RABBIS AND PATRIARCHS ON THE MARGINS 125
The patriarchs of the fourth century may have been less interested in pro-
moting their influence in the Palestinian countryside than the rabbis were.
This contradicts the common argument a fortiori about patriarchal influence;
since we know they were powerful in the Diaspora, we can take for granted
their dominance in Palestine. I would argue a different position—that the
patriarchs extended their influence in the Diaspora and in Palestine simulta-
neously—both from evidence and from hypothesis.
First the evidence: apart from the talmudic anecdotes discussed above,
there is remarkably little of it for patriarchal interference in rural Palestine.
With the exception of a single story that may have nothing to do with the
patriarch, all information about patriarchal fund-raising and tax collection,
and about the activities of their agents, concerns Diaspora cities.^69 The unim-
pressive epigraphical evidence for patriarchal influence is likewise entirely
diasporic: a synagogue inscription from Stobi, in Macedonia (CIJ 694); an
epitaph from Venusia, in the Basilicata, mentioning the presence at the fu-
neral of the deceased young daughter of communal leaders ofduo apostuli et
duo rebbiteswho recitedthrenoi;^70 an epitap hfrom Catania, Sicily, dated 383
(CIJ1.650 = Noy,Jewish Inscriptions, no. 145); perhapsCIJ719, from Argos,
Greece (see comments of Noy at 145).
Now the hypothesis: The patriarchs of the fourth century were, if the legal
and literary sources do not completely deceive us, mainly concerned with
raising money, although we have no idea what they did with it all, apart from
transforming it into senatorial rank. For this purpose, the Jewish peasants of
Palestine were of little utility. Though they were probably nearing the peak
Megilla h4:1, 74d, a string of anecdotes about interventions in synagogue liturgy by Rabbi
Shmuel bar Rav Yizhak.
(^69) See Y. Sanhedrin 2:6, 20d = Genesis Rabbah 80:1 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, pp. 950–53): the
Jews cannot pay the priestly gifts because “the king” (in the Palestinian Talmud) or “thenasi(in
Gen.R.) has taken all.” Even if Genesis Rabbah is correct, the reference is not to a money tax
but an impost in kind—thus not theapostole. Strobel’s suggestion (“Ju ̈disches Patriarchat,” p. 66
n. 209) that the story refers to rent from the patriarchal estates is attractive.
(^70) For the Stobi inscription, see the discussion of Cohen, “Pagan and Christian Evidence,” pp.
172–73; Venusian inscription, D. Noy,Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, vol. 1 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993), no. 86 = CIJ 1.611. The juxtaposition ofapostuliandrebbites
seems significant, and this is furthermore the earliest case known of the use of the word “rabbi”
as a substantive rather than a title. However, the dating is controversial.Apostulisuggests a date
no later than c. 420, but the exceptionally “barbarous” character of the Latin orthography, as well
as the fact that other burials in the same catacomb chamber seem “late” (i.e., sixth century), have
generated some resistance to an early fift hcentury dating (and see now M. Williams, “T he Jews
of Early Byzantine Venusia: The Family of Faustinus I, the Father,”JJS50 [1999]: 38–52). If the
late dating is correct, then the inscription demonstrates the otherwise unattested employment of
apostoloieither by the Palestinian academies, the Babylonian exilarchs, or an unknown authority.
See comments of Noy ad loc. All these texts are discussed in Schwartz, “Patriarchs and the Dias-
pora”; and Levine, “Status of the Patriarch,” pp. 13–6.