Harvard Divinity School
Bodies and Bo(a)rders: Emerging Fictions of Identity in Late Antiquity
Author(s): Joshua Levinson
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 93, No. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 343-372
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510163 .
Accessed: 17/05/2011 10:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
Bodies
and
Fictions
Bo(a)rders:
of
Identity
Emerging
in
Late
Antiquity*
JoshuaLevinson
HebrewUniversity,
Jerusalem
Looking at nation as text, as culture,questionsthe totalizationof national culture and opens up the widely disseminatedforms through
which subjects construct"the field of meanings associated with national life." It offers a perspectivethat enables us to enter discourses
beyondthose fixed, static,"official"ones.
Introduction
In the abovepassage,Anne Kaplandevelopsthe notionof imaginedcommunitiesas
those "narrativesand discoursesthatsignify a sense of 'nationness."'2
This perspective, she contends,enablesus to readagainstthe grainof these dominantElctionsof
identity.3Since every storyis predicateduponselectionandexclusion,the notionof
"nationas narration"
encouragesus to considerthosemarginalizedor rejectedby the
narrativein the processof creatingany given imaginedcommunity.Whose storyis
told,fromwhoseperspective,who is silenced,andwho is movedoff-stagein orderto
tell it? Despite the powerfulinstitutionsirough which dominantstories are mainI wish to thank Shaye Cohen for his insightful criticisms of an earlier draft of this paper.
tE.Anne Kaplan, Lookingfor The Other:Feminism,Film, and the lmperial Gaze (New
York: Routledge, 1997) 32.
2Homi K. Bhabha, "Introduction: Narrating the Nation," in idem, ed., Nation and Narration (New York: Routledge, 1990) 2.
3Silverman, following Ranciere, defines the term "dominant fiction" as "the privileged
mode of representation by which the image of the social consensus is offered to the members
of a social formation and within which they are asked to identify themselves" (K. Silverman,
Male Subjectivityat the Margins[New York: Routledge, 1992] 30).
HTR 93:4 (2000) 343-72
344
HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW
tained,hegemonyis nevermonolithic.Sincetherearealwayscompetingnarrativesof
exclusionandidentitythatvie forrepresentation,
thedominantfictiorlsof ethnicityhave
to be continuallyrenewedanddefendedin orderto substantiate
theirclaimsto superior
explanatorypower.Theircontinueddominancedependson a processesof adjustment
andreinteipretation
in relabonto oppositionalandemergentculturalformations.4
Palestine of the first centuriesof the CommonEra was a period duringwhich
tension from competing narrativesof identity was rife. Extended Hellenization,
the growthandexpansionof Christianity,andtheemergingdiscourseof heresiology
all exerted considerablepressuresupon the rabbinicculturalformationand acted
as a catalystfor thatformationto redefinethe parametersof its imaginedcommunity. It is by no means coincidentalthatthis periodsaw the institutionalizationand
regimentationof the conversion process, the very ritual whose function was to
police discoursesof identity in the social formationof rabbinicJudaismby regulating the crossing of ethno-religiousboundaries.5
When cultures feel threatened,they begin to tell tales. Sometimes these are
retellings that strengthenthe dominantfictions and sometimes they are new or
revised narratives.Throughthese narratives,the imagined communityguardsits
bordersand defines for itself who is inside, who is outside, and why. If the Bible
and Second Temple literaturecontain various and conflicting models of identity
(covenantal,biological, historical,territorial,tribal),6inthe period following the
destructionof the Second Temple, this profusionwas replacedby two dominant
paradigms:the genealogicalmodel of the sons of Jacob,andthe covenantalmodel
of Israel. According to the former paradigm,inside and outside are established
accordingto biological descent; accordingto the latter,identity is establishedby
the acceptanceof a certaininstitutionalizedbelief-system.
While it is apparentthatthese two paradigmsoverlap,they areclearlynot identical."Onthe one hand,"GaryPortonhas observed,"Israeliteculturewas a religious
system to which anyone who accepted YHWH and the Israelite system derived
from his revelationcould adhere.On the otherhand, Israeliteswere Jacob's chil4R. Williams, Problemsin Materialismand Culture(London: NLB, 1980) 40-42; Alan
Sinfield, CulturalPolitics-Queer Reading(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1994) 25; idem, Literature,Politics, and Culturein PostwarBritain(Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1989) 31.
5See Shaye Cohen, "Rabbinic Conversion Ceremony," JJS 41 (1990) 203.
6Shaye Cohen (The Beginningsof Jewishness[Berkeley: University of California Press,
1999] 136) remarks that "the redefinition of Jewish society in religious (and political) terms,
as opposed to tribal or ethnic terms was a product of the second half of the second century
BCE." See also: Peter Machinist, "Outsiders or Insiders: The Biblical View of Emergent Israel
and Its Contexts," in L. J. Silberstein and R.L. Cohn, eds., TheOtherin Jewish Thoughtand
History (New York: New York University Press, 1994) 35-60; H. Berger, "The Lie of the
Land: The Text Beyond Canaan" Representations25 (1989) 119-38; R. M. Schwartz, The
Curseof Cain (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997) 133-42.
JOSHUA LEVINSON
345
waslimitedto
toYHWH,andtheirdesignation
drenwhoenjoyeda specialrelationship
between
friction
The
Patriarch.'S7
the
last
to
back
genealogy
their
trace
could
who
those
who,
converts
of
status
the
to
acuteinrelation
thesetwomodelsbecameespecially
because they had once been gentiles, they were essentially different
from the Israelites. On the other hand, because they had left their
native society and enteredthe People of Israel by acceptingits religious/culturalsystem,they were essentiallydifferentfromgentiles.The
rabbisthus had to includethe convertswithoutat the same time negating the uniquenessof the Peopleof Israel.8
DominantFictions of Identity
onlybecauseit dovetailswithAnderson'snch
I usethetermflctiveethnicity9not
butbecausetherabbisthemselvesseemto have
community,"
notionof "imagined
of identity,as we cansee
natureof theirnarratives
beenawareof theconstructed
fromthefollowingtext:
These bring (the offering of the first fruits, bikkurim,to the temple)
but do not recite (the declarationprescnbedby Deut 26.5-10): the
convertbringsbut does not recite, since he cannotsay: "the land that
the Lordsworeto our fathersto give us." [Deut26:3]l°
It was taughtin the nameof R. Yehuda,a convertdoes bnng [bikkurim]
arldrecite.Whatis the reason,(becausethe verse says) "forl makeyou
thefather of a multitudeof nations"(Gen 17:5),in the pastyou werethe
fatherof Aram [av-ram],and from now on you are fatherto all the
nations[av-hamon].R. Joshuaben Levi said,the law is like 1t. Yehuda.l
andgenealogicalparadigm,the mishnah
Workingwithina combinedterritorial
offering,maynot
to bringthefirst-fruit
citesas lawthata convert,thoughrequired
father"was a
"his
that
claim
literally
he
cannot
recitethepertinentverses,since
of
promisedland.Thisis a cameoexample thedivided
recipientof thepatriarchal
identityof the convert.In the JerusalemTalmud,however,R. Yehudadissents,
as a "fatherto all thenations,"thereby
citingthebiblicaletymologyof Abraham
7G. G. Porton,The Strangerwithin YourGates (Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press,
1994) 195. See also idem, Goyim:Gentiles and lsraelites in Mishnah-Tosephta(Atlanta:
ScholarsPress, 1988);SachaStern,Jewishldentityin EarlyRabbinicWritings(Leiden:Brill,
1994) 90-95.
8Porton,Strangerwithin YourGates, 219.
9Thistermis borrowedfromE. Balibarand I. Wallerstein,Race, Nation and Class: AmbiguousIdentities(New York:Routledge,1991) 96.
1.4.Foranextendeddiscussionof thistext,see Cohen,Beginningsof Jewishness,
'°m.Bikkurim
30840.
Ilye Bikkurim1:4 (64a).
346
HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW
includingthe proselyte.Thus,througha pun,biologicallineagebecomes a matterof
membershipin a culturallydeterminedimaginedcommunity.l2The conversionpropedigree,whichis literally
cess enablesthegentileto acquirethenecessarypatriarchal
reinventedfor this purpose.
andexpanded
It wouldappearthatthegenealogicalparadigmis beingreinterpreted
as a resultof pressurefromtheemergentdiscourseof conversion.However,R. Yehuda's
realignmentof the biblicalparadigmunderminesone of its chief attractions.By displacingthe biologicalfatherwith a mythologicalone, he gains inclusivenessat the
priceof relinquishingthe groundingof ethnicityin a commongenealogicalorigin.He
is, in fact,collapsingthedifferencebetweenthetwo paradigms.Onecouldsay thatR.
Yehudais literally"lookingatthenationas text,"sinceit is thelanguageof thetext,the
natureof rhetoric,andnot therhetoricof nature,thatcreatesidentity.
These two narrativesof identitycontinuedto contend throughoutthe amoraic
period,as we cansee fromthefollowingwaditionbroughtin thenameof R. Yochanan
(ca. 280 CE):
Because they did
[A] Why are idolaterscontaminated(mezuhamim)?
not stand at Mount Sinai. For when the serpentcame upon Eve he
injectedher with filth:l3theIsraeliteswho stood at MountSinai, their
pollution departed,the idolaters who did not stand at Mount Sinai,
theirpollutiondid not depart.
[B] R. Aha the son of RabaaskedR. Ashi, "Whataboutconverts"?He
replied,'Thoughthey werenot present,theirguidingstarswerepresent,
as it is written:I makethis covenant,with its sanctions,not with you
alone, but both with those who are standing here with us this day
before the Lordour God and with those who are not with us here this
day (Deut29:13-14).
[C] Now he [R. Yochanan]differs from R. Abba b. Kahana,for R.
Abbab. Kahanasaid: "Upto threegenerationsthe contaminatingstain
did not cease from our fathers:Abrahambegot Ishmael, Isaac begot
Esau, [but]Jacobbegot the twelve tribeswho were untainted."14
l2See Porton, Strangerwithin YourGates, 6. Porton quotes C. Keyes (Ethnic Change
[Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1981] 6), who describes kinship reckoning as one
"which connections with forebearers or with those with whom one believes one shares descent
are not traced along precisely genealogical lines. Americans, for example, predicate their
national identity upon connections with the 'Pilgrim Fathers' and with the forefathers 'who
brought forth upon this continent a new nation,' even though few Americans could actually
trace genealogical connections with members of the Plymouth community or with those who
wrote the Constitution or fought in the Revolutionary War."
l3This motif is based upon a word play on Gen 3:13. Eve says "the serpent duped (hasiani)
me" which can be read "the serpent married me." For the history of this motif, see Ephraim
E. Urbach, TheSages. TheirConceptsand Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975) 169.
'4b Sab. 145b.
JOSHUA LEVINSON
347
This text has been used primarilyto documentthe rabbinicreactions to the doctrineoforiginalsin.l5WhatI Emdequallyinterestingis the culturallogic thatsustains
and enables this polemic. The primarydichotomybetween Jew and gentile is filteredthrougha furtherseries of oppositions:maletfemale,revelation/nature,puret
impure.By employingthe principlefor the matrilinealtransferenceof identity,the
female body, which is the receptacleof sin, becomes the vehicle for its transference to all humankind.The body that is "naturally"tainted is gendered female,
and it becomes the sign of the gentile political body. By default, the culturally
constitutedJewish body is markedas pure and male. It is covenantalrevelation,
God speaking man-to-manwith Israel as it were, that constitutes the dominant
fiction of identity.l6
According to R. Yochanan'snarrative,Israel's ethnic fashioning was a result
of the revelation at Mt. Sinai. This is the foundationalevent that constitutedthe
imagined community,and this ideological model effectively supersedesbiological pedigree. The dissentingopinion, broughtin the name of Yochanan's student
Abbab. Kahana(C), presentsan opposing narrativeof ethnicitywherebystatusis
determinedby the biological pedigree of patrilinealdescent, ratherthan the ideological acceptanceof a certainethos. Here, culturalidentityis situatedwithin the
tribalgroup,which grows througha process of self-cleaning.
There are a few additionalpoints worthy of comment here. Firstly, while the
JerusalemTalmudpassage that we saw above expandedthe genealogical model,
here, a late Babyloniansage (R. Ashi) expands the ideological model to include
converts whose "guidingstarswere present"at the moment of revelation.It may
not be accidentalthat the BabylonianTalmudboth does not recordR. Yehuda's
position and chooses to augmentspeciElcallythe covenentalparadigm.Likewise,
Palestinianliteraturedoes not know of the applicationof Deut 29:13 to converts.
As I. Gafni has remarked,SasanianBabylonianJewrydefined itself by the purity
of its pedigree,and"atsome stage beganto perceive of themselves as representing
the purest,or least contaminated,Jewish stock in the world.''l7
l5SeeRomans5:12. andUrbach,TheSages, 427-29. In the commonparlanceof rabbinic
polemic, R. Yochananadmitsthat humankindwas infected with sin, which originatedwith
Adam,but the revelationat Sinai removedthe sin. Contraryto Paul, it is the acceptanceof
Torahthat is the cure and not the cause of sin. On the ideas of contaminationhere, see A.
Buchler,Studiesin Sin and Atonement(New York:Ktav, 1967) 316-17.
l6See also, S. F. Kruger,"BecomingChristian,BecomingMale?"in Jeffrey Cohen and
BonnieWheeler,eds., BecomingMale in theMiddleAges, (New York:Garland,1997) 21-42.
'7Asthe Babyloniansage Samuel(255 CE) said:"All countriesareas doughin comparison
withPalestine,andPalestineis as doughrelativeto Babylon"(b. Qidd.69b). Gafnipointsout
thatonly seven convertsarementionedby namein Babylonianliteraturewhichspansa period
of threehundredyears.See IsaiahGafni,TheJewsof Babyloniain the TalmudicEra, (Jerusalem: MerkazZalmanShazar, 1990 [Hebrew])137-48; idem, Land, Centerand Diaspora:
Jewish Constructsin Late Antiquity(Sheffield:Sheffield AcademicPress, 1997) 54.
348
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Secondly, R. Abba b. Kahanapresentsthe biological model througha rhetoric
of pure male descent. The female body is erased,or more correctly,its role as the
purveyorof contaminatedidentityis not contested.Thus, accordingto both opinions presentedhere, as well as the position of R. Yehuda, the imagined Jewish
community is gendered as male. This point warrantssome elaboration.By the
second and thirdcenturies,the matrilinealprinciple thatJewish identityis transferredthroughthe mother was firmly entrenched.l8Despite, or perhapsbecause
of this fact, all the narrativespresentedhere establish identity throughthe male.
While "natural"identityis matrilineal,culturalmembershipis patrilineal.'9
Finally, andmost suxprisingly,it seems to me thatbothparadigmspresentidentity as belatedratherthanindigenous.Whetherthe decisive momentis therevelation
at Mt. Sinai or the birthof the twelve tribes, identity is achieved only througha
detergentprocess, by the naturalbody purging itself of foreign elements. This
belatedness,which stressesthe acquirednatureof identity,would seem to indicate
a certain anxiety concerningthe inconstancyof identity, which underminesthe
very distinctionsthese texts work so hardto construct.One sign of this anxiety is
the attemptto anchorunstableculturalidentities in the seemingly "natural"categones of gender.The resultinghomology is used to produceandpolice discourses
of identityin the social formationof rabbinicJudaism.It is againstthe background
of these two converging and conflicting narrationsof identity that I want to discuss the emergence of a new type of literaryplot and characterin the rabbinic
literatureof this period, whose culturalfunction,I believe, was precisely to negotiate the faultlinesand tensions createdby the collocation of these two paradigms
of fictive ethnicity.
Hagarthe Daughterof Pharaoh
I begin with a bit of traditionhistory,in orderto observe the emergenceand transformationof the plot and characterthat I mentionedabove. The second-century
BCEtext known as the GenesisApocryphon( 1 QapGen)containsan extendedrevision of the tale of Abraham'sand Sarah's sojourn in Egypt (Genesis 12). The
biblicalaccountis problematicon manylevels. Certainlyone obstaclethattroubled
readersfor many generationswas the impressionthatAbrahamtreatedhis wife as
chattel or as a surety to guaranteehis safety, if not his fortune;"he practically
throws his wife into anotherman's haremin orderto save his own skin."20
'8See L. Schiffman, "At the Crossroads: Tannaitic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian
Schism," in E. P. Sanders et. al., eds., Jewishand ChristianSelf-Definition (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981 ) 2. 1 15-56; Shaye Cohen, "The Origins of the Matrilineal Principle in
Rabbinic Law," AJS Review 10 ( 1985) 19-54.
'9See m. Qidd. 3.12.
20Fora convenient summary of the major responses to the tale, see J. C. Exum, Fragmented
Women:Feminist(Sub)versionsof BiblicalNarratives(Valley Forge: Trinity, 1993) 148-69.
JOSHUA LEVINSON
349
When Abraham"sells"Sarah,the verse says: "Andbecause of her, it went well
with Abram;he acquiredsheep, oxen, asses, male and female slaves, she-asses,
and camels" (Gen 12:16). By transferringAbraham'sacquisitionof these gifts to
the end of the story, the authorof the Apocryphon attemptsto soften the impression thatthe patriarchbecame wealthy by panderinghis wife. The exchange thus
becomes a matterof indemnity,ratherthan payment for services rendered.2lAt
this point, the authoradds a small, inconsequentialdetail:
And the king gave her much [silver and gold]; many garmentsof fine
linen . . . and also Hagar.22
This is a totally new motif, and it seems reasonableto assume thatit did not originatefromanynarrativenecessityin thiscontext(Genesis 12),butfromthe problems
posed by an entirelydifferentverse. The first verse of Genesis 16 states thatSarah
"hadan Egyptianmaidservantwhose name was Hagar."Now, how could Hagar
have come into her possession if not in Egypt, where it is recordedthat Pharaoh
gave Abrahammany such maidservants?Thus we have a simple midrash that
answersthe questionof how Sarahacquiredan Egyptianmaidservant.23
This tradition,which ostensiblybegan its careeras a marginalexegetical gloss,
is substantiallytransformedwhen we encounterit two hundredyears laterin rabbinic literature:
And she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar (Gen
16:1) R. Shimeonsaid: Hagarwas Pharaoh'sdaughter.When Pharaoh
saw the deeds that were done on Sarah'sbehalf in his own house, he
took his daughterand gave her to Sarah,saying, "It is better for my
daughterbe a maidservantin this house than a mistress in another
house";thusit is written,And she had an Egyptian maidservant whose
name was Hagar here is yourreward(agar).
Abimelech,too, when he saw the miraclesperformedin his house on
Sarah'sbehalf,took his daughterandpresentedher as a maidservantto
Sarah,saying, "It is better for my daughterbe a maidservantin this
2lThe author adopts this exegetical tactic from the sister-tale in Genesis 20. See, M. R.
Lehmann, "Q Genesis Apocryphon in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim," RevQ 1
(1958) 260; Geza Vermes, "Biblical Interpretation at Qumran," Eretz-Israel20 (1989) 188;
M. Bernstein, "Re-arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the
Genesis Aprocryphon," DSD 3 (1996) 40.
22TheGenesisApocryphonof QumranCave 1, 20:31-32, (trans. J. Fitzmyer; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971) 67.
23Itshould be noted that one of the rhetorical techniques of the GenesisApocryphonis to
summarily introduce characters which will have a narrative function later on in the text. Thus
the author introduces Lot and Hirqanosh (20.8, 11). If the narratoris consistent, this technique
may enable us to reconstruct the missing columns and surmise that the original text continued
at least till Genesis 16.
350
HARVARD THEO LOG ICAL REVIEW
house thana mistressin anotherhouse."As it is written:daughtersof
kings are your favorites the daughtersof [two] kings. The consort
stands at your right hand decked in gold of Ophir (Ps 45:10) this
refersto Sarah.24
In contrastto the Second Temple tradition,this midrashcontains two interesting
developments.First, the Egyptianmaidservanthas been transformedinto a princess. Second, beyond the metamorphosis of a Cinderella to a Cleopatra, the
motivations of her transferencehave changed:in the biblical narrative,the servants are part of the bride-price; in the Qumran text, Hagar is bestowed as
remuneration
for Sarah'sdistressor Abraham'sministrations.Here,in R. Shimeon's
midrashsPharaohmakes a gift of his daughterbecause of a unique religious experience "whenPharaohsaw the deeds that were done on Sarah'sbehalf in his
own house." This encountercaused him to preferfor his own daughtera servile
and subordinatestation as Sarah's maidservantover the privileges of her birth.
What is illustratedheresin R. Shimeon's midrashfrom the middle of the second
centuryCE, iS the emergence of a new type of characterand plot, wherein a religious experiencebringsabouta doubletansformation:thecrossingof religio-ethnic
boundariescoupled with the acceptanceof a subservientsocial status.
It is worthnotingthat,whereasPharaohis the beneficiaryof this new religious
experience,his daughteris the coin of its expression The transferof Hagaris the
mechanismfor creatinga bond with Abrahamand his God. Throughthis act, Pharaoh displaces his foreign otherness by effecting a type of kinship relation. "If
women are the gifts," as G. Rubin has remarked,"thenit is men who are the exchange partners.And it is the partners,not the presents, upon whom reciprocal
exchange confers its quasi-mysticalpower of social linkage."25
It wouldseem thatwhatwe havebeforeus is a commonculturalfantasy,wherein
"a subjectpeople fantasizesthe reversalof its subjugation:in which the very leaders of the dominatingpolitical power will become subject to the leaders of the
dominatedgroup."26From
the point of view of the narrator,the religious experi24Gen.Rab.45:1. The original tradition continued to circulate as can be seen in the Mekhilta
Mekhiltade-RabbiShimonb. Yokhai1 and the previous section of this text which describes
Hagar as a maidservant who was gifted to Sarah.
25G.Rubin, "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'Political Economy of Sex,"' in R. Raiter,
ed., Towardan Anthropology
of Women(New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975) 174. See also
the remarks of Irigaray, "The tradethatorganizes patriarchal society takes place exclusively
among men. Women, signs, goods, currency, all pass from one man to another.... Woman exists
only in the possibility of mediation, transaction, transition, transference between men and his
fellow-creatures, indeed between man and himselfR'(L. Irigaray, "When the Goods Get Together," in E. Marks and I. Courtivron, eds., New FrenchFeminisms[trans. E. Teeder; New
York: Schoken, 1981 ] 107-108).
26Daniel Boyarin, "Homotopia: The FeminizedJewish Man and the Lives of Women in
Late Antiguity,"Differences7 (1995) 47.
JOSHUA LEVINSON
351
ence of Pharaohacts as a catalystfor the fotmationof a utopianhierarchy.Sarah,
humiliatedin Pharaoh'shouse, is returnedto herrightfulstationas a consort,while
Hagar, a princess in her own house, assumes a subservient status in her new
one.27This readingnaturalizesthe ideological momentof the narrativeand places
it among a familiarthematicgenreonversion stories. In both biblical and Second Temple literature,we meet many non-Jewish characterswho acknowledge
the power and providenceof God:Jethro(18:10), Rahav(Jos 2:11), Hiram(2 Chr
2:11), and Nebuchadnezer(Dan 2:47), or Achior (Jdt 14:10) and Heliodorus (2
Macc 3:35). In fact, as Shaye Cohen has observed, "Greco-Jewishliteratureis
filled with stories aboutgentiles, usually kings and dignitaries,who witness some
manifestationof the power of the god of the Jews and as a resultveneratethe god
and acknowledge his power."28Thenarrativebefore us, however, has a twofold
difference from these plots of conversion:on the one hand,in contrastto the case
of Achior,thereis no indicationthatPharaohor Hagarconvert.On the otherhand,
while Hiramor Heliodorusexpressacknowledgmentanddeferencefor the God of
the Jews, this acknowledgmentdoes not entail a change in personal status, and
certainlynot the assumptionof a servile or subordinateposition. I would like to
call this sub-genreof the conversiontale, afterArthurDarbyNock, a narrativeof
affiliation.29
One of the defining characteristicsof this new plot, in the words of Nock, is
"havingone foot on each side of the culturalfence."30In this narrative,a character,
usually of prominentsocial standing,crosses ethno-religiousboundariesby virtue
of a religious experience. This character,however, does not convert, but rather
assumes some relationshipof affiliationto the Jewish community.This relationship is composed of two characteristics: a familial affinity, coupled with a
subordinatestatus.Throughthe transfotmationof the Hagarmidrash,we can witness the emergenceof the affiliationplot in the second andthirdcenturies.Looking
Fraenkel, DarkeiHaAgadahveHaMidrash,Givataiim 1991, 689, n. 28.
2;y.
28ShayeCohen, "Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew," HTR82 (1989) 15; idem,
"Respect for Judaism by Gentiles according to Josephus," HTR80 (1987) 409-30.
(1933; reprintedLanham,MD: University Press of America,
29ArthurDarby Nock, Conversion
1972) 6-7. Nock uses the term adhesion as distinct from conversion. In adhesion "these
external circumstances led not to any definite crossing of religious frontiers, in which an old
spiritual home was left for a new once and for all, but to men's having one foot on each side
of the fence which was cultural and not creedal. They led to an acceptance of new worship as
useful supplements and not as substitutes, and they did not involve the taking of a new way
of life in place of the old." The crucial distinction between "adherence" and "conversion," as
discussed by Cohen "is that the latter entails the exclusive acceptance of a new theological or
philosophical system, while the former does not. In "conversion" the new replaces the old, in
"adherence" the new is added to the old" (Cohen, "Respect for Judaism by Gentiles According
to Josephus," 410).
30Nock, Conversion,6.
352
HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW
at this traditionfrom the perspectiveof the two narrativesof identity that I mentioned above, we encountera problem.We seem to have some sort of anomalous
conversionaryexperience:if identityis establishedthroughthe genealogicalparadigm, then Hagar does acquirefamilial afElliation,but only of a secondary and
indirecttype. However, althoughthe narrativecatalyst seems to be some type of
revelatoryexperience,the anticipateddenouement,the acceptanceof a certaininstitutionalizedbelief-system, is absent.The rest of this essay focuses on the social
forces thatbring this narrativeinto play, and on the culturalwork thatthe story is
performingin the social imaginaryof rabbinicJudaism.
Sarahas Motherof Nations
Sarah said, "Godhas broughtme laughter;everyonewho hears will
laugh withlatme." And she said, "Whosaid to Abraham,'Sarahhas
nursedsons,' yet I have bornea son in his old age" (Gen 21:6-7).
Our motherSarahwas extremelymodest.Said Abrahamto her: "This
is not a time for modesty,but uncoveryour breastsso that everyone
may know that the Holy One, blessed be He, has begun to perform
miracles."He uncoveredher breasts and they were gushing forth as
two fountains,and noble ladies came and suckled their childrensaying, "We are not worthyto suckle our childrenwith the milk of this
righteousman."The Rabbissaid, whoevercame for the sake of heaven
becamea God-fearer.3l
This exegetical narrativeis a little more complicatedthan the previous texts we
have discussed. It relates to a numberof gaps and anomalies in the biblical text
thatcatchthe rabbiniceye. Firstof all, why does Sarahmentionthatshe has nursed
sons, in the plural,when, as she so painfullyknows, she has only one son? Furthermore, thereare two speech-actsrecordedhere:"she said"followed by "she said."
This fact in itself would indicateto the rabbisthatsome event must have occurred
between them (b. Meg. 16a). Whatis thatevent, and what is the relationbetween
these two speeches? Any readeris awareof the fact thatlaughteris a leitmotif of
these stories: Sarah laughs in disbelief upon hearing that she will bear a son in
chapter18 of Genesis, Lot's sons-in-law laugh at him in chapter19, and Ishmael
laughs with or at Isaac in the continuationof this chapter(Gen 21:9). Whattype of
laughteris envisioned here is it a laughterof mockery or of joy and who is
laughing with her or at her? Finally, the syntactical structureof these verses is
3tGen.
Rab.53:9.According to the Vatican 30manuscript, only Abraham uncovers Sarah's
breasts. Concerning the speech of the noblewomen, there is an interesting split in the manuscript traditions: while the better manuscripts speak of "the milk of the righteous man" others
record "the milk of the righteous woman."
J OSH UA LEVIN SON
353
particularlyconvoluted,presentinga quote within a quote (she said, "Whosaid to
Abraham,'Sarahhas nursedsons"'). Sarahseems to envisage an exchange with a
hypotheticalspeaker.Who is this speakerand how does he or she relate to those
who will laugh with or at her in the previous verse?
If we turnour attentionto the rabbinicnarrative,we can see thatnot only does
it fill in these gaps, but the new semantic materialthat it uses to do so emanates
fromthe biblical verses themselves.The plot occursbetween verses six andseven,
between the laughterof all who heardand the affirmationthat indeed Sarahhas
suckled sons. WhatmotivatesAbraham'svery unusualdemandthatSarahexpose
herself? It would seem that there are nasty rumorsconcerning Isaac's pedigree.
Not only is the purportedmotherherself known to be barrenand of a ratheradvanced age, but she has just spent, in the previous chapter, a long night with
Abimelech, the king of Gerar.In fact, the redactionalcontext of this midrashis
repletewith sexual anxiety.It is remarkedthatwhile Abimelech's "tree"was faded
and brought low, Abraham's was exalted,32or"the standing crop of our father
This
Abrahamhadbeen driedup, but it now turnedto ripeearsof standinggrain."33
theme is explicitly developedin a paralleltradition,which states:"R.Berechiahin
the name of R. Levi said:You find thatwhen ourmotherSarahgave birthto Isaac,
the nations of the world declared 'Sarahdid not give birthto Isaac, ratherit was
Hagar her servant who bore him."'34Andit is overtly rebuffed in the following
text:
'Sarahconceivedandbore a son to Abraham(Gen 21:2),' this teaches
that she did not steal seed from anotherplace; 'in his old age (Gen
21:2),' this teaches that his [Isaac's] appearance(iqunin) was similar
to Abraham's(Gen.Rab. 53.6).
The noble women who speak here in the midrashare representativeof those
very voices that mocked her previously. They are the ones who laughed at Sarah
upon hearingof Isaac's birth("everyone who hears will laugh at me"). Therefore
Abrahamdemandedthat Sarah expose herself and nurse in public so that they
should acknowledgethe miraclebirth("so thateveryone may know"). It was this
displaythatpromptedthese same women to acknowledgethe miraculousbirthand
enabled Sarahto claim to have nourishedthe multitudes.
So far, I have addressedonly the exegetical work performedin this narrative.
We know who laughed at Sarahand why, who acknowledgedthat Sarahsuckled
children, and why the pluralform is used. In short, this rabbinicvignette has elegantly closed all of the gaps that I mentionedpreviously. Now I would like to
32Gen.Rab. 53.1.
33Ibid.53.9.
34Pesq. R. Kah. 22; see also: b.B. Mes. 87a.
354
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
addressthe culturalwork performed.Despite the fact that there seems to be no
formalresemblancebetween the Hagarnarrativeandthis one, I would suggest that
they bothexemplify the same "plotof affiliation."It does not seem to be fortuitous
that both of the traditionsmentionedconcern Abraham,for there is an early and
ubiquitousopinionthatviews the firstpatriarchas the first missionary.35
Both narratives are composed of the narrativesyntagmaof a manifestationof the divine
resulting in the acquisitionof a type of subservientfamilial affinity. Abraham's
demandthat Sarah expose herself and nurse in public broughtabout a religious
experience that "the Holy One, blessed be He, has begun to performmiracles."
This statementis analogousto Pharoah'sdeclarationthat he "saw the deeds that
were done on Sarah'sbehalf in his own house."As a resultof this experience,the
matronswho had previously mocked her acknowledgedAbraham'sand Sarah's
special relationshipwith God. This is the motif of recognition.
Wheredo we find the motifs of familialaffiliationandsubservience?The noblewomen suckle their sons from the same milk as Isaac, thus becoming like sons of
one mother.36
Once again, it is clear thatthis familial relationis only of an indirect
kind. When they declare,"Weare not worthyto suckle our childrenwith the milk
of that righteous man," they acknowledge their subservience.We can see here,
therefore,all of the above-mentionedmotifs: a characterof noble status experiences a manifestationof divine power and,as a result,expresses acknowledgment
and assumes a form of familial affinity coupled with subservience.
This meaningbecomes even clearerif we examine the culturalconnotationsof
the expression"we areunworthy."This is almost a technicaltermfor conversion,
as is attested in the earliest rabbiniccodification of this ceremony: "a potential
convertwho approachesto be converted,they say to him: 'Why have you decided
to approachus to be converted?. . . If he says, 'I know and am unworthy,' they
accept him immediately."37
Anothermidrash,also attributedto R. Shimeon, demonstratesthis meaningof affiliation:
And Timnawas a concubineof Esau's son Eliphaz (Gen 36:14). R.
Shimeonb. Yohaitaught:Whatpurposeis servedby the verse?It is to
declarethe praiseof the house of our fatherAbraham,to what extent
kings and rulers wished to become allied [throughmarriage]to him.
Por whatwas Lotan?He was a son of one of the chiefs, as it says, The
35See, Sifre Deut. 32; Martin Goodman, Mission and Conver*ion(Oxford: Clarendon,
1994) 14445.
36Asthe Rabbis said in another context when attempting to appease the ruling authorities
"are we not all the sons of one mother" (b. RoK.Hat. l9a). We should also note that like Galen
(UP 2.639), the Rabbis held that a nursing mother's milk was produced from her blood (Lev.
Rab. 14.3).
37b.Yeb.47a; and see Shaye Cohen, "The Rabbinic Conversion Ceremony," JJS 41 (1990)
177-203 .
JOSHUA LEVINSON
355
chief of Lotan (36:29). And it is written,And Lotan's sister was Timna
(ib. 22), and yet, And Timna was a concubine of Esau's son Eliphaz!
She said: Since I am not worthy of being his wife, let me be his
handmaid.38
This text is most likely respondingpolemically to the success of the churchin
attractinggentile converts.Here too, a characterof royal descent, a princess, does
not convertbut ratherassumesa subservientfamilial statusto Abraham,using the
expression: "I am not worthy of being his wife, let me be his handmaid."The
paralleltraditionin the BabylonianTalmudclosely resembles the story of Hagar
when Timna says: "I would ratherbe a servantto this people than a mistress of
anothernation"(b. San. 99b). Thus,the noblewomenin ourmidrash,like Pharaoh,
have a religious experience, and this experience causes them to take upon themselves a subservientfamilialposition.As in the Hagarnarrative,heretoo a woman's
body is used to affect a crossing of ethnic boundaries.
It is importantto stress the non-normativeaspects of this vignette. Sarah'sbehaviorcontradictsthe explicit halakhicrulingthat"adaughterof Israelshould not
breast-feedthe son of an idolater."39Notonly does Abrahamcompel his wife to
expose herself in public, but his demand can also be seen as contradictingthe
opinionthata womanwho "suckledin the market-placemustbe divorced"(bGittin
89a). Furthermore,in a fragmentpublishedby L. Ginzberg,depictingthe prophet
Isaiah's tourof the variouschambersof Hell (much like Dante's circles), the following descriptionappears:"In the fourth [chamber]he saw daughtersof Israel
hangingby the nipples of theirbreasts,because they used to sit in the marketplace
and suckle, thus leadingmen into sin."40Althoughthis is a late source, Lieberman
has attestedto its use of early Palestinianmaterials.4lWe will returnto this theme
later;for the moment, it is sufficientto recognize that,paradoxically,it is Sarah's
transgressivebody that acts as the gateway for incorporationinto the normative
political body.
All of these narrativesdisplay a certaintension:they enact a recognitionof the
God of the Jews but not a recognitionthat leads to conversion;they establish a
certainstatusof afElliation butonly in an indirectfashion.These charactersseem
to situatethemselves on the faultlinebetween the two dominantElctionsof identity: mixing inside and out, Jew and gentile. They acquirefamilial affinity to the
sons of Jacob,but only of a inferiorrank;andthey recognizethe power of the God
of Israel,but do not convert. I suggest thatthey constitutea "faultline"narrative,
38Gen.Rab. 82.14.
39m. (Abod.Zar. 2.1; t. (Abod.Zar. 3.3; y. (Abod.Zar. 40b (2.1); b. (Abod.Zar. 26a.
40Louis Ginzberg, GenzihStudiesin Memoryof J. SolomonShecter(3 vols.; New York:
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1928) 1. 188, 205.
4'See the discussion of this text in S. Lieberman, Textsand Studies(New York: Ktav, 1974)
37-51 .
356
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
which, as deE1nedby Sinfield, addressesthe awkward,unresolvedissues created
by the hegemonicideology; "theyhinge upona fundamental,unresolvedideological complicationthatfinds its way, willy-nilly, into texts."42
The questionthatnow
presentsitself is this: Which particularhistoricalconstellationof events and pressures broughtaboutthe creationof this plot, and how does it navigate them?
Godfearers
The key to understanding
the emergenceof this narrativeof affiliationin the second
and thirdcenturieslies in understandingthe signiElcanceof the anonymousgloss:
"whoevercame for the sake of heaven became a God-fearer."43The
Godfearers
(theosebeis),
or "Fearersof Heaven"(yiresamayim)as they are called in rabbinic
literature,havebeenthe subjectof considerablescholarlyinterestandargumentover
the past decade,and scholarshave compiledand cataloguedthe variousreferences
to themin Jewish,ChristianandRomansources.44
In the Elrstcenturiesof the Common Era, numerouspagansfelt a sufficientcloseness to the Jewish communityto
adopt some of its beliefs and/orcustoms;but they did not convert, nor did they
become an integralpart of the Jewish community.45Itis apparent,as Lieberman
comments,thatthis was neitheran organizednor a homogenousgroup.46
The com-
42Sinfield,CultutalPolitics-Queet Reading,4.
43Thissame meaningis alludedto in the midrashon Timnathat"kingsandrulerswished
to become allied [throughmarriage]to him."
44Thebibliographyis considerableandthe following is only a partiallist: Joyce Reynolds
andRobert Tannenbaum,
Jews and God-fearersatAphrodisias(Supp. 12; Cambridge:CambridgePhilologicalSociety 1987); A. T. Kraabel,"TheDisappearanceof the 'God-Fearers',
Numen28 (1981) 113-36; T. M. Finn, "TheGod-fearersReconsidered,"CBQ47 (1985) 7584; JohnJ. Collins,"ASymbolof Otherness:CircumcisionandSalvationin theFirstCentury,"
in J. NeusnerandE. Fredrichs,eds., To See Ourselvesas OthersSee Us (3 vols.; Chico, CA:
ScholarsPress, 1985) 2. 163-86; A. T. Kraabel,"SynagogaCaeca:SystematicDistortionin
Gentile Interpretationsof Evidencefor Judaismin the Early ChristianPeriod,"in ibid., 2.
21746; Tessa Rajak,"JewsandChristiansas Groupsin a PaganWorld,"in ibid., 2. 247-62;
R. S. MacLennanand A. T. Kraabel,"TheGod-Fearers:A Literaryand Theological Invention,"BAR12 (1986) 47-53; RobertTannenbaum,
"JewsandGod-Fearersin the Holy City of
Aphrodite,"ibid., 55-58; LouisFeldman,"TheOmnipresenceof the God-Fearers,"
ibid., 5869;idem,"Proselytesand'Sympathizers'
in theLightof theNew InscriptionsfromAphrodisias,"
REJ 148 (1989) 265-305; PaulR. Trebilco,Jewish Communitiesin Asia Minor(Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress, 1991) 145-66. For a convenientreview of the evidence and
secondaryliterature,see Louis Feldman,Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World(Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress, 1993) 342-82; L. Feldmanand M. Reinhold,Jewish Life and
Thoughtamong Greeksand Romans(Minneapolis:Fortress,1996) 137-46; E. Schtirer,The
Historyof the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (eds. G. Vermes, et. al.; 3 vols.;
Edinburg:T. & T. Clark, 1996,) 1. 150-76.
45Trebilco,Jewish Communitiesin Asia Minor, 145.
46S.Lieberman,Greekin Jewish Palestine (New York:Jewish Theological Seminaryof
America,1965) 77-90.
JOSHUA LEVINSON
357
as Feldmancallsthem,seemsto have
of these"sympathizers,"
mondenominator
of theGodof theJews,which
andpossiblyevena veneration
beenanadmiration
sometimesexpresseditselfin thefulfillmentof someof thecommandments:
The term God-fearersor sympathizersapparentlyrefers to an "umbrella group," embracingmany different levels of interest in and
commitmentto Judaism,ranging from people who supportedsynagogues financially(perhapsto get the political supportof the Jews), to
people who accepted the Jewish view of God in pure or modified
form, to people who observed certain distinctivelyJewish practices,
notablythe Sabbath.For some this was an end in itself; for others it
was a step leadingultimatelyto conversion.47
beginsto appearin the
Theliteraryevidencefortheexistenceof theGodfearers
in writingsof thesecondandthirdcentufirstcenturyandincreasesdramatically
ries.As we haveseen,thisperiodcoincideswitha perceivedneedon the partof
the conversionprocess.MartinGoodmanhas even
the rabbisto institutionalize
proposeda connectionbetweentheseeventsby suggestingthatthisrenewedrabonbytheexistence
"wasspurred
biniclegalactivityinthesecondandthirdcenturies
of suchsympathizers."48
havebeencollectednumerattestingto thesympathizers
Thevarioustraditions
An earlyrabbinicgloss on a
ous times,andI will alludeto only a few of them.49
versefromIsa44:5 ascribeseachlemmato a differentspeakeras follows:
Oneshall say, "Iam the Lord's,"anothershall use the nameof Jacob,
another shall mark his arm "of the Lord," and adopt the name of
Israel: and so you find four groupswho speak before Him by whose
word the world came into being: "one shall say, I am the Lord's and
there is in me no sin; one shall call himself by the name of Jacob"these are the righteousconverts,"andanothershall write on his hand
to the Lord" these are the repentantsinners, "these shall adopt the
nameof Israel"-these arethe fearersof heaven.50
Themidrashicreadingof thisverseclearlydrawsdistinctionsamongindigenous
Jews,converts,andfearersof heaven.R. Joshuab. Levi of the thirdcenturyexplainsthattheverse,';YouwhofeartheLordpraiseHim"(Ps22:24),refersto the
fearersof heaven,andR. Huna(fourthcentury)says:"Thecoastalcitiesaredelivbythementof a singleconvertora singlefearerof heaven
eredfromextermination
47Feldman,Jew and Gentile, 344.
48See Martin Goodman, "Proselytising in Rabbinic Judaism," JJS 40 (1989)184.
49See Feldman, Jew and Gentile, for a more complete list. Though some of the evidence
is questionable, the overall impression is correct.
18.
de-RabbiYishmaXel
S°Mekkilta
358
HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW
whom they produceeach year.''5lWhen Abimelech defends himself before God,
saying:"Lord,will you destoy an innocentpeople?"(Gen 20:4) the midrashstates:
"EventhoughI am a Gentile, I am a fearerof heaven."52
These Godfearersoccupieda liminalpositionbetweenJewishand paganidentities. While the rabbinicattitudeto these sympathizersis basicallypositive, we find
among the churchfathersand certainclassical authorsviliElcationsof "thosehalfJews who wish to live betweenboth ways."53
They may be the targetof Ignatius's
jibe againsttheuncircumcised
GentilewhoadvocatesJewishbeliefsandpractice,54
and
Tertullian'saccusation:"By resortingto these [Jewish]customs, you deliberately
deviatefromyourown religiousritesto thoseof stangers."55Juvenalis particularly
scathingwhen he denouncesthose "whohave hada fatherwho reveresthe Sabbath
(metuentem
sabbata),worshipnothingbut the clouds, and the divinityof the heavens, and see no differencebetween eating swine's flesh, from which their father
abstained,and thatof man;and in time they take to circumcision."56Epictetus
(ca.
5s130 CE) may be addressingthese "veneratorsof God"when he states:
Why do you act the part of a Jew when you are a Greek? . . . For
example,wheneverwe see a man facing two ways (EF0c"¢OTEpl(EIV),
we are in the habit of saying, "He is not a Jew, he is only acting the
part."But when he adopts the attitudeof mind of the man who has
been baptizedand has made his choice, then he both is a Jew in fact
andis called one.S7
Furtherevidence may be culled from several inscriptions such as that from
Panticapaeumon the northcoast of the Black Sea, which, if it has been interpreted
correctly,reads, "the synagogue of the Jews and Godfearers,"or the second or
thirdcenturyinscriptionon the seats of the Romantheaterin Miletus, which may
5'Gen.Rab. 28:5.
52PesiqtaRabbati42.
53CommodianusInstr.1.24; 1.37. See also, Cod.Theod.16.18.29 (quoted in: A. Linder, The
Jew in RomanImperialLegistation[Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987] 256-62).
s4"Ifanyone expounds Judaism to you, do not listen to him. For it is better to hear Christianism
from a man with circumcision than Judaism from an uncircumcised one" (Ignatius Phld. 6.1).
As Lieu points out, it is unlikely that Ignatius is referring to an uncircumcised Jew. On this
passage see Judith Lieu, Imageand Reality: TheJews in the Worldof the Christiansin the
Second Century(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996) 44; Stephen Wilson. "Gentile Judaizers"
NTS,38 (1992) 605-16.
ssTertullian Ad nat. 1.13.
56JuvenalSatires 14. 96-99 (ET: Menachem Stern, Greekand LatinAuthorson Jews and
Judaism(3 vols.; Jerusalem:Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,1974) 2. 102, and n.96.
57EpictetusArrianus19-21 (ET: Stern, Greekand LatinAuthors,1. 543). I follow here
Cohen's translation (Beginningsof Jewishness,60) of the word Erra,ufoTEplCElvinstead of
Stern's "halting between two faiths." For fuller discussion of this text, see J. Nolland, "Uncircumcised Proselytes?" JSJ 12 (1981) 173-94; Peter Schafer, Judeophobia(Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1997) 97-100.
JOSHUA LEVINSON
359
the most
mean "placeof the Jews axldthose who are called Godfearers."58Perhaps
intriguingand frustratingtestimonyemergedfrom the archeologicalfindings from
Aphrodisiasin westernTurkey,whichwerepublishedin 1987.59A stone stele, dated
to the earlythirdcentury,containstwo lists of contributorsto the local Jewishcommunity.One face may recordactualmembersof the communityand contains,in
additionto nativeJews, threeconvertsandtwo Godfearers.The otherface records
fifty-two names listed underthe heading"andthose who are Godfearers(kai hosoi
No less surprisingis the fact thatamongthis list appearnot only typitheosebis)."
cally Hellenisticor pagancharacters,such as an athleteandboxer, but also the city
counselors (bouleutes),who certainly participatedin the pagan civic rites. As
Goodmanhasremarked,"itseemslikely thatthe God-fearerswho attendedthe synagogue at Aphrodisiasprobablyin the early third century,had no suspicion that
In spiteof the eminentnames
continuedadherenceto paganismwasreprehensible."60
mentioned,the orderof the list iconicallyestablishestheirinferiorcommunalstatus,
just like the orderrecordedin the contemporaryrabbiniclist fromthe Mechilta.6lAs
Treblicohas stated:"TheGod-fearersare thereforedifferentfrom, and inferiorto,
the Jews. This mustbe becausethey arenot full membersof the Jewishcommunity
in the way bornJews andproselytesare.They area groupof Gentileswho belong to
the synagogue,althoughin an inferiorway comparedwith proselytes."62
Unfortunately,it is extremely difficult even to estimate the extent of this phenomena, especially in Palestine, where, to the best of my knowledge, they are
not mentioned in any archeological findings. Bambergerhas noted that rabbinic
literaturerarely mentions these incomplete converts,63and in fact the numberof
explicit references is no more than a dozen. Kraabelhas criticised what he sees
as a "serious misreading of the evidence" that emanates from scholarly overenthusiasm and under-interpretationof the entire phenomena, concluding that
"the evidence presently available is far from convincing proof for the existence
of such a class of Gentiles as traditionallydefined by the assumptions of the
secondary literature."64
580nthese two inscriptionssee Rajak,"JewsandChristiansas Groupsin a PaganWorld,"
Jews
258; Trebilco,JewishCommunitiesin Asia Minor,155-62; ReynoldsandTannenbaum,
and God-Fearersat Aphrodisias,54; Feldman,Jew and Gentile,361.
59Reynoldsand Tannenbaum,Jews and God Fearers at Aphrodisias.The inscription,its
andsignificancehas beenthe sourceof muchdebate;see J. Murphy-O'Connor,
interpretation,
RB 99 (1992): 418-24.
"Lotsof God-Fearers?,"
"Proselytisingin RabbinicJudaism,"177. However,as Cohenhas pointedout,
60Goodman,
it is not clear that this buildingwas actuallya synagogue(oral communication).
6ISeeabove, n. 51.
62Trebilco,Jewish Communityin Asia Minor, 153.
63B.Bamberger,Proselytismin the TalmudicPeriod (1939; reprintedNew York: Ktav,
1968) 136.
64A.T. Kraabel,"TheDisappearanceof the God-Fearers,"Numen28 (1981) 121.
360
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Undoubtedly,there have been exaggeratedclaims made by all sides, and the
can and should be revised as the various types of evidence are
continuallyreexamined.Skepticismis always a valuableandnecessarycorrective.
As ThomasFinn has stressedin his rejoinderto Kraabel,"surely,if the God-fearers stood so close to the heartof Judaismand in such numbersas proposed,they
would have left some clear footprintin the excavatedbuildingsand some impress
on stone, papyrus,and vellum."Yet he concludes that the "absenceof God-fearers' footprintsmay not be quite so determinateas one may think nor their silence
quiteso complete."65
We mustneverforgetthatin thisperiodthereexisted a myriad
of options and perspectiveson the question of "who is a Jew."66I am suggesting
that various texts may be implicitly grapplingwith the complex of issues here
withoutmentioningthem by name. In fact, Liebermanhas suggested thatsome of
the references to the resident alien (ger tosav) may in fact refer to gentile
sympathizers.67
This suggestion is especially attractivein light of the almost frantic and contradictoryattemptsby second- and third-centuryrabbis to define the
statusof the residentalien, with opinions rangingfrom a total gentile or "convert"
who eats non-kosherfood, to one who has rejectedidolatry,to one who has accepted some, or almost all, of the commandments.68
Likewise, there are a number
of texts that highlight the transientstatusof the residentalien, giving him twelve
monthsto decide whetherto undergocircumcisionbeforehe automaticallyreverts
to his gentile status. Particularlyintriguing is the tradition in the name of R.
Yochanan,which states that"a residentalien who delayed twelve months and did
not undergocircumcisionis like a gentile heretic(min sebaoumot)."69 This unparalleled term may indicate precisely their peculiar hybridity. This and related
commentsmay reflect the same anxiety expressedby Epictetus,"Whydo you act
the part of a Jew when you are a Greek?"We see here a concerted attemptto
contain the ambiguityof these "half-Jewswho wish to live between both ways,"
thus re-establishingthe binarylogic thatunderwritesethnic difference.
sensus receptus
A UtopianSolution:"OnlyImaginaryCommunities
AreReal"70
Even this brief summaryis sufficientto highlightthe problemssuch a groupcould
cause.Unlikeconverts,whose abilityto waverseethnicboundariesactuallystrengthens and accents the boundariesthemselves, the Godfearersrefused to settle on
either side. As J. Lieu has recently remarked,"this then is anotheraspect of the
65Finn,"TheGod-fearersReconsidered,"78.
66Asamplydemonstratedby Cohen,"Crossingthe Boundaryand Becominga Jew."
67Lieberman,
Creekin JewishPalestine,81.
68y, Yeb.8.1 (8d); b. (Abod.
Zar.64b; b. Qer.9a; b. San.96b.
69b.(Abod.
Zar.65a,accordingtoJTSv4830. SeealsoLieberman,
Midrash
Teman,
(Jerusalem,
1970) 8.
70Balibar,
Race,Nation,Class:Ambiguous
ldentities,93.
JOSH UA LEVINSON
361
a worldof fuzzyboundarieswhereexclusivecommitmentwas an
God-fearers;
constitutea culFollowingKristeva,I wouldsaythattheGodfearers
anomaly.''7l
thedominantfictionsof
to undermine
turalobject,whoseveryproximitythreatens
ethnicidentity.They are "whatdisturbsidentity,system,order,whatdoes not
respect borders, positions, rules. The in-between, the ambiguous, the
thedefinitionof theresidentalien
Thelackof consensusconcerning
composite."72
Itcouldverywellbe that
in favorof thisconnection.73
is in itselfa strongargument
each
thisconfbsionis anexpressionof the"thedifferentgroupsof semi-converts,
of
Judaism."74I
rituals
of whomadopteddifferentpartsof the ceremoniesand
suggest,however,thatwe viewthisgeneralconfusionas a symptomof theanxiety
arousedby theinabilityof halakhicdiscourseto mediatethesetensionssatisfactoof muchdeeper
is "anideologicaldisplacement
rily.Theverysurplusof deElnitions
"hadno legal statusin
It is not sufficientto observethatthe Godfearers
fears."75
theJewishcommunity,whetherin Palestineor outside.Theywerenotconverts,
of
of theextentof theirloyalty.Onlythefulfillmentof therequirements
regardless
it
is
prethat
believe
people."76I
the
Jewish
conversionwouldallowentranceto
cisely this inadequacyof rabbiniclegal discoursethatactedas a catalystfor
midrashicliteratureto attemptto negotiatethesefaultlinesandliterallyto "put
thesepeoplein theirplace."Theproblemwas thattheyhadno place,straddling
theverybordersof "us"and"them,"Jewandgentile,insiderandoutsider.
onlyarisesina time
aboutnationality
that"consciousness
Kaplanhasremarked
As I noted
of theunconsciouslinksto theimaginedcommunity."77
of disturbance
centuthe
first
during
formation
social
rabbinic
atthebeginningof thispaper,the
riesof theCommonErawasunderimmensepressureto redefineitselfin relation
of affiliation
I viewthesemidrashicnarratives
to variousemergingcommunities.
readingsof thesefracdevices,symptomatic
problem-solving
as fbndamentally
of identity.Inthe wordsof Moretti,"theyarethemeansthrough
turednarratives
producedby socialconflictandhistoriwhichtheculturaltensionsandparadoxes
I suggestthatthe "plotof
cal changeare disentangled(or at least reduced)."78
7lJudith M. Lieu, "Do God-Fearers Make Good Christians," in Stanley Porter et al., eds.,
Crossingthe Boundaries(Leiden: Brill, 1994) 344.
72J.Kristeva, ThePowersof Horror:AnEssayon Abjection(New York: Columbia University Press, 1982) 4.
73SeeFeldman, Jewand Gentile,356; David Novak, TheImageof the Non-Jewin Judaism:
An Historicaland ConstructiveStudyof the NoachideLaws(New York: Mellon, 1983).
74Lieberman,Greekin Jewish Palestine, 81.
75J.Dollimore, "Transgression and Surveillance in Measure for Measure," in idem and A.
Sinfield, eds., Political Shakespeares:New Essays in CulturalMaterialism(Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1985) 80.
76Schiffman, "At the Crossroads," 138.
77Kaplan,Lookingfor the Other,30.
78F.Moretti, "Crisis of the European Bildungsroman," in R. Cohen, ed., Studiesin Historical Change(Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1992) 57.
362
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
affiliation" is an attemptto create a mythical biography for the Godfearers,79to
give them a name and to tell their story so as to neutralize their alterity and
assert narrativecontrol over them and their threateningliminality.
The ideological challenge presented by the Godfearers was their ambiguous identity, which threatened the hegemonic fictions. How could they be
incorporatedinto the political body, even peripherally so, without undermining the very distinctions which permit the creation of identity? It is readily
apparentthat neither the genealogical nor the covenantal paradigms could accommodate the Godfearers. Conversion could enable a gentile to see himself
as a metaphorical descendent of Abrahamor beneficiary of revelation, but a
new fiction of identity was necessary to accommodate those who straddle both
worlds. This narrative of affiliation seems to be a combination of elements
derived from both dominant paradigms. It contains the motif of recognition
and acknowledgment as well as biological affinity. However, both of these
components undergo a transformation:The recognition is only partial and the
affinity is indirect. It would seem that the dominant fictions of identity drawn
from the cultural repertoire are being recast in order to accommodate a new
reality. The affiliation plot is an attempt by the cultural imaginary of rabbinic
Judaismto create a narrativeof identity for these Godfearers,an identity whose
culturaljob is to explain how they can be both inside and out, both the same
and different.
As we saw above, one of the strategiesused by the fictions of identity was to
create a homology between gender and ethnic identities. A consequence of this
rhetoric is the creation of a semiotic imbricationbetween women and gentiles,
between the woman as otherand the otheras women. I suggest that Sarah'sbody
is being used literally as food for thought,to work out and display this discourse
of self-fashioning. Therefore there could not be a more appropriatesite to embody the attemptsof the rabbinicimaginationliterally, to regulatethe boundaries
of theirimagined community.The key to the culturalwork performedhere is her
transgressive character.I have already remarkedthat the very act of nursing
gentiles and Sarah'spromiscuouspublic display were an enactmentof a woman's
body not in place. But thereare deeperaspects to this trope. CarolineBynum has
observed that "to religious writers, the good female body is closed and intact;
79ContraPorton, who remarks that "while we can imagine individuals replacing one system
of belief with another or one legal system with another, it is clearly impossible to change one' s
line of descent.... The most one can do is join a socially constructed descent group, which
need not be biologically based; but there is no evidence that the rabbis in late antiquity sought
to create such a socially constructed descent group, which converts could join . . . as far as can
be determined, in late antiquity, the rabbis did not attempt to create this artificial lineage"
(Porton, Stranger within Your Cates, 6).
JOSH UA LEVINSON
363
the badwoman'sbodyis open,windyandbreachable.
Sucha notionidentified
womanwithboundaries,
withopeningsandexudingsandspillingsforth."80It
is
preciselySarah'sbreachable
bodythatprovidesaccessforthegentileGodfearers.
Followingthe lead of MaryDouglas,we can see an imaginativecorrelation
betweentheboundaries
of thebodyandtheboundaries
of society.Thebodyis one
of the semioticspaceswhereinsocialconcernsaresymbolicallyenacted,where
issuesof identityarerepresented
anddisplayed,andanxietiesareaddressedand
contradictions
resolved:
The body is a model which can stand for any bounded system. Its
boundariescan representany boundarieswhich are threatenedand precarious.... We cannotpossibly interpretrituals concerningexcreta,
breast milk, saliva and the rest unless we are preparedto see in the
body a symbol of society, and to see the powersand dangerscredited
to social structurereproducedin smallon the humanbody.81
If we cansee Sarah'sbodyas "asymbolof therelationship
betweenpartsof society, as mirroring
designsof hierarchywhichapplyin thelargersocialsystem,"82
thenit is mostaptthatherpermeability
signalsthemeansforthe"in-corporation"
of theGodfearers
intotheJewishpoliticalbody.
Thematriarch's
bodyis literallytransgressive
(transgredi= to stepacross)in
thatit enablestheoutsidersto comein.If, undernormalcircumstances,
"thethreatenedboundaries
of thebodypoliticwouldbe well mirroredin theircarefor the
integrity,unity,andpurityof thephysicalbody,"83
here,thenecessitytojustifya
breachin the social structureis mirroredhomologicallyin Sarah'sopen and
breachable
body.A similar,thoughreversed,culturallogicwasusedby thechurch
fathersof thisperiodto represent
Mary'sclosedandvirginalbodyas theagentfor
redeemingEve's open andtransgressive
one.84Bythis samelogic, if Tertullian
8°Caroline Bynum, Fragmentationand Redemption:Essays on Genderand the Human
Body in MedievalReligion (New York: Zones 1991) 220, 384, n. 107. See also: T. Coletti,
"The Paradox of Mary's Body," in Linda Lomperis and Sarah Stanbury, eds., FeministApproachesto the Bodyin MedievalLiterature(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1993) 65-95; J. Salisbury, ChurchFathers,IndependentVirgins(London: Verso 1991) 29.
8IMary Douglas, Purityand Danger (London: Praeger 1966) 115. See also H. EilbergSchwartz, TheSavageznJudaism(Bloomington:University of Indiana Press, 1990) 178-79:
"Since threats to society are reproduced symbolically in conceptions of the human body we
should expect the orifices of the body to symbolize its specially vulnerable points....
The
fluids of the body turn out to be a kind of language in which various religious themes find their
voice. These themes do speak to concerns generated by the social structure."
82Douglas, Purityand Danger, 13.
83Douglas, Purityand Danger, 124.
84AsIrenaeus said: "And just as it was through a virgin who disobeyed [namely,Eve] that
mankind was stricken and fell and died, so too it was through the Virgin [Mary], who obeyed
the word of God, that mankind, resuscitated by life, received life.... And Eve [had necessarily
364
HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW
can denigrate the transgressive woman as "the devil's gateway, the unsealer
thenthe open andtrangressiveSarahcan be portrayedas the gateway to a new type of identity.
The narrativeof affiliationthusdramatizesthe transgressionof culturalboundariesas mirroredin thebody, confirmingSusanSuleiman'sinsightthat"thecultural
significance of the female body is not only (not even first and foremost) thatof a
flesh-and-blood entity, but as a symbolic construct."86Thehomology between
Sarah's porous body, with its "exudingsand spillings forth,"and the permeable
social body both enacts the faultline and provides its imaginaryresolution. The
matriarch'sbody, transgressingin place and purpose,enacts the inability of the
dominantfictions of identityto cope with the Godfearers.By transformingSarah's
body into food, those who imbibe become partof the social body.
Previously, we observedthat both of the dominantfictions of ethnicity establish identitythroughthe father.This in itself is not surprising;as Anne McClintock
has observed:"allnationsdependon powerfulconstructionsof gender."87
However,
if the metaphorof the family "offers a 'natural'figure for sanctioning national
hierarchywithina putativeorganicunityof interests,"88
thenthe narrativeof afElliation offers a counter-discourseof identitythroughthe body of the matriarch.In
other words, if both of the dominantfictions provide narrativesfor "members"
only, here, the secondaryand inferiorwoman's body89provides a subordinateand
subservientstatusfor the Godfearers.Sarah'sbreastsmay not be the "devil's gateway" but they are the backdoorentrance.
This depiction of Sarah's transgressivebody is reminiscentof Bakhtin's category of the grotesque.The grotesqueis manifestedprecisely in its hybridity,in
transgressingthe purityof binarydistinctionswherein the low invades the high,
blurringthe hierarchicalimpositionof order.90Likewise,Sarah'sbody embodies
the grotesque, not only throughits excessive abundanceand profusion, but be(resignatrix),"85
to be restored]in Mary,thata virgin,by becomingthe advocateof a virgin,shouldundoand
destroyvirginaldisobedienceby virginalobedience"(IrenaeusProof of theApostolicPreaching 33; ET:Marythroughthe Centuries[trans.J. Pelikan;New Haven:Yale UniversityPress,
1996, 4243]); see also, IrenaeusHaer. 3.22.4.
85Tertullian
On the Apparelof Women,1.1.
86SusanR. Suleiman,"Introduction,"
The Female Body in WesternCulture(Cambridge,
MA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1986) 2.
87AnneMcClintock,lmperialLeather:Race, Genderand Sexualityin the ColonialContest
(New York:Routledge,1995) 353.
88Ibid.,357
89SeeR. HowardBloch,MedievalMisogyny(Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress, 1991)
13-36.
90SeePeterStallybrassandAllon White,ThePolitics and Poetics of Transgression(London:Methuen,1986)58; S. Hall,"Metaphors
of Transformation"
in AllonWhite,ed., Carnival,
Hysteria,and Writing(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 1993) 8.
JOSHUA LEVINSON
365
cause it combinesthe conceptsof in andout, Jew andgentile,us andthem.Through
a conjunctionof the gender and ethnic codes of identity, Sarah as an "internal"
other is both the guardianof the thresholdand the locus of its subversion.Thus,
the figure of the transgressivenursingmotherchallenges the purityof ethnic distinctionsbaseduponeitherbelief-systemsor genealogyandbecomes an ideological
vehicle for the creationof a culturalbiographyof the Godfearers.
Isis:"Whatif theobjectstartedto speak?''9l
There is anotheraspect of Bakhtin's thoughtthat may provide us with an additional avenueof reading.I have arguedthatthis emergingnarrativeof affiliationis
remarkablysuitedto navigatethe faultlinesbetweenthe contestingfictions of identity, creatinga utopianhierarchythatenables the incorporationof the Godfearers
withoutunderminingthe dominantfictions of identity. I have also remarkedthat
Kaplan's notionof nationas narrationintroducesthe questionof those marginalized
by the narrativeprocess of creatingany given imaginedcommunity.It is importantto understandthatmarginalizationis creatednot only by non-narration,by not
letting the subalternspeak, but also by speakingfor him or her. In the text before
us, the noble ladies are grantedspeech andsubjectivity,butthe importantquestion
is to what extent they could recognize themselves in this narrative.
Undoubtedly,this narrativeis an effective culturalfantasy of reversal, but it
would seem to remainprecisely that.These images arecreatedout of the anxieties
of theirown self-fashionings,and as such representhow a cultureimagines itself
in the act of imaginingothers. I would say that they enable a cultureto avoid the
dangers of imagining their other by endlessly repeating the act of imagining
itself.92We thereforehave to distinguishbetweenwhatcan be called ventriloquism
and dialogism. In the former,the imaginingvoice speaks throughanother,so that
it appearsthathe or she speaks,but the narratoris only using the otheras a tactic of
self-fashioning.Dialogism,in the Bakhtiniansense, is lettinganotherspeakthrough
one's own voice; a type of possession, or, in narratologicalterms, a type of culture-free,indirectdiscourse.
The historianswho have dealt with the variousaspects of the Godfearershave
ignoredor disregardedwhat may have been one of its most salient characteristics.
This phenomenonshouldbe analyzedas an aspectof popularculturein late antiquity.By thisterm,I do not meananoccurrencethatis prevalentin a certaineconomic
or social stratum,but rathera phenomenonthatarises andtakes shape on the margins of hegemonic culture, and sometimes against its will. It is thereforeall the
91L.Irigaray,Speculumof the Other Woman(trans.G. Gill; Ithaca:Cornell University
Press, 1985) 135.
92SeeJanMohamed,"TheEconomyof ManicheanAllegory:The Functionof Racial Difin H. L. Gates,ed., Race, Writing,andDifference (Chicago:
ferencein ColonialistLiterature,"
Universityof ChicagoPress, 1986) 78-106.
366
HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW
more threatening,vis-+vis the normativemechanismsof control. If we look at
cultureas a whole, as a form of rhetoricfor the creationand maintenanceof preferred meanings and subjectivities, then the popular is the site of struggle and
adaptation.
If hegemonicideologyworksthrough"interpellation,"
solicitingself-recognition,
thenthepopularconsistsof semioticresistanceandtransformation,
whereintextsand
meaningsarereemployedandreconfiguredso as to alteror inverttheirintendedmeaning. This is whatde Certeauhas calledthe practiceof perruque or "poaching,"when
"thereaderinventsin texts somethingdifferentfrom what they 'intended."'93
Terry
Eagletonhas addedan importantcorrectiveto Althusser'stheoryby stressingthat
interpellation
mustalwaysbe interpreted.
"Thereis no reasonwhy we shouldalways
acceptsociety's identificationof us as this particularsortof subject,and thereis no
guaranteethat we will do this in the 'proper'fashion."94Ideological
struggletakes
place in relationto systemsof representation,
which arenot the sole preserveof any
one group.These systems thatserve as the mediumthroughwhich are constructed
bothour"reality"
and"ourselves,"also
providethesiteforideologicalcontestation.95
"If
the dominantideologyconstitutessubjectivitiesthatwill find 'natural'its view of the
world, subculturesconstitutepartiallyalternativesubjectivities."96Therefore,
if the
popularis the areain whichinterpellation
is negotiatedamongthe dominant,subordinate,and oppositional,then we mightexpect to find tracesof this dissentin the text
beforeus.
Now, I seriouslydoubtif thesenoblewomenwho representthe actualhegemonic
culture,in oppositionto theimaginedhegemonyofferedby thetext,saw themselvesin
sucha servileandsubservientposition,just as I seriouslydoubtif the Godfearerssaw
themselvesas liminalor marginal.Keepingin mindthatall storiescomprisewithin
themselvesthe ghosts of the alternativestoriesthey are tryingto suppress,97
can we
detectin this text a dialogicvoice, thatdoes not eraseothernessby the very act representingit?Letme clarifywhatI amasking.ThequestionI wouldliketo pose is whether
we candiscerna dialogicotherthatrepresentsnotonly how therabbiswouldlike to be
seen in the eyes of othersin theirconstructionof a utopianhierarchy,but also how
theseothersactuallysawthem.Couldtherabbishaveviewedthemselves"other-wise,"
or askedthemselvesthe question,"whatif the objectstxutedto speak?"
93SeeM. de Certeau,ThePracticeof EverydayLife,Berkeley1988, 24; J. Ahearne,Michel
de Certeau:lnterpretationand lts Other(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress, 1995) 160-73;
T. Bennett,"ThePoliticsof thePopular,"in TonyBennett,ColinMercer,andJanetWoollacott,
eds., PopularCultureand Social Relations(Philadelphia:OpenUniversityPress, 1986) 19.
94TerryEagleton,ldeology (London:Logman,1991) 145.
95Silverman,
Male Subjectivityat the Margins,27.
96AlanSinfield, Gay and After(London:Serpent'sTail, 1998) 149.
97AlanSinfield, Faultlines: CulturalMaterialismand the Politics of DissidentReading,
(Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1992) 21.
JOSHUA LEVINSON
367
When scholars consider why the various groups of sympathizersmight have
been attractedto Judaismin late antiquity,the proposedanswersoften resemble a
paeanof self-adulation,or a good reportcardfrom Sundayschool.98Let us try and
place ourselves for a moment with those women who witnessed the miracle and
saw Sarahwith her son in her lap sucklingthe multitudes.Whatdid they see, what
would have wrought such a religious transformation,and how would they have
translatedthis religious experience into their own language? The image of the
nursingmatriarchis an extremelyprominentone in late antiquity,particularlyin
relationto the goddess Isis. Her cult underwenta revival in this periodbecause of
its official adoptionby the Flavian (late first century)and Severan (late second /
It was especially popularamong the Roman arisearlythirdcenturies)dynasties.99
tocracy, and it was in this period that "Isis enjoys the warmest imperial
patronage.''l°°AsStarkhas observed, in archeologicalfindings from the second
andthirdcenturies,"Isiswas one of the fifteen most frequentlymentionedgods in
the Roman empire, and in this period she becomes the most popular and most
Her cult continuedto be populareven after the anti-pagan
syncretic goddess.''10l
laws of Constantine;and in the fourthcentury,threeChristianemperorsbestowed
theirpatronagetowardthe restorationof the Isis temple in the port of Ostia.l02
Isis was first and foremost a mother,and her cult was notablypopularamong
She is called not only the "motherof kings,"but the "themotherof all
women.103
life" as well.l04In an inscriptionfrom the thirdcenturyshe says, "I am she whom
Because she was the divine mother, she was praised as
the women call God.''105
Isis lochia,"as she who has broughtforth the new-bornbabe.''l06In the GraecoRoman world, Isis became the acknowledged founder of religious observances
followers saw her as the agent of initiation
and the goddess of conversion.107Her
98Feldman,Jew and Gentile, 369-82.
99SariTakacs, lsis and Sarapis in the RomanWorld(Leiden: Brill, 1995) 29. Josephus
records that on Vespasian's return to Rome he and Titus spent the night in the temple of Isis
on the Campus Martius before celebrating the next day his triumph over Judaea (Josephus
Bell., 7 123).
100R.E. Witt, lsis in the Graeco-RomanWorld(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1971) 238
l°lS. Stark, lsis in theArtsof theHellenisticandRomanPeriods [Hebrew] Doctoral Thesis
(Jerusalem,1988) 10-12. See also: Ramsay MacMullen, Paganismin theRomanEmpire(New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1981) 6.
l02RobertTurcan, The Cultsof the RomanEmpire(Oxford: Blackwell, 1996) 123.
103A.Momigliano, OnPagans,Jewsand Christians(Middletown, CT: Weslyan University
Press, 1987) 188.
l04Witt,lsis in the Graeco-RomanWorld,135; Eva Cantarella, Pandora'sDaughters(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987) 156.
Ross S. Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings (New York: Oxford, 1992) 75.
l06Witt,lsis in the Graeco-RomanWorld,148.
t07Ibid.,
59.
368
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
into the mysteries, and in a hymn from the second century, she declares that she
revealed the secrets to humankindand taughthumanbeings the reverence of the
gods.108Likewise,in his mid-second-centurynovel, Metamorphosis, Apuleius
describes Isis as the mother who saves.l09Whenhe describes the celebrationof
her majorfestival, the navigiumIsidis, probablywitnessedin Carthage,he records
thatin the gloriousprocessionthereappeareda priestwho "carrieda small golden
vessel roundedin the shape of a female breast, from which he poured libations
of milk"(aureumvasculumin modumpapillae rotundatum).1l0V. TranTam Tinh
has remarkedthatmilk from the divine breastwas believed to grantlife, longevity, salvation,anddivinity.l1l"Thedivine milk is thus metaphoricallythe medicine
of immortality through which not only kings and heroes, but the initiates of
mystery religions, are given life.''l12Itis thereforenot surprisingthat in the material cultureof this period, Isis is usually representedas sitting and nursingher
son, or, accordingto the testimony of Macrobiusfrom the beginning of the fifth
century, as a figurine covered with breasts, similar to what is known as Artemis
multimammia.113
It is precisely this image of Isis lactans thatis representedin rabbinicliterature.
She is one of the few pagangods mentionedexplicitly and, in fact, is named "she
in a discussionof forbiddenimages, the Talwho nurses"(manikan).l14Moreover,
mud describesher as "nursinga child in her lap," and the tannaR. Yehudah,the
very same who saw Abrahamas a "fatherto all the nations,"likens Isis to Eve,
just as Apuleius calls
charactenzingher as "she who suckledthe whole world,''l15
her the "cosmic mother.''ll6Allof these elements are very close to those in the
narrativebefore us: the Romannoble women have a religiousconversionaryexperience, one of initiationinto the Jewish"mysteries,"thatpivot aroundthe image of
'08GailP. Corrington,"TheMilkof Salvation:Redemptionby the Motherin LateAntiquity
and EarlyChristianity,"HTR82 (1989) 400; Witt, lsis in the Graeco-RomanWorld,59.
11.25.See also the Hermetictextbroughtby Witt(lsis in the Graecot09ApuleiusMetamor.
RomanWorld,219) whereinHorusis informed4'Thymilk belongs to thee, which is in the
breasts of thy mother,"which echoes the exclamation44Weare not worthy to suckle our
childrenwith the milk of this righteousman."
11.10. See also: FrederickSolmsen,lsis amongthe Greeksand RoIl°ApuleiusMetamor.
mans(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 1979) 208; Turcan,TheCultsof the Roman
Empire,115. This rite may be alludedto in TertullianDe baptismo,5.
ttIV.TranTamTinh, lsis Lactans(Leiden:Brill, 1973) 1.
Corrington,44Milkof Salvation,"400.
MacrobiusSaturn.1.20, quotedin Witt, lsis in the Graeco-RomanWorld,149.
1'4t. 'Abod. Zar. 5:1; Saul Lieberman,Hellenismin Jewish Palestine (New York:Jewish
TheologicalSeminaryof America,1962) 136.
"5b.tAbod.Zar. 43a. For additionalreferences,see Lieberman,Greekin Jewish Palestine.
116J.G. Griffiths, The lsis Book (Metamorphoses,Book Xl) (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 208.
t'
^'
>_n_s
ln
+
iii
..t
9
t
l
'91,
JOSH UA LEVINSON
369
Sarah, who sits with Isaac in her lap nursing the multitudes. It does not seem
unwarrantedto surmise that these women who saw Sarah translatedthis experience into one that was very familiar,Sarah/Isisthe motherof all life.
*A
--
_
-
..Y.
.}
_J
tL',+S_
*'.."" b
D
_SsSs-2
. ''"'
D'
t_
0
.v.*1
,
>
<
.]
-;
.
g
4
...
A,
.,
*
Isislactans:Karanis,fourfficenturyCE[photocourtesyof E. J. Brill,Publishers]
This connectionbetween Isis and Sarahmay be strengthenedwhen we remember thatin ourtext, these very same noblewomenElrstaccuse Sarahof promiscuous
behavior.The goddess herself "was said to have been a prostitutein Tyre for ten
years, and her temples were located near brothels, and they had a reputationfor
being meeting places for prostitutes.''ll7Likewise,Liebermanhas noted that the
oath of a second- or third-centuryPalestinianprostitute("by the love of Rome")
should be understoodas referringto Isis, "especiallywhen we rememberthat Isis
took the place of Venus by whom the courtesanshadbeen previouslyswearing.''ll8
Whores,
WivesandSlaves(New York:Pimlico, 1995) 222.
"7SusanPomeroy,Goddesses,
See also the tale of Paulina'sadulterousseductionin the templeof Isis recordedin Josephus
Ant.,18.3.65.
Greekin JewishPalestine,14041.
1'8Lieberman,
370
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
We shouldrememberthatnot only was Isis one of "themost trulypolyonymous
of all gods in antiquity,''ll9butthatthe Isaic cult itself was known to be especially
syncretistic.In fact, Shaye Cohen has comparedthe Godfearingsympathizersto
the worshippersof Isis in that "Jews and Judaism were hardly unique in their
ability to attractsympathizersand adherents.... In Rome in the first centuryBCE
the goddess Isis exerteda powerfulattractionon manypoets and intellectualswho
remainedunderher spell but did not undergoconversion.''120
Is it possible thatthe matriarchis presentedhere as a figure of Isaic salvation?
We may be able to find an analogoussituationin the paganfigures and motifs that
were used in Palestiniansynagogue decorationsin late antiquity.12lDespite the
explicit rabbinicprohibitionof the use of images like "a scepterand a globe" (m.
'Abod.Zar.3:1),varioussynagoguemosaics have been discoveredwith representations of Helios or Sol Invictus holding these very symbols.122Andthis at the
same time when Helios "was a live symbol that was being mobilized by emperor
and church alike to representthe cosmocrator,with each traditionproviding its
own interpretation.''l23
As the JerusalemTalmudattests,"inthe days of R. Yochanan
they began depicting [Elguralrepresentations]on the walls and he did not object;
in the days of R. Abun [first half of fourthcentury]they began making such figureson themosaic floorsandhe did not object.''l24
Since these discoveries, scholars
have debatedthe significance of these images. Were they merely decorativemotifs, were their meanings "Judaized,"or did they continue to convey "pagan"
significance?However we answerthis question,if it can be answered,the possible
representationof Sarahas Isis adds a new voice to this discussion. If in the visual
arts "the identificationof a pagancult image with a Jewish or a Christianmessi-
9MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire, 90.
l20Cohen, "Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew," 31; Solmsen, Isis among the
Greeks and Romans, 83.
l2lThereis a considerable and expanding literature on this topic; for a convenient summary
see: Ephraim E. Urbach, "The Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries
in the Light of Archeological and Historical Facts," lEJ 9 (1959): 238-45; Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998, 152, n. 13.
l22R.Hachlili, "The Zodiac in Ancient Jewish Art: Representation and Significance," BASOR
228 (1977) 61-77; R. Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art and Archeology in the Land of Israel
(Leiden: Brill, 1988); Joseph Gutmann, "Early Synagogue and Jewish Catacomb Art and its
Relation to Christian Art," Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt, 2. 21.2, (1984)
1313-42. The prevalence of this motif is all the more striking when we take into consideration
Josephus's description of the Temple curtains that "had also embroidered upon it all that was
mystical in the heavens, excepting that of the [twelve] signs, representing living creatures"
(Bell., 5.214).
l23LeeI. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000) 573;
Macmullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire, 84-86.
124y 'Abod. Zar. 3.3 (42d), according to the fragment published by Jacob N. Epstein,
Studies in Talmudic Literature and Semitic Languages (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988) 256.
JOSHUA LEVINSON
371
milieuof lateantiquityandserves
wasverycommonin thesyncretistic
anicElgure
as butone exampleof theadoptionby onecultof thepictorialsymboliclanguage
the samemaybe saidof the narrativetraditionbeforeus, which
of another,''l25
does the samein reverse.If KingDavidcouldbe portrayedas Orpheusin the
synagoguesof GazaandDuraEuropos,thenSarahcouldbecomeIsis in theeyes
of e pagansympathizers.
of Sarahas Isis a dialogicalimage?Arethe rabbispreIs this representation
It
or is this a case of contestedinterpellation?
sentingthemselves"other-wise,"
themselvesastheywereseenin paganeyes,
couldbe thattherabbisarepresenting
an interpretatio pagana of Sarah.Or,it couldbe thattheyhavenotrelinquished
culturalvoices
oneof thedominant
andaremerelyrecuperating
authority
narrative
fortheirownuse.I donotknowe answerto thisquestion.Butwe woulddo well
thatlateantiquepagansof everyclass
to keepin mindPeterBrown'sobservation
andlevel of culture"livedin manyconflictingthoughtworldsandcontinuedto
sysenjoya freedomof maneuverwithinthe intersticesof the manyexplanatory
of the
temsthatjostledeachotherin thebackof theirminds."Theywere"hackers
variousbeliefsandpracticesinorderto
to cannibalise
quiteprepared
supernatural,
systems,andbringorder
findsparepartswithwhichto enrichtheirownreligflous
by uncercharacterised
worldshotthroughwithacuteambiguity,
to a supernatural
of theholy.''l26
taintyas to themeaningof so manymanifestations
Xg Conclusion
The boundaryis Janus-facedand the problemof outside/insidemust
always itself be a process of hybridity,incorporatingnew "people"in
relation to the body politic, generatingother sites of meaning and,
inevitably,in the politicalprocess producingunmannedsites of political antagonismandunpredictableforces for politicalrepresentation.127
stonesof howtheworld
bycirculating
themselvesculturally
Societiesreproduce
addresscontestedaspectsof ourideocharacteristically
operates.ThesenatTatives
fictions,orby profferingnew
thedominant
eitherbyrehearsing
logicalformation,
of a discourse
whenwe canwitnesstheproduction
is a rareoccurrence
ones.l28It
in the social imaginary.I have suggestedthatthe plot of affiliationis such a
ideologicalcomto addresscertainunresolved
whichattempts
narrative,
"faultline"
12sB.Narkiss,"Pagan,Christian,andJewishElementsin the Artof AncientSynagogues,"
in Lee I. Levine, ed., The Synagoguein Late Antiquity(Philadelphia:Jewish Theological
Seminaryof America,1987) 184.
Brown,Authorityand the Sacred(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1995)
'26Peter
67-70.
Narratingthe Nation,"4.
"Introduction:
t27Bhabha,
Sinfield,CulturalPolitics-Queer lVeading,3.
372
HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW
plicationsthataroseinthefirstcenturiesof thecommonerawiththeemergenceof
theGodfearers.
Theprevailingfictionsof identitywereincapableof accommodating theseemergingidentities.Therefore,a new or refurbished
fictionhadto be
toldin orderto domesticate
theirambiguities
as a locusof subversion.Inthisnew
narrative,
a utopianhierarchy
wascreatedthrougha collocationof thegenderand
ethniccodes.
However,as Bhabhahasremindedus, talesthatseekto tametheunrulyoften
becomethemselvesthesite of renewedborderskirmishes.It is throughsuchstoriesthatideologiesarecontested,andsubordinate
groupsstruggleto makespace
forthemselves.Onthesefaultlines,othemessis alwaysinfiltrating
sameness,and
vice-versa.Ideologicalpower,as JohnThompsonputsit, is notjust a matterof
meaning,butof makingmeaningsstick.l29The
persistenceof othernessbecomes
apparent
withtherejectionof ventriloquism
as a strategyof containment,
andthe
transformation
of Sarah'stransgressive
bodyfroma signof subservience
to oneof
Isaicsalvation.Onceagain,Bakhtin'sconceptof heteroglossiais useiil here,suggestingthatliterarydiscourseis oftenriddledwith"unofficial"
voicescontesting,
subverting,
andparodying
dominantdiscourses.l30
Withthis"circulation
of social
energy,"Sarah'sbodybecomesdialogic,enacting"a concentrated
dialogueof
two voices,two worldviews,twolanguages.''l3l
129John
B. Thompson,Studiesin the Theoryof Ideology(Berkeley:UniversityOf California Press, 1984) 132.
130J, E. Howard,"TheNew Historicismin RenaissanceStudies,"in ArthurF. Kinneyand
Dan S. Collins, eds., RenaissanceHistoricism(Amherst:Universityof MassachusettsPress,
1987) 20.
I3lMikhailBakhtin,TheDialogic lmagination (trans.C. Emersonand M. Holquist;Austin: Universityof Texas Press, 1981) 325.