430 Erich S. Gruen
famously quipped that, in the murderous household of Herod, it would be better to
be Herod’s pig than his son (Macrob.Sat. 2.4.11). The satirists Petronius and Juve-
nal both made jokes of the abstention from pork: Jews must worship a pig god, and
Judea is the one place where pigs can live to a ripe old age (Petronius, fr.37, Ernout;
Juv. 6.159–160). Circumcision elicited the most comment, whether out of puzzlement
or as derision. Off-hand remarks, jokes, or scornful comments can be found in writers
such as Horace, Petronius, Martial, and Juvenal (Horace,Sat. 1.9.70; Petronius,Sat.
6.8.8; Martial, 7.30.5, 11.94; Juv. 14.103–104). For Tacitus, Jews adopted the custom
precisely in order to make themselves distinctive (Hist. 5.5.2).
This collection of jibes, half-baked impressions, and ill-informed observations hardly
add up to a considered perspective. And the large majority of the comments apply to Jew-
ish practices, rites, and modes of behavior. They have nothing to do with racial prejudice
or intolerance of ethnic difference. The peculiarities of Jewish religion elicited some dis-
dainful reactions from Romans who judged them assuperstitioordeisidaimonia, but that
stemmed from standard disparagement of alien cults (e.g., Cic.Flacc. 67; Plut.Superst.
69C; Quint. 3.7.2; Tac.Hist. 2.4, 5.8.2–3, 5.13.1). Romans conducted no persecu-
tions on religious grounds. The authorities did, on occasion, expel Jews from Rome, but
very rarely, only temporarily, in conjunction with other alien groups, and as demonstra-
tions for specific political ends. They did not suppress the religion (Gruen 2002: 15–19,
29–41; Goodman 2007: 366–76). Indeed, Varro, that most learned of Roman intellec-
tuals, equated Yahweh with Jupiter: only the names differed. And he praised the Jews
for their aniconism, expressing the wish that his countrymen would adopt the custom
themselves—as their distant ancestors had (Varro,apudAugustine,De Consensu Evan-
gelistarum, 1.30; Augustine,CD, 4.31). Roman writers did notice that Jews adhered to
their own set of laws. Juvenal went so far as to claim that they paid no heed to Roman
enactments, owing allegiance instead to measures delivered by Moses in a secret volume
(14.100–102). Seneca even asserted that the Jewish way of life had penetrated every land
of the world, to the point that the vanquished Jews imposed laws upon their Roman con-
querors (Seneca,apudAugustine,CD, 6.11). These transparently overblown statements
have little purchase as serious reflection of Roman attitudes, Nor do they have anything
to do with Jewish ethnicity. In each case, the author’s comments come in the context
of mocking references to Jewish exclusivity, Sabbath observance, dietary laws, or cir-
cumcision. That is all standard fare, a far cry from Judeophobia (contra: Schäfer 1997:
180–95). The large number of references to the Jews in Roman writers makes clear
that they were readily identifiable, whether by their clannishness, communal activities, or
unusual manner of life. Disparaging comments of an ethnic nature are conspicuous by
their absence.
Nor is there much reason to believe that the Great Revolt of the Jews and its crushing
by Roman force made any significant difference on this score. Harsh measures followed,
to be sure: the loss of all Jewish autonomy, a heavy financial imposition, and the presence
of a Roman garrison in Jerusalem. And the Flavian emperors, newly in power and eager
to establish their credentials, made much of victory over the Jews in public displays,
monuments, coins, and repeated references (Goodman 2007: 424–42). Perceptions of
Jews, however, underwent no obvious change. Snide remarks by Persius, Petronius, or
Seneca before the war are little different from those by Martial, Juvenal, and Tacitus after