Scholars of Jewish-pagan relations in antiquity generally represent
the more traditional approach.^3 Even if they are outspoken adherents of
more contemporary trends, when it comes to analyzing the material for his-
torical purposes, they tend to adopt the more traditional approach. For
example, Sacha Stern (1994) outlines his grave concerns about reading
rabbinic literature as history, but still assumes that it is true when it finally
comes time to process its content. I shall approach the material under
review here in a similar fashion.
Intertextual approaches, despite being widely used with little hesita-
tion until very recently, have begun to be challenged. Whereas historians
formerly used all material from approximately the same period to answer
a given question, some scholars now dispense with this method, recogniz-
ing that each text has its own agenda, which disqualifies it from being
read together with other texts, even those from the same period. Jacob
Neusner has produced a large literature on the basis of this approach, treat-
ing each text independently in order to discern the particular philosophy
or interest behind it. This method, however, which has some advantages and
produces much interesting and valuable material, is occasionally ques-
tioned by Neusner himself (1981), and does on occasion fail to provide a sat-
isfying interpretation of the text. Nonetheless, there is support for Neusner’s
approach: “[Neusner’s] approach allows us to ascertain what Mishnah says
and to separate this from what later documents and figures claim it says”
(Porton 1988, 7; emphasis original).
Pagan-Jewish relations are discussed in the tractate Avodah Zarah(Idol-
atry), part of the order of “Damages” in the Mishnah,theTosefta,and the Tal-
muds.Avodah Zarahcan be translated literally as “strange service.” This
form of worship is contrasted with avodahas temple service. The term zara
appears in the biblical episode of the “strange fire” offered by Nadab and
Abihu, who died prematurely because of their offensive offering (Num.
26:61). W.A.L. Elmslie (1911) also likens the term (avodah zara) to the
“strange incense” of Exodus 30:9. The term for idolater, avodat kokhavim u-
mazalot(not found in the canonical writings), means star and planet wor-
ship. The Bible does employ zarto refer to something opposed to the correct
worship of God (e.g., Lev. 22:10). Our study will omit most of what is said
76 PART I •RIVALRIES?
3 “Pagan” is another term that has come under scrutiny. It is a derogatory term for an idol-
worshipper, its Latin root meaning rustic or, more colloquially, country bumpkin. Hea-
then is obviously not preferable to pagan, and non-Jew and Gentile are terms too broad
to be useful in the context of Greco-Roman divinities. Thus, scholarship has not yet
found a more inventive and respectful term with which to refer to this broad group of
persons.