335  2010 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-4189/2010/9003-0003$10.00 The Rabbinic View of Idolatry and the Roman Political Conception of Divinity Yair Furstenberg / Hebrew University Jerusalem i. between bible and mishna The biblical demand for a struggle against the worship of idols is zeal- ous, even violent in nature; its aim is the eradication of all alternatives to the God of Israel. This struggle, derived from the uniqueness of God, is translated in the Bible into resolute, decisive action, as exemplified in Deuteronomy 12: “You must destroy all the sites, at which the nations you are to dispossess worshiped their gods, whether on lofty mountains and on hills or under any luxuriant tree. Tear down their altars, smash their pillars, put their sacred posts to the fire, and cut down the images of their gods, obliterating their name from that site” (12:2–3). In con- trast, second-century rabbinic literature—notably Mishna Avodah Zarah, which discusses the encounter with idolatry—does not mandate zealous action against it. Though the Mishna does demand the “distancing” of objects connected with idolatry, and their transfer to the Dead Sea, this demand does not constitute an aggressive attack on idolatry or the elim- ination of its memory. This distancing, rather, is intended only to pre- vent Jews from making secondary use of such objects. The considerable disparity between the requirement of the Bible, as well as some zealous traditions from the Second Temple Period, 1 and the absence of such a requirement in the Mishna, has led to a variety of scholarly responses. A number of attempts have been made to ex- plain this interesting shift. One such explanation relates to the sense 1 The Hasmoneans attempted to purify the land of idolatry, as attested in 1 Macc. 5:68. Also, as the rumors of Herod’s death spread, a plan was made to destroy the golden eagle at the gate to the Temple (Josephus, The Jewish War 1.648–59). In preparation for the Great Revolt, a similar occurrence took place in the destruction of the palace of Herod Antipater because of the images of animals that were inside it (Josephus, Life [of Flavius Josephus] 65). It is worthy of note that the implementation of these actions was made possible only in the context of the appropriate political conditions.