THE THREAT OF IDOLATRY: PHILO AND JOSEPHUS
Idolatry is treated in the Talmudic literature as if it were irrelevant after the
destruction of the First Temple. A number of Talmudic Midrashim discuss
the manner in which the threat of idolatry was weakened (b. Yoma69b;b.
Sanh.64a). What emerges in Philo, Josephus, and even some other rabbinic
material, however, differs greatly from these texts. Philo, for one, was wont
to employ invectives against paganism, in contrast to Lieberman’s claims
that the Rabbis were loath to engage in this form of critique. Philo describes
the pagan mystery cults as “imposture and buffoonery” and “mummeries
and mystic fables.” Philo objects to their secrecy, and suggests: “If these
things are good and profitable, they should be put in the midst of the mar-
ketplace, where you might extend them to every man and thus enable all
to share in security and a better and happier life” (Spec.1.59, 319–320).
Josephus also objects to idolatry and idol worship at many junctures.
He warns against trophies in the theatres, the banners of the Roman legions,
the eagle at the gate of the Temple, and Caligula’s statue in Jerusalem (for
references, see Hoenig 1970, 70, who assumes that Josephus and the Mish-
nahare to be treated as contemporaneous witnesses). Josephus (A.J.
14.259–261) even claims that a separate meeting place and market (in
Sardis) were requested from and granted by one of the Roman emperors
(for a critique, see Rajak 1985, 19–35).
Idolatry, in these Jewish-Greek writers, appears to be a force to be
reckoned with. It was not quenched, even if it were tortured, as the Midrash
graphically claims, but its soul was still heard. Evidence for this exists also
in the Mishnah. M. Sanhedrinrefers to typical worship practices, in which
Israelites might be involved: “The one who worships [will be stoned to
death]: this includes the worshipper, the participation in activity at the
altar, the incense, the libation, the prostration” (7:6–7).
CONCLUSION
The complicated area of Jewish-pagan relations is summed up by the Tosefta
Avodah Zarah:“The murky area of idolatry: one should not do business with
a pagan on the day of the pagan’s festival because it would appear that one
is taking part in idolatry” (1:13). How much is too much? The Talmudic lit-
erature tries to define this. The prohibitions and their requisite abrogation
are not necessarily the product of the later generations of Sages. The Tosefta
opens with a saying of Nahum the Mede (ca. first century BCE), who qual-
ifies the strictures of the Mishnah:“In communities of the diaspora, one
abstains from trade relations with pagans only for one day before their
Is the Pagan Fair Fairly Dangerous? 83