Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T07:50:30.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Eleazar Miracle and Solomon's Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus's Antiquitates Judaicae 8.42–49*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Dennis C. Duling
Dennis C. Duling
Affiliation:
Canisius College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The fascinating legend of Solomon's magical wisdom was widespread in Late Antiquity, and new evidence for it has surfaced in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi texts. Yet the key literary text for understanding the legend remains the miracle story of Eleazar in Josephus's Antiquitates Judaicae 8.42–49. In this article, I would like to examine the story's form, content, and function. First, it is necessary to clarify the story by a formal analysis and by relating its form to other miracles within the corpus of Josephus, and to similar accounts of miracles in Late Antiquity. Next, I shall examine the way in which this miracle functions in the Antiquitates from the perspective of Josephus's overall apologetic purpose, his view of miracle and magic, his portrait of Solomon, his knowledge of the Jewish legend of Solomon's magical wisdom, and his immediate context for the story. Finally, I shall propose a modest hypothesis about Josephus's treatment of the Eleazar miracle in relation to his social location as a Jewish apologist to educated Greco-Roman readers in the first century CE.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 78 , Issue 1-2 , April 1985 , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

A version of this paper was delivered at the Miracle Genre Work Group at the Society of Biblical Literature, Dallas, Texas, 1983. Revisions were made in 1984 during a Canisius College Research Fellowship and in 1985 with the aid of an NEH Fellowship. I am very thankful for research support from both NEH and Canisius College.

1 For Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi texts, see nn. 37, 38, 40. For bibliography, see Duling, Dennis C., “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David,” HTR 68 (1975) 236 n. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, The Testament of Solomon, “Introduction,” in Charlesworth, James H., ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York: Doubleday, 1983 = OTP) 1. 935–87Google Scholar; idem, “The Legend of Solomon the Magician in Antiquity: Problems and Perspectives” (Presidential Address) Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society 4 (Westerville, OH: EGLBS, 1984) 1–23Google Scholar; to these bibliographies, add Neusner, Jacob, A History of the Jews in Babylonia (BJS 62; 5 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1965–1972) esp. 2. 131, 5. 174–207 (on the magical knowledge of the Rabbis)Google Scholar, and 5. 174–243.

On Babylonian magic in general see: Hengel, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (2 vols; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) esp. 1. 130, 210–18, 231–41Google Scholar, and nn. in vol. 2 on “wise men from the East,” astrology, magical books; Isbell, Charles D., Corpus of Aramaic Incantation Bowls (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975)Google Scholar, a collection of scattered materials; Judah Goldin, “The Magic of Magic and Superstition,” in Schüssler-Fiorenza (ed), Aspects of Religious Propaganda, 115–47, on magic in the Talmud and the Sepher Ha-Razim, Feldman, “Josephus as an Apologist,” 69–98; Morgan, Michael, Sepher Ha-Razim, The Book of Mysteries (SBLTT 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Meulen, Harry E. Faber van der, Das Salomo-Bild im hellenistisch-jüdischen Schriftum (Diss. Kampen, Netherlands, 1978)Google Scholar; Peterca, Vladimir, L'imagine di Salomone nella Bibbia ebraica e greca: Contributo allo studio del'Midrash’ (Diss., Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1981).Google Scholar

2 Ant 8.46b-49 (my translation).

3 Theissen, Gerd, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) chap. 1.Google Scholar

4 Funk, Robert W., “The Form of the New Testament Healing Miracle Story,” Semeia 12 (1978) 57–96.Google Scholar

5 Theissen's motif 8. Cf. this motif in Mark 5:26; 9:18; John 5:5; Lucian Abdic. 7; Diog. Laert. 8,69.

6 Cf. other exorcisms in 2.4; 3.38; 4.10; 4.25.

7 Cf. the demon which departs as smoke in Lucian Philops. 16.

8 See Funk, “New Testament Healing,” and Theissen, Miracle Stories, 66–67.

9 Feldman, Louis H. (“Hellenization in Josephus's Portrayal of Man's Decline,” in Jacob Neusner, ed., Religion in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough [Leiden: Brill, 1970] 336–39)Google Scholar argues that Josephus's statement was meant to include midrashic interpretations; Cohen, Shaye (Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian [Leiden: Brill, 1979] 24–28)Google Scholar disagrees on the basis of Josephus's reference to άναγραφαί in C. Apion. 1.29–42, where it refers to “the Biblical books, nothing else” (65). For Cohen, such statements were typical of the genre. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Josephus's historical model (see below), states of previous historians that in the main they reproduced their sources, “neither adding anything to them nor taking anything away” (De Thuc 5); cf. Attridge, Harold, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR 7; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 59 and n. 2.Google Scholar

10 Mez, Adam, Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht für Buch V-VII des Archäologie (Basel: Jaeger, 1895) 80–81Google Scholar; Thackeray, Henry St. J. (Josephus: The Man and the Historian [1929; New York: KTAV, 1967] 81–90)Google Scholar concurred: “The Josephan Biblical text is uniformly of this Lucianic type from 1 Samuel to 1 Maccabees” (85). Thackeray also argued for the probability of a targum for Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, and was followed by Rappaport, Salomo, Aggada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Vienna: Kohut, 1930) xxi–xxivGoogle Scholar, and Schalit, Abraham, Introduction to the Hebrew Translation of the Antiquities (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1967) xxxi–xxxiiGoogle Scholar; idem, “Evidence of an Aramaic Source in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews,” ASTI 4 (1965) 163–88.Google Scholar

11 Ulrich, Eugene C. Jr, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978) esp. 22–37, 257–59.Google Scholar Ulrich cites Mez (n. 10 above) as the first modern scholar to argue for Lucianic readings in Samuel-Kings. That Josephus did not refer to the Hebrew any longer does not seem likely; cf. the remarks by Feldman, Louis H., “Josephus's Portrait of Saul,” HUCA 53 (1982) 65–66, n. 45.Google Scholar

12 Thackeray, Josephus, 91–93; Attridge (Interpretation, 33–37, esp. 36) is, however, skeptical of Josephus's close dependence on Philo. In agreement with Thackeray that Josephus knew Philo, see Schürer, Emil, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, et al.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973) 1. 49 n. 12.Google Scholar

13 See ibid., 49 n. 13 for a list of thirty-five nonbiblical writers cited by Josephus, though he may not have known (or at least studied) them all.

14 On these sources see Shutt, Rowland J. H., Studies in Josephus (London: SPCK, 1961) chap. 5.Google Scholar

15 Attridge, Interpretation, 43–60.

16 Attridge, Interpretation, 155–59.

17 McCasland, S. Vernon, “Portents in Josephus and in the Gospels,” JBL 51 (1932) 323–35Google Scholar, comparing portents in Bellum to those in Greek writings; Delling, Gerhard, “Josephus und das Wunderbare,” NovT 2 (1958) 291–309Google Scholar, the best general study; George MacRae, “Miracle in The Antiquities of Josephus,” in Moule, Charles F. D., ed., Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History (London: Mowbray, 1965) 129–47Google Scholar, analyzing the rationalistic formulae and vocabulary for “miracle”; Moehring, H. R., “Rationalization of Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus,” StEv 6 (1973) 376–83Google Scholar, which overstates Josephus's rationalizing somewhat, but points out an interesting inconsistency; Betz, Otto, “Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus in Vergleich zum Wunderproblem bei den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium,” in idem et al., eds., Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament, Festschrift Otto Michel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) 23–44Google Scholar, describing Josephus's overall viewpoint; Attridge, Interpretation, 43–60, insightfully relating miracle to Josephus's overall view of God's intervention in history; and Downing, Gerald, “Redaction Criticism: Josephus's Antiquitates and the Synoptic Gospels,” JSNT 8 (1980) 46–65Google Scholar, which only briefly mentions miracle and magic, but makes observations about Josephus's method.

18 Judg 6:17–24 (Gideon); 2 Kgs 4:8–44; 5:1–27; 6:1–7; 13:14–21 (Elisha).

19 Ant 9.46.208, 214; 10.218.281.

20 E.g., Ant 5.205–6; 6.26–27.

21 Ant 1.108; 2..348; 3.83; 3.268; 3.322; 4.158; 8.262; 10.281; 17.354. See MacRae, “Miracle,” 136–42; Moehring, “Rationalization,” 377 n. 1. For the formula in Dionysius (Ant. Rom 1.48.1; 2.40.3; 2.70.5; 3.35.5), see Attridge, Interpretation, 44 n. 1. For writers other than Dionysius, see Avenarius, Gert, Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung (Meisenheim Glan: Hain, 1956) 163–65.Google Scholar

22 Moehring, “Rationalization,” 381.

23 Ibid., 376–77; Josephus's vocabulary of miracle is discussed in MacRae, “Miracle,” 142–47: παράδοξον, σημεῖον, τεράστιον, θαυμαστόν, ⋯πιϕάνεια.. Cf. also n. 27 below.For “archaeological evidence,” see Moehring, “Rationalization,” 376 n. 7.

24 MacRae, “Miracle,” 136, with reference to Delling, “Josephus's’ (n. 14 above). My caution about φὐσις is made on the basis of Attridge: “It is clear, then, that the remarks in the Antiquitates on ‘nature’ bear only superficial affinities with the more speculative philosophy, whereas the moralistic assumption is made that human nature is subject to dangerous passions which should be suppressed and overcome” (Interpretation, 143).

25 Ibid., passim. See esp. chap. 3 and 151–65, with special attention to 3 Maccabees and Diodorus Siculus Bib. hist 4.43.1–2; 11.14.4.

26 See below, n. 33.

27 Cf. the burning bush (2.265: θανμ⋯σιον) God's changing Moses' staff into a serpent, Moses' hand to white, and the water to a color resembling blood (2.272–73); Moses' use of such signs (2.274: σημεῖον) Josephus's additional comments after the revelation of the Divine Name that “Moses found those signs (τ⋯ σημεῖα) at his service not on that occasion only but at all times whensoever there was need of them” (2.276); and the demonstration of his “power” (δύναμις) to his skeptical Jewish brethren back in Egypt (2.280).

28 See Betz, “Problem,” 27–30 for this special emphasis.

29 In Ant. 20.97 the false prophet Theudas is called a γόης (imposter); the same is true for the Egyptian false prophet in Bell. 2.261; cf. Betz, “Problem,” and esp. Gerhard Delling, “γόης” and “μάγος, μαγεία, μαγεύω,”, TDNT 1. 737–38 and 4. 356–59, respectively.

30 Exod 22:17; Lev 19:31; 20:27; Deut 18:10. Exod 22:17 says the punishment is death. Feldman has shown me that the point should not be overdrawn since Josephus does not develop all the Pentateuchal laws.

31 Thackeray, Josephus (LCL) 187 n. c.

32 There exists, of course, a whole scholarly literature on Moses in Greco-Roman times. Moses himself is viewed as something of a magician in the Antiquitates, cf. Gager, John G., Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (JBLMS 16; Nashville: Abingdon, 1972) esp. chap. 4Google Scholar: “Moses and Magic,” 134–61. See above, n. 26.

33 Especially associated with the research of Dieter Georgi, Helmut Koester, Morton Smith, Howard C. Kee, and Paul J. Achtemeier. Otherwise see the three dissertations which have extensive bibliographies, namely, Tiede, David L., The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBLDS 1; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Holladay, Carl H., Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism (SBLDS 40; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977)Google Scholar; and Gallagher, Eugene V., Divine Man or Magician? Celsus and Origen on Jesus (SBLDS 64; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980).Google Scholar The first two dissertations attempt to overturn the use of the category of “divine man” in scholarly literature; the latter is also critical, but recognizes that the category is an “ideal type.” Even if it is unwittingly or incorrectly reified, the phenomenon still needs to be understood.

34 Feldman, “Josephus as an Apologist” and Faber van der Meulen, Salomo-Bild (n. 1 above).

35 In addition to his study of Solomon, see Feldman, Louis H., “Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus,” TAPA 99 (1968) 143–56Google Scholar; idem, “Hellenizations in Josephus's Version of Esther,” TAPA 101 (1970) 143–70Google Scholar; and idem, “Josephus's Portrait of Saul” (n. 11 above).

36 Feldman thinks (“Josephus as Apologist,” 70–71, 82–84, 86) that Josephus might have had the model of Sophocles’ Oedipus in mind. For a critique, see Faber van der Meulen, Salomo-Bild, 69–78.

37 Feldman, “Josephus as Apologist,” 79–81.

38 See n. 1 above.

39 Winston, David, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979) 172–77.Google Scholar Winston argues (20–25) that Wisdom is probably to be dated after Philo; for further discussion, see Georgi, Dieter, Weisheit Salomos (Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Bd. 3; Lfg. 4; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1980).Google Scholar

40 “David's Compositions” is a prose section in the Psalms Scroll which claims that David wrote not only 3600 “psalms,” but 450 “songs.” It lists them by type and number, stating that David wrote four “songs for making music over the stricken” (lines 9–10). See Sanders, James A., The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965) 91–93.Google Scholar In the rabbinic literature, Psalm 91, which was sung in the temple when someone was threatened by insanity, was also called “song for the stricken” (y. Šabbat 6.8b; cf. b. Šeb. 15b; y. *Erubim 10.26c). Because 11QPsApa contains apocryphal psalm fragments plus an unusual recension of Psalm 91, and since the apocryphal psalms are full of demonological references, perhaps there is a connection. For this suggestion, see Ploeg, J. P. M. van der, “Un petit rouleau de psaumes apocryphes (llQPsApa),” in Tradition und Glaube: Festschrift für Karl Georg Kuhn (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 128–39.Google Scholar

41 First noted by Loevestam, Evald, “Davids-son-Kristologin hos synoptikerna,” SEÅ 15 (1972) 198–210Google Scholar; translated as “Jésus Fils de David chez les Synoptiques,” Studies in Theology 28 (1974) 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 James, Montague R., “Citharismus regis David contra daemonum Saulis,” Apocrypha Anecdota: Texts and Studies 2/3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893) 181Google Scholar; McCown, Chester C., The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: Hinrich, 1922) 91Google Scholar; Preisendanz, Karl, “Salomo,” 633; Christian Dietzfelbinger, Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Diss. Göttingen, 1964) 152.Google Scholar

43 Böhlig, Alexander, “Die Adamapocalypse aus Codex V von Nag Hammadi als Zeugnis jüdisch-iranischer Gnosis,” OrChr 48 (1964) 44–49Google Scholar; MacRae, George, “The Coptic Gnostic Apocalypse of Adam,” Heyj 6 (1965) 27–35Google Scholar; idem, “The Apocalypse of Adam Reconsidered” (SBLASP; 2 vols.; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972) 2. 577Google Scholar; Hedrick, Charles W., The Apocalypse of Adam: A Literary and Source Analysis (SBLDS 46; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980).Google Scholar

44 Goodenough, Erwin R., Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman World (Bollingen Series 37; 13 vols.; New York: Pantheon, 1953–1968) 1. 68; 2. 226–38; 7. 198–200; 9. 1044–67.Google Scholar

Most recently, see Frances M. Schwartz and John H. Schwartz, Engraved Gems in the Collection of the American Numismatic Society, vol. 1: Ancient Magical Amulets reprinted from Museum Notes 24 (1979) esp. 184–87Google Scholar and pis. 36–48; cf. Duling, “Solomon,” 244 n. 39 for further bibliography. One should note esp. Perdrizet, Paul, “Sphragis Solomōnos,” Revue des études grecques 16 (1903) 42–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Isbell, Corpus; Duling, “Solomon,” 245 n. 42.

46 Margalioth, Mordecai, Sepher Ha-Razim: A Newly Recovered Magical Book from the Talmudic Period (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Yedioth Achronoth, 1966)Google Scholar; Morgan, Sepher Ha- Razim. Note the remarks by Judah Goldin, “Magic,” 131–38; Gruenwald, Ithamar, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU 14; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 225–34.Google Scholar

47 Heeg, Joseph, Catalogus codicum astrologorum Graecorum VIII.2 (Brussels: Lamertin, 1911) 139–65.Google Scholar

48 McCown, Chester C., “The Christian Tradition as to the Magical Wisdom of Solomon,” JPOS 2/1 (1922) 1–24.Google Scholar

49 In Matt. comm. ser. 33,110 (PG 13, col. 1757).

50 Duling, Testament of Solomon.

51 Pearson, Birger A., “Introduction” to his Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X (NHS 15; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 1–18.Google Scholar

52 Cf. Nestle, Eberhard, “Zum Ysop bei Johannes, Josephus, und Philo,” ZNW 14 (1913) 263–65.Google Scholar I have speculated on this subject in Duling, “Legend of Solomon.”

53 On “wise men of the East,” which is closer to the Hebrew, see Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 212–18.

54 Schlatter, Adolf, Die Hebräischen Namen bei Josephus (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1913) 14.Google Scholar

55 For texts, see below n. 60; Abt, Adam, Die Apologie des Apuleius von Madaura und die Antike Zauberei (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1908) 324Google Scholar; Reitzenstein, Richard, Poimandres: Studien zur griechisch-ägyptischen und frühchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904) 163.Google Scholar

56 Josephus changes the order from domesticated animals, birds, reptiles, and fish to domesticated animals, living creatures on the face of the earth, fish, and birds.

57 Albrecht Dieterich, after quoting this section, writes, “Man hatte Bücher Salomos under dem Titel εἰκόνες, wie auch Pamphilos nach Suidas εἰκόνες κατ⋯ στοιχεῖον schrieb; für jede Pflanze war der mystische Zaubername angegeben, wie ich es zu der Pflanzenlist des Leidener Papyrus V, die eben solche εἰκόνες bietet, ausgeführt habe” (Abraxas: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des spätern Altertums [Leipzig: Teubner, 1891] 142).Google Scholar Cf. Faber van der Meulen, Salomo-Bild, 99. Because of the animals in Josephus's account, Preisendanz (“Salomo,” 663–64) prefers books about nature, including pictures. “Sketches” is more neutral, but allows room for the magical. “Proverbs” or “parables” (Ralph Marcus, LCL) may also be slightly off the mark.

58 To know the plants and animals “philosophically,” as Marcus translated ⋯ϕιλοσάϕησε in Ant 8.44, is not an argument to the contrary because Josephus uses the same verb (Bell. 2.119: ϕιλοσοϕεῖται) in his well-known passage about the four Jewish sects, one of which is the Essenes who displayed “an extraordinary interest in the writings of the ancients, singling out in particular those which make for the welfare of soul and body; with the help of these, and with a view to the cure of diseases, they make investigations into medicinal roots and the properties of stones” (Bell. 2.136). Hence, I have translated ϕιλοσοϕέω “to make an investigation into.”

59 Jewish, Christian, and Greek literatures all contain references to the leaders of the Egyptian magicians, Jannes and Jambres; cf. Duling, “Legend of Solomon,” nn. 40, 41; Charlesworth, OTP, vol. 2: Jannes and Jambres (forthcoming).

60 Cf. Dardania in Paris Magical Papyrus 4,2612; 5,1716 (cf. 7,695) in Preisendanz, Karl, Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri (Leipzig/Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961)Google Scholar; on Solomon's fame in Egypt one may cite Wis 7:15–22 (see above n. 39); the “Hygromancie of Solomon” (see above n. 47); Paris Magical Papyrus 3009; NHC II,5:107,3; V,5:75,27–79,19; VII,2:63,11; IX,3:69,31–72,17) probably T. Sol. 18; and Origen In Matt. comm. ser. 33,110 (PG 13, col. 1757).

61 LSJ 598. One may recall in this respect the tradition of David's music used for exorcism; see above, n. 40.

62 Rengstorff, Karl, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 391–92.Google Scholar

63 Preisendanz, “Salomo,” 667.

64 Feldman suggests that it is not likely that Josephus would have mentioned this particular scene unless there were some basis for it.

65 See Sepher Ha-Rāfîm 6:16–29, where an iron ring with the image of a lion and a man on its golden diadem, when placed in the mouth accompanied by an appeal to the overseers of the sixth heaven, will put a fog between one and his enemies. In Philopseudes 17 Eucrates says an Arab gave him a “ring made of iron from crosses” and taught him the spell of many names.

66 Cf. Duling, “The Testament of Solomon,” OTP vol. 1, esp. ch. 1; b. Git 68a; Aramaic Incantation Bowls (Duling, “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David,” 246–47); Islamic legends. Cf. also the fourth century “Pilgrimage of S. Silvia of Aquitania,” in Bernard, John H., The Churches of Constantine at Jerusalem (London: 24 Hanover Square, W., 1896) 64Google Scholar, for the tradition that pilgrims to Jerusalem touched the ring of Solomon held by a deacon.

67 See above, n. 44; Paris Magical Papyrus 3009.

68 See Herrmann, Léon, “Les premiers exorcismes juifs et judéo-chrétiens,” Revue de l'Université de Bruxelles n.s. 7 (1954–1955) 305–8.Google Scholar

69 Abt, Die Apologie des Apuleius; Butler, H. E., The Apologia and Florida of Apuleius of Madaura (1909; Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1970)Google Scholar; Tavenner, Eugene, Studies in Magic from Latin Literature (New York: Columbia University Press, 1916)Google Scholar; Beckmann, Franz, Zauberei und Recht in Roms Frühzeit (Osnabrück: Nolte, 1923)Google Scholar; Lowe, J. E., Magic in Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford: Blackwell, 1929)Google Scholar; Massonneau, Eliane, Le crime de magie et le droit romain (Bordeaux: Biere, 1933).Google Scholar For Jewish magic, the standard work is Ludwig Blau, Das altjüdische Zauberwesen (1898; Westmead: Gregg International, 1970)Google Scholar, now supplemented by Liebermann, Saul, Greek in Jewish Palestine (1942; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965) 97–114.Google Scholar See Hull, John M., Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (SBT 28; 2d series; Naperville: Allenson, 1974)Google Scholar; also Smith, Morton, Jesus the Magician (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978).Google Scholar

70 MacMullen, Ramsay, Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966) 95–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71 See Hunter, W. A., A Systematic and Historical Exposition of Roman Law (London: Maxwell and Son, 1885) vol. 1.Google Scholar

72 MacMullen, Enemies, 126.

73 Theissen, Miracle Stories, 271; for further discussion of second to fourth century materials, see Kee, Howard C., Miracle in the Early Christian World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983) chap. 8.Google Scholar