¹ Based on a statement by Origen in the Prologue to his Commentary (below, n. 16) mentioning that the Jews allow only the mature to hold this book in their hands, G. Scholem argued that Origen was aware of a Jewish mystical interpretation (Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition [New York, 1965] 38–40)Google Scholar. Cf. S. Lieberman, Mishnat Shir HaShirim, apud Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 126, esp. n. 45. Origen also cited a Jewish tradition that the Scriptures resemble a multi-room house in which the keys have been mixed up and no one knows how to enter (Selecta in Ps., PG 12. 1080). Similarly, Saadyah Gaon described the Song as a lock whose key is lost (Ḥamesh Megillot, ed. Kafaḥ, p. 26). E. Urbach, who also noted the connection between Origen's and Saadyah's comments, has argued (below, n.3) that the allegorical interpretation cannot be traced back to much before 70 C.E. and that the mystical interpretation is likely the work of R. Aqiba. But G. Cohen contended, “The mere fact that the work was housed in the library [Cave 4—R.K.] of the Dead Sea Sect is sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that the work was not regarded as an erotic one long before the destruction of the Temple” (“The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality,” reprinted in Leiman, S. Z., ed., Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible [New York, 1974] 281Google Scholar n. 15).,

Both the Rabbis and Origen expounded a mystical meaning to the Song. Why specifically the Song should become susceptible to mystical exegesis is explained by Y. Muffs: “As Professor Lieberman has pointed out to me, for the rabbis, the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs as a dialogue of love between God and Israel, was for them the only peshat. The use of the Song in the local bars, which most moderns might consider much closer to the original intent of the writer, was not peshat for the rabbis at all; it was simply so much blasphemy. Now if the rabbis considered the simple meaning of the Song of Songs to be the dialogue of love between God and Israel, what then was their midrashic interpretation? In all probability it was the esoteric one, which was more concerned with the mystical contemplation of the divine soma, than with the dialogue of love between God and His people” (“Joy and Love as Metaphorical Expressions of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures,” Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults [ed. Neusner, J.; Leiden, 1975]Google Scholar 3.21). For additional literature on the canonization of the Song of Songs, see Leiman, S. Z., ed., The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: the Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Hamden, CN, 1976) 201–2Google Scholar, n. 642.

² In Zion 21 (1965) 1–49Google Scholar; and in English as “Israel, the Christian Church, and the Roman Empire from the Time of Septimius Severus to the Edict of Toleration of 313,” Scripta Hierosolymitana (henceforth SH) 7 (1961) 79–149Google Scholar.

³ In Tarbiz 30 (1960) 148–70;Google Scholar and in English as the “Homiletical Interpretations of the Sages and the Expositions of Origen on Canticles, and the Jewish-Christian Disputation,” SH 22 (1971) 247–75Google Scholar.

⁴ Lange, N. R. M. de, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (Cambridge, 1975)Google Scholar. De Lange marshalls evidence to demonstrate that “Origen holds a key position in the history of the relations between Jews and Christians” (p. 1). He contends that “special attention must be paid to the debate between Church and Synagogue as it manifests itself in Origen's work” (p. 13). He also adduces evidence for the thesis that Origen-had access to contemporary Jewish exegesis. Similar conclusions, albeit with less documentation, are drawn by Bietenhard, H., Caesarea, Origenes und die Juden (Stuttgart, 1974)Google Scholar. David J. Halperin has also argued that Origen's First Homily on Ezekiel is a Christianization of the rabbinic homiletic complex on the Sinaitic revelation (“Origen, Ezekiel's Merkabah, and the Ascension of Moses,” read at the 1979 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion, New York City, and as yet unpublished).

⁵ Comm. in Ps., PG 12. 1056B.

⁶ Graetz, H., “Hillel, der Patriarchensohn,” MGWJ 25 (1881) 433–34Google Scholar. B. Lifshitz argued that “the name is undoubtedly a copy of a Latin form of Hillel. The double lambda reproduces the and reflects the exactness of the copy” (“The Ancient Synagogue of Ḥammat-Tiberias, its Floor and Inscriptions,” [Heb] Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel [ed. Obed, B.; University of Haifa, 1974] 106)Google Scholar.

⁷ Moore, G. F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge, MA, reprinted 1962) 165Google Scholar, n. 1.

⁸ Bacher, W., “The Church Father Origen and Rabbi Hoshaya,” JQR 3 (1891) 357–60Google Scholar. Cf., however, Urbach, E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Heb; Jerusalem, 1969) 486Google Scholar, n. 76; ET 934, n. 83.

⁹ Graetz, H., Geschichte der Juden (Leipzig, 1908) 4. 229–30Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Hanson, R. P. C., Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London, 1954) 155Google Scholar, n. 2. He subsequently withdrew the suggestion (Allegory and Event [Richmond, VA, 1959] 174)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Alon, G., Toledot Ha Yehudim BeEreṣ Yisrael (2 vols.; Tel Aviv, 1953–1955) 1.130, n. 9; see also 2. 112, n. 130.Google Scholar

¹² Scholem, G., On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York, 1965) 12Google Scholar.

¹³ See de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 23–28.

¹⁴ The role of RY was alluded to by Baer (n. 2 above), Zion 21 (1965) 19Google Scholar, 27; and SH 7 (1961) 102Google Scholar, 112. Loewe, R. (“The Jewish Midrashim and Patristic and Scholastic Exegesis of the Bible,” Studia Patristica 1 [1957] 499)Google Scholar opined that RY may have been a link in the chain from Origen to R. Abbahu.

¹⁵ Even this, according to J. Daniélou, is just a transposition of the rabbinic interpretation (Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture [ET Philadelphia, 1973] 260)Google Scholar. The possibility that Hippolytus may have integrated into his commentary rabbinic, comments on the Song has been made more credible by the study of Chappuzeau, G., “Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes durch Hippolyt von Rom,” JAC 19 (1976) 45–81Google Scholar. On the other hand, B. McNeil contends that the allegorical application, of the Song to Christ and the Church “already existed within the Christian Church in the second century” (“Avircius and the Song of Songs,” VC 31 [1977] 33)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ R. P. Lawson, Origen:The Song of Songs—Commentary and Homilies (ACW 26) Introduction, p. 14. Subsequent citation of Origen's work on the Song of Songs refers to the pages of Lawson's translation and from Origenis, Commentarium in Canticum Canticorum and Homiliae in Canticum Canticorum, ed. W. A. Baehrens (GCS; Origenes, vol. 8).

¹⁷ Gen. Rab. 11.8 (eds. Theodor-Albeck) 95–96 and notes.

¹⁸ See Nautin, P., Origène: sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris, 1977) 411Google Scholar, 435–37.

¹⁹ See Kimelman, R., “Rabbi Yoḥanan of Tiberias: Aspects of the Social and Religious History of Third-Century Palestine” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1977) 14–16Google Scholar. For the social significance of RY, see idem, “Third-Century Tiberias: The Alliance between the Rabbinate, the Patriarchate, and the Urban Aristocracy,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (eds. H. Temporini and W. Haase; Berlin, forthcoming supplement to II.8).

²⁰ Kimelman, “Rabbi Yoḥanan of Tiberias,” chaps. 5 and 7.

²¹ See Harnack, A., The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (ET New York, 1908) 1. 106–14Google Scholar.

²² See Danielou, J., Origen (ET New York, 1955) 24Google Scholar; and Nautin, Origène, 400. According to Nautin (Ibid.) Origen covered the Hebrew Bible in three years. This, he notes, is similar to the Palestinian Jewish triennial lectionary cycle. This practice of Origen's allowed his congregation to know in advance the sermon text for the day. Thus those who were aware of rabbinic interpretations could have been prepared with questions. Such a situation helps to account for the social reality behind the exegetical controversies in this study.

²³ See Nautin, Origène, and Chadwick, H., Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford, 1966) 71Google Scholar.

²⁴ For example, b. s̆abb. 116a. See Herford, T. R., Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (London, 1903) 167–69Google Scholar; cf., however, Lauterbach, J. Z., Rabbinic Essays (Cincinnati, 1951) 569–70Google Scholar.

²⁵ Caesarea under Roman Rule (Leiden, 1975) 83Google Scholar. The Aruk HaShalem (ed. Kohut, ; Vienna, 1878–1885) 2Google Scholar. 46a, made a similar suggestion.

²⁶ 1.45, 49, 55, 56; 2.31; 4.29; cf. comm. in Matt. 14.24. For Origen's explicit knowledge of Jewish tradition, see Bardy, G., “Les traditions juives dans l'oeuvre d'Origène,” RB 34 (1925) 217–52Google Scholar; Hanson, Origen's Doctrine of Tradition, 148–56; and de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 123–32.

²⁷ CC 1.45, 55, 56; 2.31. In his Epistle to Africanus 7 (PG 11.61–64) Origen mentions extensive conversation with a Hebrew bearing the title σοϕουᵔ υίῳᵔ = . See de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 34 and 162–163, nn. 58–60, for a discussion of this and similar terms for rabbis in Origen and Jerome.

²⁸ See Kahle, P., The Cairo Geniza (2d ed.; Oxford, 1959) 239–40Google Scholar. Nautin, Origène, 334–47, however, argues that Origen did not structure, far be it compose, the Hexapla ex nihilo, nor was its primary purpose to serve in polemics with Jews.

²⁹ Origen had some working knowledge of Hebrew. See Bardy, “Les traditions juives,” 217–19, who concluded that besides the reading and transcribing of Hebrew, he “never possessed more than a superficial knowledge of the language”; Kahle, Cairo Geniza, 240–41; Hanson, , “Interpretations of Hebrew Names in Origen,” VC 10 (1956) 103–23Google Scholar; and idem, Allegory and Event, 167–75. The question of Origen's knowledge of Hebrew has been reexamined recently by de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 21–23. His conclusion coincides with Bardy's. He notes, however, that “Origen's lack of Hebrew knowledge has no bearing on the question of his access to Jewish scholarship. It is, in that sense, a red herring” (155, n. 61).

With regard to RY's knowledge of Greek, I have tabulated about 250 loanwords, mainly Greek, from the statements of RY or from those that were addressed to him in conversation. This, on its own, is insufficient to prove that RY could understand Greek. Bear in mind, however, that RY had access to those who did, such as R. Abbahu. Thus RY's alleged lack of Greek does not preclude access to Greek Christian thought.

³⁰ For RY, see above, n. 20, and further below; for Origen, see Hanson, Allegory and Event, 297–310; CC passim; and literature in n. 4, above.

³¹ That is, in the context of revelation which is conceived of by both as a nuptial event. For Origen, see below on Song 1:2; for RY, see below also on Song 1:2; and Lieberman (Mishnat Shir HaShirim, 118–20, esp. n. 7), who finds three distinct rabbinic positions on the original setting of the Song: (1) Sinai—advocated by R. Aqiba and RY; (2) at the Sea—advocated by R. Eliezer and R. (?) Pappas; (3) Tent of Meeting—R. Meir and R. Huna. This tripartite division of rabbinic opinion was already noticed by Bonsirven, J., Exégèse rabbinique et exégèse paulinienne (Paris, 1939) 214–16Google Scholar. For the history of the nuptial element in Christianity, see Chavasse, C., The Bride of Christ: An Enquiry into the Nuptial Element in Early Christianity (London, 1940).Google Scholar

³² B. Pesaḥ 87b. Also a homily on Ezek 14:14, to which Origen ascribes a Jewish origin, is recorded in the name of RY (Tanḥuma, ed. Buber wyšb 5). See Vaserstein, A., “Midrash Yehudi Eṣel Origenis,” Tarbiz 46 (1976) 317–18.Google Scholar

³³ R. Loewe, “The Jewish Midrashim and Patristic and Scholastic Exegesis of the Bible,” 507. Although this statement may be accepted guardedly, his comparable statement in “Apologetic Motifs in the Targum to the Song of Songs,” Biblical Motifs—Origins and Transformations (ed. Altmann, A.; Cambridge, MA, 1966) 174CrossRefGoogle Scholar, lacks sufficient controls.

³⁴ Krauss, S., “The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers,” JQR 5 (1893) 122–23Google Scholar. According to Porphyry, Origen used the books of Chaeremon, the Stoic, and Cornutus, from whom he learned the figurative interpretation as employed in the Greek mysteries, and applied it to the Jewish writings (Eusebius, H.E. 6.19.8). On the whole subject of Jewish, Christian, and Hellenistic allegory see Hanson, Allegory and Event, 11–129, and Wolfson, H. A., Philo (Cambridge, MA, 1968) 1. 115–35Google Scholar. For a survey of traditional exegesis of the Song, see Pope, M., Song of Songs (AB; Garden City, 1977) 89–132.Google Scholar

³⁵ Prologue 4; (Lawson, 46; Baehrens, 80. 6–12). See 1.1 (Lawson, 60; Baehrens, 90. 24–47).

³⁶ For a survey of the idea in rabbinic, apocryphal, and Christian literature, see Ginzberg, L., An Unknown Jewish Sect (ET New York, 1976) 172–74Google Scholar, n. 82; and Childs, B. S., The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia, 1974) 375–78Google Scholar. Although it appears to be natural for Origen to underscore the mediation in the giving of the Law, it is peculiar that when he wrote his defense of Christian orthodoxy he felt no need to allude to any mediator. Instead, he declared unequivocally in his regula fidei in the Preface to On First Principles (4) that “God Himself gave the Law.” It is possible that the emphasis on mediation in commenting on Song 1:2 derives from Origen's awareness of the role the Song plays in Jewish-Christian polemics. Note that Origen's junior, Theophilus (Ad Autolycum 3.9), felt no compunction about stating that God gave the Law and that Moses was only its minister (διάκονος). See Grant, R. M., Theophilus of Antioch— Ad Autocylum (Oxford, 1970) 113Google Scholar. Jerome explained why Origen et al. would adjust their positions for polemical purposes: “Because they are sometimes compelled to say, not what they themselves think, but what is necessary for their purpose, they do this only in the struggle with the heathen” (Ep. 48 (to Pammach] 13).

³⁷ See Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect, 172–74, n. 82, and Goldin, J., “Not by an Angel and Not by a Messenger,” Religions in Antiquity (ed. Neusner, J.; Leiden, 1968) 419Google Scholar, esp. n. 3. RY's colleague, R. Levi, was aware of the argument that mediation signifies a lowering of the tenor of the God-Israel relationship (Exod. Rab. 32.3). Indeed, most of the homilies on Exod 23:20 in Exod. Rab. 32.3 assume that resorting to an angel to protect Israel is a sign of divine displeasure.

³⁸ Pesiq. R. 21.5 (ed. Ish Shalom) p. 100a = MHG Deut. 102.

³⁹ See Finkelstein, L., Tarbiz 20 (1950) 96.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Modern biblical scholarship is equally perplexed at how to harmonize the different accounts of Moses' role at Sinai. See Childs, Book of Exodus, 351–60; Loewenstamm, S., Encyclopedia Biblica 5 (Jerusalem, 1968) 1027–33Google Scholar; and EncJud 12. 385, whose resolution echoes that of RY below, saying; “At Sinai, Moses negotiated Israel's acceptance of God's offer of a covenant.” This resolution that Moses was some sort of is reflected also in the comment of Midrash Hashkem on Deut 5:5, which interpreted Moses' assertion as saying (see Kasher TS 2. 191, n. 49) “I was like a man holding the marriage cup.”

⁴¹ For example, Resh Laqish, Exod. Rab. 3.5 (See R. David Luria, ad loc, based on Ramban ad Exod 3:13): R. Isaac, Deut. Rab. 3.12; and R. Judah b. Pazzi, y. Meg. 4.1 74d = MHG Deut. 97.

⁴² See Lieberman, HJP 81, n. 271. Moses is also compared to a “bride's agent” (MHG Exod. 690 and last three parallels) as well as to a (πρεσβευτής) “ambassador” (Song Rab. 1.2.3 = Ginze Midrash [ed. Rabinovitz, ; Tel Aviv, 1976]: Exod. Rab. 42.3.Google Scholar

⁴³ B. Šabb. 105a. See Lieberman, S., Sinai 75 (1974) 1–3Google Scholar, esp. n. 5. This divergence of opinion on the mediation of Moses continues in the medieval disagreement between Halevy (Kuzari 1.87), who disallowed any mediation, and Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed 2.33), who did allow for mediation. Cf. Kasher TS 16. 223–35.

⁴⁴ HJP 81–82. A polemic overtone against the deprecating of the Torah for having been mediated may be heard in the parallel “Do not make light of the Torah that I gave you for… Myself wrote and gave [them]” (Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 12.24 [ed. Mandelbaum] p. 222).

⁴⁵ Compare Murray, R.: “[in Ephraem] as in Aphrahat the apostle is the ‘go between’ (makora) acting for the heavenly Bridegroom” vis-à-vis the Church (Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition [Cambridge, 1975] 142Google Scholar, see 151).

⁴⁶ Pace Urbach, “Homiletical Interpretations,” (SH 255, Tarbiz 154): “Origen's exposition appears to be a copy of the … dictum of R. Yoḥanan.”

⁴⁷ There is a comment ascribed to RY in Song Rab. 1.2.2 that mentions an angel which brought , “the divine locution” (or “the logos”), to each and every one. This presents a stark contrast to RY's otherwise consistent anti-mediation position. There is reason therefore to suspect that the text is corrupt and should read instead as does the parallel in Yal. 2.991, and MS de Rossi, no. 1240, namely: “RY said: An angel went forth before each commandment (lit. ‘locution’) and went around to each Israelite and said to him: Do you accept this commandment….” The Hebrew is quite similar. Song Rab. reads: . The other two read: . cf. Kasher TS 16.214b–215a, and Urbach, “Homiletical Interpretations,” SH 254, n. 19; Tarbiz 153, n. 19.

On the other hand, the text may be correct, but mistakenly attributed to RY. The next homily which is attributed “to the Rabbis” does away with the function of the angel by emphasizing that the itself made the rounds of all the Israelites. This is precisely the contrast which we have found between RY and his colleagues (above, n. 41). Thus it is possible that the attributions to RY and “the Rabbis” have been inadvertently transposed. Such mistaken transpositions between “RY” and “the Rabbis” have occurred elsewhere; see Krauss, S., Paras VeRomi BaTalmud UBaMidrashim (Jerusalem, 1948) 122Google Scholar; and Tanḥuma (ed. Buber) 1. 69–70, n. 132. Incidentally, the ET of Urbach (SH 255, n.23) mistranslates the Hebrew (Tarbiz 154, n.23) and thus poses no problem for the above suggestion.

⁴⁸ RY's comment was subsequently expanded by two of his more prominent disciples; “R. Yosi b. R. Ḥanina said: it is as if a king were distributing largesse to his soldiers through his generals, officers and commanders, but when his son came, he gave him with his own hand…. R. Isaac said: It is as a king were eating sweetmeats, and when his son came gave him from his own hand” (Gen. Rab. 1.2.5; cf. Tanḥuma, ed. Buber, ky ts' ; Exod. Rab. 41.2; and Ginze Midrash 113).

⁴⁹ Y. Ber. 1.7 3b = Sanh. 11.6 30a = ‘Abod. Zar. 2.8 41c = Song Rab. 1.2.2. For the variants and a suggestive explanation of them, see Ginzberg, CPT 1. 151. Upon returning from Palestine, R. Dimi, a frequent tradent of RY, also said on this verse: “Israel said before God: Master of the universe, the words of the [your—printed ed.] beloved ones are more precious to me than the wine of Torah” ‘Abod. Zar. 35a, ed. Abramson, which see for variants, p. 181, n. 21). The beloved ones () are the words of the Scribes (following Rashi and R. Ḥannanel, ad loc, and Ginzberg, CPT 1. 149. This point is made more explicit in Midrash Shir HaShirim 1.2 (ed. Wertheimer) p. 5: “God loves () the words of the Sages more than the words of the Torah.”

⁵⁰ Ginzberg, CPT 1. 148.

⁵¹ M. ‘Abod. Zar. 2.5; t. Para 10.3.

⁵² or the variant , CPT 1. 149.

⁵³ Lieberman, Mishnai Shir HaShirim, 125, n. 42.

⁵⁴ Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim 3 (Jerusalem, 1938) 248–49.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Agadath Shir HaShirim (ed. Schechter) line 250; JQR 6 (1894) 681;Google ScholarPardo, D., Ḥasde David (Jerusalem, 1971) 4.2, 165–66Google Scholar; and Pope, Song of Songs, 299. Cf., however, Rabinowitz, Z. W., Sha ‘are Torat Babel (Jerusalem, 1961) 179–80Google Scholar; and Geiger, A., Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums (2d ed.; Frankfurt, 1928) 402–4Google Scholar (Hebrew trans., 257–59).

⁵⁶ Agadath Shir HaShirim lines 243–45; see Schechter, S., “Corrections and Notes to Agadath Shir HaShirim,” JQR 6 (1894) 735CrossRefGoogle Scholar, lines 240–48.

⁵⁷ Since Ginzberg could not account for this preference (CPT 1. 149, CPT 2.209, lines 17–18), he interpreted the prefix to mean “as” and not its usual “more than”-. Weiss, Dor 64–65 and B. Epstein, Torah Temmima Tel Aviv, 1956) 3—Song, p. 6 nn. 1–2, understood the to be one of preference. Cf., however, Rabinowitz, Sha‘are Torat Babel, 179–80. Professor S. Z. Leiman wrote me the following with regard to RY's understanding of as breast: “The remains and RY is certainly free to read this as “breast”—note 4:10 which certainly refers to the female partner, and note that is almost always in Song. The exceptions are mostly at 1:2, 1:4, and 4:10, where is and mentioned in conjunction with being more delightful than wine. Such being the case, any midrashist would be prepared to read it .” I take no issue with the above except to assert that why RY, and RY only, adopted this unusual tack (see Pope, Song of Songs, 298) at this specific verse can best be accounted for in the light of Origen's comment and RY's relationship to such comments of Origen throughout this study. It is noteworthy that Origen, after citing and commenting upon the next verse (1:3a), returns to this verse: “We must not, however, overlook the fact that in certain versions we find written ‘for thy sayings are better than wine,’ where we read, ‘for thy breasts are better than wine.’ But although it may seem that this gives plainer meaning in regard to the things, about which we have discoursed in the sp ual interpretation, we ourselves keep to that which the Seventy interpreters wrote on every case” (ET Lawson, 74). Since this is inserted as an afterthought it is possible that it reflects a later revision which took into account a comment like RY's and/or was based on a reading of instead of . The possibility of revision is strong, since Origen may have, been working from his first Commentary to the Song which he composed before 215—see Nautin, Origène, 418, and 250 n. 32.

⁵⁸ 1.2 (Lawson, 65; Baehrens, 94, lines 5–14).

⁵⁹ Could the following midrash be an allusion to this? “You are better off embracing the breasts of Torah which give you an advantage than embracing the bosom of a strange woman which gives you a liability” (Mid. Prov. 5.20).

⁶⁰ See Daniélou, Origen, 139–73.

⁶¹ Hippolytus, at most, has the Christian sucking the bride's two breasts, which represent the Old and New Covenants; see Hanson, Allegory and Event, 116–17, and Chappuẓeau, “Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes,” 62.

⁶² I owe much of this alternative scenario to Professor Morton Smith.

⁶³ This fact that RY strove to elevate the status of is forcefully illustrated by his explanation of a tannaitic statement (y. Ma‘aś. S̆. 2.2 5c) by saying: (following the printed ed. and the Leiden MS; the Vatican MS reads instead of a reading which serves to make RY's statement conform more to the Mishnah, and is therefore suspect). This is despite a clear Mishnaic ruling to the contrary (m. Yad. 3.2):

On this, see. Shulzinger, E., Yad Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 1971) 5. 80Google Scholar, on the y. passage, who underscores the novelty of RY's position as does the commentary, Mishnah Aḥronah, to m. Yad. 3.2 and m. Ṭohar. 8.7. RY's penchant to exalt the Oral Torah over the Written Torah, and to elevate rabbinic enactments to was pointed out by Weiss, Dor 64–65. The juxtaposition of statements in Num. Rab. 14.4 (ed. Rome 116a; ed. Halevy 601–2) may also reflect an awareness on the part of the editor of this same tendency. With regard to the ascriptions to RY or R. Joshua b. Levi, see ad loc. (n.15) and esp. y. Sukk. 3.4 53d.

⁶⁴ B. Git. 60b, and anonymously in Tanḥuma nḥ 3.

⁶⁵ Y. Pe'a 2.6 17a; Meg. 4.1 74d = Ḥag. 1.8 76d; Exod. Rab. 47.3 = Tanḥuma (ed. Buber) ky ts' 18 with nn. 128–29. Our interpretation follows Epstein, J. N., Mabo LeNusaḥ HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1948) 694Google Scholar; and Ginzberg, CPT 4. 137–38. RY's junior, R. Samuel b. Naḥman, combined into one homily both the idea that the covenant was made by virtue of the Oral Torah and the idea that the Oral Torah is more precious than the Written Torah (y. Pe'a 2.6 17a = Meg. 4.1 74d = Ḥag. 1.8 76d). See Urbach, E. E., “Halakah UNebuah,” Tarbiz 18 (1946) 9.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ B. Git. 60b; see Finkelstein, L., New Light from the Prophets (New York, 1969) 86Google Scholar and 137, n.21.

⁶⁷ B. Meg. 19b; see Heschel, A. J., Torah Min HaShamayim BeAsplaqariah Shel HaDorot (London, 1965) 2.236, for this emphasis.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Y. Pe'a 2.6 17a = Ḥag. 1.8 74d.

⁶⁹ Pesiq. R. 5, p. 14b and parallels. A. Rabinowitz, in his note to his translation of Bacher's, W.Agadot Amora'e Ereş Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1925) 1/2, p. 51***Google Scholar, drew attention to the anti-Christian overtones in the preference for the Oral Torah, as did Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, repr. 1968) 6. 60Google Scholar, n. 308.

⁷⁰ Braude, W.G. in his translation of Pesikta Rabbati (New Haven, 1968) 93Google Scholar, n. 10, notes the following variant: “that the Nations should translate the Torah, and reading it in Greek, would say: They—the Jews—are not Israel. Thereupon the Holy One … said to Moses: O Moses, the Nations will say: We are Israel! We are the children of the Lord, and Israel will say: We are the children of the Lord. Then the scales would appear to be balanced between both claims. The Holy One … will then say to the Nations: …” See Num. Rab. 14.10 (near the end) where it is in order to prevent the nations from distorting it as they did the Written Torah; cf. Urbach, “Halakah UNebuah,” 7, n. 50. According to Marmorstein, “La reorganisation du doctorat en Palestine à troisième siècle,” (REJ 66 [1913] 52)Google Scholar RY's prohibition against the inditing of halaka can be attributed to “tendences antichrétiennes.”

⁷¹ 1.4 (Lawson, 75; Baehrens, 106. 10–17).

⁷² Song Rab. 1.3.3. Cf. Gen. Rab. 39.5, p. 366 and note.

⁷³ See Mach, R., Der Zaddik in Talmud und Midrasch (Leiden, 1957) 103–4Google Scholar; and Ginzberg, Legends, 7. 170, s.v., “fragrance of the body of the pious”; and esp. b. ‘Abod. Zar. 35b.

⁷⁴ “Homo Imago Dei in Jewish and Christian Theology,” JR 47 (1967) 251Google Scholar. Altmann cited the following homily.

⁷⁵ Y. Šabb. 16.1 15c = MHG Gen. 419 and parallels. See Midr. Ps. 22.19 with Braude, W. G., The Midrash on Psalms (New Haven, 1959) 2.437Google Scholar, n. 36; and Exod. Rab.28.l.

⁷⁶ Gen. Rab. 39.14.379; Ginzberg, Legends, 7. 7, s.v., “Abraham, missionary activity of.”

⁷⁷ Ps 110:1 is the most oft-quoted verse in the NT. See Hay, D. M., Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (Nashville, 1973). I am indebted to Professor Wayne Meeks for this information.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See Lev. Rab. 25.6 (ed. Margoliot) p. 580 and n. 5; Yalqut HaMekiri Ps 110; Ginzberg, Legends, 5. 224–25, n. 95; and Hay, Glory 28–32.

⁷⁹ Justin Dialogue 33; Tertullian Against Marcion 5.9.

⁸⁰ The Last Trial (New York, 1969) ch. 9, pp. 90Google Scholar and 99–100; with regard to the adumbration, see p. 84 and nn. 28–30. Cf. Vermes, G., “The Binding of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Jesus” in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden, 1973) 193–227.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Gen. Rab. 44.5 and Song Rab. 1.4.3.

⁸² Prologue 4 (Lawson, 53; Baehrens, 85. 18–20).

⁸³ 2.3 (Lawson, 114; Baehrens, 131. 1–9).

⁸⁴ See Hom, in Jos. 17.1, and Augustine Against the Jews 5.8: “When the Jews hear these words, they take them in their natural meaning and imagine an earthly Jerusalem which is in slavery with her children, and not our eternal momer who is in heaven.”

⁸⁵ Song Rab. 1.5.3: Exod. Rab. 23.10; and Tanhuma (ed. Buber) Hosafa Le-Debarim 3.

⁸⁶ Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi, “Metropolis of all Countries” (Heb) Yerushalayim LeDoroteha (Jerusalem, 1968) 172, listed various connotations.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ On First Principles 4.13.6. Philo also referred to Jerusalem as μητρόπολις (Legatio 281; In Fla. 46) as did Josephus in War 7.8.7 (375). Baruch 4:9; 2 Baruch 3:1; and Yalqut HaMekiri Ps 147:4, all call Jerusalem “The mother of Israel.” And in 4 Esdras 8:7 “Zion is the mother of us all.” See Ps 87:5 LXX.

⁸⁸ The idea itself is attributed to earlier authorities in ’Abot. R. Nat. 35 (ed. Schechter) 106 and parallels.

⁸⁹ B Ta‘an 5a; Midr. Ps. 122.4. Urbach, E., (“Yerushalayim Shel Mata VeYerushalayim Shel Ma‘alah,” Yerushalayim LeDoroteha, Israel Exploration Society [Jerusalem, 1968] 156–71)Google Scholar argued that Aptowitzer's thesis (see Tarbiz 2 [1932] 272Google Scholar; and Lieberman, S., Midreshe Teman [Jerusalem, 1970] 14–16)Google Scholar, that the Jewish concept of the Jerusalem above was suppressed due to Christian acceptance, is untenable on two counts. One, there is insufficient evidence that this “Christian idea” was known in Palestine before 70 C.E. Two, first-century Christianity was insufficiently threatening to cause suppression of Jewish motifs (p. 160). Such conditions did hold in the third century, allowing for RY's original rabbinic formulation of “Jerusalem which is above” (p. 156). (For the minimal impact of Christianity on Rabbinic Judaism in the first century see R. Kimelman, “Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity,” Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2, Judaism from the Maccabees to the Mid-Third Century, [ed. E. P. Sanders; London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress (forthcoming)]). Urbach saw the setting of the comment as an effort to dampen apocalyptic fervor for the Jerusalem above by reducing it to an appendage of the Jerusalem below.

Urbach did sense the polemical character of RY's comment and the tenuousness of its biblical support (p. 157). He, however, did not offer any specificity to the setting beyond the fact that, “In the days of RY there, apparently, spread in Palestine the idea of the existence of the Jerusalem above” (p. 171). The setting is transparent in light of Origen's comment and the dispute under discussion. With regard to Urbach's general thesis, see Davies, W. D., The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley, 1974) 151, n. 163, and literature cited, 149 and 162–63.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ As Moore pointed out, Judaism 2. 365–66, “Eulogies of the profuseness of nature in the land of Israel are found in rabbinical sources” as well as in extra rabbinical sources (see also Gen. Rab. 15.7, p. 139 notes and parallels). RY also indulged in such messianic speculations (Midr. Ps. 72.6).

⁹¹ A phrase borrowed from Titus 1:14 denoting literal interpretation; see de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 105.

⁹² Plumpe, J.C. (Mater Ecclesia: An Inquiry into the Concept of the Church as Mother in Early Christianity [Washington, 1943] 76) underscored Origen's “overemphasis on the church as a caelestis urbs and his evident disinclination to regard her, as she actually was in good part, in conditione terrenae alicuius urbis.”Google Scholar

⁹³ Pro Flaccum 28. See Marmorstein, A., “Judaism and Christianity in the Middle of the Third Century,” HUCA 10 (1935) 234–40.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See Juster, J., Les juifs dans l'empire romain (Paris, 1914) 1. 46Google Scholar, n. 5; and Levy, Y., Olamot Nifgashim (Jerusalem, 1969) 87, n. 48.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 19.4, p. 305f., and parallels. See Baer, “Israel, the Christian Church, and the Roman Empire” (above, n. 2) SH 102, Zion 19, for a possible setting.

⁹⁶ Midrash Shir HaShirim 6.2, p. 107. Apropos is Simon, M.'s description (Verus Israel [Paris, 1964] 165): “For Christianity, it was not only a question of defining its originality, but indeed of demonstrating its legitimacy and the fall of the rival religion. It was a matter of ousting Israel from its place and installing itself henceforth as the sole depository of revelation. Conversely, Judaism had to work at refuting the polemical and doctrinal pronouncements of the Church and the latter's interpretation of Scripture by demonstrating the eternity of the covenant between God and His People … Each religion contested the right of the other to exist.”Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Following the LXX; the MT reads: “May he go back to her.”

⁹⁸ See Origène, Homélies sur Jérémie, (SC 232; ed. Nautin; Paris, 1976) 4.2, p. 263 and n. 2.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ It is possible that R. Meir (of the second century) had already formulated this type of response to the pagan taunt (see Midr. Panim Aḥerim B [ed. Buber] 81 = Bet HaMidrash [ed. Jellinek] 1.21–22). Although this comment is found in the above medieval collections, it may very well be, in the main, authentic material of R. Meir, since it has the hallmarks of being a response to elements of the pre-Christian Cicero-like taunt—lacking, as it does, any reference to the two elements of divorce and the destruction of the Temple which characterized the Christian offensive. Moreover, it corresponds to R. Meir's known position (Sifre Deut. 96 [ed. Finkelstein] p. 157; and 308, p. 346–47) that Israel remains the children of God whether behaving appropriately or not. If the idea had been formulated by R. Meir, then RY's contribution consisted in placing the response in a marriage context in order to undermine the Christian charge of divorce, and to attach it to the Song to validate Israel's ongoing claim that she remains the Bride of the Song.

¹⁰⁰ As the. Syrian Church Father Ephraem (306–73) says of Israel's “divorce” by God: “He wrote and delivered to her the divorcement as being rejected and polluted … He drove her out and sent her forth from His chamber” (Rhythm against the Jews 13).

¹⁰¹ The expression. is difficult. Torczyner, N. H. in the Yoḥanan Levy Memorial Volume (Jerusalem, 1949) 59ff.Google Scholar, connected it with the Latin regale repudium or legate repudium the former of which means a unilateral divorce, as opposed to divortium which is bilateral. The former is especially used when the woman is not in her husband's house to receive the divorce.

This explanation, which implies that Israel is, in some manner, partially divorced, fits a related homily which resolved the conflict between Isa 50:1 and Jer 3:8 with this parable (MHG Deut. 685): It is comparable to a king who was angry with his wife and wrote out her get and threw it to her, but then snatched it from her and tore it up. Whenever she demanded her alimony, he said to her: You are divorced. And whenever she demanded to remarry another, he would say: Where is your get with which I divorced you?

Similarly, whenever Israel does the will of the Holy One … He says to them: Where is your mother's writ of divorce (Isa 50:1). And whenever Israel does not do the will of the Holy One … He says to them: I have sent her away and given her her divorce papers. (Jer 3:8)

Lam. Rab. 1.3 concluded the analogue differently: Similarly, whenever Israel wished to practice idolatry, the Holy One…said to them: (Isa 50:1). Wherever they wished that He should perform miracles for them as formerly, the Holy One…said to them: Have I not already divorced you? as it is written…(Jer 3:8)

Similar parables which account for such ambiguous situations are assigned to RY in Num. Rab. 2.15.

There is no difficulty in assuming that RY knew the Latin legal term. His knowledge of Roman legal terminology was relatively extensive; see Kimelman, “Tiberias” (above, n. 19) n. 186. Furthermore, RY used the term repudium elsewhere: (Gen. Rab. 18.5, p. 166 Vatican MS–see Cohen, B., “Concerning Divorce in Jewish and Roman Law,” PAAJR 21 [1952] 10f.).Google Scholar The difficulty is that the law of repudium (ῥεπούδιον) according to Cohen, and Lieberman, S., TextsS (New York, 1975) 226Google Scholar, applies when the woman sues for divorce, as opposed to divortium when the divorce is granted by the husband.

I am unable to read this understanding of the terminology into the parable. Accordingly, I find it attractive to follow Kasher (TS 2.248, n. 101) in rendering RY's phrase in Gen. Rab. 18.5, p. 166: as “there is divorce by mutual consent.” According to Cohen, p. 7, however, it means “the dissolution of marriage if either party became disillusioned with the partnership.” Despite the attractiveness of Kasher's suggestion, Cohen's parallels in Roman law to the contrary remain an obstacle. Consequently, I have based myself on the contextual analysis of Yefeh Qol, although his own etymology is forced. On the other hand, both Rashi's (b. Pesaḥ 87a) and Ramban's (Hilkot Qorban Pesah 2.11) interpretations are too positive to account for the expression in RY's parable.

¹⁰² This perspective on RY helps to explain the manner in which he accounted for the absence of a verse in Ashre (Ps 145): Because the fall of Israel's enemies [i.e., Israel] begins with it, for it is written: Fallen is the virgin of Israel, she shall no more rise (Amos 5:2) – b. Ber. 4b.

This situation may be clarified by noting another polemical situation, in the twelfth century, in which this verse and the previously-cited Jer 3:8 converged in the mind of the great anti-Christian Jewish polemicist, Radak. As his biographer Talmage, F. E. put it: “Christianity claimed that … Israel had been given a bill of divorce (Jer 3:8); that the daughter of Israel has fallen and is to rise no more (Amos 5:2). Not quite, replies Radak: ‘It is as if He had given them a bill of divorce.’ She is not to rise again—for a long time” (David Kimhi—The Man and the Commentaries [Cambridge, MA, 1975] 138).Google Scholar Note that the Talmud, ad loc, continued; “In the West [i.e., Palestine] this verse is thus interpreted: She is fallen, but she shall no more fall. Rise, O virgin of Israel.” Clearly, there is a need felt to wrench the verse out of its plain meaning. In this case, it is by inverting the inflection of the verse as RY did to Jer 3:1 (see below, n. 106).

With regard to the verse in the LXX, the Peshitta and the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Dahood, M., Psalms (AB; New York, 1970) 3. 335.Google Scholar Insofar as the LXX and the Peshitta are the scriptural versions of Caesarean and Syrian Christianity respectively, there is the possibility that RY's comment is parrying those who are arguing for the superiority of the LXX or the Peshitta on the basis that these versions contain the missing verse which begins RY's response would then serve to point out that their version is not only not superior, but also incorrect. As R. Naḥman b. Isaac pointed out subsequently, the following verse (Ps 145:14) mentions raising and therefore assumes that the previous verse should mention falling surely not faithfulness as theirs does; see Dobzewitz, A., Sefer HaMeṣaref (Odessa, 1876) 3–4. That RY's comment is impelled by polemical considerations is inferred from the fact that Amos 5:2 was interpreted against its grain in Palestine, and its latter part: Rise O Virgin of Israel is appropriate for the context in Psalm 145.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ An alternative tactic for solving the theological dilemma posed by this verse is to exclude the (Jer 3:1) from the theological realm as does Sifre Deut. 306 (p. 330 with parallels and MHG Deut. 685). This strategy is closed to RY since he, as noted by Heschel, Torah Min HaShamayim 197, on the contrary, frequently explained as referring precisely to God (b. Sanh. 93a; Sota 42b and 48a). He is therefore left with no choice but to interpret the verse against its grain as he did in similar cases; see Num. Rab. 2.15.

¹⁰⁴ B. Yoma 86b = MHG Deut. 649. The idea is developed in Pesiq. R. 44, p. 184a, albeit anonymously.

¹⁰⁵ RY also said: “So great is [the power of] repentance that it annuls a man's final sentence” (b. Roš. Haš. 17b).

¹⁰⁶ RY takes as an exhortation as does the Vg: tamen revertere ad me, dicit Dominus, et ego accipiam te!! See the balancing act of the Targum and Radak, ad loc.

¹⁰⁷ Homilies on Song of Songs 1.6 (Lawson. 227; Baehrens, 37.9–11). For an analysis of this verse in the light of other comments of Origen, see Chênevert, J., L'église dans le commentaire d'Origene sur le Cantique des Cantiques (Montreal, 1969) 127–29Google Scholar; and Benz, E., “Ich bin schwarz und schön: Ein Beitrag des Origenes zur Theologie der negritudo,” Wort und Religion (eds. Greschat, H. J. and Jungreithmayr, H.; Stuttgart, 1965) 225–41.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See Bacher, Agadot Amora’e, 2.1, 189.

¹⁰⁹ Song Rab. 1.6.3 and with variants in Midrash Shir HaShirim 1.6, p. 29; and Midrash Agadah trwmh 26. For the expansion of the theme, see Urbach, “The Homiletical Intrepretations,” SH 263ff., Tarbiz 160ff.

¹¹⁰ In the context of a Christian-pagan polemic, Origen was ready to concede the Jewish point in this exchange that “the whole people, after they had done evil in the sight of the Lord, are recorded to have been converted to living a better life and to worshipping God according to the Law” (CC 7.18, end). See above, n. 36.

¹¹¹ Strikingly, the references in this parable are reversed in the fifth-century pseudo-Augustinian Altercation between the Church and the Synagogue, where the Synagogue is described as a handmaiden who has tried to usurp the place of the “true bride” of the Lord. See Williams, A. L., Adversus Judaeos (Cambridge, 1935) 326–36.Google Scholar

¹¹² This is probably an allusion to the lapsing of Christians during the Decian Persecution (251). Cyprian, in his De lapsis, written in the spring of 251, lamented: “The many brethren who had fallen away during the persecution…. He spoke of those who had sacrificed to the gods even before tḥey were forced to do so, of parents who had brought their children to participate in these rites, and especially of those who, for a blind love of their property, remained and denied the faith” (emphasis R.K.; cited by Quasten, J., Patrology [Westminster, 1950–1960] 2. 348).Google Scholar A similar situation is described by Eusebius, Martyrs of Palestine (9.2), when an edict of Maximinus in the year 308 ordered: “that all people, in a mass, men with their wives and households, even babes at the breast, should offer sacrifices and libations and taste with scrupulous care the accursed sacrifices themselves” (emphasis , R.K.; trans. H. J. Lawlon and J. E. L. Oulton [London, 1927])Google Scholar. For these suggestive settings, see Baer, “Israel, the Christian Church, and the Roman Empire,” SH 102, Zion 19.

Of course, it is also possible that there is no reference to a contemporary event at all, only to the fact that most Christians of the late third century are of pagan lineage. See Commentary 2.1 (Lawson, 92): “The daughters of this earthly Jerusalem who, seeing the Church of the Gentiles, despise and vilify her for her ignoble birth; for she is baseborn in their eyes, because she cannot count as hers the noble blood of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.” Still, Origen's answer on verse 1:6a (Lawson, 107) smacks of R. Isaac's: “She tells them that it is not a natural condition in which she was created, but something that she has suffered through force of circumstance.”

¹¹³ Commentary 3 (4). 14, end (Lawson, 253).

¹¹⁴ Origen's Commentary comprised ten books (see Eusebius H. E. 6.32.2 and Jerome Ep. 33.4), most of which have been lost.

¹¹⁵ Urbach, “The Homiletical Interpretations,” SH 268ff., Tarbiz 164ff., suggested another parallel between Origen and RY ad Song 2:12, which, however, is beyond the purview of this study.

¹¹⁶ For evidence of actual Jewish-Christian disputations in the fourth century, see Wilken, R. L., Judaism and the Early Christian Mind (New Haven, 1971) 29–30.Google Scholar