The only two for which a strong case could be made are Flavia Neapolis in Palestine and a section of Alexandria known as Neapolis. If one located the origin of our text in Flavia Neapolis, one would probably have to date the text after 100 CE to allow time for the establishment of a literary tradition. It is highly unlikely that Jewish athletes appeared in Flavia Neapolis in the second century with enough frequency to create the kind of social tensions between Jews and Greeks that our text implies. It also would be difficult to explain how a circumcized phallus could be identified so easily in our text as "Jewish" or "Judaean" (᾽Ιουδαϊκος) in a Samaritan area. Samaritans were only occasionally considered "Jewish" or "Judaean" but practiced circumcision. Use of the phrase "Jewish load" for a circumcized phallus would have elicited an uncertain reaction from an audience that included a substantial number of Samaritans. An author living in Flavia Neapolis would surely have been aware of this problem. This difficulty might be overcome if "Jewish load" was a hackneyed pun used even in Samaria.

Identifying the historical setting of our text with Alexandria has a number of points in its favor. (1) A text found in Egypt is more likely to have been written in Egypt than somewhere else. This argument could obviously be very misleading if used alone and its value is admittedly very small. But it cannot be dismissed entirely. It becomes more significant if one dates the production of the text relatively close to the date of the production of the manuscript. (2) Alexandria contributed a lion's share to the Greek literary production of the Greco-Roman world. (3) Alexandria had a large Jewish community that played a major role in the social life of the city. (4) Alexandria had taken the leading role in the production of Greek drama during the Hellenistic period. Mimes were a distinctive feature of the Alexandrian tradition. (5) The Alexandrian mime tradition was sometimes closely associated with the mockery of Jews (CPJ II.158a.5-7 [ = P. Par. 68.5-7]; Philo, Flaccus 34, 36-40, 72, 84-85). (6) Jewish participation in the Greek gymnasium was often a source of social tension in Alexandria.

The text probably fits best in the period from about 20 BCE to 41 CE. Dating the text in the period from 20 BCE to 41 CE would provide important evidence for Jewish participation in the gymnasium in the very period in which such participation was an important focus of conflict. It is precisely in this period that Philo says many were "laughing" at the practice of circumcision (Spec. Leg. 1.1-7). It is also in this period that a naked Jew was dragged into the gymnasium to serve as an instrument for mocking the Jewish King Agrippa (Philo Flac. 34-40). In the athletic context of the gymnasium the circumcision of the mock Jewish king presented a visible contrast with the uncircumcized young men that made up his mock bodyguard. Philo explicitly states that this event was modelled on the mimes (Flac. 34, 37- 38).

8. Conclusions

First, the papyrus implies a period and a setting in which some Jews had reconciled the marks of Jewish identity with participation in the institutions of Greek identity. Second, the presence of the Jewish athlete in a Greek gymnasium undermines Aryeh Kasher's proposal that Jewish athletes must have trained in a "Jewish gymnasium." Third, circumcision stands out as the distinguishing feature of Jewish identity recognized by the Gentile author of the text, the actors, and the theater audience. Our text presents the rather ironic image of a Jew whose very devotion to an expression of Greek identity makes his Jewish identity all the more inescapably obvious. This should give warning to Kasher, Feldman, and others who tend to equate "Hellenization" with either "apostasy" or some type of compromise on "orthodoxy," whatever those terms may mean.

//end, 32.3//

Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins, Minutes 32.4

Christians and Other Others in Rabbinic Judaism

Robert Goldenberg, SUNY Stony Brook

The Tanak is unambiguous that Israel is not to worship other gods. But
other gods can be worshiped by other people, who are permitted to worship
their own gods; e.g., Deut 4. This raises a problem of consistency for
later Jews who read the Tanak with the assumption that it was a consistent
text with consistent patterns of ideas. This created ambiguities that
allowed for a variety of trajectories and approaches to the problem.
Biblical ambiguities became postbiblical non-ambiguities.

There was a Judaism that was at war with its environment. E.g., Maccabean
Jews and Jews in Egypt and Cyrene destroyed pagan temples. But explaining
the ideology behind the iconoclasm in the 115-17 CE revolt is difficult.
Jewish texts often see all of pagan sins as the result of polytheism.

There was also a Judaism that was not at war with its environment.
Enlightened Jews felt they had common ground with enlightened Gentiles, e.g,
Philo, Aristeas. In the LXX, Philo, and Josephus the Hebrew commandment not
to curse God ('elohim) was transformed into an injunction against cursing
"gods." But this was forgotten after the first century. The Rabbis do not
even seem to have heard of this idea. At the same time, Philo simply
assumes the superiority of his traditions. He polemicizes against attacks
on Judaism but does not assume that these attacks have a real bearing on the
superiority of Judaism.

This contrasts with the anxiety that the rabbis felt about this issue. The
rabbis don't ask questions about Christians in distinction from other
pagans. They seem unaware of the Christian claim to be neither Jew nor
pagan but rather a "third race." There were enough other categories for
defining groups of "others" without adding "Christians." In most cases
Christians were simply considered "goyim" in rabbinic texts. This contrasts
radically with the medieval commentators on the rabbinic texts. The real
question is at what point and at what time the rabbis were forced to create
new categories. The catalyst was probably the rise of Islam. The real
anxiety of the pre-Islamic rabbis is directed in a different direction.

B. Avodah Zerah 2a-3b exemplifies this anxiety. The text presents a court
scene of eschatological judgment, a midrash on Isa 43:9. The Romans come
first, make their excuse, and it fails to convince God. Then the Persians
come next, described in terms of Daniel's bear, and they also fail to
convince God that their case is justified. Rome and Persia will last until
the coming of the Messiah. All the nations of the world are condemned. The
nations then contend that they did not have the privileges of Israel.

It is at this point that the "other" is allowed to speak. Israel accepted
Torah only under constraint, they protest. The nations contend that the
Torah cannot be the standard of judgment because they didn't accept it, and
no one would accept it if given the option. This expresses the rabbinic
anxiety raised by the fact that nobody in their setting was a Jew by choice.
This created a resentment that was projected onto the other nations of the
world. At the time of the judgment the nations will assert that nobody can
live by the Torah because even Israel did not live by the Torah. But this
excuse will also fail. Finally the nations ask for a second chance and God
says it is too late. But he offers them one commmandment: the opportunity
to keep Sukkoth. The nations ultimately fail to do this. This shows that
the rabbinic anxieties are unfounded. The reward of Israel is justified.
The rabbinic concern of whether their reward will be worth the effort is
answered with a happy ending.

The Noachide commandments also raised a problem. They offer a way to be a
righteous Gentile. But one of the commandments was not to worship idols, so
it was doubtful that there ever could be a righteous Gentile on such a
basis. Part of the point of these commandments seems to be an anti-Kantian
kind of thrust. That is, one cannot simply be righteous by reasoning to it
or doing good things without the particularity of the Torah. The rabbis did
show one major feature of hellenization. They assumed that the educated
elite were different from everybody else, an idea that did not exist in
Judaism prior to the Hellenistic period.

//end, 32.4//

Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins, Minutes 32.5

Topic for 1994-95: ETHNICITY, IDENTITY AND ALTERITY
Meeting of 27 April 1995, University of Pennsylvania

"Gentiles, Jews, and Other Others in Early Christian Texts,
with Special Reference to Tertullian"

David Efroymson, La Salle University

In the New Testament, sometimes "the other" is clearly
identifiable as Jew or Gentile. In Rev 2:9; 3:9, "those who say
they are Jews and are not but are a synagogue of Satan" are
themselves Jews. The author of Revelation is also Jewish. The
counterclaims indicate a conflict over which way is the right way
to be Jewish, and the author chooses to reject the claims of the
opposing group. The author also includes the woman Jezebel, the
teaching of Balaam, idolatry, porneia, as the "other": These
things are what idolaters do, but not "us."

Paul in Galatians claims to be Jewish and still thinks of himself
as Jewish. He still considers some Christians to be "Gentiles"
(<ethne>) in Galatians 2. But he also speaks of "Gentiles" as
the past state of life of his Christian audience in 1 Thess 1:9-
10; 4:3-5 (behave "not like the Gentiles"). Similarly, 1 Cor
12:1-2 says "you were Gentiles" (<ethne>)--but now you are not.
Likewise, in 1 Cor 5:1ff, porneia is found among the <ethne>, but
should not be found in the audience of 1 Corinthians. Thus
<ethne> refers to: (1) the past of the Paul's community; (2)
people outside the community in the present; (3) people in the
community who are not Jews.

When one moves from the "other" to the self-understanding of the
community (the "us"), the problem is more difficult. Paul never
clarifies the identity of group to which the members of his
community are being invited. Is it the covenant, a family, a
people (all images that Paul uses), or what? Paul never clearly
conceives of the "self" of the entity into which they are called.
It is not clear that it is a Judaism. Gal 4:8-10 is referring to
Gentiles, not Jews, and so also in all of Paul's letters his
concern is with Gentiles, not Jews. Yet somehow Gentiles were
viewed as bound by certain features of the Law (though not in the
way Paul's opponents implied).

The Gospel of Matthew, following Saldarini, Harrington, Kee, et
al., is a Jewish document written by a Jew from a community that
has not given up its own Jewishness and claims to be in
possession of authentic Judaism while it argues against other
Jews. Matt 5:47 refers to "the Gentiles" as an outside group; so
also 6:31-32; 18:17; 20:25; etc. Positive references to Gentiles
are for critical comparison to Gentiles who have not followed
Jesus; e.g., 8:10-12; 12:21; 21:43. Those who claim that
Matthew's community sees itself as outside Judaism point to the
phrase "their synagogues" in 4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9, but this is
not convincing. This could mean simply "their synagogues" as
opposed to "our ekklesia" or even "our synagogues."

In the Gospel of John, the author uses <hoi Ioudaioi> for his
opponents, but this doesn't mean he is not Jewish himself. The
ambiguity may not be a problem at all if the term simply means
"Judaeans." This terminology might further be clarified if the
Samaritans, who may have played some kind of role in John's
audience, used the "Judaeans" to contrast the opponents with
themselves.

Tertullian is conscious of both for whom and against whom he is
writing. He is the prosecuting attorney and his opponents are
the defendants. His opponents are sometimes "they" and sometimes
"you," but he never calls his Jewish opponents "you" (2nd
person). This raises the question of whether his Jewish
opponents are genuine or are simply representatives of a group
with whom he never had more than a passing contact.

In De Cultu Feminarum, Tertullian says that perhaps woman should
dress in mourning garments because they are responsible for the
fall and should dress in a better way. In De Baptismo 17,
baptism can be administered by all except women.

Tertullian writes a large number of works with anti-Jewish
material in all periods and with all kinds of opponents and all
kinds of audiences. He applies to Judaism the term <vetustas>,
"antiquated, having been passed by and outdated." The document
Adversus Iudaeus is not indicative of what Tertullian says about
Jews and is one of his dullest works. Tertullian uses his anti-
Judaism to make some point about other groups. Tertullian
distances himself from claims made by other Christians that he
and his own group are themselves adhering to Judaism (which
claims may explain some of his vehemence in opposing Judaism).
Tertullian thinks Paul argues that Judaism is antiquated
(<vetustas>). Tertullian thinks that Jesus is the marker of the
end of the old and the beginning of the new--a point with some NT
precedent, but unlike the NT Tertullian identifies the old with
Judaism very clearly.

Tertullian's contribution to the identity of his community is the
framework from which he deals with the question: Judaism is a
negative form of reference that is antiquated. Christians should
not do the Jewish Law or Jewish things unless it is in a
different way. Christianity for Tertullian is the new and good
that is not Jewish. Tertullian has found in Judaism an ideal
"other" that governs what he says about morals, etc. Tertullian
thinks it is important to emphasize that whatever Jews are,
Christians are not (or vice versa).

The "other" terminology for Jews obviously became a contributing
factor in later anti-Semitism. It presents a pressing problem
for Christian theology. The conflicts in the NT are still
primarily Jew versus Jew and it is still possible that the
material that gave rise to later anti-Semitic tendencies can be
handled in such a way as to have a Christian theology "without
all that stuff."

//end, 32.5//