Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion: Studies in Early Judaism and Christianity (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) 9783161517426, 9783161521058, 3161517423

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

290

Karl-Gustav Sandelin

Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion Studies in Early Judaism and Christianity

Mohr Siebeck

Karl-Gustav Sandelin, born 1940; ordained 1968; 1977 ThD; 1975–95 Lecturer of Exegetics and the Languages of the Bible at the Åbo Akademi University, Finland; 1995–2006 Professor of New Testament Exegetics at the Åbo Akademi University; since 2006 retired and Professor emeritus.

e-ISBN 978-3-16-152105-8 ISBN 978-3-16-151742-6 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2012  by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen, printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Acknowledgements My gratitude for having been able to finish this volume goes first and foremost to the Theological Faculty of the Åbo Akademi University, Åbo (Turku), Finland, my academic home for half a century. After my retirement from the office as professor of New Testament exegetics in 2006, the Faculty has provided me with a fine working point and an outstanding library. The project presented in this book has been going on for a long period of time. Its earliest article in English was published in 1991, the same year during the first half of which I had the opportunity of studying and doing research in Rome, Athens and Jerusalem. That time for me became my grand tour, made possible thanks to a generous scholarship provided by the Åbo Akademi Foundation. The Finnish institutes in Rome and Athens, and the Dominican centre l’École biblique et archéologique française in Jerusalem provided housing, working facilities, and exchange of thought. Among persons who have been important for the work with the articles in this book and their publication, in addition to my colleagues Professor Peder Borgen (Lilleström, Norway), Professor Lars Hartman (Uppsala, Sweden) and Dr. Art. Per Jarle Bekken (Knapstad, Norway), I especially want to thank Professor Hans-Josef Klauck O. F. M. (Chicago, Illinois). Some years ago Professor Klauck made the kind suggestion that I publish the intended volume in the WUNT series. With appreciation I want to mention Professor Ugo Vanni S. J. at the Pontifical Gregorian University who showed active interest in my scholarly work during my days in Rome and who has done so even later on. A particular word of thankfulness also goes to my first cousin Karl R. Sandelin, M. A. (Kalamazoo, Michigan), who has reviewed my English in such texts of this volume that have not been previously published. In the summer of 1987 I was sponsored by the Alexander von HumboldtFoundation for research in Tübingen where this volume is now published. The circle thus is closed. 

Karl-Gustav Sandelin

Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006) 1 The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991) . . . . 27 Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Does Paul Argue against Sacramentalism and Over-Confidence in 1 Cor 10:1–14? (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 “Do Not Be Idolaters!” (1 Cor 10:7) (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Drawing the Line: Paul on Idol Food and Idolatry in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Does Paul Warn the Corinthians Not to Eat Demons? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . 133 The Jesus-Tradition and Idolatry (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John . . . 169 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 List of Initial Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Index of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 Index of Subjects and Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

Abbreviations AB BNTC CBET CBQ FRLANT HNT HTR ICC JBL JSJ JSNT KEK KJV LCL NCBC NEB NEchB NICNT NIGTC NIV NT NTD NTS ÖTNT PAPM

PFES REG RHPhR RQ SBL SC SEG

The Anchor Bible Black’s New Testament Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Handbuch zum Neuen Testament The Harvard Theological Review International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments Journal of Biblical Literature Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the New Testament Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament See: The Bible in English The Loeb Classical Library The New Century Bible Commentary See: The Bible in English Die Neue Echter Bibel The New International Commentary on the New Testament The New International Greek Testament Commentary See: The Bible in English Novum Testamentum Das Neue Testament Deutsch The New Testament Studies Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie, French edition of the works of Philo of Alexandria under the general editorship of Alexandria under the general editorship of R. Arnaldez, C. Mondésert, and J. Polloux (1961–1992). Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society Revue des Études Grecques Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses Revue de Qumran Society of Biblical Literature Sources Chrétiennes Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben [etc.] 1923–

X SJLA SNTS SPh SPhA SUNT THNT VChr WBC WUNT ZNW

Abbreviations

Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Society for New Testament Studies Studia Philonica Studia Philonica Annual Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Vigiliae Christianae Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Preface Sometimes in the spring of 1987 I received a phone call to my home in Turku/ Åbo, Finland; a ring which turned out to be one of the most important ones in my life. It was from Professor Peder Borgen in Trondheim, Norway, who asked me if I would be interested in participating in a research project together with him and two other scholars. I, of course, answered in the positive as I was well aware of Borgen’s renown as a specialist in Philo and Hellenistic Judaism. I had met him a couple of times, but at that time he was not one of my closest Scandinavian acquaintances. Professor Borgen’s initiative resulted in an Inter-Scandinavian project on Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity (1988–1993). Other participants were Professor Lars Hartman (Uppsala, Sweden), the Reverend Per-Jarle Bekken (Oslo, Norway) and I. Professor Hartman was familiar from before and I highly respected his sharp and analytical mind. The Reverend Bekken was unknown to me. At the time I served as a lecturer in exegetics at the Åbo Akademi University. As members of the project we used to gather a couple of times each year, often in connection with the general meetings of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. Our work resulted in several articles and books. Of the latter, the dissertation of Per Jarle Bekken, The Word Is Near You (published 2007), deserves special mention. The research group decided to work within different sectors of the basic area that consisted of Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity without excluding occasional intrusions in one another’s fields. Having been working with Philo and Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians for many years, I decided to turn my interest towards a specific theme pertinent to both Philo and Paul, i.e. the statements concerning people who were either interested in or were understood to be in danger of transgressing the border between, on the one hand their Jewish or Christian communities and, on the other, the sphere of religious activity in the surrounding world. For my part the work resulted in a series of articles which now are published together in this volume. Many of them have been written after the years of the aforementioned project. Two of them are published here for the first time. The historical problems discussed in this volume arise from the fact that both Judaism and Early Christianity shared a similar situation in the Hellenistic-Roman world. In both cases the societies in which the Jewish and

XII

Preface

Christian communities lived were characterized by religious activities manifested in temples, art, priestly hierarchies, rituals, banquets, processions and ways of life. For many early Christians that world formed a mission-field. Those who were converted to the new religion were mostly supposed to look at their former life critically as a life that was morally and religiously depraved (e.g. 1 Cor 12:2; 1 Pet 4:3–4). The danger lay in a relapse into the religious behaviour which preceded the conversion. Warnings against idolatry are therefore most understandable (e.g. 1 Cor 10:14; 1 John 5:21). On the Jewish side the situation had similar traits. But among the Jews a relapse into Hellenistic religion could, of course, concern only a small minority. The documentation presented in this volume shows, however, that Hellenistic religion did also attract individuals who had been brought up as Jews. The first three articles attempt to show how some Jews were attracted to Hellenistic religion or certain aspects of it, and also, how such an attraction was handled by themselves or by their coreligionists. Philo of Alexandria is an important author to consult here. An analogous problem articulated by Christians in the New Testament becomes manifest in Paul, especially in 1 Cor, and in the Revelation of John. The question that interested me was what could be said about the relationship between the Jewish and the Christian way of handling the problem of the attraction and danger of alien religion. I began my study of Paul’s views at this point by presuming three things: (1) Some Christian Corinthians somehow attended cultic activities connected to the local religious life. (2) The Apostle, though still being critical to some extent, accepted such participation. (3) Paul’s way of arguing ought to have ties to his Jewish frame of reference. In the course of my research I had to revise the first two presumptions. In the case of the third I think the article Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison gives some answers. It conveys the essentials of the research presented in this volume on Philo and Paul. The results of my investigations also had some influence in responding to whether Paul and John in the Revelation agreed, or whether they differed in their way of evaluation of Christian participation in Hellenistic religious activities. In order to somewhat broaden the perspective of my research at a certain point in time, I also decided to see if one could say something about how the question of Hellenistic Religion was looked upon in the Jesus-tradition. The essays do not follow in chronological order but are arranged in a more logical way. The year of initial publication is inserted within parentheses after each title. The bibliography gives details concerning volumes and places of publication.

Preface

XIII

A systematic up-dating of each essay would have required too much, but I have made occasional additions to the notes when I, after publication, have come across contributions of special interest by other authors. The circumstance that the Pauline passage 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 is treated in several articles has led to some overlapping. I hope this does not cause too much irritation in the mind of the attentive reader. With some exceptions the proper names of authors I have cited or to whom I have referred are spelled out in the bibliography. My way of referring to scholarly contributions in the notes has often been called the Harvard system. When my articles were first published they followed very different systems and have therefore been reworked for the sake of uniformity in this volume. In my text I have, when possible, also given the first names of such authors whose viewpoints are cited verbally or presented in substance when they appear for the first time in each article. In such cases the names are italicized. I have tried to follow the British way of spelling and the use of inverted commas. Åbo, Finland March 2012

Karl-Gustav Sandelin

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006) Even prior to the Exile, Israelites lived in a world in which religions other than their own were proximate realities. The narratives concerning King Ahab and Queen Jezebel describe a syncretistic religion containing both Canaanite and Israelite elements. According to the biblical account, Elijah the prophet vehemently condemned such wavering “between two opinions” (1 Kgs 18:21) and he had many followers in this respect among the Israelite prophets (e.g. Hos 2, Isa 2 and 48, Jer 16). The uncompromising formulation in Deuteronomy is consistent with the prophetic stress on exclusive worship of the God of Israel: “If your brother … or your son … or your dearest friend should entice you secretly to go and worship other gods … then you shall not consent or listen … you shall put him to death …” (13:6–9).1 But despite this forceful prohibition against participation in alien cults, we can identify traces of Canaanite ideas and religious practice in the ancient Israelite religion.2 It is probable that Mesopotamian and Iranian religion had some effect upon the religious ideas of the Jews during and after the Babylonian Exile.3 But we have very few records of a confrontation between Jewish and Iranian religious interests from the period of more than two hundred years during which the Jews lived under Persian rule.4 The situation changes however in 1

 The general picture is of course far more complex. See Goldenberg 1998, 9–27. For the question of the originality of the Masoretic reading ‫כי הרג תהרגנו‬, see Weinfeld 1972, 94 –95. On the basis of an analysis of texts pertaining to the so called Deuteronomistic history and with reference to archaeological evidence Juha Pakkala (1999, 239) states, however: “… it would seem that intolerant monolatry and the explicit demand to worship Yahwe exclusively are late ideas that first appeared during the exile.” 2 Ringgren 1963, 84 –85, de Vaux 1965, 440– 441, Albertz 1994, 62– 65, 172–175. See also articles by different authors in Dietrich/Klopfenstein 1994, 181–326 and Pakkala 1999, 225–231. For history of research and different aspects of the religion of ancient Israel, see Janowski / Köckert 1999. 3 For Mesopotamian influence, see e.g. Niehr 2003, 136–155. For Iranian influence, see e.g. Riley 1999, 244 –249, esp. 245–246. Cf. Watson 1992, vol. 2, 183–184 and Colpe 2003, 597. 4 See Stern 1992, 115–116, Becking 1999, 1–8, esp. 7, and Runesson 2001, 259–303. For cult-objects found from the Persian period in Palestine see Ephraim Stern 1983, 158–195. Cf. the words of the same author: “… during the Persian period, we find a very strange

2

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

this respect during the following era, i.e., the time of the Greek rulers. The peak of a religious clash occurred about thirty-five years after the conquest of the land of the Jews around 200 B. C. E. by the Seleucid rulers of Syria from the Ptolemies governing Egypt. The religion of the Jews during the succeeding Maccabean rule and thereafter, and particularly after the destruction of the Temple, differed in many respects from Israelite religion before the Exile.5 In this article I concentrate on the Jew’s daily confrontation with the complex phenomenon described by the term “Hellenistic religion”. I confine myself to religious practices and related questions and with some exceptions disregard issues of religious ideology. I therefore do not discuss, e.g., how the Book of Wisdom or Philo of Alexandria used Hellenistic philosophical or religious concepts when they articulated their theological or anthropological ideas.6 I also ignore the very interesting but controversial question of Jewish attempts to win proselytes or to do missionary work in the Hellenistic world.7 My focus lies in the opposite direction: how much is documented regarding how non-Jewish religious activities attracted Jews in the Hellenistic world and in the early Roman Empire.8 The material discussed derives from the Eastern Mediterranean area and in only a few cases is later than the first century C. E.9 I begin with some theoretical reflections. Peder Borgen, in the title of one of his articles, summarized the situation in which a Jew in antiquity found himself when confronting alien religions.10 A Jew could say “no” or “yes” to non-Jewish religious practices. In the former case the traditional requirement of the Bible was met whereas the latter option was a threat to Jewish identity, if the standard was set by the biblical prohibitions. But these phenomenon: in the area of the country occupied by the Jews, not a single cultic figurine has been found! … How can we explain the complete absence of sanctuaries and, even more significantly, the complete absence of these common cultic figurines in areas of Judaeans (and Samaritans …). Apparently, pagan cults ceased to exist among the Judaeans who purified their their worship and Jewish monotheism was at last consolidated.” (Stern 1999, 254 f.). But cf. Rüdiger Schmitt (2003, 190): “Der Befund ist  – gemessen an den übrigen Mengen – zwar schmal, zeigt aber die Präsenz und damit auch den Gebrauch von Tonplastik in Yehud.” In opposition to a theory by Ulrich Hübner, he states: “Die Terrakottafigurinen aus Yehud zeugen von der traditionellen Frömmigkeitspraxis der Judäer, nicht aber von einem Bildersturm nach dem Exil.” (Schmitt 2003, 198).   5 Cf. Neusner 1984, 90.   6 See for instance Winston 1981 b, 33– 40, 59– 63, Mack 1973, 133–154.   7 Compare Feldman 1993, 288–341 with the very different standpoint presented by Riesner 2000, 211–250. See also Wander 1998, 29–32, 218–227 and Dickson 2003.   8 For a broader perspective see Goldenberg 1998, passim.   9 For references to Rabbinic material, see Winter 1990, 209–226, esp. 215–219 and Borgen 1995, 30–59, esp. 35, 41– 44. 10 Borgen 1995, 40– 41, 47– 48.

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

3

two possibilities also raised a question: was it possible to conform to alien religious practice and still remain a Jew? “How far” could a Jew go without imperiling his status as a Jew and how far did Jews actually go? How did Jews react when some of their co-religionists participated in Greco-Roman religious cults? Why was participation in alien cults an issue in the first place? Why should a Jew participate in such activity at all? Did some Jews find GrecoRoman cults attractive? The Hellenistic kings invested massive material and spiritual resources in religion. As examples we could mention the religious policy of the Seleucid Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the building of temples and the cult of Sarapis in the Ptolemaic kingdom.11 Many Jews were confronted with non-Jewish cults simply because they were part of everyday life in the world around them. In the Hellenistic world such phenomena as theatre, sports, and education had religious overtones, and rituals were normally performed in such contexts.12 In our discussion a distinction could be made between active, direct participation on the one hand and passive, indirect participation on the other. The latter could have occurred whenever a Jew was present when GrecoRoman rituals were performed. Such participation is very difficult to document, however, and therefore the distinction between active and passive participation is implied only in section 2.1., when we discuss the dangerous world in which Jews lived. An easier question concerns the extent to which Jewish participation in alien religious practices, when it happened, was wholly voluntary. The opportunities for and modes of participation in Hellenistic cults must have been different in the Holy Land and in the Diaspora. In the former case the Maccabean revolt naturally caused a dramatic change in the religious situation. In the Diaspora, on the other hand, the Jews were witnesses to religious activity for centuries but rarely in such dangerous circumstances as in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. In the following I distinguish between witnesses in which the participation is documented by way of explicit statements, and those in which a weaker evidence survives. By the latter I mean for instance prohibitions against attendance at alien religious activities. Such injunctions could be signs of actual transgressions of biblical commandments but could also be just warnings against involvement with alien cults.

11 Cf.

12 See

Hengel 1996, 286, Tcherikover 1982, 178–182. for instance Feldman 1993, 57– 63.

4

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

1. Participation in Greco-Roman Religion in the Holy Land 1.1. Documentation through Direct Statements The history of the Jews in the land of Israel after Alexander the Great until the Roman conquest of Syria and Egypt is closely connected with the political, administrative, cultural and religious development in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms.13 A Jewish interest in Greek culture and life-style is reported from the period after 200 B. C. E. when the Jewish area had been annexed to the Seleucid dominions. Documents explicitly mention Jewish participation in alien cults in the region during this time. Yet there is no independent documentation of the voice of those who were attracted to Hellenistic culture.14 The First and Second Books of the Maccabees for instance represent the attitudes of those who were critical of the Greek influence. 1 Maccabees states that there appeared in Israel some “lawless men” (υἱοὶ παράνομοι) who misled many, suggesting that a covenant should be made with the gentiles. The argument allegedly put forward for such an action was that many evils had come upon the Jews after they had separated themselves from the surrounding peoples (1 Macc 1:11). Some Israelites thereupon are said to have applied to the Syrian King Antiochus Epiphanes, who “granted them to observe the practices of the gentiles (δικαιώματα τῶν ἐθνῶν)” (v. 13). A gymnasium in gentile style was built in Jerusalem. According to 2 Macc 4:7–9 the initiative to this was taken by Jason, who succeeded in seizing the office of the High Priest from his brother Onias III.15 The Jewish participation in athletics vividly described by 2 Macc 4:14 as highly appreciated by the Jerusalemite priests may explain the attempt to reverse the sign of circumcision. Such behaviour is seen by 1 Macc 1:15 as a rebellion against the Covenant. The idea in the same verse that the apostates “joined (ἐζευγίσθησαν) with the Gentiles” could mean sexual association.16 Jason even sent a sum of money to Tyre at the time of the quinquennial games there, to be used for the sacrifice to Heracles. But the delegates chosen for the mission were able to divert the money to the building of ships instead (2 Macc 4:18–20). From a Jewish perspective Jason’s attempt must have seemed idolatrous, although it was unsuccessful. It is understandable therefore that he is designated “the blackguard” (ὁ μιαρός) in 2 Macc 4:19.17 13 See

Hengel 1996, 6–57. John Barclay (1996, 246), who states: “The complex currents of Jewish opinion, and the alliances of political interest groups, are now barely detectable through the filter of the Maccabean literature.” 15 Different aspects of the establishment and education at the gymnasium in Jerusalem are illustrated by Doran 2001, 94 –115. 16 Goldstein 1977, 201. 17 Cf. Jonathan A. Goldstein 1984 ad loc. Goldstein thinks, however, that the “sweeping 14 Cf.

1. Participation in Greco-Roman Religion in the Holy Land

5

The prelude of the dramatic fight for Jewish independence from Syrian rule as described in 1 Maccabees consists in the decree promulgated by Antiochus Epiphanes concerning juridical and religious uniformity in his realm (1 Macc 1:43). The implementation of the decree in the land of the Jews is colourfully described as the prohibition of circumcision, certain sacrifices in the Temple, the building of altars and “idolatrous temples”, and in addition the sacrificing of swine and other unclean animals, the establishment of the “abomination of desolation” upon the altar in Jerusalem and the destruction of scrolls of the Law. The penalty for disobedience was death (1 Macc 1:44 – 61). 2 Maccabees adds various details, maintaining that the Temple was dedicated to the Olympian Zeus and that on the feast of Dionysos the Jews “were forced to wear ivy–wreaths and join the procession” in honour of the god (2 Macc 6:2, 7).18 Irrespective of the historicity of the decree, or the real intentions of Antiochus,19 the Syrian measures in matters of religion no doubt constituted a dynamic factor in the course of events finally leading to the establishment of the Hasmonean rule. With the exception of Jason’s unsuccessful attempt to sponsor the sacrifices to Heracles at Tyre nothing is explicitly stated in 1 and 2 Maccabees concerning Jewish involvement in non-Jewish religion before the implementation of the dictate of Antiochus.20 But after it many in Israel are said to have approved of the worship introduced by the king (εὐδόκησαν τῇ λατρείᾳ αὐτοῦ), they “sacrificed to the idols (ἔθυσαν τοῖς εἰδώλοις)” and profaned the Sabbath (1 Macc 1:43).21 The picture conveyed by 1 and 2 Macc is not, therefore, exclusively that of an aggressive power pursuing a policy of cultural imperialism resulting in the subjugation of the Jews, who lacked the power to resist foreign religious influence. According to the sources there accusation” of idolatry in 1 Macc 1:43, is an exaggeration because if “Jason or his associates had participated directly in idol worship, the author would have said so, loudly” (Goldstein 1984, 233). 18  From a strictly historical point of view, the mention of Dionysos is problematic in 2 Macc 6:7. According to the documentation presented by Martin Hengel, Antiochus Epiphanes rather favoured the Olympian Zeus and Apollo. See Hengel 1996, 285–86, cf. 296, 298–99. 19 Cf. Goldstein 1977, 119–120, 140–160, who holds that Antiochus, having been impressed by Roman ways of handling the infiltration of new religious practices, thought of reforming Judaism along more original lines. See also Hengel 1996, 294 –96. Barclay (1996, 248), for his part sees the presentation among Greeks of Antiochus as a champion of civilization, who attempted to “eradicate the misanthropic customs of the Jews”, as a part of “anti-Jewish propaganda”. 20 Cf. Goldstein 1977, 199. 21 For the use of the word εἴδωλον in the Greek-speaking world, early Judaism and Christianity see Terry Griffith (2002, 28–57), Griffith concludes: “… the Greeks were capable of using eidolon of cultic images. The innovation that the Jews introduced was in line with their understanding of idolatry in which they identified the statue of the god with the god itself. It is the extension of the term to include the god itself that is the innovation.”

6

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

existed strong internal tensions among the Jews in matters of assimilation to non-Jewish customs including religious ones.22 The actions of the political authorities to enforce apostasy among the Jews therefore did not meet with unified resistance. This is demonstrated by the episode with the priest Mattathias. When he refused to sacrifice at a non-Jewish ritual, another Jew came forward “in the sight of all to offer on the altar in Modein in accordance with the king’s decree” (1 Macc 2:23).23 The reaction of Mattathias, who killed the Jew and the administering officer and in addition cast down the altar is understood by 1 Macc 2:26 as zeal for the Law in analogy with the act of Phinehas described in Num 25. A detail in 2 Macc strengthens the impression that the religious identity of the Jews during the transition from Seleucid to Hasmonean rule was not always clear. In 2 Macc 12 we are told how the troops under Judas Maccabaeus defeated the Greeks under Gorgias. When the Jews went to recover the bodies of their fallen soldiers after their victory they found that all of these had “objects which had been consecrated to the idols of Jamnia” (ἱερώματα τῶν ἀπὸ Ιαμνείας εἰδώλων 12:40). Such sacred objects among the Jews can be explained as loot from an earlier attack on Jamnia (2 Macc 12:9). It is a moot point whether they should be understood as amulets with protecting power or just votive offerings plundered from the Jamnian shrines.24 In any case 2 Maccabees sees them as forbidden by the Torah and thus finds an explanation for the fate of the slain. The conduct of the latter was a sin (v. 42) punished by God, “the righteous judge, who exposes what has been concealed” (12:41). King Herod the Great is one of the best known, and to many also one of the most fascinating, characters of the Imperial Era. Herod was an Idumean on his father’s side while his mother was a Nabatean, probably connected 22 Cf.

Hengel 1996, 286–92. question of the different dimensions of the pre-Maccabean Hellenization is discussed by John J. Collins 2001, 48–52. Collins is critical of the idea defended for instance by Elias Bickerman (1979, 83–88), and Martin Hengel (1996, 304 –305), that leading Jews in the Holy Land also welcomed alien religious ideas and practice. According to Collins, a sharp distinction must be drawn “between the Hellenistic reform of Jason, on the other hand, and the religious persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes on the other” (p. 52). Cf. also Louis H. Feldman (2002, 295), who in a review article on Collins / Sterling 2001, asks how we can explain the fact that the “political-religious identity of the Jews became stronger and that idol-worship, certainly an integral element in Hellenization under Antiochus Epiphanes, ceased to be a danger”, if Hellenization had started much earlier and was deep seated. But, on the other hand, if 1 Macc 1:14 (cf. 2: 23) reflects historical reality, some Jews seem willingly to have accepted the religious innovations, which indicates that they were less inclined to insist on strict observance of the tradition. Cf. the review of the scholarly discussion concerning the degree of Hellenization, the sequence of events and the motivations of the actors involved given by Schäfer 2003, 42– 44. 24 See Goldstein 1984, 448– 449. Cf. Barclay 1996, 123. 23 The

1. Participation in Greco-Roman Religion in the Holy Land

7

with the royal family.25 Herod’s religious affiliation was Jewish. He was a “full Jew”.26 Nevertheless his close ties to the Roman rulers and the Nabatean kingdom and his cultural interests could lead him into very close contact with non-Jewish cults outside the Holy Land.27 I discuss him here because he cannot be regarded as a diaspora Jew. When Herod was appointed king of the Jews in the presence of the Senate in the year 40 B. C. E. the ceremony, according to Flavius Josephus (Jos.), concluded with a procession in which Antony and Octavian, with Herod between them, went up to the Capitol where they offered sacrifices (B. J. I 285, A. J. XIV 388). Although Herod seems to have observed the Law in the strictly Jewish parts of his domain he still erected temples in honour of the Emperor (B. J. I 404, A. J. XV 292, 328–329, 363–364). Some of the remains of the temples in Samaria (Sebaste), Panias (Caesarea Philippi) and Caesarea Maritima have been excavated in modern times.28 In Caesarea Maritima the magnificent temple founded by Herod had statues of Augustus modelled after the Olympian Zeus and of Rome in the shape of Hera of Argos (B. J. I 414). Josephus describes the great festival of the dedication of Caesarea sponsored by the Emperor Augustus and his wife Julia. But Josephus does not directly touch on the ritual aspects of the festivals although he mentions meals and “feasts” (A. J. XVI 136–141). Still it is logical to assume that sacrifices were offered on that occasion. It is of course impossible to say how many Jews attended and how many participated actively in the non-Jewish rituals in these temples. But it is reasonable to imagine that there were at least some Jews present.29 Herod also sponsored the Olympic games and erected the Pythian temple at Rhodes at his own expense (A. J. XVI 147–149). Both actions had, no doubt, religious significance.30 When defending himself against Jewish reproaches he declared, according to Josephus, that he did not act in these matters on his own account, but by “command and order”. To the Romans on the other hand he said that he did it in their honour rather than in order to observe the customs of his own nation (A. J. XV 330).

25 See for instance Richardson 1996, 54, 62– 63. Nikos Kokkinos (1998, 101–128) tries to demonstrate that the Herodian family had a Hellenized Phoenician (Tyrian/ Sidonian) origin with an initial establishment at Ascalon (esp. p. 111 f.). 26 Richardson 1996, 52–53. 27 See Schürer 1973–1989, vol. I, 311–314. Herod’s possible Ascalonite religious ties are presented by Kokkinos 1998, 117–122. 28 See Stern et al. 1993, vol. 1, 140, 283, vol. 4, 1307. 29 Peter Richardson 1996, 184, states: “All of these cities must have had a substantial number of Jews, who accommodated themselves, presumably, to this homage of the Emperor.” 30 Cf. Richardson 1996, 185. Kokkinos 1998,122, notes that Apollo, whom Herod honoured by building the temple at Rhodes, also was the god of his patron Augustus.

8

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

Herod’s name has been found on a plinth close to the right of the entrance to the Nabatean temple of Ba al Shamim at Si a. The inscription reads as follows: “To King Herod, master (κυρίῳ), Obaisatos, son of Saodos placed the statue (ἀνδριάντα) at his own expense.”31 Richardson states: “… Herod accepted representational statues of himself … and was willing to locate them in association with foreign gods.”32 Herod may have contributed to the cost of the building. His relations with the Nabatean kingdom were not always the best possible, but apparently he enjoyed some goodwill among the Nabateans in the thirties B. C. E. when the temple at Si a was erected.33 Still the statue and the inscription tell us more about Obaisatos than about Herod.34 We may now conclude this part of our investigation. 1 and 2 Maccabees present participation in non-Jewish cult in the Holy Land in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes as one aspect of assimilation to Greek culture. The motivation for such assimilation is described in general terms as a striving for prosperity and good relations with the neighbouring peoples. There were therefore those who willingly participated in the non-Jewish cult required by the Syrian king, whereas others took part only because they were forced to do so. But 1 and 2 Maccabees do not explicitly speak of emotional attraction to a specific cult. The counter-reaction of Jews who wanted to be faithful to Jewish tradition is described as fierce. Participation in alien rituals is condemned as apostasy and violent actions against such participation are justified by reference to biblical prototypes. As a concluding remark on Herod’s religious attitudes and praxis concerning alien religion we may cite Richardson: “Herod had few compunctions about supporting other deities outside the Jewish homeland.”35 Moreover Herod occasionally took part personally in non-Jewish religious rituals. At the same time he made great efforts to promote Jewish religion. If he can be seen as a religious personality, he was a very complex one. 1.2. Indirect Documentation from the Holy Land The place and the time of composition of the Epistle of Jeremy with its savage attack on alien religion are not known. But if we think hypothetically of its provenance in the Holy Land during the Hellenistic era the EpJer could 31 Dittenberger

1960 (1905): vol. I, 415, Richardson 1996, 206–207. 1996, 66. 33 See Richardson 1996, 66, 126–127, 168, 206–207. 34 As for the successors of Herod, Kokkinos (1998, 122) refers to two inscriptions outside the Holy Land connected with the cult of Apollo and dedicated in honour of Antipas and for the safety of Agrippa I. See Dittenberger 1960 (1905), vol. I, 629, numbers 417 and 418. These inscriptions give us some information on the religion of the donors but do not necessarily reveal much concerning the religious ideas or behaviour of Antipas or Agrippa. 35 Richardson 1996, 67. Cf. p. 186. 32 Richardson

2. Jewish Participation in Greco-Roman Religion in the Diaspora

9

be indirect, not very strong evidence of Jewish participation in alien cults in the area and the time investigated here.36 The main target of the EpJer is the cult of, and confidence in, the Babylonian gods, made of silver, gold, and wood that fill their worshippers with awe. The Jewish addressees are enjoined not to imitate the foreigners (ἀλλόφυλοι) in their fear and worship of these gods (v. 4), a warning repeated four times (vv. 14, 22, 28 and 64). Instead the Jews should worship the Lord alone (v. 5). These warnings do not of course prove that Jews had actively participated in alien cults. But the repeated warning may indicate such participation and not only a fear of a possible future behaviour by the addressees.

2. Jewish Participation in Greco-Roman Religion in the Diaspora 2.1. A Dangerous World for Jews Before discussing Jewish participation in non-Jewish religion in the diaspora let us characterize the cultural environment that surrounded the Jews outside the Holy Land in the relevant period.37 Public life in antiquity could imply membership in different administrative bodies, attendance at athletic events, and theatrical performances. All these were associated with religious rituals.38 Such a personage as Philo of Alexandria was very well acquainted with sports as well as with the theatre.39 I here exemplify the contact between Jews and society by presenting one single feature which is fairly well documented: gymnasium education. Hellenistic culture from classical Greece had inherited a desire to refine both the human being and the human environment. In the Hellenistic cities, boys and young men belonging to the Greek elite were educated in the gymnasia, where they received physical and intellectual training.40 As a rule, the exercise of a person’s citizen rights in a Greek polis did not begin 36 See Carey A. Moore (1977, 329) who does not deny that the “idolatry attacked by the Epistle was also a reality of the author’s own time and place, namely, the late fourth‑ or early third-century Palestine”. For a detailed presentation of the evidence, see Flusser 1974, 1065–1100. For Hellenistic cities in the area, see Schürer 1973–1989, vol. II, 85–183. 37 In the sections above I discussed Jewish participation in alien cults in the Holy Land without taking into account other aspects of the Graeco-Roman culture, such as education and visual art. But I do not think that, for instance, the gymnasium in Jerusalem (1 Macc 1:14, 2 Macc 4:12) or the portraits of members of the Herodian family (Jos. A. J. XIX 359) had direct Greco-Roman religious connotations. It may have been different with coins minted in the reign of Herod Agrippa bearing the image of the Emperor. Cf. Schürer 1973–1989, vol 1, 451. For different aspects of interaction between Jews and non-Jews, see Rutgers 1998, 73–95. 38 See Reynolds / Tannenbaum 1987, 58, 66, and Feldman 1993, 59– 63. 39 Sandelin 1991, 109–150, esp. 125–128, Feldman 1993, 59– 63. 40 See Nilsson 1955 a, 42–53.

10

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

until he had completed a year at a gymnasium at the age of fourteen (the ephebeia).41 A gymnasium education no doubt promoted Jewish attempts to attain a position in society.42 Greco-Roman culture, both the material and the spiritual aspect thereof, had strong religious elements. The syllabus taught at the gymnasia naturally contained large portions of ancient religious tradition, e.g. from Homer.43 Gymnasia were often dedicated to gods or demigods like Hermes and Heracles, and celebrations including sacrifices were held in their honour.44 It is easy to imagine that Jewish families who wished their sons to achieve a high position in society were faced with a problem because of this religious side of the life in the gymnasia.45 How should the Jewish young men behave when confronted with this aspect? Should Jews abstain from giving their boys gymnasium education and thereby bar their advancement in society? Philo’s thorough knowledge of Greek and Hellenistic culture indicates that he had attended a gymnasium. Instead of warning people against a gymnasium education he even commends it (Spec. 2.229–230), which shows his positive attitude towards Jewish attendance at the gymnasia.46 That there were several Jews who sought gymnasium education in Alexandria is probable because Emperor Claudius in his well known letter to the Alexandrians bans Jews from the games which were part of such training.47 That Jews in fact attended gymnasia in different parts of the Greco-Roman world can be seen from lists of ephebes containing Jewish names. In Cyrene two such inscriptions have been found, belonging to gymnasia both of which were dedicated to Hermes and Heracles. One of the lists, dated towards the end of the first century B. C. E., has an ephebe Jesus son of Antiphilos and the other, dated to 3/4 C. E., also has some Jewish names, e.g., Eleazar son of Eleazar.48 Asia Minor also offers some evidence.49 From Jasus an inscription is known with at least one ephebe with a Jewish name, Joudas son of Euodos.50 A late,

41 Diana Delia 1991, 75, cf. Nilsson 1955 a, 85 ff. Delia (p. 55, n. 26) challenges the common opinion that ephebic training was a prerequisite for Alexandrian citizenship and that Alexandrian citizenship in turn was a condition for Roman citizenship (pp. 39– 45). 42 See for instance Tcherikover 1957, vol. I, 38, and Barclay 1996, 42, 68. 43 See Nilsson 1955 a, 51–52, 61. 44 Nilsson 1955 a, 62– 63. 45 Cf. Delia 1991, 86, n. 69. 46 See the discussion in Sandelin 1991, 126–129. Cf. Feldman 1993, 57–59, Barclay 1996 160–161, and Torrey Seland 1996, 110–127, esp. 121–124. According to Seland, Philo warned against the misuse of institutions like gymnasia. 47 Tcherikover 1957, vol. II, No 153 pp. 36– 60, esp. 53. 48 See Lüderitz 1983, 11–21, esp. 11 and 15, cf. Barclay 1996, 234 –235. 49 See Trebilco 1992, 176–177. 50 The inscription was published by Louis Robert (1937, 85–86) in a review article on Frey 1936.

2. Jewish Participation in Greco-Roman Religion in the Diaspora

11

fragmentary inscription from Hypaepa south of Sardis also gives the name Joudas.51 We may conclude that although there were dangers connected with gymnasium education, Jews did not necessarily feel that attendance implied a break with Judaism and its monotheism. This is most clearly demonstrated by the case of Philo. How Jews behaved if they were present when rituals were performed in gymnasia is difficult to say because of lack of documentation. 2.2. Direct Documentation of Participation in Greco-Roman Cults in the Diaspora From regions outside the Holy Land a long list of Jewish names or other Jewish affiliations are documented. Many of these accounts reveal different degrees of influence from non-Jewish religious praxis. A commonly used religious phrase or formula occurs in a letter belonging to the so-called Zeno Papyri found at Dura Europos and written 257 B. C. E. by Toubias,52 a Jew mentioned by Josephus. Toubias had married the sister of the high priest Onias II (A. J. XII 160) and appears in the Zeno Papyri as a Ptolemaic military commander in Ammanitis. Toubias became the grandfather to Hyrcanus, a prominent figure in the Hellenistic party at Jerusalem (A. J. XII 186–236). Regardless of his close affiliation with the most respected Jewish families the conduct of Toubias seems to have been characterized by indifference to the Jewish law. This attitude may also be manifest in the said letter, which is addressed to one of his superiors, the Ptolemaic minister Apollonios. The letter concerns a group of slaves, perhaps including two Jewish boys, sent from Palestine to Egypt.53 Toubias writes: “If all goes well with you and all your affairs, and all else (goes) according to your (wishes), many thanks be to the gods (πο] λλὴ χάρις τοῖς θεοῖς).” Victor Tcherikover states that “we do not expect to find this pagan formula in a letter written by a Jew”. He admits that the letter was written by a Greek secretary, but also says that “Toubias was responsible for its contents”.54 If this was the case, Toubias did not take Jewish monotheism very seriously, at least not in his own verbal behaviour. What he intended when he formulated or approved of this thanksgiving to the gods is of course impossible to say. A common phrase like the one in question may conceal an indifferent attitude to any kind of religion. 51 See Jean–Baptiste Frey 1952, 19–20, No 755. Frey states: “Il s’agit sans doute d’un collège des éphèbes …” 52 Tcherikover 1957, vol. I, 125–127. 53 See Hengel 1996, 268. 54 Tcherikover 1957, vol. I, 127 n. 2.

12

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

If we move to Greece and Asia Minor we also find some documentation of Jewish assimilation to alien religious behaviour. An inscription from Oropus on the border between Attica and Boeotia in Greece, dated to the first half of the third century B. C. E., records the manumission of a slave Μόσχος Μοσχίωνος, a Jew (᾽Ιουδαῖος). In a dream, the gods Amphiaros and Hygieia had instructed him to erect the inscription on a slab near the altar (of their shrine).55 Baruch Lifshitz calls Moschos the “earliest known Jew from the Greek mainland and the first Hellenized Jew”. 56 No doubt Moschos was committed to non-Jewish religion in Greece. Otherwise he would not have obeyed a demand from Greek gods. How strong or consistent his commitment was is impossible to say.57 He may have acted, in the words of Robert Goldenberg, “at the instruction or at least under the influence of his masters”.58 An inscription found in the ruins of the theatre of Jasus in Asia Minor from the middle of the second century B. C. E. tells us of a certain Nicetas, son of Jason, a man from Jerusalem (῾Ιεροσολυμίτης) and a foreigner (μέτοικος) in Jasus who paid a small sum (100 drachmae) to a Dionysiac festival.59 I think it is fairly clear that he was of Jewish descent. Both the name of his father and of his original home-town so indicate.60 Tcherikover notes that the contribution of Nicetas to the festival mentioned was made in the same period when the high priest Jason sent donations from Jerusalem for the sacrifices to the Tyrian Heracles (2 Macc 4:18–20).61 It is of course difficult to state anything specific concerning the religious commitment of Nicetas. In an inscription from Acmonia in Phrygia we meet a certain Tyrronius Rapon.62 He may have been a Jew, because another person named P. Tyrronios Klados was an ἀρχισυνάγωγος in the city, according to a contemporary inscription.63 Both inscriptions also mention Iulia Severa, a Greco-Roman priestess during the reign of Nero, an ἀρχιέρεια of the Imperial cult in Acmonia.64 It is somewhat extraordinary that she built the synagogue later 55 See

Woodland 1984, 79 n. 293. 1975, 82. Cf. Millar in Schürer 1973–1989, vol. III.1, 65. 57 J. & L. Robert find in him an “exemple frappant de denationalisation”. See Robert / Robert 1956, 130. Cf. Barclay 1996, 321 f. 58 Goldenberg 1998, 63. 59 See Frey 1952, 15, No 749. 60 Fergus Millar in Schürer 1973–1989, vol. III.1, 25, raises doubts whether Nicetas was a Jew, but does not offer any arguments. 61 Tcherikover 1982, 352. 62 Ramsay 1897, 637, Buckler/Calder 1939, 97–98, No 265 , Franz 1977, 14 and 1091, No 3858. See also Groag 1917, 947. 63 Ramsay 1897, 649–50, Frey 1952, 766, Buckler/ Calder 1939, 97 No 264, cf. SEG, vol. XXXII, 1266 . The text is also presented by Trebilco 1992, 58–59. 64 See the documentation presented in Schürer 1973–1989, vol. III.1, 31. 56 Frey

2. Jewish Participation in Greco-Roman Religion in the Diaspora

13

conducted by Tyrronios Klados, who contributed to its restoration.65 Paul Trebilco regards Julia Severa as a “gentile sympathizer”.66 The inscription that mentions both Tyrronios Rapon and Julia Severa gives them a function in a context of athletic games. Another person, Nikias, also named Lucius, honoured in the inscription, is said to have served meritoriously as a gymnasiarch for two five-year periods under (ἐπί) Julia Severa and Tyrronios Rapon. The words have also been taken as evidence of the latter’s status as a priest.67 This may be correct, but I find it doubtful.68 Still, the official status of Tyrronios Rapon probably entailed attendance and even active participation at non-Jewish ritual performances. We therefore seem to have here, in the words of Applebaum, a case of “mutual rapprochement and interpenetration in an atmosphere of complete tolerance”.69 There are further inscriptions from Asia Minor that include names of persons who may have been both Jews and Greco-Roman priests: Flavius son of Moschios and Cornelia Secunda from Thyatira.70 Ramsay also mentions a person named Alexander from Apameia.71 An inscription from Gorgippia (Anape) near the Bosporus from the year 41 C. E., recording a manumission of slaves belonging to Pothos the son of Straton, contains a text beginning with the words θεῷ ὑψίστῳ παντοκράτορι εὐλογητῷ.72 This title could very well signify the God of Israel.73 This interpretation is supported by the fact that the manumission took place in the προσευχή, a word often used of buildings where Jews gather.74 But the text ends with a phrase meaning “under (the protection of the divine 65 Frey 1952, 766. William Mitchell Ramsay (1897, 650) tries to demonstrate that Julia Severa was Jewish. 66 Trebilco 1992, 59. 67 See Ramsay 1897, 639. Ramsay even thinks Tyrronios and Julia were married. Ramsay is followed by Shim’on Applebaum 1974, 443. Applebaum also mentions the possibility that her family was distantly related to the Herods. For a more skeptical view of Julia Severa’s being Jewish and married to Tyrronius Rapon, see Trebilco 1992, 59. Cf. Buckler/ Calder 1939, 98. 68 Edmund Groag (1917, 947) does not find more in the inscription than that Tyrronios and Julia had the same local status during two subsequent lustra. Cf. Buckler/Calder 1939, 98 and Blanchetière 1974, 379. 69 Applebaum 1974, 443. 70 Boeckhius 1977, 3495. 71 Ramsay 1897, 672. 72 Frey 1936, 500, No 690. The inscription is found today in St Petersburg, Russia. Another inscription with similar contents and the same phrases but with different personal names is also attested, but known today only through a copy, because it was destroyed in a bombardment. A fragment exists in St Petersburg. See Frey 1975, 67– 68, No 690 a. 73 See the presentation of the Jewish inscriptions in Asia Minor referring to θεὸς ὕψιστος by Trebilco 1992, 133–137. Concerning the theory of Jewish syncretism in Asia Minor Trebilco (1992, 142) states: “No evidence has arisen from this study to suggest that Judaism in Asia Minor was syncretistic or had been compromised by paganism.” 74 See Runesson 1992, 229–236. Cf. Trebilco 1992, 136.

14

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

powers) Zeus, the Earth and the Sun”.75 This seems to be a deviation from strict Jewish monotheism. But it could be that for the sake of convenience Pothos made a compromise with his tradition in adjusting to legal requirements connected with the juridical act of manumission.76 A non-Jewish religious phrase in a document certifying such an act has little relevance to the religious commitment of the person involved.77 In any case Pothos, like Toubias whom we discussed above, was responsible for the phrase. In the rock face west of the temple of the god Pan Euodus at El-Kanais in Egypt two inscriptions whose dedicators, Ptolemaios son of Dionysius and Theodotus son of Dorion, identify themselves as Jews offer thanksgiving to God.78 The terms used in the expressions are in conformity with Jewish usage in other Jewish inscriptions and in the Septuagint: θεοῦ εὐλογία and εὐλογεῖ τὸν θεόν.79 Irrespective of the question of whether the God of Israel is meant here it is worth noting that the thanksgiving is presented at a non-Jewish shrine. Still the question remains why the men emphasize their Jewishness. Did they think that the god Pan was identical with the God of Israel?80 Were they monotheists? If so their view is similar to that found in Aristobulos, the Letter to Aristeas (15–16), and perhaps in the Jewish historian Eupolemus.81 It is also possible that Ptolemaios and Theodotus had no intentions of being associated with the god Pan at all.82 Thus it is difficult to draw definite conclusions in this case. From an inscription in Cyrene we know of a Jew, Eleazar son of Jason, who in the year 60 C. E. held the position of guardian of the laws (νομοφύλαξ).83 This meant an appointment to “a highly responsible government board, for whose work men of knowledge commanding the public con75 “ὑπὸ Δία, Γῆν, ῞Ηλιον”. In 690 a the phrase may have been [ἀφίημι ἐλευθέρ]ους ὑπὸ Δία, Γῆν, ῞Ηλιον … See Frey 1975, 67.

76 Cf. Millar in Schürer 1973–1989, vol. III.1, 37, who refers to non-Jewish oath-formulas in the Elephantine papyri. 77 Cf. Frey (1936, 501) who says: “Il est probable que les Juifs de la diaspora n’attachaient pas grande importance à ces formalités.” 78 Frey 1952, 444 – 445, Nos 1537 and 1538. 79 See Horbury /Noy 1992, 207–210. The dating of the inscriptions is difficult. Suggestions range from the mid second century B. C. E. to the Roman period. 80 Cf. Millar, who states: “Whether this was Pan or Yahweh seems not to have been of great importance to them.” (Schürer 1973–1989, 58). Robert Goldenberg (1998, 64) finds this view unwarranted: “The ambiguity of the inscription can easily be the fruit of discretion as of indifference; a Jew thanking his God in someone else’s shrine will naturally have done so with calculated vagueness.” 81 See Holladay 1995, 172–173, Hengel 1996, 92–95, 263–266. Cf. Collins 2001, 40– 41, 45. 82 For comments and questions regarding their motives, see Frey 1952, 445, Horbury / Noy 1992, 208, and Barclay 1996, 99–100. 83 SEG XX, 737. Cf. Lüderitz 1983, 21–24.

2. Jewish Participation in Greco-Roman Religion in the Diaspora

15

fidence” were required.84 The inscription is probably a dedication by the nomophylakes to some deity who cannot be identified. The first two names belong to priests.85 Borgen opines that Eleazar probably did not renounce Judaism because “he did not follow the custom of exchanging his Jewish name for a Greek one”.86 But if the inscription was dedicated to a deity then Eleazar, whose name is in any case connected with Greco-Roman priests, made a compromise between his civil duties and his Jewish religion. There are some examples of a very high degree of assimilation of Jews to the non-Jewish culture and religious behaviour.87 According to 3 Macc 1:3 an Egyptian Jew, Dositheos (Δοσίθεος/ Δωσίθεος) called the son of Drimylos, had “altered his customs (τὰ νόμιμα) and abandoned his ancestral beliefs (τὰ πάτρια δόγματα)”.88 At a critical moment he saved the life of his king, Ptolemy IV Philopator. Dositheos is probably the same Δωσίθεος τοῦ Δριμύλου who, according to a papyrus dated in 222 B. C. E., acted as a priest of “Alexander and the gods Adelphoi and the gods Euergetai (ἱερεὺς ᾽Αλεξάνδρου καὶ θεῶν ᾽Αδελφῶν καὶ θεῶν Εὐεγέτων)”. Alexander was an eponymous priest and the gods were deified Ptolemies.89 Barclay states that the extent of Dositheos’ assimilation is clear “both from his political position and from his complete identification with Ptolemaic religion”.90 Yet he seems to be a parallel case to Tyrronius Rapon from Acmonia and Eleazar son of Jason mentioned above. The statement concerning his relationship to the faith of his fathers is made by 3 Maccabees, a document written perhaps more than a hundred years later. I do not find it impossible that Dositheos wanted to be both a Jew and a Greco-Egyptian priest. This is of course conjecture, and Dositheos may have had a relationship to Judaism similar to that of the person whom we shall now discuss. The most famous case of profound assimilation to Greco-Roman culture in the diaspora is no doubt Tiberius Julius Alexander, the nephew of Philo of Alexandria. He had an extraordinary administrative and military career within the Roman Empire. He is known to us through Philo (Prov., Anim.),

84 Applebaum,

1979, 190. Cf. Delling 1987 a, 60. Applebaum (1979, 186) maintains that the individuals were priests of Apollo. I cannot find any evidence for this. The father of one of the officials is named P. Quintilius Apollos, however. 86 Borgen 1995, 36. 87 Cf. the distinction Barclay (1996, 92–102, 320–335, 103–124) makes between different levels of assimilation. Cf. the discussion by Rutgers, 1998, 34 –38. 88 Translation from Barclay 1996, 104. 89 Tcherikover 1957, vol. I, 235–236, No 127 d. Tcherikover (1957, 230–236) presents five papyri which mention Δωσίθεος, whose name and title also are found on a Demotik ostrakon. 90 Barclay 1996, 104. 85 Shim’on

16

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

Josephus and Tacitus, but also through some inscriptions and papyri.91 As a Roman official he was expected to fulfil the “religious duties which attended his high office”.92 The earliest documentation connecting Tiberius Julius Alexander to nonJewish religion is an Egyptian monument from Dendera erected in the second year of the reign of Claudius depicting the emperor as offering a garland to two Egyptian deities also named “gods” in the inscription under the relief.93 The monument is said to have been erected during the term of office of three persons of whom Tiberius Julius Alexander is mentioned as the second, bearing the title of ἐπιστράτηγος. Presumably Tiberius Julius Alexander in one way or another was responsible for the erection of the monument. The second case showing Tiberius Julius Alexander engaged in an activity with religious overtones occurred on the first of July 69 C. E., when, as the Prefect of Egypt, he required from his troops and “the populace” an oath of allegiance to General Vespasian during the reign of Emperor Vitellius (Tacitus, Hist. II 79, Jos. B. J. IV 617).94 The swearing of a Roman oath was accompanied by the invocation of the gods (see for instance Polybius, Hist. II 25, 6–9 and Livy I 32, 6–7). From a strict Jewish standpoint the swearing of such an oath would therefore have been problematical.95 A third occasion when Tiberius Julius Alexander is deeply involved in a non-Jewish ritual occurred when as one of the staff officers (οἱ ἐν τέλει), in fact as Titus’ second-in-command, at the siege of Jerusalem (Jos. B. J. VI 237), he participates in the festivities following the capture of the Holy City (Jos. B. J. VII 17). The presence of Tiberius Julius Alexander is not explicitly mentioned by Josephus, but there is no reason to believe that he was absent. The sacrifices for the victory (θυσίαι ἐπινίκιοι) consisted of a vast number of oxen that, having been offered at the altars, were distributed to the troops for a banquet (Jos. B. J. VII 16). In order to arrive at a perspective on Tiberius Julius Alexander’s conduct in matters of religion I think a small digression into the field of ideology is appropriate. In the treatise On Providence 2, which is written in the form of a dialogue between “Philo” and “Alexander”, the latter is described as a person who is skeptical of the idea of providence, a notion defended by “Philo”.96 Nevertheless the dialogue ends with “Alexander’s” surprising af91 A short but accurate presentation of Tiberius Julius Alexander is given by Barclay 1996, 105–106. More detailed expositions are given by Burr 1955, and Turner 1974, 54 – 64. 92 Barclay 1996, 106. 93 See Dittenberger 1960 (1905), vol. II, 372–373, No 663. Cf. Turner 1974, 58. 94 For a more detailed documentation and description, see Burr 1955, 59– 62. Cf. Turner 1974, 64. 95 Cf. Burr 1955, 20–21. 96 For a clear survey of the arguments and counterarguments in the tractate, see HadasLebel 1973, 205–209.

2. Jewish Participation in Greco-Roman Religion in the Diaspora

17

firmation that there is “nothing better than to welcome with all one’s heart the divine principles of the law” (Prov. 2.116). According to Mireille HadasLebel this sentence could be original, not a later interpolation. It may be an allusion to the Stoic notion of the divine order inherent in the world. Such a view is also embraced by Philo Judaeus, who believes that the divine order manifests itself in the Law of Moses.97 It is true that “Alexander” in the tract surrenders in the face of “Philo’s” arguments (Prov. 2.113). But inter alia these have been adduced to support the somewhat un-Stoic notion of a Creator who is an entity separate from the created Universe (Prov. 2.47–50).98 Therefore, taking this stance into account, is it conceivable that Philo Judaeus himself at the very end of a dialogue would give his nephew and adversary Tiberius Julius Alexander a chance to take refuge in Stoicism disguised as the “divine principles of the Law”? This expression actually sounds very Jewish (2 Macc 4:17, 3 Macc 7:11, 4 Macc 5:16, 18, Philo: Leg. 3.167–168, Migr. 130–131); moreover Philo Judaeus is ambivalent towards Stoicism although he is dependent on it.99 “Alexander” thus accepts some central Jewish ideas: providence, God the creator and the divine Law.100 But this is incompatible with the account of Josephus according to which Tiberius Julius Alexander “did not stand by the practices of his people” in contradistinction to his father the alabarch Alexander who was “superior to his son in his religious devotion (εὐσέβεια)” (Jos. A. J. XX 100). This statement is made by Tiberius Julius Alexander’s contemporary whose earthly career even touched that of Tiberius Julius Alexander during the siege of the Holy City (Jos. B. J. VI 96 ff.). I am therefore inclined to believe that the figure of “Alexander” in On Providence 2 is to a great extent fictional even though Philo himself may have written the tractate in order to influence Tiberius Julius Alexander .101 The treatise may of course contain some authentic traits of Tiberius Julius Alexander. Hadas-Lebel reveals a somewhat guarded position concerning the authenticity of the treatise On Providence 2.102 Both “Philo” and “Alexander” may be just literary figures in the treatise.103 If not genuine it sheds little light on Tiberius Julius Alexander’s position in religious matters.   97 Hadas-Lebel

1973, 45. Runia 1983, 151–152, 338–339, 397–398, 508 n. 71.   99 Bréhier 1925, 72–76, Wolfson 1948, vol. I, 111–112. Cf. Abraham Terian (1984, 278) who states that Philo’s “belief in a personal predestinating God differed sharply from the impersonal fatalism inherent in the Stoic notion of providence”. 100 Douwe Runia (1983, 339) summarizes Philo’s view in Prov. 2: “If the providential activity of God is denied, then the foundation on which the edifice of Jewish religion is built must crumble into dust.” 101 Runia (1983, 339) opines that the “successful conclusion” of Prov. 2 was merely an “exercise in wishful thinking”. Cf. Hadas-Lebel 1973, 41– 42. 102 Hadas-Lebel 1973, 46. 103 Cf. Terian (1984, 284) for a favourable view on Philonic authorship.   98 Cf.

18

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

Yet a text exists, which seems to reveal more about the religious views of Tiberius Julius Alexander than On Providence 2, and which is in accord with the religious praxis as well as with the above statement by Josephus. Some days before the proclamation of Galba as Emperor by the Senate in Rome in the year 68 C. E. Tiberius Julius Alexander, as the Prefect of Egypt, published an edict known to us through an inscription.104 In this administrative document both Emperor Augustus and Emperor Claudius are mentioned as gods.105 In addition the Prefect applauds the gods “who have preserved the stability of the whole world for this most sacred occasion”, thereby giving his consent to Galba’s accession.106 The phrases referring to the divine Emperors and to the activity of the gods may of course be conventional. But they may also reveal his real religious orientation, that of a person who turned his back on his ancestral religion in favour of that of the Roman Empire. Alongside this material, however sparse, which shows that there were Jews in the diaspora who more or less voluntarily adapted alien modes of religious conduct we have some documentation showing that there were attempts to force them to do so. These attempts appear occasionally to have been successful. The earliest such account appears in 3 Maccabees. The Egyptian king Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–204 B. C. E.), seeking revenge after a frustrating visit to Jerusalem, took action against the Jews in Egypt. The measures are described in a short but obscure text: 3 Macc 2:28–33.107 First, all who did not sacrifice to the gods were forbidden to “enter the temples of their own”; the Jews, that is, were not allowed to practice their own religion.108 Second, the Jews would be required to enroll in the “census” and be reduced to the status of slaves. Third, they would be branded with the ivy leaf, the symbol of Dionysos. If, on the other hand, any of them would “prefer to join those who are initiated in the mysteries, they would be on the same footing as the citizens of Alexandria”. Some of the Jews submitted gladly, whereas most of them “resisted with gallantry of spirit and did not abandon their religious practice”. In a letter to his generals Ptolemy then gave orders to gather all Jews, men, women, and children, in order to be killed, threatening those who were willing to assist them with severe punishment (3 Macc 3:12–29). Having been brought in chains to Alexandria, the Jews were imprisoned in the hippodrome on the outskirts of the city 104 Dittenberger

1960 (1905), vol. II, 387– 408, No 669. 1960 (1905), vol. II, 394, 396, 397. 106 Dittenberger 1960 (1905) vol. II, 391. Cf. Burr 1955, 50 and Turner 1974, 60. 107 Barclay (1996, 195 n. 22) states:”The interpretative problems of 2:28–33 are immense.” 108 Anderson 1985, 520. Barclay (1996, 195, n. 22) asks: “Could ἱερά mean synagogues?” Probably the term ἱερόν could be used to denote a synagogue. See Philo Spec. 3.171 and Deus 8 and the discussion by Runesson 2001, 447–50. 105 Dittenberger

2. Jewish Participation in Greco-Roman Religion in the Diaspora

19

to await a fate that only later is revealed to them: they will be trampled by intoxicated elephants (3 Macc 4 –5). Through divine intervention, Ptolemy’s plan came to naught and the king ordered his officers to release the Jews and send them back to their homes. The failure to slaughter the Jews was to be celebrated at a festival each year (3 Macc 6). The Jews then requested of the king that those of their people who had transgressed against God and his Law be punished. The renegade Jews, about three hundred persons, were punished by death (3 Macc 7:10–15). On the whole, in the light of its legendary features, it is difficult to regard 3 Maccabees as an historical account.109 Nevertheless it also contains information confirmed by historical documents, for instance, the account of Ptolemy’s victory at Raphia in Syria and the mention of Dositheos, the son of Drimylos, whom we have already met (3 Macc 1: 1–5).110 But a large scale persecution of Jews is not attested in other documents from the time when Jews were under Ptolemaic rule.111 Still 3 Maccabees may point to the fact, confirmed in some more reliable documents, that Jews could at times be forced to attend alien religious activities and thus compromise Jewish principles. In Barclay’s judgement, the fact that the author of 3 Maccabees can even imagine this scenario in Egypt “indicates his sense of insecurity in that environment”. All Jews would perhaps not “hold firm under such pressure”.112 Josephus tells us that the population of Ionia petitioned Marcus Agrippa, when he visited the East as the vice–regent of Augustus in 16–13 B. C. E. They claimed that the Jews could only attain the same rights as citizens as the Ionians and be their fellows (συγγενεῖς) if they would worship (σεβέσθαι) their same gods (A. J. XII 125–126). Barclay points out that this makes best sense as a protest against Jewish citizens who “demanded exemption from civic religious practices”.113 In court, the Jews were able to defend their privilege to be exempt from non-Jewish cult by winning the right to follow their own customs. Josephus also informs us about a renegade Jew, Antiochus, who during Vespasian’s campaign in Syria both offered sacrifice himself and then incited Greeks to force Jews to sacrifice “in the manner of the Greeks”. A few Jews gave in to the pressure, whereas others, who did not, were massacred (B. J. VII 50–51). Antiochus is described by Josephus as “highly respected” because of his father who was a leader (ἄρχων) of the 109 Anderson

1985, 513, Barclay 1996, 192, 195. 1985, 510, Barclay 1996, 194. 111 The legendary attempt to execute the Jews by using intoxicated elephants has a variant in Josephus (C. Ap. II 51–55). But here only Alexandrian Jews are threatened, and Josephus dates the incident to the time of king Ptolemy Physkon (145–116 B. C. E.). See Barclay 1996, 38. 112 Barclay 1996, 200. 113 Barclay 1996, 271. Cf. Borgen 1996, 35–36. 110 Anderson

20

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

Jews in Antioch (B. J. VII 47). The sacrifice Antiochus performed was done as a proof of his conversion (μεταβολή, B. J. VII 50). The fact that he was able to use such coercion leads Barclay to opine that he was an officer in the Roman army. His calculated renunciation of Judaism “is the most extreme case of assimilation known to us”.114 We may conclude that there exists a series of documented cases of both voluntary and compulsory participation in alien cults in the diaspora. In the majority of instances we are unable to draw definite conclusions concerning the motives behind such participation. But there are some individuals, Tyrronios Rapon, Elazar son of Jason and Dositheos, who may have thought that they could participate in alien cults and still remain Jews. Antiochus from Syria and Tiberius Julius Alexander seem to be fairly obvious cases of persons who had completely distanced themselves from Jewish monotheistic faith and corresponding behaviour. One of the figures we have met, Moschos, seems to express a religious commitment, whereas others, e.g., Toubias and Pothos, may just demonstrate a superficial conformity to nonJewish religious convention. 2.3. Indirect Documentation of Participation in Greco-Roman Cult in the Diaspora Deutoromy prohibits temple prostitution: “No Israelite woman shall become a temple-prostitute, and no Israelite man shall prostitute himself in this way” (Deut 23:17, LXX: 23:18). The words are translated πόρνη and πορνεύων in the Septuagint. This takes us to Hellenistic Egypt. In the Septuagint we also find a paraphrasing addition to the biblical text just cited: “Among the daughters of Israel there shall be no τελεσφόρος and among the sons of Israel there shall be no τελισκόμενος.” Liddell and Scott renders “an initiate” for τελισκόμενος but “sorceress” for τελεσφόρος. On the other hand, the word τελεσφορία is used for “initiation in the mysteries” in Greek texts. The words τελεσφόρος and τελισκόμενος therefore probably both refer to initiates.115 Greek mysteries were brought to Egypt in Hellenistic times.116 It is difficult to say whether the addition in the Septuagint forbidding Jews to become initiates is a result of actual Jewish participation in Greek mysteries or whether it is just a warning. At least one can say that the mysteries were perceived as a threat to Jewish identity in Egypt. An example of a very strong denunciation of the mysteries is found in the Wisdom of Solo114 Barclay

1996, 322. Le Deaut 1984, 170. 116 Peter Marshall Fraser (1972, 200–205, 211) describes and discusses the mysteries of Dionysos in Alexandria but opines that Eleusinian mysteries were not celebrated at Alexandrian Eleusis. 115 Thus

2. Jewish Participation in Greco-Roman Religion in the Diaspora

21

mon (14:12–16).117 It is understandable that in the Septuagint a prohibition against temple prostitution could be augmented by a prohibition against participation in an alien cult as a result of the combination of idolatry and fornication in biblical tradition (see for instance Hos 2, Wis 14:12). In an article published in 1991, I discussed how Philo copes with the danger of idolatry.118 Here I treat him as an indirect witness to Jewish participation in alien cults, because he does not explicitly mention Jewish individuals or groups engaged in such participation. There is one text, however, in which Philo seems to come very close to a description of a current situation without expressly saying so. At the end of On Rewards and Punishments Philo, in a somewhat abrupt and unexpected way, says that he has described (sic) the curses and penalties “which they will deservedly suffer who disregard the holy laws of justice and piety, who have been seduced by the polytheistic creeds (ταῖς πολυθέοις δόξαις) which finally lead to atheism (ἀθεότης) and have forgotten the teaching of their race and of their fathers (λήθῃ τῆς συγγενοῦς καὶ πατρίου διδασκαλίας), in which they were trained (ἐπαιδεύθησαν) from their earliest years to acknowledge the One in substance, the supreme God, to whom alone all must belong who follow truth unfeigned instead of mythical figments (πεπλασμένοι μῦθοι)” (Praem. 162).

There are two reasons for interpreting this text not only as a summary of a presentation of biblical punishments but also as a witness to the personal experiences of Jews who abandoned their ancestral religion in the world in which Philo himself lives. First the text itself refers to people who have been trained in monotheistic thinking from their very youth but who have been seduced by polytheistic stories. If we consider that Jews in the Hellenistic world were exposed to non-Jewish religious influence Philo’s account does seem to have immediate significance. Second, the situation described in the following paragraphs 163–165 is that of a universal call of these Jews to conversion. Then they will find favour with God, the Saviour and the Merciful. The conditions for this are that they accept the tribulations that have befallen them “as a warning rather than as intending their perdition” and confess their sin both inwardly and in public. This text does not give the impression of being a description of a possible or fictional state of affairs. Finally, Philo presents a vision of how the penitents will make a pilgrimage from the exile to the “one appointed place”. I think it is reasonable to interpret Praem. 162–165 as describing both how certain Jews in Philo’s own time have become estranged from Judaism, and also his own strong hope that these Jews will finally turn back to their ancestral religion and God.119 117 See

the detailed discussion of this passage by David Winston 1981 b, 271–277. 1981, 109–150. The article is also published in this volume. 119 Cf. Sandelin 1987, 121–122. 118 Sandelin

22

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

The text does not directly speak of non-Jewish cult practices but of thinking Philo regards as idolatrous. But if our interpretation is correct that Philo here has people of his own time in mind, people he sees as Jewish apostates, then his admonitions not to participate in alien rituals may also be prompted by transgressions actually committed by Jews in his own environment. With obvious reference to Deut 23:17 (18), discussed above, Philo states that Moses banishes from the sacred legislation “the lore of occult rites and mysteries (τὰ περὶ τελετὰς καὶ μυστήρια)” (Spec. 1.319). He does not think it fitting that those who are bred in such a commonwealth take part in orgies. Let none, therefore, “of the followers and disciples of Moses either confer or receive initiation to such rites (μήτε τελείτω μήτε τελείσθω)”. Shortly before this passage Philo urges that anyone who bids the Jews to “fraternize with the multitude, resort to their temples, and join in their libations and sacrifices” should be punished by death (Spec. 1.316). No doubt Philo here shows that he takes the injunction of Deut 13:1–11 very seriously. We noted earlier that the act performed by Mattathias reported in 1 Macc 2 was understood as analogous to the deed of Phinehas in Num 25 (1 Macc 2:26). The Phinehas episode is expounded in several post-biblical texts. Both Josephus and Philo present long paraphrased versions of the incident. The former gives us a variant which from our present perspective is especially important. Willem Cornelis van Unnik has maintained that it may contain a reference to alienated Jews in the time of Josephus and their way of arguing in favour of their way of life.120 In Num 25:1–5 we are told that the Israelites began to have “intercourse with the Moabite women”. They were seduced to sacrifice to the Moabite gods and worship them. According to the passages that follow (vv. 6–18) one Israelite named Zimri “brought unto his brethren” a Midianite woman, Cozbi.121 Phinehas killed both Zimri and Cozbi and because of this was granted the priesthood for himself and his descendants. These accounts are preceded by the long passage concerning Balaam, Num 22–24, who was not able to curse Israel on the order of Balak, the king of Moab. The accounts in Num 22–24 and 25 stand side by side without any reference to one another on the narrative level, but later on in Num 31:16 it is Balaam who is accused of the seduction of the Israelites described in Num 25.122 This probably also explains why he was killed (Num 31:8). 120 van

Unnik 1974, 241–261, who is followed by Borgen 1995, 33–36. A. Levine (2000, 286) says: “Most likely, the sense is that the Israelite was escorting the Midianite woman to the q bbah for the purpose of engaging in pagan worship …” 122 This interpretation is attested in the LXX (κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Βαλααμ), the KJV and NIV (“… on Balaam’s advice”). The Hebrew literally says “in the word (matter) of Balaam”(‫)בדבר בלעם‬. See discussion by Ruiten 2008, 119, cf. 103. NEB translates: “on Balaam’s departure”, and Levine: “in the Balaam affair”. Cf. also Henten 2008, 252 f. 121 Baruch

2. Jewish Participation in Greco-Roman Religion in the Diaspora

23

Both Josephus (A. J. IV 126–151) and Philo (Mos. 1.294 –304) take up the thread of Num 31:16 and give lengthy descriptions of how Balaam instructed Balak to use Midianite women not only to seduce the Israelite men sexually but also to lead them into alien worship (A. J. IV 126–130, Mos. 1.296–299).123 The women achieve this goal (A. J. IV 131–141, Mos. 1.300– 302). One of those seduced is Zimri (Num 25:14), whose name Josephus renders Zambrias (A. J. IV 141). He is then killed together with the Midianite woman by Phinehas because, in Philo’s words, he saw “one of his race offering sacrifice and visiting a harlot” (Mos. 1.302, cf. A. J. IV 153). Josephus’ version of the story has some specific features that suggest that he not only gives a vivid rendering of a biblical event but also hints at the means whereby Jews in his own time could be seduced to non-Jewish religion and defend their behaviour. The conversation between the young Jews and the Midianite girls is given much space. The girls declare that they are willing to marry their Jewish lovers on certain conditions. Josephus continues: “Seeing then”, said the maidens, “that ye agree to these conditions, and that ye have customs and a mode of life wholly alien to all mankind, insomuch that your food is of a peculiar sort and your drink is distinct from that of other men, it behoves you, if ye would live with us (ἡμῖν συνοικεῖν), also to revere (σέβειν) our gods.” (A. J. IV 137). We can see that the maidens make a suggestion similar to that of the Ionians during the visit by Agrippa although their means to achieve their goal are different. Josephus’ description is thus related to the realities of his own world. By referring to the Jew’s unusual way of life the Midianites lead them to take a step from such exclusivity. They present their worship as universal in contradistinction to the exclusive worship of the Jews. The maidens declare: “Nor can any man reproach you for venerating the special gods of the country whereto ye are come, above all when our gods are common to everyone, while yours have no other worshipper” (A. J. IV 138).

Summarizing the Midianite’s argument, Josephus declares as their opinion that the Jews must “either fall in with the beliefs of all men or look for another world, where they could live alone in accordance with their peculiar laws”.

The way of life of the Jews and their religion are described in A. J. IV 137– 138 as alien to the rest of mankind. This is a very common view in antiquity, documented in several texts outside Judaism. Van Unnik cites Diodorus Siculus (first century B. C. E.) and Philostratus (around 200 C. E.). In an account by Diodorus (Bibl.Hist. XXXIV–XXXV 1, 1–5) describing the siege 123 Pseudo-Philo has a much shorter but similar version (18:13–14) but he does not explicitly speak of seduction to alien worship. See Jacobson 1996, 610.

24

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

of Jerusalem by Antiochus VII Sidetes at the beginning of the rule of John Hyrcanus, the king’s friends are said to have advised him to take the city by storm and wipe out completely the race of the Jews, since “they alone of all nations avoided dealings (ἐπιμιξία) with any other people and looked upon all men as their enemies”.124 Josephus himself conveys a reflection of this statement in his own account of the siege by Antiochus VII (A. J. XIII 245). Scholars have suggested therefore that Josephus and Diodorus used a common source.125 Thus Josephus is keenly aware of the hostility to Jews precisely because of their way of life, which also becomes clear from other passages (A. J. XI 212, C. Ap. II 79. 258). The other non-Jewish author cited by van Unnik is much later, namely Philostratus, who in his Life of Apollonius of Tyana says that the Jews revolt not only against the Romans but also against humanity. It is a race that “has made its own a life apart and irreconcilable, that cannot share with the rest of mankind in the pleasures of the table nor join in their libations or prayers or sacrifices …” (Vita Apoll. Thyan. V 33).126 M. Stern mentions in addition Juvenal and Tacitus as examples of authors in antiquity who make remarks “about Jewish exclusiveness” and notes that “these sentiments can be traced from the writings of Hecataeus of Abdera onwards”.127 Hecataeus writes for instance that the sacrifices Moses established for the Jews “differ from those of other nations, as does their way of living, for as a result of their expulsion from Egypt he introduced an unsocial (ἀπάνθρωπον) and intolerant (μισόξενον) way of life”.128 We may conclude that Josephus’ account of the way the Midianite maidens understand Judaism corresponds to a common view of the Jews in antiquity: the Jews isolate themselves from other nations both through their way of life and through their religion. Therefore the maiden’s attempt to incite the Jewish young men to worship gods who are common to everyone may also correspond to realities known to Josephus. That is, we may have here an indirect documentation of how some Jews in Josephus’ own time were drawn to alien cults. As has been noted above, Josephus goes on to describe the dramatic Phinehas episode. In this account, the figure of Zambrias, who has taken a Midianite woman as his wife “in preference to the decrees of Moses, devoted himself to the cult that would be to her liking” (A. J. IV 141). Zambrias explains his behaviour in a long speech (A. J. IV 145–149) in which he admits that he has married a foreign wife and that he sacrifices to gods to whom text and its context is presented, translated and commented upon by Menahem Stern 1998, vol. I, 181–185. 125 See Stern 1998, vol. I, 184. 126 Stern 1998, vol. II, 340–342. 127 Stern 1998, vol. II, 342. For Tacitus, see Hist. V 4 –5, Stern 1998, vol. II, 18–19, 25–26. 128 Stern 1998, vol. I, 26, 28. 124 The

2. Jewish Participation in Greco-Roman Religion in the Diaspora

25

he holds “sacrifice to be due”. He defends his conduct by saying that he deems it right to discover the truth for himself from many persons and not to live “as under a tyranny (ὥσπερ ἐν τυραννίδι)”, being thereby dependent for the hope of his whole life upon one person. Zambrias here refers to Moses, whom he shortly before attacked as a figure who gives orders “tyrannically”, contriving servitude for the Israelites and sovereignty for himself. Moses does this under the pretext of “laws and of God”. By such means he removes “sweetness (τὸ ἡδύ) and the self-determination in life (τὸ κατὰ τὸν βίον αὐτεξούσιον)” and sets up his own extravagances. He claims to punish “in the name of the laws the intention of each person to do what is agreeable to himself”. He has abolished such things as are agreed among all to be good. In opposition to all this, Zambrias himself, acts and speaks as a free man (ἐλεύθερος) who has no master. The ideals which Zambrias articulates are well known from classical antiquity: freedom and self-determination. Zambrias is a free individual not bound by laws and making his own decisions. When he contrasts Moses, the tyrant, to himself, Zambrias most clearly refers to Greek ideals concerning political freedom.129 But when he defines his freedom as a freedom from the Mosaic Law, a token of Moses’ own “extravagance”, then this resembles Cynic ideals.130 Zambrias does not, however, manifest an ascetic attitude. But nor does he represent libertinism although this could be expected in the context in which Jewish young men are seduced by the Midianite women. Instead he refers to things that are universally found to be good. When he manifests his self-determination in his decisions he is not an individualist but wants to learn from many, not from one person only. The references to universality and self-determination no doubt look Stoic, and his willingness to learn from many others may recall an attitude known from the Platonic dialogues.131 But Zambrias’ philosophical ideals are not shared by Josephus, who in his book Against Apion resolutely defends Moses as the one who instead of freedom and self-determination gives man the Law, so that the Jews “might live under it as under a father and master” (C. Ap. II 173–174).132 Whose words are the words of Zambrias? The strongly philosophical character of his speech suggests that Josephus mediates the voice of those Jews of his own time who have turned away from the Law of Moses and from their inherited monotheistic faith to a way of thinking determined by

129 For

references to classical literature, see Schlier 1935, 284 –288. Niederwimmer 1966, 34 –37. 131 For Stoicism, see Niederwimmer 1966, 37– 43. The concept of self-determination is used by Epiktetus (Disc. 4, 1.62 and 68). See van Unnik 1974, 256. 132 Cf. van Unnik 1974, 257 and Borgen 1995, 35. 130 Cf.

26

Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age (2006)

Hellenistic philosophical and ethical principles and which in religious matters accepts devotion to other gods than the God of Israel.133 We may conclude that there exist texts in the Septuagint, Philo, and Josephus that can be read as indirect evidence of Jewish participation in alien cults in the Hellenistic and Early Imperial era. Indeed through the person of Zambrias we may come into contact with the motives of those Jews who broke their ties with their religious inheritance in favour of a non-Jewish way of life: the Jewish laws are tyrannical and the life in the Greco-Roman world, including its religions, gives man freedom and sweetness of life.

3. Conclusion In the time of Antiochus Epiphanes according to 1 and 2 Maccabees there were Jews in the Jewish homeland who willingly participated in the nonJewish cult demanded by the Syrian king, whereas others took part only because they were forced to do so. The repeated warnings against idolatry in The Epistle of Jeremy may also point to such participation. The motivation for religious assimilation in 1 and 2 Maccabees is described in general terms as a striving for prosperity and good relations with the neighbouring peoples. The counter-reaction of Jews who wanted to remain faithful to Jewish tradition is described as fierce. Participation in alien rituals is condemned as apostasy, and violent actions against such participation are justified by reference to biblical prototypes. Occasionally Herod the Great in person took part in non-Jewish religious rituals. At the same time he made great efforts to promote Jewish religion. As a religious personality he was very complex. A series of documented cases of both voluntary and compulsory participation in alien cults in the diaspora also exist. A couple of individuals, for instance Tyrronius Rapon, may have thought that they could participate in alien cults and still remain Jews. Others like Tiberius Julius Alexander completely distanced themselves from Jewish monotheistic faith and corresponding behaviour. One of the figures we have met, Moschos, seems to express a religious commitment, whereas others, for instance Toubias and Pothos, may merely demonstrate a superficial compliance with non-Jewish religious convention. Through Josephus’ description of the biblical figure of Zambrias we may conceive the motives of those Jews who broke their ties with Judaism in favour of the life-style in the Greco-Roman world.

133 van Unnik 1974, 259, followed by Borgen 1996, 33–34. See also Feldman 2000, 382–383.

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991) In an important article David Flusser discusses the phenomenon of the attraction of paganism on the Jews of the first century C. E.1 He states that as early as “in the Persian period, the Jewish people in Palestine and elsewhere 2 had become completely immune to the attractions of the paganism against which the prophets had thundered”.3 I think this statement is somewhat exaggerated. Louis H. Feldman in his article on the orthodoxy of the Jews in Hellenistic Egypt already pointed out in 1960 that the life of the upper classes meant “inevitable compromises with the strict concepts of Jewish monotheism”.4 Pagan religion certainly had an attractive force on many Jews in the Hellenistic and Imperial era.5 The fact that we are able to see Philo wrestling with this question in several texts shows that it was a real problem in the Jewish environment in which he lived. In paragraph 162 of his treatise On Rewards and Punishments (De praemiis et poeniis) Philo states that he has in the preceding paragraphs described the curses and punishments to be suffered not only by those who “disregard the holy laws of justice and piety” but also by those who have been seduced by polytheistic beliefs (πολυθέοις δόξαις) leading to atheism and thus have forgotten the instruction of their race and of their fathers, i.e. the monotheistic creed in which they were trained from their earliest years. 1 Flusser,

1974, 1065–1100. mine. 3 Flusser 1974, 1090, cf. 1091 f., 1094. 4 Feldman 1960, 237, cf. 225. 5 I have discussed some of the material pertaining to the question in an article written in Swedish with an English summary: Sandelin 1989, cf. Sandelin 2006. Laurence H. Kant (1987 b, 686) summarizes his review of the epigraphic material: “The ancient Jews of these inscriptions and artifacts had an understanding of Jewishness that differs strikingly from some modern conceptions of ancient Judaism … To some who saw themselves as Jews, accepting the presence of Greco-Roman deities in their world, whether or not worshipped … was not necessarily dissonant with their identity as pious and Torah-centered Jews … [The] boundary between Christians, Jews, and … pagans is often hazy. This does not mean that all Jews were equally syncretistic. Indeed, most inscriptions give no clear indication of the degree of syncretism. Rather it suggests that a great diversity of expression and self-understanding was open to Jews in the Greco-Roman world.” (Cf. p. 699 f.). See also Kraabel 1987, 49– 67. 2 Italics

28

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

Although polytheism for Philo is an offence against the first commandment in the divine Law (Her. 169), the statement referred to is somewhat surprising because the punishment of polytheists has not been explicitly mentioned earlier in Praem. This treatise is not, however, preserved in its entirety, and Philo may have treated the polytheists in the part of it which has subsequently been lost. There exists a lacuna between Praem. 78 and 79.6 In an indirect way Philo, however, seems to have given polytheism some consideration in Praem. 24 –27 and 58. He talks of the vanity (τῦφος), which is derided by the wise (24) and which is the enemy of the truth (ἀλήθεια 25). The first to move from vanity to truth, i.e. Abraham, received faith as a recompense (27, cf. 58). To Philo Abraham is the chief model for those who have left the polytheistic beliefs behind in order to stick to the only and true God, i.e. for the proselytes (Somn. 1.160 f., Virt. 219). Had not Abraham left his native land Chaldaea, the delusive polytheism would have prevented him from finding the One (Virt. 214 –216). In Philo’s writings the concept of “vanity” is often associated with pagan, especially Egyptian, idolatry and polytheism (Mos. 2.169, Spec. 1.27, 79; 3.125). “Vanity”, says Philo, “is the impostor (γόης) who deifies unanimated objects (τὰ ἄψυχα θεοπλαστῶν)” and beguiles every city (Praem. 25).7 There exists according to Philo a borderline between idolatry and faith, a borderline which is crossed in both directions. Philo in his statement in Praem. 162 takes up a burning issue in the life of the Jewish communities during the Hellenistic and Imperial era, i.e. apostasy from the faith in the One and supreme God into polytheistic beliefs and practises. Harry A. Wolfson already gives the phenomenon of apostasy among Alexandrian Jews a broad treatment. He does not only take up the breaking of dietary laws and laws prohibiting intermarriage with pagans,8 but he mentions apostasy to pagan cult as well.9 6 See Colson in Colson/Whitaker 1929– 62, vol. VIII, 310, 358 f., 455, Beckaert 1961, 11, 40. 7 Cf. Courcelle 1975, 248 ff. A. Beckaert in Praem. 27 and 58 sees a reference to the Chaldaean error, i.e. immanent pantheism, but the author also finds a parallel in Spec. 1.28, which speaks of all those “personages, which the mythmakers have invented and spread illusion therewith (ἐξετύφωσαν)”. Beckaert 1961, 54 n. 1, cf. p. 21. See also p. 70 n. 1, with the statement that the Chaldaean creed in fact is idolatry (cf. p. 37 n. 3). 8 Wolfson 1948, vol. I, 73–76. 9 In Mos. 1.30 f. Wolfson (1948, vol I, 77 f.) sees a description of a class of apostates, whose behaviour he characterizes as follows: “This, we imagine, was the progressive pilgrimage of certain Alexandrian Jews from a seat in the front row of the synagogue to a place at the tail end of the mystery processions of the heathen.” Peter M. Fraser (1972, 282 ff.) finds evidence of a “restricted acceptance of the divine status” of the Ptolemaic ruler in a couple of dedicatory inscriptions of Egyptian synagogues. The Jewish faith and ritual was, however, preserved “in a pure form” in Ptolemaic Egypt. “Occasional acts of apostasy do not alter the over-all picture” (285). In externals some, at least, of the Jews adapted themselves “to the pattern of religious life around them to a remarkable degree,

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

29

I do not know of any monograph or article devoted exclusively to the theme of how Philo confronts the question of the danger of pagan religion to Jews, although sporadic comments on his views on polytheism and idolatry are common in scholarship on Philo. I will here use the words polytheism and idolatry in a very similar sense. Both terms will designate beliefs in gods other than the God of Israel.10 Philo often uses the expression πολύθεος δόξα (e.g. Opif. 171, Her. 169, Decal. 65, Virt. 214) but he does not use the word εἰδωλολατρία.11 Both the pagan gods, however, and, occasionally, their images (cf. the LXX) are called εἴδωλα by him (Spec. 1.28 f., Leg. 2.46, Conf. 74, Fug. 143). In this article I want to study how Philo understands idolatry as a phenomenon, how he sees it as a danger to faith, what should be said about the social contexts in which he was confronted with it, and, finally, the way he as an exegete tries to combat its manifestations. In the paragraphs which now follow, I will make some hypothetical suggestions, which will be substantiated later on. In Spec. 1.21–27 Philo on the one hand sees an offence against the commandment not to make idols in the fashioning of images of silver and gold and in honouring these with sacrifices and other rituals (21–22). On the other hand he finds a similar offence in the attitude of the money-lovers who believe silver and gold to be a source of blessing and happiness. These are called εἴδωλα by God (23–27). In Spec. 1.28 Philo in addition to wealth sees glory (δόξα) as an idol. These statements seem to suggest that the phenomenon of idolatry for Philo is broader than just polytheism in a narrow sense and forms a complexity of ideas requiring closer study. In Spec. 1.28 Philo states that myth-makers (μυθογράφοι) have invented new gods in order that the eternal God might be forgotten. There is a while preserving their distinct beliefs and practices” (286). The synagogal dedications show that the “accommodation was made in a manner acceptable to both parties”, i.e. the Jews and the Ptolemaic rulers. “The buildings are dedicated by individuals or congregations to ‘The Most High God’, ‘on behalf of’ the reigning sovereign, in the same way as the pagan dedications” (298). Fraser points out that this picture changes in the second half of the second century B. C. E. A mood of “national and religious confidence developed in Palestine and in the diaspora, particularly in Egypt, which led to a changed attitude towards the contemporary pagan world in extreme orthodox circles”. Evidence of this can be found especially in the Sibylline Oracles III (299). 10 Philo seems to admit that one can find a correct understanding of the Godhead also outside Judaism (Spec. 2.165). Cf. Wolfson 1948, vol. I, 38 f., 179 and Boyancé 1974, 142. For the identification of Yahweh with Zeus see Simon 1976, 40– 66. Cf. Feldman 1960, 219, Delling 1987 b, p. 5 n. 2, p. 10. The question concerning religious syncretism with Jewish and pagan elements touches the theme of this article, but will not be discussed at length here. For some viewpoints on the problem see Knox 1937, 88 ff. and Kraabel 1983, 185 f. 11 For the use of this word in early Judaism and Christianity see Fredouille 1981, 866 ff.

30

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

seductive (εὐπαράγωγον) force attached to polytheism. Apparently it is a dangerous phenomenon according to Philo. How do the dangers of idolatry manifest themselves? It goes without saying that Philo in his home town must often have seen images of pagan gods and pagan temples, altars, sacrifices and processions (see Decal. 78 and Spec. 1.21). But in what contexts did he meet with idolatry in the form of materialism and striving for glory? And through what channels was he confronted with the seductive myths telling stories about the pagan gods? It is well known that Philo was an upper class Jew in Alexandria who had close contacts with his pagan environment. Wealth, striving for a career and the pagan cultural and religious heritage were not unknown realities to him. His reflexions on different forms of idolatry and its dangers become understandable within the social context in which he lived. Since Philo saw idolatry as a danger which confronted him in different forms in his everyday life, he also saw it as a necessity that idolatry must be combatted. In the Phinehas story he sees an example of this and he himself in a most determined way glorifies the act of this Biblical figure (Mos. 1.302, Spec. 1.56–57). Philo himself was an interpreter of the Bible. In which way did he combat idolatry as a part of his own personal activity as an exegete? It is only to be expected that he used Biblical figures e.g. from the Exodus story in order to give warning examples or models to follow to his fellow Jews.

1. The Phenomenon of Idolatry 1.1. Deification of the Created In some of his comments upon idolatry Philo sees the phenomenon as a result of ignorance. For instance in Ebr. 108–110 Philo starts his explanation of idolatry by stating that the man “of no discernment” has never and anywhere seen the Existent (τὸ ὄν). The reason is that the organ by which this is possible, i.e. the mind (διάνοια), has been blinded. By his senses (ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι) he has only seen the (material) bodies of the universe (τὰ ἐν κόσμῳ σώματα), which he has thought to be the causes of all that comes into being (πάντων γενομένων αἰτία).12 Therefore (παρό) he started fashioning gods (θεοπλαστεῖν) and filled the world with statues of different materials. This was, 12 Cf. the comment of Alan Mendelson (1988, 39) on Opif. 171: “When Philo affirms that the world came into being, he is stating in philosophical language a lesson he learned from the first verses of Genesis.”

1. The Phenomenon of Idolatry

31

however, impiety. In reality polytheism creates atheism.13 “God’s honour is set at naught by those who deify the mortal (οἱ τὰ θνητὰ θειώσαντες).” In this statement Philo probably has Egyptian religion in mind, because he goes on denouncing not only fashioning images of the sun, the moon and the elements, but of plants and animals as well (cf. Fug. 180, Ios. 254). But on the other hand Philo occasionally also sees the cause and the effect the other way round. In Conf. 144 Philo speaks of those who “ascribe to existing things a multitude of fathers as it were and by introducing their miscellany of deities have flooded everything with ignorance (ἀπειρίαν) and confusion”. These people are like children of a harlot who, having assumed “a multitude of what they falsely call sources and causes (ἀρχὰς καὶ αἰτίας) to account for the origin of the existing world”, have lost the knowledge (ἠγνόησαν) of the one Maker and Father of all (Conf. 144,14 cf. Mut. 205, Decal. 7–9, Spec. 1.331–332). In a similar way the deification of the whole Universe, as it was done by the Chaldaean astrologers (Virt. 212, cf. Migr. 178–179), has the effect that God himself is forgotten.15 The Chaldaeans hold, according to Philo, that there is “no originating cause (αἴτιος) outside the things we perceive with our senses”. In this denunciation of the Chaldaean creed, which is one of the stronger found in Philo, he asks: “What could be more grievous or more capable of proving the total absence of nobility in the soul than this, that its knowledge of the many, secondary, the created (τῶν γενετῶν), only leads it to ignore the One, the Primal, the Uncreated (ἀγένητος) maker of all …?” (Virt. 213).16 A Biblical figure representing this Chaldaean outlook is Abraham’s brother Nahor (Gen 11:27). When Abraham, his father Tera, and Lot, the son of Abraham’s brother, left Ur of Chaldaea in order to attain Haran, Nahor is not mentioned as belonging to the company (Gen 11:31). According to Philo the name Ναχώρ should be translated “rest of light” (Congr. 45; cf. Hebr. roots ‫ נוח‬and ‫)אור‬. On the one hand Nahor has obtained a share in the light of Wisdom, as far as he is Abraham’s kinsman. But on the other hand 13 On the relationship between theism, atheism and polytheism in the thought of Philo see Mendelson 1988, 31–33, 37 f. 14 J. G. Kahn (1963, 176) says: “… les enfants des prostituées ne savent pas au juste qui, parmi les nombreux amants de leur mère, est l’auteur de leurs jours; de la même façon, les polythéistes, qui méconnaissent le Père unique de toutes choses, ne peuvent pas revendiquer une filiation légitime. Or précisément, le culte des faux dieux est souvent comparé, dans la Bible, le Talmud et les prières juives, à une prostitution: cf. v.g. Ex. 34, 15.” 15 Jacques Cazeaux (1965, 210 n. 1) notes earlier examples of this kind of Jewish descriptions of pagan religion: e.g. Jer 10:2 and Wis 13:1–9. Cf. North 1958, 151–160, Sandelin 1977, 149–152. 16 In other instances Philo is less radical. In Decal. 52–81 he orders “the world of alien worship in descending order from the more sublime to the ridiculous …” (Mendelson 1988, 34.)

32

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

the knowledge he has gained is incomplete, as far as he did not accompany Abraham on his way from the created to the uncreated (ἀπὸ τοῦ γενομένου πρὸς τὸ ἀγένητον Congr. 48). Nahor does not “remove from the land of Chaldaea, that is he does not sever himself from the study of astronomy (ἡ περὶ ἀστρονμίαν θεωρία); he honours the created (τὸ γενόμενον) before the Creator and the world before God, or rather he holds that the world is not the work of God but is itself God absolute in His power” (Congr. 49). Nahor does not put his insight (θεωρία) into practice (πρᾶξις Congr. 46).17 Wisdom has the effect of sharpening the soul’s ability to see. But Nahor deliberately missed this chance (cf. QG 4.93). In several instances Philo launches an attack against the Chaldaean creed. One of its typical features is the presumption that the fate of men depends solely on factors which can be perceived by the senses, i.e. the universe with its stars and other heavenly bodies which are conceived of as divine beings (Virt. 212, Migr. 179, Her. 97).18 Philo’s understanding of idolatry as deification of created things, i.e. things which do not form ultimate causes, illuminates his interpretation of the commandment forbidding images (Exod 20:4, 23). The second commandment, says Philo, forbids us to “make gods of things which are not the cause of existence (τὰ μὴ αἴτια)” (Her. 169). In Spec. 1.21–22 Philo applies the prohibition on making images of the gods and building altars and temples and arranging sacrifices and processions in their honour. But apart from the literal prohibition (δίχα δὲ τῆς ῥηθῆς ἀπαγορεύσεως) the Lord’s commandment according to Philo also condemns money lovers (Spec. 1.23–28). These believe money to be “a source (αἴτιον) of blessing and happiness of every kind (τῆς συμπάσης εὐδαιμονίας)” (23, cf. 25). But God teaches that “it is not

17 For the philosophical background to the notion that insight has to be put into practice see Alexandre 1967 a, 135 n. 2. 18 This does not imply a total rejection of astronomy on Philo’s side. Abraham himself through the contemplation of heaven received an understanding of the Maker of all. But Abraham did not stop here. He made progress in his understanding of God (Mut. 66–76). And, above all, he did not commit the mistake of deifying the world as the Chaldaeans did (Abr. 68–70, Her. 96–99, cf. Migr. 176–195, Congr. 47– 49, Mut. 15 f.). Marguerite Harl (1966, 47) gives the following comment concerning Philo’s understanding of Abraham in Her.: “La caractéristique essentielle de sa vie, aux yeux de Philon, est qu’il est ‘sorti’ de Chaldée, c’est-à-dire d’une science astronomique et d’une philosophie limitée au monde visible, pour accéder par sa migration à la connaissance, au-delà du monde visible, de Dieu, unique Cause (§ 98–99 et 289).” For the question of Abraham and astronomy see E. E. Pasetti (1982, 33 f.) who states: “La contemplazione del mondo l’apertura verso il cosmo, è già, per Filone, una via verso la sagezza in quanto la contemplazione delle realtà sensibili del cielo, proprio perchè questo è tempio, di Dio, può condurre alla conoscenza di colui che le ha create.” Cf. Sandmel 1971, 104 f., 114 f. For Philo’s views on astronomy in general see Mendelson 1982, 15–24.

1. The Phenomenon of Idolatry

33

fitting to assign divine honours (τίμας ἰσοθέους) to wealth” (25).19 Thus we can say that there exist, according to Philo, idolaters in a transferred sense.20 1.2. Idolatry and Passions Philo does not only speak of deifying things outside man. He also mentions deifying things connected with man himself, i.e. his senses, his mind and his body (Leg. 1.344, Ebr. 95). In Ebr. 36– 64, where he comments upon those who disregard the father and love the mother, we may observe how Philo sees the body, the senses and the passions as intertwined. In Ebr. 46 Philo identifies the one “who has rejected the things of the soul” with the one who has “set his admiration (θαυμάζεται) on the things of the body, and outside the body (τὰ δὲ περὶ σῶμά τε καὶ ἐκτός), with the shapes and colours rife, decked out to deceive the senses which are so easily seduced”. In Ebr. 58 Philo describes the human condition by stating: “Betrayed by the senses which we love, we abandon all comradeship with the soul.” And he continues along the same track in Ebr. 63, where he pictures us as those whose “concern is with the senses and the objects of sense and the passions”.21 As a matter of fact Philo locates the type of man who places “his admiration on the things of the body”, represented by Laban, in the same category (τῆς αὐτῆς προαιρέσεως) as Jethro, a character who reckons with the existence of many gods because of his ignorance of the One (Ebr. 45– 47). In several Philonic passages we can observe this kind of parallelization of concentration on the body with its passions on the one hand and idolatry on the other. In Migr. 64 – 69 the parallelization is rather superficial.22 Philo gives two different allegorical interpretations of creatures moving about on the ground either with many feet or on their belly (Lev 11:42). These creatures sym19 On Philo’s asceticism see Mendelson 1982, 100–103. Philo does not, however, look upon worldly goods only as an object of unjust devotion. Actually it is ‘the base one’ who becomes a slave under such things. But riches and honour can also be handled in a positive way, granted that they are used by a skilful man. Such a person is able to help others with his wealth and serve society by his high position (Fug. 23–30, cf. Spec. 4.72–77). Philo in Fug. 36 recommends his readers to devote themselves to asceticism only after an active life in the world. Cf. Mendelson 1982, 101. For Philo’s ambivalent attitudes to wealth see David L. Mealand 1978, 258–264. In a rejoinder to T. E. Schmidt 1983, 85–97, Mealand in another article (1985, 112) states: “… Philo’s wealth and Philo’s views on wealth are in conflict” and further: “It is puzzling that being so rich he so emphasizes a set of traditions which reflect hostility to wealth.” 20 Suzanne Daniel (1975, 23 n. 3) states: “… la richesse est une idole, elle aussi, et la Loi interdit donc de l’adorer”. 21 For the passages in Ebr. presented above cf. Her. 267–272 and Harl 1966, 40 and 111–113. Cf. also QG 3.10. 22 This impression may in itself be caused by a superficial reading of Philo. Cf. Cazeaux 1965, 39– 41.

34

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

bolize people who are only interested in the things of the body and bodily pleasures and passions (64 – 68). But to Philo they also suggest polytheism and atheism, the creatures with many feet standing for the former and the ones without feet for the latter (69). The Law, Philo says, has “expelled both of these doctrines from the sacred assembly” by debarring both the eunuch and the son of the harlot from it (Deut 23:1 f.). For the sterile man “is godless”, Philo continues, “and the son of a whore is a polytheist, being in the dark of his real father, and for this reason ascribing his begetting to many, instead of the one” (cf. Spec. 1.330–332).23 In Conf. 144 and Mos. 1.263–318 the connection between polytheism and worldliness is more direct than in Migr. 64 – 69. But in one Philonic passage the ideas of idolatry and bodily passions are more closely connected than in any of the cases we have mentioned thus far. In Post. 158–164 Philo gives an allegorical interpretation of some verses from the episode of the golden calf in Exod 32. The burning of the calf, the grinding of it to powder and the “sowing” of it upon the water (v. 20) actually mean that the body with its pleasures should be destroyed. The sacred Guide, says Philo, would have us “refresh our understanding, namely by burning up our pleasures, by grinding down and breaking up the complex of bodily goods into thin and useless dust, by making up our minds that from none of them did there ever shoot forth and bloom that which is truly beautiful, any more than from seeds sown upon the waters” (Post. 164). But if the golden calf is the symbol of the body and its passions, it has in the course of history also been the work of people characterized by Philo as “womanish” (Post. 165–166). The detail in the Biblical story that the golden calf was made from the ear-rings of the Israelite women (Exod 32:2) is significant to Philo, who does not mention that Aaron also asked for the ear-rings of the sons of the people in the camp. To Philo the detail shows that a manufactured god is not a God for sight and in reality. It is only for the ear to hear of and more precisely for the woman’s ear, not for the man’s. Thus the golden calf was a god on hearsay only (ἀκοῇ μόνον νομίζονται θεοί) like the Egyptian “bulls, rams and goats”. Actually it is people who “deem life a show”, who fill the yet tender souls of the young with the nonsense of myths. They force those who “never become men in lofty spirit but are always womanish (θηλυδρίαι) to fashion gods for themselves”. 23 The lines between the ideas are described by Cazeaux (1965, 136 n. 1) in the following way: “L’ingéniosité avec laquelle Philon a introduit l’animal sans pattes à la suite de l’animal aux trop nombreuses pattes tourne à la virtuosité lorsque l’auteur ne garde plus que la forme logique des deux cas: ‘avec trop’ – ‘sans’. Sous le vêtement artificiel, ce qui va suivre cache un vérité biblique. Le Deutéronome, les écrits prophétiques, sans parler des écrits de Sagesse (par ex. Prov. 2, 17) ont souvent établi un lien entre le culte véritable et la fécondité, entre l’adultère et l’idolâtrie.”

1. The Phenomenon of Idolatry

35

It is no mere coincidence that Philo, immediately after viewing the golden calf as a symbol of the body and its passions in Post. 158–164, connects the idea of idolatry with people who are womanish (θηλυδρίαι) in Post. 165–166. In fact passions do according to Philo belong together with the womanish part of the soul. In discussing the offspring of Noah, Philo states: “The spiritual offspring of the unjust is never in any case male: the offspring of men whose thoughts are unmanly, nerveless and womanish (θηλυδρίαι) by nature are female. Such do not plant a tree of virtue whose fruit must needs be true-born and excellent, only trees of vice and passions (παθῶν), whose off-shoots are feminine” (Gig. 4, cf. Leg. 3.11, Sacr. 103, 111 f., Det. 28, Fug. 128, Contempl. 60).24 Thus both passions and idolatry have the same root, i.e. the womanish part in us. Can we find a connection between Philo’s view on passions and his idea that also wealth (πλοῦτος) and glory (δόξα) are idols (Spec. 1.23–28)? As a matter of fact such a connection is obvious in the passage of On Drunkenness (De ebrietate) which presents the son who only obeys his father (Ebr. 65–76). Here we can see that for Philo the world of creation, the body and the passions belong together and here also man’s fight against the body, the senses and the pleasures25 is pictured in a vivid way. In Ebr. 69 Philo commends those who hold “that it befits those who are to be ministers to the only wise Being, to estrange themselves from all that belongs to the world of creation (πάντων ὅσα γένεσιν εἴληχεν ἀλλοτριοῦσθαι), and to treat all such as bitter and deadly foes”.26 Therefore, Philo continues in Ebr. 70, we shall kill the body (τὸ σῶμα), that is “we shall dissever the passion-loving and mortal element (τὸ θνητόν) from the virtue-loving and divine”. In this context Philo also touches on the theme of the active attack upon polytheism when he mentions the man “who took the lance”, i.e. Phinehas, who pierced the apostate in the camp. The latter represented every thought that followed the belief which “invests the natures which are but subjects of God’s action with the dues which belong only to Him who alone is the cause of all that 24 Cf. Anita Méasson (1966, 158 n. 1), who says: “Philon oppose souvent mâle et femelle en leur conférant valeur de symbole. Il n’oublie pas alors qu’il a fait du premier homme Adam le symbole du νοῦς et d’Eve celui de la sensation qui met le νοῦς en contact avec le monde extérieur et risque par là de l’attirer dans le piège des passions et des vices.” Roger Arnaldez (1972, 143 n. 5) comments upon the Philonic idea of the “womanish”: “Ce sont des êtres brisés, incapables d’engendrer la sagesse et la vertu, trop solides et trop fermes pour eux. Mais, chez ces inconsistants, la fumée des mythes prend consistance; elle se coule en eux et prend corps; aussi est-ce à cette image qu’ils façonnent leurs statues de dieux: d’où les expressions ἐντήξαντες et θεοπλαστεῖν.” Cf. Starobinski-Safran 1970, 197 n. 7. On Philo’s view on women see further Baer 1970, esp. 40– 44, and Wegner 1982, 551–563. 25 For this theme in Philo see Pfitzner 1967, 38– 48. 26 This negative view must be balanced by more positive Philonic statements about creation, e.g. Opif. 3,12, 21–23, 72–75, 171. Cf. Wolfson 1948, vol. I, 244 f., 269 f. On the character of creation according to Philo see Mendelson 1982, 38– 46.

36

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

comes into being” (Ebr. 73). The scope is broader in Ebr. 75, where Philo claims that to be able “to stay the fierce persistent warfare of the outward life … and the intestine battling of lust against lust in the soul27… is a great and glorious feat”. The fight against worldliness described in these words also pertains to idolatry in the more transferred sense of the word. This becomes apparent in the statements following immediately afterwards, where Philo says that nothing else, “neither wealth (πλοῦτος), nor glory (δόξα), nor honour, nor office, nor beauty etc.”, but only the true cause, “the Cause supreme among causes, deserves our service (θεραπεία) and highest honour”. In Ebr. 144 θεραπεία is a cultic term together with λατρεία. Like the idolaters proper, the idolaters in a transferred sense are tied up with the body and its passion.

2. The Threat of Idolatry in its Different Forms To Philo the passions and pleasures of the body form realities which strongly threaten man on his journey towards the high goals for his life set up by God (Post. 155–156, Somn. 2.12 f.). Since idolatry is in Philo’s view closely tied up with passions, we may also expect to find texts in Philo where idolatry both in its proper and its transferred sense are seen as threatening realities. 2.1. Polytheistic Creeds and Images of Gods In Praem. 162, discussed in the introduction of this article, the apostate Jews are said to have been brought (ὑπαχθέντας eng. seduced, fr. seront inféodés) by the “polytheistic creeds” to forgetfulness of the teaching of their fathers. Polytheism is a strong evil force. Philo uses the image of a war machine in order to describe it. It is a “great and formidable engine of aggression” (μέγας καὶ δυσάλωτος ἐπιτειχισμός Praem. 25).28 Speaking about the personages invented by the myth-makers (Spec. 1.28) Philo says that these build up their “false imaginations into a stronghold to menace the truth (ἐπιτειχίσαντες τὰς ψευδεῖς δόξας κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας)”. Their goal is that the “eternal and really existing God might be consigned to oblivion”.

Ebr. 6 Philo sees lust (ἐπιθυμία) as the most painful of the soul’s passions (πάθη). Lust in turn is the cause of greediness. 28 André Pelletier (1965, 58) states:”δυσάλωτος, en effet, qui se dit surtout du gibier, de la pêche (et per extension de la capture de prisonniers à la guerre) suggère ici un objet susceptible d’être capturé. C’était, à l’époque, l’équivalent de nos chars d’assaut, essentiellement offensifs.” 27 In

2. The Threat of Idolatry in its Different Forms

37

Philo notes that the world is filled with images of gods (Mos. 2.205, Decal. 66), made out of silver, gold and other materials (Decal. 7, 66) and adorned with purple and symbolic accessories (Decal. 71, Legat. 98). But these images are not gods at all (Post. 165), but lifeless things (ἄψυχα Decal. 7, cf. Her. 12, Congr. 48), says Philo moving in a traditional OT vein.29 Philo occasionally uses the word εἴδωλον in its meaning of “unsubstantial form”, parallel to “shadow” (σκία Conf. 69, 71, Spec. 1.28) and he also employs the same word to mean a statue (Congr. 65, cf. Fug. 143). For Philo the statues of the gods are held to be gods on hearsay only (Post. 165). Although he regards the images of the pagan gods as shadows, Philo is not unconcerned about the way they should be treated. He thinks they have a seductive power through their beauty (Spec. 1.29). The myth-makers have not only made their stories appetizing by writing music to them. They have also brought in “sculpture and painting in order to co-operate in the deception”. Their intention is to beguile the senses and to seize the soul for their prey, having made it unsteady and unsettled. 2.2. Wordly Goods The threat of worldly goods is illustrated by Ebr. 54 –59. Philo here gives an allegorical explanation of the answer which Rachel gave to her father Laban when she said: “I cannot rise before thee, because the custom of women is upon me” (Gen 31:35). To Philo Laban represents the type of man who has set his admiration on the things of the body and outside the body” (Ebr. 46). Rachel for her part “looks with admiration only on that which is perceived by the senses” (τὰ αἰσθητά Ebr. 54). She is the soul who “confesses that she cannot rise up against apparent goods (τὰ φαινόμενα ἀγαθά)”. Philo says that she stands “amazed before them, and honours (τιμᾷ) them almost to her own self” (Ebr. 56). Philo applies the description of a Biblical figure to himself and man (or the Jew) in general. Philo asks: “For which of us stands up to oppose riches (πλοῦτος)? Who prepares himself to wrestle with glory (δόξα)? How many of those who still live in the mazes of empty opinions have come to despise honour (τιμή) and office?” Not a single one, he says (Ebr. 57) and continues, “when we feel upon our cheeks the breath of hope for such things though it be but the slightest breath and nothing more … we straightway submit and surrender and can make no effort of resistance” (Ebr. 58). In commenting upon the episode of the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot (Gen 13:5 ff.) Philo compares these two characters in Abr. 208–224. In an 29 The adjective ἄψυχος is used for the idols in Wis 13:17 and 14:29. Cf. Isa 44:20, Jer 10:3, Pss 115:5–7; 135:17. For the theme of OT polemics against idolatry see Roth 1975, 21– 47, with further references to literature.

38

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

attempt to discover the spiritual meaning of the two figures (Abr. 217 ff.), Philo characterizes Abraham as a “lover of moral excellence”, whereas Lot is a “devotee (ὀρεγόμενος) of external things” (220). He honours (τιμᾷ) wealth, reputation, office and good birth (218 f.). With him the lovers of wealth and glory (φιλοχρήματοι καὶ φιλόδοξοι) are associated (221). Lot’s wife is described in the same terms as her husband in Somn. 1.246–248. If such a person does not have a clear view of virtues and virtuous actions, Philo says, “if he pursues the deafness of glory, the blindness of wealth, the stupidity of bodily robustness, and the empty-mindedness of external beauty, and all that is akin to these, he will be set up as a soulless pillar …” (248). We can also see how Philo understands a character like Lot by looking at passages where he presents allegorical interpretations of the episode related in Gen 14:8–12, where four kings under the leadership of Chedorlaomer after a fight against the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah and two other cities take Lot as a captive.30 Philo says that Lot was “carried off a prisoner of war by the enemies in the soul” (Migr. 150). In Congr. 92 and Abr. 236–242 Philo understands the incident with the four against the five kings as the four passions which combat the five senses. Thus Lot, the soul, was taken captive by the passions and later rescued by Abraham, reason, who instead of tyrants established democracy in the soul (Abr. 229, 234, 242). In Abr. 243 Philo creates a link between Lot’s interest in worldly goods and his surrender to passions, by stating that the senses provide the passions with the “objects which they perceive (τὰ αἰσθητά)” (cf. Ebr. 54). Visible things become dangerous because of the passions. According to Philo the name of Lot should be translated as “inclining away” (ἀπόκλισις). “The mind ‘inclines’ ”, says Philo, “sometimes turning away from what is good, sometimes from what is bad” (Migr. 148). Lot, who leaves his home in Chaldaea with Abraham, the lover of wisdom, is of this kind. But he does not come with his uncle that he may imitate the latter, who is better than he. Quite the contrary, he does it in order to “create obstacles which pull Abraham back, and drag him elsewhere and make him slip in this direction or that” (149). Lot signifies “that part of the soul which inclines towards the province of sense-perception” (τὸ κλινόμενον τῆς ψυχῆς πρὸς τὸ αἰσθητὸν εἶδος). The better part of the soul, symbolized by Abraham, will thrust it away “when the mind begins to know itself and to hold converse with the things of mind” (Migr. 13, cf. Gen 13:9). In spite of the fact that he sees in Lot a person who sometimes turns “from what is bad”, Philo does not, as far as I can see, give any example of this kind of behaviour. Only its opposite is described in Philo’s texts.31 It 30 Cf.

31 Lot

Cazeaux 1965, 189. simply vanishes from the scene (Migr. 175). Cf. Cazeaux 1965, 58, 62, 88, 206 f.

2. The Threat of Idolatry in its Different Forms

39

must, however, be noted that Lot is actually seen by Philo as one part of the soul from which the better and wiser part, i.e. Abraham, is beginning to separate itself (Migr. 150, cf. Abr. 224). Even Abraham is described as a person who had at that stage not reached his final stability (Migr. 148–151, Abr. 222–224). This means that Lot in reality stands for that part of the soul which turns “from what is good”, whereas it is Abraham who represents the opposite tendency.32 The two roles are symbolized by different Biblical figures. 2.3. Ultimate Destiny of the Apostates Philo gives a fairly detailed picture of the fate of those who have left Judaism. He does it in a passage where, comparing them with the proselytes, he uses contrasting catalogues of virtues and vices (Virt. 181 f.). Philo maintains that since the proselytes (οἱ ἐπήλυται) have turned to God, they are able to lead virtuous lives.33 In contradistinction to these, those who have revolted from the holy laws are seen to be unjust (ἀδίκους), frivolous (ἀσέμνους perhaps: irreverent34), friends of falsehood (φιλαπεχθήμονας) etc. They have sold “their freedom for dainties and strong liquor and cates and the enjoyment of another’s beauty, thus ministering to the delights of the belly and the organs below it – delights which end in the gravest injuries both to body and soul” (cf. Mos. 1.3135). The seriousness with which he looked upon idolatry and apostasy may be seen from Philo’s treatments of Num 25:1–13 and of Deut 13:2–12 LXX in Spec. 1.54 –57 and 316. Spec. 1.54 –57 is a part of a larger context (12– 65) in which Philo discusses the first two commandments.36 Spec. 1.54 –55 deals with the honour to the One, i.e. with the first commandment. The person who betrays the honour to God should “suffer the utmost penalties”. All who “have a zeal (ζῆλος) for virtue” should be permitted to exact the penalties on the spot. In Spec. 1.56 this zeal is exemplified by Phinehas, who killed the man, who had married the Midianite woman and who “was openly offering sacrifices, a travesty of the name, to images of wood and stone in the presence of the whole people”. According to Philo’s words in Spec. 1.316 32 Cf. the statement of Méasson (1986, 311): “… Abraham et Lot ne sont pas les représentants de deux catégories d’êtres humains engagés moralement et spirituellement dans les voies opposées …, ils symbolisent, à l’intérieur d’une seule et même âme, le premier, l’intellect, le second, … toute la partie de l’âme qui incline vers l’espèce sensible.” Cf. Sandmel 1971, 158–160. 33 For further details regarding Philo’s feelings for proselytes and also concerning pagan attitudes towards proselytism see Sevenster 1975, 193–195. 34 Colson in Colson /Whitaker 1929– 62, vol. VIII, 275. 35 See Wolfson 1948, vol. I, 73 f. 36 In the treatment of this passage I will follow Seland 1990, 63– 67.

40

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

vengeance should be taken on the unholy man, whoever it may be who bids us “fraternize with the multitude, resort to their temples, and join in their libations and sacrifices” and it should be deemed “a religious duty to seek his death”.37 Should not the apostate meet such a destiny on earth, Philo nevertheless is convinced of his punishment after death. Having described the happy future lot of the proselyte (ὁ ἔπηλυς) in heaven, Philo says about the “nobly born who has falsified the sterling of his high lineage”38 that he “will be dragged right down and carried into Tartarus itself and profound darkness” (Praem. 152,39; cf. Wis 4:13–20; 5:14 f.).

3. Philo’s Experience of Idolatry as a Concrete Reality Philo belonged to the prosperous Jewish upper class in Alexandria.40 His brother Alexander had a municipal office of Alabarch (Jos. A. J. XVIII 159, 259), i.e. he was a custom’s official.41 Ray Barraclough notes: “If Philo shared his brother Alexander’s prosperity then Philo was certainly affluent.”42 How much that type of materialism which he criticizes as a kind of idolatry (Leg. 1.25) formed a temptation to Philo himself we cannot tell. But as we have seen, he describes it as a force which is difficult for everybody to resist (Ebr. 57–58). In any case he and his family43 seem to have lived under economic circumstances that would have made them exposed to its dangers. 37 Cf. the statement by Mendelson (1988, 34): “The severity of the punishment for polytheism is a measure of the threat it posed not only to the biblical Israelites, but to Philo’s own Alexandrian contemporaries.” See also the detailed treatment of Spec. 1.315 ff. by Seland 1990, 75–80, 105–107, 123–125. 38 According to Wolfson (1948, vol. I, 75), Philo here has in mind a case of intermarriage. 39 Cf. Wolfson 1948, vol. I, 42 f. F. H. Colson in Colson / Whitaker 1929– 62, vol. VIII, 408 n. b, denies that Philo here talks of an after life. 40 For the Jewish community in Alexandria see Tcherikover 1957–1964, vol. I, 1–92. Further Baron 1958, vol. I, 370–372 n. 7, Arnaldez 1961, 17–21, Stern 1974, 122–133, Applebaum 1974 a, 421, 427 f., 434 – 454; 1974 b, 473– 477; 1976, 702–708. Cf. also Pelletier 1967, 35– 40, Schwartz 1967, 35– 44, Fraser 1972, vol. I, 828–29, Schürer 1973–1987, vol. III.1, 46–50, 92–94, 127–129. Smallwood 1961, 3–31; 1976, 220–255, Barraclough 1984, 421– 440, Borgen 1984, 108–113, Kasher 1985, passim, see esp. Geographical Index: Alexandria, Pearson 1986, 145–148, Mendelson 1988, 123–126. 41 Smallwood 1976, 227, Schürer 1973–1987, vol. III.1: 136. 42 Barraclough 1984, 441. 43 Cf. the reflections of Jacques Schwartz concerning the family of Philo. Since he belonged to the Jewish aristocracy of Alexandria, Philo, according to Schwartz, must have had family ties to the Hasmoneans. Also among the daughters of Herodian descent were those who married oriental petty princes and others who married into the families of Alexandrian alabarchs. Schwartz (1967, 43) states: “Ces mariages de raison avec des roitelets, en attendant quelque procurateur ou même quelque prince flavien qui n’osera pas, montrent que nous sommes à un niveau où les contacts avec les Gentils sont aisés et constants et

3. Philo’s Experience of Idolatry as a Concrete Reality

41

Beside the veneration of riches Philo also sees the danger of idolatry in striving for glory (Spec. 1.28). A notorious example of a person who made a glorious career in Roman society is Philo’s own nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, son of Alexander, the Alabarch. The whereabouts of T. J. A. are known to us from Josephus (e.g. B. J. V 205; cf. A. J. XVIII 259), who says about him that he did not stand by the practices of his people (τοῖς γὰρ πατρίοις οὐκ ἔμεινεν οὗτος ἔθεσιν A. J. XX 100). He was given high offices by the Romans both in Judaea and Alexandria (B. J. II 220, 223, 309).45 Since Philo is critical against the admiration of offices, a career like that of his nephew must have looked suspect to him (cf. Leg. 3.16746), as long as he was able to follow it.47 To have a civil office in Roman society also implied the presence at public rituals, which to many Jews must have been a severe obstacle for making a career within the official institutions.48 l’indifférence religieuse facile. Ceci explique peut-être l’apostasie d’un Ti. Julius Alexander, neveu de Philon, et rend, en revanche, encore plus remarquable la voie choisie par Philon lui-même.” S. Stephen Foster (1975, 25–32), and Barraclough (1984, 440 f.), find the conclusions of Schwartz concerning Philo’s family background debatable, however. 44 Cf. Goodenough 1938, 64. Cf. also the statement of F. Gerald Downing (1985, 118): “We cannot tell how law-observant Philo was, still less how charitable, or how active in defence of the oppressed and dispossessed. But he does, it seems, display an awareness of the reality of poverty and economic injustice, a sympathetic insight that suggests the impact of the actual plight of fellow Jews …” 45 See Goodenough 1938, 65 f. Cf. the comment of Shim’on Applebaum (1976, 705): “Tiberius Julius Alexander, who served as strategos of a nome and ultimately rose to be prefect of Egypt, was, if not actually a renegade, at least a studious neglecter of Judaism”. Victor Tcherikover, (1957–1964, vol. I, 53, 78) sees Tiberius Julius Alexander as a “renegade from Judaism”. See also Schürer 1973–1987, vol. I, 456 f. Abraham Terian (1984, 290) states: “His apostasy, spoken of by Josephus in AJ XX 100, …, is clearly reflected in the citation of oysters as fit for food – contrary to Jewish dietary laws.” Terian (1981, 81, 149) refers to Philo’s statements in Anim. 31 and Prov. 2.92. 46 Peder Borgen has analysed this passage where Philo criticizes making use of education for wrong objectives, e.g. attaining an office under the ruler. See Borgen 1965, 122–127, cf. 1984, 116. 47 Cf. Colson in Colson/Whitaker 1929– 62, vol. IX, 447 ff. On the relationship between Philo and his nephew see further Terian 1984, 281–283, 289–291. Despite his reserve towards longing for political power, Philo himself was most active in the social life of his own Jewish community. See Goodenough 1938, 66–71, Hegermann 1973 b, 366–369. Cf. Terian 1984, 292, and the statements of Borgen (1984, 153): “Philo combines an ethical dualism between heaven and earth and between soul and body with the dualism between Judaism and the pagan world. For example, the Jews who make education, wealth and office serve the heavenly values, as manifested in the Laws of Moses, bring heaven to rule over earth. If, on the other hand, the Jews have luxurious living, political careers and licentiousness as their objectives, they join with the earthly, pagan disorder.” Cf. the statements at p. 151 on the treatise De Iosepho; cf. Barraclough 1984, 491–506. Both under Ptolemaic and Roman rule Egyptian Jews had higher and lower public offices. See Tcherikover 1957–1964, vol. I, 17, 52 f.; cf. Delling 1987 b, 14. 48 In discussing those among the theosebeis at Aphrodisias who were bouleutai, i.e. members of the city council, Joyce Reynolds and Robert Tannenbaum (1987, 58) make the following remark: “… being a city councillor in antiquity involves one’s presence at

42

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

An Alexandrian Jew also witnessed pagan religious rites if he was present at sportive contests49 or performances at the theatre, occasions not unfamiliar to Philo (Agr. 110–123, Ebr. 177, Prob. 26, 141, Prov. 2.5).50 Also attendance at club-meetings and banquets, mentioned by Philo in Ebr. 20–23 and Leg. 3.155–159, may have confronted Jews with pagan rituals (cf. Flacc. 4, 136).51 We have further noted that Philo states that the world is filled with images of the gods (Mos. 2.205) and he also mentions pagan temples, altars and processions (Decal. 78 and Spec. 1.21). This naturally reflects his own experience in his home town. Although he seems to show a “considerable liking for art”,52 which is shown by his description of the Sebasteum in Alexandria (Legat. 151), Philo, like the great majority of his contemporary Jews, no doubt was “aniconic”.53 The first Jewish attempts to introduce art representing living creatures were, however, already made by Herod the Great and his sons (Jos. A. J. XVII 151,54 Vita LXV).55 For an Alexandrian Jew not only the striving after a glorious career in the pagan society was dangerous from a religious point of view like that of Philo.56 But even seeking for such a thing as full Greek citizenship in Alexandria contained risks, because in Philo’s time this normally presupposed that the candidate had finished the ephebate at a gymnasium. This public pagan sacrifices (e.g. at the opening of all council meetings); it seems that this is not possible for religious Jews, until some sort of special arrangement is made for them by a decree of Severus, which allows them to serve as bouleutai if their city chooses them …”. 49 Wolfson (1948, vol. I, 81) gives two possible explanations for Philo’s references to his attendance at sportive events. Either Philo may refer to “strictly Jewish organizations”, or he just reveals that he was curious, and since he had the money to pay the admission fees, he went to “these things performed by non-Jews”. The first explanation is too hypothetical, the second avoids the problem of how Philo coped with the pagan religious aspect of the sportive contests. Cf. Feldman 1960, 225 f., Borgen 1984, 113. 50 Feldman (1960, 227) states that Philo “speaks as a habitué of the theatre and in fact of all phases of Greek cultural life”. 51 In commenting upon Spec. 1.316, where Philo insists on the punishment of death on Jews who resort to the pagan temples “and join their libations and sacrifices”, Torrey Seland (1990, 107) states: “The most obvious interpretation of his exposition would view it as referring the expression to the common way of worshipping the different gods in their temples. But it might also include joining the various clubs and associations in the cities, since many of these arranged gatherings in localities connected with temples. Sacrifices and libations were also practiced in most such gatherings” (cf. p. 224). See also Stambaugh 1978, 588–91 and Borgen 1984, 112, 1995, 45 f. 52 Goodenough 1953–1968, vol. IV, 11. 53 Goodenough 1953–1968, vol. IV, 12. 54 For commentary see Goodenough 1953–1968, vol. VIII, 123–126. 55 Joseph Gutmann (1961, 171) states that Josephus, despite his valiant attempts at consistency, “was compelled on occasion to allow certain facts concerning art to stand without censure or the claim of violating of the Second Commandment”. 56 For a comparison of different attitudes among Jews in Egypt towards society and those who had the political power see Paul 1984, 82–84. For Philo see Barraclough 1984, 449– 475.

3. Philo’s Experience of Idolatry as a Concrete Reality

43

was the case both for those who were citizens by birth and for those who were granted Alexandrian citizenship by the Emperor. 57 In Alexandria there existed several gymnasia, and the most famous was probably situated about one kilometre southwestward from the Jewish quarters (cf. Flacc. 55) in the eastern part of the city.58 In the Ptolemaic period the gymnasia were privately owned but under the control of the State administration. Under Roman rule the gymnasia became State institutions.59 Pagan religious rituals were a part of gymnasium activities,60 and the gymnasia were dedicated to such gods and semigods as Hermes and Heracles.61 At the gymnasia encyclical education was given together with physical training.62According to E. Mary Smallwood the ephebate involved “nudity for athletic exercise, which Judaism found distasteful”.63 Since Philo’s brother Alexander had the municipal office of an Alabarch in Alexandria, he must have had Greek citizenship and therefore also a gymnasium education. From this one may infer that Philo had also attended a pagan gymnasium and possessed Greek citizenship.64 According to William Tarn and G. T. Griffith full citizenship was impossible for a Jew, because participation “in government and legal administration” entailed “worship of the city gods, which to a Jew meant apsotasy”.65 It seems reasonable, how57 See Premerstein 1939, 50–54, Taubenschlag 1955, 590–592, 639 f., Tcherikover 1957– 1964, vol. I, 23 n. 58, 39– 41, 59 n. 24, 61 n. 27, vol. II, 46 f., Fraser 1972, 76 f. See also Tcherikover 1982, 515 n. 88, cf. Feldman 1960, 223. For a description of gymnasium education in Hellenistic times see Hadas 1959, 65–71. 58 See Delorme 1960, 137–139 and Kasher 1985, 250, 259. Cf. Fraser 1972, 29 and n. 208, 35, Marlowe 1971, 54 –58 and Barraclough 1984, 439. 59 See Taubenschlag 1955, 638 f. 60 Documentation from Cyrene: see SEG IX, 7 f., No 4, Aphroditopolis: see SEG VIII, 93 f., No 531, Elephantine: see Wilcken 1912, 61 Col. II. See also Delorme 1960, 337–352 and Feldman 1960, 225. 61 As documented e.g. in Cyrenaika. See Lüderitz 1983, 11, 15. Cf. Feldman 1960, 224 f., Schürer 1973–1987, vol. III.1, 61. See also Applebaum 1974 a, 447 n. 3, Mendelson 1982, 31. 62 Plutarch (Quaest. conviv. IX 1,1, see Sandbach 1961 ad loc.) maintains that at the school of Diogenes, a well known institution of training ephebes, the following subjects were taught: literature, geometry, rhetoric and music, i.e. the same subjects as Philo refers to as the encyclia in Cher. 105 and Congr. 14 –17, cf. Congr. 11. See further Marrou 1948, 244 –256 and Mendelson 1982, 4 –24. 63 See Smallwood (1976, 234) who refers to 2 Macc 4:9–17 and Jos. A. J. XV 267 f. For the nudity at athletic contests at gymnasia see Delorme 1960, 296. 64 This “inference” is made by Applebaum 1974 a, 437 and n. 1. Cf. Smallwood 1976, 234 –235. Borgen (1984, 111) formulates the following “hypothesis”: “It is probable that some Jews in Alexandria were content with the status quo under which they were permitted to live according to their own laws and customs as a separate politeuma of its own. Furthermore, it is certain that others coveted Greek citizenship for the sake of higher social and political prestige and of economic advantages”. For other cities in Roman Egypt and North Africa see Applebaum 1979, e.g. 140 ff. 177 ff. 65 Tarn / Griffith 1952, 221.

44

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

ever, that some Jewish believers in fact had Greek citizenship in Alexandria. Compromises with orthodoxy seem to have been inevitable.66 In Congr. 74 –76 Philo describes how he himself67 studied three of the encyclical subjects, namely grammar, geometry and music.68 Philo does not explicitly combine the terms ἐγκύκλια and γυμνάσιον. But Spec. 2.229 f. seems to describe precisely a gymnasium education with its combination of bodily training and the encyclia. Philo tells us how parents give their children education of body and soul. Instead of the substantive γυμνάσιον Philo uses the adjective γυμναστικός in the feminine: τὸ μὲν οὖν σῶμα διὰ τῆς γυμναστικῆς καὶ ἀλειπτικῆς ὠφέλησαν. Colson translates: “They have benefited the body by means of the gymnasium and the training there given”. Philo continues that the parents have done the same for the soul “by means of letters and arithmetics and geometry and music and philosophy as a whole …”. Although it is not strictly autobiographical,69 the whole passage gives the impression of having been written from personal experience.70 Philo is also able to describe athletic contests in detail, but he at the same time shows a strong reluctance towards them (Agr. 110–123). He contrasts them to the “only Olympic contest which can be rightly called sacred” i.e. the “contest for the winning of virtues” (Agr. 119).71 Nevertheless he seems to have attended contests which did not lack pagan religious associations. But at these, as Feldman states, even participation “as a spectator involved compromise with orthodoxy”.72 Kasher tries to solve the problem of how Jews in the diaspora could receive a gymnasium education without being subjected to its dangers by 66 Cf. Feldman 1960, 224 and the words of Applebaum (1974 a, 447): “It is nearly impossible to estimate how far gymnasium education in these circumstances was tantamount to apostasy. The life of the gymnasia was intimately bound up with pagan rites, and if Jewish participation was subject to certain religious exemptions (as it is, for instance, in an Oxford college), the problem arises, how Jews could have ‘infiltrated’ surreptitiously into these institutions”. Cf. also Smallwood 1976, 234. 67 In contradistinction to Wolfson (1948, vol. I, 81), Monique Alexandre (1967 a, 41) and Alan Mendelson (1982, 25 f.) see this passage as autobiographical. 68 Mendelson (1982, 4) finds eight significant enumerations of the encyclia in Philo. 69 Cf. Mendelson 1982, 26. 70 Although she translates the Greek in a less paraphrasing manner, S. Daniel (1975, 374 n. 4) comments upon the passage thus: “Témoignage important sur la place de la culture physique dans l’éducation des jeunes juifs alexandrins à cette époque. Le gymnase n’est plus un symbole d’assimilaton culturelle et même d’apostasie, comme il l’etait du temps des Maccabées.” Aryeh Kasher (1985, 206 n. 64) tries to diminish the value of this passage by stating: “Philo’s positive or neutral attitude towards gymnasium education (see De Spec.Leg., II 229 f., 246) perhaps reveals the situation in his youth (Philo was born ca. 20 B. C. E.) when Jews could still participate in gymnasium education, or maintain gymnasia of their own.” Should we infer from this that no pagan rituals were conducted in pagan gymnasia when Philo was young? 71 See Colson in Colson/Whitaker 1929– 62 vol. III, 491, cf. Pfitzner 1967, 39. 72 Feldman 1960, 225.

3. Philo’s Experience of Idolatry as a Concrete Reality

45

postulating Jewish gymnasia.73 This does not seem convincing because of the lack of indisputable data.74 After all, Philo thought that even Moses had been educated in the encyclia by Greek teachers (Mos. 1.23 75). The teaching at the gymnasia must have served as a channel for a great deal of non-Jewish ideas and practices.76 School books were of course filled with ideas hinting at the Greek religious heritage with its polytheistic beliefs. Homer was taught already at the primary level, but also in higher grades.77 An instance of the teaching of mythological subject matter is offered by Theon, a gymnasium teacher in Alexandria probably somewhat younger than Philo, but also from the first century, in his work Progymnasmata (Ch. 3.175).78 The passage is at the same time an example of how myths were criticized in class, an interesting phenomenon compared with Philo,79 who is able to treat the gods of Greek mythology both in a favourable (Legat. 81–113) and in a critical way (e.g. Congr. 15, Decal. 54 –57).80 Since the gymnasium education contained instruction both on encyclical and more advanced levels,81 much of intellectual life in Alexandria must have centred around the gymnasia. Philo’s acquaintance with the Greek 73  Kasher 1985, 98, 319, cf. 255. Also Wolfson (1948, vol. I, 81) suggested that there existed Jewish institutions on a high level corresponding to the pagan gymnasia. Nevertheless Kasher (1985, 204, 314 f., 320 f.) in his discussion with Tcherikover concerning the use of certain papyri in order to demonstrate the attendance of Jews at gymnasia, seems to reveal severe weaknesses in Tcherikover’s arguments and conclusions. These have been accepted by numerous scholars. See Tcherikover 1957–1964, vol. I, 38, vol. II, 29 ff., 36 ff., Feldman 1960, 223, Alexandre 1967 a, 46 f., Hengel 1973, 127, Schürer 1973–1987, vol. I, 398, vol. III.1, 128 f., Applebaum 1974 a, 437, 451 f., Mendelson 1974/75, 13, 1972, 29 f., 1988, 126, Smallwood 1976, 249, Borgen 1984, 112, Paul 1984, 376 and n. 31. 74 Kasher’s references (1985, 319 n. 45) to epigraphic material from North Africa (Cyrenaica) and Asia Minor (Hypaepea), do not suffice, I think, to support his thesis. Cf. Tcherikover 1957–1964, vol. I, 39 n. 99, Hengel 1973, 127 n. 87, Applebaum 1974 a, 446– 448 and Schürer 1973–1987, vol. III.1, 22, 60– 62, 94 f. 75 Kasher (1985) does not seem to refer to this passage. See Colson in Colson/Whitaker 1929– 62 vol. VI, 289 n. a, and Feldman 1960, 221. Cf. Tcherikover 1957–1964, vol. I, 75 f. and 39 n. 99, where the author states: “Philo speaks of the gymnasiastic contests, gymnasium education, etc. as of everyday interests. There is no suggestion that these Greek habits in any way affected his religious scruples as a faithful Jew.” (Cf. pp. 41, 76). References are given to Spec. 2.229 f., 246, Opif. 28 and Ios. 81. See also the discussion by Arnaldez 1961, 94 –96. Gerhard Delling (1987 b, 15) comments: “Vom Gymnasion spricht Philo in bildhafter Rede in positivem Sinn in mut.nom. 172; somn. 1, 169.” Cf. also Mendelson 1982, 64. 76 Cf. Seland 1990, 226. 77 See Marrou 1948, 227 f. 78 See Spengel 1854, 73 f. 79 Cf. Marrou 1948, 238–242. 80 Cf. Mendelson 1982, 6 f. 81 See Delorme 1960, 316–336. In Spec. 2.230 Philo himself adds philosophy to the encyclia as a part of the gymnasium curriculum. For the grades in the Greek school system in the Hellenistic age see Marrou 1948, 200–296.

46

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

cultural and religious inheritance becomes understandable if we postulate that he had close ties to people in and around the gymnasia.82 Finally family relationships with pagans could form a religious danger to Jews in Alexandria. Philo also cites the warning in Exod 34:16 and Deut 7:3 not to enter into partnership of marriage with a member of a foreign nation (Spec. 3.29).83 It may lead to a surrender to conquering forces of opposing customs.84 And even if it could be possible for oneself to remain faithful to the Law, the danger is so much greater for sons and daughters. It may well be, says Philo, “that they, enticed by spurious customs which they prefer to the genuine, are likely to unlearn the honour due to the one God, and that is the first and the last stage of supreme misery” (cf. Mos. 1.31).85 It is of course difficult to know if the situation was similar to that of Alexandria in other areas of the Jewish diaspora,86 e.g. in Asia Minor,87 because of 82  Cf. Borgen (1984, 112) who says: “… Philo belonged to the strong movement among the Alexandrian Jews who entered – and infiltrated – the Greek social and cultural center in and around the gymnasium. It only should be added that Philo stressed that the Jews should follow their Jewish principles and pursue Jewish aims in their social life, as examples from Ebr. 20 ff., 95; Agr. 110–121, Jos. 42 ff., 56–7, 202– 6 demonstrate.” 83  Colson in Colson/Whitaker 1929– 62, vol. VII, 492 n. a, comments: “Though the prohibition in both Exodus and Deuteronomy is against intermarriage with the conquered Canaanites, the motive assigned, viz. fear of contamination with heathenism, is naturally regarded as making it a general ordinance. Josephus also appeals to it in condemnation of Solomon, A. J. VIII. 191.” Salo Baron (1958, vol. 2, 233) thinks that in Alexandria marriage outside the Jewish fold “apparently was quite common”. Cf. Delling 1987 b, 9. 84 The tractate Joseph and Aseneth also takes a stand against mixed marriage (7:5). For commentary see Nickelsburg 1984, 69–71. Wilhelm Schubart (1918, 330) cites a papyrus (Berl.P. 11641) documenting a probable case of intermarriage from the second century B. C. E. Jacques Schwartz (1984, 68) refers to Papyrus Strasb. 301, which gives documentation of a mixed marriage from the beginning of the second century C. E. See also Schwartz 1963–, 7 f. For Palestinian material see Seland 1990, 221. 85 Cf. Wolfson 1948, vol. I, 73–76. Mendelson (1988, 73 f.) discusses the cases of foreign women married to Biblical figures. He concludes: “In each of these cases, Philo either minimizes the foreign element in the marriage or ennobles the pagan partner.” He continues: “It is, of course, impossible to know how often Alexandrian Jews were united by marriage with those born outside the faith. But Philo’s laxness on the subject may be a sign that such unions were not unknown and that the better part of wisdom was to hope for the conversion of the non-Jewish partner.” 86 For the influence of Alexandrian Judaism on other Jewish groups in the diaspora see Marcel Simon (1967, 17 ff.) who concludes: “(Compte tenu de tous les indices) … on sera tenté en definitive de tenir pour assez modeste le rayonnement d’Alexandrie dans la Diaspora …” (31). 87 See e.g. Applebaum (1974 a, 443) who in the relationship between Jews and other inhabitants of Asia Minor finds a process of “mutual rapprochement and interpenetration in an atmosphere of complete tolerance” although he also reckons with at least one Jew who had “achieved high office” in a city in the course of a “process of assimilation which in some cases, apparently, involved apostasy”. Francois Blanchetière in a couple of articles also discusses the Jews of A. M.: 1974, 367–382 and 1984, 41–59. He describes these Jews as strongly assimilated and well integrated in the non-Jewish society (1984, 53 f.). But this did

4. Exegetical Actualization

47

the scarcity of literary sources.88 The archæological evidence of Jewish life in A. M. and other areas of the pagan world as well is now becoming abundant, however, and seems to change the traditional picture of diaspora-Judaism.89 We do not know how Philo himself acted and reacted when he happened to be a witness to a pagan ritual performance e.g. when he passed an altar outside a temple or when he attended a play at a theatre. In the following we shall see that in his teaching on the Bible Philo took a stand against idolatry such as he could observe it in the world in which he lived.

4. Exegetical Actualization 4.1. Idolatry Proper: the Episode with the Golden Calf A notorious example of idolatry in the Old Testament is the worshipping of the golden calf (Exod 32). Philo describes this episode, adding several details to the Biblical story and commenting upon it in a lengthy passage in Mos. 2.160–173. Also in Mos. 2.270–274, Spec. 1.79 and Spec. 3.124 –127 he presents shorter accounts of Exod 32 along similar lines. In Post. 158–165, Ebr. 97–105 and Fug. 90–91 he gives allegorical interpretations of different aspects of the episode. Let us look for features which show how Philo presents the story as meaningful to his readers and begin with his nonallegorical treatment of the matter. Without having any support for it in the Biblical text Philo presents the golden calf as a manifestation of Egyptian religion. In the bull Philo sees an imitation (μίμημα) of the animal held most sacred in Egypt (Mos. 2.162, cf. Spec. 3.125), i.e. of course the Apis bull.90 This makes the story actual to his Alexandrian readers, i.e. Philo is engaged in writing a midrash.91 In Philo’s time much of Egyptian devotion of animals, including the worship of the Apis-bull, still existed.92 Philo maintains that the people sinned when they followed the ill-judged judgement of their leaders (Spec. 1.79). They forgot the reverence they owed to the Self-Existent (τὸ ὄν) and became devotees of Egyptian fables (πλάσματα) instead (Mos. 2.161). This description of the not necessarily also imply religious assimilation, although one may have certain suspicions concerning the orthodoxy among some of them (1984, 56). 88 Concerning Asia Minor see Blanchetière 1984, 52 f. 89 See e.g. Kraabel 1981, esp. 85 f., and 1983, 178–190. 90 Cf. Colson in Colson/Whitaker 1929– 62 vol. VI, 528, Mendelson 1988, 118. 91 Cf. the description of the genre of midrash by Peter Weimar (1973, 136): “Sein wichtigstes Kennzeichen ist, daß er, von der Schrift ausgehend, diese durch genaues, eindringliches achten auf den Text auf jede nur mögliche Weise kommentiert und neu interpretiert, um sie so für die Gegenwart zu aktualisieren.” 92 See Bell 1953, 66 f.

48

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

O. T. episode of the golden calf as a lapse into Egyptian idolatry implies an actual warning to contemporary Alexandrian Jews not to participate in the religious life of the surrounding pagan world, although Philo does not say this explicitly. Further Philo sees the worship of the golden calf as an expression of deifying created things. When Moses summons those who are “on the Lord’s side” (Exod 32:26), the meaning of these words is explained by Philo in the following manner: “Whoso holds that none of the works of men’s hands, nor any created things (ὅσα γένητα), are gods, but there is one God only, the Ruler of the universe, let him join me” (Mos. 2.168). The apostates are characterized as people who have “left the true God, and wrought gods, falsely so called, from corruptible and created matter (γενηταῖς οὐσίαις), and given them a title which belongs to the Incorruptible and Uncreated (ἀγένητος)” (171). Thus Philo in the worship of the golden calf sees a similar religious attitude as is typical of the representatives of the Chaldaean creed. Among these Nahor is one who “honours the created (τὸ γενόμενον) before the Creator” (Congr. 49), an attitude not approved of by Philo (cf. Abr. 69). Often scholars presume that Philo by attacking the Chaldaeans in reality wants to hit the Stoics.93 With Philo’s attacks on the worshippers of the golden calf and the Chaldeans we may compare his words in Decal. 52–54, where he denounces those who have deified the four elements, the celestial bodies, heaven itself and the whole world. This error, he maintains, is made by people who thereby have hidden from sight the most august Begetter and Ruler of the world. They give the entities of nature misleading titles when they call them by the names of the Greek deities. The earth is called Kore or Demeter or Pluto, the sea Poseidon, the air Hera and the fire Hephaestus. There are also those, he says further, who call the sun Apollo, the moon Artemis, the morning star Aphrodite and the “glitterer” Hermes. The understanding of the gods as names of the elements comes close to the Stoic one as this is documented e.g. in texts bearing witness to the thought of Zeno, Chrysippus and Posidonius, who view the cosmos with its entities as divine.94 But the Stoics were the heirs of a tradition documented in antiquity before their time (Aristotle, Metaphysics 1074 b).95 And if in an93 Bréhier 1925, 165, Wolfson 1948, vol. I, 176 f., vol. II, 78, Goodenough 1935, 138, Mendelson 1982, 24. Wilfred L. Knox (1948, 211 n. 1) expresses criticism towards this view in his review of Wolfson 1948. 94 For Zeno see Arnim 1964, vol. I, 43, No 167 (Cicero, De nat. deor. I 36), No 169 (Minucius Felix Octav. 19,10); for Chrysippus see Arnim 1964, vol. II, 315 f., No 1076 (Philodemus, De pietate c. 11), No 1077 (Cicero, De nat. deor. I 39– 41); for Posidonius see Arnim 1964, vol. II, 305, No 1021 (Diogenes Laertius VII 147). Cf. Arnim 1964, vol. II 305 f., Nos 1022 and 1026, Bréhier 1925, 162, Pohlenz 1978, vol. I 97, 198 f., 234, Pease 1979, 271–273. 95 See Jaeger 1957, 257 f. Cf. Bréhier 1925, 162, and Nikiprowetzky 1965, 139.

4. Exegetical Actualization

49

tiquity it was typically Stoic to deify the cosmos as a whole,96 the deification of the sun, moon and the planets was by no means confined to Stoicism.97 It is also pointed out by James H. Charlesworth that astrology had penetrated Alexandrian Judaism at the end of the first century B. C. E.98 In Decal. 64 Philo utters an exhortation not to worship beings in the universe, perhaps stars, which are of a substance more pure and immortal than the human one, but which nevertheless are created (γενόμενα) beings and therefore our brothers.99 When Philo attacks the Chaldaeans and the worshippers of the golden calf as people who deify the created cosmos or a part thereof, he seems to have religious tendencies in mind, which exist in the cultural and religious world of his time, but which cannot be confined to only one stream of thought. Here it is of importance to notice that Philo makes such an interpretation of the worship of the golden calf which also is an actualization. Thus it forms a warning example for Jews in Philo’s world. In addition to giving such interpretations of the golden calf which transcend the Biblical text, Philo also focusses upon the Levites in a similar way. Philo maintains that the mass of the people followed the council of certain senseless people, implying that the Levites themselves had not participated in the idolatry (Spec. 1.79). Instead all of them100 were active in the slaughtering of the leaders of this delusion and beginning with “their nearest and dearest” (Spec. 3.126). The Hebrew text does not explicitly state that the Levites did not participate in the apostasy.101 In this act of the Levites Philo sees a “deed well pleasing to God” (Mos. 2.160 ff.). Philo maintains that it was “the most illustrious act of heroism that has ever been achieved” (Spec. 3.124). Although Philo does not directly state that the Levites through their deed serve as models for later generations, his way of commending their action no doubt was meant by him to have such an effect. We have already noted that Philo in a very determined way approves of the Biblical demand   96 See Arnim 1964, vol. I, 120, No 530, vol. II , 168 f., Nos 527 and 528, 315, Nos 1076 and 1077.   97 Nilsson 1955 b, 471, 476, 486.   98 Charlesworth 1987, 937.   99 Cf. Colson in Colson/Whitaker 1929– 62, vol. VII, 38 f. For the idea that stars are according to Philo divine beings see Gig. 8, cf. Opif. 27, 73, Spec. 1.19. For discussion of the question see Knox 1937, 96 f., Wolfson 1948, vol. I, 38, 364 f., Goodenough 1962, 82 f., Mendelson 1982, 18 f., and Méasson 1986, 272–275. 100 The MSS have ἅπαντας. The correction ἅπαντες seems reasonable. See S. Daniel 1975, 58, n. 4. 101 According to S. Daniel (1975, 58, n. 2) this interpretation of Exod 32:27 ff. is a traditional Jewish one (Rashi). It can be seen in the LXX, where the imperative in the Hebrew text, “you shall consecrate yourself today” is interpreted in the Greek text as “you have today consecrated yourself”. In Philo we find a citation of Exod 32:29 in Ebr. 67.

50

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

to kill those who seduce their fellow Jews to idolatry, even if they were close relatives (Deut 13:6–9, Spec. 1.316).102 The episode with the golden calf is also given an allegorical interpretation by Philo. This means an actualization too, although it is of a different kind, from the interpretations presented above. We have noted that in interpreting the meaning of the grinding of the golden calf (Exod 32:20) Philo understands the latter as the body (Post. 158–164). The lover of virtue “burns up the pleasures of the body and then chops and grinds them up” (159, cf. 162, 164). In Ebr. 95 a similar interpretation of the golden calf also occurs. In this passage Philo comments on the disobedient son (cf. Ebr. 77–79) and states about him that he has made a “god of the body, a god of the vanity most honoured among the Egyptians, whose symbol is the golden bull”. In the subsequent interpretation of Exod 32:17–19, however, Philo understands the camp as the body (Ebr. 99). The shouts accompanying the dance around the golden calf are understood as the “unreasoning impulses” in the soul which “summon the passions and rouse them to action” (Ebr. 98). But the perfect sage stays out of this like Moses who pitched his tent “outside the camp” (Exod 33:7, Ebr. 100–103). In a third allegorical passage, Fug. 90–91, where Philo interprets Exod 32, it is the brother mentioned in Exod 32:27 who is understood as the body. In the Biblical story each Levite was ordered to slay his brother and nearest. According to Philo this means that the rational element of us should kill the irrational, which “rouses the violence of the passions”. In Post. 164 such an act is seen as commended by Moses. 4.2. Idolatry in a Transferred Sense: the Character of Joseph In Philo’s works Joseph is presented both in a basically positive and in a more negative way. The first kind of presentation is to be found in De Iosepho and the second in the Allegorical Commentary.103 In the former case Joseph is portrayed as an ideal statesman,104 who, though he is on certain occasions threatened by the dangers of political life, overcomes the temptations (Ios. 9, 40–53)105. In contradistinction to a common politician (Ios. 32–36) Joseph is subdued neither by “presents, nor appeals, nor craving for honours, nor desire for office, nor spirit of presentiousness, nor longing for reputation, nor incontinence, nor unmanliness, nor injustice, nor any other 102 For

this attitude of Philo’s see Seland 1990, 23–190. scholarly attempts to overcome this inconsistency are presented by Jouette M. Bassler 1985, 240–242. The solution of Bassler starts from the observation that the contrast between the tractates Ios. and Somn. 2 has been “stated far too rigorously” (243). They do not have have two different evaluations of Joseph, but display two different perspectives of him (254). Cf. Hilgert 1985, 7–13. 104 See e.g. Barraclough 1984, 491–506 and Bassler 1985, 245. 105 Cf. Barraclough 1984, 494. 103 Different

4. Exegetical Actualization

51

creation of passion and vice” (Ios. 70) and is thus a true statesman (πολιτικὸς ὄντως Ios. 67).106 In the Allegorical Commentary, however, Joseph is pictured as a figure who tries to stick both to bodily and to divine things. Here we shall point to certain traits in this latter picture.107 Philo sees Joseph as a mind “which loves the body and the passions” (φιλοσώατος καὶ φιλοπαθὴς νοῦς Deus 111, cf. Migr. 16). He is one, says Philo, “who does not indeed take no account of the excellences of the soul, but is thoughtful for the well-being of the body also, and has a keen desire to be well off in outward things” (Somn. 2.11, cf. Mut. 90). For such a person “the appetite flows strongly to wealth and reputation (δόξα) and completely masters the interests of body and soul” (Somn. 2.12).108 We observe that Joseph is here very much like Lot.109 Because of his inclination towards wealth and glory he is an idolater in a transferred sense. In Migr. 158 ff. the description of Joseph follows closely upon the passage in which Philo speaks about the negative effect of Lot upon Abraham when they moved away from Chaldaea (Migr. 148–150). In the intermediate paragraphs Philo knits the two figures together110 by describing the wandering away from Egypt and the “mixed multitude” (ἐπίμικτος πολύς Migr. 152, Exod 12:38), which like Lot had a retarding effect upon the soul on its journey towards perfection.111 Egypt is for Philo a symbol of the body and the passions and the “mixed multitude” symbolizes that part of the soul which intends to hinder the swift abandoning of those things (Migr. 151). Instead of swiftly reaching their goal, the people have to wander around in the desert for forty years because of the “mixed multitude”, the main interest of which is lust (Migr. 154 f.). Now Joseph symbolizes the type of man who forms “ties of fellowship” with the “mixed multitude”. Men like Joseph hold “that their own place in human life should be midway, set as a borderland between virtues human and Divine, and thus they aim at being in touch with both the real and reputed virtues” (τῶν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ τῶν δοκήσει ἀρετῶν Migr. 158). The Biblical passage telling how Joseph buried his father mentions both the court of 106 This kind of distinction is made by Bassler 1985, 246 f. and Thomas H. Tobin 1986, 274 f. 107 Cf. Mendelson 1988, 22 f. 108 Cf. Kraus Reggiani 1986, 338 n. 51. 109 If in Migr. 148–150 the inclinations towards good or bad were represented by two persons, Abraham and Lot, later on in Migr. both these tendencies are found in Joseph. Cf. Cazeaux (1965, 59), who says: “Avec Joseph l’ambiguïté cesse d’être posée entre deux personnages distincts pour s’installer au coeur du même personnage.” 110 Cf. Cazeaux 1965, 194 n. 5. 111 Cf. Cazeaux (1965, 58) who says: “… une sorte d’attraction permanente réunit encore Lot, le souvenir de l’Exode et Joseph, dans le même ordre.” Cf. also Méasson (1986, 218) who says about Joseph: “… il a pactisé avec ceux que représente Lot.”

52

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

Pharaoh and the household of Jacob among those who were present at the burial (Gen 50:7). Philo in this account sees an example of how Joseph “the politician” takes his position “in the midst between the house of Pharaoh and his father’s house” (Migr. 160). The object of Joseph is to be “equally in touch with the concerns of the body, which is Egypt, and those of the soul which are kept as in a treasury in his father’s house”. This combination of the role of Joseph as a politician and his concern for bodily things also appear in other texts. The coat of many colours (Gen 37:3) which was made for him shows that his thinking is difficult to disentangle (Det. 6). He brings together three kinds of things that should be held apart, i.e. those pertaining to the outside world, to the body and to the soul (Det. 7–9). Thus he moulds his theories “with an eye to statecraft (πολιτείαν) rather than to truth” (Det. 7). In contradistinction to Joseph, his brothers represent resistance to the body and bodily pleasure (Det. 9). In Somn. 2.43–51 his elevated position signified by chariot, ring and necklace is strongly disapproved of by Philo (43– 46). In mounting the chariot Joseph was overcome by conceit (46). He busied himself “in providing food for the body” (46).112 In Somn. 2.48–51 the latter kind of greediness is described by Philo, who goes on with “flamboyant clothing, lavish buildings and beds”113 in the subsequent paragraphs. But Philo describes Joseph as a person who is drawn in different directions (Somn. 2.11–13).114 At times Joseph is even successful in averting bodily passions, for instance when he resists the enticement of Potiphar’s wife. In that situation Joseph is able to see that the kind of life which strives for pleasure leads to doubtful imaginations. It is a life “full of vanity” (τύφου μεστός Migr. 19, cf. Ios. 41– 49). In Joseph’s life there occurs a change for the better (Somn. 2.105 ff.).115 Actually the more valuable part of Joseph, symbolized by his bones, is preserved from destruction by Moses (Migr. 17, Somn. 2.109; Gen 50:25, Exod 13:19).116 Concerning these incorruptible portions Joseph “made an agreement that they should accompany those who went up to the cities of virtue, and should be conveyed thither, and had 112 Barraclough

1984, 501. 1984, 492. 114 Cf. the statement of Clara Kraus Reggiani 1986, 532 n. 5, concerning Joseph: “… egli ha cura dell’anima, ma non sa sottrarsi alle attrattive del benessere fisico e materiale (che comportano la vana opinione e la vanagloria), per cui sarà sempre soggetto a una conflittualità la cui risoluzione non può dipendere da lui.” 115 Cazeaux (1965, 105 n. 3) states: “Aprèz une longue diatribe, Somn. II, 105s. parle de la conversion de Joseph.” See also Kraus Reggiani (1986, 557 n. 51) who says:” … anche un uomo della tipologia negativa di Giuseppe può convertirsi dal male al bene, ritornando come lui alla rigida moralità e alla fede dei padri.” (Cf. 246 n. 89, 381 n. 147). Cf. also Bassler 1985, 253 f., and further Det. 5 f., Mut. 215 and Fug. 126–128 and the commentaries by Starobinski-Safran 1970, 196 f. 116 Cf. Colson /Whitaker 1929– 62, vol. IV, 140 n. c. 113 Barraclough

4. Exegetical Actualization

53

the agreement secured by an oath” (Migr. 18, Gen 50:25; cf. Migr. 16, 23, 122). But the body-loving parts were laid in a grave in Egypt (Gen 50:26) and “consigned to oblivion” (Migr. 16,18). Thus the fate of Joseph is in the end very similar to that of Abraham, who “passed from vanity to truth” (πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἐκ τοῦ τύφου μεταθέμενος Praem. 58).117 The description of Joseph as a politician who is subject to bodily pleasures and conceit seems to be an actualization of dangers confronting people belonging to a stratum of people such as Philo himself or his nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander,118 i.e. upper class Jews in Alexandria with ambitions to make a political career in Roman society.119 This view receives support from a text in which Philo contrasts the robe of the High Priest with the coat of Joseph (Somn. 1.219–225). The latter is stained with blood, thus representing the hard life of a politician. At the end (224 f.) Philo first asks a question in the first person singular and then utters an admonition: “Why then do we invest ourselves with the gauds of political importance, as with some costly garment, and bear ourselves proudly in it, deceived by the fairness of what meets the eye, and not perceiving its insidious and dangerous ugliness …? Come, let us cast off this showy tunic, and put on the sacred one inwoven with the varied embroideries of virtues.”

Philo identifies himself and his readers with Joseph, the politician, and suggests that the kind of life it implies should be abandoned. If our view is correct, Philo also sees some hope for a man engaged in politics, since the best parts of Joseph were saved. 4.3. Encyclical Dangers: the Cases of Jethro and Rachel In this article we have on several occasions encountered Philo’s tractate On Drunkenness (De ebrietate), especially passages from the long allegory concerning obedience towards one’s father and mother (Ebr. 33–110). Let us now look at this protracted Philonic discourse in its totality. In Ebr. 14 ff. Philo explains Deut 21:18–21, the Biblical passage about the disobedient and contentious son who listens to neither his father nor his mother. From Ebr. 33 onwards Philo develops a detailed exposition in 117 Cf. the words of Cazeaux (1965, 61) regarding Joseph: “… on peut se demander s’il n’a pas quelque droit à représenter Abraham …”; and further: “Abraham n’est-il pas comme Joseph placé entre le sacré et le profane (cf. Fug. 213)? Mais l’un est en marche, l’autre joue la carte dangereuse de l’équilibre stable.” Cazeaux 1965, 64, cf. 28, 61 f., 105 notes 1–3. Cf. also Migr. 207 and the comments by Cazeaux 1965, 61, 229 notes 5 and 6. 118 Mendelson (1988, 23) notes that Philo saw the stories of Joseph and Moses in “contemporary terms” and that in each case the “temptation to assimilate” was great. 119 Of course he may also have had pagan officials in mind, such as Flaccus. Cf. Barraclough 1984, 501 f.

54

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

which he understands “father” as right reason (ὀρθὸς λόγος), while “mother” primarily means encyclical education (ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία).120 These parents have four classes of children: those who obey only their mother, those who obey only their father, those who obey neither their father nor their mother, and finally those who obey both their father and their mother. Apparently Philo here actualizes Biblical ideas in a social context where encyclical education is an important issue, a context which is well known to him and many of his co-believers. If we ask what “right reason” means in De ebrietate, we shall find an answer in Ebr. 80–84. Philo speaks of the laws (νόμοι) which the “father”, right reason, has laid down (80). These are the same as the “ordinances of the Uncreated” (οἱ τοῦ ἀγενήτου θεσμοί 84). Further, right reason has taught his children “to honour the Father of the all” (81). No doubt Philo means by these laws and the ordinances the Mosaic law.121 Thus obedience to right reason means obedience to the Law of Moses, which is also the Law of nature (cf. Ebr. 34, 37, 68). Apparently “right reason” is identical with the divine Word, a central idea in the thought of Philo. Philo in Ebr. basically sees the father as “right reason”, which has taught his children to “honour the Father of the all”. In the same tractate he looks upon the mother not only as encyclical education, which in contradistinction to “philosophy” stands for such things as grammar, geometry and “the whole range of school culture” (ἡ συμπάση τῶν ἐγκυκλίων μουσική Ebr. 49, cf. 91 f.). She also bids us to observe the rules “laid down by human ordinance” (θέσει δίκαια), which exist in different cities, countries and nations (Ebr. 34, cf. 81). This broadening of the scope I find characteristic of Philo’s argument in Ebr.122 According to Philo encyclical education is an excellent thing if it is combined with the obedience to the ordinances laid down by right reason. In Ebr. 80–92 Philo highly commends those who are “valiant guardians of the laws which their father, right reason, has laid down, and faithful stewards of the customs which their mother, instruction (παιδεία), has introduced” (80). To such a one Philo would say: “How could you fail to win affection, if in your desire for human fellowship you observe the customs that hold among created men, and in your zeal and passion for piety observe also the ordinances of the Uncreated?” (Ebr. 84). In comparison with the son who obeys both his father and his mother, those who obey just one of them are only “halfhearted followers in virtue” according to Philo (Ebr. 80). Nonetheless Philo somewhat inconsistently 120 For

this theme see Alexandre 1967 b, 105–129. Mendelson 1982, 27. 122 The continuity between encyclical education and custom is not explicitly pointed out by Mendelson 1988, 27. 121 Cf.

4. Exegetical Actualization

55

approves of the son who only obeys his father (Ebr. 65–76). In contradistinction to such a son the one who only obeys his mother is heavily criticized (Ebr. 36– 64). If we look closely at the texts, the reason for such criticism does not exclusively lie in the person only obeying his mother but also in the mother. In Ebr. 34 Philo creates a polarity between right reason (ὀρθὸς λόγος) and instruction (παιδεία). The former, who is the father, bids us follow “in the steps of nature (φύσις) and pursue truth (ἀλήθεια) in her naked and undisguised form”. But the rules which the mother bids us obey are laid down by human ordinance by those “who first embraced the apparent (δόκησις) in preference for the true”. Encyclical education mediates “ordinances which custom and opinion approve” (τὰ νομιζόμενα καὶ δοκοῦντα δίκαια) and its legislation differs from people to people (Ebr. 64, cf. 68, 81). Further Philo in the tractate interprets the daughters of Laban as symbols of philosophy (Leah) and encyclical education (Rachel, Ebr. 48–51).123 The latter is younger, whereas the former is “more perfect” (48). When Rachel, according to Gen 31:35, says to her father Laban that the “custom of women” is upon her, Philo in these words sees a Biblical argument for the inferiority of custom (τὰ ἔθη). It is the “special property of women” and is followed by these more than by men, who follow nature (Ebr. 54 f., cf. 34). Thus we can observe that there are certain defects attached to the teaching given by the mother.124 Or in other words: Philo’s attitude towards encyclical education is ambiguous in De ebrietate. The defective aspect of encyclical education finds an ally in man, i.e. in his lower powers, symbolized by Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses. Philo compares Jethro, who typifies the kind of son who “loves his mother” and “bows down to the opinions of the multitude (ταῖς τῶν πολλῶν δόξαις)”, to a promiscuous horde “who swing to and fro as their idle opinions (κέναι δόξαι) carry them” (Ebr. 36). Jethro’s concern has been with little else than things human and corruptible. His eyes are fixed on semblance (τὸ δοκεῖν). The laws that he lays down contradict the laws of nature (φύσις), which relate to real existence (Ebr. 37). Moses, however, wants to persuade Jethro to depart from his empty opinions (κέναι δόξαι). Thereby the latter would lose mere seeming (δόκησις) and gain truth (ἀλήθεια) instead. But the attempt of Moses remains unsuccessful. Instead Jethro hastens to “return (ἀναχωρήσει) to his empty vanity (κενὸν τῦφον)” (Ebr. 38– 40). Jethro goes to his “land and generation” (Num 10:30), which for Philo signifies his “unfaith of false opinion” (ψευδοδοξοῦσαν ἀπιστίαν Ebr. 40). 123 This is a clear parallel to the Sarah-Hagar allegory. Cf. Colson in Colson/ Whitaker 1929–1964, vol. X, 364, 414. See also e.g. Sandmel 1971, 153–159, and Borgen 1984, 116 f. 124 This aspect could have been stressed somewhat stronger by Mendelson 1988, 27 f.

56

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

Philo’s description of encyclical education and Jethro’s ideas overlap at important points. Both represent semblance and opinion in contradistinction to truth and nature. It is therefore reasonable to postulate that Philo criticizes encyclical education when he describes Jethro’s way of thinking in such a derogatory way. Now Jethro is also described as a polytheist by Philo. When Jethro says to Moses “now I know that the Lord is great beyond all the gods” (Exod 18:11), this is not at all approved by Philo as a token of faith. On the contrary, Philo sees in these words not true faith but impiety. What Jethro knows “now” he should have known from the very beginning, because God is the ruler from the beginning (Ebr. 41 f.). But since it is not so, Jethro does not have true knowledge. In addition Jethro only pretends to have knowledge because he compares two incomparables. If he had true knowledge of God, he would not have supposed the others to have been gods with power of their own. God is like the sun whose rays hide the light of the stars. When the knowledge of God shines, it wraps everything in light. It is the ignorance of Jethro which has produced the opinion (δόξα) of Jethro of the existence of many gods. In truth the gods have no existence (Ebr. 43– 45).125 So Jethro has been a polytheist all the time. Is there any connection between Jethro as a polytheist and his love for his mother, i.e. encyclical education? First Jethro’s idea that there exist many gods is an “opinion” (δόξα) of his. This forms a clear verbal link to encyclical education. Secondly the terms “empty opinions” (κέναι δόξαι) and “empty vanity” (κενὸς τῦφος) seem to cover the same thing in Ebr. 38–39. The term “vanity” is, as we have seen, a word often connected with idolatry in a Philonic context. Thirdly the statements concerning Jethro’s return to his empty vanity, his going to the unfaith of false opinion and his idolatry (Ebr. 40– 41), belong together as chains in one single argument through the word γάρ. The statement concerning his vanity is based on that of his unfaith, which in turn is motivated by his idolatrous opinion. This means that Jethro’s polytheism is a manifestation of his habit of being swung to and fro as his empty opinions carry him, i.e. as a lover of encyclical education (Ebr. 36). Although Philo does not explicitly say that encyclical education mediates idolatry, his way of describing Jethro seems to form an attack on that aspect of the encyclia which contains polytheistic ideas. Thus the figure of Jethro is a warning example to those who attend pagan educational institutions. Not only is there, however, a risk that encyclical education will disseminate depraved polytheistic ideas, which will find good soil in young people’s 125 This connection between the “vanity” of Jethro and his wrong views concerning divine beings is not notified explicitly by Courcelle 1975, 253 f.

4. Exegetical Actualization

57

minds (Post. 165). It may also mediate a life-style which Philo disapproves of and sees as a form of idolatry. Even in this case the external enemy finds an accomplice within man himself. As already noted, Rachel to Philo means encyclical education in contradistinction to Leah, who stands for philosophy. In the Biblical story Laban has Jacob wed the elder sister before the younger (Gen 29:23). This means, according to Philo, that Laban, who admires the body, wants us to start with philosophy and only afterwards continue with encyclical education (Ebr. 48). He wants us to wed the elder first, so that afterwards, “snared by the love-charms of the younger sister, we may abandon our desire for the elder” (Ebr. 50). In the same story Laban asks Jacob to finish out (συντελεῖν) Leah’s bridal week (Gen 29:27). In Philo’s view Jacob did not follow Laban’s advice. Instead he promised to “fulfil” (ἀναπληροῦν) Leah (Gen 29:28). His intention was to cleave to her. Philo ignores the Biblical statement that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Ebr. 53, Gen 29:30). Interpreted allegorically, the story according to Philo means that man is asked to limit the time of relationship with the true good of the soul, so that he may “keep company with the younger order of goods in which are classed bodily beauty and glory and riches and the like” (Ebr. 52). Thus encyclical education is according to Philo closely connected with worldly things and aspirations, things which may lead to idolatry in a transferred sense. We may compare this with Philo’s statements in Leg. 3.167, where he disapproves of pursuing the encyclia and philosophy “with no motive higher than luxurious living,126 or from desire of an office under our rulers”.127 Philo thinks it is dangerous for a man to start searching for education if he has been engaged in “philosophy” from the very cradle. Many have thus ended up in roadless land and have never found their way back to the most perfect of studies (Ebr. 51).128 Philo probably here describes the fate of many an Alexandrian Jew who has been brought up in Jewish traditions, but who has at a mature age become interested in the culture of the surrounding society.129 Encyclical education should be given first so that the enjoyment of that which is more perfect may follow (Ebr. 48). 126 Cf.

Mondésert 1962, 265. the comment to the passage by Borgen (1984, 116): “Here Philo is concerned with the motives which stimulated Jews to acquire the necessary education and try to make a political and social career in their pagan surroundings.” Cf. Mendelson 1982, 30. 128 Colson in Colson/Whitaker 1929– 62, vol. III, 502, comments: “That Philo regards such a return to the Encyclia as a retrograde step follows from his peculiar view of them. Taken at the proper time, i.e. in boyhood, they are almost indispensable as an introduction to philosophy. Taken later, they are mere vanity and thus at the end of 52 they are equated with ‘external goods’.” 129 Cf. Mendelson 1982, who on pp. 42– 44 discusses “encyclical dangers”. He does not here mention idolatry and a corresponding life-style (cf. p. 6, however). But he treats Spec. 127 Cf.

58

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

5. Conclusion According to Philo the true God is forgotten both through the belief in many gods and through the belief in the divinity of the Universe. For him the deifying of created things is also typical of those who make images of the gods or who love wealth and glory and thereby discard the commandment of God. Thus idolatry is a complex phenomenon. It is also closely connected with the passions and like these in Philo’s view stems from the lower womanish part of man’s soul. Philo views both polytheism and the worship of images as forcefully dangerous phenomena. Those who invent the myths have the intention to make the really existing God be consigned to oblivion and those who make the images only want to deceive the spectators. The ones who make idols out of wealth and glory are prone to similar dangers as the idolaters in the proper sense of the word. The punishment of the apostate idolaters should be death. Idolaters who escape the death penalty will be punished in the after life. Philo and his co-religionists in Alexandria met with idolatry in its different manifestations in several contexts. Well-to-do upper class Jews were in danger of becoming worshippers of wealth and glory. Those who attended the gymnasia e.g. in order to achieve Greek citizenship were easily influenced by pagan ideas through the encyclia. Persons having a public office had to be present at pagan rituals. This also befell those who attended sportive contests or theatrical occasions. Finally mixed marriages between Jews and pagans contained religious dangers. All this created fertile soil for compromises with a strict Jewish monotheism. As an interpreter of the Bible in his own time and environment Philo made actualizations of different Biblical passages which gave him the opportunity to take a warning stand against idolatry in its various forms. Thus he uses the episode of the golden calf in the desert as an example both of Egyptian religion, still in force in his days, and as a manifestation of deifying created things, a phenomenon which he could see within many streams of thought. Philo further uses the figure of Joseph as an admirer of wealth and glory, i.e. as an example of idolatry in a transferred sense. Finally Philo uses the Biblical stories of Jethro and Rachel to describe the dangers of idolatry inherent in encyclical education. Our study on Philo may shed some light on Paul. The latter struggles with the danger that members of the young Christian community of Corinth participate in pagan cultic activities (1 Cor 10). The Apostle warns them 1.335 f., which describes those who “put ultimate trust in the powers of the mind” instead of trusting in God, who is “the ultimate guarantor of the truth of encyclical thought” (p. 43). We may note that Philo later in the same tractate (344) in referring to the preceding passages talks of “deifying” (θεοπλαστεῖν) the mind.

5. Conclusion

59

against idolatry (vv. 7, 14). Like Alexandria, Corinth had a vivid religious life in the middle of the first century C. E. Paul maintains that it is impossible to attend both the Lord’s Supper and pagan cultic meals (v. 21). For Paul there is also a link between idolatry and passions as for Philo (v. 8, cf. Rom 1:23–26). And finally Paul uses and interprets Old Testament stories, especially from Exodus, in his attempts to keep the Corinthians away from pagan religion (vv. 1–10). Thus we have in Paul a manifestation of a basically Jewish attempt do avert believers from becoming subject to external religious influence.

Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues (2001) 1. Voices in Recent Discussion In one of his highly instructive articles David Hay notes that Philo does not conceive of man’s inner struggle “merely as one between rational mind and irrational desires”, but as a “struggle between conflicting thoughts or patterns of thought”. As an example of this Hay takes Philo’s allegorical interpretation of the figure of Phinehas, who killed the Israelite that had taken a Midianite woman as a wife (Num 25: 6–8). Phinehas employs, in Hay’s words, “divine reason to slaughter teachings that ascribe causation to creatures” (Ebr. 73, Conf. 57). David Hay further notes that such conflicts between ideas may have had a place in Philo’s own mind as well.1 In this article I will address an area in Philo’s world of religious ideas which might also be illustrative for the struggle in his mind between “conflicting patterns of thought”, i.e. his views on statues. To Philo the Midianite woman was an “instructor in wickedness” for the Israelite man who openly offered sacrifices to “images of wood and stone in the presence of the whole people”. This gave Phinehas the reason to kill the two offenders (Spec. 1.56). Philo’s description of the incident is highly informative of his views on statues. But there also exists another side of the matter. Jewish religion in Philo’s time was basically aniconic as a consequence of the Second Commandment (Exod 20:4, Deut 5:8).2 The Israelite was not supposed to make images of the godhead (Spec. 2.224, Legat. 290–292),3 and the Jerusalem temple contained no representation of him (Legat. 310, 317– 319). Even artistic depictions of humans or animals was uncommon among Jews in Philo’s time,4 although there are important exceptions from this rule notably as a result of the political and aesthetic interests of members of the

1 Hay

1987, 899 f. the West-Semitic background to aniconism in ancient Israel see Mettinger 1995, esp. 191–197. To the question of art and images in ancient Israel see Schroer 1987, esp. 423– 431; on figurative representations of YHWH see pp. 95–104, 161–163, 316. 3 Cf. Jos. C. Ap. II 190–192. 4 For the Holy Land see Hachlili 1988, 81 and 83. For the Diaspora see Hachlili 1998, 237, 462. Cf. Levine 2000, 70, 111–112, 120, 208–210. 2 For

1. Voices in Recent Discussion

61

Herodian family.5 Hellenistic non-Jewish religions on the other hand to a considerable degree employed cultic images of various sort. This of course was the case also in such a religious and cultural center as Alexandria. Philo occasionally comments upon the aesthetic aspect of Greek culture. In a very benevolent way he for instance describes Phidias and his art as an illustration and analogy to wisdom, the “art of arts” (Ebr. 88–89). Philo refers to what people say about the great Athenian sculptor, who would take various materials, brass, ivory and gold, to make his statues (ἀνδριάντας) and yet on all these so stamp “the impress of one and the same art” that anyone, adepts as well as uninitiated, “recognized the artist from his work”. Philo does not say if he has any special sculptures in mind. But there can be no doubt, I think, that the Alexandrian thought of statues like those of Zeus i Olympia or Pallas Athena in Athens.6 This way of using the artistic work of Phidias as a positive example stands in very sharp contrast to such utterances where Philo denounces not only pagan images as such (see for instance Post. 165, Decal. 7–8) but even their aesthetic appearance. The myth-makers who have invented the idols have used not only music but also sculpture (πλαστική) and painting to co-operate in their deception (ἀπάτη). Their aim has been to enthrall the spectators with “colours and shapes and artistic qualities wrought by their fine workmanship”. Through “lifeless shapes of beauty” (ἀψύχοις εὐμορφίαις) they have beguiled the sight (Spec. 1.29). Because of their deceptive character Moses has banished painting and sculpture (ἀνδριαντοποιΐα) from his commonwealth (πολιτεία Gig. 59). Philo’s attitudes towards non-Jewish religion has to a fairly limited extent caught the interest of scholars during the last decade or so. If one looks at the index of subjects in the Annotated Bibliography 1987–1996 by D. Runia and H. M. Keizer,7 the titles listed under the terms “idolatry”, “pagan cults” and “emperor worship” are only five and written by W. Barnes Tatum, Peder Borgen and myself.8 A couple of articles have to my knowledge been published after 1996 by Robert Goldenberg, Maren Niehoff and Lars 5 Jos. Vita LXV, B.J. V 179–181, A.J. XV 25–26, XVII 151, XIX 356–57. See Gutmann, 1961, 170–172. 6 It is not clear whether Philo in Ebr. 89 refers to a literary source or to common opinion. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that one of the dialogues ascribed to Plato, Greater Hippias, has a passage in which Phidias and his work is discussed in some detail. The statue of Pallas Athena is said to have eyes constructed of ivory and stone (Hp. ma. 290 A–D). I regard it probable that Philo knows of Phidias from various sources. According to David Winston (1981 a, 1) Philo’s “vast knowledge of classical Greek literature is dazzling”. 7 Runia / Keizer 2000, 376– 408. 8 Tatum 1986, 177–195, Sandelin 1989, 27–38, 1991, 109–150, Borgen 1995, 30–59, Borgen, 1996, 493–509.

62

Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues (2001)

Hartman.9 The kind of tension referred to above between Philonic passages related to religious life outside Judaism has been observed by some of the scholars mentioned. This can be seen when Philo refers to pagan clubs, to different types of myths, to cursing of the pagan gods and to images of the gods. I will present the articles not in the order of their publication but according to their themes and focussing upon the tension just hinted at. Peder Borgen in one of his articles documents different Jewish attitudes in the Hellenistic world towards pagan cults. He notes that Philo on the one hand is critical towards Jews who join pagan clubs because of the gluttony and the worship of idols practiced at the club meetings (Ebr. 14 –15, 20–29, 95).10 On the other hand Philo is also of the opinion that “Jews might join non-Jewish social clubs and be permitted to keep their own customs and standards of behavior” (Ebr. 20). But as in the case of a Jew’s attendance at performances in the theatre or at the hippodrome Philo does not specify “how a Jew should behave in order to avoid taking part in idolatrous worship”.11 In her illuminating article on Philo’s views on paganism Maren Niehoff discusses Philo’s way of treating mythical stories in the surrounding pagan culture as well as in the Bible. She maintains that Philo in fact follows Plato, who makes a distinction between non-mimetic mythical stories that do not imitate real being on the one hand and “logical myth”, which “represents an approximation to the truth” on the other. For Plato e.g. the Homeric stories about the gods were myths that should be excluded from the state (Rep. 605 b). But the Athenian philosopher himself also creates myths, e.g. in Timaeus that on creation, which he sees as a “true story” (ἀληθινὸν λόγον Tim. 26 e).12 Now Philo, who occasionally admits that there exists mythological language in the Biblical story of Genesis13 nevertheless sees “truth as intrinsically mediated through Holy Scripture”.14 The poetry which has God as its author stands at deepest possible variance with pagan mythological stories (Det. 125).15 These often bewitch through their attractive form such as metre and verse (Aet. 56).16 Niehoff by referring to the latter kind of remark by Philo draws attention to the aesthetic aspect that we   9 Goldenberg

1997, 381–389, Niehoff 1998, 135–158, Hartman 1998, 163–171. The Annotated Bibliography by D. Runia 2012 under the term “idolatry” mentions Phua 2005. In 2002 Terry Griffith published a monograph on idolatry which includes a passage on Philo (pp. 44 – 48). 10 Borgen 1995, 45. 11 Borgen 1995, 46. Cf. Sandelin 1991, 123–130. 12 Niehoff 1998, 138–143. 13 Niehoff 1998,146–149. 14 Niehoff 1998, 141. 15 Niehoff 1998, 139. 16 Niehoff 1998, 138.

1. Voices in Recent Discussion

63

have noted above in connection with Philo’s comment upon sculpture in Spec. 1.29. Actually Philo in this passage combines the seductive character of both sculpture and poetry. By the former the sight is beguiled through beauty and by the latter the hearing through “poetic euphony”. To Philo the myth-makers have put together fables in order to “deceive the hearers” (Decal. 55). To put it in modern terms, says Niehoff, “myth according to Philo lacks depth in the sense that there is no signifier in the text pointing to a real signified”. By contrast the Biblical word, the signifier, reflects reality and truth, the signified.17 In his interpretation of Genesis Philo according to Niehoff also at some points has “supplemented the biblical account of creation by information from Plato’s Timaeus”.18 From our point of view Niehoff from this draws a significant conclusion: “We are faced with a selfcontradiction in Philo: while generally branding myth as utter foolishness, he uses and acknowledges some of it.”19 A couple of the studies referred to above discuss some peculiarities in Philo’s treatment of the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. Robert Goldenberg finds that Philo offers four different explanations of the curious Law in the Septuagint, which (in contradistinction to the Hebrew text) lays a ban not on cursing God, but on reviling the pagan gods: “Do not speak ill of gods” (Exod 22:28 LXX). Philo accepts the ruling expressed in the Greek version.20 On the other hand Philo very often is very explicit in his negative attitude towards the deities of the world outside Judaism. Even in Mos 2.204 –205 where he explains the prohibition to curse gods Philo speaks of these as “gods of different cities who are falsely so called”. Goldenberg concludes: “One gets the impression that Philo cites the LXX ban on idolmocking as a great virtue of Judaism but then seeks every opportunity he can find to escape its constraints.”21 In his article on the Second Commandment W. Barnes Tatum concludes that the Septuagint version of that commandment “is not anti-iconic but polemically anti-idolic”.22 Whereas in the LXX the word εἴδωλον “becomes the paramount and overriding term to identify alien gods and their images”, this term is used fairly seldom by Philo, who for his part mostly employs words like ξόανον, ἄγαλμα and ἀφίδρυμα. He uses them within the “context of a biting polemic against idolatry”.23 A couple of Tatum’s comments on

17 Niehoff

1998,139. 1998, 142. 19 Niehoff 1998, 142. 20 van der Horst 1993, 1–8, esp. 3–4. 21 Goldenberg 1997, 385. van der Horst (1993, 3– 4, 8) does not notify this discrepancy. 22 Tatum 1986, 186. 23 Tatum 1986, 189. 18 Niehoff

64

Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues (2001)

Philo’s anti-iconic language has such relevance for the present essay that a couple of longer citations are motivated. Tatum writes: “In his polemic against idolatry, however, Philo does display a clear anti-iconic tendency by his repeated condemnation of painting and sculpture. He speaks of the ‘baneful craftsmanship of painting and sculpture’ and laments these ‘arts which have wrought great mischief in the life of mankind’ (Decal. 66, 156). He also asserts that Moses banished from his commonwealth both ‘painters and sculptors’ (Ebr. 109, Gig. 59). Interpreters of Philo such as E. R. Goodenough and H. A.Wolfson warn against seeing in these diatribes a universally anti-iconic attitude. They stress that Philo condemns only painting and sculpture in the service of idolatry, the worship of alien gods. Nonetheless, that they must issue such a warning indicates how anti-iconic Philo’s speech has become.” 24

Tatum has furthermore observed Philo’s peculiar way of using the word ἄγαλμα. In addition to the meaning of a concrete statue Philo according to Tatum employs the word to refer for instance to the soul of man (Opif. 137, Decal. 60) and to the divine images internal (Cher. 93, Sobr. 3,38) and external to the soul (Abr. 159).25 Tatum continues: “In his interpretation of the experience of Moses at the burning bush in Exod 3:1– 6, Philo employs the term – with qualifications – to refer to God. He describes the scene in these words: ‘In the midst of the flame was a form of the fairest beauty, unlike any visible object, an image supremely divine’(θεοειδέστατον ἄγαλμα). Then he comments: ‘It might be supposed that this was the image of Him that IS; but let us rather call it an angel or herald.’ Later he declares: ‘The angel was a symbol of God’s providence’ (Mos. 1.66– 67). In his writings, therefore, Philo plays off one ἄγαλμα against another (italics mine). He contrasts the visible statue of a god which some take to be divine with the invisible image of the one that IS divine.”

2. Philo’s Use of the Concept of Statue In the following I want to take the important observations made by W. B. Tatum as the point of departure for some additional observations and reflections. Philo is able to use and evaluate the word ἄγαλμα very differently. This could of course be due to the fact that the word may convey quite different meanings in Greek. A short overview of Philo’s vocabulary in this area is therefore necessary. Since the basic signification of the word ἄγαλμα seems to be “glory”, “delight” and “honour” (Liddell / Scott) it is not surprising that we in such a large bulk of text as Philo’s works find meanings of the word like “jewel”, 24 Tatum 1986,189. Tatum refers to Goodenough 1935, 256–258, and Wolfson 1947, I 29, n. 22. 25 Tatum 1986, 190.

2. Philo’s Use of the Concept of Statue

65

“ornament” or “gem”. Music, philosophy and education are said to be divine jewels of the soul (Cher. 93, cf. Sobr. 38, Virt. 5), heaven has its beautiful and divine ornaments (Abr. 159)26 and the Law contains gems like those bidding us to give wealth to the poor (Spec. 4.76).These examples show that the word ἄγαλμα can have very positive connotations in Philo’s vocabulary. Very often, however, Philo employs the word ἄγαλμα to mean a statue of a god. The word ξόανον is by Philo always used in the same context as ἄγαλμα27 and only in the sense of a statue of a god. In eight instances the word ἀφίδρυμα is added to the two other words and with the same meaning,28 which it usually also carries when standing alone in the text.29 Philo also uses a fourth word: ἀνδριάς. This expression in Philo very often designates sculptures in general,30 but occasionally also clearly stands for a statue which is intended to be an image of a god.31 In this latter sense Philo at times also uses the words εἰκών,32 εἴδωλον33 and μίμημα.34 Philo’s general attitude towards statues of the gods and their worshippers is that of categorical denouncement. In a highly ironical passage (Decal. 72–74) Philo makes a suggestion to those who offer “prayers and sacrifices to their own creations”. They should follow the device “the best of prayers and the goal of happiness is to become like God”. “Pray you therefore”, says Philo “that you may be made like your images (ἀφιδρύμασιν) and thus enjoy supreme happiness with eyes that see not, ears that hear not, nostrils which neither breathe nor smell, mouths that never taste nor speak, hands that never give nor take nor do anything at all, feet that walk not, with no activity in any parts of your bodies, but kept under watch and ward in your temple-prison day and night, ever drinking in the smoke of the victims. For this is the one good which you imagine your idols (ἀφιδρύματα) to enjoy.”

The images of the gods have no active senses and cannot move their limbs. Philo also says they are lifeless (ἄψυχα Decal. 7) and that statues (ἀφιδρύμα26 See the French translations of Cher. and Abr. by J. Gorez 1963, 65 and 1966, 89. Tatum (1986,190) does not specify the different meanings of the word ἄγαλμα, although he says that Philo uses it “in a variety of ways”. 27 An easy way to confirm this is to compare the occurrences in one of the Philo indexes. See for instance Borgen/Fuglseth/Skarsten 2000. 28 Ebr. 109, Mos. 1.298, Mos 2.205, Decal. 7, 51, 156, Virt. 221 and QE isf 14. 29 The exception being Somn. 1.208. 30 E.g. Cher. 11, Agr. 168, Mut. 93, Spec. 1.33, Legat. 151. 31 I.e. the sculptures by Phidias mentioned above and understood by the present author to designate Greek godheads (Ebr. 89) and also images like that of Gaius Caligula, which the latter planned to erect in the temple of Jerusalem, and those of him introduced in the Jewish meeting-houses in Alexandria (Legat. 134, 138, 188, 203 etc.). 32 E.g. Legat. 134, 138, 334, 346. Cf. Ebr. 110. 33 Congr. 65. Statues of gods are probably intended here. Cf. Decal. 74. 34 Mos. 2.162, 270, Spec. 3.125, Legat. 290, 310.

66

Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues (2001)

τα) of perishable material are “held to be gods on hearsay only” (Post. 165). The gods of different cities, images “fashioned by the skills of painters and sculptors” and of which the world is full, are falsely called “gods” (ψευδώνυμοι Mos. 2.205). Philo also exposes the images to ridicule by pointing out that they are hewn away from material that also is used for urns and footbasins or some others “of the less honourable vessels which serve the purposes of darkness (σκότος) rather than that of light” (Contempl. 7). When he criticises those who worship images Philo uses arguments which could be classified both as intellectual, religious and ethical. Philo describes the world in which the idolaters live as a world without light. Before she left her city “which acknowledged a multitude of gods and was full of statues made of wood and stone and idols in general” Tamar (cf. Gen 38) lived in profound darkness (Virt. 221, cf. 102). According to Philo people who have “assigned celestial and divine honours” and built temples and altars to lifeless statues are by the sacred Scriptures compared to the “children of a harlot” (Deut. 23:3 LXX). In the same way as these are ignorant of their natural father those who do not know the true God have “deified hosts of others who are falsely so called” (Decal. 7–8 , cf. Decal. 69, Spec. 1.332). The basic reason for creating images of gods is a blindness of the intellect (διάνοια). The “man of no discernment” believes the material things to be the the causes of all things instead of the “Existent” (τὸ ὅν) whom he is unable to see. To Philo the result of all this is impiety (ἀσέβεια), atheism and suppression of God’s honour (Ebr. 108–110). This blindness of those who “have filled the habitable world with statues of stone and wood” is, however, their own fault. They have “cut away the most excellent support of the soul, the rightful conception (ὑπόληψις) of the Ever-living God” and of “deliberate purpose” and without scruple “cast away entirely the eye of the soul” and therefore have to expect punishment (Decal. 66– 69).35 Philo in Scripture (Num 25) finds an example of such a punishment. Those Israelites in the desert who were deceived by the Midianite women following the advice of Balaam to practice impiety (ἀσέβεια) and unholy conduct (ἀνοσιούργημα) which also implied taking part in libations and sacrifices offered to “statues of stone and wood and other images” were, as already noted above, severely punished through the action of Phinehas (Mos. 1.295–304, Spec. 1.56). When he explains the meaning of the Second Commandment (Decal. 52–81) Philo basically sees it as a pro35 Hay

(1987, 901) notes: “Throughout his writings Philo regularly implies that man’s will is always essentially free and responsible.” On the other hand Winston in a discussion with Wolfson stresses that Philo (like Plato) only allows for relative human freedom. Winston (1974 –75, 51) writes: “Yet this relative freedom, in Philo’s view, is sufficient for placing the onus of moral responsibility on man and clearing God from any blame for man’s sins.”

2. Philo’s Use of the Concept of Statue

67

hibition of idolatry, one important form of which is the worship of images (Decal. 51, 66–76, 156).36 The correct conclusion from Philo’s utterances of statues of the gods seems to be that he never evaluates them positively except in one case, i.e. when he mentions the statues made by Phidias (Ebr. 89). But in this example he uses the word ἀνδριάς and there are several instances where Philo estimates statues (ἀνδριάντες) in a positive way. He admonishes his readers to pray that the fair things should show themselves on the surface of the virtuous soul as do “the exquisite proportions of beauty in a statue and a perfect portrait” (Agr. 168). He can even use the idea of a statue as a theological argument in favour of the existence of God: “Who can look upon statues or paintings without thinking at once of a sculptor or painter?” (Spec. 1.33). Philo here applies this principle to the relationship between the Universe and its Maker in a positive way and not only negatively as in Decal. 69 in order to denounce those idolaters who do not understand that the craftsman is older than his product. In his enthusiastic description of the Sebasteion i Alexandria Philo among its embellishments also mentions a “girdle of pictures and statues in silver and gold” which runs around the temple (Legat. 151). This way of evaluating ἀνδριάντες positively may be the reason why Philo employs the word ἀνδριάς when he comments upon the statues of Phidias (Ebr. 89). Since he probably points at statues of gods Philo may try to conceal this and direct the reader’s thoughts elsewhere by using another word than ἄγαλμα, ξόανον or ἀφίδρυμα and thereby give the impression of statues which are not used in pagan cult. This seems to corroborate the views of Goodenough and Wolfson referred to by Tatum (see above). On the other hand one must also note that when he employs the word ἀνδριάς for sculptures Philo at times exhibits a negative evaluation of them. He can compare absentminded attenders of lectures to lifeless statues (ἄψυχοι ἀνδριάντες) who have ears but are without hearing in those ears (Her. 12, Congr. 65, cf. 48). Philo’s view of statues here coincides with his way of looking at statues of the gods (Decal. 72–74) and therefore it cannot be excluded that such images are intended. Thus it does not seem possible to draw a sharp line between such statues that Philo evaluates positively and others which he depreciates.37 The general tendency is clear: Philo denounces statues of the gods. But he can both positively and negatively evaluate such objects which he calls ἀνδριάντες, at times also standing for statues of the gods. Therefore it seems 36 Cf.

Tatum 1986, 188–89. are some instances where Philo speaking of statues and using different terms for them does not indicate whether they are good or bad, but evaluates them rather neutrally (e.g. Leg. 3.70, Cher. 11, Abr. 267, Spec. 3.109,184). 37 There

68

Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues (2001)

appropriate to speak of Philo’s ambivalence towards sculptures, even towards such ones that represent gods. Now there are also cases where Philo speaks of statues in a more figurative way. He may speak of the body or of the soul as statues or as bases of statues or as temples containing statues. Often the word ἀγαλματοφορέω is used in such contexts, alone or together with words like ἄγαλμα or ἀνδριάς.38 Interpreting the meaning of God’s words to Noah, “I will establish my covenant on you (πρὸς σέ)”(Gen 9:11),39 Philo declares that the covenant, meaning the “Law” and the “Word”, shall be firmly planted (ἱδρύσεσθαι) like a divine statue (ἄγαλμα θεοειδές) on the “just soul as its pedestal” (Somn. 2.223). But it is not every part of the soul where the true good (τὸ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἀγαθόν) can find its home, but only in its sovereign part (τὸ ἡγεμονικόν). When God willed to establish the true good in us, Philo says, He “found no worthier temple (νεώς) upon earth than the reasoning faculty (λογισμός), for in this alone as the more excellent part the good is enshrined (ἀγαλματοφορεῖ τἀγαθόν)” (Virt. 187–188). In Philo one finds, however, also a negative use of this imagery. Having described people who covet money and reputation and the destructive means to reach these Philo notes that such treasures are “enshrined in the mind (διάνοια) of every fool with wonder and veneration” (Conf. 49). Philo’s rather negative attitude towards the human body can be seen in a couple of utterances where he compares the body with statues. In Leg. 3.65– 68 Philo gives an allegorical interpretation of Gen 3:14 f. containing God’s cursing of the serpent. Philo understands the serpent as “pleasure” (ἡδονή). Now God according to Philo did not give the serpent / pleasure any opportunity to defend itself because it is wicked altogether and unable to produce virtue. In a similar way God treats Er (Gen 38:7) whose name means “leathern” and whom Philo therefore takes to mean the “body” (σῶμα). The body is “wicked and a plotter against the soul (ψυχή)”. The body which itself is a corpse is carried by the soul in a way which can be compared to an athlete carrying a statue (ἀνδριάς) of himself (Leg. 3.69–70, cf. Agr. 25). In Post. 158 f. Philo even understands the golden calf in the desert, the idol statue (ἀφίδρυμα) of the Egyptians, which he strongly detests,40 as signifying the human body and its pleasures. In striking contrast to this negative allegory Philo also gives the metaphor of a statue a positive value when he applies it to the body or to the soul. In Virt. 203 Philo briefly describes the creation of man by God. For nobility of birth man according to Philo stands “beyond comparison with all other 38 Cf.

Runia 1983, 290. LXX reads πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 40 See Sandelin 1991, 131–134. 39 The

2. Philo’s Use of the Concept of Statue

69

mortal beings”. By “divine hands” using supreme sculptural skill (τέχνη πλαστική) he has received the form (τυπωθείς) of a human statue (ἀνδριάς). He also received a soul when God blew into him (ἐμπνεύσαντος θεοῦ) of His own power “such measure as mortal nature could receive”. Probably Philo here alludes both to Gen 1:26 f. and to Gen 2:7 (cf. Plant. 18–20).41 In a way analogous to the idea of man as a microcosm (βραχὺς κόσμος Plant 28, Her. 155) Philo in Opif. 82 sees man as a miniature heaven (βραχὺς οὐρανός). He states that man “bears about within himself, like holy images, endowments of nature that correspond to the stars (πολλὰς ἐν αὑτῷ φύσεις ἀστεροειδεῖς ἀγαλματοφορῶν)”. Earlier in the tractate Philo says that God created the visible stars for many purposes, to give light, to be signs etc. The stars are divine and most beautiful ornaments or images (ἀγάλματα), which God “established in heaven as in the purest temple (ἱερόν) belonging to corporeal being” (Opif. 55). Thus it is very likely that Philo also thinks of man as of a temple in Opif. 82 although he does not explicitly say so. Later on in the same tractate (Opif. 134 –139) Philo gives three proofs for the “fair form” of the man who was formed out of “clay from the earth” and into whose face God breathed the “breath of life” (Gen 2:7). It is the second proof which is of interest for us here. When God took clay to mold (πλάττειν) this “figure in the shape of a man (τὸν ἀνθρωποειδῆ τοῦτον ἀνδριάντα)”. He out of pure material took the purest, “such as was best suited for his structure (κατασκευή)”. Philo continues: “For a sacred dwelling-place or shrine (οἶκος γάρ τις ἢ νεὼς ἱερός) was being fashioned for the reasonable soul (ψυχὴ λογική), which man was to carry as a statue, of all statues the most God-like (ἣν ἔμελλεν ἀγαλματοφορήσειν ἀγαλμάτων τὸ θεοειδέστατον)” (Opif. 137, cf. Decal. 60). Through the word ἀγαλματοφορέω the passages Opif. 69, 82 and 137 are linked with one another. They convey a similar idea concerning man. He is described as a composite creature in whom the reasonable soul or mind is enshrined. In Opif. 69 the mind is understood as an image of God, in Opif. 137 the body is seen as the temple (cf. Opif. 82) which carries the reasonable soul as the most God-like statue.42 From the passages just presented in Philo we may conclude that his figurative use of the concept “statue” corresponds to his realistic use of it. The idea of a statue sometimes has positive and sometimes negative connotations. Still the metaphorical use of the word ἄγαλμα in the meaning of “statue” always is positive in contradistinction to its realistic use. But an ambivalence towards statues is present also when Philo uses the concept of a “statue” in a figurative sense. A similar ambivalence can be detected

41 Cf. 42 Cf.

Sandelin 1976, 27. Runia 1983, 289 f.

70

Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues (2001)

in Philo’s attitude towards the human body.43 The human body – at least when it was created by God – was a piece of sublime art and a temple for the soul. But for the soul today it often is a burden and a foe.44 The soul in the instances discussed basically is good, especially when its sovereign element is considered. But the soul may also carry destructive tendencies. The most conspicuous trait in Philo’s figurative use of the concept of a statue is, I think, the unconstrained description of the reasonable soul (ψυχὴ λογική) as a most God-like statue (ἄγαλμα θεοειδέστατον) standing in a holy temple (νεὼς ἱερός Opif. 137, cf. Virt. 187–188). This soul or mind (νοῦς) is an image (εἰκών) of God enshrined, as it were, in a temple (Opif. 69). Philo’s imagery here is Jewish only to a certain extent through its reference to Gen. 1:26 f.45 Basically Philo’s idea is totally un-Jewish because there does not and should not exist any image of God in the temple of Jerusalem. Philo describes man with the help of a metaphor, models of which are overflowing in the non-Jewish religious world surrounding him.

3. Philo’s Views on Statues in Greco-Roman Context The observation just made gives us reason to conclude our discussion on Philo’s ambivalence towards statues with reference to a more general perspective addressed at the beginning of this essay. Philo lives as a devout Jew in a non-Jewish cultural environment, which he knows extremely well and often refers to with great admiration. There exists in his mind a never-ending struggle between different conceptual worlds. The symbolic universe of Philo is very complex and contains strong inner tensions. It is easy to see that Philo in his polemic against polytheism and in his attitude towards the worship of statues follows the lines drawn by the O. T. and subsequent Jewish literature. Greco-Roman antiquity on the other hand not only shows 43 David Runia (1983, 279) states that the double attitude towards the body is “just as markedly present in Philo as it is in Plato”. 44 For a fresh treatment of Philo’s view of the human body see Winston 1998, 48. Winston attempts to demonstrate that Philo’s attitude towards the body is much more positive than commonly maintained. He makes important comparisons between Philo on the one hand and the Rabbis, Platonists, Stoics and Cynics on the other. By referring to Decal. 133 Winston states that God according to Philo selected the purest and most filtered part of the earth “in fashioning a sacred shrine or dwelling place for the rational soul that man was to carry as a holy image”. Winston finds a similar image in Plato’s Laws 969 b. 45 For Philo’s exegesis of Gen 1:26 f. (and 2:7) see for instance Sandelin 1976, 26– 44, Runia 1983, 284 –286, 290–295, Tobin, 1983, passim, Sellin, 1986, 99–114, 143–151, 162–172. D. Runia and Thomas H. Tobin explicate the Platonic and Stoic elements in Philo’s reading of Gen 1:26 f. and 2:7, whereas K.-G. Sandelin and Gerhard Sellin try to determine the Jewish sapiential aspects.

3. Philo’s Views on Statues in Greco-Roman Context

71

polytheistic practises and erects statues of the gods but also knows of a philosophical defense of the reverence towards the images of the gods.46 When he in his polemics against idolatry identifies the “lifeless” statues with the idols themselves Philo moves in the O. T. vein (cf. esp. Ps 115:5–8, Isa 44:17 and Wis 13:17–19). Nevertheless there is, I think, at least one instance where Philo shows an awareness that a difference between the deity and the image representing that deity can be made. This is found in Legat. 290, where Herod Agrippa in his letter to the Emperor Gaius says that the works of painters and modellers are “representations of the gods perceived by sense” (μιμήματα τῶν αἰσθητῶν θεῶν). For Philo these gods could mean the stars and the planets conceived by him as living and divine beings, which should not, of course, be worshipped (Spec. 1.13–20).47 In his polemics against the worship of images Philo does not, however, make any use of this insight that there is a difference between the deity and the image representing it. This is so much more remarkable as one must assume that Philo is acquainted with the passage of Plato’s dialogue on The Laws, where the latter makes a distinction between the lifeless (ἄψυχοι) images (εἰκόνες) of the gods set up by men as statues (ἀγάλματα) on the one hand and the living gods (ἔμψυχοι θεοί) on the other, who feel goodwill towards men when these worship (ἀγάλλω) the images (Lg. 931 a, cf. Philo‹s combination of ἄψυχος and ἄγαλμα in Decal. 7). In spite of his great reverence for Plato, Philo at this point seems to deliberately ignore Plato’s viewpoint. The easiest way to explain this is to refer to Philo‹s Jewish belief that an image of God made by human hands cannot exist. Still a worship which makes a difference between the god and its image is not touched by Philo’s criticism of those who worship the images.48 In Philo’s century we have devout adherents of the Greek deities e.g. in Dio of Prusa and Plutarch, who follow Plato in paying respect to the images without identifying them with the deity they represent.49 Now there also existed a very ancient Greco-Roman tradition critical towards the worship of images.50 When he says that materials for images and foot-basins are taken from the same original source (Contempl. 7), Philo in addition to Jewish tradition (Isa 44:16–17 and Wis 13:11–16) seems to allude to a jesting story in Herodotus (Hdt. II 172) about king Amasis of Egypt who had a statue of one of the gods (ἄγαλμα δαίμονος) made out of his golden foot-bath.51 In Seneca’s writings we also find a strong denuncia46 See

Clerc 1915, 171 ff. the discussion in Wolfson 1948, I, 38 f., 173 and especially pp. 360–366. 48 See the citations collected by Winston 1979, 261 ff. 49 For Plutarch see the detailed treatment by Clerc 1915, 176–188, cf. Attridge 1978, 73–77. For Dio see Clerc 1915, 194 –230, cf. Hartman 1998, 166–168. 50 See Clerc 1915, 89 ff. 51 See Clerc 1915, 130. 47 Cf.

72

Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues (2001)

tion of those who regard the images as gods. If Philo ironically states that the sculptors are not honoured but left in obscurity, whereas the images they have produced are regarded as gods (Decal. 69–70), Seneca notes that those who show such respect towards the images show only contempt for those who have made them (fragment 120: Lactantius, Institt. lib. II 2,14).52 Even Plutarch complains about those who do not speak of the images as “statues (ἀγάλματα) of the gods” but as “gods” proper (Moralia: De Is. et Os. 379 CD, cf. De superst. 167 DE).53 Thus Philo is not a representative of a solely Jewish critical attitude towards statues, but also stands in a row of authors in antiquity outside Judaism who criticize the identification of statues with the gods. In their attempt to characterize Philo’s attitude towards images Joseph Gutmann and W. Barnes Tatum draw attention to the Platonic features of the Alexandrian’s ideas. Gutmann emphasizes that images are seen as manifestations of such forms of art which “are deceptive and arouse passions which the reasonable faculty is unable to control”,54 whereas Tatum opines that Philo’s polemic against idolatry grows out of a worldview that contrasts in “Platonic philosophical categories the invisible realm of ideas and the sensible realm of things”.55 Gutmann has, I think, made the correct observation that Philo (Gig. 59, cf. Decal. 66– 67) follows Plato (Rep. 597 b–598 c, 603 a–c) in denouncing such art which is deceptive, i.e. which does not convey the truth. When Plato suggests that a poet be banned from the state he compares him with the painter, who produces art which is inferior with respect to the truth (Rep. 605 a–b, cf. 608 a).56 In a similar way Philo explains why Moses has banished painting and sculpture from his own commonwealth: they belie the nature of truth (Gig. 59).57 Thus Philo as well as Plato has a criterion for art which is acceptable: it must convey the truth. According to Plato there in fact exists poetry which is good and appropriate in the state, such as “hymns to the gods and the praises of good men” (Rep. 607 a, cf. Lg. 801 d–e), and apparently also art which can be accepted, for instance sculptures of gods (Lg. 931 a). Philo for his part also, as we have seen, is able to evaluate sculpture positively. It would seem then that a good artist, such as Phidias (Ebr. 89), is one who has the skill to reproduce truth. Philo approximates such a thought 52 See

Monat 1987, 38 f. Cf. Clerc 1915, 105, and Attridge 1978, 67 f. Babbitt 1936, 468– 471, 1928, 164 f. Cf. Clerc 1915, 113. 54 Gutmann 1961, 172–173. Gutmann refers in n. 13 to Plato’s Republic without giving any precise reference. One could think of Rep. 603– 604. 55 Tatum 1986, 190. 56 Plato expresses strong reservations especially against painting because this kind of art according to his view is at a great distance from the original form (Rep. 598 a–c). Cf. Philo: Opif. 141. 57 Cf. the analogy to myths discussed by Niehoff 1998, 138–141. 53 See

3. Philo’s Views on Statues in Greco-Roman Context

73

when he in Ebr. 90 compares perfect art with nature, which so often in the case of twins “by using the same stamp (χαρακτήρ) shapes likenesses which are almost identical”. Such art may take different materials and “yet mould them and impress on them the same form (ἰδέα)”. In his reserve towards the statues of the gods Philo leans on his Jewish tradition rather that on Platonism, however. But in certain passages he combines his criticism of the images with a Platonic way of understanding man as a composition of body and soul. There exists in Philo a connection between the worship of statues on the one hand and the body with its pleasures on the other (Post. 155–159; cf. for instance Plato: Phd. 81 b).58 Philo also states that sculpture and painting is used by the myth-makers in their deception. They beguile the sight as well as the hearing “and thus make the soul unsteady and unsettled and seize it for their prey” (Spec. 1.28–29). This has an obvious similarity with Plato’s arguing against such art which, in Gutmann’s words, “arouse passions which the reasonable faculty is unable to control” (Rep. 603 c– 605 c). Thus, even in his criticism of the images of the gods, Philo is able to use arguments which have a Platonic character. This far we have tried to insert Philo’s negative statements concerning the statues of the gods within a larger framework of ideas. But within which context should we interpret the fact that Philo also makes statements which reveal a more positive attitude towards statues of the gods? Here it seems as if Tatum would offer us a clue when he states that Philo contrasts in “Platonic philosophical categories the invisible realm of ideas and the sensible realm of things”. As we have seen Philo in Opif. 69 sees mind (νοῦς) as an image of God. It is moulded after the pattern (ἀρχέτυπος) of the Mind of the Universe. The human mind is in a way “a god to him who carries and enshrines it”. It occupies a position in men “precisely answering to that which the great Ruler occupies in all the world”. In Opif. 137 the body is seen as the temple (cf. Opif. 82) which carries the reasonable soul as the most Godlike statue. Now Thomas Tobin has compared Opif. 69 with two passages in Plato’s Timaeus (30 a–c, 46 d). He states that we in both Platonic passages have “the contrast both in the cosmos and in the individual human being of visible versus invisible, with mind and soul set over against the sensible element of the cosmos and the human body. This is the same contrast that appears in Op. 69”.59 Both Plato and Philo think there exists a correspondence between man and the cosmos.60 The idea that the mind in man is an image of God who is the model also reveals a Platonic scheme of thought. The world 58 For the relationship between idolatry and passions according to Philo see Sandelin 1991, 115–119. 59 Tobin 1983, 45. 60 Tobin 1983, 45 n. 19. See also the cautious treatment of this topic by Runia 1983, 294 –295.

74

Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues (2001)

is made by the Demiurge into an image of a transcendent paradigm (see e.g. Tim. 29 a–b, 31 a, 37 c–d).61 Thus it is within a Platonic framework that Philo inserts the un-Jewish idea that the human mind is like a statue, an image of God, in the temple of the human body. At the beginning of our discussion of Philo’s attitude to statues we referred to his presentation of the work of Phidias in Ebr. 89. We shall now finish our treatment of the subject by looking closer at some traits in that passage and its context. In Ebr. 88–92 Philo makes several comparisons. Among other things he compares wisdom with the artist (88–90), and the skill of the artist with the power residing in the sage (89–92). Philo in Ebr. 88 characterizes wisdom (σοφία) as the “art of arts” (τέχνη τεχνῶν), which shows its “true form (εἶδος) unchanged to those who have the clearness of vision (τοῖς ὀξυδορκοῦσι)”. Such people are able to “see through the form impressed by the art itself (τὸν ἐνεσφραγισμένον ὑπὸ τῆς τέχνης αὐτῆς χαρακτῆρα διορῶσι)”. In other words: the clearsighted by observing the imprint of wisdom is able to experience the true form of wisdom itself. By analogy to this procedure those who saw the statues of Phidias could recognize (γνωρίσαι) “the artist (τὸν δημιουργόν) from his work (ἀπὸ τῶν δημιουργηθέντων)”. This was possible because Phidias on all his statues “stamped the impress (ἐνσημαίνομαι) of one and the same art (τέχνη)” (Ebr. 89). This no doubt means that not only was a statue a proof of the existence of a sculptor, but the shape of the statue showed who the sculptor was. As an additional argument Philo refers to perfect art (τελεία τέχνη) as a copy and representation of nature (φύσις). When the former impresses the “same form (ἰδέα)” on different materials it is like the latter which uses the “same stamp (χαρακτήρ)” when it shapes twins (Ebr. 90). In Ebr. 91–92 Philo moves on to compare the skill of the artist with the power (δύναμις) which is inherent in the sage (σοφός), thus in a way returning to Ebr. 89. In all the different skills mastered by the sage the latter will be seen “to have one and the same form (εἶδος)”. Interestingly Philo in Ebr. 88–92 uses the word χαρακτήρ in two different meanings, signifying either “stamp” (90) or “imprint” (89). This means that our passage in a somewhat implicit way operates with the same Platonic scheme that we also saw in Opif. 69, i.e. that of model and image. Philo also employs this scheme in Ebr. 133. Here, speaking of the Creator, he combines words that are characteristic of Plato revealing a visual imagery (παράδειγμα, μίμημα and εἰκών) with such of a more physical character (like ἀρχέτυπος, χαρακτήρ and σφραγίς), which are not typical of Plato but of Philo himself and other later Platonists.62

61 See 62 See

Tobin 1983, 28, 46, 58 f. Runia 1983, 130–133.

The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria (1991)

75

When Philo in Ebr. 89 describes Phidias as a sculptor he uses the word

δημιουργός. But he does not describe him exactly in the same way as he in

the wake of Plato (Tim. 28 a–29 b) portrays the demiurge of the world, who had a model after which he made his creation (Opif. 16–21).63 Philo does not address the question of which models were used by Phidias although the scheme of model and image is present in the text. Philo would certainly not in the same way as Plato (Lg. 931 a) be able to see a statue of Zeus as an image of the god. Still the account of Phidias and his artistic work in another way shows a resemblance to passages in Philo where the Demiurge is described. We noted that according to Philo a statue made by Phidias was more than a proof of the existence of a sculptor. From the shape of the statue the spectators could discern (γνωρίσαι) who the sculptor was. Following in Plato’s footsteps (Tim. 28 a,c)64 Philo from the existence of the world draws the conclusion that there must be a cause, a demiurge or creator. In Leg. 3.97–99 this idea is combined with the thought that the visual contemplation of the world leads to the judgement that there exists a demiurge, i.e. God.65 The latter deduction may also be combined with an idea that even the character or quality of the Creator can be inferred from the quality of the world (Spec. 1.33–35, 3.189, Praem. 41– 43). Thus Phidias’ artistic work with his sculptures of the gods and the experience of the spectators with these sculptures in Philo’s account show a striking similarity with his descriptions of how the Demiurge acted and how the spectators of the universe may conclude that there exists a skilful and benevolent Maker of the world. Or in other words: Philo in Ebr. 89 describes pagan sculptures and their originator in the same terms as he often describes the world and its Creator.

4. Conclusion In his way of handling statues, either as concrete phaenomena or as elements in figurative speculation, Philo demonstrates his own difficulty to balance between the commitment to his Jewish religious heritage and his fondness for the culture of the Greco-Roman world. He fights for monotheism and aniconic religion against polytheism and worship of images. For his basic Jewish attitude he every now and then finds support in ideas of Platonic character. Notwithstanding Philo cannot always resist the fascination statues of the gods create in his mind. When he in a non-Jewish manner evaluates them in positive terms Philo reveals his indebtedness to Platonism. 63 For these passages and the relationship between them see Runia 1983, 38, 79–91, 129–138. 64 See Runia 1983, 79. 65 For the difference between Plato and Philo in this respect see Runia 1983, 274 f.

76

Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues (2001)

There exists at this point in his thought a conflict between the Jewish and the Greek ideas which cannot be reconciled. Even in this area he is – to use the expression of P. Borgen – “a conqueror, on the verge of being conquered”.66

66 Borgen,

1984, 150.

Does Paul Argue against Sacramentalism and Over-Confidence in 1 Cor 10:1–14? (1995) In the standard commentaries on Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians it is often assumed that some of the Corinthians were over-confident in the effects of the sacraments.1 The Corinthian “sacramentalists”2 maintained that baptism and eucharist gave them protection against everything that threatened their future salvation. Therefore they did not see any danger in, for instance, sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:12, 15; 10:8) or participation in pagan cultic activities (1 Cor 8:1, 4, 10; 10:14 –22). It was this Corinthian sacramentalism, so the theory goes, which motivated Paul to give such a lengthy description of what befell the fathers in the desert (1 Cor 10:1–10). These had been baptized into Moses (1 Cor 10:2) and had received spiritual food and drink (1 Cor 10:3– 4). But God was not pleased with them (1 Cor 10:5) and they were punished for sins they had committed, like idolatry (1 Cor 10:7) and fornication (1 Cor 10:8). The over-confident sacramentalists in Corinth should understand that something similar could happen to themselves. The events in the desert were written down in order to set a warning example to those who are confronted with the end of times (1 Cor 10:11). As a matter of fact the gift of the sacraments did not give such protection as the over-confident Corinthians believed. Therefore Paul warns the one who thinks that he stands firm lest he should fall (1 Cor 10:12). Now it cannot of course be denied that 1 Cor 10:12 may be seen as a warning against over-confidence comparable to what we find in Rom 11:20.3 But even then, if the thought of 1 Cor 10:12 in the mind of Paul may imply that he thinks that his addressees feel too secure, this does not necessarily mean that he thinks that this security derives from “sacramentalism”, be1 Lietzmann / Kümmel, 1969 45– 47, Weiß 1910, 250, 254, Barrett 1968, 25, 220, 227, Conzelmann 1969, 28, 30, 194, 197, Wolff 1982, 39, Lang 1986, 6, 26, 122–124, Klauck 1987, 71. 2 Such a term is used by Günther Bornkamm 1956, 317. Bornkamm refers to Hans von Soden (1951, 245–246, cf. 259), who interprets Paul with the words: “God does not allow that he be used like a talisman.” Ernst Käsemann (1948, 270), and Andrew J. Bandstra (1971, 6) understand the Corinthian position in the same way. 3 Cf. Weiß 1910, 254.

78

Does Paul Argue against Sacramentalism?

cause Paul does not explicitly say that the Corinthians rely for their security on the sacraments. It may be asked whether it is necessary or even appropriate to postulate sacramentalism in Corinth in order to understand Pauls message to the Corinthians. Actually the analogy between the fathers and the Corinthians ought to imply that the former were also over-confident sacramentalists4 in Pauls view, if he is really attacking such sacramentalism. But the fathers, i.e. some of them, are described as real apostates. Paul does not say that the fathers thought that God would save them even if they became idolaters or fornicators. He does not say that the fathers rose up to play (around the golden calf, Exod 32:6) and tried to remain faithful to God at the same time (1 Cor 10:7). But precisely this seems to be the alleged idea of the Corinthians: sexual freedom and participation in pagan cults are possible and harmless to one who has received the sacraments and therefore believes that he has an unbroken relationship to the Lord. Since there is no direct reference to over-confidence in 1 Cor 10:1–11, however, verse 12, if understood as implying over-confidence, seems somewhat surprising. On the other hand Pauls argument that the fathers received sacraments and nevertheless perished would be effective without the description of the fathers as overconfident. He could just be saying to the over-confident sacramentalists: “Do not rely so much on the sacraments! Even the fathers received sacraments. Still they sinned and perished.” But would Paul himself have looked for models among the fathers for over-confident Corinthians without some basis for such an attitude among the fathers? To interpret Paul without the assumption that he is attacking over-confident sacramentalism would mean seeing his point in an alternative way. Paul could, for instance, warn some of the Corinthians against participating in pagan cultic activities just because he wants to say that such behaviour means idolatry. The reference to the beneficial experiences of the fathers could only imply that the appropriate response to the gifts of God should be obedience, not fornication and idolatry. This article tries to argue for an exegesis of 1 Cor 10:1–13 of this alternative type. Since Pauls argument is based on Scripture, we shall investigate the way in which he argues with the help of Scriptural material. We shall look at details as well as schemes or patterns in the texts he seems to be referring to. On points where Paul goes beyond Scripture we shall ask if his ideas may be understood with the help of post-Biblical Jewish literature. 4 Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer (1911, 199) interpret 1 Cor 10:12 in the following way: “Therefore if, like our forefathers, you think that you are standing securely, beware lest self-confidence cause you, in like manner, to fall.” C. K. Barrett (1968, 228) states: “The Israelites, as Gods elect, equipped with sacraments, fancied themselves secure.”

1. The Scriptural and Jewish Background

79

The guiding question will be: is Paul attacking the over-confident sacramentalists, or is he just warning the Corinthians against participating in pagan cultic activities? Two points will be of special interest: 1) does Paul in 1 Cor 10:2– 4 refer to Christian sacraments, and 2) are the fathers described as over-confident? I am going to argue for a modified no on the first question and for a negative answer to the second.

1. The Scriptural and Jewish Background The Biblical and Jewish background to 1 Cor 10:1–10 has been the subject of intense debate among scholars. We may here just point to the standard commentaries to First Corinthians mentioned in the introduction.5 Let us start by looking at the individual statements in the text in order to continue with formal and structural traits. With few exceptions the details of the events in the desert are found in either Exodus or Numbers, or in both. 1.1. The Blissful Events Recorded in 1 Cor 10:1– 4 Generally it can be said that the blissful events referred to by Paul in 1 Cor 10:1– 4 are found in Exodus and Numbers, the sequence of the former book being followed: the cloud (Exod 13:21–22; 14:19, 24; Num 14:14), the sea (Exod 14: 21–22; Num 33:8), the manna (Exod 16: 4, 15; Num 11:6), the drink from the rock (Exod 17:6; Num 20:8). There are some traits in the presentation of these events which are not described in the Scripture in the same way as we have it in the text of 1 Cor 10, but which nevertheless may be derived with some ease from the Old Testament accounts. Thus it is said that the fathers were “under” the cloud (1 Cor 10:1), which may point to Num 14:14, where it is stated that the cloud of God “stays over” the people (cf. Ps 105:39).6 Further it is said that the water-giving rock accompanied the fathers (1 Cor. 10:4). This idea may be derived from a combination of Num 20:7–11 talking of the water-giving rock at Kadesh and later in Num 21:16 mentioning a well at Beer. Such a derivation is made in a Jewish midrash: Tosefta Sukka 3:11 (cf. Sifre to Num 11:22 b). The idea that the well followed the people in the desert is also attested in Pseudo-Philo (L. A. B. 10:7; 11:15).7 5 In addition we

may refer to the detailed treatments of 1 Cor 10:1–11 by Bandstra 1971, 5–21 and Willis 1985, 125–153. 6 Ps 105 (104 LXX):39 is often referred to in attempts to explain Pauls expression “under the cloud”. Some authors also refer to Wis 19:7. See Lietzmann in Lietzmann / Kümmel 1969, 44, Barrett 1968, 220, Conzelmann 1969, 195, Lang 1986, 124. 7 Cf. Conzelmann 1969, 196.

80

Does Paul Argue against Sacramentalism?

The statement that the fathers were “baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” is, however, difficult to derive directly from the Biblical story. Werner Georg Kümmel states that it is still not known whether, when he wrote these words, Paul was dependent on particular traditions.8 Some scholars think that Paul is here projecting his own Christian ideas onto an Old Testament situation.9 Even so, such a baptism into Moses would be a rather exceptional idea within a Pauline perspective. For Paul Christian baptism means being baptized to the death of Christ (Rom 6:3). This thought can hardly be applied to the figure of Moses.10 There does, however, exist a Jewish text which might show that the idea presented in 1 Cor 10:2 is at least to some extent dependent on the Jewish tradition. In my book Wisdom as Nourisher I have made an attempt to show that a passage from Philo contains Jewish ideas which may also lie behind 1 Cor 10:2, i.e. Her. 203 f.11 In Her. 201–206 Philo first cites the story of Aaron, i.e. for Philo the Logos, standing between the living and the dead (Num 16:47– 48). He then comments upon the account of the cloud which divided the host of Egypt from Israel (Exod 14:20). He is lost in admiration, he says, when he listens to the oracles and learns how the cloud entered in the midst between the hosts of Egypt and Israel. For the further pursuit of the sober and God-beloved race by the passion-loving and godless was forbidden by that cloud, which was a weapon of shelter and salvation to its friends, and of offence and chastisement to its enemies (ἐχθροί). For on minds of rich soil that cloud sends in gentle showers the drops of wisdom (ἠρέμα σοφίαν ἐπιψεκάζει), whose very nature exempts it from all harm, but on the sour of soil, that are barren of knowledge, it pours the blizzards of vengeance, flooding them with a deluge of destruction (κατακλυσμὸν φθορὰν οἰκτίστην ἐπιφέρουσα) most miserable. (Her. 203–204).12

The text exceeds the Exodus story in some respects of interest to us here. It is the cloud, not the water of the sea, that drowns the enemies. In the Wisdom of Solomon (Wis 10:19) it is said that Wisdom drowned (κατακλύζειν) the enemies (ἐχθροί). In the same context Wisdom is identified with the   8 Werner Georg Kümmel in Lietzmann/Kümmel 1969, 180–181. Kümmel also refers to Rabbinic traditions according to which the people were surrounded by clouds. See also Conzelmann 1969, 195. But these passages do not explain the idea of baptism. Nor does in Kümmel’s or Conzelmann’s view Jewish baptism of proselytes explain Pauls reference to baptism in the cloud and in the sea.   9 E.g. Conzelmann 1969, 195, Dunn 1980, 183, and Klauck 1982, 253. 10 Hans Lietzmann writes: “When one follows out the Apostles typological exposition, it is easy to understand how salvation was bound up with Moses for the Israelites in much the same way as for Christians it is bound up with Christ.” Cited according to the English version of Conzelmann’s commentary (Conzelmann 1989, 166 n. 18). Cf. Lietzmann in Lietzmann / Kümmel 1969, 45. Hans Conzelmann utters the following comment against Lietzmann: “His expression for the ‘Israelites’ is not covered by the text.” 11 Sandelin 1987, 166. 12 Colson / Whitaker 1929– 62, IV 385.

1. The Scriptural and Jewish Background

81

cloud from Exodus (Wis 10:17). Thus the cloud has the same function in Philo in Her. 204 as Wisdom in the pre-Philonic wisdom tradition of Alexandria.13 From Philo we can also see that the tradition has been developed, so that the cloud sends snow and rain, which is not directly stated in the Wisdom of Solomon: blizzards on the enemies and gentle drops of wisdom on Israel. Perhaps the expression βαπτίζεσθαι is not the best one to describe such a process, but it would not be impossible, since the verb according to Liddell / Scott can mean to be “soaked” or “drenched” (Plutarch Mor. 9 C., Eubulus 68). Thus the idea in Paul that the fathers were baptized in the cloud may well reflect a Jewish tradition such as we find attested in Philo. But is it also possible to explain the idea that the fathers were baptized into Moses by referring to Her. 203–204? The expression of Paul seems to be derived from the Pauline formula “baptized into Christ” (Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27). Paul no doubt uses the expression “baptized into Moses” in order to state that there existed a prefiguration (τύπος verse 6) of baptism into Christ among the fathers. But is it possible that some idea in Jewish tradition made such an expression more natural than the strained analogy to the baptism into Christ, which implies a baptism into the death of the Lord?14 According to Her. 204 the cloud sends “heavenly drops of wisdom”. Now the heavenly nourishment given by the heavenly figure of Wisdom is, according to Philo, identical with instruction (Opif. 158, Post. 138, Fug. 166 f., Somn. 1.50, Contempl. 35), which in reality means the teaching of the Law (Mut. 258– 60, cf. Fug. 166–167 and Spec. 2.61– 64).15 Thus the teaching mediated later through Moses on Mount Sinai was already actual in the drops of wisdom during the wandering through the Red Sea. For Paul, at least in 2 Cor 3:15, Moses signifies the Law. The Pauline idea that the fathers were baptized into Moses in the cloud may therefore reflect a Hellenistic Jewish idea that the cloud of Wisdom which drowned the enemies in the Red Sea also gave showers of heavenly teaching of the Law to the Israelites. Can we also explain the words that the fathers were baptized “in the sea” by referring to the tradition found in Hellenistic Jewish texts? In fact the fathers walked on dry ground through the Red Sea (Exod 14:16, 21–22, 29), the water being driven away (v. 21) and forming walls on both sides of the people (vv. 22, 29). It was the Egyptian pursuers that were drowned when the waters came rushing back (v. 28). This seems to be the unanimous view 13 Philo may be thinking of the Logos when he describes the cloud. See Colson / Whitaker 1929– 62, IV, 277 and Sandelin 1987, 107. 14 Cf. Barrett (1968, 221), who does not find the expression very unnatural: “Granted the analogy with which Paul was working it was natural for him to coin the phrase ‘into Moses’, not only because it had been Moses who (under God) had delivered his people at the time of the Exodus, but also because of the Jewish belief that the ‘latter Redeemer’ (the Messiah) would be as the ‘former Redeemer’ (Moses).” 15 See further Sandelin 1987, 129–130.

82

Does Paul Argue against Sacramentalism?

of Jewish tradition (see, for example, the Hellenistic Jewish passages: Wis 10:18–19; 19:7; Philo: Mos. 1.177–179, 2.253– 255, Conf. 70). The idea that the people went on dry ground also seems to be implied in a later Rabbinic Jewish passage which speaks of the Red Sea forming a kind of tunnel around the people (Mek. Ex. 14:16).16 Thus the Pauline words that the fathers were baptized “in the sea” do not seem to receive an explanation as a manifestation of ideas in Jewish texts. But if not pressed, they may be understandable as just a reflection of the Exodus story referred to as the general context and mentioned here in the preceding verse 1 Cor 10:1. Or to paraphrase Paul: The Red Sea, which the fathers went through on dry ground, was the location where they were baptized into Moses in the cloud. In addition to the statements in 1 Cor 10:2 concerning baptism, the words in the two verses that follow partly exceed the Old Testament account. The food, the drink and the rock are called “spiritual”, an attribute which is not found in the Old Testament passages referred to. The word does not occur in the LXX, but is occasionally used by Philo, although not directly in passages talking of the manna and the water from the rock. When Paul talks of spiritual food and spiritual drink, this is often understood as Christian sacramental terminology already established in Paul’s time.17 For this hypothesis the occurrence of the term spiritual in the eucharistic prayers of the Didache (Did. 10:3) is used as an argument.18 But the Didache is probably much later than Paul and in addition its eucharistic prayers may originally have been used in a setting quite different from the Lord’s supper.19 It is of course quite reasonable to think that Paul, in describing the feeding of the people in the desert, uses sacramental terminology because he did so when he said that the people were “baptized into Moses”. But what terminology can be expected if we take such terminology from Paul himself? In 1 Cor 11:20 Paul uses the expression κυριακὸν δεῖπνον (the Lord’s supper) and in 1 Cor 10:16 he employs the word κοινωνία (sharing or communion). Thus Paul does not in 1 Cor 10:1– 4 use such terminology as he uses when he mentions the eucharist elsewhere. Nevertheless he speaks of the Lord’s supper in the same chapter where he deals with the feeding in the desert. Without denying Paul’s intention to point to an analogy between the spiritual gifts in the desert (1 Cor 10:3– 4) and the Lord’s supper (1 Cor 10:16–17, 21), I think one should be cautious in pushing the analogy too far.20 16 See

Conzelmann 1969, 195. instance Alexander Wedderburn (1987, 244), who suggests that Paul may pick up the usage of the term from the Corinthians. 18 Conzelmann 1969, 196, Klauck 1982, 255, cf. Lang 1986, 124. 19 See Sandelin 1987, 168, 190–221. Cf. Broer 1989, 311. 20 See my discussion: Sandelin 1987, 162–163, 167–168. 17 For

1. The Scriptural and Jewish Background

83

If we compare the passages 1 Cor 10:1–10 and 1 Cor 10:14 –22, where Paul gives a glimpse of his understanding of the meaning of the bread and the cup, we may see that the analogies between the nourishment in the desert and the Lord’s supper are not so clear. Terminologically there is very little that knits the passages together. The βρῶμα (food) and πόμα (drink) in 1 Cor 10:3– 4 are not, like the ἄρτος (bread) and the ποτήριον (cup) in 1 Cor 10:16–17, said to be a κοινωνία (sharing or communion) 21 in something else. Moreover, the expression τὸ αὐτό (the same) is not in 1 Cor 10:3, 4 used in connection with βρῶμα and πόμα in order to show that the fathers became one body like the Christians according to 1 Cor 10:17 because they partook of the same food and drink. Finally πάντες (all) in 1 Cor 10:1– 4 forms a contrast to οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν (not all of them) in 1 Cor 10:5 and to τινές (some) in 1 Cor 10:7–10. The word πάντες is not, as in 1 Cor 10:17, used to express the thought that they all became one, but that although all partook of the same food, some became idolaters and therefore perished. As an alternative to the theory that the expressions spiritual food and spiritual drink derive from Christian eucharistic language one should, I think, consider that Paul uses the word spiritual to designate his own message (e.g. 1 Cor 9:11),22 which should be accepted as the word of God (1 Thess 2:13). In Hellenistic Judaism the manna in the desert is often understood as the word of God. This interpretation is found already in the LXX translation of Deut 8:3, and Philo in Leg. 3.174 –176 comments upon this Scriptural passage explaining the manna, i.e. the word of God, as nourishment for the soul. Now Paul goes on speaking of Christ, the spiritual rock, from which the fathers received spiritual drink. This Pauline idea also has a parallel in Philo’s thought, where the rocks mentioned in Deut 8:15 and 32:13 are understood as the heavenly figure of Wisdom (Leg. 2.86, Det. 115–118), giving her nourishment. Wisdom is a spiritual reality (Gig. 23–28, 47), her nourish21 In an article written in Swedish (1990, 385–386) I have argued for an understanding of the word κοινωνία which comes close to that of Kümmel in Lietzmann /Kümmel 1969, 181– 182. Paul does not speak of eating and drinking the body and the blood of the Lord, but of becoming a member of the church through partaking of the bread and receiving the benefits of the death of the Lord through drinking from the cup. Cognate interpretations are found in Walter 1979, 432, and Willis 1985, 204 –209. 22 See further Sandelin 1987, 169. This possibility is rejected by Weiß 1910, 251, and only slightly touched on by Wedderburn 1987, 246 n. 29. Wedderburn on pp. 246–248 operates with ideas which may have existed among the Corinthians, about whom we know very little, however. Wedderburn nevertheless tries to see links with their thoughts and the previous teaching of Paul. Thus Christ may have been understood as the life-giving spirit (1 Cor 15:45) who bestows the spirit as the Christians “partake of the eucharistic bread wine” (246). Or it was thought that the spirit was mediated by the rite of the Lord’s supper as it was mediated by the rite of baptism (247). The latter idea seems to have been the thought of Paul in 1 Cor 12:13 (see Wedderburn 1987, 62– 63, cf. 246).

84

Does Paul Argue against Sacramentalism?

ment is meant for the soul (Leg. 2.86). In Det. 115–118 Wisdom, the watergiving rock, is in fact identified with the manna (Det. 118). It is commonly accepted that Paul, in describing Christ as the nourishing rock in the desert, is dependent on Hellenistic Jewish wisdom-tradition.23 He may also allude to Deut 32, where God is seen as a rock (verses 4, 15, 18, 30, 31, 37). This is, however, uncertain since the LXX does not use the word πέτρα (rock).24 Instead of saying that it was Wisdom who, as the spiritual rock in the desert, nourished the Israelites with the word, Paul seems to use this idea, but to maintain that it was Christ who gave this nourishment. Conzelmann, who accepts the idea that Paul and Philo use the same tradition, at the same time maintains that Paul in contradistinction to Philo differentiates between the elements of food and drink because of his Christology.25 This conclusion seems to be a result of reading eucharistic ideas into 1 Cor 10: 3– 4, which is not necessary. Instead it can be maintained that Paul does not differentiate in 1 Cor 10:3– 4 more than Philo does since he uses the attribute “spiritual” for both the food, the drink and the rock26 in contradistinction to 1 Cor 10:16–17, where the bread is seen as that which creates communion with the body of Christ, the church, whereas the cup gives a sharing in the blood of Christ, i.e. his death. We have noticed that scholars very often assume that Paul wrote 1 Cor 10:1– 4 in order to attack the Corinthian sacramentalists by implying that the fathers already had something like sacraments which did not, however, protect them from sin and punishment. Therefore Paul so to say fights against the Corinthians with their own weapons by applying Christian sacramental terminology to the events in the desert. That Paul uses Christian sacramental terminology when he says that the fathers were “baptized into Moses” seems to be above doubt. From that premise it looks natural to postulate that he also uses Christian sacramental terminology when he states that the food and drink in the desert were “spiritual”, although there is no direct reference to such use of the words until we come to the time of the Didache (Did 10:3). By this Paul would say that the fathers had spiritual food and drink in the desert just as the Christians receive such food in the eucharist. But by that he would in reality also say that the fathers already received the eucharist in the desert, not just a prefiguration of it, as he seems to suggest in 1 Cor 10:6. 23 Lietzmann in Lietzmann/Kümmel 1969, 45, Barrett 1968, 222–223, Conzelmann 1969, 196–197. 24 Cf. Bandstra 1971, 13, and Meeks 1982, 72. 25 This is how I interpret Conzelmann (1969, 197 n. 28), who is rather brief at this point. 26 Bandstra (1971, 12–13) thinks that Paul and Philo use the same tradition since both authors saw the spiritual rock as the source for the spiritual food as well as for the spiritual drink.

1. The Scriptural and Jewish Background

85

Paul does not, however, seem to want to give the impression that the fathers received exactly the same things in the desert as Christians receive through the sacraments. Paul makes distinctions. If baptism into Moses is not the same thing as baptism into Christ, then the food and drink in the desert should not be the same thing as the food of the eucharist. Paul is therefore quite consistent when he does not use Christian eucharistic terminology (share, communion, the Lord’s supper) but terminology taken from some other source.27 But if Paul does not want to give the impression that the fathers in the desert received something very similar to the Christians through their sacraments, then this seems to mean that he cannot here be arguing against people who base their confidence upon the sacraments. Nor could his words have had a strong argumentative value against the sacramentalists, since such people could have concluded that the gifts in the desert were not real sacraments after all and therefore had no salvific effect. 1.2. Apostasy and Punishment in 1 Cor 10:5–10 Having discussed the obvious Biblical and the possible Jewish background to Paul’s description of the events in the desert in 1 Cor 10:1– 4, let us now turn to verses 5–10, where Paul admonishes the Corinthians not to behave like the apostate fathers, who were punished for their sins. In this passage we do not have to consult any passages other than Biblical ones in order to understand what Paul is saying in individual cases. Even now the references are to Exodus and Numbers, although the latter seems to be referred to more often than the former. In 1 Cor 10:5 Paul to begin with states that God was not pleased with most of the fathers (οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεός). We find similar expressions in the LXX. In Jer 14:10 we read: “The Lord speaks thus of his people: They love to stray from my ways, they wander where they will. Therefore God has no more pleasure in them (καὶ ὁ θεὸς οὐκ εὐδόκησεν ἐν αὐτοῖς).” (Cf. Ps 151:5 and Sir 34:19). The displeasure of God with the fathers according to Paul then became manifest: “for they were scattered over the desert” (κατεστρώθησαν γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ). The word κατεστρώθησαν is a hapaxlegomenon in the New Testament. Paul here uses an expression for which we find the model in Num 14:16 LXX as part of a prayer of Moses, where the latter creates a fictitious utterance of the pagans describing such a fate of the Israelites. According to Num 14:28–30 the dead bodies of those 27 Cf. Ingo Broer (1971, 310), who states that Paul has no interest in total identification of the Christian sacraments and the gifts in the desert. Therefore he speaks of a baptism into Moses. But Broer does not want to extend the argument to the spiritual drink, which came from Christ!

86

Does Paul Argue against Sacramentalism?

Israelite men who, when they came up out of Egypt, were twenty years old or more, actually remained in the desert. Of men of that age only Kaleb and Joshua were promised entry into the promised land (cf. Num 32:11–12).28 In 1 Cor 10:6 Paul says that the events in the desert happened as examples (τύποι) to warn us us not to become “men craving for evil things” (ἐπιθυμηταὶ κακῶν) like the fathers. The word ἐπιθυμητής occurs in the LXX only twice: in Prov 1:22 and Num 11:34. 1 Cor 10:6 probably refers to the latter instance.29 The people had desired meat (Num 11:4) and God sent them quails (cf. Exod 16:2). After that he almost immediately struck the people with plague (Num 11:31–33). In 1 Cor 10:7 the admonition not to become idolaters is substantiated by a direct citation of a Scriptural expression from Exod 32:6. After the warning not to commit fornication (1 Cor 10:8) the act referred to is most probably the Phinehas episode found in Num 25:1–9, although the verb used here in v. 1 is ἐκπορνεύω instead of just πορνεύω as in the Pauline text, and the number of people who fell (23000) is probably numbered mistakenly derived from Num 26:62 (cf. Exod 32:28) instead of from Num 25:9, where it is said that those who died were 24000.30 The warning against putting Christ to the test which follows (1 Cor 10:9) is motivated by the episode in Num 21:4 –9 where God sent snakes to punish the people but later ordered Moses to erect a bronze serpent which cured them.31 The text does not, however, use the expression of “testing” the Lord. But the sin the people committed according to Num 21:5 was to complain at their fate of being in the desert without food and water, and a similar sin is seen as a testing of the Lord in Exod 17:1–7. The last warning (1 Cor 10:10) is against grumbling. The verb “grumble” (γογγύζω) is used in, for instance, Exod 17:3 and Num 17:6. But the idea of the “destroyer” is found in Exodus only in Exod 12:23 and nowhere in Numbers. It could be that 1 Cor 10:10 refers to Num 14:36–37 (punishment of the explorers) and Num 16:11–35 (punishment of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, cf. 41– 49), where διαγογγύζω is employed.32 1.3. The Impact of Pss 78 and 106 on 1 Cor 10:1–10 In the standard commentaries one finds occasional references to other texts from the Old Testament than those from Exodus and Numbers. Of these texts Pss 78 (LXX 77) and 106 (LXX 105) are most frequently referred 28 Cf.

Barrett 1968, 222, Conzelmann 1969, 197, and Lang 1986,124. Barrett 1968, 224, Lang 1986, 125. 30 Lietzmann in Lietzmann/Kümmel 1969, 47. 31 Cf. Barrett 1968, 225, Conzelmann 1969, 198, and Lang 1986, 125. 32 Lietzmann in Lietzmann/Kümmel 1969, 47. 29 Cf.

1. The Scriptural and Jewish Background

87

to.33 These psalms have so many individual features in common with 1 Cor 10:1–10 that one may suspect, that these particular texts are consciously referred to by the author of the Pauline passage.34 Both psalms use the phrase “our fathers” (Pss 78:3, 5, 106: 6–7). The cloud is mentioned in Ps 78:14, the sea in Pss 78:13, 106:7, 9, 22. In contradistinction to the latter psalm Ps 78 mentions both the manna (verse 24) and the rock which gave water (verses 15–16, 20). The manna is called ἄρτος (bread cf. Exod 16:4, 15) and not βρῶμα (food) as in 1 Cor 10:3. Nevertheless Ps 77:18 LXX uses the plural form of βρῶμα, a word which is common in the LXX but does not occur elsewhere in the descriptions of the events in the desert. The episode in Num 11:4, 31–34, where the people crave meat and receive quails, and probably referred to in 1 Cor 10:6, is taken up in Ps 78:26–31 (cf. 106:14). When we come to the sins of the fathers and the warnings not to follow their example (1 Cor 10:6–10) it is notable that Ps 78:8 of the descendants to the Israelites in the desert says that they should put their trust in God “in order not to become like their fathers” (ἵνα μὴ γένωνται ὡς οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν). Idolatry is mentioned in Pss 78:58; 106:36–38. The Phinehas episode is mentioned in Ps 106:28–31. In Ps 105:39 LXX the same verb πορνεύω (to commit fornication) as we find in 1 Cor 10:8 is employed instead of ἐκπορνεύω as in Num 25:1. The context is similar in the Old Testament passages. Both deal with idolatry. We also find the idea of testing the Lord in our psalms (Pss 78:41, 56; 106:14). But in addition Ps 78:18, like 1 Cor 10:9, uses the rare word ἐκπειράζω (to test). This word is also found in Deut 6:16 LXX, where it refers to the episode when the people tested the Lord at Massa (Exod 17:1–5). Finally the “grumbling” is taken up in Ps 106:25. The word γογγύζω is used here as in 1 Cor 10:10. The rebellion and punishment of Dathan and Abiram is mentioned in Ps 106:16–18. 1.4. Structure and Form of 1 Cor 10:1–13 It is often maintained that in 1 Cor 10:1–13 Paul presents a midrash,35 or even quotes a pre-existing one.36 Wayne A. Meeks tries to show that the midrash in this case consists of an interpretation of the verse from Exod 32:6 which Paul cites in 1 Cor 10:7 according to the LXX version: “and the peo33 See Robertson/Plummer 1911, 200 for 1 Cor 10:3, 205 for 1 Cor 10:9, Lietzmann in Lietzmann / Kümmel, 47, for 1 Cor 10:9, Barrett 1968, 220 for 1 Cor 10:1, Conzelmann 1969, 195 for 1 Cor 10:1, 196 for 1 Cor 10:3, 197 for 1 Cor 10:5 and 198 for 1 Cor 10:9, Wolff 1982, 40 for 1 Cor 10:1, Lang 1986, 124 for 1 Cor 10:5 and 125 for 1 Cor 10:8–9. 34 Cf. Sandelin 1987, 171. 35 Lietzmann in Lietzmann/Kümmel 1969, 44, Weiß 1910, 250. 36 Barrett 1968, 220. Wendell L. Willis (1985, 127), and Ingo Broer (1989, 307–310) are critical towards such a view.

88

Does Paul Argue against Sacramentalism?

ple sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play”.37 According to Meeks the eating and drinking refer to the spiritual food and drink in the desert, whereas the phrase “and rose up to play” receives five different explications: craving for evil things, idolatry, fornication, testing Christ and grumbling. Meeks finds in Tosefta Sotah 6:6 both a model for this procedure of interpretation and two of the evil deeds just mentioned: idolatry and fornication. The remaining three explanations he finds in the LXX and in Philo. The Tosefta passage tells us that R. Simeon b. Yochai presented four different interpretations of Gen 21:9, which tells us that Ishmael played with Isaac. R. Aqiba explained the word played as idolatry with reference to Exod 32:6, whereas another rabbi explained it as fornication with reference to a verse in Genesis, and so on. R. Simeon b. Yochai concludes the sequence by presenting his own understanding, which is based on two Scriptural verses from Genesis and says that he prefers it to R. Aqiba’s interpretation.38 It is not difficult to see that the procedure differs considerably from that of Paul. First we find the verse interpreted in Sotah 6:6 at the very beginning, whereas the Exodus verse cited by Paul is in the middle of the text. Secondly it is clearly indicated that the text itself is a presentation of different interpretations attributed to different sages of a verse from Scripture. This trait has no counterpart whatsoever in the Pauline text. If we take the Tosefta passage as a model for what a midrash is, then it is difficult to see 1 Cor 10:1–13 as representative of that literary genre.39 What we have in 1 Cor 10:1–10 is a description of events which occurred in the desert, first blissful events, then examples of apostasy. The latter are used as warnings to the present readers not to act like the fathers. In order to find models for the formal structure of 1 Cor 10:1–13, we do not need to go to texts as late as the Tosefta, which was no doubt compiled long after Paul, and still less later Rabbinic texts. Even Meeks emphasizes that “there is no dearth” of earlier Jewish models for the kind of composition which we find in Paul.40 In the first place we must consult the Old Testament. Wayne A. Meeks and Hans-Josef Klauck 41 mention Deut 32:7–27,42 Neh 9:6–37 (LXX: 2 Esdr 19:6–37) and Ps 78 as Old Testament texts which are

37 Meeks

1982, 68–71. Neusner 1979, 172–173. 39 Friedrich Lang (1986, 123) does not believe that in 1 Cor 10:1–13 Paul is using an already existing Jewish-Christian midrash. Paul was able, however, according to Lang, to refer to singular ideas of interpretation having their source within hellenistic Judaism. 40 Meeks 1982, 66. Wolfgang Schenk (1990, 629) applies terms taken from classical rhetoric to 1 Cor 10:1–22: exemplum (verses 1–5), applicatio in the form of a circular composition (verses 6–11), peroratio (verse 12), exhortatio (verses 14 –22). 41 Klauck 1987, 70. 42 Cf. Schüssler Fiorenza 1988, 1181. 38 See

1. The Scriptural and Jewish Background

89

comparable to our passage in Paul.43 In all these texts one finds one feature which is characteristic of 1 Cor 10:1–10: the apostasy of the fathers is described against the background of the benevolent acts of God. In the prophecy-like text of Deuteronomy 32, verses 7–14 first describe God’s goodness towards Israel with hints at the wandering through the desert, then verses 15–18 describe the apostasy of “Jesurun”, which basically consisted in abandoning God, its rock, in favour of strange gods, and thirdly verses 19–27 enumerate the acts of punishment which God will send upon his people. In the prayer which is presented in Neh 9:6–37 we find a description of the blissful Exodus events in verses 9–15: the sea (v. 11), the cloud (v. 12), the laws (v. 13), the Sabbath (v. 14), the bread from heaven and the water from the rock (v. 15). Then follows a description of the apostasy of “our fathers” (cf. verses 9 and 32) including the episode with the golden calf in verses 16–18. But in contradistinction to Deut 32 the text of Neh stresses the mercy of God in the desert and in the promised land (verses 19–25). The same themes are repeated in verses 26–31 telling about the apostasy but also the mercy of God during the history in the land, and the passage is concluded by a confession in verses 32–37. Psalm 78 describes in subsequent sequences the acts of the Lord, the sins of the people and the punishment of God. The gracious acts of God are presented in verses 3–8 (in more general terms), 12–16 (Exodus events), 23–29 (Exodus events), 38–39 (God’s mercifulness), 42 b–55 (punishment of the Egyptians), 65– 66 (God wakes up and punishes his enemies), 68–72 (the election of Judah and David), the sins are described in verses 9–11 (apostasy from God’s covenant), 17–20 (testing the Lord in the desert), 32 (sin and disbelief), 40– 42 a (rebellion in the desert), 56–58 (rebellion and idolatry), the punishment in verses 21–22 (fire in Jacob), 30–31 (death), 33 (calamity), 59– 64 (destruction and exile), 67 (the clan of Joseph despised). Verses 34 –37 speak of the people’s repentance, which nevertheless ends in hypocrisy. Psalm 106 also has descriptions of the benevolent acts of God at the Red Sea (verses 8–11) and on other occasions (verses 43– 44), but most of the psalm describes apostasy, e.g. idolatry (verses 19–21, 28, 36, 38), and punishment (e.g. verses 15, 17–18, 26–27, 41– 42). But God’s forgiving grace towards the sinful people is also mentioned several times (verses 8, 23, 44 – 47). The list of Old Testament texts showing the same pattern of God’s acts, the apostasy of the people and the punishment of the Lord can be augmented by texts from the Pentateuch (Exod 32; Num 14:22–23), or by texts like the prophetic units of Hos 13:4 –9, Amos 2:6–16, the prayers and confessions of Jer 14:7–10 and Dan 9:15 and the admonition in Ps 95 (94 LXX):8–11. We may pay some special attention to the latter verses, since the 43 Meeks

1982, 66, adds Hos 13:4 –8 and Amos 2:9–16; 3:2.

90

Does Paul Argue against Sacramentalism?

text of 1 Cor 10:1–10 has the character of an admonition. The passage starts with the injunction: “Do not grow stubborn, … as at the time of Massah in the wilderness (ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ).” Then comes a description of sin, which is contrasted to an act of God: “when your forefathers tested (ἐπείρασαν) me, tried me though they had seen what I did”. Finally the punishment is announced with the following words: “They shall never enter my rest”. This pattern also survives in the apocryphal books. We find it in the prayer of Baruch (Bar 1:15–3:8), especially in 2:11–15, a confession of sins against God, who led the people out of Egypt, but who now shows his wrath. Since Philo refers to Exod 32 several times, it is not surprising that the pattern has left its mark in his writings. In Mos. 2.271, Philo says about the worship of the golden calf: At this, Moses was cut to the heart to think that in the first place the whole people had suddenly been blinded who shortly before (πρὸ μικροῦ)44 had excelled every nation in clearness of vision (ὁ λαὸς … ὁ … πάντων ἐθνῶν ὀξυωπέστατος), and secondly, that a fable falsely invented (πλάσμα μύθου) could quench the bright radiance of truth (αὐγὴν … τῆς ἀληθείας)  – truth on which no eclipse of the sun or of all the starry choir can cast a shadow, since it is illumined by its own light, the intelligible, the incorporeal, compared with which the light of the senses would seem to be as night compared with day.

According to this text the “fable” of the golden calf quenched something which the people had possessed, i.e. “the bright radiance of truth”. This thought is paralleled in Mos. 2.167, where Philo says that Moses marvelled that the people had exchanged a great truth for a great delusion (ὅσον ψεῦδος ἀνθ᾽ ὅσης ἀληθείας ὑπηλλάξαντο). What exactly is Philo referring to by this idea of “truth”? Probably it is closely connected with the idea of the “true God” that the people had forgotten, an idea expressed immediately before the passage cited above (Mos. 2.270; cf. Mos. 2.161). Since Philo is dealing with the events at Sinai, he may also have the giving of the Law in mind (cf. Dec. 65). In any case Philo contrasts the apostasy of the people against a blissful past when they possessed the truth. He then goes on to describe the punishment of the people through the tribe of Levi (Mos. 2.168–173, 272–274). In the non-Pauline texts of the New Testament we find the pattern in Heb 3:8–11, where the admonition of Ps 75 (74 LXX):8–11 is cited, and in Jude 5. We have thus been able to show that in his argument in 1 Cor 10:1–10 Paul employs a pattern which is well documented in many different kinds of texts, for instance stories and prophecies, but also in admonitions like Ps 95:8–11. But does Paul use this pattern in order to attack over-confident 44 Colson translates “a few hours ago”. See Colson/ Whitaker 1929– 62, vol. 6, 585. The French translation has “juste l’instant d’avant”. See Arnaldez et al. 1967, 313.

2. Over-Confidence Among the Fathers?

91

people in Corinth? He could of course do this, if the fathers themselves were described as over-confident in the texts that 1 Cor 10:1–10 refers to. Let us investigate this question.

2. Over-Confidence Among the Fathers? Do the texts from the Old Testament and Judaism referred to above contain the thought that the people of Israel sinned because they had the idea that nothing could harm them since God had saved them? Do we have hints of religious security of a similar kind as has been postulated in Corinth by those scholars who think that some of the Corinthians felt free to be sexually immoral or participate in pagan cults because the sacraments gave them protection against everything that threatened their relationship to God and their salvation? There are instances in these texts which show that the Israelites became too content with the gifts of God and became in a way secure. “Jacob ate and was well fed, Jeshurun grew fat and unruly” (Deut 32:15 a). Similar expressions are found in Neh 9:25, Ps 78:29 and Hos 13:6. But this kind of security does not at all mean a security of the kind postulated in Corinth. On the contrary: when the Israelites grew fat, they forgot God! The verse just cited from Deuteronomy continues: “He forsook God who made him and dishonoured the rock of his salvation”. And in Hos 13:6 we read: “So they were filled, and, being filled, grew proud; and so they forgot me” (cf. Neh 9:25–26). I cannot find any instance in these texts bearing witness to the idea that the Israelites sinned because God had acted in their midst. According to Neh 9:17 the Israelites refused to obey and did not remember the miracles of God. A similar thought is found in Pss 78:11 and 106:7, 13. There is nothing that looks like over-confidence in God’s acts here. On the contrary it is said in Ps 78:21–22 that God was filled with anger because the people did not believe and trust in him. When Ps 106 describes the episode of the golden calf, we do not find that the people wanted to honour God and the calf at the same time. Instead we read: “… They exchanged their Glory for the image of a bull that feeds on grass. They forgot God their deliverer, who had done great deeds in Egypt …” Having stated that the Israelites “sacrificed to foreign demons that are no gods”, the song of Moses in Deuteronomy states: “You forsook your rock, who begot you” (Deut 32:17–18).45 Similarly 45 We may recall that in 1 Cor 10 Paul speaks both of demons and the rock, who was Christ (1 Cor 10: 4, 20, 21). Meeks (1982, 72) notes that Paul here probably alludes to Deut 32.

92

Does Paul Argue against Sacramentalism?

the book of Baruch confesses that the people have served other gods and sinned against the Lord (Bar 1:22; 2:5). Philo states that the Israelites who worshipped the golden calf “forgetting the reverence they owed to the SelfExistent, became zealous devotees of Egyptian fables” (Mos. 2.161). They forgot the true God and ruined “the high-born qualities inherited from their forefathers and fostered by piety and holiness” (Mos. 2.270). The apostates did not try to stick to the religious status they had before the lapse into the worship of the golden calf. On the contrary: they abandoned that status. Instead of seeing the apostasy of the Israelites as a result of over-confidence in God, these texts understand the sins as results of distrust in him. The Israelites did not abandon God because he had acted graciously towards them, but in spite of this. Ps 78:16–17 seems to express this thought very well: “… he brought streams out of the cliff and made water run down like rivers. But they sinned against him yet again: in the desert they defied the Most High” (cf. Num 14:22; Ps 95:9). If Paul wanted to see an analogy between over-confident Corinthians and over-confident Israelites, such an analogy finds no support at all in those Old Testament texts which are referred to in 1 Cor 10:1–10. It is therefore difficult to imagine how Paul could have understood the fathers as having been over-confident. The texts give an unambiguous picture of quite a different kind. The sins, among these idolatry in its various forms, are signs of abandoning and forgetting God by a people who do not trust in him. In fact the picture Paul gives of the fathers does not have any feature of over-confidence either. Now, if Paul understood some Corinthians as overconfident, why would he refer to precisely these stories, which do not offer him the slightest argument to admonish such people?

3. Conclusion The investigation of 1 Cor 10:1–13 presented in this article has been critical towards the common attempts to see the passage as directed against Corinthian over-confidence, especially if this is seen as based on the effects of the sacraments. Paul’s words are better explained as part of a traditional pattern, which the apostle uses. This pattern, found in several Old Testament and Jewish texts, sees the apostasy of the people against the beneficent acts of God. In spite of the blissful events, the people acted sinfully, for instance by turning to foreign gods, wherefore they were punished. By referring to this pattern Paul warns the Corinthians not to participate in pagan cults. Paul focusses in his text on the baptism and feeding of the people in the desert on the one hand and the idolatrous banqueting around the golden calf on the other.

3. Conclusion

93

These events form prefigurations of the experiences in the present life of the Corinthian community, which Paul sees as an eschatological reality for which the Scriptures have been written (1 Cor 10:11). These realities are Christian baptism and the Lord’s supper on the beneficial side and pagan cultic practices on the sinister and seductive side. Although the events in the desert are seen as prefigurations of the Christian sacraments, Paul at the same time describes them in a different way from baptism into Christ and the Lord’s supper. Just as the fathers were baptized into Moses and received spiritual food and drink, so the Corinthians have become baptized into Christ and have participated in the Lord’s supper. These events have been gifts from God. Now the Corinthians should take warning and not participate in pagan cults, because this in turn would mean apostasy from faith, as in the case of the fathers. Let the man who thinks that he stands in faith (cf. 1 Cor 15:1; 16:13; 2 Cor 1:24) beware lest he should fall (1 Cor 10:12). The focus of the passage is not, according to our view, a warning against over-confidence, which scholars have often read into 1 Cor 10:12. The passage is instead a warning not to participate in idolatrous practices. Paul’s words show the impossibility of being a member of the Christian community with its sacramental meetings and a participant in the pagan cults at the same time (cf. 1 Cor 10:21). Instead of a warning of over-confident sacramentalism, the main point in Paul’s argument is his injunction to flee idolatry (1 Cor 10:14), which follows like a conclusion immediately after 1 Cor 10:1–13.46

46 According to Heinz-Dietrich Wendland (1978, 77) it is 1 Cor 10:14 which motivates the preceding Scriptural proof in 1 Cor 10:1–10. Nevertheless Wendland postulates over-confidence among the Corinthian “Gnostics” (77–78). William F. Orr and James A. Walther (1976, 247) state that 1 Cor 10:14 –15 “summarize the diverse preceding material as it relates to idolatry”. According to Willis (1985,141) the concern of Paul’s “argument is not sacramentalism … but the danger of idolatry”. In 1 Cor 10:14 Paul “draws the conclusion from his argument in 10:1–13”.

“Do Not Be Idolaters!” (1 Cor 10:7) (1995) 1. The Problem In several instances Paul reveals his strong Jewish resentment at the polytheistic beliefs prevalent in the Hellenistic world.1 He praises the Thessalonians who “turned from idols, to be servants of the living and true God” (1 Thess 1:9). He reminds the Galatians that they, before they knew God, “were the slaves of beings which in their nature are no gods” (Gal 4:8). He also refers to the knowledge of the Corinthians concerning their previous pagan life: how they were swept off to the dumb idols (1 Cor 12:2). In the letter to the Romans Paul is even more explicit in his description of idolatry and its consequences (Rom 1:23 ff.). In 1 Cor 10:1–22 Paul warns the Corinthians not to participate in pagan cults.The command “Do not be idolaters!” (1 Cor 10:7) stands in the context of a lengthy description of what befell the fathers in the desert (1 Cor 10:1–10). These had been baptized into Moses (1 Cor 10:2) and had received spiritual food and drink (1 Cor 10:3– 4). But God was not pleased with them (1 Cor 10:5) and they were punished for sins they had committed, like idolatry (1 Cor 10:7) and fornication (1 Cor 10:8). According to many modern standard commentators, this Pauline account was motivated by a current feature in Corinthian community life: some of the Corinthians were over-confident in the effects of the sacraments.2 The Corinthian “sacramentalists”3 maintained that baptism4 and eucharist gave them protection against everything that threatened their future salvation. Therefore they did not see any danger in, for instance, sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:12, 15; 10:8) or participation in pagan cultic activities (1 Cor 8:1, 4; 10:14 –22). 1 Originally this article was dedicated to professor Lars Hartman, one of the participants in the Inter-Scandinavian project on Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity (1988–1993) mentioned in the foreword. 2 Lietzmann in Lietzmann/Kümmel 1969, 45– 47, Weiß 1910, 250, 254, Barrett 1968, 25, 220, 227, Conzelmann 1969, 28, 30, 194, 197, Wolff 1982, 39, Lang 1986, 6, 26, 122–124, Klauck 1987, 71. 3 Such a term is used by e.g. Bornkamm 1956, 317. 4 Cf. Carlson 1993, 261.

1. The Problem

95

Now, according to this standard interpretation, Paul wants the over-confident sacramentalists to understand that something similar to that which befell the fathers could happen to themselves. The events in the desert were written down in order to set a warning example to those who are confronted with the end of times (1 Cor 10:11). As a matter of fact the gift of the sacraments did not give such protection as the over-confident Corinthians believed. Therefore Paul warns the one who thinks that he stands firm lest he should fall (1 Cor 10:12). In some of the commentaries referred to above Corinthian sacramentalism is seen as a manifestation of attitudes witnessed in other sections of 1 Corinthians, such as being strong (1 Cor 4:10),5 having freedom to do anything (1 Cor 6:12),6 possessing knowledge (1 Cor 8:1),7 and having the Spirit (1 Cor 12:4).8 The relationship between freedom, knowledge and possession of the Spirit among the Corinthians is described in the following way by Hans Conzelmann: the conduct of the Corinthians “is grounded on a freedom principle (6:12; 10:23); this in turn rests upon ‘knowledge’ (8:1), and the latter derives from experience of the Spirit (12:4 ff.)”.9 But actually 1 Cor 12:1–13 does not describe the position of the Corinthians but that of Paul! And the relationship between freedom in 1 Cor 6:12 and knowledge in 1 Cor 8:1 is not as self-evident as Conzelmann suggests. It can of course be maintained that those in Corinth, who supposed they had the knowledge (γνῶσις) that no idols exist (1 Cor 8:1, 4, 7, 10, 11), based their freedom (ἐξουσία) to eat meat offered through pagan rituals on such knowledge (1 Cor 8:9). This freedom may also have been formulated in the sentence “everything is permitted” (πάντα ἔξεστιν), which Paul cites when discussing the question of idol meat in 1 Cor 10:23–31. But in the context of 1 Cor 6:12, where a similar sentence is cited, no “knowledge” of the kind just mentioned is implied.10 Thus it is very uncertain if Hans Lietzmann is right when he asserts that the “one who thinks that he stands” (1 Cor 10:12) is the “gnostic” of 1 Cor 6:12 and 8:1, 10 who is sure of his salvation.11 For

  5 Lietzmann in Lietzmann/Kümmel 1969, 46, Conzelmann 1969, 197. See also Broer 1989, 317.   6 Lang 1986, 122.   7 Lietzmann in Lietzmann/Kümmel 1969, 46.   8 Conzelmann 1969, 197, Lang 1986, 122.   9 Conzelmann 1988, 14. 10 Many authors think that the expression πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν “I am free to do anything” could in one way or another originally have emanated from Paul himself. Robertson/ Plummer 1911, 121, Weiß 1910, 157, Lietzmann in Lietzmann/Kümmel 1969, 27. Conzelmann 1986, 109, states: “The Corinthians apparently derive it from Paul’s doctrine of freedom.” 11 Lietzmann in Lietzmann/Kümmel 1969, 47.

96

“Do Not Be Idolaters!” (1 Cor 10:7) (1995)

instance, Johannes Weiß regards it as a presumption (Vermutung) that 1 Cor 6:12 and 8:1 reflect the principles of the Corinthian “gnostics”.12 Interpreting 1 Cor 10:1–13 by taking one’s point of departure in 1 Cor 8:1–13, where Paul is perhaps discussing with the “gnostics” and therefore using common slogans, has its risks. It is, as a matter of fact, an open question whether Paul is addressing the same problem in the two texts mentioned.13 In 1 Cor 8 the question causing debate seems to be idol meat,14 whereas 1 Cor 10:1–22 seems to discuss idolatry in a broader sense (verses 7 and 14).15 Nevertheless banqueting implying meat offered to idols is also taken up in 1 Cor 10:7, 19–21. In 1 Cor 8:9–13 Paul, with regard to the brother who has a weak conscience,16 pleads against eating idol meat for instance when visiting a pagan shrine.17 In 1 Cor 10:27–29 he may have a similar situation in mind or an invitation to a private house where meat is served.18 In 1 Cor 10:14, 20–21 Paul categorically seems to forbid participation at pagan ritual performances.19 Because of the intensity with which Paul makes his case in 1 Cor 10:1–22, it is probable that there existed people in the Christian community of Corinth who attended pagan religious occasions. Paul does not, however, name anyone, nor does he say if there were many or few such persons. But are these people the same as those who have such a strong conscience that they are able to eat idol meat? If the plain consumers of idol meat and the attendants at pagan rituals are the same persons, then 1 Cor 10:1–13 may be seen as directed against people claiming that they have the knowledge that no idols exist. But if this were the case, are we here dealing with a phenomenon of boastful knowledge based upon the claim of the possession of the Spirit? In any case it is necessary to study 1 Cor 10:1–13 as such, without taking 1 Cor 8 as a starting-point for the interpretation. The theory that in 1 Cor 10 Paul is addressing over-confident sacramentalists seems to rest on the following assumptions, which are deductions from the text, not statements in the text itself. First, the admonition in v. 12 : “Let the man who thinks that he stands beware lest he should fall” is understood as directed against people who believe nothing can threaten 12 Weiß

1910, 157. discussion is well described by Broer 1989, 301–304. 14 See Willis 1985, 110–122. 15 Cf. Walter 1979, 429– 427. 16 See the discussion of Willis 1985, 89–96, 117–120. 17 Cf. Willis 1985, 103. 18 See Willis 1985, 235–239. 19 Some authors think that the visit to a pagan shrine and eating there in 1 Cor 8:10 is for Paul actually equivalent to the pagan worship Paul has in mind in 1 Cor 10:20–21. Paul condemns both, but uses different arguments in the two cases. See e.g. Merklein 1984, 162–169. Others think that Paul differentiates. He accepts the presence of Christians at social gatherings including meals at the shrines, but he does not accept the eating of idol meat at such occasions. See e.g. Oster 1992, 64 – 67. 13 The

1. The Problem

97

their future salvation. Secondly, the sentence is often seen as the goal towards which Paul is aiming in 1 Cor 10:1–11.20 Thirdly, although verse 12 does not directly say one word about the sacraments, it is understood as a warning against sacramental security.21 This idea is based on 1 Cor 10:2– 4. Paul’s words concerning baptism into Moses and spiritual food and drink are understood as referring to the Christian sacraments in two ways: a) the over-confident people in Corinth thought that the Christian sacraments protected them and b) Paul had this in mind when he wrote 1 Cor 10:2– 4. If we give the sentences of Paul the value of known (K) and such derivatives which also serve as explanations for Paul’s words the value of unknown (U), we get a short description of the structure of the interpretation: The idea of “the man who thinks he stands …”(K) is Paul’s reaction on a Corinthian position meaning “nothing can threaten our salvation” (U) “because we have received the sacraments” (U). Paul argues that the fathers received “sacraments” (U), but still sinned and were punished (K). Therefore the addressees should not sin like the fathers (K). An understanding of verse 12 based on these known and unknown factors then means: “The one who thinks nothing can threaten his future salvation since he has received the sacraments should beware lest he fall, i.e. he should beware lest he sin, because in that case he will be punished with the loss of salvation.” The standard explanation of 1 Cor 10:1–13 has something very logical and consistent about it. But this consistency seems to be a result of the fact that the factors which explain the text are deductions from the text itself. But is an understanding of a text which operates with such a set of unknown factors satisfactory as a reliable exegesis? Now it cannot of course be denied that 1 Cor 10:12 may be seen as a warning against over-confidence comparable to what we find in Rom 11:20.22 But even then, if the thought of 1 Cor 10:12 in the mind of Paul may imply that he thinks that his addressees feel too secure, this does not necessarily mean that he thinks that this security derives from “sacramentalism”, because Paul does not explicitly say that the Corinthians rely for their security on the sacraments.23 to C. K. Barrett (1968, 228) Paul in verse 12 proceeds to make the purpose of the preceding paragraph explicit. Friedrich Lang (1986, 122) states that verse 12 is the “Skopus” of 1 Cor 10:1–13. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor (1990, 807) utters concerning verse 12: “This is the point of the whole section.” 21 Barrett 1968, 228, Conzelmann 1969, 199, and Lang 1986, 126. Christian Wolff (1982, 39) is very precise at this point: “Die Warnung vor dem Fall in V. 12 läßt erkennen, daß die Korinther meinten, durch Genuß der Sakramente vor dem Abfall zum Götzendienst und seinen Folgen geschützt zu sein.” 22 Cf. Weiß 1910, 254. 23 Cf. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer (1911, 208), who admit that security exists among the Corinthians which perhaps makes them feel “secure against contamina20 According

98

“Do Not Be Idolaters!” (1 Cor 10:7) (1995)

In my article Does Paul Argue Against Sacramentalism and Over-Confidence in 1 Cor 10:1–14? (1995) I challenge the standard view. In my opinion, Paul in 1 Cor 10:1–13 adheres to a pattern found in Old Testament, Jewish and New Testament texts which see the apostasy of the people against the background of the beneficient acts of God (Deut 32:7–27, Exod 32, Neh 9:6–37, Pss 78, 95:8–11, 106, Bar 2:11–15, Philo: Mos. 2.271, Heb 3:8–11). Such texts do not, however, contain the thought that the people of Israel sinned because they had the idea that nothing could harm them since God had saved them. Instead the sins, among them idolatry, are signs of the abandoning of God by a people who do not trust in him. Why should Paul refer to such stories in order to admonish people who from his point of view are over-confident? In his account of the fathers in 1 Cor 1:1–10 Paul does not explicitly describe them as over-confident. Paul sees the events in the desert as prefigurations of the Christian sacraments. Just as the fathers were baptized into Moses and received spiritual food and drink, so the Corinthians have become baptized into Christ and have participated in the Lord’s supper. These events were gifts from God. Now the Corinthians should take warning and not participate in pagan cults, because this in turn would mean apostasy from faith, as in the case of the fathers. In the present article I want to take a closer look at the argument of Paul in 1 Cor 10:1–14. If we try to maintain that Paul does not argue against over-confidence in this passage, we have to give another explanation to Paul’s words in v. 12: “Let the man who thinks that he stands beware lest he should fall.” What does he mean by these words in this context? What is their relation to the preceding statements? Our first task, then, is to analyze 1 Cor 10:1–11. When Paul refers to the events that befell the fathers in the desert by first describing the blissful events and then the punishments, does he create the account by himself, independently using Old Testament tradition? Or is he using an existing text, which he comments upon? If the latter were the case, Paul’s possible additions would give us some clues to understanding his own position. The question we have raised has been actualized by Wayne A. Meeks.

tion from idol-feasts”, nevertheless state: “It is less likely that there is a reference to one who thinks that through the sacrament he ipso facto possesses eternal life with God.” Also Heinz-Dietrich Wendland (1978, 78) is cautious: “Vielleicht hat man sich in Korinth zur Begründung der unbegrenzten Freiheit auch auf die Sakramente berufen …” The idea that the Corinthians built their security on the sacraments is energetically attacked by Walter Schmithals 1969, 370–371. Against von Soden (1951) Schmithals maintains that the false security of the Corinthians does not derive from their partaking of the sacraments but from their “gnosis”. Also Willis (1985, 140–141) argues against the proposed sacramentalism among the Corinthians. In the commentary of Orr / Walther (1976, 244 –249) there is no special stress on sacramentalism.

2. Analysis of 1 Cor 10:1–10

99

2. Analysis of 1 Cor 10:1–10 Meeks maintains that in 1 Cor 10:1–13 we may have a separate homily, composed prior to its use in the present context and containing two sets of five similar statements, i.e. five examples of benevolent acts of God in the desert and five examples of rebellion on the part of the fathers. The homily may have been written by Paul himself or by somebody else and later inserted by the apostle at its present place.24 I think the observations of Meeks concerning the composition of the passage are very fruitful. I would, however, like to develop the idea somewhat differently by taking as my points of departure certain features which regularly reappear in the two series of events presented. I would suggest two basic criteria for pre-Pauline origin: (a) Old Testament references and (b) regular features which both stand in contrast to (α) details not having any base in the O. T. and to (β) features which obscure the regularities in the structure. An additional criterion would be the fact that many of the features in the description of the events in the desert have no correspondence with the situation in Corinth insofar as this is known to us from the first letter to the Corinthians. According to 1 Cor 10:1– 4, the five blissful events in the desert, in Paul‹s words, befell all of “our fathers”: the cloud, the baptism into Moses, the sea, the food and the drink. Four of the events also have another feature in common: they are all recorded in the Bible: the cloud (Exod 13:21–22; 14:19, 24; Num 14:14), the sea (Exod 14: 21–22; Num 33:8), the manna (Ex 16: 4, 15; Num 11:6), the drink from the rock (Exod 17:6; Num 20:8). The idea of becoming baptized into Moses is not, however, found in the Old Testament. Nor do we here find the idea that the food and the drink were “spiritual”. The “rock” (v. 4) is well known from the Bible (Exod 17:6; Num 20:8–11; Deut 8:15). But the sentence speaking about this rock gives a motivation (γάρ) and in addition contains the ideas that it was spiritual and followed the fathers, statements lacking in the Old Testament. Paul also says that the rock was Christ, a statement which has to be a Christian comment. If we take away the statements that do not have any clear Old Testament base, we are left with four events: 1) our fathers were all under the cloud, 2) they all went through the sea, 3) they all ate the same food and 4) they all drank the same drink from the rock (the rock being mentioned in an explanatory sentence). The rest of the passage is an amplification compared with the Old Testament text.25 If the series of four blissful events has its counterpart in the series of four examples of rebellion presented in a unified manner, we 24 Meeks 1982, 64 –78. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (1988, 1181) seems to follow Meeks at this point. 25 In a previous work I have tried to argue in favour of the commonly held hypothesis that Paul here draws on wisdom-tradition. See Sandelin 1987, 165–172.

100

“Do Not Be Idolaters!” (1 Cor 10:7) (1995)

get two series of four events each. Let us therefore turn to the presentation of the rebellion against God. The warning in the last three examples of rebellion (fornication, testing the Lord and grumbling, vv. 8–10) has almost the same structure: let us not (viz. do not) commit A, as some of them did (A), and who (therefore) were punished with B. In addition, these examples all refer to events recorded in Numbers (chs. 11, 14, 21 and 25) although some of the wordings also seem to refer to Exodus (Exod 12:23, 17:2–3) or the Psalms (Pss 78:18, 106:14, 25). In contradistinction to the structure prevalent in verses 8–10 the wording of verse 7 on idolatry is quite different. The first part of the verse is similar in form to verses 8–10: “Do not be idolaters, like some of them”. But the word εἰδωλολάτρης does not occur in the LXX, nor do we find it in Philo or Josephus. Further, the latter part of verse 7 does not have a phrase corresponding to the words “as some of them did”, but instead says “like some of them, as it is written” and then adds a verbatim citation from Exodus (Exod 32:6). Verse 7 therefore may have originated from Paul himself.26 Is verse 6 of Pauline origin, too? Here we on the one hand have the same kind of expression at the end as in verses 8–10 (“as they did”), but on the other hand this phrase is introduced by a prepositional infinitive clause: εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐπιθυμηταὶ κακῶν, “not to set our desires on evil things”. In verses 7–10 we have clauses with imperatives or subjunctives at this point. This could speak in favour of an original Pauline statement. But the sentence with the infinitive in verse 6 is a result of the preceding sentence, which says that the events occurred as “examples (τύποι) for us”. Now Paul makes a similar statement in verse 11, having finished the series of rebellion: “These things happened to them as examples (τυπικῶς) and were written down as a warning for us, …” Verse 6 can thus be seen as a result of Paul’s reshaping of a statement which originally had a form coming close to verses 8–10: “let us not set our desires on evil things, as some of them did, and who therefore were punished with …” Perhaps the word κακῶν (evil things) is a Pauline addition since the episode referred to lacks this word. The event is recorded in Num 11:4 – 6, which tells about the desire of the people for meat and other food they had been used to in Egypt instead of the manna. The punishment for this act of rebellion is mentioned in the same chapter, verses 33–34: the people were struck with a severe plague. If the analysis above is correct, we would have four cases of rebellion all recorded in the book of Numbers and all originally presented in a similar formal manner. Of these four cases only “fornication” has some counterpart in the context of the letter (1 Cor 6:18, 7:2), whereas the ideas of being desirous, testing the Lord and grumbling are confined to 1 Cor 10:6–10 26 Thus

Schüssler Fiorenza 1988, 1182.

2. Analysis of 1 Cor 10:1–10

101

and do not point to the situation in Corinth,27 which speaks in favour of a pre-Pauline text. Verses 6 a (but these events occurred as examples for us), the word κακῶν (evil things), and 7 (do not be idolaters etc.) would be Pauline additions to the original non-Pauline enumeration of rebellion lying behind vv. 6–10 and corresponding to the four blissful events mentioned in 1 Cor 10:1– 4. The name Χριστός in verse 9, if original,28 would be a Pauline modification, too. Since the first three admonitions are in the first person plural, we may perhaps allow ourselves to suggest this as an original form also for verse 10: μηδὲ γογγύζωμεν (let us not grumble). The second person imperative form in verse 10 may stem from Paul, who uses this in verse 7: μηδὲ εἰδωλολάτραι γίνεσθε (do not be idolaters). If it is reasonable to postulate that 1 Cor 10:1– 4 and 6–10 contains two pre-Pauline lists, one enumerating four blissful events in the desert and the other a set of four examples of rebellion together with warnings not to commit similar sins, then we must ask if verse 5 could contain the original pre-Pauline link between these two lists. We have already noted that both halves of the verse have their counterparts in the Old Testament (Jer 14:10 and Num 14:16, 28–39). Therefore it is possible that 1 Cor 10:5 was a part of the pre-Pauline text. We have thus reached the point where we can present a possible prePauline text forming a substratum of 1 Cor 10:1–10: οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν πάντες ὑπὸ τὴν νεφέλην ἦσαν καὶ πάντες διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης διῆλθον

v.1. v.2. v.3. v.4. v.5.



………

καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ βρῶμα ἔφαγον καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ ἔπιον πόμα. ………

ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεός, κατεστρώθησαν γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.

[διὰ τοῦτο]……… [μὴ γινώμεθα ἐπιθυμηταὶ] καθώς [τινες αὐτῶν] ἐπεθύμησαν [καὶ ἐπάταξεν κύριος αὐτοὺς πληγήν.] v.7. ……

v.6.

27 Cf.

Willis 1985, 151–152, Broer 1989, 313–314. we use external criteria the word Χριστόν receives very strong support from Papyrus 46 (around A. D. 200), although this reading is heavily contested by important textual witnesses having κύριον. The argument based on internal criteria presented by Bruce M. Metzger is reasonable. For some copyists it was difficult to think that Israelites in the wilderness tempted Christ. The ambiguous κύριον or the unobjectionable θεόν therefore seemed more suitable. See Metzger 1971, 560. 28 If

102

“Do Not Be Idolaters!” (1 Cor 10:7) (1995)

v.8. μηδὲ πορνεύωμεν, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν ἐπόρνευσαν καὶ ἔπεσαν μίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ εἴκοσι τρεῖς χιλιάδες. v.9. μηδὲ ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν κύριον, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν ἐπείρασαν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων ἀπώλλυντο. v.10. μηδὲ γογγύζωμεν, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν ἐγόγγυσαν καὶ ἀπώλοντο ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀλεθρευτοῦ. Translation: v.1. v.3. v.4.

Our fathers were all under the cloud and all went through the sea and all ate the same food and all drank the same drink.

v.5.

Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, for their bodies were scattered over the desert.

v.6. v.8. v.9. v.10.

Therefore: let us not be desirous, as some of them, so that the Lord struck them with plague. And let us not commit fornication, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand died in one day. And let us not put the Lord to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. And let us not grumble, as some of them did, and were killed by the Destroyer.

As a result of our analysis we may presume that Paul for his own purposes used a Jewish admonition based on the Old Testament not to rebel against God. The pattern containing blessings of God in contraposition to examples of rebellion may be found in several Old Testament, Jewish and New Testament texts (Deut 32:7–27, Exod 32, Neh 9:6–37, Pss 78, 95:8–11, 106, Bar 2:11–15, Philo: Mos. 2.271, Heb 3:8–11).29

29 Cf. R. J. Jeske (1980, 245–255), who also distinguishes between pre-Pauline elements and Pauline additions in 1 Cor 10:1–13. According to Jeske, verses 1– 4, 6 a, 11, 13, and 16–17 represent a Corinthian position of Christians with a strong ecclesiological identity and eschatological awareness. Paul makes critical corrections by adding verses 5, 6 b–10, 12 and 14.

3. Paul’s Utilization of the Pre-Pauline Injunction

103

3. Paul’s Utilization of the Pre-Pauline Injunction If it has been correct to assume that Paul is adding his own ideas to a Jewish text, then we ought to be able to see his intentions from these very additions and his subsequent remarks in 1 Cor 10:11–13 (partly also verses 14 –22). According to our view, verse 7 on idolatry is an addition. Since Paul in 1 Cor 10:14 draws the conclusion that the Corinthians should flee from idolatry, the admonition in 1 Cor 10:7 must be one of the central utterances in the whole passage. The pre-Pauline text may be understood as referring to idolatry in the admonition not to commit adultery (1 Cor 10:8) with its reference to the Phinehas-episode in Numbers 25.30 This feature is given a stronger emphasis by Paul by his adding of 1 Cor 10:7; thus the problem of idolatry in Corinth may be seen as a main reason for Paul to take up the Jewish text. It is also reasonable to think that Paul in the other sinful acts of the fathers could see idolatry because of the close relationship between the pre-Pauline text and Psalms 78 and 106. We find the “testing” of the Lord in Ps 78:18, the “desire” and the “grumbling” in Ps 106:14, 25. Both psalms contain the idea of apostasy to other gods (Pss 78:58, 106:19–20).31If Paul has added the word κακῶν (evil things) in 1 Cor 10:6 he may have idolatry in mind.32 The citation Paul makes from the episode of the golden calf is chosen with great care: “the people sat down to eat (φαγεῖν) and drink (πεῖν) and rose up to play” (Exod 32:6). The verse actualizes idolatrous eating and drinking,33 thus pointing forward to 1 Cor 10:21, where Paul stresses the impossibility for a Christian to eat and drink at the table of the demons.34 But it also points backward to the eating and drinking in the desert.35 The events that had taken place in the desert were prefigurations for the Christians. They happened that we should not desire evil things (1 Cor 10:6). But they also had a positive aspect. The fathers were baptized into Moses and received 30 Cf. Meeks (1982, 68– 69) who thinks that verse 7 belonged to the original homily because it is hard to imagine a “list of the wilderness generation’s sins” without mentioning idolatry. But actually verse 8 (on fornication) contains such a reference. In the Old Testament fornication and idolatry are often associated with one another. See for instance Jer 13: 25–27, Ezek 16:15–16, Hos 2. 31 Cf. Sandelin 1987, 171. 32 Cf. Barrett 1968, 224. 33 Andrew J. Bandstra (1971, 17) states: “ This verse does not explicitly mention idolatry, and therefore one needs to see this verse in its context to understand that it referred to an idolatrous banquet followed by idolatrous sport. Here, in order for the quotation to prove the point, the larger context of the quotation must have been operative in Paul’s mind; no doubt the context of a quotation is important for understanding the use made of other quotations as well.” Cf. Broer 1989, 131, Wolff 1982, 44. 34 Cf. Weiß 1910, 252, Barrett 1968, 225, Wolff 1982, 44, and Lang 1986, 125. 35 Cf. Conzelmann 1969, 197.

104

“Do Not Be Idolaters!” (1 Cor 10:7) (1995)

spiritual food and spiritual drink from the accompanying rock which was Christ (1 Cor 10:2– 4).36 By adding the words in 1 Cor 10:7 Paul stresses one specific point when he describes the contrast between the gracious gifts of God and the apostasy of the fathers. He particularly contrasts the spiritual food and drink in the desert and the food and drink consumed around the golden calf.37 Therefore the contrast between the table and cup of the Lord and the table and cup of the demons in 1 Cor 10:21 seems to be implied by Paul already in 1 Cor 10:3– 4, 7. Now Paul says that although all the fathers received something that prefigured Christian sacraments, God was not pleased with most of them (1 Cor 10:1–5 a). Why was God not pleased? Nothing in these verses (or in the passages which these verses refer to in the Old Testament) indicates that God was angry with the people because they were over-confident. The reasons for the punishments also manifested in the scattering of the bodies over the desert (1 Cor 10:5 b) were different acts of apostasy (1 Cor 10:6–10). Nor do we here have any reference to over-confidence. Paul’s interest in these verses is concentrated upon idolatry (1 Cor 10:7). In 1 Cor 10:11 Paul repeats what he has said in 1 Cor 10:6 by adding a reference to “these things” which have “been written as a warning to us on whom the fulfilment of the ages has come”. The idea that the Scriptures were written for the Christians is elsewhere attested in Paul. In 1 Cor 10:11, as in Rom 4:23–24, the thought has a special eschatological nuance and motivation.38 The Christians are the eschatological people of God (cf. 1 Cor 1:23–24).39 Thus far the thought of Paul seems to be that the Christians, like the fathers, have received benefits from God. But the fathers fell into idolatry and other kinds of sins and were punished. This ought to serve as a warning to the Christians not to fall into idolatry like the fathers. Now problems arise when we come to 1 Cor 10:12. Why does Paul here seem to make such a strong case against over-confidence? Does he not say: “Let the man, who thinks that he stands believing that he cannot fall, beware. He may fall”? If this is what he means, it looks as if Paul has kept the whole idea hidden up to this point. The standard theory of course presupposes that the Corinthian over-confident people (like the modern exegetes) were at the very beginning of the passage 1 Cor 10:1–13 already supposed to see the implications. Speaking of the baptism into Moses and the spiritual food and drink in the desert, Paul was in an oblique way ad36 For

the rather loose relationship between these gifts to the fathers in the desert and the gifts of the Christian sacraments see Sandelin 1987, 167–170. 37 I do not agree with Meeks (1982, 69) that “eat and drink” in verse 7 means the same thing as eating and drinking in verse 3– 4. 38 Cf. Wolff 1982, 45. 39 Cf. Lang 1986, 30–31.

3. Paul’s Utilization of the Pre-Pauline Injunction

105

dressing their over-confident sacramentalism. But if Paul neither refers to sacramentalism nor to over-confidence in 1 Cor 10:1–10, then the injunction against over-confidence in 1 Cor 10:12 looks very odd. One would even be tempted to dismiss 1 Cor 10:12 as a gloss, were it not so strongly attested in the manuscripts! It is therefore very understandable that exegetes have sought the motive for Paul’s words in the Corinthian community. Since Paul apparently criticizes over-confidence in 1 Cor 10:12, it is thought, there must have existed over-confident people in Corinth, probably the same people as the “gnostics” in 1 Cor 8. In order, then, to find a Corinthian position which would correspond to Paul’s words in 1 Cor 10:1–10, exegetes have suggested that some Corinthians based their over-confidence on the salvific effects of the sacraments. But is the only possible interpretation of 1 Cor 10:12 to see it as an injunction against over-confidence? As such it certainly would have parallels in Paul: “If somebody fancies himself wise …, let him become a fool” (1 Cor 3:18), “… if a man imagines himself to be something, when he is nothing, he is deluding himself” (Gal 6:3). But can the expression ὁ δοκῶν ἑστάναι (the man who thinks that he stands) only designate such presumption as the examples just mentioned? Philologically there is a slight difference. 1 Cor 3:18 and Gal 6:3 have conditional clauses, whereas Paul in 1 Cor 10:12 uses a participle. The English translation from which the versions of 1 Cor 3:18 and Gal 6:3 above are taken40 gives a somewhat milder tone to the expression in 1 Cor 10:12: “If you feel sure that you are standing firm.” To “stand” in 1 Cor 10:12 no doubt implies the concept of standing “in faith” (Rom 11:20; 1 Cor 16:13; 2 Cor 1:24; cf. 1 Thess 3:8; 1 Cor 15:1; Phil 4:1).41 Actually there is a link from this idea of standing in faith in 1 Cor 10:12 to the preceding verse, which talks of “us on whom the fulfilment of the ages has come”, i.e. the believers. So, when in 1 Cor 10:11 he has stated that the events described in 1 Cor 10:1–10 were written as warnings for “us”, i.e. the Christians,42 Paul in verse 12 continues to speak of Christians. In verse 11 he does not limit the relevance of the events in the desert and the warnings to particular Christians. He even includes himself since he speaks of “us”. All Christians seem to be in need of warning. Paul in 1 Cor 10:12 draws a conclusion from what he has said before, a conclusion which ends up with a warning against falling. Is it probable that Paul in verse 12 limits the perspective, thereby applying the words “let the man who thinks that he stands (in faith), beware, lest he should fall” to par40 NEB. 41 Cf. 42 Cf.

Wolff 1982, 48, Lang 1986, 126, Broer 1989, 318. Weiß 1910, 254, Wolff 1982, 45, Willis 1985, 155, and Broer 1989, 315–317,

106

“Do Not Be Idolaters!” (1 Cor 10:7) (1995)

ticular Christians, who in contradistinction to other Christians think that they stand “firm”?43 I do not think it is necessary to understand Paul in this way. The words “the one who thinks that he stands (in faith)” probably have the same addressees as those for whom the events in the desert were written down as a warning, i.e. all Christians. Paul commends those who stand firm as Christians (2 Cor 1:24; 1 Thess 3:8), and he admonishes the believers to do so (1 Cor 16:13; Gal 5:1; Phil 4:1). Wolff quite correctly observes that the injunction “let the man who thinks that he stands beware lest he should fall” at first sight seems to be formulated in a general way and looks almost as a maxim for life,44 although Wolff does not take that observation seriously. Ingo Broer has made a similar observation, but he is of the opinion that the expression ὁ δοκῶν (he who thinks) shows that Paul addresses the gnostics who are certain of their salvation.45 But Paul may quite well use the verb δοκέω (think) without implying presumption. This is shown by the sentence “I believe (δοκῶ) I too have the spirit of God” (1 Cor 7:40), although this may be an ironical understatement by Paul. 1 Cor 10:12 could thus have the meaning “all, you and we, who think that we stand in faith should beware less we fall”. If Paul in 1 Cor 10:11 states that the events of the desert were written down to warn all of us, then nothing seems to prevent an understanding of 1 Cor 10:12 as an admonition to all believers. There does, however, exist a clear case in Paul where “standing by faith” is combined with the thought of presumption. Paul speaks of the branches of the olive tree, which designates Israel: “… they were lopped off for lack of faith, and by faith you hold your place. Put away your pride and be on your guard” (Rom 11:20). But here the idea of presumption is clearly articulated, whereas in 1 Cor 10:12 it is not, unless we read it into the text. In addition, presumption is only with difficulty applicable to the context of 1 Cor 10:1–13. If by standing in 1 Cor 10:12 Paul means “standing in faith”, what does “falling” mean? Does it mean “falling from faith” (cf. Rom 11:22) or is something more specific intended? Broer suggests that these two possibilities do not have to be mutually exclusive.46 The specific fall or sin in the context of 1 Cor 10:1–14 no doubt is idolatry.47 In this case Paul in 1 Cor 43 Cf. Broer (1989, 317) who says: “Paulus redet hier nur diejenigen an, die sich als Stehende vor Gott betrachten, und von der Lage in Korinth her ist es dann sehr wahrscheinlich, daß er die Starken anspricht, die auf ihr reines Gewissen pochen und die ‘Stärkung’ der Gewissen der Schwachen fordern.” 44 Wolff 1982, 48 45 Broer 1989, 317. 46 Broer 1989, 319. 47 Cf. Walter 1979, 431.

3. Paul’s Utilization of the Pre-Pauline Injunction

107

10:12 would warn both the Corinthian and all other Christian believers not to fall into idolatry. The comprehensive perspective continues in 1 Cor 10:13. Paul addresses all Corinthians.48 Paul states: “So far you have faced no trial (πειρασμός) beyond what man can bear.” What kinds of trials or temptations does Paul have in mind? According to Conzelmann, we do not receive any answer to this question.49 Wolff does, however, point to Pauline passages where it is stated that Satan is the one from whom temptations emanate (1 Cor 7:5; 1 Thess 3:5). Wolff comments: “Through participation in idolatrous banqueting the Corinthians are captured into the realm of the devil, who tries to lead them away from faith.”50 I think this is a correct statement.51 For Paul the participation in pagan cults means a sharing in the table of the demons (1 Cor 10:21). One possible site for such participation at pagan cultic meals could have been the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore about one kilometre south of the agora uphill towards the Acrocorinth.52 Pottery found on the site of the buildings erected during the Roman era53 suggests that cultic meals were held in the sanctuary then as in classical times.54 Paul may in 1 Cor 10:13 also have in mind such texts in the O. T. which see idolatry as a temptation (LXX: πειρασμός), i.e. texts such as Deut 13:2–3 (LXX verses 3– 4) and Judg 2:18–3:6, although it is God who lies behind the temptation in these passages. The perspective Paul opens up for the Corinthians is, however, hopeful. He assures them that God will not allow them to be tested above their powers. I think this could mean that the Corinthians do not have to leave the environment of their city, where they are able to witness idolatrous practices all the time. Or to state it in Pauline terms: the Corinthians do not have to abandon the world (1 Cor 5:10). Therefore the temptations to fall into idolatry do not cease. But when the Corinthians are confronted with them, God will provide the means to resist them so that the Corinthians are not trapped in them but find their way out. Thus 1 Cor 10:13 may be seen as an integral part of the passage 1 Cor 10:1–13 with its focus on idolatry. 48 For the discussion which Paul’s shift from admonition to comfort has caused among exegetes see Willis 1985, 157–159, and Broer 1989, 321. 49 Conzelmann 1969, 199. 50 Wolff (1982, 48): “Durch die Teilnahme an Götzenopferessen geraten die Korinther in den Bereich des Teufels, der sie vom Glauben abzubringen sucht.” 51 Meeks (1982, 71–72) for his part sees vv. 12–13 as a continuation of the original independent homily, which according to him makes the point about “resistable temptations” rather than idolatry. 52 See Bookidis /Stroud 1987, especially 3 f., 11 f., 18–21. 53 Bookidis / Fisher 1974, 283. 54 Bookidis/Fisher 1972, 288–304. Cf. Wiseman 1979, 469– 472, 509; Gooch 1988, 40– 63; 1993, 2– 4.

108

“Do Not Be Idolaters!” (1 Cor 10:7) (1995)

4. Conclusion The result of this investigation is that the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 10:1–13 uses a Jewish text as the base for his warnings to people in Corinth who are in danger of becoming idolaters through participating in pagan banquets. The injunction not to be idolaters, together with the citation of Exod 32:6 in 1 Cor 10:7, is the most important Pauline addition to the pre-Pauline text. Therefore it can be seen as containing the central idea of the passage. Nothing seems to make the postulate necessary that Paul is in this passage fighting against over-confident sacramentalists. 1 Cor 10:12 is a warning that can be directed towards every believer. In the world of Paul and his communities anyone may be tempted by idolatry (1 Cor 10:13). But, according to Paul, God sides with the faithful.

Drawing the Line: Paul on Idol Food and Idolatry in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 (2003) 1. The Problem Biblical exegesis, like any other study of texts, is conditioned by the hermeneutical circle, viz. a new interpretation of the details of a text will affect the understanding of the larger context, an impact which in turn may lead to new perspectives on the details. Consequently the interpretation of a text as a whole or of some of its details normally undergoes minor or major changes in the interpreter’s mind as time passes. Therefore, if we consider the process from an optimistic point of view, the hermeneutical circle may be described as a spiral: the understanding moves from a less to a more appropriate interpretation of the text. In this article I shall pursue a question concerning which I have arrived at a new view of certain details in a text. In a couple of articles I have agreed with many other modern commentators on 1 Cor 8:1–11:1, that “it is probable that there existed people in the Christian community of Corinth who attended pagan religious occasions”. In reaction to this practice Paul in 1 Cor 10:14, 20–21 “categorically seems to forbid participation at pagan ritual performances”.1 This view is shared by Peder Borgen in an important article on the participation of Jews and Christians in pagan cults.2 I had the great privilege of membership in an Inter-Scandinavian project on Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity, a research group led by Professor Peder Borgen in the years 1988–1993, which among other contributions, resulted in the articles just mentioned. Our discussions were intense, inspiring and fruitful. But now I think we may have been mistaken on certain points regarding the situation in Corinth and Paul’s reaction to it. My doubts spring from consideration of two Pauline utterances in the passage in question. In 1 Cor 8:10 Paul uses a conditional sentence to address a person who in the future may recline in a place he calls an εἰδωλεῖον. In 1 Cor 10:7 and 14, Paul uses the imperative to forbid the Corinthians to become idolaters and orders them to flee idolatry. Can any firm conclu1 Sandelin 2 Borgen

1995 b, 259. Cf. Sandelin 1991, 143. 1995, 40– 41, 47– 48.

110 Drawing the Line: Paul on Idol Food and Idolatry in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 (2003) sion be based on these utterances concerning the actual behaviour of the Corinthians? I now doubt this because of the grammatical structure of the sentences. It may not be customary in a Festschrift to present opinions which differ from those held by the honoree, but in this case I shall indulge in some self-criticism as well. It goes without saying that nothing would be more pleasant for me than to be persuaded to return to my former position by Professor Borgen himself. It seems appropriate to start with a short overview of the text. In 1 Cor 8 Paul explicitly states that he intends to discuss food offered to idols (εἰδωλόθυτα vv. 1, 4). This undoubtedly implies meat (v. 13) although other kinds of food may be involved as well. Paul makes a serious suggestion to those who, like him, know that idols are of no account (v. 4) and therefore have the right (ἐξουσία) to eat pagan sacrificial meat (v. 9). In an indirect form he admonishes them to abstain from their right in order not to become a stumbling block to those who have a weak conscience (vv. 9–13). The latter still eat this meat as if it were food offered to idols, which will have disastrous consequences for them. This occurs if the weak see somebody possessing knowledge reclining in an εἰδωλεῖον. The individual with a weak conscience may be led to eat idol food (vv. 7, 10–11). 1 Cor 9 does not seem to take up the themes of idolatrous food, or of idolatry. Paul, however, presents himself as one who is entitled to sustenance from his congregations, but who waives his right (ἐξουσία v. 12). There is therefore a clear connection between ch. 8 and ch. 9. In ch. 10 by referring to the example of the fathers in the desert (vv. 1–13) Paul gives unconditional commands to avoid idolatry (vv. 7,14), and in contrasting the Christian eucharistic meal with pagan worship states that the Christians cannot participate in both (15–22). In ch. 10 the eating of food offered to the idols is mentioned implicitly in v. 7 b and explicitly in vv. 19–21. After a couple of short general statements (vv. 23–24) Paul takes up two specific cases which may imply eating of sacrificial meat: food sold in the marketplace, and food served at a meal offered by an unbeliever (vv. 25–30). In the latter case the Christian guest is allowed to eat everything served as long as nobody points out that the food has been offered in a temple (ἱερόθυτον). Paul here clearly returns to the questions he raised in ch. 8, i.e. food offered to idols. Some general admonitions are added at the end of the passage (1 Cor 10:31–11:1). Before we enter the discussion a couple of general points should be mentioned. The understanding of Paul’s answers to the questions concerning idolatry and idol food has depended to some extent on the character of the text of 1 Corinthians and especially of our passage. Does it consist of a correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians covering a period in which Paul modified his stand as a result of new information about the situation

1. The Problem

111

at Corinth?3 Or is it better understood as one continuous text from the very beginning? Some recent studies, among them the commentaries by Wolfgang Schrage and Helmut Merklein, have convinced me that the latter option is to be preferred.4 Further: in order to understand Paul’s argument scholars have attempted to reconstruct the Corinthian situation. Some authors resorted to the use of literary material from other sources than the New Testament. Walter Schmithals, as a representative of the History of Religions-School, assumed Gnostic ideas determined the religious thought and behaviour of one group of the Corinthian Christians.5 Some authors maintain that a more specific definition of the thought-world of the Corinthian “Gnostics” is impossible.6 Nevertheless Richard A. Horsley offered an alternative to the Gnostic theory: Paul argues against Hellenistic Jewish Wisdom tradition such as we can find in Philo from Alexandria.7 I regard attempts like those of Schmithhals and Horsley as important because they widen the frame of reference within which texts are interpreted. The hermeneutical circle is in danger of becoming too constricted if we reconstruct Paul’s opponents in Corinth on the basis of his letters alone, and then interpret Paul against the background of such a reconstruction.8 There is a risk of a circular argument. Of course the procedure of Schmithals and Horsley also has its disadvantages. It is not easy to determine the criteria concerning which texts in the Hellenistic world we should use in order to interpret New Testament texts. In this particular case I prefer the suggestion made by Richard Horsley. In my doctoral dissertation I attempted to interpret 1 Cor 15 along similar lines.9 In this article I confine myself to Paul alone and make no attempt to reconstruct the general way of thought of those in Corinth who maintained that they had “knowledge”. The only information about the situation in the early Christian community at Corinth is mediated to us through Paul. In principle we must distinguish between what actually was going on, and what Paul thought was going on. How does he conceive of the situation concerning idol food in the community he has founded? Does he believe that some of the Corinthians actually have engaged in idol-worship by participating in sacrificial banquets in the temple precincts? Or does he just think that the Corinthians 3 Sellin

1987, 2964 – 68, 2972–74. 1995, 212–213, Merklein 2000, 164 –168. See also Mitchell 1991, 15–17, 66– 68, 129, Saez Gonzalvez 1994, 127–138, and Eriksson, 1998, 148–173. 5 Schmithals 1969, 212–217. 6 E.g. Conzelmann 1969, 29–30. 7 R. Horsley 1981, 32–51. See also Horsley 1998, 34 –36 et passim. 8 See also the far-reaching exposé of the pagan religious situation in Greco-Roman Corinth by Derek Newton 1998, 79–257. 9 Sandelin 1976, 21–113. Cf. Sellin 1986, 72–209. 4 Schrage

112 Drawing the Line: Paul on Idol Food and Idolatry in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 (2003) need some advice on how to handle food offered to idols? The answers to these questions will affect our understanding of how Paul attempts to influence Corinthian practice. What is forbidden and what is allowed, according to him? Where does Paul draw the line? The two basic questions I shall address here are the following. 1) Is it necessary to postulate that Paul in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 reacts against actual attendance by Corinthian Christians at banquets in the temple precincts? 2) Where does Paul draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable Christian behaviour concerning the consumption of food offered to idols?

2. Did the Corinthians Participate in Banquets at εἰδωλεῖα or Pagan Cults? The passage 1 Cor. 8:1–11:1 has attracted much scholarly attention in recent years. For instance, the literature cited in the recent commentaries by Schrage and Merklein is considerable.10 Here we must concentrate on certain aspects of the text and be very selective concerning modern commentators. An important shift in the agenda of the discussion on 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 seems to be caused by the exegetical contributions of Gordon D. Fee. From his perspective the traditional view of the problem discussed in these chapters is marketplace idol food.11 There are scholars who admit and even maintain that some Corinthians also participated in meals at pagan temples.12 But according to Fee the important thing to understand is that Paul does not see the question of the eating of sacrificial food at the cultic meals in the pagan temples as a side issue but as the main issue in these chapters.13 No doubt idolatry is a central issue in them. But is it really the main issue? If we understand the text as an argument we must also ask what Paul is arguing against. Two viewpoints with respect to what Paul says in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 seem to be fairly uncontroversial among scholars today. 1) Paul forbids the mem10 Schrage 1995, 211–12, 215, 251, 277–78, 317, 333, 360– 61, 380–81, 429–30, 460; Merklein 2000, 162–163, 173–175, 206–208, 237–239, 254 –256, 269. 11 Fee 1981, 172–175, and 1987, 358–362. As a typical example of the traditional view Fee mentions R. Kugelmann, “The First Letter to the Corinthians”, The Jerome Biblical Commentary 1968, 266. (I have been unable to consult this volume.) Also holding this view is Frederick F. Bruce 1971, 78–79. 12 Johannes Weiß 1910, 211, C. K. Barrett 1968, 196. 13 A similar view is found in contributions by e.g. Newton 1998, 24, 267, Merklein 2000, 168–171, Smit 2000, 9, 70–72, 155, and Farla 2004, 155–162. For a review of the debate see Fisk 1989, 50–54, and Eriksson 1998, 138–142. The opinion criticized by Fee is called the “majority view” by Bruce Fisk, whereas Anders Eriksson refers to it as the “older scholarly consensus”.

2. Did the Corinthians Participate in Banquets at εἰδωλεῖα or Pagan Cults?

113

bers of the Corinthian Christian community to participate in pagan cultic occasions, implying ritual meals around an altar (1 Cor 10:1–22). 2) Paul allows Christians to consume food, probably including meat, which has been offered at sacrificial rituals, under certain circumstances, for instance when sold in the market and when its provenance is unknown (10:25–30).14 But it is debatable why Paul in 1 Cor 8:10 appears to accept that Corinthian Christians who have “knowledge” eat sacrificial meat ἐν εἰδωλείῳ whereas in 1 Cor 10:1–22 he strictly forbids even them to participate in pagan rituals where offerings are brought to the idols and then consumed by the sharers of the meal.15 Two important solutions are proposed in the discussion today. The first option defines the word εἰδωλεῖον in such a way that it is not identified with a temple proper, where sacrificial animals were slaughtered. Paul forbids the Christians to participate in a meal around the τράπεζα τῶν δαιμονίων, i.e. the altar of the demons, which would be idolatry (1 Cor 10:14, 21), but he accepts that the members of the Corinthian community are present at banquets in temple restaurants, which belong to the temple precincts, but are apart from the altar where the animals are sacrificed to the gods. The only condition is that the weak brother is not offended.16 Borgen states: “… Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 drew the boundary line just at the pagan altar table when sacrifices were performed.”17 This type of solution has certain weaknesses, however. To make a distinction between an εἰδωλεῖον and a temple with an altar does not seem possible. Temple precincts, as Merklein rightly observes, were regarded as sacred as the temple itself.18 Fisk attempts to avoid this difficulty by referring to the convivial character of many meals held in temple precincts: “At the one end was harmless fun and social convention; at the other end was raw idolatry.”19 He refers to the broad documentation in the study of idol meat by Wendell Lee Willis. But even Willis admits that, although the “focus is upon the worshippers and their association and pleasure”, still the “presence

14 Food sold at a μακέλλον could have consisted of different kinds of meat, sacrificial and otherwise slaughtered, and also fish, poultry, vegetables and so on. See the study by Dietrich-Alex Koch 1999, 198 and 210. Koch heavily relies on the book by Claire de Ruyt 1983. The results arrived at by Ramon Saez Gonzalves (1994, 81–82) differ from this picture. According to him the food sold in a so-called μακέλλον in the east of the Roman Empire probably did not include meat at all! 15 Cf. Fisk 1989, 62. 16 Thus Conzelmann 1969, 176, Fisk 1989, 62– 68, Schrage 1995, 262–263, Borgen 1995, 51 and 56, and Horrell 1997, 90–91, 100–101. 17 Borgen 1995, 56. 18 Merklein 2000, 199 with further references. Cf. G. H. R. Horsley 1981, 6, and Koch 1999, 216. 19 Fisk 1989, 63. Cf. Conzelmann 1969, 176.

114 Drawing the Line: Paul on Idol Food and Idolatry in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 (2003) of the god(s) is assumed”.20 Even the word εἰδωλεῖον which Paul chooses suggests that he was aware of a close connection between the banquet-hall and the pagan cult. Further: if the Christian is himself expected to draw the line between the εἰδωλεῖον and the τράπεζα, or to distinguish between an idolatrous and a non-idolatrous meal on public occasions in the temple precincts, then such a solution also seems to leave the decision whether an occasion is idolatrous or not to the individual. In 1 Cor 10:14 –22 Paul however does not leave any scope for personal decision.21 An idol’s temple and an altar are socially sanctioned realities which cannot be judged as harmless in Paul’s eyes. The other solution is that Christian participation in meals within temple precincts is acceptable only theoretically. Those who possess “knowledge” always have to reckon with the possibility of becoming a stumbling block to brethren with a weak conscience. Therefore Paul in 1 Cor 8 does not give them any other choice than to abstain from sacrificial food at such public occasions where idol food is consumed. Paul’s differing approach in 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10:1–22 is just a matter of rhetorical strategy. In ch. 8 Paul uses the conscience of the weak as an argument against their custom of eating sacrificial food in the temple. Considering the disastrous effects which the eating of sacrificial food has for these weak brethren those who have “knowledge” should themselves abstain from their legitimate right (ἐξουσία) to eat such food in an εἰδωλεῖον. In ch. 9 the Apostle then presents himself as an example of one who waives his legitimate rights. Later on however, in ch. 10 he uses an argument from Christology and sacramentality instead: it is impossible for a Christian to share the table of Christ and the table of demons (vv. 16–21). The gathering around the altar of sacrifices is a manifestation of idolatry, which was a reason for the destruction of the fathers in the desert (vv. 1–14). Paul forbids attendance at gatherings in temple precincts without reservation.22 The problem with this solution is that Paul appears to present not only the eating of sacrificial meat as a legitimate right, but also the partaking thereof in areas considered as sacred and closely associated with the temple proper (1 Cor 8:9–10). This is the legitimate ἐξουσία from which the Corinthians should abstain.23 But I ask, with Fisk and following Schrage, whether 20 Willis, 1985, 56– 61, esp. 61. Cf. also Newton (1998, 188, 212, 219, 225, 242, 246–248, 302–304), who points out that it is difficult to distinguish between the social and the religious side of pagan sacrificial banquets (p. 242). 21 Koch 1999, 216. 22 For this type of interpretation see Merklein 2000, 166, 196–201, 205, 217, 222, 225– 227, 239–240, 248–249, 258. A similar approach may be seen in Fee 1987, 359–360, 378, 387–391 and Newton 1998, 290–313. Cf. also Sellin 1987, 2973. 23 Merklein 2000, 169, 196–197, Newton 1998, 294 –296, Farla 2004, 149 f.

2. Did the Corinthians Participate in Banquets at εἰδωλεῖα or Pagan Cults?

115

it is possible in view of what Paul says in 1 Cor 10:1–22 that he should present such participation as an ἐξουσία, a “legitimate right”?24 There are attempts to avoid this difficulty, however. According to Fee, Paul does not accept the claim of the Corinthians. The reason is that it involves not just eating regular meals, but also eating at cultic occasions.25 But if the “right” according to the Corinthians consisted in the latter kind of cultic meals, why does not Paul make an explicit distinction in 1 Cor. 8 between a legitimate right and an illegitimate custom? In an attempt to show that in 1 Corinthians Paul does not allow any consumption of idol meat Alex T. Cheung maintained that his words concerning the ἐξουσία of the Corinthians are “clearly sarcastic”. Paul’s reference to his own behaviour when he declares that he abstains from his rights in 1 Cor 9 implies that the Corinthians should renounce idol food.26 But if Paul does not see his Apostolic ἐξουσία as imaginary, which he certainly does not, how is he able to use a word like ἐξουσία even sarcastically with regard to the Corinthians? They are asked to abstain from a “right” they do not actually have in contrast to Paul himself. In this case there is a serious flaw in Paul’s argument. Both attempts to solve the problem inherent in the tension of Paul’s utterances in chapters 8 and 10 of 1 Corinthians take for granted that Corinthian Christians in some way or another participated in feasts which were held in pagan temple areas. Paul in his admonitions takes a stand against such behaviour. But what if this premise is abandoned? If Christians did not participate in the said feasts then Paul does not take up a position against actual participation. He does not then need to decide what kind of actual Christian participation in banquets within temple precincts is acceptable and what kind is unacceptable. The tension between what Paul seems to accept as a legitimate right and what he condemns as idolatry also disappears. The problem which was to be solved no longer exists. We have come to the point at which our first basic question should be answered: is it necessary to conclude from the Pauline text that Corinthian Christians took part in banquets which Paul describes as εἰδωλεῖα, or that they participated in some cult around a pagan altar? The theory that there were Corinthians who participated in meals at either temple restaurants, or at ceremonies where pagan sacrificial rites were performed as well, is based upon Paul’s utterance in 1 Cor 8:10 and his warnings against idolatry in 10:1–22, esp. vv. 7, 14 and 21.27 I agree that 24 Fisk

1989, 264, Schrage 1995, 264. 1987, 359–360, 385. 26 Cheung 1999, 129–130, 140–141. Cf. Smit 2000, 89. 27 E.g. Fee 1981, 359–362, Schrage 1995, 213, 262 f., and Merklein 2000, 166, 169, 248, 258 . These authors also refer to other scholars with the same opinion. 25 Fee

116 Drawing the Line: Paul on Idol Food and Idolatry in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 (2003) Paul’s attitude may result from his knowledge of the behaviour of members of the Corinthian community. Nevertheless it is not logically correct to draw direct conclusions about the situation, and the events, in Corinth from the conditional clause in 8:10, or from clauses in the imperative in 10:7 and 14 unless other utterances in the texts warrant such conclusions. An examination of the structure of 8:10 shows that it consists of a conditional clause with the particle ἐάν and the verb ἴδῃ (aorist subjunctive) and a main clause with the verb in the future passive. Nigel Turner takes the verse as an example of “a definite event as occurring only once in the future, and conceived as taking place before the time of the action of the main verb”.28 Normally conditional sentences in Greek do not state whether or not the condition is true, although its fulfilment may be expected by the speaker or may be seen as a subjective supposition or as a possibility.29 There are two exceptions to this rule: in one of the cases the expression implies that the protasis is not true, and in the other a future condition implies a strong likelihood of fulfilment. But in such a conditional clause as we find in 8:10 it is not stated whether or not the condition will be fulfilled. Paul just presents a future case “distinctly and vividly”.30 This is of course true regarding not only the predicate, but also the object of the conditional clause.31 Thus, although 8:10 may reflect realities in Corinth no positive conclusion can be drawn concerning them.32 The sentence points to something which may happen in the future, and therefore could be an expression of Paul’s fears. Of those who maintain that Paul’s words in 1 Cor 8:10 describe an actual reality in Corinth one could ask: Why would Paul describe a future possible event if something like it has already happened in Corinth? Corinthians with “knowledge” are assumed to have attended pagan banquets. This has become known to other members of the Corinthian congregation and caused some irritation among them. Now Paul warns them saying: “If somebody with a weak conscience happens to see you eating in an idol’s temple … then he will be emboldened to eat …” Would the seeing in the future be much more harmful than the knowledge already possessed by everybody in the congregation concerning the participation in meals at the temples? Paul’s warnings, prohibitions and commands in 1 Cor 10:1–22 can also be understood either as results of behaviour regarded by him as idolatry and practised by some Corinthians, or as his attempts to prevent an unaccept28 See

Moulton 1963, 114 –115. a grammatical point of view the following sentence by Schrage (1995, 262) is wrong: “ἐάν charakterisiert den Fall als möglichen, aber nicht bloß als hypothetisch konstruierten.” A conditional sentence is hypothetical by definition. Cf. Hurd, 1965, 125. 30 See Goodwin 1981, 294, 296, esp. 298, and Schwyzer 1950, 684 – 686. 31 Against Fisk 1989, 61, n. 45 and Newton 1998, 297. See Goodwin 1950, 294, (examples under III), 32 Against Fee 1987, 385, Schrage 1995, 262, and Merklein 2000, 198. 29 From

3. The Line between Acceptable and Unacceptable Behaviour

117

able future development within the Christian community. But it is wrong to say that Paul would not have felt obliged to forbid participation in pagan sacrificial meals if such had never occurred in Corinth.33 A warning or a prohibition in advance may be uttered with exactly the same fervour as one formulated after an offence has already been committed.34 Is there anything which would weigh the scales in favour of either option? Does Paul react to actual Christian participation in banquets within temple precincts in Corinth, or is it feasible that he does not, and has some other reason for introducing the theme of idolatry? I think there is one important argument which turns the scales against the first option. In 1 Cor 5:1–5 Paul takes up a case where a person has been “given to Satan” by him because of a sexual offence. He urges the Corinthians not to tolerate such offenders as members of the community (v. 2). Persons who have become idolaters should be treated likewise (1 Cor 5: 10–11). In 1 Cor 6:9–10 Paul states that no idolater will possess the Kingdom of God. Now, if Paul had interpreted the Corinthian situation on the assumption that idolatry had actually occurred, it seems to me that he would have argued in a different way than in 1 Cor 8–10. Instead of presenting the obligation to abstain from eating sacrificial food and shun idolatry he would have urged the Corinthians to exclude the idolaters from the congregation.35 One could of course follow Merklein and explain Paul’s reasoning by distinguishing between two perspectives: the participation in pagan rituals was not idolatry from the point of view of the Corinthians, whereas in Paul’s opinion it was precisely.36 But even in this case Paul ought to have argued differently, for instance by attributing the postulated Corinthian behaviour to a misunderstanding. In consequence of the reasoning presented above I think the first basic question in this paper, i.e. whether it is necessary to postulate that Paul in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 reacts against actual attendance by Corinthian Christians at banquets in temple precincts, should be answered in the negative.

3. The Line between Acceptable and Unacceptable Behaviour We should now consider our second basic question: Where does Paul draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable Christian behaviour concerning the consumption of food offered to idols? The answer depends on the answer to another question: i.e. what is the main issue in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1? 33 Against

Merklein 2000, 200. Fee 1987, 359. 35 Cf. Gooch 1993, 67. 36 Merklein 2000, 258. 34 Against

118 Drawing the Line: Paul on Idol Food and Idolatry in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 (2003) I shall examine the questions on the basis of some assumptions which result from our preceding discussion. First I assume that in 1 Cor 8:1– 11:1 Paul does not react against actual attendance by Corinthian Christians at banquets in temple precincts. Secondly I postulate that the legitimate right which Paul grants to those who have “knowledge” is not the right to eat food offered to idols in pagan temples. Paul forbids such behaviour in ch. 10. The εἰδωλεῖον mentioned in 1 Cor 8:10 is not exempt because it is a part of the temple precinct. Thirdly Paul seems to accept the eating of food offered to idols under certain conditions, namely, when sold in the marketplace and when it is served at a private meal by an unbeliever. In trying to define the main issue in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 it is essential to take Paul’s initial words seriously: περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων (8:1). Paul not only starts with the problem of sacrificial food, but also takes up precisely this question at the end of his treatment (10:25–31) and refers to it several times in between (8:4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13; 10:7, 19, 21). The meaning of εἰδωλόθυτα should therefore not be restricted to “sacrificial food partaken in the idol temple” as Fee would have it.37 The meaning is broader. Idol meat may be sold in the market and offered at a private meal.38 Thus the legitimate right which Paul mentions in 1 Cor 8:9 is to consume idol food, but not at banquets in temple precincts. Paul, however, allows the enjoyment of this legitimate right only under a certain condition. Those who have “knowledge” should not eat if they may thereby become a stumbling block to those who have a weak conscience. I suggest that Paul is chiefly concerned with the question of how a Christian should behave when confronted with food offered to idols, and that he introduces the theme of participation in idolatrous cultic activities in order to show why the eating of idol food is dangerous. Paul’s reason could be the Corinthians’ wish to know how to cope with such food. At the end of the passage Paul constructs a situation in which the eating of idol food may indeed be harmless but also unacceptable, i.e. when a Christian is a guest at a banquet served by an unbeliever (1 Cor 10:27–30). The preceding text, from 1 Cor 8:1, onwards can be seen as a preparation for Paul’s instruction on how to behave in such a situation. 39

37 Fee

1981, 181. 1989, 59, and Cheung 1999, 104 –105. Fee is rightly criticized by Fisk (1989, 54 –59, esp. 55–56), who notices that Fee does not distinguish between “meaning” and “referent” when he determines the meaning of the word. 39 Cf. the comment of Cheung (1999, 96): “There is no difficulty in the text that would prevent one from seeing Paul as arguing in two different – but compatible – ways against the eating of idol food in both 8.1–13 and 10.1–22. Abstention for the sake of the weak and abstention in order to avoid idolatry are not mutually exclusive arguments. On the contrary, they are mutually reinforcing in their prohibition of the consumption of idol food.” Cf. also Saez Gonzalvez 1994, 153–156. 38 Fisk

3. The Line between Acceptable and Unacceptable Behaviour

119

By using the first person plural in 1 Cor 8 Paul seems to present some of his ideas in a way suggesting that he shares them with those Corinthians who possess “knowledge” (verses 1, 4, 6 and 8). Moreover he mentions at least some aspects of this knowledge: The idols do not exist, they have no reality (8:4).40 There is only one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ (8:6). But Paul’s statement that there are those in the community in Corinth who do not share this knowledge (8:7) is somewhat perplexing. It seems that there were Corinthian Christians who, in contrast to Paul and those in Corinth who possess knowledge, still believe that the idols have a real existence and that this affects the sacrificial food. Now, even Paul has implied that there are powers in the universe which he would call gods and lords (8:5, cf. 1 Cor 10: 20).41 Paul also declares that those who eat sacrificial food as if it were food offered to the idols become subject to a reality with negative consequences: their conscience or consciousness is defiled (8:7). Regardless of how we are to interpret the way in which Paul understands συνείδησις and how it operates according to him the Apostle obviously disapproves of the weak eating sacrificial food.42 Such behaviour will lead to their destruction (8:11)!43 In 1 Cor 8 Paul does not say why the eating of sacrificial food has such devastating effects on an individual with a weak συνείδησις. Does Paul offer us any clues to understand this? Indeed I think he does, although not until ch. 10. There the consequences of the sins in the desert, the most important of which was the meal around the golden calf, are described as the destruction of the Israelites (1 Cor 10:5–10, esp. vv. 9 and 10: ἀπώλλυντο, ἀπώλοντο). Therefore I agree with those scholars who maintain that the danger of eating sacrificial food as if it were offered to the idols draws the person who eats into paganism and idolatry. According to Borgen such a person would “attempt a syncretistic fusion of Christianity and polytheistic worship”.44 According to Merklein he acts in a way which is incompatible with his Christian identity and relapses into his pagan identity.45 This in turn has a fatal outcome. Now Paul in 1 Cor 8 does not seem to hold out any negative consequences for those who have knowledge if they eat sacrificial food, except that they may become the reason why the weak suffer destruction. Prompted by the behaviour of those who have knowledge the weak will invite their own destruction (8:10–11). Those who have knowledge will therefore become 40 With

Schrage 1995, 183–84. Newton 1998, 362. 42 Today many authors seem highly appreciative of the monograph by H.-J. Eckstein, Der Begriff Syneidesis bei Paulus (1983). Usually the word συνείδησις is translated “conscience”. R. Horsley (1978, 581) suggests “consciousness” instead. 43 Cf. Conzelmann 1969, 177 n. 38. 44 Borgen 1995, 51. 45 Merklein 2000, 201. 41 Cf.

120 Drawing the Line: Paul on Idol Food and Idolatry in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 (2003) a stumbling block, causing the weak to fall (8:9, 13). Thus they sin against their brothers and hurt their weak συνείδησις (8:12). But Paul does not go on to say that this in turn leads to the condemnation of those who have knowledge! He does not do so even if the sin against the brother is a sin against Christ who died for the brother (8:11).46 Does this interpretation of 1 Cor 8 imply that Paul in principle accepts the eating of sacrificial food provided one basic condition is fulfilled: that the one who eats does not see it as food offered to the idols? This would mean that the one who eats should ask himself: “Do I regard this as food offered to idols that exist, or do I not?” If he does not, and therefore thinks an idol is nothing and that as a consequence idol food is nothing (8:4), then he is free to eat food sacrificed to the idols under one additional condition: that the weak brother is not caused to stumble. Is there no danger then that the one who has knowledge is attracted to idolatry himself and thus will suffer destruction? Now Paul actually reckons with the possibility that even those who have knowledge may become drawn into idolatry. In 1 Cor 8:10 Paul describes a situation which may become real in the future: a person with knowledge may be seen in an εἰδωλεῖον by a person with a weak conscience. Paul uses the thought in a context where the danger of becoming a stumbling block for the weak is at issue, and may have chosen the example just in order to demonstrate a case where the “right” to eat would become visible to all.47 But in 1 Cor. 8:10 he also hints at a situation which he describes more fully in 1 Cor 10:14 –22.48 There he does not exclude those who have knowledge from the danger of idolatry.49 He addresses the Corinthian community as a whole, and clearly has occasions in mind where sacrificial meals are held (10:19–21). The Corinthians cannot share in both the table of the Lord and the table of the demons (10:21). For Paul there is at least one instance, however, in which the eating of food sacrificed to idols may be either harmless or unacceptable. This situation occurs if a Corinthian Christian accepts an invitation to a meal offered by an unbeliever (1 Cor 10:27–30). At such a meal the Christian is permitted to eat everything until somebody says of a dish that it is sacrificial food (ἱερόθυτον). The situation now changes immediately and therefore the Christian should abstain from the food. As an argument for such a Christian response Paul presents the idea that the Corinthians should not eat for the sake of the individual who made the statement and for the sake of conscience. Opinions 46 Cf.

however the comment on 1 Cor. 8:11 by Merklein (2000, 202): “Wenn Christus um des Bruders willen gestorben ist, dann schlägt … das Verderben, das der Bruder durch das Verhalten der Wissenden auf sich gezogen hat, auf diese zurück.” 47 Cf. Sellin 1987, 2973, Newton 1998, 298–301. 48 Cf. Merklein 2000, 199–200. 49 Correctly noted by Koch 1999, 216.

3. The Line between Acceptable and Unacceptable Behaviour

121

differ as to whether Paul thinks that the person making the statement is a pagan, a guest or the host, or if it is a weak Corinthian Christian.50 In the latter case the same rule which we find in ch. 8 has to be applied. In order not to become a stumbling block for the weak the one who has knowledge should refrain from eating. The option that the words “this is sacrificial food” are uttered by a pagan seems preferable, however. This is strongly implied by Paul’s use of the word ἱερόθυτον instead of εἰδωλόθυτον.51 The first word would fit well into the ideological universe of a pagan whereas both Corinthian Christian and Paul would probably prefer the second.52 According to the judgement of the συνείδησις of a pagan host a meal in his home could be understood as an extension of a sacrificial meal in a temple.53 Considering my previous conclusions I think it unlikely that Paul here has in mind a private meal in a temple precinct. But from Paul’s perspective even a banquet in the home of a pagan would be a serious matter if it became obvious that idol meat is served. This is not because of the food as such (cf. 1 Cor 8:8; 10:9, 26, 30), but because of the pagan understanding of the meal as a part of the worship of the gods.54 It is as if the table of the demons (1 Cor 10:21) extends into the dining-room of the pagan host. Therefore the conscious sharing of food offered to the idols at a meal would lead the Christian into idolatrous behaviour regardless of whether he has a weak conscience or belongs to those who have knowledge. It is impossible to say whether or not Paul thinks that attendance at such meals has already taken place. Even here the case is presented in conditional form. No direct conclusions can therefore be drawn concerning actual events in Corinth.55 When Paul permits the Corinthian Christians to eat everything bought in the marketplace it is possible that he makes a reservation even here. It may well be that the words of 1 Cor 10:28 apply also in this case.56 A witness of the purchase may say that the food is sacrificial food and therefore the

50 The latter option is preferred by Weiß 1910, 265, Fisk 1989, 67, and Schrage 1995, 469– 470 (with reservations). 51 Thus Fee 1987, 484, Borgen 1995, 52, Merklein 2000, 277, and Newton 1998, 176–179. 52 Weiß, who admits this (1910, 265), still thinks the words may have been uttered by a Christian out of courtesy towards the pagan host. Cf. Fisk 1989, 67, n. 74. Cf. Griffith 2002, 52. 53 Borgen (1995, 52) writes: “His (sc. the polytheist’s) conscious and existential classification (συνείδησις) is that it is sacrificial food, which he understands to be part of polytheistic sacrificial ritual.” Cf. Merklein (2000, 279), who has a similar viewpoint. 54 Cheung (1999, 159) writes: “Since the informant has already drawn the food into the sphere of pagan worship, Christians must abstain at this point.” 55 Thus also John Hurd 1965, 125. 56 Willis 1985, 243–244, 260–261, Koch 1999, 216–217, Cheung 1999, 160.

122 Drawing the Line: Paul on Idol Food and Idolatry in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 (2003) Christian ought perhaps to abstain from it.57 But in this case the meal in a Christian’s home would not have the same significance as a meal in a pagan’s home. I therefore prefer to think that Paul does not intend to impose restrictions on the consumption of food bought in the marketplace. Paul does not see idol food as dangerous in itself (cf. 1 Cor 10:19).58 Instead of seeing 1 Cor 10:25–31 as an appendix to a discussion of a more serious question – attendance of Christians at banquets in temple precincts – we have interpreted these verses as an integral part of the whole treatment of the question of food offered to the idols.59 In short Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 runs as follows: Food offered to idols, while harmless as such, is dangerous because it may draw the consumer into idolatry. When such a risk exists the Christian should abstain from idol food. Paul’s position on an apparently unimportant question of how to handle food offered to idols may seem exaggerated. But there are clear signals in the text showing that for Paul the eating of idolatrous food even outside a temple precinct, for instance in the home of a pagan, is a serious matter because it involves the danger of idolatry. Therefore his admonitions not to become idolaters, and his stern warnings against idolatry are understandable even if actual idolatry on a large scale, e.g. in the form of attendance at pagan sacrificial banquets, had not yet taken place among Corinthian Christians. So, where does Paul draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable Christian behaviour concerning the consumption of food offered to idols? At least all such banquets in temple precincts where food offered to idols is consumed appear to be prohibited for Christians in Paul’s judgement. Thus the line is not drawn between the altar and less dangerous areas but around the whole temple precinct. But a Christian should also beware of other occasions at which the eating of sacrificial food could lead to idolatry, e.g. at a banquet in a home of a pagan friend. Even here a line should be drawn in order to shun idolatry. Paul does not adduce other examples. He probably allows scope for imagination and further reflection among the Corinthians.60 But he also gives some criteria, the first of which is: “… whether you eat or drink, or whatever you are doing, do all for the honour of God.” (1 Cor 10:31). 57 According to the interpretation of Willis (1985, 260) this is not because of the purchaser’s own awareness of the meat’s history, but because of the awareness of others, whereas according to Cheung (1999, 157–160) it is the prehistory itself, if known, which makes consumption of idol meat impossible for a Christian in Paul’s view. 58 This view is not shared by Peter D. Gooch (1988, 85–88) who, therefore, finds some inconsistency in Paul’s advice concerning food bought at market. 59 In contrast to Fee 1987, 476– 477. Cf. Saez Gonzalvez 1994, 125–131. 60 Cf. the words of Newton (1998, 379), that Paul “was aware that the tangled web of valid individual interpretations effectively put any absolute or definitive ‘solution’ beyond his reach”.

Does Paul Warn the Corinthians Not to Eat Demons? 1. The Problem The question how to regulate the relationship between nascent Christianity and religious life in its Greco-Roman environment is addressed by Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians.1 No doubt the Christian problem is a heritage from Judaism.2 It was not easy for the Apostle to decide how to cope with Christian participation in Hellenistic sacrificial banquets in Corinth. His solutions are so difficult to understand that even modern scholars interpret his handling of the matter in ways which completely contradict one another. Even scholars who try to understand Paul’s argument by using rhetorical schemes from antiquity as clues have not reached a consensus in the question whether Paul accepts that Christians attend cultic occasions at pagan temples or whether he does not.3 In one of the preceding articles in this volume I have discussed the question and there reached the conclusion that the latter option is the correct one.4 Paul is as restrictive as the author of the letters to Pergamon and Thyatira in the Revelation of John, granted that in fact idolatry is here meant by the words “fornication” and “adultery” (Rev 2:14, 20–22) as in Old Testament texts, e.g. Jer 13:25–27, Ezek 16:15–16 and Hos 2. The specific question whether a Christian always had to refrain from meat offered to idols was answered by Paul in the negative. If eating of such meat did not establish connection to pagan cult the eating was allowed (1 Cor 10:25–31).5 It is possible that Paul takes a more liberal stand here than the prohibition in the so called Apostles’ decree (Acts 15:29, cf. 21:25) or the warnings in Rev 2:14 and 20.6 Very little is said in the New Testament 1 This article is based on two former essays, one in Swedish (Sandelin 1990), reprinted in Sandelin 2008, 101–118, and another in German (Sandelin 2009). 2 See Phua 2005, 91–125, 134 –136, 148–150, 202–205 . Cf. Sandelin 2005, passim. 3 According to Joop Smit (2000, 89) Paul does not, but according to Piet Farla (2004,149 f.) he does. See also Sandelin 2009, 202–205. 4 Sandelin 2003, 122, cf. Sandelin 2009, 206. 5 Sandelin 2003,123–125. 6 Cf. Heikki Räisänen (1995, 167 f.) who states: “Luke claims that a decree which, among other things, flatly forbids the consumption of ‘idol meat’, was promulgated at the

124

Does Paul Warn the Corinthians Not to Eat Demons?

concerning the substance of the offerings to pagan gods. But there exists a lengthy discussion among exegetes on the question how Paul conceives of what is served both at the Christian communal meal and at an altar in a pagan shrine. In his letter from the mid fifties C. E. Paul seems to confront a syncretistic danger in the church of Corinth that he had founded some years earlier (1 Cor 10:14 –22). He says to his addressees: “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake (μετέχειν) of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (v. 21, NEB). But what do these sentences imply? They are preceded by the words (v. 20): “οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι.” These words that are translated e.g. “I will not have you become partners with demons” (NEB), or “I do not want you to be participants with demons” (NIV), or “I have no desire to see you in communion with demons” (JB). The latter version translates v. 16, which has the word κοινωνία, in the following way: “The blessing-cup, that we bless is a communion (κοινωνία) with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is a communion (κοινωνία) with the body of Christ.” Do we have a similar concept behind the words with the same root κοινων‑ in verses 18 and 20 and if so, what is the contents of such a concept? In the exegetical debate 1 Cor 10:16 is understood in basically two different ways, i.e. sacramentally or ecclesiologically. This can be demonstrated e.g. from the German commentary by Hans Lietzmann, which has an appendix with commentaries written by Werner Georg Kümmel.7 Lietzmann presents a sacramental interpretation, whereas Kümmel argues in favour of a ecclesiological one.8 In the former case the word (κοινωνία) stands for an identification of the bread and the cup with the body and the blood of Christ in contradistinction to the other view according to which it signifies the Christian community. There does not seem to exist a consensus among exegetes today concerning the question whether a sacramental or a ecclesiological understanding should be preferred. Some scholars combine the two aspects.9

‘Apostolic Council’ in Jerusalem in order to regulate the relations of Jewish and Gentile Christians (Acts 15:28–29). Paul’s account of the Jerusalem meeting (Gal 2:1–10) does not mention such a decision at all, and his basic sympathy toward those who did eat idol meat (1 Cor 8, 1 Cor 10:23–33, italics mine) is in disagreement with it. It is likely that the decree was only issued after Paul’s time. Then, however, it became very influential.” 7 Cf. Willis 1985, 200–209. 8 Lietzmann / Kümmel 1969, 48, 50, 181–183. 9 Conzelmann 1975, 171 f.

2. Theophagy: Dionysiac Parallels?

125

2. Theophagy: Dionysiac Parallels? In his commentary Lietzmann interprets the words αἶμα and σῶμα in v. 16 sacramentally by referring to the Words of Institution in 1 Cor 11:27–30. The κοινωνία with the body and blood of Christ is established through eating and drinking. In the wine the communicant receives the blood and in the bread the body of Christ.10 Lietzmann also is of the opinion that participants in cultic rituals in the Hellenistic environment of the early Church thought they ate their gods. Lietzmann especially refers to the cult of Dionysos.11 In a study published for the first time in 1981 on the Lord’s Supper Hans-Josef Klauck likewise interprets Paul’s words in 1 Cor, 10:14 –21 as reflexions of ideas prevalent in the Hellenistic mystery-religions.12 According to Klauck Paul probably had a general knowledge of such concepts that were in use in the Hellenistic mysteries. He therefore was aware that they could be used in comparison with the Lord’s Supper.13 By using the word κοινωνία Paul converted the traditional eucharistic terminology into categories which came close to the Hellenistic frame of reference of the Corinthians. The word originated in Greek religious terminology connected with sacred meals. According to Paul a personal communion (personale Gemeinschaft) is established at the Lord’s Supper between the communicants and the crucified and resurrected Christ.14 Blood and body of the Lord are represented by chalice and bread, of which the community directly participates. A contradistinction between Anteilhaben/Anteilgeben (participation, i.e. having a share in / giving a share of) on the one hand and Gemeinschaft (communion) on the other is superfluous.15 Klauck shares the opinion of Josef Hainz according to whom κοινωνία means “communion with somebody through common participation in something”.16 According to Klauck’s interpretation Paul argues that a person becomes κοινωνός, i.e. table companion, with the demons by eating from the same offerings as these (1 Cor 10:20–21). Even the idea of a “demonic infection” of the offerings at a pagan altar cannot be excluded. 10 Lietzmann / Kümmel 11 Lietzmann / Kümmel

1969, 48. 1969, 50. Cf. Käsemann 1960, 12 and Conzelmann 1975, 174

and n. 46. 12 Klauck 1982. 13 Klauck 1982, 271. 14 The German word Gemeinschaft is translated communion by James W. Leitch in the English translation of Conzelmann’s commentary on 1 Corinthians. See Conzelmann 1969, 202 and 1975, 171. Note that the word Gemeinschaft also has a different meaning, i.e. community. This may create some confusion in the understanding of a German text read by an English reader! See further below. 15 Klauck 1982, 261. 16 “Gemeinschaft mit jemand durch gemeinsame Teilhabe an etwas”, Hainz 1981, 751– 754, Klauck 1982, 261, n. 127.

126

Does Paul Warn the Corinthians Not to Eat Demons?

Klauck is somewhat cautious, but he nevertheless is of the opinion that in order to reach a correct understanding one should among Hellenistic sacral meals choose those kinds which show a tendency towards sacrificial communion (Kommunionopfer) and the eating of gods (theophagy). In an indirect way Paul categorizes the Lord’s supper as a sacrificial meal.17 Klauck does not explicitly assert that the religious background of what Paul says in 1 Cor 10:16 is the Hellenistic idea of theophagy. Neither does he say that theophagy was practised at the pagan rituals in Corinth. But no doubt his reflexions concerning the religious and cultural context of the Pauline text has a strong tendency in such a direction. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians Helmut Merklein presents an interpretation which comes very close to that of Klauck and even seems to go one step further.18 According to Merklein the word κοινωνία should be understood as a combination of participation and personal communion. Through the participation of the body and blood of Christ a dynamic communion is established between the believer and Christ. In a similar way those who take a part in a sacrifice to the demons are led to a communion with these through participation of the offering at their table.19 Following Wolfgang Schrage Merklein translates κοινωνία with Teilhabe, (participation) κοινωνοί in Verses 18 and 20 with Teilhaber (participants) and μετέχειν in the Verses 17 and 21 with teilhaben (participate).20 The concepts behind the words κοινωνία, κοινωνοί and the verb μετέχειν seem to be almost identical. Lietzmann’s way of interpreting Paul in 1 Cor 10:14 –21 is still present in the interpretations presented by Klauck and Merklein. Against this kind of interpreting the Pauline text I think two lines of argument would be valid: one from the history of religions in Greco-Roman antiquity and a second one from reflexions of semantics and the line of thought in the passage 1 Cor 10:14 –22. In his book on the Lord’s Supper Klauck has studied the possible documentation of the idea of theophagy in Greco-Roman culture in minute detail. One of his central results is that the phenomenon is very rare, although it has been postulated for all mystery religions. With some degree of evidence it can be demonstrated only at a certain phase of the development of the cult of Dionysos and possibly within the Orphic tradition.21 If one looks at the texts presented as evidence for this phase I think one should be even more cautious than Klauck. The only text in which he finds the idea 17 Klauck

1982, 270 f. 2000, 259–277. 19 Merklein 2000, 261 f., 266 f. 20 Merklein 2000, 254, Schrage 1995, 430. 21 Klauck 1982, 164. 18 Merklein

2. Theophagy: Dionysiac Parallels?

127

is the tragedy Bacchae written by the Greek playwright Euripides. I here present some central traits of the play.22 Disguised in human shape the god Dionysos enters the town of Thebes, where his divine origin from Zeus has been denied by three sisters of his mortal mother Semele. Because of this disbelief the women are punished by Dionysos with insanity. They are enticed by the god to retire into the woods on the mountain Kithairon in order to perform his bacchic rites (ὄργια, τελεταί) conducted by Agaue, the mother of King Pentheus of Thebes. Entering the scene the latter treats the rumour of the new god Dionysos with great scepticism. Then, in one of the episodes of the drama the events in the forest are described by a herdsman. In the beginning, he says, peace and tranquility prevailed among the women. But when threatened by herdsmen, who were able to flee from them, the women attacked the cattle instead. The animals, cows, calves, and bulls were torn into pieces by the very hands of the Maenads. In Thebes King Pentheus has meanwhile been approached by Dionysos, who does not reveal his identity. He presents himself just as an adherent of the god Dionysos. When Pentheus decides to attack the women in the woods together with men and arms, he is allured by Dionysos to spy upon the women, alone and dressed as a woman. Dionysos, who for a short moment in the eyes of Pentheus resembles a bull, even helps Petheus to climb up into the crown of a pine-tree in order to have a better view. He is quickly detected by the Maenads, who pull him down from the tree. He is then carved up in a gruesome way by his mother and the other furious women. Totally stunned Semele believes that she, led by the great hunter Dionysos, has killed an animal. In reality Dionysos has set a trap for Pentheus. In a triumphant way his head is carried by Semele into the town. Here, Pentheus’ mother invites the Maenads to a festive meal. But then the horrible truth little by little becomes clear to her. Her father Kadmos helps her to realize that the bloodstained head that she has been holding in her hands is that of her son Pentheus.

How does this tragedy disclose the idea of theophagy? Klauck gives an answer: Pentheus is to be understood as a double and representative of Dionysos.23 I am unable to see how this can be maintained. The Maenads never think that they attack Dionysos, not to speak of eating him. Quite the contrary: Agaue even thinks that Dionysos has assisted her during the capture of Pentheus. The singular common feature of Pentheus and Dionysos is that in the eyes of others’ they momentarily appear as animals. But this does not at all suffice for seeing Pentheus as a double of Dionysos. I cannot therefore see that the tragedy of Euripides contains documentation for theophagy in Greco-Roman antiquity. This in turn has the consequence that the phenomenon seems not to exist in that world.24

22 I

have used the edition by Kovacs 2002. 1982, 110 f. 24 Also Alexander Wedderburn (1987, 324) and Hermann Probst (1991, 240 f.) are critical towards Klauck’s interpretation of the Bacchae. 23 Klauck

128

Does Paul Warn the Corinthians Not to Eat Demons?

3. Theophagy: A Pauline Idea? Now one could of course argue that the Pauline text itself contains the idea of theophagy regardless of the lack of extra-Pauline documentation. If the words κοινωνούς and κοινωνία imply participation in the way understood by Lietzmann and others, then Paul would be the first author in antiquity to present such an idea, granting, of course, that Paul conceives of Christ as divine. It therefore seems reasonable to have a closer look at 1 Cor 10:14 –22. First of all one should ask what kind of text we have here. Is it a catechetical text which gives a teaching on the Eucharist? It actually has very few statements about the Eucharist.25 Verse 16 contains two questions demanding a positive answer, which implies that Paul in one way or another refers to ideas, which he shares with his addressees. If this is teaching, then it is teaching which refers to earlier instruction from Paul’s side or to ideas concluded from such instruction. In addition to v. 16 only the following verse contains remarks that could be called teaching about the Eucharist. The rest of the texts covers statements consisting of injunctions (vv. 14 and 15), descriptions of non-Christian cultic activities (vv. 18 and 20 a), a wish expressed by Paul (v. 20 b), a declaration of what the Corinthians cannot do, which comes close to a prohibition (v. 21) and finally a couple of rhetorical questions (v. 22). I think it is difficult to see the text basically as a catechetical text on the Eucharist. Rather, it forms a set of arguments in favour of a specific Christian behaviour, i.e. not to participate in pagan sacrificial meals. To view Paul’s words in this way is supported by his reference to the Corinthians as sensible people (φρόνιμοι), whom he finds able to judge by themselves concerning what he says (v. 15). Looking at the text of 1 Cor 10:14 –22 as an argumentative text implies to look at its starting point, its way of building up the argument and its conclusion. I do not think it is very far fetched to see the injunction in v. 14 as a general principle which forms a base for a conclusion regarding a special case in v. 21. Referring to his description of the idolatrous fathers in the desert in 1 Cor 10:1–13 by the word “therefore” (διόπερ), Paul in v. 14 exhorts the Corinthians to flee idolatry. Some verses later the apostle is more specific by stating that the Corinthians cannot both drink from the cup of the Lord and the cup of the demons and that they cannot both have a part in the table of the Lord and the table of the demons (v. 21). Paul does not here just generally warn against idolatry but he actually prohibits the 25 Norbert Baumert (2003, 441– 450, 2007, 146–150) does not even think that Paul has the Christian Eucharist in mind. The meal Paul is referring to is a communal meal of a Jewish kind, a kiddush-meal.

3. Theophagy: A Pauline Idea?

129

Corinthians to participate in pagan sacrificial meals if they want to remain faithful to the Lord. In v. 22 the apostle even refers to the jealousy of the Lord to corroborate his case. V. 21 also says something more specific than v. 14 about the three parties implied i.e. the idols, the idolaters and those who are admonished. In order to arrive at the specific ideas in v. 21 from v. 14 Paul in the verses between makes certain statements and conclusions. In v. 16, the first sentence of his argument, Paul uses the word κοινωνία. The interpretation of this word seems often to determine the understanding of the words κοινωνοί in v. 18 and κοινωνούς in v. 20 in commentaries and translations. When κοινωνία is translated with communion understood as participation in the body and blood of Christ, then the word κοινωνούς in v. 20 easily can be understood as communion with the demons in an analogous way. Paul then would say that he does not want the Corinthians to eat demons.26 But, perhaps it is not necessary to postulate absolute consistency in the apostle’s vocabulary even in a small unit like this.27 Paul may have a more moderate idea in mind if he talks of communion with demons. Schrage suggests that Paul thinks of the Corinthians being drawn into the realm of power (Machtbereich) of the demons.28 But if we translate κοινωνία with communion or participation in 1 Cor 10:16 how should we translate κοινωνοί in v. 18? If we start from the word participation (NIV) then participants would be a reasonable option. But what would Paul mean if he would say: “Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?” (NIV). Some authors suggest that the word altar is a circumlocution for God.29 But this has no real support in texts from the Old Testament or Hellenistic Judaism.30 To take the words in a literal way (“to consume the altar”), would be absurd. Paul may of course say something so trivial or tautological as: “Do not those who eat the sacrifices receive their share of what is brought on the altar?” But is that very likely? If we, however, reflect upon a translation of κοινωνοί that differs from communion or participation, also the argument of Paul looks different. One could start from the observation that Paul also uses the verb μετέχειν (vv. 17 and 21). We noted that it is understood by Schrage and Merklein as an equivalent to the words based on the root κοινων-.31 But isn’t the verb superfluous in this case? It seems fairly obvious and uncontroversial that 26 This possible consequence is clearly seen by Schrage (1995, 446 n. 382), who does not believe that Paul himself intends such a conclusion, however. 27 I have done precisely this in my article 1990, 379. 28 Schrage 1995, 446. Cf. Lietzmann/Kümmel 1969, 182. 29 Robertson / Plummer 1911, 215, Gressmann 1921, 224 ff., Craig 1953, 114. 30 See the discussion in Willis 1985, 185 f. Wendell Lee Willis states: “… there is no convincing evidence that θυσιαστήριον was used in Hellenistic Judaism as a circumlocution for the divine name.” 31 Thus also Conzelmann 1969, 202, 205; 1975, 171, 174. Cf. Willis 1985, 196.

130

Does Paul Warn the Corinthians Not to Eat Demons?

the expression “eat the sacrifices” in v. 18 has a close relationship to the expression “have a part in the table” of the demons and the Lord in v. 21. In all three cases, Israelite, pagan and Christian, we have a cultic meal. Further the attendants around an Israelite altar and at a table of the demons are κοινωνοί of some sort. When eating the Israelites are κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου whereas the pagans are κοινωνοὶ τῶν δαιμονίων (v. 20 b). But how should this “κοινωνία” be understood? In order to answer this question let us first note how Paul lays a base for what he says in 1 Cor 10:20 b. In v. 18 Paul describes what he thinks goes on in the sacrificial cult in the Temple of Jerusalem. He may need that specific occasion in order to have a point of comparison for the pagan sacrificial meals. To compare these directly with the Christian meal may be difficult precisely because the latter is not by him described as a sacrifice. In order to reach his point Paul needs a ritual that has a certain similarity with a pagan ritual. Because of the similarities Paul is able to state that the attendants are κοινωνοί, whatever that means. In addition Paul introduces a new term to signify the idols. In reality the idols are nothing, but the pagans sacrifice to demons, an idea that the Apostle easily can draw from Scripture (Deut 32:17, cf. Bar 4:7). Paul does not want the Corinthians to be κοινωνοὶ τῶν δαιμονίων. In my article in Swedish from 1990 I adhered to the view of Wendell Lee Willis according to which Paul in 1 Cor 10:18 by κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου means “that the joint participation of sacrifice and accompanying rites the relationship of κοινωνία is established and sustained among the worshippers; they are a cultic community” (italics mine).32 This interpretation has later been sustained by Norbert Baumert in a couple of comprehensive studies on the meaning of κοινωνεῖν and First Corinthians.33 Baumert has analysed a very large number of instances where words based on the root κοινων‑ are documented. He does not find any instance in classical or post-classical Greek where κοινωνία means participation (Teilhabe) nor any instance where κοινωνός means participant (Teilhaber).34 He interprets the word κοινωνία in 1 Cor 10:16 starting from the use of κοινωνοί, ‑ούς in verses 18 and 20.35 Instead of Teilhabe (communion, participation) he uses the word Gemeinschaft with the meaning community as a translation for κοινωνία. In contradistinction to the words based on the root κοινων‑ the verb μετέχειν means

32 Sandelin

1990, 382, Willis 1985, 187. 2003, 419– 424, 2007, 150. 34 Baumert 2003, conclusions on pp. 310, 321, 370. According to Baumert (2007, 370– 378) there exist tendencies towards the idea communion and participation in later Greek and in the Vulgate. 35 Baumert 2003, 419, 424, 434 – 436. I have done the same, see Sandelin 1990, 380–38. 33 Baumert

4. Conclusion

131

participate, have a part, share etc. (Teilhaben in German). The object usually is in the possessive as in 1 Cor 10:21.36 Adhering to Baumert’s view, I think I have been right when I have suggested that Paul in 1 Cor 10:18 and 20 had two distinct communities in mind. The Apostle did not state anything about the communion those involved had with either God or the demons.37 The Israelites, i.e. the priests around the altar,38 who receive a share of the offerings brought forth, form a community around that very altar (v. 18); those who participate in a sacrificial meal, where the pagans according to Paul sacrifice to demons, constitute a community around the table of demons (vv. 20–21). Analogously, that the Christians are a community sharing the table of the Lord. 1 Cor 10:16–17 explicates this idea more fully. Read in the light of verses 18 and 20 the κοινωνία means community. The cup that the Christians bless constitutes them to a community of the blood of Christ. The bread they break constitutes them to a community of the body of Christ. The concepts “blood of Christ” and “body of Christ” in these verses may have Eucharistic overtones (cf. 1 Cor 11: 24) or be only understood figuratively or ecclesiastically. The blood of Christ may stand for atonement (cf. Rom 3:15).39 The body of Christ may signify the church (cf. 1 Cor 12:12–31).40 But regardless, if Paul here speaks of the Lord’s Supper or not, the verses cannot be seen as arguments for the idea that the flesh and blood of Christ are communicated by means of bread and wine.41 If Paul understood the Eucharistic elements in this way the idea must be found in other texts, e.g. 1 Cor 11:23–26. This question falls outside the theme of the present essay, however.42

4. Conclusion In order to arrive at his rejection of Christian participation at pagan sacrificial meals from the general admonition to flee idolatry, Paul describes the participants at the Christian communal meal, the sacrificial meal in the Israelite temple and the meals around the table of demons, i.e. the pagan gods, as communities. He does not want the Christians, who are a community of the blood and body of Christ to become a community of demon-worship. 36 Baumert

2003, 15–23. 1990, 381 f., 386, reprinted: Sandelin 2008, 106–108. 38 Baumert 2007, 420 f. 39 Conzelmann 1969, 202, 1975, 171. Cf. Sandelin 1990, 386, reprinted 2008, 117. 40 Conzelmann 1969, 203, 1975, 172. Cf. Sandelin 1990, 381 f., 385 f., reprinted: Sandelin 2008, 106–109, 115 f. 41 Cf. Willis 1985, 209, Fee 1987, 467. 42 I have discussed the matter in Sandelin 1990, 383–386, reprinted: Sandelin 2008, 110–118. 37 Sandelin

132

Does Paul Warn the Corinthians Not to Eat Demons?

Therefore they cannot drink the cup of demons and have a share in their table. The Christian identity is at stake here. But Paul does not introduce the concept of theophagy and he does not warn the Corinthians against eating demons.

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005) Both Philo and Paul grew up in the environment of diaspora Judaism. They were active during the same era of the Early Roman Principate. Both wrote in Greek. A comparison of different aspects of their writings has proved useful.1 This paper discusses a theme which has pre-occupied the author for many years: the phenomenon Paul calls “idolatry”.2 Both Philo and Paul have something to say on this subject. Philo reveals a substantial knowledge of Gentile religious thought and praxis (e.g. Decal. 54 –56, Spec. 1.319–320). Paul on several occasions also addresses this theme. The problem of eating “food offered to idols” arose in Corinth and both such food and idolatry itself are treated extensively in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1. But in other Letters too the question of idolatry is mentioned (e.g. Rom 1:23, Gal 5:20, 1 Thess 1:9). Because of the detailed treatment of idolatry in 1 Cor the situation in Corinth will be considered in following pages.

1. The Situations If we want to compare Paul’s words to the Corinthians with Philo’s writings, which were probably meant, albeit perhaps not exclusively, for Alexandrian Jews, we should initially note that the situation of the Jews in Alexandria differed from that of the members of the young Christian community in Corinth. The Jewish community in Philo’s Alexandria was very large, had a history of several centuries and consisted mostly of Jews with a Jewish family-background of many generations; but it also included a group of proselytes, showed a strong interest in public affairs, military service

1 For

this article see especially Borgen 1995, Bosman 2003 and Sandnes 2002. 1989, 27–38, cf. a revised version of this article (which has a summary in English): Sandelin 2006; Sandelin 1991, 109–150; 1995 a, 165–182; 1995 b, 257–273; 1996, 412– 420; 2000, 1236 f.; 2001, 122–138.; 2003, 108–125. The Imperial cult will not be discussed in the present article. I offer some viewpoints on this topic in the first article mentioned in this footnote, its revised version from 2006, published as the first article in this volume and in the article on the book of Revelation at the end of this volume. 2 Sandelin

134

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

and culture, had the right to conduct its internal communal life, and was religiously well organized around synagogues.3 In the case of the Early Christian congregation in Corinth we should probably say that it was comparatively small, and had a very short history behind it in the mid-fifties A. D. Its members, all being converts either from Judaism or, in most cases, from one of the Hellenistic religions, had no public or political significance – with some noteworthy exceptions, like perhaps the aedile Erastus. They probably gathered in the homes of the wealthier members and had no separate building for their meetings.4 When Philo and Paul take their stands against the danger of idolatry, they do so in contexts which differ from one another to a great extent. My impression is that Philo warns people born as Jews against Gentile religion, and that he only indirectly mentions the problem of backsliding to their former religion among proselytes.5 But Paul must face precisely this problem that people who had become Christians run the risk of not regarding their old and new religious affiliations as mutually exclusive alternatives, and must therefore be reminded of this (1 Cor 10:21). Philo and his co-religionists in Alexandria met with Gentile religion in its different manifestations in several contexts. Although most Jews during the Hellenistic and Imperial periods probably did not transgress the Biblical injunctions not to participate in alien cults (e.g. Deut 13:6–9) some individuals are known to have made a compromise between their monotheistic tradition and polytheism.6 Moreover individuals who wanted to remain Jews but who attended gymnasia, sporting contests, theatrical occasions or clubs came into contact with non-Jewish religion and were in danger of being influenced by it.7 I shall exemplify the contact between Jews and society at large by presenting one single point which is fairly well documented: gymnasium education. Hellenistic culture from classical Greece had inherited an endeavour to refine both human beings and the human environment. In the Hellenistic cities boys and young men belonging to the Greek Elite were educated in the gymnasia where they received physical and intellectual training.8 As a rule the exercise of a man’s civil rights in a Greek polis did not begin until he 3 See

Barclay 1996, 27– 66. On proselytes in Alexandria see Borgen 1984, 248, 252–254. for instance Thiselton 2000, 25–28. For the aedile Erastus see Meeks 1983, 58–59. See also Craig S. De Vos 1999, 195–205. De Vos opines that the Corinthian church “appears to have been a very large and mixed group” (205) and that it is quite possible that “it met together monthly in a purpose-built ‘club room’ rather than a house” (204)! 5 Cf. Sandelin 1991, 122. 6 See Sandelin 1989, 28–33, Borgen 1995, 33–39. 7 Borgen 1984, 252–254, 1995, 45– 46. 8 See Nilsson 1955, 42–53. 4 See

1. The Situations

135

had completed a year at a gymnasium at the age of fourteen (the ephebeia).9 Gymnasium education no doubt promoted Jewish attempts to attain a position in society.10 Hellenistic culture, both the material and the spiritual aspect thereof, had strong religious components. The syllabus of learning taught at the gymnasia naturally contained large elements of ancient religious tradition mediated for instance through Homer.11 Gymnasia were often dedicated to gods or demigods like Hermes and Heracles and celebrations including sacrifices were performed in their honour.12 It is easy to imagine that Jewish families which wanted their sons to achieve a position in society were faced with a problem because of this religious side of the life in the gymnasia.13 How should the Jewish young men behave when confronted with this aspect? Or did some Jews think they should abstain from giving their boys a gymnasium education and thereby make their advancement in society impossible? Philo’s thorough knowledge of Greek and Hellenistic culture shows that he had received a good Greek education and attended a gymnasium. Instead of warning people to avoid gymnasium education he even seems to commend it (Spec. 2.229–230).14 That there were several Jews who sought a gymnasium education in Alexandria is probable because Emperor Claudius in his well known Letter to the Alexandrians bans Jews from games which were part of such education.15 That Jews in fact attended gymnasia in different parts of the Greco-Roman world can be seen from lists of ephebes containing Jewish names.16 Although he clearly indicates that there were Jews who abandoned their ancestral religion (Spec. 1.54 –57, 316, Virt. 182, Praem. 162), Philo does not mention any such person by name. Still there is one individual who is known from other sources to have a connection with Gentile religious life already in Philo’s lifetime: his own nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander.17 As

  9 Diana Delia 1991, 75. Cf. Nilsson 1955, 85 ff. Delia (1991, 55 n. 26) challenges the common opinion that ephebic training was a prerequisite for Alexandrian citizenship, and that Alexandrian citizenship in turn was a condition for Roman citizenship (39– 45). 10 See for instance Tcherikover 1957–1964, vol. I, 38, and Barclay 1996, 42, 68. 11 See Nilsson 1955, 51–52, 61. 12 Nilsson 1955, 62– 63. 13 Cf. Delia 1991, 86 n. 69. 14 See the discussion in my article 1991, 126–129. Cf. Feldman 1993, 57–59, Barclay 1996, 160–161, and Torrey Seland 1996, 121–124. According to Seland Philo warned against the misuse of institutions like gymnasia. 15 Tcherikover 1957–1964, vol. II , No 153 pp. 36– 60, esp. 53. 16 See for instance Trebilco 1992, 176–177, and Lüderitz/Reynolds 1983, 11–21, esp. 11 and 15, cf. Barclay 1996, 234 –235. 17 With Mireille Hadas-Lebel (1973, 46) I have suspicions concerning the Philonic authorship of the treatise On providence II in which “Philo” discusses with “Alexander”.

136

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

a Roman official he was expected to fulfill the “religious duties which attended his high office”.18 The earliest documentation connecting T. J. A. to Gentile religion is an Egyptian monument from Dendera erected in the second year of the reign of Claudius which depicts the Emperor offering a garland to two Egyptian deities also named “gods” in the inscription under the relief.19 The monument is said to have been completed during the term of three officials of whom T. J. A. is mentioned as the second, bearing the title of ἐπιστράτηγος. Presumably T. J. A. in one way or another was responsible for the construction of the monument. His Jewish religious affiliation was in fact strongly suspected by Josephus, who says that T. J. A. “did not stand by the practices (ἔθεσιν) of his people” in contradistinction to his father, the alabarch Alexander, who was “superior to his son in his religious devotion (εὐσέβεια)” (Jos. A.J. XX 100). Despite the great differences between the situations of the Jews in Alexandria and the Christians in Corinth, are there also similarities in their conditions? What about gymnasia, sports, and theatre? There is no evidence that Corinthian Christian boys in Paul’s time were trained at the city gymnasium, although I do not find it impossible, taking into account that some of the members of the congregation were wealthy.20 There were also a theatre and even an amphitheatre in Corinth.21 Paul does not indicate, however, that Christians attended the performances there, although in 1 Cor 4:9 he applies a theatrical metaphor to himself. Not very far from Corinth the Isthmian Games were held every second year.22 The Isthmian wreath, consisting of celery – which withers faster than pine, laurel or olive – may have been known to Paul when he likens himself to an athlete who runs in order to receive a “crown that fades” (1 Cor 9:25–27).23 But Paul does not mention that he or his fellow Christians ever attended the Games. The clearest indication that the Christian Corinthians may have been present when non-Christian rituals were performed are the passages in 1 Cor 8 and 10 in which Paul talks of the temples and the banquets around the altars of the

18 Barclay

1996, 106. Dittenberger 1960, vol. II, 372–373, No 663. 20 See Meeks 1983, 55–73, cf. Thiselton 2000, 23–29. Pausanias (II 4.5) visited the city around 165 A. D. and speaks of the “ancient gymnasium”. Aelius Aristides from about the same time mentions several gymnasia. These accounts do not of course prove that gymnasia existed in Paul’s time. See Murphy-O’Connor 1983, 36, 117; cf. Fotopoulos 2003, 137, 138, 146–147, 227. 21 See Engels 1990, 47– 48. It is not certain that the theatre and the amphitheatre were in use already in Paul’s time. See Murphy-O’Connor 1983, 12, 96. 22 See Engels 1990, 51–52, and Murphy-O’Connor 1983, 14 –17. 23 See Murphy-O’Connor 1983, 99. 19 See

1. The Situations

137

“demons”. In Corinth such temples where banquets were held have been excavated, for instance those dedicated to Demeter and Asclepius.24 A large number of scholars today take for granted that in his discussion in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 Paul implies that some Christian Corinthians in fact did participate in one way or another in non-Christian religious banquets.25 One of the most determined defenders of this view is Gordon D. Fee and many recent studies and commentaries by e.g. Peder Borgen, Wolfgang Schrage, Derek Newton and John Fotopoulos, also reckon with such a premise.26 It is evident that Paul in 1 Cor 10:1–22 emphatically opposes participation in ritual banquets of the said type. Of course the reason may be that some Corinthians had attended such banquets.27 But there could be wholly other reasons for Paul to write as he does! Logically it is not possible to draw conclusions concerning realities from injunctions only. Paul does not explicitly say in 1 Cor 10 that some Corinthians in reality are idolaters because they have participated in ritual banquets. To maintain that they did is a modern scholarly hypothesis. Paul gives warnings (v. 12), injunctions (v. 14) and prohibitions (v. 21). But the reason for this may just be fear that the Corinthians are in danger of behaving in a way that they should avoid. Nor does Paul in 1 Cor 8 explicitly say that some Corinthians have been dining in eidoleia. If verses 9–10 are examined from a strictly philological point of view Paul speaks of something in the future, not of something in the past or the present. The words ἐὰν γάρ τις ἴδῃ σὲ τὸν ἔχοντα γνῶσιν ἐν εἰδωλείῳ κατακείμενον in v. 10 are very often understood as referring to present realities in Corinth. But the phrase is a conditional clause and does not per se express realities.28 Nigel Turner takes the verse as an example of “a definite event as occurring only once in the future, and conceived as taking place before the 24 See John Fotopoulos (2003, 49–92, esp. 69–70, 92), who thinks the Asclepieion would be a better candidate for possible participation at meals by Christians in Paul’s time than the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore. 25 See the presentation in my article 2003, 113–116. See also especially the detailed review of past research by Fotopoulos 2003, 1– 48. 26 Fee 1987, 358–362, Borgen 1995, 47, Schrage 1995, 262, Newton 1998, 267, 297, Fotopoulos 2003, 210. Cf. Bruce 1971, 78–79, Eriksson 1998, 144, 162–169, Sandnes 2002, 200, 216, 219, 221, 225, Lampe 2003, 584 –599, esp. 584 –586, Chester 2003, 279. Similarly Thomas Söding 1994, 69–92, esp. 70, who still shows some reluctance: “… Paulus kann in Vers 10 die Dringlichkeit der Mahnung an einem extremen, aber doch wohl realistischen Fallbeispiel illustrieren” (83). Anthony Thiselton 2000, 607, 609, 651– 652 is not certain either: “probably”, “perhaps”. Cf. also Smit 2000, 65. 27 In a couple of earlier studies I myself accepted this view. See my articles 1991, 143 and 1995 b, 259. In my article 2003 I argue for a different view. 28 With John Hurd 1965, 125, and against Schrage 1995, 26 and Newton 1998, 297. Also David Garland (2003, 187) in 1 Cor 8:10 finds a hypothetical example, although he seems to reckon with at least the possibility of actual participation in polytheistic cultic activities (184 –187).

138

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

time of the action of the main verb”.29 Conditional sentences in Greek, with the exception of the casus irrealis, do not state whether or not the condition is true, although its fulfilment may be expected by the speaker or may be seen as a subjective supposition or as a possibility.30 If some Corinthians had participated in activities regarded by Paul as idolatrous he would, in the light of 1 Cor 5:2, 11, have argued along other lines in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1. I think Hans-Josef Klauck is correct in suggesting that when Paul admonishes the Corinthians not even to eat with individuals who are sexually immoral or idolaters this actually means exclusion from the congregation.31 Paul does not tolerate idolatry within the Corinthian Christian community. They have perhaps been tempted, but Paul assures them that God will not let them be tempted beyond what they can bear (1 Cor 10:13). I therefore treat the text of 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 as bearing witness to a discussion between the Corinthians and Paul which only concerned the consumption of “food offered to the idols” (1 Cor 8:1), not as referring to his opinion of, whether a Christian under certain conditions is allowed to participate in banquets in temple precincts. On this point I adhere to the position which Anders Eriksson calls the “older scholarly consensus”, and which I have found in for instance the commentary on First Corinthians by Frederick F. Bruce.32 Moreover in a recent study also Philip Bosman sees the passages 1 Cor 8 and 10:23–11:1 as a discussion of the problem of eating “sacrificial meat”.33 1 Cor 8:10 serves as an illustration, “real or imaginary” (sic) of the warning in verse 9.34 Concerning the religious position of the Corinthians I also disagree with a large group of scholars on another matter. I do not think the “strong” Corinthians were over-confident sacramentalists who maintained that Baptism and the Eucharist gave them protection against everything that threatened their future salvation so that they did not see any danger in, for instance, participation in non-Christian cultic activities, an opinion accepted by many scholars.35 On this point my view receives support from the recent studies by Fotopoulos and Stephen J. Chester.36 29 Turner

1908–1976, 114 –115. Cf. Bornemann/Risch 1978, § 279. E. Coye Still (2002, 339–340), who very strongly stresses that Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 8:10 is “future-oriented” although actual participation in temple meals may also have occurred. 31 Klauck 1987, 44. 32 Eriksson 1998, 139, Bruce 1971, 78–79. 33 Bosman 2003, 203–226. 34 Bosman 2003, 213. 35 For instance Barrett 1968, 25, 220, 227, Conzelmann 1969, 28, 30, 194, 197, Fee 1987, 443, and Schrage 1995, 381, 396, 409. 36 See my article 1995 a and Fotopoulos 2003, 228. Cf. Also Chester (2003, 337–342) who states that “macigal sacramentalism” seems “a classic example of the over-interpreta30 Cf.

2. The Evaluation of Alien Gods

139

2. The Evaluation of Alien Gods How do Philo and Paul, then, describe and evaluate the gods of the Gentiles and their worshippers? The term idol (εἴδωλον) does not denote the images only in the vocabulary of Philo. Both the gods (Spec. 1.28) and their images (Leg. 2.46) are called εἴδωλα by him. Here Philo follows the usage of the Septuagint.37 He does not employ the word εἰδωλολατρία that we find in Paul (1 Cor 10:14, Gal 5:20). Philo instead speaks of πολύθεος δόξα (Opif. 171; Migr. 69). Philo notes that the world is filled with images of gods (Mos. 2.205, Decal. 66), which are made out of silver, gold and other materials (Decal. 7.66) and adorned with purple and with symbolic accessories (Decal. 71, Legat. 98). But these images are not gods at all (Post. 165), but lifeless artefacts (ἄψυχα, Decal. 7, cf. Her. 12, Congr. 48), says Philo, moving in a traditional OT vein (Wis 13:17, 14:29, cf. Isa 44:20, Ps 115:5–7 = LXX 113:12–15). For Philo the statues of the gods are held to be gods on hearsay only (Post. 165). The essence of polytheism is according to Philo the deification of the created (Migr. 179, Her. 169, Virt. 212). Monotheism is, in contrast to polytheism, a result of the revelatory act of God as in the case of Abraham who used to be a polytheist (Virt. 214, Abr. 69–70. 77–80). But there are also individuals outside Israel (“the race endowed with vision”, Deus 144, “the man who sees God”, Abr. 56–59), who have attained belief in one God through deduction from the world and its order. Such knowledge is, however, inferior to knowledge reached through God’s disclosure of Himself to man (Praem. 41– 45). For Philo polytheism is a strong evil force. He uses the metaphor of a weapon of war in order to describe it. It is a “great and formidable engine of aggression” (Praem. 25). Speaking about the personages invented by the “myth-makers” Philo says that these build up their “false imaginations into a stronghold to menace the truth” (Spec. 1.28). The images of the gods are manufactured by people who, like those who love wealth and glory and thereby discard the commandment of God, deify created things (Spec. 1.21–28, Her. 169). Although he regards the images of the gods as shadows, Philo thinks they have a seductive power through their beauty (Spec. 1.29).38 The combination of polytheism and materialism in Philo’s description of Gentile religion may also be illustrated by the way he combines polytheism and passions. In Post. 158–164 Philo gives an allegorical interpretation of some verses from the episode of the golden calf in Exod 32. The burning of tion of a text” (341). Also Karl Olav Sandnes 2002, 202, 204, 205, 211, stresses distrust and lack of faith rather than over-confidence among the fathers and the Corinthians. 37 See Büchsel 1935, 374 and Griffith 2022, 44 – 45. 38 Cf. my article 2001, 125. Cf. Griffith 2002, 45.

140

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

the calf, the grinding of it to powder and the “sowing” of it upon the water (v. 20) actually mean that the body with its pleasures should be destroyed. The sacred Guide, says Philo, would have us “refresh our understanding, namely by burning up our pleasures, by grinding down and breaking up the complex of bodily goods into thin and useless dust, by making up our minds that from none of them did there ever shoot forth and bloom that which is truly beautiful, any more than from seeds sown upon the waters” (Post. 164). But if the golden calf is the symbol of the body and its passions, it has in the course of history also been the work of people characterized by Philo as “effeminate” (Post. 165–166). The detail in the Biblical account that the golden calf was made from the ear-rings of the Israelite women (Exod 32:2) is significant to Philo, who does not mention that Aaron also asked for the ear-rings of the sons of the people in the camp. To Philo the detail shows that a manufactured god is not a God for sight and in reality. It is only for the ear to hear of, and more precisely for the woman’s ear, not for the man’s. Thus the golden calf was a god by hearsay only, like the Egyptian “bulls, rams and goats”. Actually it is people who “deem life a show”, who fill the yet tender souls of the young with the nonsense of myths. They force those who “never become men in lofty spirit but are always effeminate to fashion gods for themselves”. It is no mere coincidence that immediately after seeing the golden calf as a symbol of the body and its passions in Post. 158–164, Philo connects the idea of polytheism with people who are effeminate in Post. 165–166. In fact passions do according to Philo belong together with the effeminate part of the soul. In discussing the offspring of Noah, Philo states: “The spiritual offspring of the unjust is never in any case male: the offspring of men whose thoughts are unmanly, nerveless and effeminate by nature are female. Such do not plant a tree of virtue whose fruit must needs be true-born and excellent, only trees of vice and passions, whose off-shoots are feminine” (Gig. 4; cf. Leg. 3.11; Sacr. 103, 111 f.; Det. 28, Fug. 128, Contempl. 60). Thus both passions and polytheism according to Philo have the same root, i.e. the feminine part in us. The rise of polytheism is given two different explanations by Philo. In some of his comments upon it Philo attributes the phenomenon to ignorance (ἅγνοια, e.g. Spec. 1.14 –15, Decal. 8, cf. Ebr. 45).39 In Ebr. 108–110 Philo starts his explanation of polytheism by stating that the “man of no discernment” has never and nowhere seen the Existent. The reason is that the organ by which this is possible, i.e. the mind, has been blinded. With his senses he has only seen the (material) bodies of the universe, which he has 39 Cf.

Gaca 1999, 170–171 and Griffith 2002, 45.

2. The Evaluation of Alien Gods

141

thought to be the causes of all that comes into being. Therefore he started fashioning gods and filled the world with statues of different materials. This was, however, impiety. In reality polytheism creates atheism.40 “God’s honour is set at naught by those who deify the mortal.” In this statement Philo probably has Egyptian religion, which he detests, in mind, because he goes on to denounce images not only of the sun, the moon and the elements, but of plants and animals as well (cf. Fug. 180, Ios. 254). Notwithstanding Philo can also describe the cause and its effect in reverse. Through knowledge of the many, created phenomena the soul passes to ignorance of the uncreated Maker of the universe (Virt. 213). In Conf. 144 Philo presents his understanding of the men who built the Tower of Babel (Gen 9:5). These also represent a type of humans today and are depraved both morally and theologically. Earlier in the tractate Philo described the city they are building as their vicious soul (Conf. 107–112). Philo now says that they have “assigned to pleasure the function of being the aim of the soul”. But they also “ascribe to existing things a multitude of fathers as it were and by introducing their miscellany of deities have flooded everything with ignorance (ἀπειρίαν) and confusion”. These people are like the children of a harlot who, having assumed “a multitude of what they falsely call sources and causes to account for the origin of the existing world”, have lost the knowledge of the one Maker and Father of all (τὸν ἕνα ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τῶν ὅλων ἠγνόησαν). There is a moral failure at the root, leading to ignorance of the real originator of the universe (cf. Mut. 205). Philo even seems to postulate an evil aim in the minds of those who have introduced polytheism. They have “infected the world with the idea of a multiplicity of sovereigns in order to geld (ἵνα … ἐκτέμωσιν) from the mind of men the conception of the one and truly existent Being” (Spec. 1.331–332). The makers of myths have similar intentions. They have invented their stories in order that the eternal, and truly existing God may be consigned to oblivion (λήθη Spec. 1.28).41 One may conclude from these utterances that Philo apparently reckons with an original “natural knowledge” of God which, alas, has been suppressed by evil men. Still a certain tension seems to exist between the ideas of “natural knowledge” and “revelation”. Paul like Philo regards the idols as having no reality: there is no idol in the world (οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν τᾦ κόσμῳ, 1 Cor 8:4). He characterizes them as dumb (ἄφωνα, 1 Cor 12:2). Nevertheless he also sees the gods “that by nature are no gods” as “weak and miserable” cosmic powers who, in analogy with the law, formerly enslaved the Christians (Gal 4:3, 5, 8–9). Although there is 40 On the relationship between theism, atheism and polytheism in the thought of Philo see Mendelson 1988, 31–33, 37 f. 41 This aspect of active suppression of monotheism is not taken into account in the description of Philo’s view by Gaca 1999, 170–171.

142

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

only one God, there are still many “gods” and “lords”(1 Cor 8:5). Therefore Paul is able to see idolatry as a partnership with evil demons (1 Cor 10:20). He regards it as strictly unacceptable for Christians to have dealings with these demons (1 Cor 10:7, 14, 20–21).42 Philo also, who sees polytheism as a strong evil force, reckons with a universe filled with demons or angels, good and bad.43 But one does not find such a direct identification of the gods of the Gentiles and evil demons in Philo. Richard A. Horsley notes the two different Jewish traditions used by Paul. Both traditions have Biblical roots: the one found in Wisdom-literature (e.g. Wis 13:10–19; cf. Isa 44:9–20) and in Philo, seeing the gods as mere “lifeless products of human craftsmanship”, and the other found in apocalyptic literature (e.g. 1 En. 19, cf. Deut 32: 17–21), which saw in idolatry “the service or the influence of demons”.44 Several ideas similar to those which we have found in Philo appear in Rom 1:18–32, where Paul presents a concentrated review of idolatry, its origin and effects. Paul like Philo sees a moral failure at the root of idolatry and associates it with the worship of created things instead of the Creator, and with passions. There are human beings who suppress the truth, he says.45 What may be known about God is plain to them. God has revealed it to them. His divine nature may be seen through His works. But although these individuals who suppress the truth knew God they did not give thanks to Him. Their foolish hearts were darkened. They said they were wise but they became fools. This led to idolatry: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator.” This in turn had effects in the sphere of moral conduct among their fellow human beings: God gave them over to sinful desires. To illustrate this Paul presents a catalogue of vices at the end of the passage. Paul maintains that thus God’s wrath is revealed against the wickedness of those who suppress the truth and that such are without excuse.

3. Participation in Alien Religious Activities As we noted earlier Philo does not mention any apostate Jew of his time by name. Still he contrasts the apostate Jews with proselytes (ἐπηλύται) who have repented by turning from polytheism to monotheism (Virt. 178–182). The former he characterizes as “rebels from the holy laws”. In a long list of their frivolous characteristics Philo says that they have “sold their freedom 42 Cf.

Griffith 2002, 51–52. Wolfson 1948, I 366–385. 44 Horsley 1981, 38–39. 45 This is not an idea that distinguishes Paul from Philo as Kathy L. Gaca (1999, 171–172) alleges. 43 See

3. Participation in Alien Religious Activities

143

for dainties and strong liquor and cates and the enjoyment of another’s beauty, thus ministering to the delights of the belly and the organs below it …”. Philo does not mention Gentile religion directly in this passage, but as we have seen, polytheism and passion walk hand in hand according to him. In Spec. 1.319 Philo becomes very specific when he states that “from” (sic) the sacred legislation Moses banishes “the lore of occult rites and mysteries”, which he characterizes as “imposture and buffoonery” belonging not to the light of the day but to the darkness of night. “Let none, therefore”, he says, “of the followers and disciples of Moses either confer or receive initiation to such rites.” Does Philo give any detailed description of a situation in which a Jew could be drawn into Gentile religious praxis? As an example Borgen mentions Philo’s discussion of Jewish membership of “pagan clubs” (Ebr. 14 –15, 20–29, 95).46 These passages are discussed also by Seland, who gives an insight into the common Greco-Roman custom of establishing and maintaining clubs and associations of different kinds.47 Philo seems very familiar with the club life of Alexandria as if from personal experience (Leg. 3.155–156) and occasionally comments upon their meetings which all too often consist in orgiastic symposia in contrast to Jewish gatherings (Legat. 311–315, cf. Spec. 2.193). In his tractate on the Therapeutae Philo gives a long, detailed and very critical description of the symposia (Contempl. 40– 63). The festal gathering of the Therapeutae is presented by him as a contrast to the Gentile feasts (Contempl. 64 –90).48 Philo is also fully aware of the political activities in certain clubs. He mentions that at the successful beginning of his term of office Flaccus dissolved clubs which “were constantly holding feasts under the pretext of sacrifice (προφάσει θυσιῶν)” (Flacc. 4). Thus Philo also gives a glimpse of the cultic aspect of the club-meetings. In the passages from the tractate On Drunkenness (Ebr. 14 –15, 20–29, 95) Philo discusses the payment of fees to clubs. He is of the opinion that such fees are acceptable if they foster prudence. But they can also be used for folly and are then blameworthy (Ebr. 20). In these passages Philo does not directly mention idolatry proper. But he uses terms which he often associates with polytheism and also a vocabulary describing passion in its different forms. He says that in paying fees to clubs we contribute to folly by “slackness, indolence, luxury (τρυφή), effeminacy (θρύψις), and by complete irregularity (ἐκδιαίησις) of life” (Ebr. 21). In describing the Sodomites and their sexual corruptness Philo says that the men were saddled with 46 Borgen

1995, 51. 1996, 112–114. 48 Seland 1996, 115–116. 47 Seland

144

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

the “curse of female disease” and that they “emasculated their bodies with luxury and softness (θρύψις)” (Abr. 136). It was observed above that Philo combines both passions and polytheism with the feminine part of us. Three times Philo employs the word ἐκδιαίτησις in the sense of apostasy and backsliding in descriptions of the worship around the golden calf in the wilderness (Mos. 2.167, 270, Spec. 3.123); the word is also used by him to denote “unspecified apostasy” (e.g. Mos. 1.31, 278).49 At the end of Ebr. 95 Philo says of the disobedient and contentious man (cf. Exod 5:2) whose contributions imply an adding of “sins upon sins” that he “made a god of the body, a god of the vanity most honoured among the Egyptians, whose symbol is the image of the golden bull”. Although Philo here does not directly state that people gathering at symposia are in danger of becoming polytheists sensu stricto, yet by using the imagery of the golden calf a symbol of passion, of deifying the body and of polytheism (see above), he comes very close to such an idea.50 Philo apparently associates the club-meetings with a danger of polytheism. But he does not explicitly warn Jews not to participate in such occasions altogether.51 What they should do is to be wary and not be drawn into orgiastic drinking and other revelry. A correct payment of club-dues consists in desire for virtue, zeal for things noble, persistent self-discipline etc. (Ebr. 20). Philo describes himself as one who at club-meetings has been a “slave of the enjoyments provided”, but who also has arrived at the party “with convincing reason” at his side. “Then”, he writes”, I find myself a master not a slave, and, putting forth all my strength, win the noble victory of endurance and self-mastery, in vigorous and pertinacious encounter with everything that excites the unruly desires” (Leg. 3.156). Does Philo give recommendations concerning what kind of clubs are acceptable and what kind are not? Would he for instance allow himself or other Jews to attend banquets in temple-areas proper? I have not found any texts in Philo which would give a direct answer. But no doubt Philo has been present on occasions where cultic acts have been performed: clubs, sporting events and theatrical performances. In 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 Paul discusses consumption of food “sacrificed to idols”. He may have been prompted to consider this question by information from someone other than those he seems to address at first, i.e. individuals who like himself have a specific knowledge. It may also be these people who have presented their position to Paul in a letter or otherwise. There may or may not have existed a debate between those who accepted 49 Seland

1996, 117. Sandnes 2002, 147. 51 Seland 1996, 125. 50 Cf.

3. Participation in Alien Religious Activities

145

or even recommended (cf. 1 Cor 8:8) the eating of food “sacrificed to idols” and those who were reluctant to touch such food.52 Paul may also answer direct questions submitted to him in a letter from the Corinthian congregation, e.g., “Are we allowed to eat idol food sold in the market?” or “Are we allowed to dine at the home of an unbelieving friend and eat if idol-food is offered?” (Cf. 10:25 and 27). 53 Such suggestions concerning the prehistory of this text remain hypothetical, however. Irrespective of whether or not the passage 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 may be illustrated from the models used in ancient rhetoric I am inclined to consider the passage both as a unity and as an argumentative text.54 In 1 Cor 8:1–10:22 Paul builds a theological basis for the paraenesis in 10:25 ff.55 In 1 Cor 8:4 Paul seems to agree with those who claim to possess knowledge which gives them the right (cf. v. 9) to eat food sacrificed to the idols: idols do not exist and there is only one God. But Paul also makes some statements which impose limitations on the principle uttered in v. 4. Knowledge “puffs up” (v. 1), a man’s knowledge is relative (v. 2). More important than knowledge is love of God and to be known by Him (v. 3). Although there is only one God, there are many “gods” and “lords” (v. 5), God is not just one but there is also a Lord, Jesus Christ through Whom we live (v. 6). Paul defines “the monotheistic creed soterio-logically”.56 These limitations to the Christian’s “theoretical” knowledge are the premises for the main point of ch. 8: the individual who makes use of his right to consume food sacrificed to the idols should take into account those who do not possess the proper knowledge. These people still eat “that which belongs to the idol as if it would be sacrificed to the idol” (v. 7). Paul does not explicitly state that those who possess knowledge should abstain from eating the food in question. Instead he says that they should not be “a stumbling block for the weak” (v. 9), which however is in reality an injunction not to eat. This becomes fully clear in the last sentence of ch. 8 where Paul says he would never eat flesh if it would scandalize his brother. In sum: to eat food sacrificed to idols is not acceptable if it causes damage to the weak. Nevertheless this does not mean that the eating of idol-food is always acceptable if it does not harm the weak.57 How do we know whether Paul’s description of the situation of the weak corresponds with that of those described? He speaks of such individuals in 52 In a recent article Garland (2003, 177–186) maintains that such a dispute never existed. The dispute only involved Paul and the “strong”. 53 Cf. Söding 1994, 69. 54 For rhetorical models see Mitchell 1991, 237–258, Eriksson 1998, 137–173, Smit 2000, passim, Fotopoulos 2003, 200–207, and one of my articles: Sandelin 2009, 201–205. 55 Sandelin 2003, 124 –125. 56 Bosman 2003, 208. See also especially Söding (1994, 81 and 85–90), who expounds the implications of 1 Cor 8:11. 57 This seems to be the interpretation of Horrell 1997, 88–91.

146

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

the third person and what we have is Paul’s interpretation of the weak.58 But there are also other difficulties. Why is the weak harmed when he eats food sacrificed to an idol? The problem of the weak cannot be theoretical in the sense that he is in doubt whether a dish contains food which has been offered to an idol in a cultic context. This is the premise for both those who have knowledge and the weak. The problem of the latter in Paul’s eyes appears to be that the food has the significance of an offering to an idol.59 The weak man looks at it in a different way from the one who has knowledge. Here Paul introduces the concept of συνείδησις. This seems to be weak because of lack of proper knowledge. When an individual with such a deficient knowledge eats, his συνείδησις is defiled (μολύνεται).60 But Paul does not further explain the word συνείδησις. Bosman recently suggested that it can be understood with reference to Philo’s concept of the “inner court of law” within man, which could attest either guilt or innocence (cf. 1 Cor 4:4). It could be either clean or defiled.61 This would mean that if a person with a weak conscience eats idol‑ food the συνείδησις will condemn this activity in retrospect and thereby become defiled. This implies that the person thinks he did wrong when he ate idol-food. But wherein did the transgression consist? Does he blame himself for improper knowledge? He ought to have known better when he ate! Or is it because he knew something which was incompatible with the eating when he ate? When he ate he knew that eating something as idol-food is incompatible with the belief in one God? But does Paul describe the inner tension in a weak Christian at all? Perhaps he merely depicts a person whose moral judgement is led astray? Garland suggests that it would be akin to “a compass becoming demagnetized so that it no longer points to the north”.62 Paul is tense and it is not clear why a weak conscience is defiled when the person has eaten idol-food. In any case Paul thinks that a person with a weak conscience in these matters suffers if he eats food that he knows was sacrificed to an idol. Later on in the chapter Paul describes a situation where the weak person is provoked to eat by the action of one who possesses knowledge (v. 10), something which is not stated in v. 7. Because of the hypothetical form of 58 Cf.

Garland 2003, 180. Söding (1994, 76): “… nach wie vor sehen sie deshalb im Essen von Götzenopferfleisch einen Akt kultischer Verehrung …”, and Bosman (2003, 211): “… the weak eat sacrificial meat as food that has been offered to idols, without the conviction … of the strong that those idols do not exist …” 60 Bosman 2003, 213. 61 Bosman 2003, 187, 198, 212. 62 Garland 2003, 188. Söding (1994, 71, 75), who thinks they had conflicts with their conscience, combines both aspects in his comment on the Corinthian weak: “Sie ist eine Schwäche des Gewissens: Es irrt; und es hat offenbar bei einigen nicht die Kraft zu einem Handeln zu führen, das seiner Stimme entspricht” (76). 59 Cf.

3. Participation in Alien Religious Activities

147

the sentence in v. 10 we do not know how far Paul reckons with the occurrence of a situation where a weak person sees another with knowledge in an εἰδωλεῖον and is therefore “built up” to eat idol-food. Paul describes the activity of the strong as a deliberate wounding of the weak συνείδησις (v. 12). It is not easy to say whether the result of this is similar to the defilement in v. 7. But what seems to be an even worse result is that the weak is destroyed (ἀπόλλυται). The text of 1 Cor 8 does not give direct clues for the meaning of this word. Bosman therefore, probably in analogy with μολύνεται in v. 7, interprets the word ἀπόλλυται as an “intra-psychological crisis”.63 But if we see 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 as a unity, as also Bosman himself does (p. 204), we may come to another conclusion because we meet the same verb in 1 Cor 10:9 and 10 in the context where Paul vehemently admonishes the Corinthians not to participate in alien cults. The Israelites perished in the desert. Their chief sin was idolatry. I therefore am inclined to think that in 1 Cor 8 Paul addresses a possible situation where the person with a weak συνείδησις is drawn into something which Paul sees as idolatry proper.64 He will not suffer from inner pain only, but will incur something more serious: eternal damnation.65 This may also shed light on verse 7. It would mean that the person whose συνείδησις becomes defiled not only suffers from pangs of conscience, but that his eating of food sacrificed to idols somehow involves him in idolatry which is to his great disadvantage.66 Does Paul in 1 Cor 8:10 tacitly permit an individual with knowledge to participate in a meal at an εἰδωλεῖον on condition that he is not caught out by another Christian with a weak conscience, who is thereby scandalized? I shall approach also this question from the premise that the situation described is hypothetical and may well occur in the future.67 No such incident has yet happened. Therefore I would say that Paul signals a prohibition rather than a permission. To participate in a celebration around a pagan altar is forbidden to a Christian (1 Cor 10:21).68 Many scholars maintain, how-

63 Bosman

2003, 215. Garland 2003, 180–181. 65 Thus Schrage (1995, 265–266) with reference to Conzelmann. Söding (1994, 75, n. 30) observes that the word ἀπόλλυμι in Paul has an eschatological note to it. 66 Cf. Borgen (1995, 50–51), who with reference to Malherbe and Eckstein stresses the cognitive aspect of the συνείδησις, states: “The conscious and existential engagement of the converts was defiled, according to Paul, because it was driven to pagan worship.” Cf. Smit 2000, 60. 67 Paul does not say that the strong “have been seen reclining in an εἰδωλείῳ”. Against Fotopoulos 2003, 221. In my article 2003, 113–116, I have discussed the theoretical problems which arise if, as many scholars do, Paul in 1 Cor. 8:10 has the intention to sanction the Christian presence at a banquet in an εἰδωλεῖον. 68 With Smit 2000, 88–89 and Still 2002, 338. 64 With

148

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

ever, that Paul distinguishes between an εἰδωλεῖον and a cultic site proper.69 I find this solution improbable.70 Indeed from a Corinthian perspective the hypothetical example in 1 Cor 8:10 may seem provocative because such an act may not even have been implied in the verbal and literal communication between Paul and the Corinthians. By his hypothetical example Paul signals a real danger, described later in ch. 10, both for the one with the weak συνείδησις and for the one with knowledge. The consumption of food sacrificed to the idols may be dangerous. It is not an adiaphoron.71 1 Cor 9 has close links to ch. 8 because in 9:15–16, 22, 24, 26, Paul presents himself as an example for the Corinthians to follow by his waiving his legitimate right for the benefit of others. In 1 Cor 9:24 –27 Paul likens himself to an athlete. He stresses self-discipline and self denial. Sandnes has recently pointed out that the athletic imagery thus sets “the scene for the following passage”.72 In 1 Cor 10:1–22 Paul presents the Israelite apostates in the desert as a warning example to the Corinthians. Under no circumstances should they attend cultic banquets around a pagan altar. At this point one is reminded of Philo’s advice on how one should behave at club-meetings: self control is important, otherwise one is overcome by pleasure or even polytheism.73 But in 1 Cor 10:1–22, as in 1 Cor 8, Paul seems very strict: he does not condone any attendance at pagan cultic meetings. He does however accept attendance at a dinner in an unbeliever’s home (1 Cor 10: 27, see below). Paul and Philo may draw the lines differently between an acceptable and an unacceptable presence on occasions where participation in alien religion could occur. As I have indicated I do not regard 1 Cor 10:1–22 as a condemnation of idolatrous actions already committed by the Corinthians. But I do see the passage as a warning of the real danger which the Corinthians may face if 69 Conzelmann

1969, 176, Schrage 1995, 262–263, Borgen 1995, 51, 56, Horrell 1997, 90–91, 100–101, Lampe 2003, 585–586, 597. 70 According to Wendell Lee Willis (1985, 56– 61, esp. 61) the “presence of the god(s) is assumed” both at cult gatherings and at private meals. Cf. also Newton (1998, 188, 212, 219, 225, 242, 246–248, 302–304), who points out that it is difficult to distinguish between the social and the religious side of pagan sacrificial banquets (p. 242). Heikki Räisänen clearly sees the problem: “Since Paul is so adamant about the ‘table of demons’ (ch. 10), he must have something other than religious festivals proper in mind here (scil. in ch. 8), probably meals with a predominantly social character: meals of trade guilds or some family events” (1995, 165). Paul actually addresses the problem of a “family event” in 1 Cor 10:27. See below. 71 With Fotopoulos 2003, 217. 72 Sandnes 2002, 201. 73 Cf. Sandnes (2002, 201): “Paul here presses some well known ‘buttons’: the athlete and the struggle to master desires. To an ancient reader it would come as no surprise if the following includes the belly-topos as well …”

3. Participation in Alien Religious Activities

149

they are careless in their way of handling food sacrificed to the idols. It may result in demon worship (v. 20). The example with Israel shows that the end will be destruction (vv. 8–11), viz. eternal damnation. The verses 1 Cor 10:23–24, which have close ties to chs 8–9, serve as a transition to the practical questions of eating food sacrificed to idols that Paul signalled in 1 Cor 8:1. Paul takes up two situations where a Corinthian Christian may come into contact with such food: the market, and a private meal in an unbeliever’s home. I see the absence of Pauline advice on how the Corinthian Christians should behave in an a temple or a temple restaurant (cf. 1 Cor 8:10) as an indication that they had never after their conversion set foot in such places, nor did Paul expect them to, although he saw such attendance as a possible future danger. In 1 Cor 10:25 Paul permits his addressees to eat all that they buy in the macellum. He adduces Ps 24:1 in defence of his case: “The earth is the Lord’s , and everything in it.” No doubt Paul is referring to the principles outlined in 1 Cor 8:4 and 6. There is only one God from Whom all things have come. The idea in the Biblical quotation is probably also the premise for Paul’s additional statement that the Corinthians need not investigate the food for the sake of the συνείδησις. It suffices to know that the food is part of creation. Whether it has gone through a sacrificial process or not does not matter.74 The code of the inner court of a Christian should be based on proper knowledge of the world as created by God. Exactly the same principle governs the second case, which Paul presents as hypothetical, and which occurs if a Corinthian Christian has accepted an invitation from an unbeliever. Verses 25 a and v. 27 b run parallel. The Corinthians may eat all that is served. They do not have to investigate the food for the sake of the συνείδησις. But in v. 28 a complication appears. Again Paul presents the situation as hypothetical.75 He says: “But if someone should say to you: ‘This has been offered in sacrifice (τοῦτο ἱερόθυτόν ἐστιν)’, do not eat, for the sake of the one who informed you and for the sake of the συνείδησις.” To this Paul adds (v. 29 a) that he does not mean the συνείδησις of the one he is addressing, but the συνείδησις of the other, apparently that of the informant. Verses 28–29 a contain a long series of extremely difficult problems of interpretation. Does Paul in v. 28 think only of the situation in the unbeliever’s home, or does he also have in mind the purchasing in the market place? Whom does he mean by an informant, a weak Christian, the host or, as has been suggested recently by Fotopoulos, a Christian slave with a weak συνείδησις, who serves at the dinner and who was present when the 74 Cf.

Bosman 2003, 221–223. Bosman 2003, 220.

75 Correctly

150

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

food was purchased in the macellum?76 But does Paul present the informant as a person with a weak συνείδησις? At least this is not explicitly stated as Garland correctly notes.77 According to Bosman’s recent interpretation v. 28 pertains to both situations in vv. 25 and 27.78 This has two important consequences. The question of the informant’s identity becomes almost irrelevant. Nevertheless Bosman thinks Paul has a weak Christian in mind, which links the text with 1 Cor 8. This in turn means that the only factor which according to Paul should restrain the “strong” Christian’s consumption of food sacrificed to the idols is the Christian with a weak συνείδησις. This interpretation is in line with Bosman’s view on 1 Cor 8. The harm done to the weak consists in psychological problems. A “strong” Christian should in the name of love avoid causing suffering to a brother. I think the major problem in Bosman’s interpretation is that it does not take Paul’s strict prohibition on participation in alien religious activities in 1 Cor 10:1–22 into account. Why does Paul address this issue at all in this context? From the standpoint taken by Bosman the challenging article on 1 Cor 8–10 by Lamar Cope should acquire fresh significance: the passage 10:1–22 may be a later conservative interpolation into the Pauline text.79 Or one could simply reconsider whether 1 Cor was a unity from the outset. But if there is an original, intended link between this passage and the rest of the text I prefer an interpretation of 1 Cor 10:25 ff. which understands the latter in the light of what has preceded. There the risk to a Christian existed in participation in alien cults (8:9–11, 10:1–22). Considering the structure of 1 Cor 10:25–29 a one could argue that the advice pertaining to the two different situations in the macellum and in an unbeliever’s home is qualified in an order which is surprising if the same principles should apply to both cases. Paul cites Ps 24:1 in v. 25, but it no doubt has relevance also for v. 27. Should he not have placed v. 28 immediately after v. 25 if he intended it to apply to both cases? Or, alternatively, cited Ps 24:1 between v. 27 and v. 28? What could be the difference between idol-food sold at a macellum in Corinth and similar food offered at a dinner in an unbeliever’s home? I would say: the cultic connotations.80 A Christian possessing proper knowledge would not give the food he buys in the market the same significance when he eats it at home as a person who may attribute to that same food 76 Fotopoulos

2003, 246. 2003, 195, who adds: “It may simply mean that the person who makes the announcement is conscious that the food is religiously significant.” 78 Bosman 2003, 220. Thus also Smit 2000, 143. 79 Cope 1990, 119–122. 80 Cf. Borgen 1995, 51–53. 77 Garland

3. Participation in Alien Religious Activities

151

and its consumption a significance which connects him with the cult at the altar in a Corinthian shrine. At a dinner in an unbeliever’s home everything served therefore may be consumed until somebody informs the guests that the food has been offered to a god. Such a future hypothetical situation comes close to that presented in 1 Cor 8:10, a meal at an εἰδωλεῖον. A Christian should abstain from both because somebody has announced that the food has been sacrificed, and because of the συνείδησις of the announcer. Perhaps by distinguishing in 1 Cor 10:28 between the informant and his συνείδησις Paul signals that there exist two aspects: the cultic connotations becoming known through the announcement and the consideration of the συνείδησις of the announcer. The interpretation of 1 Cor 10:25–29 a presented here leads at least to one crucial question: should the συνείδησις of the weak be taken into account also when food sacrificed to the idols is bought at the macellum and then consumed at home (cf. 1 Cor 8:9)? Should a Christian standing at a shop with such food immediately discontinue his purchase if he is observed by another Christian with a weak συνείδησις? Or, if he is not observed, should he run home as fast as possible and hide the meat under his cloak until he is safely indoors? Or should a person with a weak συνείδησις abstain from buying food at the macellum? I would say: no!81 Paul’s advice is not given to just some Christians in Corinth, but to all, “strong” and weak alike. The danger of eating it “as if it would be sacrificed to the idol” does not occur everywhere.82 Paul gives two hypothetical occasions where it could happen: in an εἰδωλεῖον and at an unbeliever’s dinner. To participate in a meal in an εἰδωλεῖον is out of the question. To eat food identified as idol-food in a non-Christian’s home is not acceptable either because it would mean a participation in a ritual which implies a sacrifice to the demons.83 Although Paul does not permit the Christians to eat food sacrificed to idols at a meal in an unbeliever’s home he does not require them to leave the company. Therefore he here seems to apply the principle uttered in 5:9 ff.: the Christians are not forbidden to associate with adherents of alien religion, but within the Christian community no idolaters are accepted. Here too Paul passes the same judgement as Philo.

81 With

Fotopoulos 2003, 244 –245. (2003, 194) correctly states: “Idol food is not dangerous outside of its overtly idolatrous context.” 83 In this paper I abstain from a discussion of the difficult verses in 1 Cor 10:29 b–30. For different options see Fotopoulos 2003, 246–247 (anonymous dialogical objection), and Bosman (2003), 225–226 (inner freedom). 82 Garland

152

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

4. Arguments from the Bible As an interpreter of the Bible in his own time and environment Philo made actualizations of different Biblical passages which gave him the opportunity to take a stand against Gentile religion in its various forms.84 Thus he uses the episode of the golden calf in the desert as an example. Philo maintains that the people sinned when they followed the ill-advised judgement of their leaders and worshipped the golden calf (Spec. 1.79). They forgot the reverence they owed to the Self-Existent (τὸ ὄν) and became devotees of Egyptian fables (πλάσματα) instead (Mos. 2.161). They had exchanged “truth” for delusion (Mos. 2.167). Probably “truth” here is connected to the idea of the true God whom the Israelites forgot when they turned to the golden calf (cf. Mos. 2.270–271). In any case Philo here notes a contrast between the fall into apostasy and the situation before that. Without having any support for his interpretation in the Biblical text, Philo presents the golden calf as a manifestation of Egyptian religion. In the bull Philo sees an image (μίμημα) of the animal held most sacred in Egypt (Mos. 2.162, cf. Mos. 2.270, Spec. 1.79; 3.125), i.e. of course the Apis-bull.85 In Philo’s time much of the Egyptian devotion to animals, including the worship of the Apis-bull, still existed.86 This made the story relevant to his Alexandrian readers. When Moses came down to the camp from the mountain, and had seen the defection to the bull, he according to Philo also observed that the contagion of the apostasy had not “extended to all and that there were still some sound at heart and cherishing a feeling of hatred of evil” (Mos. 2.167). When Moses summons those who are “on the Lord’s side” (Exod 32:26), the meaning of his words is explained by Philo as follows: “Whoso holds that none of the works of men’s hands, nor any created things (ὅσα γένητα), are gods, but there is one God only, the Ruler of the universe, let him join me” (168). Philo sees the worship of the golden calf as a means of deifying created things. The apostates are characterized as people who have “left the true God, and wrought gods, falsely so called, from corruptible and created matter, and given them a title which belongs to the Incorruptible and Uncreated” (171). Thus in the worship of the golden calf Philo sees a religious attitude similar to that typical of the representatives of the so-called “Chaldaean creed”. Among these Nahor is one who “honours the created before the creator” (Congr. 49, cf. Abr. 69). Often scholars presume that by attacking the Chaldaeans Philo in reality is hitting at the Stoics.87 84 See

Sandelin 1991, 131–142. Mendelson 1988, 118. 86 See Bell 1953, 66 f. 87 For references see Sandelin 1991, 132. 85 Cf.

4. Arguments from the Bible

153

A feature which seems at odds with the criticism of the Stoics in Philo’s descriptions of the worship around the golden bull is the strong emphasis on the revelry, especially the drinking, connected with the cult (Mos. 2.162, Spec. 3.124 –127). This was recently pointed out by Sandnes who writes: “It is, therefore, not surprising that Exod 32 appears in Philo’s treatise on drunkenness (De Ebrietate), where the Golden Calf episode is seen as a text about the fight against bodily desires (95–100, 124, 127).”88 We have seen above that in Ebr. 95 Philo speaks of the corrupted life-style in clubs. Thus Philo uses the episode with the golden bull as a warning to his contemporaries not to behave in a disorderly manner in the clubs they visit. Upon the words of Moses, “if any is on the Lord‹s side, let him join me” the Levites came running “with all speed” and Moses, addressing them, said: “… Take each of you his sword, and slay those whose deeds deserve a thousand deaths, who have left the true God (τὸν ἀληθῆ θεόν), and wrought gods, falsely so called, from corruptible and created matter … Yea, slay them, though they be kinsmen and friends (συγγενεῖς καὶ φίλους), believing that between the good there is no kinship and friendship but godliness (φιλίαν καὶ συγγένειαν ὑπολαβὼν εἶναι μόνην ἀνδρῶν ἀγαθῶν ὁσιότητα).” (Mos. 2.171. Cf. Mos. 2.273, Spec. 1.79, Spec. 3.126).

The Levites did as Moses ordered them (Mos. 2.172, 274) and thereupon were accounted as “the noblest of heroes and awarded the prize most suitable to their action, that is the priesthood” (274). In the response of the Levites Philo sees a “deed well pleasing to God” (Mos. 2.160) and even maintains that it was “the most illustrious act of heroism that has ever been achieved” (Spec. 3.124). Because the O. T. episode of the golden calf is seen by Philo as a lapse into Egyptian religion (Mos. 2.162) the above description of the action of the Levites and the fate of the apostates, who were kinsmen and friends, implies a warning to contemporary Alexandrian Jews not to participate in the religious life of the surrounding non-Jewish world, although Philo does not say this explicitly. We find a parallel case to the episode of the golden calf in Philo’s rendering of the Phinehas incident. In Num 25:1–5 we are told that the Israelites began to have “intercourse with the Moabite women”. They were seduced to sacrifice to the alien gods and worship them. According to the passages which follow (vv. 6–18) one Israelite named Zimri “brought unto his brethren” a Midianite woman, Cozbi. Both Zimri and Cozbi were killed by Phinehas who was therefore granted the priesthood for himself and his descendants. These accounts are preceded by the long narrative concerning Balaam in Num 22–24 who was not able to curse Israel on the order 88 Sandnes 2002, 207. Sandnes cites many additional texts from Philo pointing in the same direction.

154

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

of Balak, King of Moab. The accounts in Num 22–24 and 25 are apposed without reference to each other on the narrative level, but later on in Num 31:16 it is Balaam who is accused of the seduction of the Israelites reported in Num 25.89 This probably also explains why he was killed (Num 31:8). Now Philo (Mos. 1.294 –304) takes up the thread of Num 31:16 and gives a lengthy description of how Balaam instructed Balak to use young women not only to seduce the Israelite men sexually but also to attract them thereby into alien worship (295–299). Balaam set himself to lead the young Israelites “through wantonness and licentiousness to impiety”, Philo says (295). They were instructed to say: “You must not be permitted to enjoy my favours until you have left the ways of your fathers and become a convert to honouring what I honour. That your conversion is sincere will be clearly proved to me if you are willing to take part in the libations and sacrifices which we offer to idols of stone and wood and the other images.” (298)

The women then act as enjoined and achieve the goal expected of them (300–302). One of those seduced is an Israelite who in Philo’s words was “offering sacrifice and visiting a harlot”, i.e. the man called Zimri in Num 25. He is then killed together with the woman by Phinehas (302). This example was observed by others who “massacred all their friends and kinsfolk who had taken part in the rites of these idols made by men’s hands” (303). Wilhelm Cornelis van Unnik has studied both this text and a still more detailed version of the Phinehas incident in the writings of Josephus (A.J. IV 126–151). Certain features in the texts led van Unnik to the conclusion that both Josephus and Philo show that the danger of apostasy was very real, and that these authors “warn against it by portraying the end of the apostates”.90 The passage 1 Cor 10:1–13 is filled with references to episodes from the Exodus-narrative and has one direct quotation from Exodus in verse 7 (Exod 32:6 b), i.e. from a Biblical text describing the episode with the golden calf. The Pauline passage is seen by many modern authors as a midrash. In an influential article Wayne A. Meeks argued that the midrash was written earlier by Paul himself or by another and then inserted into its present context. He put forward the thesis that the words from Exodus cited in v. 7 formed the nucleus which Paul or another enlarged into a unit by the use of rabbinical ways of exegesis. Paul added the direct quotation in verse 7, although, in order to emphasize his message, the warning against idolatry.91 Meeks’ theory was developed by Gary D. Collier, who in his article published in 1994 accepts the idea that the unit may have existed earlier, but 89 This interpretation is attested in the LXX, KJV and NIV (“… on Balaam’s advice”). The NEB translates: “on Balaam’s departure”. 90 van Unnik 1974, 261. van Unnik is followed by Borgen 1995, 33–36. 91 Meeks 1982, 69–74.

4. Arguments from the Bible

155

thinks that the sub-text of the whole Pauline passage is to be found in Num 11 instead of in Exod 32. The former text conveys the general idea of craving (verses 4 and 33, cf. 1 Cor 10:6), the latter through the words “eat and drink” forms a link between Num 11 and the other texts alluded to in the Pauline passage, all of which have the theme of food in common.92 Collier concludes: “For seen in its broader context, 1 Cor 10:1–13 is a focused argument against a Corinthian craving (ἐπιθυμία) for the wrong kind of ‘food’. To insist on one’s right to eat idol meat is to insist on eating from the fountain of ἐπιθυμία, rather than from Christ, the rock.”93 Recently also Sandnes has pointed out the same feature and in addition observed the parallels in Philo’s writings. Sandnes states: “The whole tenor of Paul’s text evokes the cries for the flesh-pots in Egypt …”94 About the same time as Collier was working on his article Berndt Schaller wrote a paper which he read in Helsinki in 1993 and which he published in 2001.95 To my mind the method of Schaller in many respects comes close to that of Collier. The Biblical texts alluded to in 1 Cor 10:1–10 have many cross-references and several themes in common, especially that of food, which in turn illustrates the Pauline text. But Schaller presumes that Paul himself wrote the midrash for his purpose in the present context. The apostle appears as a very sophisticated exegete.96 A study like Schaller’s calls to mind the words of Cope that in the passage under discussion Paul “has wandered far more technically into the arena of midrashic exegesis than at any other point in his letters”.97 For similar reasons I would therefore opt for a non-Pauline substratum here. I myself wrote a couple of articles on 1 Cor 10:1–13 published in 1995. I had two basic theses: 1) In the passage in question Paul uses a scheme found in the Bible and Post-Biblical Jewish texts (e.g. Exod 32, Num 14: 22–23, Deut 32: 7–27, Neh 9: 6–37, Pss 78.106, 95:8–11, Hos 13:4 –9, Amos 2:6–16, Bar 2: 11–15, Philo: Mos. 2.167, 271). This pattern sees the apostasy of the people against the beneficent acts of God. Despite the blessings conferred on them, the people acted sinfully, for instance by turning to foreign gods, wherefore they were punished. By referring to this pattern Paul warns the Corinthians not to participate in pagan cults.98 2) Paul uses an earlier Jewish text to which he makes some additions, one of which consists in Exod 32, 6 b, in order to emphasize idolatry (cf. Meeks), which in fact is implied in 92 Collier

1994, 63– 67. 1994, 74. 94 Sandnes 2002, 204 –210, esp. 205. 95 Schaller 2001, 171–183. 96 Schaller 2001, 185–187. 97 Cope 1990, 119. 98 Sandelin 1995 a, 175–179. 93 Collier

156

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

the original text through the reference in 1 Cor 10:8 to Num 25, containing the Phinehas episode.99 Regardless of the pre-history of the text of 1 Cor 10:1–13 in his description of the events that befell the Israelites in the desert and their successive apostasy, which in his view included idolatrous banqueting, Paul creates a base for his admonition to Corinthians to shun idolatry (1 Cor 10:14), an activity exemplified in the verses that follow, which contrast the Christian Eucharist and the sacrifices to the demons (vv. 15–22). We may thus say that both Philo and Paul (1 Cor 10:7–8) looked upon the apostates around the golden calf, and those who were seduced by the Midianites, as warning examples to their contemporary co-believers. When in 1 Cor 10:7 Paul refers to Exod 32, he in contradistinction to Philo only cites a short passage (Exod 32:6 b) as a Scriptural argument to support his admonition to the Corinthians not to become idolaters. Paul himself may have added verse 7 to an existing text, thereby underlining a feature implicit in 1 Cor 10:8, i.e. a warning against idolatry. Paul does not elaborate upon the passage by commenting upon it or by adding new features to it. Nevertheless he clearly establishes a link between the feast around the golden calf and the eating and drinking at the table of the demons (1 Cor 10:21). Through this procedure Paul actualizes the account of the golden calf and the Phinehas episode in a way analogous to that of Philo. Old Testament texts become useful tools in warning co-religionists against participation in religious life foreign to them. Philo does this by presenting the bull in the desert as the Apis-bull still worshipped by the Egyptians, Paul by suggesting that eating and drinking around the table of the demons is like the feast around the golden calf. Both authors describe the apostasy of the worshippers around the golden calf against the background of a blessed past, and thereby follow a pattern well attested in th Old Testament and intertestamental Jewish texts.

5. Conversion and Apostasy In several instances Philo refers to proselytes. He uses the words ἔπηλυς, ἐπήλυτος and ἐπηλύτης. In his tractate on the Virtues Philo mentions the proselytes several times (Virt. 102–104, 182, 219). Borgen finds in these passages characteristics typical of descriptions of Jewish proselytes and Early Christian converts alike.100 These have 1) turned from many gods to one God 2) attained membership in the people of God and 3) accepted a new morality. Philo writes that the proselytes have abandoned “their temples and images   99 Sandelin 100 Borgen

1995 b, 262–269. 1987, 212–215.

5. Conversion and Apostasy

157

of their gods” and have set out on the journey to “the worship of the one and truly existing God” (Virt. 102). Abraham is the standard of nobility to all proselytes who “have come to settle in a good land, a commonwealth (πολιτεία) full of true life and vitality …”. (Virt. 219). The proselytes also become “at once temperate, continent, modest, gentle, kind, humane, serious, just, high-minded, truth-lovers, superior to the desire for money and pleasure” (Virt. 182). This is actually a result of the new relationship to God: “ … where honour is rendered to the God who IS, the whole company of other virtues must follow in its train as surely as in the sunshine the shadow follows the body” (Virt. 181). We also find these three characteristics in Paul’s descriptions of the Christian converts. Paul says that the Thessalonians are known to have “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess 1:9, cf. 1 Cor 12: 2 and Gal 4: 8–9. Cf. also Acts 14:15). The Christian also becomes a member of a new community (Rom 1:6, 11:17–24, cf. Eph 2:11–22). The new ethical behaviour is a result of a reality in the religious dimension, the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22–23). In Virt. 182 just quoted Philo contrasts the proselytes to the apostates. The seriousness with which he regarded the lapse into polytheism may be seen from his comments on Deut 13:2–12 LXX in Spec. 1.316. In Philo’s words vengeance should be taken on the unholy person, whoever it may be, even if it were “a brother or a son or daughter or wife or a housemate or a friend however true” who bids us “fraternize with the multitude, resort to their temples, and join in their libations and sacrifices”. He must be punished (κολαστέον) as a public enemy. It should even be deemed a religious duty to kill (φονᾶν) him. From the paragraph (317) which immediately follows it is evident that Philo is thinking of people and phenomena of his own day: the kinships which have come down from the ancestors must be cast aside if they do not seek the same goal, the honour of God.101 Philo also reckons with the punishment of the apostate after death (Praem. 152).102 Compared to Paul Philo is more draconian in his demand for the very severe punishment of the apostates by their fellow Jews. But the punishment of idolaters is also a theme in Paul’s writings. In 1 Cor 5:11–13 he gives a command to exclude the idolater from the Christian community. The final punishment is imposed by God Himself and will become manifest at the end of time (Gal 5:19–21, 1 Cor 6:9–10). But God has already punished the idolaters by their moral depravity (Rom 1:23–32). Both Paul and Philo give 101 Cf. the statement by Alan Mendelson 1988, 34: “The severity of the punishment for polytheism is a measure of the threat it posed not only to the biblical Israelites, but to Philo’s own Alexandrian contemporaries.” See also the detailed treatment of Spec. 1.315 ff. by Seland 1990, 75–80, 105–107, 123–125. 102 Cf. Wolfson 1948, I 42– 43.

158

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

injunctions to their fellow-believers, admonitions which give no options for compromise when they forbid participation in alien cultic activities.

6. The Rescue from Polytheism and Idolatry According to Philo belief in God and rejection of polytheism cannot be achieved by man through his own powers. In both respects man receives the help of God. The following examples may illustrate this. When Abraham left Chaldaea, he did so knowing that he could not otherwise abandon polytheism (Virt. 214) We have already noted that Abraham became a monotheist through the revelatory act of God (Abr. 69–70, 77–80). In a passage strongly attacking polytheism Philo describes how God actively combats such religion (Spec. 1.28–31). Fearing that the devotees of true piety might be “swept away as by a torrent”, God stamped upon their minds “as with a seal deep imprints of holiness”.103 This lesson, Philo says, God “continually repeats (συνεχῶς ἐπᾴδει), sometimes saying that God is one and the Framer and Maker of all things, sometimes that He is Lord of created beings” (30). What does Philo have in mind when he says that God continually repeats His lesson? I do not think it is an over-interpretation to see these statements as a description of what is mediated by the teaching in a Jewish synagogue.104 Through the teaching in the synagogue God promotes faith in Himself, which excludes polytheistic beliefs. This also accords with the law of nature. Philo says: “Is not this the thrice-happy and thrice-blessed life, to cling lovingly to the service of the most ancient Cause of all and to reject the thought of serving the menials and the door-keepers rather than the King? This true life stands inscribed on the tables of nature (ἐν ταῖς τῆς φύσεως στήλαις) as deathless and agelong, and the writing that records it must endure with the universe to all eternity.” (31)105

In Praem. 25, where he speaks of that vanity which is the impostor “who deifies lifeless objects”, Philo says that it captures “the souls of the young”. “For it sets up”, he says, “its abode in them and remains there from earliest infancy to old age.” But having said this Philo immediately afterwards 103 The acting subject in Spec. 1.30 is somewhat obscure. Suzanne Daniel (1975, 27) sees the Law as the subject, whereas Isaac Heinemann postulates Moses as the subject. See Cohn 1962–1964, II 20. In the context of Spec. 1.30 God unambiguously appears as the subject in Spec 1.22, less clearly in 25. To my mind God fits well as the subject in 30. 104 Cf. Sandelin 1987, 128–135. 105 Cf. Bréhier (1925, 26, 30), and Daniel (1975, 29 n. 6 and Introduction XLIX), both of whom stress the identity between the Mosaic Law and the law of nature. Cf. Hegermann 1973 a, 346.

7. Conclusion

159

indicates that this does not always happen. He points out that this vanity stays in the souls of the young “save in the cases where God illumines them with a ray of truth – truth the antagonist of vanity who retreats before it though slowly and reluctantly vanquished by its superior power”. Thus God is active in expelling polytheism from men’s souls. Or in the words from Ebr. 44: “For when the knowledge of the Existent shines, it wraps everything in light, and thus renders invisible even bodies which seemed brightest in themselves.” Paul too hints at the idea that God will rescue those who are in danger of becoming entangled in idolatry. In the chapter where he strongly warns the Corinthians against idolatry he says: “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful: He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.” (1 Cor 10:13). Both for Philo and for Paul polytheism is a dangerous phenomenon, which is hard for man to resist. But both authors show a confidence in God Whom they see as an active factor in helping man to avoid alien religion, Philo by showing that God through instruction and illumination leads man away from false polytheistic ideas to the belief in Him, Paul by assuring that God will not let the temptation of idolatry become too strong. When temptation comes God will provide a way out.

7. Conclusion Both Philo and Paul faced the problem of how a Jew or a Christian should behave in relation to alien religions and their adherents. Both authors have very similar attitudes towards the worship of alien gods. Both see them as shadows, which still have an impact upon their devotees. In this respect Paul in contrast to Philo understands the idols as (evil) demons. Both authors combine polytheism and idolatry with the passions and give similar explanations of the rise of this phenomenon. Despite their condemnation of polytheism and idolatry Philo and Paul still accept that their co-religionists have social contacts with unbelievers. Philo accepts Jewish attendance at clubs with a Gentile religious atmosphere. Paul does not object to an invitation to a meal given at an unbeliever’s home. But both authors very strongly reject participation in alien cultic activities. Philo sees polytheistic dangers in club-meetings. Paul follows suit regarding dinners where meat offered to the gods is served. Both Philo and Paul use Biblical narratives in order to warn their readers of alien religion and its effects. This paper has highlighted the events around the golden calf and the Phinehas episode.

160

Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison (2005)

Both Philo and Paul see the conversion of outsiders to their own system of belief as an abandonment of alien gods. Both believe that apostasy to polytheism and idolatry will result in damnation. But both authors also see God as a rescuer for people who are in danger of becoming involved in alien cult. In his way of handling what he sees as idolatry Paul no doubt is a heir of the same Jewish tradition which Philo represents.

The Jesus-Tradition and Idolatry (1996) We do not find the word εἰδωλολατρία (idolatry) in the canonical Gospels. Persons appearing in the latter and representing non-Jewish religion are never denounced by Jesus as idolaters, not even Pontius Pilate, whose religiously provocative actions against the Jews are known through Philo and Josephus. In the word “dogs” which Jesus uses in the dialogue with the woman near Tyre (Mark 7:27, cf. Matt 7:6) there may be an allusion to pagan religion, but this is not certain.1 The low profile towards non-Jewish religion in our Gospels stands in contrast to the New Testament writings which precede them, i.e. the letters of Paul, or which come after them, e.g. Acts and the Book of Revelation. In his confrontation with non-Jews and in his prophecies about the share of the peoples in the Kingdom of God Jesus seems to be indifferent towards non-Jewish religion, in contradistinction to many New Testament writers and also many Jewish contemporaries, such as the Qumran Essenes (1QS 2:11–12, 17; cf. Deut 29:17–20; CD 11:14, 12:6–11; 1QpHab 12:12–14) and Philo.2 If the Gospels were written by persons with an interest in transmitting the Christian message to the non-Jewish world, it seems odd that explicit anti-pagan utterances in the mouth of Jesus are almost lacking. One explanation for this silence could be that there existed a strong awareness among the transmitters of the Christian message during the earliest decades that Jesus did not have any intention of reaching beyond the people of Israel (cf. Matt 10:6, 15:24). On the other hand current problems facing the early Church probably gave rise to Jesus-words concerning dietary principles (Mark 7:14 –19) and Church discipline (Matt 18:15–18) which stood in no direct continuity with the preaching of Jesus.3 From Paul (1 Cor 8 and 10) and the Book of Revelation (Rev 2:20) we know that Christians were not always disinterested in participating in cultic activities in their pagan surroundings.4 Should we not expect a warning against idolatry from the Jesus of the Gospels? Are we not obliged to explain the lack of such a warning? 1 Strack / Billerbeck

1922–1928, I 725 (Rev 22:15), Michel 1938, 1103–1104. 1991, 109–150. 3 Räisänen 1986, 209–241, Schweizer 1986, 234, 243. 4 I have somewhat changed my mind concerning the Pauline texts. See Sandelin 2003, 109. 2 Sandelin

162

The Jesus-Tradition and Idolatry (1996)

Now, it is no secret that according to scholarly opinion, there exist passages in the Gospels where the theme of idolatry is touched upon by Jesus and where he can actually be seen as denouncing pagan religion. But this is, as far as I can see, never self-evident, and maintaining that he actually does requires discussion and argument. In this article I wish to discuss such passages of which I am myself aware. I will basically confine myself to Jesus as we meet him in the synoptic Gospels and I will not try to reveal the attitude of the historical Jesus towards non-Jewish religious beliefs and practices. The Gospel of John will be touched on very briefly at the end of my article.5

1. The Denarius In the Markan version of the episode where the Pharisees and the Herodians ask whether it is lawful to pay tax (census) to Caesar (Mark 12:13–17, par. Matt 22:15–22, Luke 20:20–26), Jesus orders the questioners to bring him a denarius, and such a coin is brought to him. Having asked whose image and inscription (ἐπιγραφή) it conveys, he receives the answer: “Caesar’s”. He then delivers his answer to the question put to him: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar‹s and to God what is God’s.” According to one line of interpretation, Jesus here takes a critical stance towards Roman imperial cult.6 The coin which is brought to him is described as bearing an image of the Emperor Tiberius during the time in which the event is supposed to have taken place. The silver denarius which was required for the census and was minted by the Roman authorities had a legend which, read in full, contains the following words: TIBERIUS CAESAR DIVI AUGUSTI FILIUS AUGUSTUS. The late Emperor Augustus is here described as divine. So when Jesus utters his final dictum, he actually means: “Do not give Caesar more than he has the right to ask for. If he demands worship and not only taxes, you should not give him something, which belongs to God alone.” This interpretation is not unproblematic, however. First, it presupposes knowledge of the legend of the coin both in the mind of the author and in the mind of the implied reader or listener. Secondly, it presupposes that 5 I do not discuss the following issues in this article: Jesus driving out demons (δαιμόνια, pagan gods?); the worship of Mammon (Matt 6:24 / / Luke 16:13) and related themes: Matt 6:31–33 / / Luke 12:29–31, cf. Phil 4:6 (anxiety); Luke 12:15 (greed), cf. Col 3:5 (greed=idolatry), Eph 5:5 (a greedy person=an idolater), 1 Cor 6:10 (the greedy will not inherit the Kingdom). For comparable themes in Philo see Sandelin, 1991, 118–22, 134 –38. Cf. Griffith 2002, 47, 54. Griffith refers to a book on greed published by Brian Rosner 2007. 6 See Ethelbert Stauffer 1952, 121–149, esp. 143, Bertil Gärtner 1967, 294 –295, William L. Lane 1974, 425, Hans G. Klemm 1982, 234 –254, Alistair Kee 1985, 122.

1. The Denarius

163

Jesus in the story reacts against the words “Divine Augustus” in that legend, although it is the dead, not the living Emperor who is seen as divine. Thirdly, starting from these uncertain presuppositions, it reads a negative meaning into the positive statement of the text: “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Fourthly, Jesus does not react explicitly to the image. On the contrary: he looks at the coin together with those who surround him. If he utters a critical view on the ideological message as seen in the legend of the coin, why isn’t he consistent in denouncing the image on the coin as such? Should Jesus not, as a Jew, also react against the fact that an image of the Emperor is visible on the coin?7 Fifthly, the answer given by Jesus with the meaning suggested would be odd if directed at the Pharisees and the Herodians. Why would Jesus warn the Pharisees not to give Caesar divine honours? Would the Herodians perhaps be a better target for such a warning? But who were they? Supporters of Herod Antipas? But Herod does not seem to have introduced Roman imperial cult into his dominion, or any other idolatrous practices either for that matter.8 But perhaps something quite new has appeared in this respect in Sepphoris that I am not aware of. Actually we know very little about who the Herodians were. There are even those who think that the Essenes are meant.9 How could Jesus warn them against Roman imperial cult? Or could it be that the suggested warning actually is given to Christians? In this case the story would function as a paradigm: a situation – be it authentic or fictional – in the life of Jesus and a word of the latter are used to highlight a way of action which is recommendable for Christians.10 But do we even in this case have reason to believe that the text contains a warning against the imperial cult? In order to proceed a step further, let us look at the development of the plot in the small story. When asked “should we pay taxes to the Emperor”, Jesus finally answers in the affirmative. The first part of his answer, “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s”, probably means “Yes, you should pay census to Caesar”!11 But Jesus does not give such a direct answer. What effect does the interlude with the coin have upon his way of answering the question? First of all it has a dramatic effect in the story of which the question is a part. Jesus seizes the initiative. He becomes the one who asks the questions

he does not has been pointed out by Paul C. Finney (1993, 640, 643), who also gives a survey of Jewish attitudes towards images on coins.   8 Finney 1993, 637. See also E. Schürer 1973–1989, 342– 43.   9 Daniel 1967, 31–53. Cf. Braun 1989, 75–88. 10 Dibelius 1959, 40, 54. 11 Joachim Jeremias 1971, 220.   7 That

164

The Jesus-Tradition and Idolatry (1996)

instead of the one who answers them. And he remains the leading figure in the story to the very end.12 But, secondly, a problem is created by the introduction of the coin. By what logic does Jesus draw his conclusion from the denarius, if this is what he is doing instead of just creating confusion among his stunned audience?13 Should the denarius be rendered to Caesar because, for example, all coins having the image and inscription of the Emperor belong to him or because the Emperor rightly uses his power to raise taxes wherever an imperial denarius is used?14 In order to see the words of Jesus as a logical conclusion, we have to postulate a premise of some kind in addition to the coin which is demonstrated. But here we have a difficult problem of interpretation. The text itself does not offer us any clue which would help us to understand how Jesus is arguing from the image and text of the coin to the conclusion of giving the Emperor what belongs to him. Thirdly, we could ask if the coin has a bearing upon the second half of the dictum of Jesus: “give to God what is God’s”. Is this easier to understand as a deduction from the coin than the first half? If the writer refers to the legend of an imperial denarius where the late Emperor is proclaimed as divine, then Jesus’ answer could be a reaction to that legend. It could even be argued that the second half of Jesus’ answer is inconceivable if we do not postulate that something falling within the interlude with the coin gave him the reason to say “and give God what is God’s”. The legend of the coin, then, would be a most natural presupposition for what Jesus says. We would, therefore, in the utterance of Jesus “give to God what is God’s” have a denunciation of Roman imperial cult. Since it seems difficult to see it as originally directed as a warning to Jews, the other option, to see it as reflecting problems which were discussed among early Christians, appears more natural. Nevertheless I do have serious doubts in seeing this solution as a necessary one. First of all the argument from the coin to the dictum of Jesus does not seem to follow in the same manner in the case of giving Caesar his due on the one hand and giving God what is God’s on the other. For a solution which meets this requirement we could refer to the suggestion of Duncan Derrett that by pointing to a coin with the ruler’s image Jesus was actually referring to a verse in Ecclesiastes: “Obey the king’s command, I say, 12 For the dramatic and rhetoric aspects of the passage see Klemm 1982, 240– 47, Finney 1993, 631. 13 Duncan Derrett (1970, 20) writes: “Some scholars … say Jesus’s words are inconclusive, impenetrable.” Derrett refers to “Klostermann’s commentary”, i.e. probably Erich Klostermann 1926. But Klostermann uses the word “Unangreifbarkeit” (unassailability, unimpeachability, p. 139), not “Unbegreiflichkeit”, for Jesus’ answer. On the other hand the Greek expression τὸ ἄληπτον, which Klostermann refers to as an equivalent for “Unangreifbarkeit”, has the meaning “the incomprehensible”. 14 For different options see Derrett 1970, 320–21.

2. References to the Old Testament

165

because you took an oath before God” (Eccl 8:2).15 If this is correct, we do not have to explain how Jesus’ logical deduction works, because there isn’t one. But it should also be noted that the idea of obeying God is not present in the pericope just in the answer of Jesus. The story in the very beginning refers to God.16 The inquirers give Jesus their witness that he teaches the way of God in accordance with the truth. Their question about whether it is right to pay taxes of course implies whether it is in accordance with the will of God. Therefore the idea of giving God what is God’s is not necessarily a result of what is minted on the denarius. Jesus’ answer could imply that he indicates that in paying taxes to the Emperor one in fact shows obedience to the will of God. Robert C. Tannehill in this story sees an example of a testing inquiry, a type which often contains an element of correction.17 Since there exists a tension between the inquirers and Jesus, one could perhaps understand the answer in the following way: “You should give the Emperor what he rightly demands from you, but you should also and in the first place give God what he demands from you.” The implied criticism could be directed against the hypocritical intentions of the inquirers, who want to trap Jesus. Postulating a denunciation of idolatry is not necessary. But, of course, the principle which is uttered by Jesus can be applied to a case where participation in imperial cult becomes an option.

2. References to the Old Testament As we noted, Derrett suggested that by pointing at a coin Jesus was actually referring to a passage from Scripture. In the Jesus-tradition of the Gospels we do find references to passages in the Old Testament speaking about idolatry. It seems to me that the most direct of such references is found in the Synoptic apocalypse in the words concerning the “abomination of desolation”. This phrase occurring in Daniel (Dan 11:31, 12:11; cf. 9:27) is explained in the First book of Maccabees as a pagan altar erected on top of the altar of burnt offering in the Temple of Jerusalem (1 Macc 1:54, 59). It has been suggested that the first Christian generation identified the “abomination of desolation” with the statue planned for the Temple in Jerusalem by the Emperor Caligula.18 Mark in any case seems to see the said expression as a reference to a human being “standing where he doesn’t belong”, not a 15 Derrett

1970, 323–328. 1982, 248. 17 Tannehill 1984, 1822 f. 18 Grundmann 1989, 358. 16 Klemm

166

The Jesus-Tradition and Idolatry (1996)

lifeless object (Mark 13:14).19 Some commentators think Titus is meant20 and in that case the Gospel of Mark refers to contemporary events (close at hand, ongoing or recent). Of course the figure in question is dangerous, but there is no sign of pagan worship in the Markan text except for the reference to the passage of Daniel. In Matthew Jesus speaks of the “abomination of desolation” explicitly as something spoken of by the prophet Daniel (Matt 24:15). “It will stand in the holy place”, again an allusion to Daniel (see Dan 11:31). Matthew looks back at the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt 22:7).21 The Romans did not make Jerusalem a pagan city in the days of the evangelist. He therefore probably sees the introduction of the “abomination of desolation” as a future event.22 That is: the pagan assault belongs to the difficult times which are still to come. The Gospel of Luke does not mention the “abomination of desolation” at all. In the discussion concerning the Great Commandment, Jesus in the Markan version (Mark 12:28–34) answers the scribe by citing the first part of what is known as the shema. If read in full, this combination of Scriptural passages (Deut 6:4 –9; 11:13–21, Num 15:37– 41) not only states that the Lord is one but directly warns Israel to serve other gods (Deut 11:16). The line is not cited directly in Mark but the scribe confirms the words of Jesus by citing some words from Isa 45:21: “there is no other”. The immediate context in that chapter strongly takes a stand against wooden idols and gods that cannot save. These Markan references to the oneness and exclusiveness of the Lord and the implied rejection of idolatry are omitted by Matthew and Luke in their versions of the story. It is difficult to say if the emphasis on the uniqueness of the Lord in Mark is conditioned by polytheistic beliefs and practices in the world in which the author lives. In Matthew and Luke (there are many who would say: “in Q”) we may in the first prayer of “Our Father” have an allusion to Old Testament texts where the theme of idolatry plays an essential part: “Hallowed be your name”. If we understand the passive here as a passivum divinum, God is beseeched to hallow his name.23 The clearest instance in the Old Testament where God promises to hallow his name is found in Ezekiel 36. God adresses Israel through the prophet with the following words: “I will hallow my great name (ἁγιάσω τὸ ὄνομά μου τὸ μέγα), which has been profaned (τὸ βεβηλωθέν) among the nations, the name you have profaned among them” (Ezek 36:23 LXX). The Israelites have caused the name of the Lord to be profaned because God had driven them away from their land on account of 19 Klostermann

1926, 151. references in Grundmann 1989, 358. 21 Schweizer 1986, 273, Schnackenburg 1987, 234. 22 Schnackenburg 1987, 234. Not so: Grundmann 1971, 506. 23 Thus Schweizer 1986, 94, Schnackenburg 1985, 65. 20 See

3. Conclusion

167

their evil deeds, among which their idolatry is especially mentioned (Ezek 36:18–20). In Ezekiel, but also elsewhere in the Old Testament, there are other instances where idolatry is seen as a profanation of the name of the Lord (Ezek 20:39, Lev 18:21, 20:3). The way in which the Lord is going to hallow his name in Ezekiel 36 is that he will gather Israel and bring it back to its country (Ezek 36:24, cf. 20:40– 42). It is of course difficult to know for sure if the Lord’s prayer, in the case it was formulated before Matthew, contained a reference to this cluster of ideas in the Old Testament. But one could ask if the prayer may have such implications in the present context in Matthew or Luke. The Matthean version of the pericope of the sign of Jonah (Matt 12:38– 42; 16:1– 4) states – with the Pharisees and Sadducees in view – that the generation seeking for a sign is “evil and adulterous” (πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλίς). The only instance in the Septuagint which combines these two words is found in Hos 3:1. The Septuagint gives the following translation of God’s command to the prophet: πορεύθητι καὶ ἀγάπησον γυναῖκα ἀγαπῶσαν πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλίν (Go and love a woman who loves evil things and who is an adulteress). The context in Hosea is the Lord’s dissatisfaction with the idolatry of his people. This means that in Matthew Jesus looks at his adversaries as people who are in the same category as the idolaters of Hosea’s times. In Luke 11:29 such a reference is less clear. Matthew’s way of looking at the leaders of the people is in keeping with the addition made by him to the parable of the wicked husbandmen: “… the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to a nation that yields the proper fruit” (Matt 21:43). Thus the idea of idolatry is present in Matthew through a reference to the Scriptures, which strengthens the possibility that the idea is also implied in the first prayer of Our Father in the first Gospel. The prayer that God’s name be hallowed may imply a prayer that God’s name should not be profaned by idolatry. But in this case the target is not directed against pagan practices. It rather means that Christians should pray to be protected from idolatry as they should also pray: “Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.”

3. Conclusion We may conclude that in the canonical Gospels Jesus does hint at idolatry. The basic way of touching on the theme is by allusion to or citation of Old Testament passages. This technique is applied in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, whereas the Gospel of Luke seems very reluctant in this respect, despite the explicit descriptions of idolatry in Acts. If we compare Mark and Matthew, the latter weakens Mark’s reference to the uniqueness of God

168

The Jesus-Tradition and Idolatry (1996)

and instead of polemicising against pagan religion puts the adversaries of Jesus in the same category as the Old Testament idolaters. Idolatry could be a temptation for Christians, though, and pagan assault is expected, but in the future. I would like to finish this short discussion by trying to give some kind of an answer to the question why the theme of idolatry is so peripheral in the synoptic Gospels. I suggest that it is the proneness to take the Roman authorities into account which explains this feature of the synoptic Gospels. Provoking hostile feelings towards those who held the real power in the Empire was not in accordance with the interests of the earliest Christian authors. A tendency to create a favourable view of the Imperial power can be seen in the treatment of the figure of Pilate. The latter is not blamed for the death of Jesus, but rather the Jewish leaders. In the literary work of Luke Pilate is even one in a row of Roman officials that have a sympathetic attitude towards Jesus and the Christian movement.24 Pilate is not denounced as an idolater in the Synoptics. Nor is Roman imperial cult explicitly denounced, as we can see from the story about the census coin. One could ask if the monotheistic views of Vespasian25 could have contributed to the rather positive view of the Romans in the synoptic Gospels. With Domitian, who promoted deification of the living Emperor and perhaps started prosecutions of Christians, things took another turn. This may be reflected in the way the Gospel of John describes Pilate as a rather sinister figure.26 In the Gospel of John Jesus calls his Father “the only true God” (John 17:3. Cf. 5:44 and 1 John 5:20–21), which could also be a protest against Imperial religious policy.27

24 See

Willert 1989, 267–284. 1976, 56– 66. 26 Willert 1989, 313 27 For an alternative view see Terry Griffith (2002, 206) who concludes that 1 John 5:21 is “an example of the reversal of Jewish polemic against Judaism”. 25 Simon

Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John 1. Religious Threats in the Revelation of John In the Revelation of John one can observe confrontations between the believers addressed by the author of the book and religious groups who are fully or partly outside these circles.1 Among the latter one finds those whom the author calls “Satan’s synagogue” (2:9, 3:9) as well as those who adhere to the “prophetess” Jezebel, who by her teaching “misleads” the servants of the Lord into “fornication and into eating food sacrificed to idols” (2:20, cf. 2:14). Chapter 2 and 3 of the Revelation of John contain letters to seven angels, perhaps leaders of seven churches in Asia Minor.2 No doubt the churches themselves also are thought of as addressees. It is also quite clear that the one who sends the letters claims to be Christ himself (Rev 1:17–2:1), disguised under several titles such as the First and Last, the Son of God, etc.3 Two of these letters speak of “Satan’s synagogue”. The church of Smyrna is addressed with the following words: “I know how hard pressed you are, and poor – and yet you are rich; I know how you are slandered by those who claim to be Jews but are not – they are Satan’s synagogue.” (2:9).The letter to the angel of the church in Philadelphia includes the following words: “I know all your ways … Your strength, I know, is small, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. So this is what I will do: I will make those of Satan’s synagogue who claim to be Jews but are liars, come and fall down at your feet; and they shall know that I have loved you.”(3:9). The churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia thus have problems with people who claim to be Jews. The church of Smyrna, or perhaps its leader, is “slandered” by these persons.4 Their claim of being Jews is refuted, however. In reality they are not Jews, they are liars, they are Satan’s synagogue (2:9, 3:9). Two main interpretations exist concerning these enemies of the 1 For a discussion concerning the identity of John and his relationship to the addressees see Klauck 1992, 179 f., and Aune 2006 b, 186–189. 2 Concerning the use of the word angel see e.g. the discussion by Klauck 1992, 180. 3 Thus e.g. van Henten 2008, 248. 4 KJV translates: “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews …”

170

Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John

churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia.5 The more common interpretation seems to be that they are members of the Jewish communities in Asia Minor.6 Such are known to have existed in antiquity.7 On what grounds can their claim to be Jews be refuted? The answer could be that there exists a counter claim: the real Jews are not those who belong to the people who gather in and around the synagogues in Smyrna and Philadelphia, but those who belong to the communities believing in Christ.8 It is these people who in reality are the people of God (cf. 18:4), which those who falsely claim to be Jews will be forced to accept in the near future (3:9). Against this interpretation one could object that the term Jew is not explicitly used for those who believe in Christ in the Revelation of John in contradistinction to a passage in Paul (Rom 2:29, cf. Phil 3:3).9 It could therefore be maintained that the interpretation in question projects a Pauline idea on the text of the Revelation. Thus it is understandable that there exists an alternative interpretation implying that the Revelation of John does not have people of Jewish descent in mind at all but Christian groups who falsely, according to the author, claim to be Jews.10 I have found this understanding in a posthumous book Das jüdisch-christliche Problem by the founder of Institutum Judaicum Aboense,   5 Cf.

Worth (1999, 84 –88) who enumerates four “basic” interpretations. Bousset 1906, 209, 227, Charles 1920 I, 56 f., 88, Zahn 1924, 229, 241, 305, McDowell 1951, 46, 60, Lohmeyer 1953, 24, 35 f., Lohse 1960, 24, 30, Schüssler Fiorenza 1973, 572, Roloff 1984, 52, Ford 1975, 395, Beasley-Murray 1981, 81 f., 100 f., Müller 1984, 105–107, 129, Ritt 1988, 26, 34, Giesen 1996, 2549, Beale 1999, 240 f., 286 f., Hirschberg 1999, 34, Osborne 2002, 131 f., 190 f., Witherington 2003, 99, 106, Malina / Pilch 2006, 54.   7 See e.g. Schürer 1973–1989 vol. III.1, 17–36, Yarbro-Collins 1986, 308–320, Barclay 1996, 259–281, Aune 1997, 164, 168–172, Mayo 2006, 62– 64, and the very large survey by Hirschberg 2000, 31–81, cf. Sandelin 2006, 372 f. Commentators often refer to Jewish hostilities towards Christians mentioned in the Martyrdom of Polycarp of Smyrna (XII). See e.g. Bousset 1906, 208 f., Zahn 1924, 236 f., Charles 1920 I, 58, Lohmeyer 1953, 23–25, Lohse 1960, 24, Ford 1975, 395, Beasley-Murray 1981, 81 f., Mounce 1988, 92 f., Worth 1999, 90–93.  8  Cf. Colin J. Hemer (2001, 67) who writes: “The writer has his own usage of the term ‘Jew’. He insists that the true people of God is a spiritual nation, not an ethnic group.”   9 Steven J. Friesen (2006, 135), notes that the term “Jew” as a “self–designation” for Christians does not occur in Pauline or post-Pauline churches. 10 S. MacLean Gilmour (1971, 951) writes: “Jews were exempted by Rome from participation in emperor worship, and this may be John’s condemnation of Christians who seek to escape persecution by claiming to be Jews.” Cf. Koester 1965, 310, Kraft 1974, 61, Prigent 1981, 47, 80 and Mayo 2006, 54 – 61. Elaine H. Pagels (2005, 496 ff.) argues that Rev here refers to “followers of Jesus” who accept Paul’s teaching on e.g. eating meat sacrificed to idols, i.e. she combines the teaching of the false Jews in Smyrna and Philadelphia and that of the followers of Jezebel in Thyatira (cf. Koester 1965, 310 and Klauck 1992, 164). The text of Rev does not give any support for such a combination. The teachings should therefore be kept distinct. Thus also Paul Duff (2006, 150–159, esp. 154) who finds that the structures in the letters to Smyrna and Philadedelphia differ from the other letters. In addition the denials mentioned both in the letter to Pergamum (Rev 2:13) and in the let  6 E.g.

1. Religious Threats in the Revelation of John

171

Professor Gösta Lindeskog, who was my teacher. Lindeskog opines that ‘Satan’s synagogue’ is an invective against Christian sectarians.11 When it is stated in Rev 3:8, however, that the Philadelphians have not denied the name of Him, who in the letter to them is called “the Holy One, the True One, who holds the key of David”, i.e. Jesus the Messiah (cf. Rev 11:15, 12:10), one could of course ask whether this is said because the “false” Jews have done precisely that.12 If such a contrast is implied at this point in the text, then the more commonly accepted theory concerning those who are called Satan’s synagogue should be preferred.13 The slanderers are probably Jews by descent or affiliation, not Christians of some sort. But what the “slander” in reality contained remains unclear. It should also be noted that the expression “Synagogue of Satan” does not refer to Jews in general but to local Jewish communities.14 At least one group, if not all, among the believers in Christ are by the Revelation of John seen as belonging to the tribes of Israel (7:4 –8), i.e. they could be called the true Jews in contradistinction to the false ones.15 This does not imply, however, that any believer in Christ is also defined as a Jew by the Revelation of John.16 In Rev 2:10 it is stated that some of the members in the church at Smyrna will be jailed by the devil. Imprisonment probably falls under the jurisdicter to Philadelphia (Rev 3:8) have different contexts and probably even slightly different contents. 11 Lindeskog (1986, 166) writes: “Ich bin der Meinung, dass ‘Satans Synagoge’ eine Invektive gegen christliche Sektierer ist.” 12 Cf. Alan James Beagley (1987, 32) who writes: “… those to whom the accusation applies that they claim falsely to be Jews would be those who adhere to Judaism while denying that Jesus is the promised Messiah.” Similarly Mayo 2006, 71 f. 13 Still one must admit that it is not possible to know for sure if the author of Rev has Jews or judaizing believers in Christ in mind. Cf. Ian Boxall (2006, 13 f.) who states: “Sadly, however, John’s allusive references do not allow us to identify the ‘opponents’ definitively.” 14 Cf. Josephine Massyngberde Ford (1975, 395) writes: “… if the speaker were a Jewish Christian he would have seen the ‘genuine’ Jew as one who found the messianic expectation fulfilled in Christ and the ‘pseudo-Jew’ as one who persecuted those of the Christian way.” Concerning the hostilities from the Jewish side David E. Aune (1997, 162), writes: “… the author is not condemning Jews generally, but only those associated with synagogues in Smyrna and Philadelphia.” Similarly Hirschberg (1999, 118), Edmondo F. Lupieri (2006, 118) for his part opines that the issue in Rev 2:9 is not anti-Judaism or antisemitism but “rather the bitter confrontation between contemporary Jewish groups.” Cf. Worth 1999, 87. Nevertheless hostile feelings and actions among Jews against believers in Christ are documented at a relatively early stage (1 Thess 2:14, Acts 7: 54ff, 12:1 ff., Jos. A. J. XX 200, B. J. II 162). This is not the place to enter into a discussion concerning the fatal words of Paul in 1Thess 2:15. 15 Scholars often either interpret the 144000 from all tribes of Israel in Rev 7 as Jewish Christians (e.g. Feuillet 1967, 221, Kraft 1974, 126 f.), or as a more or less symbolic description of all Christians (e.g. Müller 1984, 178–181). For different options see Böcher 1980, 56– 65. 16 Cf. the discussion by Friesen 2006, 135–137.

172

Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John

tion of the civil authorities, not that of the synagogues. This in turn could indicate that Rev 2:10 refers to tensions between the Roman government and the local church. But were there Jews involved when church members were imprisoned?17 I do not find enough support for that in the text, which speaks of an impending danger, not of performed actions by members of the synagogue.18 Further the text of Rev 2–3 does not support the idea of a large-scale persecution of the churches on the part of the Roman state.19 In a different way the churches addressed by John are threatened by those within the communities who “hold to the teaching of Balaam” in Pergamum and by the adherents of Jezebel in Thyatira (Rev 2:14, 20–22).20 In Rev 2:15 they are probably identified with the Nicolaitans who are also mentioned in the letter to Ephesus (Rev 2:1–7, esp. v. 6).21 By these the members are misled 17 R. H. Charles (1920 I, 58) opines: “The persecution with which the Church is here threatened shows that the Jews are acting in concert with the heathen authorities.” Similarly Hirschberg (1999, 119) who also thinks Rev 3:8 could refer to a situation of interrogation and trial (p. 103). Cf. Hemer 2001, 67, and Thóth 2006, 51. 18 Friesen (2006, 135 n. 33) refers to a connection between the letters and Rev 12:9 where one finds the “equation of Satan and the devil”. But even if the Roman government and the local synagogue are seen as satanic one cannot without additional evidence postulate a joint attack from their side on the church. Duff (2006, 166) maintains that the “prediction about the arrest” must be John’s creation. On the other hand the expression “synagogue of Satan” is a very strong expression, which I think, is an argument against the idea of Duff (2006, 164 –166) that the use of it just forms a trick by John in order to hinder the church members to become members of the synagogue in a situation felt to be difficult because of religious tensions within the church caused by the prophetess Jezebel who challenged the authority of John (Rev 2:20). 19 G. K. Beale (1999, 240) in Rev 2:10 finds a “mention of Roman persecution”. The internal evidence points toward a “a situation of relative peace and selective persecution” (Rev 1:9; 2:3, 9, 13; 3:8 and possibly 6:9) and an “imminent expectation of intensifying persecution on a widening and programmatic scale” (the evidence is taken from the parts of Rev which follow the seven letters to the Churches 6:9, ch 13; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2; 20:4). Cf. Peter Hirschberg (1999, 103 f.) who writes: “Die Aufforderung in V. 10, bis in den Tod hinein getreu zu sein … verbunden mit dem ebenfalls den Tod thematisierenden Überwindungsspruch, deutet an, dass es nicht bei Gefängnisstrafen bleiben wird, sondern das Zeugnis für Jesus auch den Tod nach sich ziehen kann. Noch hat die Bedrängnis der Gemeinde diesen Punkt schlimmsten Leidens nicht erreicht, aber sie muss sich darau einstellen” (p. 104). Cf. Slater 1998, 254, Witulski 2007 b, 69 f. 84, 94, 151. See also Mayo 2006, 66. 20 Balaam is also mentioned in 2 Pet 2:15 and Jud 11. Cf Guttenberger 2005, 175, Lupieri 2006, 120. 21 Thus Charles 1920 I, 52 f., 63 f., Koester 1965, 310, Gilmour 1971, 951, Kraft 1974, 65, Mounce 1988, 89, Klauck 1992, 165, Saez Gonzalvez 1994, 278, Räisänen 1995 b, 1603, Aune 1997, 148, 188, Guttenberger 2005, 172, Boxall 2006, 59, Witulski 2007 b, 248. Cf. Beale (1999, 233, 251), who thinks the Nicolaitans form a distinct group although it teaches “the same thing as the Balaam party”. Worth (1999, 125 ff.) and Hemer (2001, 120) are somewhat sceptical towards an identification of the two groups. Concerning the seductive activities of Balaam in the Bible, Philo and Josephus, see Sandelin 2006, 380. Gnostic influence among those who adhere to the teaching of Balaam and the woman Jezebel has been suggested by e.g. Lohse 1960, 23, 27 f., Koester 1965, 310, Beasley-Murray 1981, 86 f.,

1. Religious Threats in the Revelation of John

173

to eat meat sacrificed to idols and to commit adultery, the latter probably meaning participation in Hellenistic cult (cf. Rev 9:20 f. and Old Testament passages like Num 25:1 ff., Jer 13:25–27, Ezek 16:15–16 and Hos 2).22 Thus the letters to Pergamum and Thyatira reveal a problem similar to that in Paul’s Corinth (1 Cor 8:1–11:1).23 Does John, however, as David Aune proposes, only think of “participating in the ritual banquets associated with public holy days and festivals or buying sacrificial meat from the market and eating it at home”?24 Or does he, as Thomas Witulski maintains, have actual participation in sacrificing and eating in Greek temples in mind?25 I prefer the latter option. The idea of “adultery” expresses the phenomenon of idolatry in its totality, whereas eating sacrificial meat is a partial aspect of it.26 Therefore a real participation in Hellenistic cult practised by church members attracted to it seems to exist among John’s addressees in contradistinction to those of Paul.27

Schüssler Fiorenza 1985, 116 f., Ritt 1988, 28, 30. Cf. Hirschberg (1999, 118) who thinks that Rev 2:20 and 24 refer to a “Vorform von Gnosis”. Cf. Klauck 1992, 168, and Saez Gonzalves 1994, 283, 296, 298 f. The expression “the depths of Satan” (Rev 2:24) may be seen as an Anti-Gnostic expression, but need not be explained in that way. Cf. Hemer 2001, 93, 122–123. We will discuss the expression below. A list of texts on the Nicolaitans from Irenaeus onwards is given by Charles 1920 I, 52 f. Cf. Guttenberger (2005, 170 n. 53), who gives a résumé of different attempts to categorize the Nicolaitans. Cf. Räisänen 1995 b, 1603–1606. 22 Thompson 1990, 122, Aune 1997, 188, Beale 1999, 250, Giesen 2000, 134 f, 140 f. Hirschberg 1999, 122, Lupieri 2006, 121, Witulski 2007 b, 244 f. Referring to the fact, however, that fornication precedes the eating of sacrificial food in Rev 2:20 Charles (1920 I, 71) opines that the primary object of the prophetess Jezebel was “sexual immorality”. Cf. Klauck 1992, 166 f., Worth 1999, 129 f., 164 f., and Aune 2006 b, 187. Concerning the statements in Rev 2:14 on Balaam see Henten 2008, 254 –257. Jan W. van Henten states: “In short, the accusation in Rev 2:14 can be interpreted in a literal as well as [in] a symbolic way” (p. 257). 23 Aune (1997, 187) notes that in the New Testament the ideas of idol-food and fornication are closely connected as in Rev 2:14 and 20 only in Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25. According to Aune this reflects the so called Noachide Laws. See also Henten 2008, 260 f., with further references. 24 Aune 1997, 186. If no participation in cultic occasions is implied, John’s position actually differs from Paul’s as noted by Romano Penna 2005, 235. Cf. Nikolaus Walter (2002, 214 –216) who thinks that John primarily opposed the eating of any meat not butchered in a proper Jewish way in accordance with the Apostle decree in Acts 15:28 f. Cf. also Penna (2005, 229–235) who writes: “Se mai il decreto apostolico di Gerusalemme ebbe una risonanza documentata, essa si trova proprio in Asia: non però al tempo dell’apostolo Paolo, ma nel tempo successivo del veggente Giovanni” (p. 235). 25 According to Witulski (2007 b, 244) we have a case of “bewusste und unmittelbare Teilnahme an den entsprechenden (Kult‑)Veranstaltungen”. 26 Thus Witulski 2007 b, 245. 27 Cf. Bauckham 1993, 377. Our view on the question whether members of the Pauline community in Corinth participated in idolatrous banquets and how Paul saw the matter is presented in Sandelin 2003, 112–119.

174

Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John

The letters menace with severe impending punishments of the idolaters (Rev 2:16, 22 f.). The church members are praised for their perseverance (ὑπομονή 2: 2 f., 19) but on the other hand also admonished to be attentive (2:7, 17, 29), to repent (2:5) and to “hold on” what they have (2:25).28 Those who are victorious (νικάω) will be abundantly rewarded (2:7, 17, 26).29 The attitude of John therefore does not differ from that of Paul, who denounces idolatry and its practitioners (e.g. 1 Cor 5:10, 11; 6:9; 10:7, 14) and who according to our view does not accept participation in banquets linked with pagan rituals, not even in a case that such a link was established at a dinner in a private home (1 Cor 10:20 f., 28).30 A woman called Jezebel is highlighted in the letter to Thyatira. She calls herself “prophetess” which probably shows that she had an important role in the church of Thyatira. The designation “prophetess” may signal that she competes with John who is exhorted to prophesy in Rev (10:11, cf. 22:9).31 No doubt the name by which the woman is called refers to queen Jezebel of Israel in 1–2 Kings, a Phoenician princess, daughter of king Ethbaal. Queen Jezebel was married to king Ahab of Israel, who began to serve Baal and worship him in Samaria (1 Kgs 16:31 ff.). According to the Biblical account she, assisted by her husband, killed the prophets of the Lord (1 Kgs 18:3, 13, 19:1 f.). Thus the Israelite queen is closely associated with religion alien to the worship of Yahwe, which probably explains why the prophetess in Thyatira is called by the same name, i.e. the name is used in a fictive 28 Cf. Henten 2008, 250. For the expression ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω (Rev 2:7, 17, 29) see Enroth-Voitila 2004, 103–125. 29 We postpone the question whether the idolatry implied may refer to a cult of some specific kind. See the discussion on Rev 13 below. 30 Sandelin 2003, 119–125. Cf. Charles 1920 I, 63 Saez Gonzalvez 1994, 304, and Schüssler Fiorenza 1993, 56 f. Starting from a different view on the position of Paul, the possible relationship between the theological idea of the vanity of the pagan gods in Paul (1 Cor 8:4 – 6, cf. 10:19), and the attitude of the participants in pagan worship in the church of Thyatira Witulski (2007 b, 248 f., 287) writes: “Angesichts von 1Kor 8,4 – 6 reicht es aus, sie als ‘konsequente’ Umsetzung paulinischen Gedankengutes zu deuten” (87 n. 300). Cf. Klauck 1992, 168, Hirschberg 1999, 122, Worth 1999, 127–129, Hemer 2001, 92, and Lupieri 2006, 116. Étienne Trocmé (1999, 53) sees Jezebel and the group around her as “pauliniens extrémistes”. Jens-W. Taeger (2006, 132) finds the positions of Paul and John incompatible. An interesting interpretation is presented by Margaret Barker. In a way similar to Pagels (2006, 496 ff.) she sees the Revelation of John as an anti-Pauline text. According to her Balaam in reality is the Apostle Paul and Jezebel is Lydia, the seller of purple goods from Philippi (Acts 16:14, Barker 2000, XII, 96–102). Roland H. Worth (1999, 127) finds it improbable that John is attacking a Pauline doctrine. 31 Gudrun Guttenberger (2005, 175) states: “Der Anspruch des Johannes und der Anspruch der Prophetin in Thyateira entsprechen einander; da sie offensichtlich verschiedene Positionen vertreten, konkurrieren sie auch.” Aune (2006 b, 188) writes: “John’s battle with the Nicolaitans and ‘Jezebel’ was, in a word, a conflict between prophets.” Friesen (2006, 134) maintains that the status of Jezebel as a prophet was not rejected.

1. Religious Threats in the Revelation of John

175

and polemical way in Rev 2:20.32 The teaching of Jezebel is enigmatically described as knowing “the depths of Satan” (Rev 2:24). To interpret such an idea is difficult because it may be an ironically distorted variant of the original expression used by Jezebel and her followers.33 There may have existed a link to Paul’s words in 1 Cor 2:10 about the “depths of God” and the possible use of it among the Corinthians.34 The original meaning of it in Thyatira could have been an argument for participation in hellenistic cult.35 The letter to Pergamum which is said to be the place where “Satan has his throne” (Rev 2:13) also mentions a case of martyrdom. In that city where “Satan lives” a certain Antipas, a “faithful witness” of Christ, is said to have been killed.36 The circumstances are not made explicit, but the community receives credit for not having renounced the faith in Christ even in the days of Antipas (2:13) which probably means that the latter has met his fate as a result of his perseverance.37 That could have meant a refusal to participate 32 Cf. Klauck 1992, 166. Heikki Räisänen (1995 b, 1608) opines that both names, Jezebel and Balaam, go back to Johannine polemic. Lupieri (2006, 122 f.) characterizes Jezebel as an “idolatrous Queen of Israel”. I find Guttenberger’s (2005, 174 n. 64) criticism of Nikolaus Walter (2002) somewhat exaggerated, but I accept her view (p. 173) that the use of the name Jezebel in Rev is polemical. Guttenberger gives a series of explanations to the name of the prophetess (p. 174 f.), none of which is directly associated with idolatry, however! Friesen (2006, 134) maintains that the prophetess is “satiricised as a latter day Jezebel”. Trocmé (1999, 52) points out that notwithstanding the similarities between the two figures named Jezebel in the Bible, the differences between them are still most significant. The queen Jezebel could use political power in a brutal way in contradistinction to the prophetess Jezebel. 33 Walter 2002, 219. Cf. Guttenberger (2005, 1753) who finds the designation “Jezebel” polemical opines: “Das Zitat in V. 24 ist wahrscheinlich polemisch verfälscht” (p. 175). Cf. Giesen 1996, 2542 f. 34 Walter 2002, 219. 35 Commentators present different interpretations. E.g. Peter Hirschberg (1999, 121 n. 430) writes: “Wahrscheinlich behaupteten die Anhänger der Isebel, dass sie aufgrund ihrer Gotteserkenntnis die Nichtigkeit des ‘satanischen’ Kaiserkultes (italics mine) durchschauen und deshalb im Umgang mit den äusseren Formen des Kaiserkultes gelassen und angstfrei sein können, was sich konkret z.B. so zeigte, dass sie unbesorgt Götzenopferfleisch assen.” Cf. Taeger 2006, 130, Witulski 2007 b, 132 f, 285–288, 291. But Guttenberger (2005,175 f.) writes: “Vermutlich beanspruchte die Prophetin, die Tiefen Gottes (italics mine) erkannt zu haben … Mit dieser Wahrheit wird sie vermutlich ihre Position im Streit um das Essen von Götzenopferfleisch und damit um das Mass der Partizipation an der paganen Kultur begründet haben.” 36 For different options to identify the throne of Satan see e.g. Klauck 1992, 160 f., Hemer 2001, 84 –85, and Friesen 2005, 356–367. Friesen (pp. 361–367) does not accept the common idea that the “throne of Satan” refers to some religious monument: “the reference to Satan dwelling in Pergamum is a reference to tensions in that city between the assembly and mainstream society” (p. 366). 37 Rudolf Freudenberger (1981, 24) writes: “Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass die Praxis, die Zugehörigkeit zum nomen Christianum, als Beweis für die Zugehörigkeit zu einer kriminellen Vereinigung anzusehen und als todeswürdiges Verbrechen zu ahnden, sich von Antiochien nach dem Ende des Jüdischen Krieges zunächst im Orient durchgesetzt

176

Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John

in the idolatrous activities of the Nicolaitans. This is not stated directly, however, but there may exist a connection to Rev 13 esp. verse 15. There is no hint in Rev that the controversy with the Jews in the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia is connected to the problems with the Nicolaitans in Ephesus, Pergamum and Thyatira.38 In the Revelation of John there exists a further threat which resembles the idolatry referred to in the letters to Ephesus, Pergamum and Thyatira. The inhabitants of the world are said to worship a beast “out of the sea” (Rev 13:1, 12). The worship of the beast is initiated by another beast “coming out of the earth”, who makes an image of the first beast, i.e. an object of adoration (13:15, cf. 14:9, 19:20). In a Jewish and Christian context an adoration of an image can scarcely mean anything but alien cult of some kind, a phenomenon which would be named idolatry by e.g. Paul (1 Cor 10:14) and the attendants of which would be called idolaters by him and the author of the Revelation (1 Cor 10:7, Rev 21:8, 22:15) The Revelation of John also mentions individuals who have refused to adore the image of the beast or the beast itself (15:2, 20:4). From Rev 20:4 it is quite clear that the believers in Jesus are meant by this. It is possible that these have been persecuted and even killed because of their refusal (13:15, cf. v. 9). In the end, however, those who have worshipped the beast and its image will be severely punished (14:9, 11, 16:2, 21:8) as will be also the beasts themselves (19:20). According to the author there apparently exists a real danger for the believers to be drawn into the idolatrous worship of the beast. This explains the call for “patient endurance” (ὑπομονή) on the part of the “saints” (13:10, 14:12) and the characterization of the saints as those who have been “victorious over the beast and his image” (τοὺς νικῶντας ἐκ τοῦ θηρίου καὶ ἐκ τῆς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ, 15:2). Even John himself is forbidden in front of an angel to worship anyone but God (22:9).

hat, bevor sie durch Trajans Reskript für die die statthalterliche Rechtsprechung im ganzen Reich verbindlich wurde.” The ruling of Trajan is found in Pliny, Ep. 97.1–2. Hemer (2001, 86) notes, however, that the immediate “historical allusion is obscure” and that “the authorities may not have seen the nomen Christianum as the point at issue.” Adela Yarbro Collins writes with due caution (1984 a, 73): “The persecution reflected in Revelation, the banishment of the author and the execution of Antipas, seems to be nothing more than an example of the usual sporadic repression suffered by Christians in the first two centuries.” 38 A connection to idolatry among Jews is, however, according to Hirschberg (1999, 119 f., 123) indicated by the word βλασφημία (Rev 2:9, cf. 13:1– 6). To my mind this is an over-interpretation. Hemer (2001, 92) writes, quite correctly: “The differing incidence of the complementary threats posed by the Nicolaitans and by the ‘synagogues of Satan’ may be explained in local terms, as the pressure of the imperial cult activated forces in the pagan or in the Jewish environment of the church. At Pergamum the case seems clear: the cult had its central impact and the influence of Jewish opponents was probably slight.”

2. What Do the Beasts and the Whore Signify in the Revelation of John?

177

2. What Do the Beasts and the Whore Signify in the Revelation of John? Before entering into the problems of interpreting the idea of the beasts we should briefly look at how they are described. The first beast is animal-like (Rev 13:1–7). Most probably this beast is the same that has been mentioned already in Rev 11:7 where it is said to come “out of the Abyss”. It has ten horns and seven heads (cf. 17:3) like the dragon in Rev 12:3, which is identical with the devil who together with his angels has been hurled down from heaven (12:9). Each of the horns of the beast bear a crown and the heads are marked with blasphemous names. One of the heads seems to have received a fatal wound, which later has been healed (13:3). The beast has received its power from the dragon. The latter has given authority to the beast and therefore men admire and worship both of them. The beast utters proud words and blasphemes God, God’s name and His dwelling place (13:5 f.). Further the beast was given power to wage war against the holy and to defeat them and it received authority over the whole world (13:7). The second beast (Rev 13:11–17), which orders the inhabitants of the world to set up an image in honour of the first one has two horns like a lamb and it speaks like a dragon. He exercises the authority of the first beast. Later on in the text he is called the “false prophet” (16:13, 19:20, 20:10). He is given power to put breath into the image of the first beast so that it could speak and cause those who refuse to worship the image to be killed (13:15). Everyone is forced by him to receive a mark on his hand or forehead. Without this mark nobody can buy or sell. In Rev there is always a close connection between the mark on the forehead and the worship of the image (14:9, 11, 16:2, 19:20, 20:4). A third figure is also spoken of in connection with the first of the two beasts. She is called the “great whore” (17:1) and has a name on her forehead: the “great Babylon” (17:5). The word great links this city to the great city mentioned already in Rev 11:8 (cf. 14:8, 17:18, 18:10 etc.). The beast on which the woman rides is said to be scarlet and it has seven heads and ten horns (17:3).39 The woman is intoxicated with the blood of those who bear “testimony to Jesus” (17:6). The seven heads are said to be the seven mountains (ὄρη) on which the woman sits (17:9), and she is identified as the “great city that is ruling over the kings of the earth” (17:18). The seven heads of the beast also designate seven kings (17:9), whereas the ten horns are ten kings that have not yet received their kingdoms (17:12). Of the seven first mentioned kings five have existed previously, one exists when John receives the message from the angel, and one of them has not arrived by then (17:10). 39 This beast is probably identical with the one mentioned in 13:1. Thus Aune 1998 a, 616, 732 and Witulski 2007 b, 327.

178

Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John

There is still an eighth king, who is said to be one of the seven! He is identical with the beast carrying the woman and it is said about him that he was, is not anymore, but will come (17: 8, 11). This king is probably identical with the figure mentioned in 13:3. The destruction of the whore Babylon is described in detail in Rev 18, but already in Rev 17 it is said that she will be devoured and burned by the ten horns and the beast (17:16). It is very common in modern scholarly studies and commentaries not only to see the Revelation of John as an exponent of the so called apocalyptic tradition, but also to understand it within a certain framework of historical realities prevalent in the Roman Empire.40 This type of interpretation is as a matter of fact found already among Christian authors in antiquity, the earliest being Irenaeus.41 In modern commentaries the beasts are often understood as figurative representations of the ungodly Roman Empire with its rulers, the emperors, and their officials who administer the imperial cult with its images of the emperor.42 The Christians, who do not want to get involved in such religious behaviour, are seen as subjects of persecution by the Roman state with its administrative centre, the city of Rome. Many details in the Revelation of John fit well into such a picture. The Beast out of the sea with its horns and the heads may well signify the Roman empire with its emperors if one compares Rev with Daniel, ch. 7. In Dan a series of beasts and their many heads are understood as realms and their kings (Dan 7:17–24; cf. ch 11). Dan 7:13 is cited in Rev 1:7 and Rev 13:1–2 allude to many verses from the same chapter.43 When it is said that one of the heads of the beasts has been wounded but then healed (Rev 13:3, 12), it 40 López

(2005, 443– 458) presents a short but informative résumé of modern interpretations of the beasts in Rev 13, and Aune (2006 a, 59, 2006 b, 136 f.) gives brief presentations of possible traditions behind the ideas of the said beasts. Henten (2006) and Friesen (2004) make detailed investigations of possible myths behind the ideas of the dragon and the beasts in Rev and the use of such myths within the Roman imperial ideology. For a recent treatment of Rev as an apocalyptic narrative text see Herms 2006, esp. 1–5, 136 f., 200–206, 258–260. 41 See Biguzzi 2006, 372–374. 42 As an example we may quote Javier López (1998, 254): “En la figura de la primera bestia (vv. 1–8), se enfatiza el aspecto tradicional mesiánico del anticristo encarnado en la institución romana y en su emperador. En la segunda (vv. 11–17), el vidente pone de relieve ante el grupo de ἀκούοντες la expectativa tradicional del falso profeta asociándola con aquella propaganda que pretende legitimar la autoridad y el ejercicio del poder politico como un valor absoluto para la humanidad.” López in the same context articulates the antagonism of the two beasts towards God and Christ. Cf. the following lines by Ugo Vanni (1993, 48): “Entrando in azione, la prima bestia attacca Dio e la sua trascendenza (13,6), combatte i santi che sono sulla terra, si trova ad esercitare di fatto un potere sulla compagine sociale. Un’attività alternativa e antitetica nei riguardi di Cristo e di Dio appare ancora più evidente nella seconda bestia.” 43 E.g. Charles 1920 I, 345, Beasley-Murray 1981, 206, Prigent 1981, 201 f., Müller 1984, 249, Mounce 1988, 250 f., Aune 1998 a, 732 f.

2. What Do the Beasts and the Whore Signify in the Revelation of John?

179

could hint at the idea of Nero redivivus, i.e. that emperor Nero survived his dethronement and was expected to return with his forces in order to seize power anew.44 The worship of the first beast (13:4) and its image (13:15) can easily be understood as the worship of a statue of the emperor or of Rome.45 Statues of several emperors e.g. Augustus, Domitian and Hadrian were erected in Asia Minor.46 The “false prophet” could signify officials who administer and further the Imperial cult.47 Rev 13:15 may refer to prosecutions of believers in Christ who do not participate in the imperial cult.48 The whore Babylon who is said to be sitting on the seven hills (Rev 17:9) can be understood as referring to the city of Rome.49 As one can expect, there exist variants within this type of interpretation. It has for instance been suggested that Domitian and not Nero is meant by the wounded head 44 Charles 1920 I, 349 f., Ford 1975, 211,

cf. 220–222, Beasley/Murray 1981, 210, Prigent 1981, Mounce 1988, 252, Thompson 1990, 13 f., Aune 1998 a, 736–740, Friesen 2001, 136 f., Klauck 2001, 690– 698, Witherington 2003, 182, Biguzzi 2006, 385, Gradl 2009, 138. But Lupieri (2006, 203 f., 210 f.) finds the idea somewhat difficult here and Ulrieke Riemer (1998, 100–102) excludes a reference to an historical figure altogether. 45 Charles 1920 I, 360, Kraft 1974, 181, Beasley-Murray 1981, 217, Prigent 1981, 210 f., Müller 1984, 254, Mounce 1988, 260, Aune 1998 a, 761 f., Boxall 2006, 187. 46  Price 1984, 71, 147, 185–187, 197, 252–255, see also index under the names of the emperors and under “Statues”, and illustrations between pp. 198 and 199. Cf. Klauck 1992, 158, Clauss 1999, 64, 130, 309, 340 and Tóth 2006, 105. If the author of Rev was a Jewish believer in Christ from Palestine it may have some significance that an image of the emperor Augustus was erected by king Herod the Great in Caesarea (Jos. B. J. I 414) and another was planned by Caligula in order to be erected in the Temple of Jerusalem (Philo, Legat. 203–213, Jos. B. J. II 192–201, A. J. XVIII, 263–72. See Schürer I 394 –396, II 34 –35. 47 Charles 1920 I, 360, Beasley-Murray 1981, 253, Prigent 1981, 209, Müller 1984, 253, Mounce 1988, 260, Witulski 2007 b, 127, 131, 148, 160. Hans-Josef Klauck (1992, 173) uses the term “Propagandaminister”, and Adela Yarbro Collins (1984 b, 82) states: “The vision about the beast from the earth (13:11–18) would have called to mind the leading families of Asia Minor, who had control of both political office and the various priesthoods.” Cf. Friesen (2003, 62) who writes: “… the beast from the land represented the wealthy elite in the Asian society, since these were the people who served in the various priesthoods and offices.” Cf. Chaniotis 2003, 17. 48 Beale (1999, 13, cf. 240) thinks that external documentation (1 Clement, Tacitus, Pliny and Dio Cassius) “points to the plausibility of selective yet significant persecution under Domitian”. Others, e.g. Giesen (1996, 2519) and Witulski (2007 b, 69–71, cf. 84, 94), are more reluctant to draw such conclusions. Heinz Giesen uses the word Verfolgung (persecution) but thinks we have to do with repression from time to time. Instead of Verfolgung Witulski prefers the word Bedrängnisse (afflictions). 49 Charles 1920 II, 62, 68 f., Böcher 1980, 87–95, Beasley-Murray 1981, 249, 256, 261, Prigent 1981, 256, 261, Müller 1984, 249, Mounce 1988, 307, 309, 313, Kraybill 1996, 144 f., Aune 1998 b, 944 f., Biguzzi 2006, 384 and n. 46. Richard Bauckham (1993, 395) states: “By referring to its seven hills John was not concealing Babylon’s identity with Rome, but making it obvious.” Witulski (2007 b, 125 f.) interprets Babylon as the entire Roman empire. R. H. Charles notes (1920 II, 14): “That Babylon was already a synonym for Rome in the first century A. D. is clear from 2 Bar. XI. I; Sibyl. Or. V. 143, 159; I Pet. V. 13 (?).” One could add: 4 Ezra 15:43, 46, 16:1.

180

Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John

and that Babylon signifies the “Dea Roma”, not the city of Rome.50 On the other hand also Domitian himself has been understood as Nero redivivus.51 There are, however, details which are more difficult to explain within the framework of Rome and its cult. Ch. 11 speaks of two prophetic witnesses (vv. 3 ff.). The beast “out of the Abyss” is said to attack and kill these witnesses (v. 7). But enigmatically the verse that follows says that their bodies will lie in the “streets of the great city” Sodom and Egypt, where “their Lord was crucified”. But if this city and “great city Babylon” are identical, is it possible that Rome is meant by this? Further: how can the city of Rome commit adultery with the Roman empire (cf. 13:2–3, 17:2, 4)?52 And how should the conflict between the beast and the whore in Rev 17:16 be interpreted if the former is the Roman empire and the latter the city of Rome? Concerning cult matters no such tradition as the mark (χάραγμα) on the forehead and hand is documented as a feature on the participants within Roman religious observance (cf. 13:16, 14:9, 19:20).53 Finally, no speaking statues of emperors are documented although statues that were constructed in a way that they transmitted a human voice existed in antiquity (cf. 13:15).54 Problems like these have led scholars to interpret the details differently. Josephine Massyngbearde Ford suggests that the great city in Rev 11:8 and 50 Kraft 1974, 214, 181. Cf. Aune (1998 b, 920), who shows a coin from the time of Vespasian picturing the Dea Roma, a “personification of Rome”, reclining on the seven hills of Rome. See further Aune 2006 b, 240–249. Ford 1975, 221, opines that Vespasian could be meant by the wounded head. 51 Giesen 1996, 2566–2570. 52 Edmondo F. Lupieri (2006, 252) states concerning Rev 17:3: “It is not very persuasive to suggest that Rome is fornicating with her own empire.” 53 Aune (1998 a, 767) lists four alternatives that have been presented in scholarly discussions: 1. Jewish tefillin or phylacteries, 2. Tattooing of slaves or devotees to a particular deity, 3. Coins, 4. Imperial seals. Of these only the first is more or less probable. Aune states (767) that the “wearing of the tefillin could be a model for the mark of the beast”. But he continues (768): “There can be little doubt that this brand is a parody of the seal of God that is placed on the foreheads of his servants.” Witulski (2007 b, 172–176) mentions several instances of tattooing or branding within hellenistic cult but he does not give any examples of this within the Roman imperial cult. Because of the commercial implications of the context (Rev 13:16) Witulski (pp. 170 f., 177) prefers to see the word χάραγμα as a designation for coins with the name of the emperor in office. Such coins could be used in rings and diadems for instance. Witulski (p. 175 f.) excludes the possibility that the word χάραγμα could refer to phylacteries. 54 Charles 1920 I, 361, Aune 1998 a, 764. Steven J. Scherrer (1984, 601– 603) suggests that the statue of Zeus/Jupiter brought from Olympia in Greece to Rome by emperor Caligula in order to serve as a statue of the latter could be seen as a speaking statue of the emperor. The historian Suetonius in his Lives of the Emperors (LXVII 4:7) describes an incident where the said statue suddenly bursted into a laughter that highly scared the people around. But I consider Scherrer’s understanding, which is shared by Witherington (2003, 184 n. 2003) and Witulski (2007 b, 164 f.), somewhat far fetched. The said statue does not speak in the role of a statue of the emperor. Suetonius in fact sees the incident as a prediction of the violent death of Caligula (LXVII 1).

2. What Do the Beasts and the Whore Signify in the Revelation of John?

181

Babylon in Rev 17 signify Jerusalem.55 This could explain both sides of the relationship between the whore and the beast with its heads and horns in Rev 17, i.e. the initial close relationship between them and the final destruction of Babylon by the beast. The fornication, which the whore has committed with the kings (17:2, 4) may have many aspects. But one offense could according to Ford be the fall into idolatry.56 If the Jewish war is implied it is also understandable that it is said that Babylon is burnt by fire (Rev 17:16, 18:10; cf. Jos. B. J. VI 228–282).57 Further the beast from the sea, also called the false prophet, could according to Ford mean Flavius Josephus, who prophesied that Vespasian would become emperor (Jos. B. J. III 401) and who was given the name of Flavius (cf. Jos. B. J. IV 622– 629), perhaps indicated by the mark of the Beast (13:16, cf. 13:1).58 Alan James Beagley does not, however, accept the idea that Josephus or any other Jewish person or institution is meant by the second beast.59 Still Beagley adheres to the idea that Jerusalem is meant in by the great city in Rev 11:8 and by Babylon in Rev 17.60 Beagley argues like Ford that in Rev 17:9 the woman is distinct from the seven hills on which she is seated, i.e. the city of Rome.61 Beagley finds that the Revelation of John considers the Jews to be the enemies of God and the church.62 This becomes manifest in texts like Rev 2:9, 3:9 and 11:3–12.63 The people of Israel is guilty of apostasy and idolatry.64 The fall of Jerusalem is according to the interpretation of Beagley “an evidence of the rejection of the nation of Israel”.65 Also Rick van de Water in the great city Babylon sees Jerusalem. When Babylon is described in Rev 17 many details seem to be taken from the description of the apostate Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16.66 The account that the two witnesses met their fate in the great city where the Lord was crucified 55 Ford (1975, 180, 285 f, 292 f.). She states (285 f.): “… if one identifies the first beast (13:1…) with the Roman empire one must argue for a different identity for the harlot: Rome cannot be seated upon Rome. Some have argued that the beast is the Roman empire and the harlot the city of Rome, but this appears to be contradicted by the text. In 17:9 the woman is seated on the seven hills (equal the seven heads) and these surely symbolize the city of Rome.” Cf pp. 180 and 292 f. Among earlier commentators with a similar view concerning the whore Babylon one finds e.g. Carrington and Feuillet. See van de Water 2000, 260, n. 89. Barker (2000, 279–287, 391) follows Ford. 56 Ford 1975, 277, 286, 300. 57 Cf. Ford 303 f, 58 Ford 1975, 226–230. Barker (2006, 236–239, 391) follows Ford. 59 Beagley 1987, 78 f. 60 Beagley 1987, 92–99, 110–112. 61 Beagley 1987, 93. 62 Beagley 1987, 112. 63 Beagley 1987, 31–33, 64 –70. 64 Beagley 1987, 84. 65 Beagley 1987, 112. 66 van de Water 2000, 256.

182

Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John

is easier to understand as a reference to Jerusalem and Jewish persecution than to Rome.67 Van de Water takes his point of departure in the passages containing the expression “Synagogue of Satan” already referred to above and he maintains that nothing in the letters hints at a prosecution from the Roman state.68 The enemies of the Christian communities seem to be Jewish. The “kings of the land” (Rev 17:2) could be taken in reference to the rulers in Palestine, and the seven hills fit Jerusalem as well as Rome.69 In contradistinction to Ford and Beagley, however, who understand the first beast of Rev 13 and the beast in Rev 17 as descriptions of the Roman empire,70 van de Water goes one step further and considers the beasts of Rev 13 to be symbols of messianic Judaism both in the Diaspora and Palestine.71 The beast coming out of the sea would signify the former, and the beast out of the land the latter kind of political messianism. Van de Water finds references to a Jewish messianic movement in 4 Ezra, ch. 11, 12 and above all in chapter 13.72 In chapters 11 and 12 the Roman empire is represented by an Eagle and the Messiah of the Highest, belonging to the tribe of David by a lion. The lion attacks the eagle and announces its fall, but he also rescues a remnant of the people of God. In chapter 13 the Messiah rises out of the sea. He will appear on the Mount of Zion to judge and destroy the Gentiles because of their godlessness. Now both books, the Revelation of John and 4 Ezra refer to Dan, notably the figure called The Son of Man. Van de Water sees the ideas in the Revelation of John as an alternative messianic idea in competition with the one found in 4 Ezra. Van de Water also points at some details which according to him suggests a Jewish frame of reference rather than a Roman one. When the book of Revelation speaks of the marks which the Beast out of the Earth forced everyone to bear on his right hand or on his forehead, van de Water finds it difficult to understand this detail in a Roman context. It is “reminiscent of the phylacteries of the Deuteronomic law” (Rev 13:16).73 Further the seven kings of Rev 17 should be seen as the kings of the Jews, i.e. the Herodian princes, rather the Roman emperors.74 Without referring to van de Water also Edmondo F. Lupieri in his commentary to the Revelation of John sees the woman Babylon as a designation 67 van

de Water 2000, 253. de Water 2000, 250 f. 69 van de Water 2000, 257 f. 70 Ford 1975, 218–21, 285 f., Beagley (1987, 73, 75, 80, 103) implicitly concerning Rev 13 and explicitly concerning Rev 17. 71 van de Water 2000, 246, 252, 255. 72 van de Water 2000, 260 f. 73 van de Water 2000, 256. 74 van de Water 2006, 258 f. 68 van

2. What Do the Beasts and the Whore Signify in the Revelation of John?

183

for Jerusalem.75 He also finds a “remarkable number” of references to Jewish practises in Rev 13.76 The second beast there “may not represent only, or primarily, pagan religions, but also the corrupt form of Judaism that has compromised with the pagan world.” It might be a “savage parody of the universalistic pretensions of non-Christian Judaism”.77 Lupieri even in the chapters in question finds references to idolatrous activities among Jews.78 In view of such different suggestions concerning the attempts to find exact counterparts to the figures and places of the book of Revelation that to many today appear fanciful it is understandable that some scholars would rather see the imagery as reflecting ideas which should not be taken as pointing to specific historical data. Instead they should be seen as suggesting more general tendencies in the world of human beings. Thompson sees the beast as a “superhuman being”.79 Lupieri states that “… the beast gathers up in itself all the powers of this world.”80 Ulrieke Riemer sees the two beasts of Rev 13 as identical and as manifestations of satanic powers aiming at divine power.81 Gregory K. Beale for his part opines that the identifications apostate Israel or the Roman culture should not be seen as mutually exclusive: “ ‘Babylon the great’ is the entire corrupt economic-religious system.”82 In a large monograph on the Whore Babylon, a study on the Babylon texts in both the Old and the New Testament Ulrike Sals thinks the identification of Babylon with Rome falls short. Babylon belongs to a larger system of ideas and religion.83 75 Lupieri 2006, 248 ff. The commentary was published in English in 2006 as a translation of the Italian version of 1999. 76 Lupieri 2006, 209. I have had difficulties in seeing a “remarkable number” of references. Lupieri mentions tefillin and gematria, p. 212 f. 77 Lupieri (2006, 210), who also refers to 4 Ezra 6:49–53 and 13:3. 78 Lupieri 2006, 209 f, 212, 79 Thompson 1990, 174. 80 Lupieri 2006, 201. 81  Riemer 1998, 115 f. 82 Beale 1999, 885 f. 83 Sals (2004, 143) writes: “Aus der gegenseitigen Imitation (i.e. God, Christ/the whore) einerseits und der Zeichnung Babylons als israelitisches Stiftszelt andererseits greift die Zuordnung, Babel sei selbstvertändlich Rom, zu kurz. Gerade die Details der Zeichnung lassen Fragen aufkommen, wer oder was Babylon sei. ‘Babylon’ gehört viel näher zum eigenen Denk‑ und Religionssystem als eine Festlegung auf Rom glauben machen will. Diese Identifizierung Babylons mit Rom scheint doch eher distanzierend zu sein, ein Entsolidarisierungsprogramm, als distanziert mit einem deutlich geklärten Widerstand.” John writes according to Sals (2004, 144) a biography of the whore Babylon which is “eine prophetische Biographie, die nicht im Sinne neuzeitlichen Interesses eine Revision der Vergangenheit im Blick auf die Gegenwart vornimmt, sondern prophetisch auf der Basis einer Gegenwartsanalyse die Zukunft entwirft: so muss es mit Babel zuendegehen, Babel ist menschlich und übermenschlich, systemisch und doch eine Ansammlung von Stein und Brennbarem.”

184

Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John

The above presentation of different views concerning the beasts and Babylon now requires some comments from the present writer. To say that is very difficult to interpret Rev, especially chapters 11, 13 and 17, would be an understatement. There are, however, geographic and historical details in the text which suggest that the author has in mind concrete events in time and space, although an exact determination of what is meant is uncertain. If the great city of Babylon (Rev 17) is identical with the city where the Lord was crucified (Rev 11:8) the first option naturally is Jerusalem. But how is it possible to describe that city by saying that “the waters where the prostitute sits” (cf. 17:1) mean “peoples, multitudes , nations and languages” (17:15), and that it “rules over the kings of the earth” (17:18)?84 Be it as it may, the adultery of the whore Babylon (17:2) could among other things signify idolatry.85 But no concrete details of such possibly implied idolatry are articulated.86 The same cannot, however, be said of the beasts. In Rev 13 there are clear indications of idolatry in the statements about the two beasts. The beast out of the sea as well as its image receive worship from human beings (vv. 4, 14). The description is fairly detailed. It is said that “the inhabitants of the earth” were ordered by the beast out of land to “set up an image in honour of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived” and the same beast was also “given power to give breath” to that image (13:14 –15). If a reader in the studies of Ford, Lupieri or van de Water tries to find an explanation regarding how these ideas fit into a Jewish context he becomes disappointed. Ford, who suggests that the second beast in Rev 13 signifies Josephus, does not give us any clue regarding Josephus’ activity concerning an image of the 84 Boxall (2006, 244) writes: “Babylon is not Rome; rather Rome represents the latest incarnation of the oppressive and idolatrous city.” Philip L. Mayo (2006, 139) states concerning Rev 11:8: “There should be no interpretive struggle … over whether John intends to refer here to Babylon (Rome) or to Jerusalem. He intends to allude to both. What is significant is that he has allied earthly Jerusalem with the enemies of God.” Cf. Schüssler Fiorenza 1985, 182–192. 85 Hirschberg (1999, 122) writes: “Besonders die Charakterisierung des götzendienerischen Rom in Offb. 17,1–5 und 18,2 f. als grosse Hure Babylon zeigt, dass Johannes bei sexuellen Termini wie Unzucht und Hurerei primär an den Götzendienst und die pagane Lebensweise denkt.” See also the significant discussion by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza in her article from 2006, who with reference to Kraybill (1996) says (p. 262): “ ‘The wine of its fornication’ from which the ‘dwellers of the earth have become drunk’ stems from the intercourse of Babylon with the ‘kings of the earth’ by which ‘the wealth of its wantonness’ has enriched the merchants of the earth. Not sex but power, wealth, and murder are the ingredients of Babylon/Rome’s fornication. The conventional use of ‘practising immorality’ as signifying idolatry is here redefined as political ‘intercourse’ that negotiates wealth, power and violent death.” Yet, I would say that the conventional religious language probably also refers to religious practice. 86 Schüssler Fiorenza 2006, 262.

2. What Do the Beasts and the Whore Signify in the Revelation of John?

185

emperor of Rome.87 Lupieri discusses Rev 13:14, but only comments on the “sword” mentioned in the verse.88 Van de Water mentions the same passage, but never gives any hint of how such an image, object of worship by the whole earth, should be conceived as a feature functioning in the context of a Jewish messianic movement.89 Without denying the difficulties in interpreting many details within the text of Rev 13, I think the author may see the beasts as both trans-historical and historical, or, let us say, trans-historical powers manifesting themselves within time and space.90 The beasts belong to the realm of Satan and can be seen as manifestations of the angels that were hurled from heaven together with him (Rev 12:9).91 When John speaks e.g. of the seven kings in ch. 17, he concerning one of them says that he “is” (ὁ εἷς ἔστιν v. 10), i.e. he was seen as alive when the text of Rev was written.92 This fact motivates an interpretation which is commonly called zeitgeschichtlich among New testament scholars.93 To me, an interpretation of Rev 13 which views the chapter as a description of the Roman empire with its emperors and imperial cult seems the most reasonable.94 The imperial cultic rituals often took place in shrines where statues of the emperors of Rome were erected.95 When Rev 13:14 87

 Ford 1975, 227–230. 2006, 211. 89 van de Water 2000, 256. 90 Cf. Daria Pezzoli-Olgiati (2002, 234) who writes: “It is necessary to identify the beast in history, but this identification must be performed by the Christians living in the seven Asian cities. Avoiding an explicit identification of the beast in contemporary history, the visions of Revelation seem to aim at a more radical criticism, a rejection of every form of such a negative power.” 91 Cf. Riemer (1998, 3) who refers to an article from 1926 written by Joseph Sickenberger. 92 Because of the serious difficulties to identify the seven kings in Rev 17:7–11 with Roman emperors, Riemer (1998, 80 f.) opines that a more successful approach would be to understand Rev out of itself and out of its apocalyptic traditions. But she does not take the expression ὁ εἷς ἔστιν seriously enough. See pages 75, 82, 86 and 88 referred to in the Index at Rev 17:10 (Riemer 1998, 197). 93 Cf. Biguzzi 2006, 172. Witulski (2007 b, 330) notes that the first beast of ch. 13 who reappears in 17:3 is characterized as an individual sovereign in 17:10 f.: “Dass es sich bei dem ersten θηρίον nicht um eine grausig, gespenstische, übermenschliche Erscheinung, sondern offensichtlich doch um einen römischen Kaiser, also um einen Menschen handelt, bestätigt der Apokalyptiker selbst in Apk 17, 8. 10 f. Hier beschreibt er nämlich das erste θηρίον als einen mit einem der sieben zuvor regierenden βασιλεῖς zu identifizierenden achten βασιλεύς, d.h. also als einen den römischen Thron innehabenden princeps.” Among authors who prefer to read Rev 13 in a more general and a-historical way we find M. Eugene Boring (1989, 157) who says: “All who support and promote the cultural religion in or out of the Church, however Lamb-like they may appear, are agents of the monster.” Boxall (2006, 194) adheres to Boring. 94 For a general treatment of Christianity versus the Roman imperial cult see Clauss 1999, 420– 465. 95 See Price 1984, 172–180. 88 Lupieri

186

Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John

mentions the image of the beast from the sea that was erected by the beast from the land it is quite possible, as Witulski maintains, that the word εἰκόνα which is in singular in fact should be understood in a distributive sense, and therefore referring to multiple statues of the rulers within the Roman empire.96 The order of an imperial festivity consisted in a procession (often with a carried statue of the emperor), a sacrifice, a banquet and a sportive event.97 The rituals were performed in different areas such as halls and temples close to the fora, on the hills, in the vicinity of the streets or the stadia and at the harbours.98 Within this article it is of minor importance to determine with exactness which emperor the author of the Revelation of John has in mind in Rev 13, 17 or other passages where there seem to be references to a ruler of the Roman Empire. While several emperors have been suggested, the most common view among scholars is that the Flavian emperor Domitian (81–96 C. E.) is the object.99 However, this understanding, found already in the writings of Irenaeus (Adv. haer. V 30, 3) has been challenged by many authors during the recent decades e.g. by, John A. T. Robinson, Leonard L. Thompson, Ulrieke Riemer, Rick van de Water and Thomas Witulski. Three main arguments are presented. In the first place doubts are articulated concerning the idea of the so called Domitian persecution of Christians which is surmised by historians as well as by exegetes.100 A postulated large persecution of Christians by the Roman state, often seen as one of the most decisive realities that have provoked the writing of the Revelation of John, does not seem to have a firm base in historical documentation.101 The main source for the idea is the text of Rev itself, and therefore a circular argument is close at hand.102 Secondly, one can see an attempt to re-evaluate the ruling and the character of the said emperor.103 Leonard L. Thompson notes that the negative picture of Domitian to a large extent emanates from writers like   96 Witulski 2007 b, 162 f. Other cases of distributive singulars referred to by Witulski are found in Rev 9:19 and 13:16.   97  See Chaniotis 2003, 7–11. Cf. Clauss 1999, 320–334.   98 See Süss 2003, 252–265, with maps at pp. 272–281.   99 See references e.g. in Böcher 1980, 36– 41, Aune 1997, LVII, Riemer 1998, 37–51, and Witulski 2007 b, 11, 22. The latest scholarly article I have seen presenting this type of interpretation is by Gradl 2009, 116–138. 100 Among historians: Bengtson 1979, 235–238 and Speigl (1970, 51) who maintains, however, that the initiative was not that of Domitian or Rome, but rather came from local circles. Among exegetes Kümmel, 1983, 403, Lohse 1960, 5, cf. 72 f. See further references by Riemer 2000, 73, notes 2 and 3. 101 Robinson 1976, 331–333, Yarbro Collins 1984 a, 69 f., Lampe / Luz 1987, 197 f., Thompson 1990, 15–17, 136–137, Riemer 1998, 30, van de Water 2000, 246–251, Witulski 2007 b, 11 n. 6. 102 Robinson 1976, 331 103 Ulrieke Riemer (1998, 27) writes: “In Domitians Biographie lässt sich nichts finden, was seine Identifizierung als das apokalyptische Tier rechtfertigen würde.” (Cf. p. 30 f.).

2. What Do the Beasts and the Whore Signify in the Revelation of John?

187

Pliny the younger (c. 60–115), Tacitus (c. 55–120) Suetonius (c. 75–135), and Dio Cassius (fr. c. 155 C. E.) who supported the dynasty that succeeded the Flavian, and therefore are not neutral.104 Suetonius maintains that Domitian demanded his procurators to address him as dominus et deus noster in their letters to him.105 A similar phrase is applied to God in Rev 4:11 which could here indicate an ironical attack against the divine claims of the Emperor.106 But no such phrase is found on medallions or inscriptions from the time of Domitian.107 This could of course be a result of attempts to eradicate the memory of Domitian under his successors. But according to Thompson, such a damnatio memoriae was not very systematically performed.108 Thompson opines that Domitian had deserved a better reputation.109 It must be pointed out that Domitian was in many ways successful as an emperor in his military campaigns, administrative measures and building activities.110 Even Suetonius admits that Domitian was successful in his administration.111 Asia Minor was a prosperous region during Domitian’s reign.112 A third central argument is put forward by Witulski, who finds reasons to doubt the accuracy the dating of the Revelation of John in the writings of Irenaeus.113 Notwithstanding the scepticism among scholars concerning the question whether the Revelation of John points to the emperor Domitian, Franz Tóth in a large study sees the time of the said emperor, his activities and behaviour, as the historical framework of the biblical text. Thót admits that 104 Thompson

1990, 96–101, 110–115. Cf Klauck 1992, 155 n. 7. The Lives of the Emperors, Domitian XIII 1–2. Cf. Also Pliny, Paneg. XXXIII 4 and Dio Cassius, Roman History LXVII 1. 106 Cf. Gradl 2009,125, 131. 107 Thompson 1990, 105. Cf. Witulski 2007 b, 24 f., 34 f. 108 Thompson 1990, 109. Friesen (2001, 46) maintains, however, that the name of Domitian was erased from statues of the emperor in temples in Ephesus. 109 Somewhat surprisingly Thompson (1990, 15) accepts the view of “most scholars that Revelation was written sometime in the latter years of Domitian’s reign”. But Thompson (p. 164) leaves open the question concerning the identity of the beast and states: “For Christians, however, who did not accept the traditional Greek gods and saw them as antithetical to their own religious claims, the imperial cult was rejected as a correlate to the rejection of traditional cults. The forms of traditional Greek religion were central, the imperial cult was secondary to that.” Thompson (1990, 174) summarizes John’s view on the relationship of the Christians with the Asian society in the following way: “John reports surprisingly few hostilities toward Christians by the non-Christian social world. He anticipates conflict, but conflicts stemming from his fundamental position that church and world belong to antithetical forces. In other words John encourages his audience to see themselves in conflict with society; such a conflict is a part of his vision of the world.” 110 Thompson 1990, 103, Jones 1992 a, 72–79, 110–112, 138 f., 146 f.; 1992 b, 221–222, Riemer 1998, 22–26. Cf. Witschel 1997, 101–104, 108 f. 111 Suetonius, The Lives of the Emperors, Domitian VII 2, VIII 2, XIV 2. 112 Thompson 1990, 156–158, 164 –167, Riemer 1998, 12 f., 2000, 77. 113 Witulski 2007 b, 26–33. 105 Suetonius,

188

Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John

there did not exist a general persecution at the command of Domitian. The threat which the Christians encountered in his view emanated from their own countrymen.114 But Tóth defends the idea that Domitian can be seen as a person who expected divine honours from his subordinates. His identification with different gods may be seen in his restoration and erection of several temples both in honour of traditional gods and the Flavian dynasty, in the depiction of himself as Jupiter on coins and in statues of gods bearing the features of the emperor. Suetonius statement that Domitian was supposed to be addressed as dominus et deus noster by his procurators can therefore be seen as historically trustworthy.115 Tóth understands the statements concerning the beasts in Rev 13 as symbols for the Roman empire with its imperial cult, manifesting itself in propaganda and the erecting of images.116 An argument against the postulated time of Domitian may be seen therein that the earliest instance of punitive measures against individual Christians by the Roman state is documented somewhat later, i.e. in the correspondence between Pliny and the emperor Trajan.117 An alternative to the general theory has recently been presented by Thomas Witulski who argues that the Revelation of John has to be seen against the development of the imperial cult in Asia Minor during the rule of emperor Hadrian.118 According to Witulski there was no stronger emphasis on the adoration of Domitian than there had been earlier of Augustus and Tiberius, whereas one can observe that the Roman state put a stronger weight on the imperial cult in Hadrian’s time.119 Witulski observes that John looks back at afflictions that have struck 114 Tóth

2006, 65–70. 2006, 98–103. In a discussion with Thomson, Thomas B. Slater (1998, 236 f.) also maintains that the former in an one-sided way treats authors who during the reign of Domitian made favourable judgements about him. Quintilian, who received the task of educating a younger member of the imperial family by the emperor sees this as a sign of a “heavenly” favour and maintains that there is no divine power (numen) that in such a benevolent way looks upon studies as the emperor. See also Clauss 1999, 119–132 with illustration on p. 126: a coin with an image of Domitian as Jupiter. 116 Tóth 2006, 64 f. I have not, however, found any statement in Tóth’s book directly identifying Domitian with the beast from the sea in Rev 13 or one of the kings in Rev 17. My general impression nevertheless is that Domitian is meant in Rev 13 according to Tóth. See e.g. Tóth 2006, 97–111, 301–304. 117 Pliny, Ep. 10.96.1–10, 97.1–2. But cf. Klauck (1992, 162) who notes that the letter of Pliny refers to a problem that the Roman officials have been dealing with for some time. 118 Witulski published his study on the Revelation of John in 2007, the year that followed the study of Tóth. The two scholars do not refer to one another’s research. Both authors refer to studies by Price and Friesen on the religious situation in Asia Minor during the time of the Flavians and their successors. For recent attempts to date Rev much earlier see the studies by Rojas-Flores (2004) and Kooten (2007). 119 Witulski 2007 b, 34, 136–138. A more detailed presentation of the development of the imperial cult in Asia Minor during Hadrian’s time is presented by Witulski 2007 a, 90–170. Witulski and Riemer (1998, 31) also deny an increase of the cult of the emperor 115 Tóth

3. Conclusion: Synthesis

189

the Christian communities from the surrounding society (Rev 2:2, 9; 3:8, 10) and that he expects further sufferings (2:10; 3:10).120 Although there is no present crisis, John still describes the situation as critical (krisenhaft). Witulski therefore asks if some external event may be detected that made the difficult social situation among the Christians acute and would give an explanation why the Revelation of John was written.121 The texts admonishing the addressees to steadfastness (2:2 f., 19) and those describing the beast and its image (13, 14:9 f., 15:2, and 20:4) give reason to opine that the event had to do with the imperial cult.122 The admonitions to be alert (2:7, 17, 29) show that John by the beasts refers to contemporary phenomena, i.e. the emperor who is in office when John produces his text.123 According to Witulski the emperor Hadrian in 132 C. E. was proclaimed as a universal saviour in Asia and beyond. That manifested itself in an intensified cultic activity both in the public and in the private sphere.124 This makes the strong reaction against the Imperial cult in Rev understandable. Witulski interprets the beasts in Rev 13 as the emperor Hadrian and his protagonist Antony Polemon who very actively furthered the cult of Hadrian in Asia Minor.125 No doubt Witulski has presented an interesting hypothesis which certainly will be discussed by experts for a long time ahead. From the point of view of this article it is enough to say that the model of Witulski does not differ very much from the general theory which sees the Revelation of John as a text which is to be understood against the background of the Roman imperial cult.

3. Conclusion: Synthesis Having now discussed the question concerning the historical realities that should be taken into account within the Roman empire when one reads the text of Rev 2, 13, and 17, we should draw the threads together by discussin Domitian’s time. Riemer refers to Friesen (1993, 165–168) who describes the situation in Asia Minor. 120 Witulski 2007 b, 70 f. Witulski (pp. 82–84) is not content with the view of Thompson who does not reckon with a social crisis. See Thompson 1990, 34, 91, 116, 166. 121 Witulski 2007 b, 74. 122 Witulski 2007 b, 106, 111 f. 123 Witulski 2007 b, 116 f., 130 f. 124 Witulski 2007 b, 136 f. 125 Witulski 2007 b, 219–230. On the other hand Witulski (2007 b, 328–338) does not give Rev 17:9–14 an interpretation according to which the author of Rev here would refer to certain individual emperors in each case. Witulski sees Rev 17: 9–14 as an example of vaticinium ex eventu by which the author intends to redate his own activity to the sixth emperor, whereas the eighth in reality is the “beast” of his own time. It is, however, presented in Rev 17:10 as a future figure, and thus a tension between chs. 13 and 17 is created.

190

Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John

ing the internal references between these chapters which all deal with the phenomenon of idolatry. Presupposing that Imperial cult is implied in the words about the worship of the beast from the sea and its image (13: 4, 14), one must ask whether there is any connection with the idolatry implied in the letters to Ephesus, Pergamum and Thyatira. In addition to the idea that idolatry probably is implied in the idea of adultery both in the case of Jezebel of Thyathira (Rev 2:20) and the whore Babylon (17:1–2), it is possible to find other connections of a more indirect kind. Surveying the letter to Pergamum above, we discussed why Antipas, the witness of Christ, was killed (ἀπεκτάνθῃ Rev 2:13). Although no reason for that violent death is given in Rev one could surmise that it happened because Antipas did not follow the behaviour of the Nicolaitans, i.e. he did not participate in idolatrous rituals. Now the same verb ἀποκτείνω is used in Rev 13:15 for those who would be killed because of their refusal to worship the image of the beast (cf. 13:10 b). We may therefore cautiously conjecture that Antipas was killed in Pergamum because he refused to honour the emperor by participating in a ritual within the imperial cult.126 Its rituals comprised banquets which, if our conjecture is justified, are implied in the criticism of eating meat offered to the idols in the letters to Pergamum and Thyatira.127 Our standpoint receives support from similarities in the paraenetical vocabulary of Rev. If the church members in Ephesus, Pergamum and Thyatira were exhorted to listen (ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω Rev 2:7, 17, 29) and praised for their perseverance (ὑπομονή Rev 2:2 f., 19), also those who are addressed in Rev 13 are admonished with the same words (13:9 f.).128 The believers in Rev 2 are 126 Thus also Klauck (1992, 163) who says: “Im Gerichtsverfahren verweigerte er das Opfer vor Götter‑ oder Kaiserbild, er bekannte sich weiter zu Jesus als seinem Herrn, anstatt ihm, wie es Plinius forderte, zu verfluchen. Das kostete ihn das Leben.” Hirschberg (1999, 102) writes: “Ein erster Hinweis auf die Ursache dieses Todes bildet die nachgeschobene Bemerkung, dass Antipas dort getötet wurde, wo der Satan wohnt. Dadurch wird herausgestellt, dass der Tod des Antipas auf einen Konflikt mit dem Kaiserkult zurückzuführen ist.” Cf. Giesen 2000, 131. A more cautious view is articulated by Yarbro Collins (1984 a, 73): “The remark in Rev 13:15, that the beast from the land caused to be slain those who would not worship the image of the beast from the sea, is probably a purposely selective view of the standard cultic test described by Pliny.” Friesen (2005, 367) thinks that the absence of explicit mention of imperial cult in Rev 2–3 indicates that this was not a point of disagreement between John and the congregations, not even between him and the dissenting groups, the Nicolaitans, the adherents of the doctrine of Balaam and the group around Jezebel. But John referred to the Imperial cult by portraying the disagreements with the said groups “not as isolated issues, but rather as facets of participation in a broader imperial culture, which he considered eternally dangerous” (p. 372). 127 Still one must take into account that abstinence from eating idol-food as such does not seem to have been punished before a decree promulgated by the emperor Decius in 250 C. E. See Henten 2008, 257 f. 128 Witulski 2007 b, 158. Cf. Harland 2000, 116–120. Cf. Lars Hartman (1999, 210) who writes: “… I believe that the situation John presents is one of a certain pressure, and contains tendencies to assimilation and compromise which he vehemently dislikes.

3. Conclusion: Synthesis

191

promised a rich reward if victorious (νικάω 2:7, 26), and Rev 15 speaks of those who have been victorious (νικάω 15:2) over the beast and his image.129 This means that alien religion, especially the imperial cult, is considered both as an attraction and as a danger in the Book of Revelation. Although no direct statements is made in Rev concerning the motives for some church members to participate in religious rituals of the society surrounding them, one could like Witulski make an attempt to live the part of these members of the Christian communities in Asia Minor. Their motive may just have been a wish to adjust to the surrounding society.130 They may have done so because they wanted to be normal everyday citizens of their town or in order to gain benefits or to avoid repression. They may have also been eager to show loyalty towards the Roman authorities or they may even have accepted the claims of the emperor to be a redemptive figure in the world. In the Revelation of John members of Jewish synagogues also were seen as a danger for the churches in Smyrna and Philadelphia because of their “slander”, but there does not exist any clear connection between this diffuse threat and the one emanating from Hellenistic religion and the Imperial cult.

Christ calls for attention (‘repent’) and action (‘hold on’). Chapters 4 –22 then deepen the perspective of this situation and present the ultimate motivation for the attention and action called for; they place the situation and the attitude called for into an eschatological framework.” 129 Cf. Witulski 2007 b, 115–117. Klauck (1992, 176) is somewhat sceptical concerning the use of the word νικᾶν as an argument in creating links between the first part and the second “apocalyptic” part of Rev. Methodologically one should, according to Klauck, start from the first part in order to interpret the second. But when he interprets the letter to Pergamum Klauck himself refers to Rev 13:2 (p. 160 f.)! Still Rev may have a broader perspective than just a religious one in its warnings not to adjust to the surrounding society (Klauck 1992, 177 f.). For a discussion with Klauck at this point see Witulski 2007 b, 90 ff. For possible economic implications in the activities of Jezebel see Kraybill 1996, 38– 42. 130 Cf. Witulski 2007 b, 132 f.

Conclusions The articles of this volume have focussed on documentation concerning the transgression of the border between religions. There were Jews and Christians in antiquity who were attracted by the religious activities in the surrounding Hellenistic world. There were others who vehemently condemned a closer participation in what they saw as idolatry. The first three articles explore the question of how some Jews were attracted to Hellenistic religion or certain aspects of it, and also how such an attraction was handled by them or by their coreligionists. The first article Jews and Alien Religious Practices during the Hellenistic Age gives a general survey of how the problem under discussion is documented in Early Judaism. In the time of Antiochus Epiphanes according to 1 and 2 Maccabees there were Jews in the Jewish homeland who willingly participated in the non-Jewish cult demanded by the Syrian king (1 Macc 1:13–15, 41– 43), whereas others took part only because they were forced to do so (2 Macc 6:7, 18). An important role on the Jewish side was played by Jason who was in favour of the hellenization and made High Priest by Antiochus (2 Macc 4 –5). The motivation for religious assimilation is described in general terms in the Maccabees as a striving for prosperity and good relations with the neighbouring peoples (1 Macc 1:11). The counter-reaction of Jews led by Mattathias and his sons who wanted to remain faithful to Jewish tradition is described as fierce (1 Macc 3, 2 Macc 8). Participation in alien rituals is condemned as apostasy (1 Macc 1:52), and violent actions against such participation are justified by reference to biblical prototypes (1 Macc 2:26). The repeated warnings against idolatry in The Epistle of Jeremy may also point to participation in pagan rites. After the demise of the Hasmonean kingdom at least one Jewish leading figure, Herod the Great, in person occasionally took part in non-Jewish religious rituals (Jos. B. J. I 285). At the same time he as King of the Judaea made great efforts to promote Jewish religion. As a religious personality he was very complex. A series of documented cases of both voluntary and compulsory participation in alien cults in the Diaspora also exist. Individuals from Asia Minor, among them the freedman Moschos and a man named Tyrronius Rapon, may have thought that they could participate in alien cults and still remain Jews. The same could be said of two Jews from northern Africa, Dositheos from

Conclusions

193

Egypt and Eleazar son of Jason from Cyrene. Others like the nephew of Philo of Alexandria, Tiberius Julius Alexander, completely distanced themselves from Jewish monotheistic faith and corresponding behaviour (Jos. A.J. XX 100). Moschos seems to express a religious commitment, whereas others, for instance Toubias, known from Josephus (A.J. XII 186–236) and the Zeno papyri, and Pothos from a site near the Bosporus, may merely demonstrate a superficial compliance with non-Jewish religious convention. Through Josephus’ description of the Biblical figure of Zimri (Zambrias, A.J. IV 145–149) we may conceive the motives of those Jews who broke their ties with Judaism in favour of the life-style in the Greco-Roman world. The two articles that follow bear the titles The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria and Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues. According to Philo the true God is forgotten both through the belief in many gods and through the belief in the divinity of the Universe (Ebr. 108–110, Conf. 144, Virt. 212–213). For him the deifying of created things is also typical of those who make images of the gods (Her. 169) or who love wealth and glory and thereby discard the commandment of God (Spec. 1.23–28). Thus idolatry is a complex phenomenon. It is also closely connected with the passions and like these in Philo’s view stem from the lower womanish part of man’s soul (Post. 158–166). Philo views both polytheism and the worship of images as forcefully dangerous phenomena. Those who invent the myths have the intention of making the really existing God to be consigned to oblivion while those who make the images only want to deceive the spectators (Spec. 1.28–29). The ones who make idols out of wealth and glory are prone to similar dangers as the idolaters in the proper sense of the word (Ebr. 54 –59). The punishment of the apostate idolaters should be death (Spec. 1.316). Idolaters who escape the death penalty will be punished in the after life (Praem. 152). Philo and his co-religionists in Alexandria met with idolatry in its different manifestations in several contexts. Well-to-do upper class Jews were in danger of becoming worshippers of wealth and glory (cf. Spec. 1.28). Those who attended the gymnasia e.g. in order to achieve Greek citizenship were easily influenced by pagan ideas through the encyclia. Persons having a public office had to be present at pagan rituals. This also befell those who attended sportive contests or theatrical occasions. Finally mixed marriages between Jews and pagans contained religious dangers (cf Spec. 3.29). All this created fertile soil for compromises with a strict Jewish monotheism. As an interpreter of the Bible in his time and environment Philo made actualizations of different Biblical passages which gave him the opportunity to take a warning stand against idolatry in its various forms. Thus he uses the episode of the golden calf in the desert as an example of Egyptian religion, still in force in his days, and as a manifestation of deifying created things.

194

Conclusions

The latter phenomenon he could to see within many streams of thought (Mos. 2.160–173). Philo further uses the figure of Joseph as an admirer of wealth and glory, i.e. as an example of idolatry in a transferred sense (Somn. 2.11–12, Migr. 158–160). Finally Philo uses the Biblical stories of Jethro and Rachel to describe the dangers of idolatry inherent in encyclical education (Ebr. 33–119). In his way of handling statues, either as concrete phenomena or as elements in figurative speculation, Philo demonstrates his own difficulty to balance between the commitment to his Jewish religious heritage and his fondness for the culture of the Greco-Roman world. He fights for monotheism and aniconic religion against polytheism and worship of images (Decal. 72–74, Mos. 2.205). Philo does not directly evaluate the images of the gods positively except in one case, i.e. when he mentions the statues made by Phidias (Ebr. 88–89). Still he is every now and then able to describe statues in a positive way; in such cases he seems to conceal their religious function (e.g. Legat. 151). For his basic Jewish attitude he occasionally finds support in ideas of Platonic character (Gig. 59). Philo cannot always resist the fascination statues of the gods create in his mind. When he in a non-Jewish manner evaluates them in positive terms, Philo reveals his indebtedness to Platonism (Ebr. 89–90). There exists at this point in his mind a conflict between the Jewish and the Greek ideas which cannot be reconciled. After the three essays on Jewish texts four studies on Paul follow. The first two investigate 1 Cor 10:1–14 and have the following titles: Does Paul Argue against Sacramentalism and Over-Confidence in 1 Cor 10:1–14? and “Do Not Be Idolaters!” (1 Cor 10:7). Both articles criticise the common attempts to see the passage as directed against Corinthian over-confidence, especially if this is seen as based on the effects of the sacraments. According to the argument of the first of these two articles, Paul’s words are better explained as part of a traditional pattern which the apostle uses. This pattern, found in several Old Testament and Jewish texts, notes the apostasy of the people against the beneficent acts of God. In spite of the blissful events, the people acted sinfully, for instance by turning to foreign gods, wherefore they were punished (esp. Ps 78, Exod 32). By referring to this pattern Paul warns the Corinthians not to participate in pagan cults. On the one hand, Paul focusses in his text on the baptism and feeding of the people in the desert, and, on the other, the idolatrous banqueting around the golden calf. These events form prefigurations of the experiences in the present life of the Corinthian community. Paul views this community as an eschatological reality for which the Scriptures have been written (1 Cor 10:11). These realities are Christian baptism and the Lord’s Supper on the beneficial side and pagan cultic practices on the sinister and seductive side.

Conclusions

195

Although the events in the desert are seen as prefigurations of the Christian sacraments, Paul at the same time describes them in a way differentiating them from baptism into Christ and the Lord’s Supper. Just as the fathers were baptized into Moses and received spiritual food and drink, so the Corinthians have become baptized into Christ and have participated in the Lord’s supper. These events have been gifts from God. Now the Corinthians should take warning and not participate in pagan cults, because this in turn would mean apostasy from faith, as in the case of the fathers. Let the man who thinks that he stands in faith (cf. 1 Cor 15:1; 16:13; 2 Cor 1:24) beware lest he should fall (1 Cor 10:12). The focus of the passage is not, according to our view, a warning against over-confidence, which scholars have often read into 1 Cor 10:12. The passage is instead a warning not to participate in idolatrous practices. Paul’s words show the impossibility of at the same time being a member of the Christian community with its sacramental meetings and also a participant in the pagan cults (cf. 1 Cor 10:21). Instead of a warning of over-confident sacramentalism, the main point in Paul’s argument is his injunction to flee idolatry (1 Cor 10:14); this follows like a conclusion immediately after 1 Cor 10:1–13. Starting from the results of the former article and adding some arguments to it, the article on 1 Cor 10:7 analyses the context and function of this verse. The result of this investigation is that the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 10:1–13 uses a Jewish text, a midrash or a homily, as the base for his warnings to people in Corinth, in danger of becoming idolaters through participating in pagan banquets. The injunction not to be idolaters, together with the citation of Exod 32:6 in 1 Cor 10:7, is the most important Pauline addition to the pre-Pauline text. Therefore it can be seen as containing the central idea of the passage. 1 Cor 10:12 is a warning that can be directed towards every believer. In the world of Paul and his communities anyone may be tempted by idolatry. God, however, sides with the faithful (1 Cor 10:13). The next essay has the title Drawing the Line: Paul on Idol Food and Idolatry in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1. Two basic questions are discussed: 1) whether it is necessary to postulate that some Corinthian Christians actually attended pagan cultic gatherings, and 2) how one should solve the apparent contradiction between, on the one hand, 1 Cor 8, where Paul seems to accept participation in pagan cultic gatherings that imply the consummation of sacrificial meat and, on the other hand 1 Cor 10:1–22, where he does not do so. Where does then Paul draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable Christian behaviour concerning the consumption of food offered to idols? The theory that there were Corinthians who participated in meals at either temple restaurants or at ceremonies where pagan sacrificial rites were performed as well, is based upon Paul’s utterance in 1 Cor 8:10 and his

196

Conclusions

warnings against idolatry in 10:1–22, esp. vv. 7, 14 and 21. Paul’s attitude may result from his knowledge of the behaviour of members of the Corinthian community. Nevertheless, it is not logically correct to draw direct conclusions about the situation and the events in Corinth from the conditional clause in 8:10, or from clauses in the imperative in 10:7 and 14, unless other utterances in the texts warrant such conclusions. Although 8:10 may reflect realities in Corinth, no positive conclusion can be drawn concerning them. The sentence points to something which may happen in the future, and therefore could be an expression of Paul’s fears. A warning or a prohibition in advance may be uttered with exactly the same fervour as one formulated after an offence has been committed. Two principal answers to the question concerning what kind of attendance Paul postulates are given in modern exegetical discussion: either that Paul thinks of temple restaurants outside the temples proper, or that he only theoretically accepts the idea of a Christian legitimate right to attend cultic meals in temple precincts. Both solutions have serious weaknesses, however, and should therefore be abandoned. In 1 Cor 5:1–5 Paul takes up a case of a person to be given to Satan as judged by Paul because of a sexual offence. He urges the Corinthians not to tolerate sexual offenders as members of the community (v. 2). Persons who have become idolaters should be treated likewise (1 Cor 5: 10–11). In 1 Cor 6:9–10 Paul states that no idolater will possess the Kingdom of God. If Paul had viewed the Corinthian situation assuming that idolatry had actually occurred, he would have argued in a different way than in 1 Cor 8–10. Instead of presenting the obligation to abstain from eating sacrificial food and shun idolatry he would have urged the Corinthians to exclude the idolaters from the congregation. Following this reasoning, the first question asked above, whether it is necessary to postulate that Paul in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 reacts against actual attendance by Corinthian Christians at banquets in temple precincts, should be answered in the negative. My stand now differs from my previous view. The answer to the second question, how should one solve the apparent contradiction between, 1 Cor 8: 1–13 and 1 Cor 10:1–22, depends on the answer to another question: what is the main issue in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1? In trying to define that issue it is essential to take Paul’s initial words seriously: περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων (8:1). Paul not only starts with the problem of sacrificial food, but also takes up precisely this question at the end of his treatment (10:25–31) and refers to it several times in between (8:4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13; 10:7, 19, 21). The meaning of εἰδωλόθυτα should therefore not be restricted to sacrificial food partaken in the idol temple. The meaning is broader. Idol meat may be sold in the market and offered at a private meal. Thus the legitimate right which Paul mentions in 1 Cor 8:9 is to consume idol food, but

Conclusions

197

not at banquets in temple precincts (1 Cor 10:14 –22). Paul, however, allows the enjoyment of such a legitimate right only under a certain condition. Those who have knowledge should not eat if they may thereby become a stumbling block to those who have a weak conscience (1 Cor 8:9). Paul is thus chiefly concerned with the question of how a Christian should behave when confronted with food offered to idols. He introduces the theme of participation in idolatrous cultic activities in order to show why the eating of idol food is dangerous. It may lead to idolatry. Paul’s reason could be the Corinthians’ wish to know how to cope with idol food. At the end of the passage Paul constructs a situation in which the eating of such food may indeed be harmless but also unacceptable, i.e. when a Christian is a guest at a banquet served by an unbeliever (1 Cor 10:27–30). The preceding text, from 1 Cor. 8:1 onwards, can be seen as a preparation for Paul’s instruction on how to behave in such a situation. Instead of seeing 1 Cor 10:25–31 as an appendix to a discussion of a more serious question – attendance of Christians at banquets in temple precincts – we have interpreted these verses as an integral part of the whole treatment of the question of food offered to the idols. In short, Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1 runs as follows: Food offered to idols, while harmless as such, is dangerous because it may draw the consumer into idolatry. When such a risk exists the Christian should abstain from idol food. So, where does Paul draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable Christian behaviour concerning the consumption of food offered to idols? At a minimum, all such banquets in temple precincts where food offered to idols is consumed, in Paul’s judgement, appear to be prohibited for Christians. The line is thus not drawn between the altar and less dangerous areas but around the whole temple precinct. But, a Christian should also beware of other occasions at which the eating of sacrificial food could lead to idolatry, e.g. at a banquet in a home of a pagan friend. Even here a line should be drawn in order to shun idolatry. Paul does not adduce other examples. He probably allows scope for imagination and further reflection among the Corinthians. But, he also gives some criteria, the first of which is: “… whether you eat or drink, or whatever you are doing, do all for the honour of God” (1 Cor 10:31). The text investigated in the next essay (Does Paul Warn the Corinthians Not to Eat Demons?) is 1 Cor 10:14 –22. The basic problem discussed here is the meaning of the concept κοινωνία, and the implications of the expressions κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ and κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων. The text is often understood as Paul’s theological interpretation of the presence of the body and blood of the Lord in bread and wine when Eucharist is celebrated. An understanding that Paul thinks of a consummation of the body and blood of Christ as analogous to an eat-

198

Conclusions

ing of demons (theophagy) is found unacceptable on both philological and historical grounds. An alternative interpretation is favoured. In order to arrive at his rejection of Christian participation at pagan sacrificial meals from the general admonition to flee idolatry (1 Cor 10:14), Paul describes the participants at the Christian communal meal, the sacrificial meal in the Israelite temple and the meals around the table of demons, i.e. the pagan gods, as communities. He does not want the Christians, who are a community of the blood and body of Christ to become a community of demon-worship. Therefore they cannot drink the cup of demons and have a share in their table. The Christian identity is at stake here. But Paul does not introduce the concept of theophagy and he does not warn the Corinthians against eating demons. The articles on Philo and Paul are wound up by an essay, Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison. Both Philo and Paul faced the problem of how a Jew or a Christian should behave in relation to alien religions and their adherents. The factual situations in Alexandria and Corinth differed from another in many respects. Still both authors have very similar attitudes towards the worship of alien gods. Both see them and their images as shadows, which still have an impact upon their devotees (Post. 165, Praem. 25, Spec. 1.28; 1 Cor 8:4 –5). In this respect Paul, in contrast to Philo, understands the idols as (evil) demons (1 Cor 10:20). Both authors combine polytheism and idolatry with the passions and give similar explanations for the rise of this phenomenon (Post. 158–164; Rom 1: 21–26). Despite their condemnation of polytheism and idolatry, Philo and Paul still accept that their co-religionists have social contacts with unbelievers. Philo accepts Jewish attendance at clubs with a Gentile religious atmosphere (Ebr. 20–21). Paul does not object to an invitation to a meal given at an unbeliever’s home (1 Cor 10:27). But both authors reject participation in alien cultic activities, Paul very directly (1 Cor 10:14 –22), Philo more indirectly by seeing polytheistic dangers in club-meetings (Ebr. 20–21, 95). Paul follows suit regarding dinners at which meat offered to the gods is served (1 Cor 10:28). Both Philo and Paul use Biblical narratives in order to warn their readers of alien religion and its effects. Both authors looked upon the apostates around the golden calf, for instance, as warning examples to their contemporary co-believers (Mos 2.167–172, 1 Cor 10:7–8). Both Philo and Paul see the conversion of outsiders to their own system of belief as an abandonment of alien gods (Virt. 102, 1 Thess 1:9). Both believe that apostasy to polytheism and idolatry will result in damnation (Praem. 152, Gal 5:19–21). But both authors also see God as a rescuer for people who are in danger of becoming involved in alien cult (Spec. 1:28–30, Praem. 25, 1 Cor 10:13).

Conclusions

199

In his way of handling what he sees as idolatry, Paul no doubt is an heir of the same Jewish tradition which Philo represents. The article named The Jesus-Tradition and Idolatry starts with the following statement: “The low profile towards non-Jewish religion in our Gospels stands in contrast to the New Testament writings which precede them, i.e. the letters of Paul, or those which come after them, e.g. Acts and The Revelation of John. In his confrontation with non-Jews and in his prophecies about the share of the peoples in the Kingdom of God Jesus seems to be indifferent towards non-Jewish religion, in contradistinction to many New Testament writers and also many Jewish contemporaries, …” There have, however, been attempts to discover a reference to the imperial cult implying idolatry in the story in which Jesus asks his adversaries whose image it is that they see on a coin, receiving the answer: “Caesar’s” (Mark 12:13–17 par.). Jesus’ answer “Give to Caesar what is Caesar‹s and to God what is God’s” could be understood in the following way: “Do not give Caesar more than he has the right to ask for. If he demands worship and not only taxes, you should not give him something, which belongs to God alone.” Thus Jesus would warn against a lapse into idolatry. Such an interpretation does not withstand scrutiny, however. One can nevertheless maintain that the Jesus of the canonical Gospels does hint at idolatry. The basic way of touching on the theme is by allusion to or citation of Old Testament passages. This technique is applied in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, whereas the Gospel of Luke seems very reluctant in this respect, despite the explicit descriptions of idolatry in Acts. If we compare Mark and Matthew, however, the latter weakens Mark’s reference to the uniqueness of God in Mark 12:29 by omitting the citation of Isa 45:21 in Mark 12:32. The immediate context of this verse in the Hebrew Bible strongly takes a stand against wooden idols and gods that cannot save. Matthew for his part, instead of polemicising against pagan religion, puts the adversaries of Jesus in the same category as the Old Testament idolaters (compare Matt 12:38– 42, 16:1– 4 with Hos 3:1 LXX). The second line in the Lord’s Prayer “Hallowed be Thy Name” probably refers to the prophet Ezekiel, where God promises to hallow his name that has been profaned by the Israelites, for instance, by turning to idolatry (Ezek 36). The underlying meaning may be that idolatry also could be a temptation for Christians, which therefore also adds an aspect to the prayer “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”. Why is the theme of idolatry so peripheral in the synoptic Gospels? It could be the proneness to take the Roman authorities into account which explains this feature. Provoking hostile feelings towards those who held the real power in the Empire was not in accordance with the interests of the earliest Christian authors. A tendency to create a favourable view of the

200

Conclusions

Imperial power can be seen in the treatment of the figure of Pilate. He is not blamed for the death of Jesus, but rather the Jewish leaders. In the literary work of Luke, Pilate is even one in a row of Roman officials that have a sympathetic attitude towards Jesus and the Christian movement. Pilate is not denounced as an idolater. Nor is Roman Imperial cult explicitly denounced, as we can see from the story about the census coin. One could ask if the monotheistic views of Vespasian could have contributed to this rather positive view of the Romans. With Domitian, who promoted deification of the living Emperor and perhaps started prosecutions of Christians, things took another turn. This may be reflected in the way the Gospel of John describes Pilate as a rather sinister figure. In the Gospel of John, Jesus calls his Father “the only true God” (John 17:3, cf. 5:44 and 1 John 5:20), which could also be a protest against Imperial religious policy. The last article in this collection is Attraction and Danger of Alien Religion in the Revelation of John. In the Apocalypse one can observe confrontations between the believers addressed by the author of the book and religious groups who are fully or partly outside these circles. The churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia thus have problems with people who claim to be Jews. The church of Smyrna is “slandered” by these persons. Their claim of being Jews is refuted, however. In reality they are not Jews, they are denounced as liars, they are Satan’s synagogue (Rev 2:9, 3:9). In Rev 3:8 it is stated that the Philadelphians “have not denied” the name of Him, who in the letter to them is called “the Holy One, the True One, who holds the key of David”, i.e. Jesus the Messiah (cf. Rev 11:15, 12:10). It is possible that the “false” Jews have done precisely that. If so, the slanderers are probably Jews by descent or affiliation, not Christians of some sort. In a different way some of the churches addressed in the seven letters by John are threatened by those within the communities who “hold to the teaching of Balaam” in Pergamum and by the adherents of Jezebel in Thyatira (Rev 2:14, 20–22). In Rev 2:15 they are probably identified with the Nicolaitans who are also mentioned in the letter to Ephesus (Rev 2:1–7, esp. v. 6). By these the members are misled to eat meat sacrificed to idols and to commit adultery, the latter probably meaning participation in Hellenistic cult. Thus the letters to Pergamum and Thyatira reveal a problem similar to that in Paul’s Corinth (1 Cor 8:1–11:1). The letters menace the idolaters with severe impending punishments (Rev 2:16, 22 f.). The church members are praised for their perseverance (2: 2 f., 19) but on the other hand are also admonished to be attentive (2:7, 17, 29), to repent (2:5) and to “hold fast” what they have (2:25). Those who are victorious will be abundantly rewarded (2:7, 17, 26). The attitude of John therefore does not differ from that of Paul, who denounces idolatry and its practitioners (e.g. 1 Cor 5:10, 11; 6:9; 10:7, 14) and who according to our

Conclusions

201

view does not accept participation in banquets linked with pagan rituals, not even in a case when such a link was established at a dinner in a private home (1 Cor 10:20 f., 28). The woman called Jezebel is highlighted in the letter to Thyatira. She calls herself prophetess which probably shows that she had an important role in the church of Thyatira. The designation prophetess may signal that she competes with John who is exhorted to prophesy in Rev (10:11, cf. 22:9). No doubt the name by which the woman is called refers to Queen Jezebel of Israel in 1–2 Kings. According to the Biblical account she, assisted by her husband, killed the prophets of the Lord (1 Kgs 18:3, 13, 19:1 f.). Thus the Israelite queen is closely associated with religion alien to the worship of Yahweh, which probably explains why the prophetess in Thyatira is called by the same name, i.e. the name is used in a fictive and polemical way in Rev 2:20. The letter to Pergamum which is said to be the place where “Satan has his throne” (Rev 2:13) also mentions a case of martyrdom. In that city where “Satan lives” a certain Antipas, a “faithful witness” of Christ, is said to have been killed. The circumstances are not made explicit, but the community receives credit for not having renounced the faith in Christ even in the days of Antipas (2:13), which probably means that the latter has met his fate as a result of his perseverance. That could have meant a refusal to participate in the idolatrous activities of the Nicolaitans. This is not stated directly, however, but there may be a connection to Rev 13, especially verse 15. In the Revelation of John there exists a further threat which resembles the idolatry referred to in the letters to Ephesus, Pergamum and Thyatira. The inhabitants of the world are said to worship a beast “out of the sea” (Rev 13:1, 12). The worship of the beast is initiated by another beast “coming out of the earth”, who makes an image of the first beast, i.e. an object of adoration (13:15, cf. 14:9, 19:20). In a Jewish and Christian context an adoration of an image can scarcely mean anything but alien cult of some kind, a phenomenon which would be named idolatry by e.g. Paul (1 Cor 10:14), the attendants of which would be called idolaters by him and the author of the Revelation (1 Cor 1:7, Rev 21:8, 22:15) In spite of the difficulties to interpret the Revelation of John, especially chapters 11, 13 and 17, there are geographic and historical details in the text which suggest that the author has in mind concrete contemporary events in time and space, although an exact determination of what is meant is uncertain. John may therefore see the beasts he mentions in Rev 13 as both transhistorical and historical, or, perhaps, trans-historical powers manifesting themselves within time and space. An interpretation of Rev 13, which views the chapter as a description of the Roman empire with its emperors and imperial cult, seems the most reasonable one. When John speaks e.g. of the seven kings in ch. 17, concerning one of them he says that he is (v. 10), i.e.

202

Conclusions

he was seen as alive when the text of Revelation was written. This fact motivates an interpretation which is commonly called zeitgeschichtlich among New Testament scholars. Within this article it is of minor importance to determine with exactness which emperor the author of the Revelation of John has in mind in Rev 13, 17 or other passages where there seem to be references to a ruler of the Roman Empire. At the end of the article the threads are drawn together by a discussion on the internal references between the chapters 2, 13 and 17, all dealing with the phenomenon of idolatry. Presupposing that Imperial cult is implied in the words about the worship of the beast from the sea and its image (13: 4, 14), it is asked whether there is any connection with the idolatry implied in the letters to Ephesus, Pergamum and Thyatira. In addition to the idea that idolatry probably is implied in the idea of adultery both in the case of Jezebel of Thyathira (Rev 2:20) and the whore Babylon (17:1–2), it is possible to find other connections of a more indirect kind. The letter to Pergamum mentions the death of Antipas, the witness of Christ. Why was he killed (ἀπεκτάνθῃ Rev 2:13)? Although no reason for that violent death is given in Revelation, one could surmise that it happened because Antipas did not follow the behaviour of the Nicolaitans, i.e. he did not participate in idolatrous rituals. The same verb ἀποκτείνω is used in Rev 13:15 for those who would be killed because of their refusal to worship the image of the beast (cf. 13:10 b). It was therefore conjectured that Antipas was killed in Pergamum because he refused to honour the emperor by participating in a ritual within the Imperial cult. Its rituals comprised banquets which are implied in the criticism of eating meat offered to the idols in the letters to Pergamum and Thyatira. The standpoint taken receives support from similarities in the admonitory vocabulary of Revelation. Therefore alien religion, especially the Imperial cult, is considered both as an attraction and as a danger in the Book of Revelation. Although no direct statements are made in Revelation concerning the motive for some church members to participate in religious rituals of the society surrounding them, such a motive may just have been a wish to adjust to the surrounding society. They may have also been eager to show loyalty towards the Roman authorities. In the Revelation of John members of Jewish synagogues were also seen as a danger for the churches in Smyrna and Philadelphia because of their slander, but there does not exist any clear connection between this diffuse threat and the one emanating from Hellenistic religion and the imperial cult. As a general conclusion we may say that there were strong voices in both Early Judaism and Early Christianity warning against and forbidding participation in alien cultic practises. Nevertheless there were individuals who did not listen to such warnings and prohibitions, but were drawn into activities understood as idolatry by their critics.

Bibliography Ådna, Jostein & Hans Kvalbein (eds.) 2000 The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Albertz, Rainer 1994 A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy, London: SCM Press. Albertz, Rainer & Bob Becking (eds.) 2003 Yahwism after the Exile : Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, Assen: Van Gorcum. Alexandre, Monique 1967 a De congressu eruditionis gratia : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 16), Paris: Éditions du Cerf. 1967 b “La culture profane chez Philon”, in: Philon d’Alexandrie, Lyon 1967, 105–129. Anderson, H. 1985 “3 Maccabees (First Century B. C.), A New Translation and Introduction”, in: Charlesworth 1985, 509–529. Applebaum, Shim’on 1974 a “The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora”, in: Safrai/ Stern 1974, 420– 463. 1974 b “The Organisation of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora”, in: Safrai/ Stern 1974, 464 –507. 1976 “The Social and Economic Status of the Jews in the Diaspora”, in: Safrai/ Stern 1976, 701–727. 1979 Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene, (SJLA 28), Leiden: Brill. Aristides, Aelius: see Behr. Aristotle: see Tredennik. Arnaldez, Roger 1961 Introduction générale. De opificio mundi : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 1), Paris: Éditions du Cerf.

204 1972

Bibliography

De posteritate Caini : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 6), Paris: Éditions du Cerf.

Arnaldez, Roger et al. 1967 De vita Mosis I–II : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 22), Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Arnim, Hans von 1964 Stoicorum veterum fragmenta collegit Ioannes ab Arnim, vol. I, Zeno et Zenonis discipuli, vol. II, Chrysippi fragmenta, logica et physica, Stutgardiae: B. G. Teubneri. Attridge, Harold W. 1978 “The Philosophical Critique of Religion under the Early Empire”, in: Temporini /Haase 1978, 45–78. Aune, David Edward 1997 Revelation 1–5, (WBC 52A), Dallas, TX: Word Books. 1998 a Revelation 6–16, (WBC 52B), Nashville, TX: Thomas Nelson. 1998 b Revelation 17–22, (WBC 52C), Nashville, TX: Thomas Nelson. 2006 a “Apocalypse Renewed: An Intertextual Reading of the Apocalypse of John”, in: Barr 2006, 43–70. 2006 b Apocalypticism, Prophecy and Magic in early Christianity : Collected Essays, (WUNT 199), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Babbitt, Frank Cole 1928 Plutarch’s Moralia. 2, 86 B – 171 F with an English Translation, (LCL 222), London: Heinemann. 1936 Plutarch’s Moralia. 5, 351 C – 438 E with an English Translation, (LCL 306), London: Heinemann. Baer, Richard A. 1970 Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female, Leiden: Brill. Bandstra, Andrew J. 1971 “Interpretation in 1 Corinthians 10:1–11”, Calvin Theological Journal 6, 5–21. Barclay, John M. G. 1996 Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – ​ 117 CE), Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Barker, Margaret 2000 The Revelation of Jesus Christ : Which God Gave to Him to Show to His Servants What Must Soon Take Place (Revelation 1.1), Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Bibliography

205

Baron, Salo Wittmayer 1958 A Social and Religious History of the Jews, vol. 1, To the Beginning of the Christian Era, vol. 2, Christian Era: The First Five Centuries. 2. ed., 3. pr., rev. and enl., New York: Columbia University Press. Barr, David L. (ed.) 2006 The Reality of Apocalypse : Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation, (SBL Symposium Series 39), Leiden – Boston: Brill. Barraclough, Ray 1984 “Philo’s Politics : Roman Rule and Hellenistic Judaism”, in: Temporini / Haase 1984 a, 417–553. Barrett, C. K. (Charles Kingsley) 1968 A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, (BNTC), London: A. & C. Black. Bassler, Jouette M. 1985 “Philo on Joseph : The Basic Coherence of De Josepho and De Somniis ii”, JSJ 16, 240–255. Bauckham, Richard 1993 The Climax of Prophecy : Studies on the Book of Revelation, Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Baumert, Norbert 2003 Koinonein und Metechein – synonym? : Eine umfassende semantische Untersuchung, (Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge 51), Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. 2007 Sorgen des Seelsorgers : Übersetzung und Auslegung des ersten Korintherbriefes, (Paulus neu gelesen), Würzburg: Echter. Beagley, Alan James 1987 The ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Apocalypse with Particular Reference to the Role of the Church’s Enemies, (ZNW, Beihefte 50), Berlin: de Gruyter. Beale, Gregory K. 1999 The Book of Revelation : A Commentary on the Greek text, (NIGTC), Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Beasley-Murray, George R. 1981 The Book of Revelation : Based on the Revised Standard Version, (NCBC), Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Beckaert, A. 1961 De praemis et poenis, de exsecrationibus : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 27), Paris: Éditions du Cerf.

206

Bibliography

Becking, Bob 1999 “Continuity and Discontinuity after the Exile: Some Introductory Remarks”, in: Becking/ Korpel 1999, 1–8. Becking, Bob & Marjo C. A. Korpel (eds.) 1999 The Crisis of Israelite Religion : Transformations of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times, (Oudtestamentische studiën 42), Leiden: Brill. Behr, C. A. 1973 Aristides in Four Volumes, vol. 1, Panathenaic Orations and In Defence of Oratory, Text and Translation, (LCL 458), London: Heinemann. Bekken, Per Jarle 2007 The Word is Near You : A study of Deuteronomy 30:12–14 in Paul’s Letter to the Romans in a Jewish Context, (ZNW, Beihefte 144), Berlin – New York: de Gruyter. Bell, Harold Idris 1953 Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt, New York: Philosophical Library. Bengtson, Hermann 1979 Die Flavier: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian : Geschichte eines römischen Kaiserhauses, München: Beck’sche Sonderausgaben. The Bible in English KJV The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments Translated Out of the Original Tongues : and With the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised, by His Majesty’s Special Command : Appointed to Be Read in Churches, Authorized King James version. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. NEB The New English Bible With the Apocrypha, Oxford: Oxford University Press, London: Cambridge University Press, 1970. NIV The Holy Bible : New International Version. New York: New York International Bible Society, 1978. Bickerman, Elias 1979 The God of the Maccabees : Studies in the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, (SJLA 32), Leiden: Brill. Biguzzi, G. 2006 “Is the Babylon of Revelation Rome or Jerusalem?”, Biblica 87, 371–386.

Bibliography

207

Blanchetière, François 1974 “Juifs et non Juifs: Essai sur la diaspora en Asie-Mineure”, RHPhR 54, 367–382. 1984 “Le Juif et l’autre: la diaspora asiate”, in: Kuntzmann / Schlosser 1984, 41–59. Böcher, Otto 1980 Die Johannesapokalypse, (Erträge der Forschung 41), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Boeckhius, Augustus 1977 Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, vol. II, Hildesheim  – New York: G. Olms. Bookidis, Nancy & J. E. Fisher 1972 “The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth : Preliminary Report IV: 1969–1970”, Hesperia 41, 283–331. 1974 “The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth : Preliminary Report V: 1971–73”, Hesperia 43, 267–307. Bookidis, Nancy & Ronald S. Stroud 1987 Demeter and Persephone in Ancient Corinth, Princeton, N. J.: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Borgen, Peder 1965 Bread from Heaven : An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo, Leiden: Brill. 1984 “Philo of Alexandria : A Critical and Synthetical Survey of Research since World War II”, in: Temporini/Haase 1984 a, 98–154. 1987 Philo, John, and Paul : New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity, (Brown Judaic Studies 131), Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. 1995 “ ‘ Yes,’ ‘No,’ ‘How Far?’: The Participation of Jews and Christians in Pagan Cults”, in: Engberg-Pedersen 1995, 30–59. 1996 “Emperor Worship and Persecution in Philo’s In Flaccum and De Legatione ad Gaium and the Revelation of John”, in: H. Lichtenberger (ed.), Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion. Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Band III Frühes Christentum,Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996, 493–509. Borgen, Peder, Kåre Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten 2000 The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria, Grand Rapids etc.: Eerdmans – Leiden etc.: Brill. Boring, M. Eugene 1989 Revelation, (Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), Louisville: J. Knox.

208

Bibliography

Bornemann, Eduard 1978 Griechische Grammatik unter Mitwirkung von Ernst Risch. 2. Aufl., Frankfurt: Diesterweg. Bornkamm, Günther 1956 “Herrenmahl und Kirche bei Paulus”, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 53, 312–349. Bosetti, Elena & Angelo Colacrai (eds.) 2005 Apokalypsis : Percorsi nell’Apocalisse di Giovanni in onore di Ugo Vanni, Presentazione di Carlo M. Martini, (Commenti e Studi Biblici), Assisi: Cittadella Editrice, 2005. Bosman, Philip 2003 Conscience in Philo and Paul : A Conceptual History of the Synoida Word Group, (WUNT, 2. Reihe, 166),Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Bousset, Wilhelm 1906 Die Offenbarung Johannis, (KEK 16), 5. Aufl., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Boxall, Ian 2006 The Revelation of Saint John, (BNTC 18), Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, London – New York: Continuum. Boyancé , P. 1974 “Le Dieu très haut chez Philon”, in: Mélanges d’histoire des religions offerts à Henri-Charles Puech, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1974, 139–149. Braun, Willi 1989 “Were the New Testament Herodians Essenes?: A Critique of an Hypothesis”, RQ 14, 75–88. Bréhier, Émile 1925 Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie, (Ètudes de philosophie médiévale VIII), Paris: Libraire Philosophique J. Vrin. Broer, Ingo 1989 “ ‘Darum: Wer da meint zu stehen, der sehe zu, daß er nicht falle’ : 1 Kor 10, 12 f im Kontext von 1 Kor 10, 1–13”, in: Merklein, Helmut (ed.), Neues Testament und Ethik : Für Rudolf Schnackenburg, Freiburg: Herder, 1989, 299–325. Bruce, Frederick F. 1971 1 and 2 Corinthians, (NCBC), London: Oliphants.

Bibliography

209

Büchsel, Friedrich 1935 “εἴδωλον κτλ.”, in: Kittel et al. 1933–79, Band II, 373–377. Buckler, W. H. & W. M. Calder (eds.) 1939 Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua (MAMA), Vol. VI, Monuments and Documents from Phrygia and Caria, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Burr, Viktor 1955 Tiberius Iulius Alexander (Antiquitas, Reihe 1, Bd, 1), Bonn: Habelt. Bury, G. 1926 Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 11, Laws, Vol. 2: Books VII–XII with an English Translation, (LCL 192), London: Heinemann. Butler E. H. 1922 The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian 4 with an English Translation, (LCL 127), London: Heinemann. Cancik, Hubert & Konrad Hitzl (eds.) 2003 Die Praxis der Herrscherverehrung in Rom und seinen Provinzen, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Carlson, Richard P. 1993 “The Role of Baptism in Paul’s Thought”, Interpretation 47, 255–266. Cary, Earnest 1925 Dio’s Roman History, with an Engl. Transl. on the Basis of the Version of Herbert Baldwin Foster. Vol. 8, [Books LXI–LXX], (LCL 176), London: Heinemann. Cazeaux, Jacques 1965 De migratione Abrahami : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 14), Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Chaniotis, Angelos 2003 “Der Kaiserkult im Osten des römischen Reiches im Kontext der zeitgenössischen Ritualpraxis”, in: Cancik/Hitzl 2003, 3–28. Charles, R. H. (Robert Henry) 1920 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, (ICC 43), vols. 1–2, Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Charlesworth, James H. 1987 “Jewish Interest in Astrology During the Hellenistic and Roman Period”, in: Temporini/Haase 1987 b, 926–950.

210

Bibliography

Charlesworth, James H. (ed.), 1985 The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of lost Judeo-Hellenistic works, London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Chester, Stephen J. 2003 Conversion at Corinth : Perspectives on Conversion in Paul’s Theology and the Corinthian Church, (Studies of the New Testament and its world), London: T & T Clark. Cheung, Alex T. 1999 Idol Food in Corinth : Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Clauss, Manfred 1999 Kaiser und Gott : Herrscherkult im römischen Reich, Stuttgart: Teubner. Clerc, Charly 1915 Les théories relatives au culte des images chez les auteurs grecs du II:me siècle après J.-C., Paris: Unversité de Paris. Cohn, Leopold et al. (eds.) 1962– 64 Die Werke Philos von Alexandria in deutscher Übersetzung, 2. Aufl., Berlin: de Gruyter. Collier, Gary D. 1994 “ ‘That we may not Crave Evil’ : The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians 10, 1–13”, JSNT 55, 55–75. Collins, John 2001 “Cult and Culture : The Limits of Hellenization in Judaea”, in: Collins/ Sterling 2001, 38– 61. Collins, John J. & Gregory E. Sterling (eds.) 2001 Hellenism in the Land of Israel, (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 13), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Colpe, Carsten 2003 Iranier – Aramäer – Hebräer – Hellenen : Iranische Religionen und ihre Westbeziehungen, Einzelstudien und Versuch einer Zusammenschau, (WUNT 154), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Colson, F. H. & G. H. Whitaker (eds.) 1929– 62 Philo in Ten Volumes (and two Supplementary Volumes) : With an English Translation, (LCL 226, 227, 247, 261, 275, 289, 320, 341, 363, 379, 380 I–II), 12 vols., London: Heinemann – New York: Putnam.

Bibliography

211

Conzelmann, Hans 1969 Der erste Brief an die Korinther : Übersetzt und erklärt, 11. Aufl. (KEK 5), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1989 Corinthians : A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch, bibliography and references by James W. Dunkly, edited by George W. MacRae, (Hermeneia Series), Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Cope, Lamar 1990 “First Corinthians 8–10: Continuity or Contradiction?”, in: Hultgren, Arland J. & Barbara Hall (eds.), Christ and His Communities : Essays in Honor of Reginald H. Fuller, (Anglican Theological Review, Suppl. Series 11) Evanston, Ill.: Anglican Theological Review. Courcelle, P. 1975 “Le Typhus, maladie de l’âme d’après Philon et d’après Saint Augustin”, in: Corona gratiarum : Miscellanea patristica, historica et liturgica Eligio Dekkers O. S. B. XII lustra complenti oblata, Brugge: Sint Pietersabdij, 1975, 245–288. Craig, Clarence Tucker 1953 “Corinthians”, in: The Interpreter’s Bible : The Holy Scriptures in the King James and Revised Standard Versions with General Articles and Introduction, Exegesis, Exposition for Each Book of the Bible: in Twelve Volumes, New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1952–1957, vol. 10: Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1953. Daniel, Constantin 1967 “Les ‘Hérodiens’ du Nouveau Testament sont-ils des Esséniens?”, RQ 6, 31–53. Daniel, Suzanne 1975 De Specialibus Legibus I–II : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 24), Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Deaut, Roger Le 1984 “La Septante, un Targum?”, in: Kuntzmann/Schlosser 1984, 147– 95. Delia, Diana 1991 Alexandrian Citizenship During the Roman Principate, (American Classical Studies 23), Atlanta: Scholars Press. Delling, Gerhard 1987 a Die Bewältigung der Diasporasituation durch das hellenistische Judentum, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1987 b “Die Begegnung zwischen Hellenismus und Judentum”, in: Temporini/ Haase 1987 b, 3–39.

212

Bibliography

Delorme, Jean 1960 Gymnasion : Étude sur les monuments consacrés a l’education en Grèce (des origines à l’Empire Romain), Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard. Derrett, J. Duncan M. 1970 Law in the New Testament, London: Darton, Longman & Todd. De Vos, Craig Steven 1999 Church and Community Conflicts : The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with their Wider Civic Communities, (SBL Dissertation Series 168), Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Dibelius, Martin 1959 Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, 3. durchges. Aufl. mit einem Nachtrag von Gerhard Iber hrsg. von Günther Bornkamm, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1959. Dickson, John P. 2003 Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities : the Shape, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission, (WUNT, 2. Reihe, 159), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Dietrich, Walter & Martin A. Klopfenstein (eds.) 1994 Ein Gott allein? : JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte, (Orbis biblicus et orientalis 139), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Dio Cassius: see Cary. Diodorus Siculus: See Stern, Menahem 1998. Dittenberger, Wilhelm (ed.) 1960 Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae : supplementum Sylloges inscriptionum graecarum edidit Wilhelmus Dittenberger. (OGIS), Vol. I–II, (Unveränderter photomechanischer Nachdruck der Auflage Leipzig 1905), Hildesheim: G. Olms. Doran, Robert 2001 “The High Cost of Good Education”, in: Collins/Sterling 2001, 94 –115. Downing, Francis Gerald 1985 “Philo on Wealth and the Rights of the Poor”, JSNT 24, 116–118. Duff, Paul 2006 “The ‘Synagogue of Satan’: Crisis Mongering and the Apocalypse of John”, in: Barr 2006, 147–168.

Bibliography

213

Dunn, James D. G. 1980 Christology in the Making : A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, London: SCM Press. Eckstein, Hans-Joachim 1983 Der Begriff Syneidesis bei Paulus : Eine neutestamentlich-exegetische Untersuchung zum Gewissensbegriff, (WUNT, 2. Reihe, 10), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels (ed.) 1995 Paul in His Hellenistic Context, Minneapolis: Fortress. Engels, Donald W. 1990 Roman Corinth : An Alternative Model for the Classical City, Chicago: University of Chicago. Enroth-Voitila, Anne-Marit 2004 “Whoever Has Ears, Let Him Hear” : The Hearing Formula in Early Christian Writings, Helsinki: Diss. University of Helsinki, Fac. theol. Epictetus: see Oldfather. Eriksson, Anders 1998 Traditions as Rhetorical Proof : Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Farla, Piet 2004 “The Rhetorical Composition of 1 Cor 8, 1–11, 1”, Ephemerides Theologiae Lovaninenses 80, 144 –166. Fee, Gordon D. 1981 “Εἰδωλόθυτα Once Again: An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8–10”, Biblica 61, 172–175. 1987 The First Epistle to the Corinthians, (NICNT 1), Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Feldman, Louis H. 1960 “The Orthodoxy of the Jews in Hellenistic Egypt”, Jewish Social Studies 22, 215–237. 1993 Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World : Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian, Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2000 “Judean Antiquities 1– 4 : Translation and Commentary”, in: Mason, Steve (ed.), Flavius Josephus : Translation and Commentary, vol. 3, Leiden – Boston: Brill. 2002 “How much Hellenism in the Land of Israel”, JSJ 33, 290–313. Feuillet, André 1967 “Les 144.000 Istraélites marqués d’un sceau”, NT IX, 119–224.

214

Bibliography

Finney, Paul C. 1993 “The Rabbi and the Coin Portrait (Mark 12:15 b, 16) : Rigorism Manqué”, JBL 112, 629– 44. Fisk, Bruce N. 1989 “Eating Meat Offered to Idols : Corinthian Behavior and Pauline Response in 1 Corinthians 8–10”, Trinity Journal N. S. 10, 49–70. Flusser, David 1974 “Paganism in Palestine”, in: Safrai /Stern 1974, 1065–1100. Ford, Josephine Massyngberde 1975 Revelation. Introduction, Translation and Commentary, (AB 38), Garden City: Doubleday. Foster, B. O. 1919 Livy in Fourteen Volumes, Books I and II with an English Translation, vol. 1, (LCL 114), London: Heinemann. Foster, S. Stephen 1975 “A Note on the ‘Note’ of J. Schwartz”, SPh 4, 25–32. Fotopoulos, John 2003 Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth : A Social-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1, (WUNT, 2. Reihe, 151), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Franz, Johannes (ed.) 1977 Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum edidit Ioannes Franzius (CIG), vol. III, Hildesheim – New York: G. Olms. Fraser, Peter Marshall 1972 Ptolemaic Alexandria, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fredouille, Jean-Claude 1981 “Götzendienst”, in: Klauser, Theodor et al. (ed.), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum : Sachwörterbuch zur Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt. Bd 11, Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1981, 828–895. Freedman, David Noel et al. (eds.) 1992 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (ABD), vols. 1– 6, New York etc.: Doubleday, 1992. Freudenberger, Rudolf (et al.) 1981 “Christenverfolgungen”, in: Krause, Gerhard and Gerhard Müller (et al.), Theologische Realenzyklopädie 8, Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 1981, 23– 62.

Bibliography

215

Frey, Jean-Baptiste 1936 Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum : Recueil des inscriptions Juives qui vont du IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ au VIIe siècle de notre ère (CIJ), vol. I¹, Europe , (Sussidi allo studio delle antichità cristiane III), Roma: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Christiana. 1952 Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum: Recueil des inscriptions Juives qui vont du IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ au VIIe siècle de notre ère (CIJ), vol. II, Asie  – Afrique, (Sussidi allo studio delle antichità cristiane III), Roma: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Christiana. 1975 Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions : Jewish Inscriptions from the Third Century B. C. to the Seventh Century A. D., (CIJ), vol. I , Europe, Prolegomenon by Baruch Lifshitz, New York: KTAV Publishing House. Friesen, Steven J. 1993 Twice Neokoros : Ephesus, Asia, and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family, (Religions in the Graeco-Roman world,116), Leiden: Brill. 2001 Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John. Reading Revelation in the Ruins, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. 2003 “The Beast from the Land : Revelation 13:1–18 and Social Setting”, in: Barr, David L., (ed.), Reading the Book of Revelation : A Resource for Students, (Resources for Biblical Study 44), Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2003, 49– 64. 2004 “Myth and Symbolic Resistance in Revelation 13”, JBL 123, 281–313. 2005 “Satan’s Throne, Imperial Cults and the Social Settings of Revelation”, JSNT 27, 351–373. 2006 “Sarcasm in Revelation 2–3: Churches, Christians, True Jews, and Satanic Synagogues”, in: Barr 2006, 127–144. Gaca, Kathy L. 1999 “Paul’s Uncommon Declaration in Romans 1:18–32 and Its Problematic Legacy for Pagan and Christian Relations”, HTR 92, 165–198. Garland, David E. 2003 “The Dispute Over Food Sacrifice to Idols (1 Cor 8:1–1:1)”, Perspectives in Religious Studies 30, 173–197. Gärtner, Bertil E. 1967 Markus evangelium, (Tolkning av Nya testamentet 2), Stockholm: Diakoni­ styrelsens bokförlag. Giesen, Heinz 1996 “Das römische Reich im Spiegel der Johannes-Apokalypse”, in: Temporini/Haase 1996, 2501–2614. 2000 Studien zur Johannesapokalypse, (Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände 29), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.

216

Bibliography

Gilmour, S. MacLean 1971 “The Revelation to John”, in: Laymon, Charles M. (ed.), The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, Nashville: Abingdon, 1971, 945– 968. Godley, A. D., 1926 Herodotus in Four Volumes. 1, Books I and II with an English Translation (LCL 117), London: Heinemann. Goldenberg, Robert 1997 “The Septuagint Ban on Cursing the Gods”, JSJ 28, 381–389. 1998 The Nations That Know Thee Not : Ancient Jewish Attitudes Toward Other Religions, New York: New York University Press. Goldstein, Jonathan A. 1977 I Maccabees : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 41), Garden City: Doubleday. 1984 II Maccabees : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 41A), New York etc.: Doubleday, 1984. Gooch, Peter David 1988 Food and the Limits of Community : 1 Corinthians 8 to 10, Diss. typewr., University of Toronto. 1993 Dangerous food : I Corinthians 8–10 in Its Context, (Studies in Christianity and Judaism = Études sur le christianisme et le judaïsme 5), Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Goodenough, Erwin Ramsdell 1935 By Light, Light : The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism, New Haven: Yale University Press – London: Milford, Oxford University Press. 1938 The Politics of Philo Judaeus : Practice and Theory. With a General Bibliography of Philo by Howard L. Goodhart and Erwin R. Goodenough, New Haven: Yale University Press, London: Milford, Oxford University Press. 1953– 68 Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, (Bollingen Series 37), 13 vols., New York: Pantheon Books. 1962 An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 2nd ed., Oxford: Blackwell. Goodwin, William W. 1981 Greek grammar, 3. ed. (Revised by Charles Burton Gulick.), (College Classical Ser.), New Rochelle, N.Y: Caratzas. Gorez, Jean 1963 De Cherubim : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 3), Paris: Éditions du Cerf. 1966 De Abrahamo : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 20), Paris: Éditions du Cerf.

Bibliography

217

Gradl, Hans-Georg 2009 “Ein Verleich zwischen Philos Legatio ad Gaium und der Offenbarung des Johannes”, NTS 56, 116–138. Gressmann, Hugo 1921 “He koin nia t n daimoni n”, ZNW 20, 224 –230. Griffith, Terry 2002 Keep Yourselves from Idols : A New Look at 1 John, (JSNT, Suppl. Series 233), London – New York: Sheffield Academic Press. Groag, Edmund 1917 “Julia Severa”, in: Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, (PW), vol. X, Neue Bearbeitung begonnen von Georg Wissowa, herausgegeben von Wilhelm Kroll, Stuttgart: Metzlersche Buchhandlung, 1917, cols. 946–948 (Nr. 594). Grundmann, Walter 1971 Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, (THNT 1), Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. 1989 Das Evangelium nach Markus, (THNT 2:1), Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Gutmann, Joseph 1961 “The ‘Second Commandment’ and the Image in Judaism”, Hebrew Union College Annual 32, 161–174. Guttenberger, Gudrun 2005 “Johannes von Thyateira : zur Perpektive des Sehers”, in: Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm & Michael Wolter (eds.), Studien zur Johannesoffenbarung und ihrer Auslegung : Festschrift für Otto Böcher zum 70. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005, 160–180. Hachlili, Rachel 1988 Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel, Leiden – New York: Brill. 1998 Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora, Leiden – New York: Brill. Hadas, Moses 1959 Hellenistic Culture : Fusion and Diffusion, New York: Columbia University Press. Hadas-Lebel, Mireille 1973 De providentia I et II : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 35), Paris: Éditions du Cerf.

218

Bibliography

Hainz, Josef 1981 “κοινωνία”, in: Balz, Horst & Gerhard Schneider (eds.), Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Bd 2, EX-O, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1981, 749–755. Harl, Marguerite 1966 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 15), Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Harland, Philip A. 2000 “Honouring the Emperor or Assailing the Beast: Participation in Civic Life among Associations (Jewish, Christian, and Other) in Asia Minor and the Apocalypse of John”, JSNT 77, 99–121. Hartman, Lars 1998 “The Human Desire to Converse with the Divine. Dio of Prusa and Philo of Alexandria on Images of God”, in: Schalk, Peter & Michael Stausberg (eds.), “Being Religious and Living through the Eyes” : Studies in Religious Iconography and Iconology : A Celebratory Publication in Honour of Professor Jan Bergman, (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Historia religionum 14), Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 1998, 163–171. 1999 “The Book of Revelation: a Document for its Time as John Sees it”, in: 1900 ΕΤΗΡΙΣ ΤΗΣ ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΕΩΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ : ΠΡΑΤΙΚΑ ΔΙΕΘΝΟΥΣ ΔΙΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΙΚΟΥ ΣΥΜΠΟΣΙΟΥ (᾽Αθῆναι – Πάτμος, 17–26 Σεπτεμβρίου 1995), ᾽Αθῆναι: ΕΚΔΟΣΙΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΝ ΠΑΤΜΩΙ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΠΑΤΡΙΑΧΙΚΗΣ ΜΟΝΗΣ ΑΓ. ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΟΥ, 1999, 205–215. Hay, David M. 1987 “The Psychology of Faith in Hellenistic Judaism”, in: Temporini/Haase 1987 b, 881–925. Hegermann, Harald 1973 a “Das griechischsprechende Judentum”, in: Maier/Schreiner 1973, 353–369. 1973 b “Philo von Alexandria”, in: Maier/ Schreiner 1973, 353–369. Hemer, Colin J. 2001 The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, (The Biblical Resource Series), Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Hengel, Martin 1973 Judentum und Hellenismus : Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v. Chr., 2. durchges. und erg. Aufl., (WUNT 10), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1996 Judaism and Hellenism : Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, vol. 1: Text, London: XPress Reprints, 1996.

Bibliography

219

Henten, Jan Willem van 2006 “Dragon Myth and Imperial Ideology in Revelation 12–13”, in: Barr 2006, 181–203. 2008 “Balaam in Revelation 2:14”, in: Kooten van/van Ruiten 2008, 247–263. Herms, Ronald 2006 An Apocalypse for the Church and for the World : The Narrative Function of Universal Language in the Book of Revelation, (ZNW, Beihefte 143), Berlin: de Gruyter. Herodotus: see Godley 1926. Hilgert, Earle 1985 “The Dual Image of Joseph in Hebrew and Early Jewish Literature”, Biblical Research 30, 5–21. Hirschberg, Peter 1999 Das eschatologische Israel : Untersuchungen zum Gottesverständnis der Johannesoffenbarung, (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 84), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Holladay, Carl R. 1995 Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors: Aristobulus, (Texts and Translations 39), Atlanta: Scholars Press. Horbury, William & David Noy 1992 Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt : With an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horrell, David G. 1997 “Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8.1–11.1”, JSNT 67, 83–114. Horsley, G. H. R. 1981 New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity : A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1976, North Ryde, N. S. W.: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University. Horsley, Richard A. 1978 “Consciousness and Freedom among the Corinthians : 1 Corinthians 8–10”, CBQ 40, 574 –589. 1981 “Gnosis in Corinth : 1 Corinthians 8. 1– 6”, NTS 27, 32–51. 1998 1 Corinthians, (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), Nashville: Abingdon Press.

220

Bibliography

Horst, Pieter W. van der 1993 “ ‘Thou shalt not Revile the Gods’ : The LXX Translation of Ex. 22:28 (27), its Background and Influence”, SPhA 5, 1–8. Hurd, John C. 1965 The Origin of 1 Corinthians, London: S. P. C. K. Irenaeus: see Rousseau. Jacobson, Howard 1996 A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum : With Latin Text and English Translation, (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 31), vols. 1–2, Leiden: Brill. Jaeger, Werner Wilhelm 1957 Aristotelis Metaphysica : Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit W. Jaeger. Oxonii: Clarendon. Janowski, Bernd & Matthias Köckert (eds.) 1999 Religionsgeschichte Israels : Formale und materiale Aspekte, Gütersloh: Kaiser. Jeremias, Joachim 1971 Neutestamentliche Theologie I : Die Verkündigung, Jesu, Gütersloh: Mohn. Jeske, Richard J. 1980 “The Rock was Christ: The Ecclesiology of 1 Cor 10”, in: Lührmann, Dieter & Georg Strecker (eds.), Kirche : Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980, 245–255. Jones, Brian W. 1992 a The Emperor Domitian, London – New York: Routledge. 1992 b “Domitian”, in: Freedman 1992, vol. 2, 221–222. Jones, W. H. S. 1918 Pausanias, Description of Greece, Books I and II with an English translation, (LCL 93), London: Heinemann, 1918. Kahn, J. G. 1963 De confusione linguarum : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 13), Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Kant, Laurence H. 1987 “Jewish Inscriptions in Greek and Latin”, in: Temporini/Haase 1987 b, 671–713.

Bibliography

221

Käsemann, Ernst 1948 “Anliegen und Eigenart der paulinischen Abendmahlslehre”, Evangelische Theologie 7, 1947/48, 263–283. Reprinted in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, Erster Band, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960, 11–34. Kasher, Aryeh 1985 The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt : The Struggle for Equal Rights. Rev. English ed., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kee, Alistair 1985 “The Imperial Cult: the Unmasking of an Ideology”, The Scottish Journal of Religious Studies 6, 112–128. Kittel, Gerhard et al. (eds.) 1933–79 Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Band I–X, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Klauck, Hans-Josef 1982 Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult : Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten Korintherbrief, 2. durchgesehene Aufl. mit einem Nachtrag, Münster: Aschendorff. 1987 1. Korintherbrief, (NEchB, Neues Testament 7,1), Würzburg: Echter. 1992 “Das Sendschreiben nach Pergamon und der Kaiserkult in der Johanesoffenbarung”, Biblica 73, 153–182. 2001 “Do They Never Come Back? Nero Redivivus and the Apocalypse of John”, CBQ 64, 682– 693. Klemm, Hans G. 1982 “De Censu Caesaris : Beobachtungen zu J. Duncan Derretts Interpretation der Perikope Mk 12:13–17 Par”, NT 24, 234 –254. Klostermann, Erich 1926 Das Markusevangelium, erklärt, 2. völlig neubearb. Aufl., (HNT 3), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Knox, Wilfred L. 1937 “Pharisaism and Hellenism”, in: Loewe, H. (ed.), Judaism and Christianity, vol. II: The Contact of Pharisaism with Other Cultures, Essays, London: Sheldon Press – New York: Macmillan Company, 1937, 61–111. 1948 Review of Wolfson 1948, Journal of Theological Studies 49, 210–214. Koch, Dietrich-Alex 1999 “»Alles, was ἐν μακέλλῳ verkauft wird, eßt …« : Die macella von Pompeji, Gerasa und Korinth und ihre Bedeutung für die Auslegung von 1 Kor 10,25”, ZNW 90, 194 –219.

222

Bibliography

Koester, Helmut 1965 “ΓΝΩΜΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΟΙ”, HTR 58, 279–318. Kokkinos, Nikos 1998 The Herodian Dynasty : Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse, (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Suppl. Series 30), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Series. Kooten, George H. van 2007 “The Year of the Four Emperors and the Revelation of John: The ‘proNeronian’ Emperors Otho and Vitellius, and the Images and Colossus of Nero in Rome”, JSNT 30, 205–248. Kooten, George H. van & Jacques van Ruiten (eds.) 2008 The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam, (Themes in Biblical Narrative 11), Leiden – Boston: Brill. Kovacs, David 2002 Euripides, Bacchae; Iphigenia at Aulis; Rhesus, edited and translated, (LCL 495), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Kraabel, A. Thomas 1981 “Social Systems of Six Diaspora Synagogues”, in: Gutmann, Joseph (ed.), Ancient Synagogues : The State of Research, Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981, 79–91. 1983 “The Synagogue and the Jewish Community : Impact of the Discovery of the Sardis Synagogue”, in: Hanfmann, George M. A. et al. (eds.), Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times : Results of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, 1958–1975, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983, 178–190. 1987 “Unity and Diversity among Diaspora Synagogues”, in: Levine, Lee I. (ed.), The Synagogue in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia, Pa.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987, 49– 60. Kraft, Heinrich 1974 Die Offenbarung des Johannes, (HNT 16 a), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kraus Reggiani, Clara 1986 Filone di Alessandria, L’uomo e Dio : Il connubio con gli studi preliminari, La fuga e il ritrovamento etc. Introduzione, traduzione, prefazione, note e appariti, Milano: Rusconi. Kraybill, J. Nelson 1996 Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse, (JSNT, Suppl. Series 132), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Bibliography

223

Kümmel, Werner Georg 1983 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 21. erneut ergänzte Auflage, Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Kuntzmann, Raymond & Jacques Schlosser (eds.) 1984 Études sur le Judaïsme hellénistique : Congrés de Strasbourg (1983), (Lectio Divina 119), Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Lactantius: see Monat. Lampe, Peter 2003 “Die dämonologischen Implikationen von I Korinther 8 und 10 vor dem Hintergrund Paganer Zeugnisse”, in: Lange, Armin et. al. (eds.), Die Dämonen : die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003, 584 –599. Lampe, Peter & Ulrich Luz “Nachpaulinisches Christentum und pagane Gesellschaft”, in: Becker, Jürgen et al., Die Anfänge des Christentums : Alte Welt und neue Hoffnung, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1987, 185–216. Lane, William L. 1974 The Gospel According to Mark : The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, (NICNT 2), Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Lang, Friedrich 1986 Die Briefe an die Korinther : Übersetzt und erklärt, (NTD 7), 16. Aufl. (1. Aufl. dieser neuen Bearbeitung), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Levine, Baruch A. 2000 Numbers 21–36 : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, (AB 4A), New York etc.: Doubleday. Levine, Lee I. 2000 The Ancient Synagogue : The First Thousand Years, New Haven – London: Yale University Press. Liddell, Henry George & Robert Scott 1996 A Greek-English Lexicon with a Revised Supplement, Revised and Augmented Throughout by Henry Stuart Jones with the Assistance of Roderick McKenzie, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lietzmann, Hans 1969 An die Korinther I, II : Erklärt, erg. von Werner Georg Kümmel, 5., durch einen Literaturnachtrag erw. Aufl., (HNT 9), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

224

Bibliography

Lifshitz, Baruch: see Frey 1975. Lindeskog, Gösta 1986 Das jüdisch-christliche Problem : Randglossen zu einer Forschungsepoche, (Karl-Johan Illman & Nils Martola eds.), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Livy: see Foster. Lohmeyer, Ernst 1953 Die Offenbarung des Johannes, (HNT 16), 2., erg. Aufl., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Lohse, Eduard 1960 Die Offenbarung des Johannes (NTD 11), 8. Aufl. (1. Aufl. der neuen Bearb.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. López, Javier 1998 La figura de la bestia entre historia y profecía : Investigación teológicobíblica de Apocalipsis 13,1–18, (Tesi Gregoriana, Seria Teologia 39), Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana. 2005 “La bestia dell’Apocalisse nell’esegesi moderna”, in: Bosetti/Colacrai 2005, 443– 458. Lüderitz, Gert 1983 Corpus jüdischer Zeugnisse aus der Cyrenaica mit einem Anhang von Joyce M. Reynolds, (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr. 53), Wiesbaden: Reichert. Lupieri, Edmondo F. 2006 A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John. Translated by Maria Poggi Johnson and Adam Kamesar, (Italian Texts & Studies on Religion & Society), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Mack, Burton Lee 1973 Logos und Sophia : Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie im hellenistischen Judentum, (SUNT 10), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Maier, Johann & Josef Schreiner (eds.) 1973 Literatur und Religion des Frühjudentums : Eine Einführung, (Mit Beiträgen von Günther Baumbach et al.), Würzburg: Echter. Malina, Bruce J. & John. J. Pilch 2006 Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul, Minneapolis: Fortress. Marlowe, John 1971 The Golden Age of Alexandria : From its Foundation by Alexander the Great in 331 BC to its Capture by the Arabs in 642 AD, London: Gollancz.

Bibliography

225

Marrou, Henri Irénée 1948 Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité, Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Mayo, Philip L. 2006 “Those who call themselves Jews” : The Church and Judaism in the Apocalypse of John, (Princeton Theological Monograph Series), Eugene: Pickwick. McDowell, Edward A. 1951 The Meaning and Message of the Book of Revelation, Nashville: Broadman. Mealand, David L. 1978 “Philo of Alexandria’s Attitude to Riches”, ZNW 69, 258–264. 1985 “The Paradox of Philo’s Views on Wealth”, JSNT 24, 111–115. Méasson, Anita 1966 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 4), Paris, Éditions du Cerf. 1986 Du char ailé de Zeus à l’Arche d’Alliance : Images et mythes platoniciens chez Philon d’Alexandrie, Paris: Études augustiniennes. Meeks, Wayne A. 1982 “ ‘And rose up to play’: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22”, JSNT 16, 64 –78. 1983 The First Urban Christians : The Social World of the Apostle Paul, New Haven: Yale University Press. Mendelson, Alan 1974 “Reappraisal of Wolfson’s Method”, SPh 3, 1974 –75, 11–26. 1982 Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria, Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. 1988 Philo’s Jewish Identity, Atlanta: Scholars Press. Merklein, Helmut 1984 “Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes”, ZNW 75, 153–183. 2000 Der erste Brief an die Korinther : 2, Kapitel 5.1–11.1, (ÖTNT 7/2), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus – Würzburg: Echter. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. 1995 No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Metzger, Bruce M. 1971 A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament : A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, (3 d ed.), London – New York: United Bible Societies.

226

Bibliography

Michel, Otto 1938 “κυνάριον”, in: Kittel et al. 1933–79, Band III, 1103–1104. Millar, Fergus: see Schürer 1973–1987. Mitchell, Margaret M. 1991 Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation : An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians, (Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 28), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Mitteis, Ludwig & Ulrich Wilcken 1912 Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, 1. Band. Historischer Teil. 1. Hälfte: Grundzüge, von U.Wilcken, 2. Hälfte: Chrestomathie, von U. Wilcken, Leipzig – Berlin: Teubner. Monat, Pierre 1987 Lactance : Institutions divines. Livre 2, Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes, (SC 337), Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Mondésert, C. 1962 Legum Allegoriae I–III : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 2), Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Moore, Carey A. 1977 Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 44), Garden City: Doubleday. Moore, Clifford H. 1925 Tacitus, with an Engl. Translation, The Histories : Books I–III, (LCL 111), London: Heinemann. Moulton, James H. 1908–76 A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3, Turner, Nigel, Syntax, Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Mounce, Robert H. 1988 The Book of Revelation, (NICNT 18), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Müller, Ulrich B. 1984 Die Offenbarung des Johannes (ÖTNT 19), Gütersloh: Mohn. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome 1983 St. Paul’s Corinth : Texts and Archaeology, Introduction by John H. Elliott, (Goodnews Studies 6), Wilmington: Glazier. 1990 “The First Letter to the Corinthians”, in: Brown, Raymond E. et al. (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, London: Chapman, 798–815.

Bibliography

227

Neusner, Jacob 1979 The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew, Third Division: Nashim (The Order of Women), New York: KTAV. 1984 “Judaism and the Scripture : The Case of Leviticus Rabbah”, Biblical Theology Bulletin, 14, 90–109. Newton, Derek 1998 Deity and Diet : The Dilemma of Sacrificial Food at Corinth, (JSNT, Suppl. Series 169), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1984 “Stories of Biblical and Post-Biblical Times”, in: Stone, Michael E. (ed.), The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, vol. 2 : Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period : Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran sectarian writings, Philo, Josephus, Assen: Van Gorcum, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984, 33–87. Niederwimmer, Kurt 1966 Der Begriff der Freiheit im Neuen Testament, Berlin: Töpelmann. Niehoff, Maren R. 1998 “Philo’s Views of Paganism”, in: Stanton, Graham N. & Guy G. Stroumsa. (eds.) Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, 135–158. Niehr, Herbert 2003 “The Changed Status of the Dead in Jehud”, in Albertz /Becking 2003, 136–155. Nikiprowetzky, Valentin 1965 De Decalogo : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 23), Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Nilsson, Martin P. 1955 a Die hellenistiche Schule, München: Beck, 1955. 1955 b Geschichte der griechischen Religion, Bd. 2, 2., durchgesehene und ergänzte Aufl., München: Beck, 1955. North, Christopher R. 1958 “The Essence of Idolatry”, in: Hempel, Johannes & Leonhard Rost (eds.), Von Ugarit nach Qumran : Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Forschung : Otto Eissfeldt zum 1. September 1957 dargebracht von Freunden und Schülern, hrsg. in Zusammenarbeit mit W. F. Albright … [et al.], Berlin: Töpelmann, 1958, 151–160.

228

Bibliography

Oldfather, W. A. 1928 Epictetus : The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, the Manual, and Fragments with an English Translation, vol 2, Discourses, Books III and IV, the Manual, and Fragments, (LCL 218), London: Heinemann. Orr, William F. & James Arthur Walther 1976 Corinthians : A New Translation; Introduction, with a Study of the Life of Paul, Notes, and Commentary (AB 32), Garden City: Doubleday. Osborne, Grant R. 2002 Revelation, (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids: Baker. Oster, Richard E. Jr. 1992 “Use, Misuse and Neglect of Archaeological Evidence in Some Modern Works on 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 7,1–5; 8,10; 11,2–16; 12,14 –26)”, ZNW 83, 52–73. Pagels, Elaine H. 2006 “The Social History of Satan, Part Three : John of Patmos and Ignatius of Antioch: Contrasting Visions of ‘God’s People’ ”, HTR 99, 487–505. Pakkala, Juha 1999 Intolerant Monolatry in the Deuteronomistic History, (PFES 76), Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Pasetti, E. E. 1982 “I temi di Abrahamo ‘peregrinus’ e ‘advena’ (Gen XII. 1–3; 9–10): alla ricercha di una traditione esegetica antica”, Studi e ricerche sull’oriente cristiano 5, 13– 46, 103–124, 141–155. Paton, W. R. 1922 Polybius, The Histories in Six Volumes with an English Translation, vol. 1, (LCL 128), London: Heinemann. Paul, A. 1984 “Les pseudépigraphes juifs de langue grecque”, in: Kuntzmann/Schlosser 1984, 71–94. Pausanias: see Jones. Pearson, Birger A. 1986 “Earliest Christianity in Egypt : some Observations”, in: Pearson, Birger A. & James E. Goehring (eds.), The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986, 132–159. Pease, Arthur Stanley 1979 M. Tulli Ciceronis De natura deorum 1–2, New York: Arno Press.

Bibliography

229

Pelletier, André 1965 “Les passions à l’assaut de l’âme d’après Philon”, REG 78, 52– 60. 1967 In Flaccum : Introduction, traduction et notes, (PAPM 31), Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Penna, Romano 2005 “Il caso degli ‘idolotiti’ : Un test sulla sorte del christianesimo da Paolo all’Apocalisse”, in: Bosetti/Colacrai 2005, 225–244. Pezzoli-Olgiati, Daria 2002 “Between Fascination and Destruction : Considerations of the Power of the Beast in Rev 13:1–10”, in: Labahn Michael & Jürgen Zangenberg (eds.), Zwischen den Reichen : Neues Testament und römische Herrschaft : Vorträge auf der Ersten Konferenz der European Association for Biblical Studies, (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 36), Tübingen: Francke, 2002, 229–237. Pfitzner, Victor C. 1967 Paul and the Agon Motif : Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature, (Suppl. NT 16), Leiden: Brill. Philo: see Colson. Philon d’Alexandrie, Lyon, 11–15 septembre 1966, Colloques nationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1967. Philostratus: see Stern, Menahem 1998. Phua, Richard Liong-Seng 2005 Idolatry and Authority : A Study of 1 Corinthians 8.1–11.1 in the Light of the Jewish Diaspora, London: T & T Clark. Plato: see Bury (Laws) and Shorey (Republic) Pliny: see Radice, Betty. Plutarch: see Babbitt, Sandbach. Pohlenz, Max 1978 Die Stoa : Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Polybius: see Paton. Premerstein, Anton Ritter von 1924 –39 Alexandrinische Geronten vor Kaiser Gaius : Ein neues Bruchstück der sogenannten Alexandrinischen Märtyrer-Akten, (P. bibl. Univ. Giss. 46),

230

Bibliography

(Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Giessener Universitätsbibliothek 5), Giessen: Töpelmann. Price, S. R. F. 1984 Rituals and Power : the Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prigent, Pierre 1981 L’apocalypse de Saint Jean, (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament, Sér. 2; 14), Lausanne: Delachaux & Niestlé. Probst, Hermann 1991 Paulus und der Brief : die Rhetorik des antiken Briefes als Form der paulinischen Korintherkorrespondenz (1 Kor 1–10), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Pseudo-Philo: see Jacobson 1996. Quintilian: see Butler. Radice, Betty 1969 Pliny with an English Transation : Letters and panegyricus, vol. 2, Letters, Books VIII–X, Panegyricus, (LCL 59), London: Heinemann. Räisänen, Heikki 1986 The Torah and Christ : Essays in German and English on the Problem of the Law in Early Christianity = Deutsche und Englische Aufsätze zur Gesetzesproblematik im Urchristentum, edited by Anne-Marit Enroth, (PFES 45), Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society. 1995 a “Coexistence and Conflict: Early Christian Attitudes to Adherents of Traditional Cults”, Temenos 31, 163–180. 1995 b “The Nicolaitans: Apoc. 2; Acta 6”, in: Temporini/Haase 1995, 1602–1644. Ramsay, William Mitchell 1897 The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia : Being an Essay of the Local History of Phrygia from the Earliest Times to the Turkish Conquest, vol. I, part II, West and West-Central Phrygia, Oxford: Clarendon. Reynolds, Joyce: see Lüderitz 1983. Reynolds, Joyce & Robert Tannenbaum 1987 Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias : Greek Inscriptions with Commentary, Cambridge: The Cambridge Philological Society. Richardson, Peter 1996 Herod : King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Bibliography

231

Riemer, Ulrike 1998 Das Tier auf dem Kaiserthron? : eine Untersuchung zur Offenbarung des Johannes als historischer Quelle, (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 114), Stuttgart: Teubner. 2000 “Domitian  – (k)ein Christenverfolger?”, Zeitschrift für Religions‑ und Geistesgeschichte, 52, 57–80. Riesner, Rainer 2000 “A Pre-Christian Jewish Mission?”, in: Ådna/Kvalbein 2000, 211–250. Riley, Greg J. 1999 “Devil”, in: van der Toorn et al. 1999, 244 –249. Ringgren, Helmer 1963 Israelitische Religion, (Die Religionen der Menschheit 26), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Ritt, Hubert 1988 Offenbarung des Johannes, (NEchB 21), Würzburg: Echter. Robert, Jeanne & Louis Robert 1956 “Bulletin Épigraphique”, REG 69, 104 –191. Robert, Louis 1937 “Un Corpus des Inscriptions Juives”, Revue des Études Juives 101, 73–86. Robertson, Archibald and Alfred Plummer 1911 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, (ICC 33), Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Robinson, John A. T. 1976 Redating the New Testament, Philadelphia: Westminster. Rojas-Flores, Gonzalo 2004 “The Book of Revelation and the first Years of Nero’s Reign”, Biblica 85, 375–392. Rolfe, J. C. 1914 Suetonius in Two Volumes, with an English Translation, vol. 1, (LCL 31), London : Heinemann, 1964, vol. 2, (LCL 38), London: Heinemann. Roloff, Jürgen 1984 Die Offenbarung des Johannes, (Zürcher Bibelkommentare, Neues Testament, 18), Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Rosner, Brian S. 2007 Greed as Idolatry : The Origin and Meaning of a Pauline Metaphor, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

232

Bibliography

Roth, Wolfgang M. W. 1975 “ ‘For Life, He Appeals to Death’ (Wis 13:18) : A Study of Old Testament Idol Parodies”, CBQ 37, 21– 47. Rousseau, Adelin et. al. 1969 Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies. Livre 5, T. 2, Texte et traduction, (SC 153), Paris: Cerf, 1969. Runesson, Anders 2001 The Origins of the Synagogue : A Socio-Historical Study, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Runia, Douwe (David) T. 1983 Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, Kampen: VU Boekhandel. 2000 Philo of Alexandria : An Annotated Bibliography 1987–1996 with Addenda for 1977–1996; with the assistance of H. M. Keizer and in Collaboration with the International Philo Bibliography Project, (Suppl. VChr 57), Leiden – Boston: Brill. 2012 Philo of Alexandria: An Annotated Bibliography 1997–2006 with Addenda for 1937–1986; in Collaboration with the International Philo Bibliography Project, (Suppl. VChr 109), Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2012. Rutgers, Leonard Victor 1998 The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism, (CBET 20), Leuven: Peeters. Ruiten, Jaqcues T. A. G. M. 2008 “The Rewriting of Numbers 22–24 in Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum”, in: Kooten, van/ van Ruiten 2008, 101–130. Ruyt, Claire de 1983 Macellum : Marché alimentaire des Romains (préface de Joseph Mertens), (Publications d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie de l’Université catholique de Louvain 35), Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut supérieur d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art, Collège Érasme. Saez Gonzalvez, Ramon 1994 El problema de las carnes inmoladas a los idolos y las soluciones propuestas (1 Cor. 8,1.4.7.10; 10,19; Act. 15.29; 21,25; Apoc. 2,14.20). : Un estudio teológico – bíblico sobre la unidad y la diversidad en el Nuevo Testamento, Roma: Diss. Ad Doct. in Fac. Theol. Pont. Univ. Gregorianae. Safrai, Shmuel & Menahem Stern (et al., eds.) 1974 The Jewish People in the First Century : Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, vol. 1, Assen/ Amsterdam: Van Gorcum. 1976 The Jewish People in the First Century : Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, vol. 2, Assen/ Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.

Bibliography

233

Sals, Ulrike 2004 Die Biographie der “Hure Babylon” : Studien zur Intertextualität der Babylon-Texte in der Bibel, (Forschungen zum Alten Testament. 2. Reihe, 6), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sandbach, F. H. 1961 Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes with an English Translation by Lionel Pearson, F. H. Sandbach, vol. 9, (LCL 425), London: Heinemann  – Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. Sandelin, Karl-Gustav 1976 Die Auseinandersetzung mit der Weisheit in 1. Korinther 15, (Meddelanden från Stiftelsens för Åbo Akademi forskningsinstitut 12), Åbo: Åbo Akademi. 1977 “Zwei kurze Studien zum hellenistischen Judentum”, Studia Theologica 31, 149–152. 1987 Wisdom as Nourisher : A Study of an Old Testament Theme, Its Development within Early Judaism and Its Impact on Early Christianity, (Acta Academiae Aboensis. Ser. A., vol. 64, nr. 3), Åbo: Åbo Akademi. 1989 “Dragning till hednisk kult bland judar under hellenistisk tid och tidig kejsartid”, Nordisk Judaistik 10, 27–38. 1990 “Gemenskap med Kristi kropp : Realpresens hos Paulus?”, Teologinen Aikakauskirja – Teologisk Tidskrift 95, 378–386. 1991 “The Danger of Idolatry according to Philo of Alexandria”, Temenos 27, 109–150. 1995 a “Does Paul Argue Against Sacramentalism and Over-Confidence in 1 Cor 10, 1–14?”, in: Borgen, Peder & Søren Giversen (eds.), The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1995, 165–182. 1995 b “ ‘Do Not Be Idolaters!’ (1 Cor 10:7)”, in: Fornberg, Tord & David Hellholm (eds.), Texts and Contexts : Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts : Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995, 257–273. 1996 “The Jesus-Tradition and Idolatry”, NTS 42, 412– 420. 2000 “Götzendienst, II Neues Testament”, in: Betz, Hans Dieter et al. (eds.), Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart : Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, Band 3, F-H, 4. völlig neu bearb. Aufl. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, 1236–1237. 2001 “Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues”, in: Runia, David T. & Gregory E.Sterling (eds.), In the Spirit of Faith : Studies in Philo and Early Christianity in Honor of David Hay (SPhA 13), Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 122–138. 2003 “Drawing the Line: Paul on Idol Food and Idolatry in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1”, in: Aune, David E. et al. (eds.), Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen, (Suppl. NT 106), Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2003, 108–125. 2005 “Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison”, in: Mustakallio, Antti et al. (eds.), Lux Humana, Lux Aeterna : Essays on Biblical and Related Themes in Honour of Lars Aejmelaeus, (PFES 89), Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society – Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005, 211–246.

234 2006

2009

Bibliography

“Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age ”, in: Neusner, Jacob et al. (eds.), Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Perspective : Essays in Memory of Karl-Johan Illman, (Studies in Judaism), Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2006, 365–392. “Warnt Paulus die Korinther davor, Dämonen zu essen?”, in: Kügler, Joachim & Ulrike Bechmann (eds.), Biblische Religionskritik : Kritik in, an und mit biblischen Texten  – Beiträge des IBS 2007 in Vierzehnheiligen, bayreuther forum TRANSIT, Kulturwissenschaftliche Religionsstudien herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Joachim Kügler (Universität Bayreuth) et al. Band 9, Berlin: LIT Verlag Dr. W. Hopf, 2009, 200–213.

Sandnes, Karl Olav 2002 Belly and Body in the Pauline Epistles, (SNTS Monograph Series 120), Cambridge, UK – New York: Cambridge University Press. Sandmel, Samuel 1971 Philo’s Place in Judaism : A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature, Augm. ed., New York: KTAV. Schäfer, Peter 2003 The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World, London – New York: Routledge. Schaller, Berndt 2001 “1 Kor 10,1–10(13) und die jüdischen Voraussetzungen der Schriftauslegun des Paulus”, in: Schaller, Berndt, Fundamenta Judaica : Studien zum antiken Judentum und zum Neuen Testament, herausgegeben von Lutz Doering und Annette Steudel, (SUNT 25), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001, 168–190. Schenk, Wolfgang 1990 “Korintherbriefe”, in: Müller, Gerhard et al. (eds.), Theologische Real­enzy­ klopädie 19, Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 620– 640. Scherrer, Steven J. 1984 “Signs and Wonders in the Imperial Cult. A New Look at Roman Religious Instistution in the Light of Rev 13: 13–15”, JBL 103, 599– 610. Schlier, Heinrich 1935 “ἐλεύθερος κτλ.”, in: Kittel et al. 1933–79, Band II, 1935, 284 –288. Schmidt, T. E. 1983 “Hostility to Wealth in Philo of Alexandria”, JSNT 19, 85–97. Schmithals, Walter 1969 Die Gnosis in Korinth, Eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen, 3., bearbeitete und ergänzte Auflage, (FRLANT, neue Folge 48), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bibliography

235

Schmitt, Rüdiger 2003 “Gab es einen Bildersturm nach dem Exil? Einige Bemerkungen zur Verwendung von Terrakottafigurinen im nachexilischen Israel”, in: Albertz/ Becking 2003, 186–198. Schnackenburg, Rudolf 1985 Matthäusevangelium 1,1–16,20, (NEchB 1/1), Würzburg: Echter. 1987 Matthäusevangelium 16,21–28,20, (NEchB 1/2), Würzburg: Echter. Schrage, Wolfgang 1995 Der erste Brief an die Korinther : Teilbd 2, 1 Kor 6,12–11,16, (Evangelischkatholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 7:2), Köln: Benziger. Schroer, Silvia 1987 In Israel gab es Bilder : Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament, Freiburg (Schweiz): Universitätsverlag – Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schubart, Wilhelm, 1918 Einführung in die Papyruskunde, Berlin: Weidmann. Schürer, Emil 1973–87 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ : A New English Version, vols. I–III.1, III.2, Revised and Edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black, Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth 1973 “Apocalyptic and Gnosis in the book of Revelation”, JBL 92, 565–581. 1985 The Book of Revelation : Justice and Judgement, Philadelphia: Fortress. 1988 “1 Corinthians”, in: Mays, James L. (ed.), Harper’s Bible Commentary, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988, 1168–1189. 1993 Revelation : Vision of a Just World, Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 2006 “Babylon the Great: A Rhetorical-Political Reading of Revelation 17–18”, in: Barr 2006, 243–269. Schwartz, Jacques 1967 “L’Egypte de Philon”, in: Philon d’Alexandrie, Lyon 1967, 35– 44. 1984 “La communauté d’Edfou (Haute-Égypte) jusqu’a la fin du règne de Trajan : Reflexions sur les Juifs dans le plat-pays égyptien”, in: Kuntzmann/ Schlosser 1984, 61–70. Schwartz, Jacques et al. 1963– Papyrus grecs de la Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg, fasc. 2, Nos 301 à 500, Strasbourg: Publications de la Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg.

236

Bibliography

Schweizer, Eduard 1986 Das Evangelium nach Matthäus : Übersetzt und erklärt, 16. durchgesehene Aufl. (4. Aufl. dieser Bearbeitung), (NTD 2), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schwyzer, Eduard 1950 Griechische Grammatik : Auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechisher Grammatik, 2. Bd, Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik, vervollständigt und herausgegeben von Albert Debrunner, (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. Abt. 2; T. 1, Bd 2), München: Beck. Seland, Torrey 1990 Jewish Vigilantism in the First Century C. E. : A Study of Selected Texts in Philo and Luke on Jewish Vigilante Reactions Against Nonconformers to the Torah, Diss. Univ. of Trondheim. 1996 “Philo and the Clubs and Associations in Alexandria”, in: Kloppenborg, John S. & Stephen G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the GraecoRoman World, London – New York: Routledge, 1996. Sellin, Gerhard 1986 Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung von 1. Korinther 15, (FRLANT 138), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1987 “Hauptprobleme des Ersten Korintherbriefes”, in: Temporini / Haase 1987 c, 2940–3044. Sevenster, Jan N. 1975 The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World, Leiden: Brill. Shorey, Paul 1956 Plato in Twelve Volumes, vol. 6, The Republic in Two Volumes, vol. 2: Books VI–X with an English translation, (LCL 276), London: Heinemann. Simon, Marcel 1967 “Situation du judaïsme alexandrin dans la diaspora”, in: Philon d’Alexandrie, Lyon 1967, 17–31. 1976 “Jupiter-Yahvé : Sur un essai de théologie pagano-juive”, Numen 23, 40– 66. Slater, Thomas B. 1998 “The Social Setting of the Revelation to John”, NTS 44, 232–256. Smallwood., E. Mary 1970 Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium : Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary, 2nd ed., Leiden: Brill. 1976 The Jews under Roman Rule : from Pompey to Diocletian, Leiden: Brill.

Bibliography

237

Smit, Joop F. M. 2000 “About the Idol Offerings” : Rhetoric, Social Context, and Theology of Paul’s Discourse in First Corinthians 8:1–11:1, (CBET 27), Leuven – Sterling, Va.: Peeters. Soden, Hans von 1951 “Sakrament und Ethik bei Paulus : Zur Frage der literarischen und theologischen Einheitlichkeit von 1Kor. 8–10”, in: Campenhausen, Hans von (ed.), Urchristentum und Geschichte : Gesammelte Aufsätze und Vorträge I, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951, 239–275. Söding, Thomas 1994 “Starke und Schwache: Der Götzenopferstreit in 1Kor 8–10 als Paradigma paulinischer Ethik”, ZNW 85, 69–92. Speigl, Jakob 1970 Der römische Staat und die Christen, Amsterdam: Hakkert. Spengel, Leonard 1854 Rhetores graeci ex recognitione L. Spengel, vol. II, Lipsiae: Teubner. Stambaugh, John E. 1978 “The Function of the Roman Temples”, in: Temporini / Haase 1978, 554 – 607. Starobinski-Safran, Esther 1970 De fuga et inventione : Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire, (PAPM 17), Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Stauffer, Ethelbert 1952 Christus und die Caesaren : Historische Skizzen, 3., durchgesehene und erw. Aufl., Hamburg: Wittig. Stern, Ephraim 1983 Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 B. C., Warminster: Aris & Phillips – Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1992 “Archaeology of Palestine, Persian Period”, in: Freedman 1992, vol. 5, 114 –116. 1999 “Religion in Palestine in the Assyrian and Persian Periods”, in: Becking / Korpel 1999, 245–255. Stern, Ephraim et al. (eds.) 1993 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vols. 1– 4, New York etc.: Simon & Schuster. Stern, Menahem 1974 “The Jewish Diaspora”, in: Safrai/Stern 1974, 117–183.

238 1998

Bibliography

Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism : Edited with Introductions, Translations and Commentary, vols. 1–2, Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Still, E. Coye 2002 “Paul’s Aims Regarding ΕΙΔΩΛΟΘΥΤΑ : A New Proposal for Interpreting 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1”, NT XLIV, 333–343. Strack, Hermann L. & Paul Billerbeck 1922– 61 Kommentar zum Neuen Testament : Aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 volumes, München: Beck. Suetonius: see Rolfe. Süss, Jürgen 2003 “Kaiserkult und Urbanistik : Kultbezirke für römische Kaiser in kleinasiatischen Städte”, in: Cancik/Hitzl 2003, 249–281. Tacitus: see Moore 1925. Taeger, Jens-W. 2006 Johanneische Perspektiven : Aufsätze zur Johannesapokalypse und zum johanneischen Kreis 1984 –2003, (Bienert, David C. & Dietrich-Alex Koch eds.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Tannehill, Robert C. 1984 “Types and Functions of Apophthegms in the Synoptic Gospels”, in: Temporini/Haase 1984 b, 1792–1829. Tarn, William W. 1952 Hellenistic Civilisation, 3rd ed., Rev. by the Author and G. T. Griffith, London: Arnold. Tatum, W. Barnes 1986 “The LXX Version of the Second Commandment (Ex. 20,3– 6 = Deut. 5,7–10) : A Polemic against Idols, not Images”, JSJ 17, 177–195. Taubenschlag, Rafał 1955 The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 B. C.-640 A. D., 2nd ed., rev. and enl., Warszawa: Pa stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Tcherikover,Victor A. 1982 Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, New York: Atheneum. Tcherikover, Victor A. (ed.) 1957– 64 Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (CPJ ), Vols. 1–3, Vol. 1 Edited in Collaboration with Alexander Fuks, Vol. 2 Edited by V. A. Tcherikover and

Bibliography

239

A. Fuks, Vol. 3 edited by V. A. Tcherikover, A. Fuks, and Menahem Stern, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Temporini, Hildegard & Wolfgang Haase (eds.) Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt : Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (A. N. R. W.), II: Principat, Berlin: de Gruyter. 1979 Band 7, 1. Halbbd.: Politische Geschichte. 1978 Band 16, 1. Teilbd.: Religion (Heidentum: Römische Religion, Allgemeines). 1984 a Band 21, 1. Halbbd.: Religion (Hellenistisches Judentum in römischer Zeit: Philon und Josephus). 1984 b Band 25, 2. Teilbd.: Religion (Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Leben und Umwelt Jesu; Neues Testament [Kanonisache Schriften und Apokryphen]). 1987 a Band 20, 1. Halbbd.: Religion (Hellenistisches Judentum in römischer Zeit, ausgenommen Philon und Josephus). 1987 b Band 20, 2. Halbbd.: Religion (Hellenistisches Judentum in römischer Zeit, ausgenommen Philon und Josephus). 1987 c Band 25, 4. Teilbd., Religion (Vorkonstantinisches Christentum : Leben und Umwelt Jesu; Neues Testament [Kanonisache Schriften und Apokryphen]). 1995 Band 26, 2. Teilbd., Religion (Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament [Sachthemen]). 1996 Band 26, 3. Teilbd., Religion (Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament [Sachthemen]). Terian, Abraham 1981 Philonis Alexandrini De animalibus : The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. 1984 “A Critical Introduction to Philo’s Dialogues”, in: Temporini / Haase 1984 a, 272–294. Thiselton, Anthony C. 2000 The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text, (NIGTC), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Thompson, Leonard L. 1990 The Book of Revelation. Apocalypse and Empire, New York: Oxford University Press. Tobin, Thomas H. 1983 The Creation of Man : Philo and the History of Interpretation, Washington D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America. 1986 “Tradition and Interpretation in Philo’s Portrait of Patriarch Joseph”, in: Richards, Kent Harold (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Series : One Hundred Twenty-Second Annual Meeting November 22–25,

240

Bibliography

1986, Atlanta, Georgia (SBL Seminar Papers Series 25), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986, 271–277. Toorn, Karel van der et al. (eds.) 1999 Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD), 2nd ed., Leiden etc.: Brill. Tóth, Franz 2006 Der himmlische Kult : Wirklichkeitskonstruktion und Sinnbildung in der Johannesoffenbarung, (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 22), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Trebilco, Paul 1992 Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, (SNTS Monograph Series 69), Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. Tredennick, Hugh & G. Cyril Armstrong 1935 Aristotle, The Metaphysics, X–XIV; Oeconomica; Magna moralia with an English Translation, (LCL 287), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Trocmé, Ètienne 1999 “La Jezabel de Thyatire (Apoc. 2/20–24)”, RHPhR 79, 51–55. Turner, E. G. 1974 “Tiberius Iulius Alexander”, Journal of Roman Studies 44, 54 – 64. Turner, Nigel: See Moulton 1908–76. Unnik, Willem Cornelis van 1974 “Josephus’ Account of the Story of Israel’s Sin with Alien Women in the Country of Midian (Num. 25:1 ff.)”, in: Heerma van Voss, M. S. H. G., et al. (eds.), Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Presented to Professor M. A. Beek, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974, 241–261. Vanni, Ugo 1993 “L’opera creativa nell’Apocalisse”, Rassegna di Teologia XXXIV, 17– 61. Vaux, Roland de 1965 Ancient Israel : Its Life and Institutions, London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Walter, Nikolaus 1979 “Christusglaube und heidnische Religiosität in paulinischen Gemeinden”, NTS 25, 422– 442. 2002 “Nikolaos, Proselyt aus Antiochien, und die Nikolaiten in Ephesus und Pergamon : Ein Beitrag zum Thema: Paulus und Ephesus”, ZNW 93, 200– 226.

Bibliography

241

Wander, Bernd 1998 Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten, (WUNT 104), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Water, Rick van de 2000 “Reconsidering the Beast from the Sea (Rev. 13.1)”, NTS 46. Watson, Duane F. 1992 “Devil”, in: Freedman 1992, vol. 2, 183–184. Wedderburn, Alexander J. M. 1987 Baptism and Resurrection : Studies in Pauline Theology Against its GraecoRoman Background, (WUNT 44), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wegner, Judith R. 1982 “The Image of Woman in Philo”, SBL Seminar Papers 1982, 551–563. Weimar, Peter 1973 “Formen fühjüdischer Literatur : Eine Skizze”, in: Maier/Schreiner 1973, 123–162. Weinfeld, Moshe 1972 Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford: Clarendon. Weiß, Johannes 1910 Der erste Korintherbrief : Völlig neu bearbeitet, 9. Aufl. (KEK 5), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wendland, Heinz-Dietrich 1978 Die Briefe an die Korinther, (NTD 7) 14. Aufl., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wilcken, Ulrich: see Mitteis. Willert, Niels 1989 Pilatus-billedet i den antike jødedom og kristendom, Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Willis, Wendell Lee 1985 Idol Meat in Corinth : The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, (SBL Dissertation Series 68), Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. Winston, David 1974 –75 “Freedom and Determinism in Philo of Alexandria”, SPh 3, 47–70. 1981 a Philo of Alexandria : The contemplative Life, the Giants, and Selections, Translation and Introduction, (Classics of Western spirituality), London: SPCK.

242 1981 b 1998

Bibliography

The Wisdom of Solomon : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, (AB 43), Garden City: Doubleday. “Philo and the Rabbis on Sex and the Body”, Poetics Today 19, 41– 60.

Winter, Bruce 1990 “Theological and Ethical Responses to Religious Pluralism – 1 Corinthians 8–10”, Tyndale Bulletin 41, 209–226. Wiseman, James 1979 “Corinth and Rome I: 228 B. C.–A. D. 267”, in: Temporini/Haase 1979, 438–548. Witherington, Ben, III 2003 Revelation, (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Witschell, Christian 1997 “Domitian”, in: Clauss, Manfred (ed.), Die römischen Kaiser : 55 historische Portraits von Caesar bis Iustinian, München: Beck, 1997, 98–116. Witulski, Thomas 2007 a Kaiserkult in Kleinasien : Die Entwicklung der kultisch-religiösen Kaiserverehrung in der römischen Provinz Asia von Augustus bis Antoninus Pius, (Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus 63), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht – Fribourg: Academic Press. 2007 b Die Johannesoffenbarung und Kaiser Hadrian : Studien zur Datierung der neutestamentlichen Apokalypse, (FRLANT 221), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Wolff, Christian 1982 Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther : Zweiter Teil: Auslegung der Kapitel 8–16, (THNT 7.2), Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Wolfson, Harry Austryn 1948 Philo : Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, vol. I–II, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Woodland, A. G. (ed.) 1984 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG), Vol. XV, Reprint, Amsterdam: Gieben. Worth, Roland H. 1999 The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse and Greco-Asian Culture, New York: Paulist Press. Yarbro Collins, Adela 1984 a Crisis and Catharsis : The Power of the Apocalypse, Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Bibliography

1984 b 1986

243

“ ‘ What the Spirit Says to the Churches’: Preaching the Apocalypse”, Quarterly Review 4, 69–84. “Vilification and Self-Definition in the Book of Revelation”, HTR 79, 308–320.

Zahn, Theodor 1924 Die Offenbarung des Johannes, Erste Hälfte: Kap. 1–5 mit ausführlicher Einleitung, (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 18), Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Dr. W. Scholl.

List of Initial Publication “The Danger of Idolatry according to Philo of Alexandria”, Temenos 27, 1991, 109–150. “Does Paul Argue Against Sacramentalism and Over-Confidence in 1 Cor 10, 1–14?”, in: Borgen, Peder & Søren Giversen (eds.), The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1995, 165–182. “ ‘Do Not Be Idolaters!’ (1 Cor 10:7)”, in: Fornberg, Tord & David Hellholm (eds.), Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995, 257–273. “The Jesus-Tradition and Idolatry”, The New Testament Studies 42, 1996, 412–420. “Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues”, in: Runia, David T. & Gregory E.Sterling (eds.), In the Spirit of Faith: Studies in Philo and Early Christianity in Honor of David Hay (Studia Philonica Annual 13), Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2001, 122–138. “Drawing the Line: Paul on Idol Food and Idolatry in 1 Cor 8:1–11:1”, in: Aune, David E. et al. (eds.), Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen, (Suppl. Novum Testamentum 106), Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2003, 108–125. “Philo and Paul on Alien Religion: A Comparison”, in: Mustakallio, Antti et al. (eds.), Lux Humana, Lux Aeterna: Essays on Biblical and Related Themes in Honour of Lars Aejmelaeus, (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 89), Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society  – Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005, 211–246. “Jews and Alien Religious Practices During the Hellenistic Age ”, in: Neusner, Jacob et al. (eds.), Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Perspective: Essays in Memory of Karl-Johan Illman, (Studies in Judaism), Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2006, 365–392.

Index of References The sign >1 signifies that a reference occurs more than once on a page or in a note.

Old Testament Genesis (Gen) 1:26 f. 69, 70 2:7 69 >1 3:14 f. 68 9:5 141 9:11 68 11:27, 31 31 14:8–12 38 21:9 88 29:23, 27, 28, 30 57 31:35 55 50:7 52 50:25 52 Exodus (Exod) 5:2 12:23 12:38 13:19 13:21–22 14:16 14:19 14:20 14:21–22 14:24 14:29 16:4 16:15 17:2–3 17:1–7 17:3 17:6 18:11

144 86, 100 51 52 79, 99 81 79, 99 80 81, 99 79, 99 81 87, 99 79, 87, 99 100 86 86 79, 99 56

20:4 20:23 22:28 (LXX) 32 32:2 32:6 32:6b 32:17–19 32:20 32:26 32:28 33:7 34:15 34:16

32, 60 32 63 34, 48–50, 89, 90, 98, 102, 139, 153, 155 >1, 194 34, 140 78, 86, 87, 88, 100, 103, 108, 195 154, 156 50 50, 140 152 86 50 31 n. 14 46

Leviticus (Lev) 11:42 18:21 20:3

33 167 167

Numbers (Num) 10:30 11 11:4, 33 11;14;21;25 11:4–6 11:4 11:6 11:31–33 11:33–34

55 155 87, 155 100 100 86 79, 99 86 100

248 11:34 LXX 14:14 14:16 LXX 14:22 14:22–23 14:28–29 14:28–30 14:36–37 15:37–41 16:11–35 20:7–11 20:8 20:8–11 21:4–9 21:16 22–24 22–24 25 25:1 25:1–5 25:1–9 25:1–13 25:6–8 25:6–18 25:9 25:14 26:62 31:8 31:16 33:8

Index of References

86 79, 99 85, 101 92 89, 155 101 85 86 166 86 79 79, 99 99 86 79 153, 154 22 >1 22 >1, 66, 103, 154 >1, 156 87 22, 153, 173 86 39 60 22, 153 86 23 86 22 22, 154 >1 99

Deuteronomy (Deut) 5:8 6:4–9 6:16 LXX 7:3 8:3 LXX 8:15 11:13–21 11:16 13:1–11 13:2–3 13:2–12 LXX 13:3–4 LXX 13:6–9 21:18–21

60 166 87 46 83 83, 99 166 166 22 107 39, 157 107 1, 50, 134 53

23:1 f. 34 23:3 LXX 66 23:17 LXX 18 20, 22 32:4 84 32:7–27 88, 89, 98, 102, 155 32:13 83 32:15 83 32:15a 91 32:17 130 32:17–18 91 32:17–21 142 32:18, 30, 31 84 32:37 84 Judges (Judg) 2:18–3:6

107

1 Kings (1 Kgs) 16:31 ff. 18:3, 13 18:21 19:1 f.

174 174, 201 1 174, 201

Nehemiah (Neh) 9:6–37 9:17, 25

88, 89, 98, 102, 155 91

Psalms (Ps/Pss) 24:1 78 (77 LXX) 77:18 LXX 78:3, 5 78:8 78:11 78:13 78:14 78:16–17 78:18 78:20 78:21–22 78:24 78:26–31 78:29 78:41, 56 78:58

149, 150 86, 88, 89, 98, 102, 103, 155, 194 87 87 87 91 87 87 92 87, 100, 103 87 91 87 87 91 87 87

249

Index of References

95:8–11 89, 90, 98, 102, 155 95:9 92 105:39 79 n. 6 104:39 LXX 79 n. 6 106 (105 LXX) 86, 89, 98, 103, 155 105:39 LXX 87 106:6–7 87 106:7 87, 91 106:9 87 106:13 91 106:14 87, 100, 103 106:15–16 87 106:16–18 87 106:22 87 106:25 100, 103 106:28–31 87 106:36–38 87 115:5–7 139 115:5–8 71 Proverbs (Prov) 1:22 LXX 2:17

86 34 n. 23

Ecclesiastes (Eccl) 8:2

165

Isaiah (Isa) 44:9–20 44:16–17 44:17 44:20 45:21

142 71 71 139 166, 199

Jeremiah (Jer) 10:2 13:25–27 14:7–10 14:10

31 n. 15 103 n.30, 123, 173 89 85, 101

Ezekiel (Ezek) 16 16:15–16 20:39 36 36:18–20 36:23 LXX 36:24

181 103 n. 30, 123, 173 167 166, 199 167 166 167

Daniel (Dan) 7:13 7:17–24 9:15 11:31 12:11

178 178 89 165, 166 165

Hosea (Hos) 2 3:1 LXX 13:4–9 13:6

103 n. 30, 123, 173 167, 199 89, 155 91

Amos 2:6–16

89, 155

New Testament Matthew (Matt) 6:24 7:6 10:6 12:38–42 15:24 16:1–4 18:15–18 21:43

162 n. 5 161 161 167, 199 161 167, 199 161 176

22:7 22:15–22 24:15

166 162 166

Mark 7:14–19 7:27 12:13–17 12:28–34

161 161 162, 199 166

250 12:29 12:32 13:14

Index of References

199 199 166

Luke 11:29 12:15 16:13 20:20–26

167 162 n. 5 162 n. 5 162

John 5:44 17:3

168, 200 168, 200

Acts 7:54 ff. 12:1 ff. 14:15 15:20 15:28–29 15:29 16:14 21:25

171 n. 14 171 n. 14 157 173 n. 23 123 n. 6, 173 n. 24 123, 173 n. 23 174 n. 30 123, 173 n. 23

4:10 5:1–5 5:2 5:9 ff. 5:10 5:10–11 5:11 5:11–13 6:9 6:9–10 6:10 6:12 6:15 6:18 7:2 7:5 7:40 8

8–9 8–10 8:1

Romans (Rom) 1:6 1:18–32 1:21–26 1:23 1:23 ff. 1:23–26 1:23–32 2:29 3:15 4:23–24 6:3 11:17–24 11:20 11:22

157 142 198 133 94 59 157 170 131 104 80, 157 77, 97, 105, 106 106

1 Corinthians (1 Cor) 2:10 3:18 4:4 4:9

175 105 >1 146 136

8:1–13 8:1–11:1

8:2 8:3 8:4 8:4–5 8:4–6 8:5 8:6 8:7 8:8 8:9 8:9–10 8:9–11

95 117, 196 138, 196 151 107, 174, 200 117, 196 138, 174, 200 157 174 , 200 117, 157, 196 162 n. 5 77, 94, 95 >1 77, 94 100 100 107 106 96, 105, 110 >1, 113, 114 >1, 115 >1, 119 >1, 120, 123 n. 6, 136, 137, 138, 146, 147, 148, 148 n. 70, 150 >1, 161, 195 149 150, 196 77, 94, 95 >1, 110, 118 >1, 119, 138, 145, 149, 196, 197 96, 118 n. 39, 196 XIII, 109, 112 >1, 117, 118 >1, 122, 133, 137, 138 >1, 144, 147, 173, 195, 196 >1, 200 145 145 77, 94, 95, 110, 118, 119, 120, 141, 145, 149, 196 198 184 n. 30 >1 119, 145 119 >1, 145, 149 95, 110, 118, 119 >1, 145, 146, 147 >1, 196 118, 119, 121, 145, 196 95, 110, 118, 120, 138, 145 >1, 151, 196 114, 137 150

8:9–13 8:10

8:10–11 8:11 8:12 8:13 9 9:11 9:12 9:15–16 9:22 9:24 9:24–27 9:25–27 9:26 10 10:1 10:2 10:1–4 10:1–5a 10:1–10 10:1–11 10:1–13

10:1–14 10:1–22 10:2–4 10:3 10:3–4 10:4 10:5

Index of References

251

10:5b 10:5–10 10:6

104 85, 119 81, 84, 86, 100, 103, 104, 155 97, 100, 101, 104 59, 77, 78, 87 >1, 94 >1, 96, 100, 103, 104 >1, 104 n.37, 108, 109, 110, 115, 116, 118, 142, 154, 156 >1, 174, 176, 194, 195, 196 >1, 200, 201 110 156, 198 83, 100 59, 77 >1, 86, 87, 94, 156 >1 100 >1 149 86, 87, 101, 119, 121, 147 86 >1, 87, 119, 147 77, 93, 95, 104, 105, 106, 194 103 77 >1, 78, 78 n. 4, 93 >1, 95 >1, 96 , 97 >1, 97 n. 20, 105 >1, 106 f. >1, 108, 137, 195 107 n. 51 107 >1, 108, 138, 159, 195, 198 XII, 59, 93, 93 n. 46 >1, 96, 103, 109 >1, 110, 113, 115, 128 >1, 129 >1, 137, 139, 142, 156, 174, 176, 195, 196 >1, 198, 200 f. 125, 126 77, 83, 94, 103, 114, 120, 124, 126, 128 >1, 197, 198 128 >1 110, 156 124, 126, 128, 129, 130 82, 84, 131 114 83, 126, 129

110 77, 96 n. 19, 109, 113, 115, 116 >1, 118 >1, 120 >1, 137, 138 n. 30, 138, 146, 147 >1, 147 n. 67, 148, 149, 151, 195, 196 >1 110, 119 119, 120 118, 120, 147, 196 110, 118, 120, 145, 196 110 >1, 114, 115, 148 83 110 148 148 148 148 136 148 58, 113, 114, 115, 119, 136, 148 >1, 148 n. 70, 161 79, 82 77, 80, 82 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 99, 101, 104 59, 79, 83, 87, 88, 90 >1, 91, 92, 93 n. 46, 94, 98, 101, 105 >1, 155 78 78, 87, 92, 93, 93 n. 46, 88, 88 n. 30, 96 >1, 97, 97 n. 20 >1, 98, 99, 102 n. 29, 104, 106, 107, 108, 110, 128, 155, 156, s.208, 195 77, 98, 106, 114, 195 88 n. 40, 94, 96, 113 >1, 115 >1, 116, 118 n. 39, 137, 148 >1, 150, 195 97, 104 87 77, 82, 83, 84, 104, 104 n. 37 79 83, 85, 94, 101

10:6–10 10:7

10:7b 10:7–8 10:7–10 10:8 10:8–10 10:8–11 10:9 10:10 10:11 10:11–13 10:12

10:12–13 10:13 10:14

10:14–21 10:14–22 10:15 10:15–22 10:16 10:16–17 10:16–21 10:17

252 10:18 10:19 10:19–21 10:20 10:20a 10:20b 10:20–21 10:21

10:22 10:23 10:23–24 10:23–31 10:23–33 10:23–11:1 10:25 10:25a 10:25 ff. 10:25–29a 10:25–30 10:25–31 10:26 10:27 10:27b 10:27–30 10:28 10:28–29a 10:29a 10:29b–30 10:30 10:31 10:31–11:1 11:20 11:23–26 11:24 11:27–30 12:2 12:2–4 12:4 12:4 ff.

Index of References

124, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131 118, 122, 174 n. 30, 196 96, 110, 120 119, 124, 126, 129 >1, 130, 131, 142, 149, 198 128 128, 131 >1 96, 96 n. 19, 109, 125, 131, 142, 185, 201 59, 82, 103, 104, 107, 113, 115, 118, 120, 121, 124, 126, 128, 129 >1, 131, 134, 137, 147, 156, 195, 196 >1 128, 129 95 110, 149 95 124 n. 6 138 145, 149, 150 >1 149 145, 150 150, 161 110, 113 122, 123, 196, 197 121 144, 148 n. 70, 148, 148 n. 70, 150 >1, 198 149 118, 120, 197 121, 149, 150 >1, 151, 174, 198, 201 150 149 151 n. 83 121 122, 197 110 82 131 131 125 XII, 94, 141, 157 79 95 95

12:12–31 12:13 15 15:1 15:45 16:13

131 83 n. 22 111 93, 105, 195 83 n. 22 93, 105, 106, 195

2 Corinthians (2 Cor) 1:24 3:15

93, 105, 106, 195 81

Galatians (Gal) 2:1–10 3:27 4:3 4:5 4:8 4:8–9 5:1 5:19–21 5:20 5:22–23 6:3

124 n. 6 81 141 141 94 141, 157 106 157, 198 133, 139 157 105

Ephesians (Eph) 2:11–22 5:5

157 162 n. 5

Philippians (Phil) 3:3 4:1

170 106

Colossians (Col) 3:5

162 n. 5

1 Thessalonians (1Thess) 1:9 2:13 2:14 3:5 3:8

94, 133, 157, 198 83 171 n. 14 107 106

Hebrews (Heb) 3:8–11

90, 98, 102

Index of References

2:24

1 Peter (1 Pet) 4:3–4 5:13

XII 179 n. 49

2 Peter (2 Pet) 2:15

172 n. 20

Jude (Jud) 11

172 n. 20

1 John 5:20 5:20–21 5:21

200 168 XII

Revelation (Rev) 1:7 1:9 1:17–2:1 2 2–3 2:1–7 2:2 2:2 f. 2:3 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:9 2:10 2:13 2:14 2:15 2:16 2:17 2:19 2:20 2:20–22 2:22 f.

178 172 n. 19 169 189, 190 172 172, 200 189 174, 189, 190, 200 172 n. 19 174, 200 172, 200 174 >1, 174 n. 28, 190, 191, 200 >1, 169 >1, 172 n. 19, 176 n. 38, 181, 189, 200 171, 172 , 172 n. 19 >1, 170 n. 10, 172 n. 19, 175 >1, 190, 201 >1, 202 123, 169, 172, 173 n. 22, 173 n. 23, 200 172, 200 174, 200 174 >1, 174 n. 28, 189, 190, 200 >1 174, 189, 190, 200 161, 169, 172 n. 18, 173 ns. 21, 22, 23; 175, 190, 201, 202 123, 172, 200 174, 200

2:25 2:26 2:29 3:8 3:9 3:10 4–22 4:11 6:9 7 7:4–8 9:20 f. 10:11 11 11:3 ff. 11:3–12 11:7 11:8 11:15 12:3 12:9 12:10 13

13:1 13:1–2 13:1–6 13:1–7 13:1–8 13 2 13:2–3 13:3 13:4 13:5 f. 13:6 13:7 13:9 13:9 f. 13:10

253 173 n. 21 >1, 175, 175 n. 33 174 174, 191, 200 174, 174 n. 28, 189, 190, 200 171, 171 n. 10, 172 ns. 17&19, 189, 200 169 >1, 170, 181, 200 189 191 n. 128 187 172 n. 19 >1 171 n. 15 171 173 174, 201 184, 201 180 181 177, 180 177, 180, 181, 184 171, 200 177 172 n. 18, 199, 185 171, 200 172 n. 19, 174 n. 29, 176, 182 >1, 182 n.70, 183 >1, 184 >1, 185, 185 n. 93, 186, 188, 188 n. 116, 189 >1, 189 n. 125, 190 176, 177 n. 39, 181, 201, 202 178 176 n. 38 177 178 n. 42 191 n. 129, 180 177, 178 >1 179, 184, 190, 202 177 178 n. 42 177 176 190 176

254 13:10b 13:11–17 13:12 13:14 13:14–15 13:15 13:16 14:8 14:9 14:9 f. 14:11 14:12 15 15:2 16:2 16:13 17

17:1 17:1–2 17:1–5 17:2 17:3

Index of References

190, 202 177, 178 n. 42 176, 178, 201 184, 185 >1, 190, 202 184 176 >1, 177, 179 >1, 180, 190, 201, 202 180 n. 53, 181, 182 177 176 >1, 177, 180, 201 189 176, 177 176 191 176 >1, 189, 191 177 177 178, 181 >1, 181 >1, 182, s 194 n. 70, 182, 184 >1, 185, 186, 189 n. 116, 189, 189 n. 125, 201, 202 177, 184 190, 202 184 n. 85 180, 181, 182, 184 177 >1, 180 n. 52, 185 n. 93

17:4 17:6 17:7–11 17:8 17:9 17:9–14 17:10 17:10 f. 17:11 17:12 17:15 17:16 17:18 18 18:2 f. 18:4 18:10 18:24 19:2 19:20 20:4 20:10 21:8 22:9 22:15

180, 181 177 185 n. 92 178, 185 n. 93 177 >1, 179, 181 n. 55, 181 189 n. 125 >1 177, 185, 189 n. 125, 201 185 n. 93 >1 178 177 184 178, 180, 181 177 >1, 184, 178 184 n. 85 170 177, 181 172 n. 19 172 n. 19 176, 177 >1, 180, 201 172 n. 19, 176 >1, 177, 189 177 176 >1, 201 174, 176, 201 176, 201

Additional Early Christian Writings Didache (Did.) 10:3

Irenaeus 82, 84

Adversus haereses V 30,3 186

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Maccabees (Macc) 1–2 Macc

8

1 Maccabees (1 Macc) 1:11 1:11 1:13–15

192 4 192

1:14 1:15 1:41–43 1:43 1:44–61 1:52 1:54, 59 2:23

4, 6 n. 23, 9 n. 37 4 192 5 >1, 4/5 n. 17 5 192 165 6

255

Index of References

2:26 3

2:5 4:7

6, 22, 192 192

91 130

2 Maccabees (2 Macc)

Wisdom of Solomon (Wis)

4–5 4:7–9 4:9–17 4:12 4:14 4:17 4:18–20 4:19 6:2 6:7 6:18 8 12:9, 40–42

10:17 10:18–19 10:19 13:1–9 13:10–19 13:11–16 13:17 13:17–19 14:12–16 14:29 19:7

192 4 43 n. 63 9 n. 37 4 17 4, 12 4 5, 5 n. 18, 5, 5 n. 18, 192 192 192 6

2 Baruch (2 Bar.) XI.I

3 Maccabees (3 Macc) 1:1–5 1:3 2:28–33 3:12–29 4–5 6 7: 10–15 7:11

19

142

4 Ezra 6:49–53 11–13 13:3 15:43, 46, 16:1

183 n. 77 182 >1 183 n.77 179 n. 49

Joseph and Aseneth

17

7:5

Epistle of Jeremy (EpJer)

46 n. 84

Letter to Aristeas

4–5, 14–28, 64 8/9

15–16

Baruch (Bar) 1:15–3:8 1:22 2:11–15

179 n. 49

1 Enoch (1 En.)

19 15 18, 18 n. 107 18 19 19 19 17

4 Maccabees (4 Macc) 5:16, 18

81 82 80 31 n. 15 142 71 37 n. 29, 139 71 20/21 37 n. 29, 139 79 n. 6, 82

90 92 90, 98, 102, 155

14

Sibylline Oracles (Sibyl. Or.) V 143, 159

179 n. 49

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QpHab 12:12–14 161 1QS 2:11–12, 17 161

CD 11:14 CD 12:6–11

161 161

256

Index of References

Josephus (Jos.) Antiquitates judaicae (A.J.) IV 126–151 23, 154 IV 131–141 23 IV 137–138 23 IV 141 23, 24 IV 145–149 25, 193 IV 153 23 XI 212 24 XII 125–126 19 XII 160 11 XII 186–236 11, 193 XIII 245 24 XIV 388 7 XV 25–26 61 n. 5 XV 267 f. 43 n. 63 XV 292 7 XV 328–329 7 XV 330 7 XV 363–364 7 XVI 136–141 7 XVI 147–149 7 XVII 151 42, 61 n. 5 XVIII 159 40 XVIII 259 40, 41 XVIII 263–272 179 n. 46 XIX 356–57 61 n. 5 XIX 359 9 n. 37 XX 100 17, 41 n. 45, 136, 193 XX 200 171 n. 14

Bellum judaicum (B.J.) I 285 7, 192 I 404 7 I 414 7, 179 n. 46 II 162 171 n. 14 II 220, 223 41 II192–201 179 n. 46 II 309 41 III 401 181 IV 617 16 IV 622–629 181 V 179–181 61 n. 5 V 205 41 VI 96 ff. 17 VI 228–282 181 VI 237 16 VII 16, 17 16 VII 47, 50 20 VII 50–51 19 Contra Apionem (C.Ap.) II 79 24 II 173–174 25 II 190–192 60 n. 3 II 258 24 Vita LXV

42, 61 n. 5

Philo of Alexandria De Abrahamo (Abr.) 56–59 139 68–70 32 n. 18 69–70 139, 158 77–80 139, 158 136 144 159 64 >1 208–224 37 217–221 38 222–224 39 229, 234 38 236–242 38 242, 243 38

De aeternitate mundi (Aet.) 56 62 De agricultura (Agr.) 110–123 42, 44 168 65 n. 30, 67 De animalibus (Anim.) 31 41 n. 45 De cherubim (Cher.) 11 65 n. 30, 67 n. 37 93 65 105 43 n. 62

257

Index of References

De confusione linguarum (Conf.) 49 68 57 60 69 37 70 82 71 37 107–112 141 144 31, 34, 141, 193 De congressu eruditionis gratia (Congr.) 14–17 43 n. 62 15 45 45 31 46 31 48 32, 37 49 32, 48, 152 65 37, 65 n. 33, 67 92 38 De vita contemplativa (Contempl.) 7 66, 71 35 81 40–63 143 60 35 64–90 143 De decalogo (Decal.) 7 37, 65, 71, 139 7–8 61, 66 7–9 31 8 140 51 67 52–54 48 52–81 66 54–56 133 54–57 45 55 63 60 64 64 49 65 29 66 37 >1, 64, 139 66–69 66 66–76 67 69 67 69–70 72 71 37, 139 72–74 65, 194 78 30, 42

133 156

70 n. 44 64, 67

Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat (Det.) 5 f. 52 n. 115 6–9 52 115–118 83, 84 125 62 Quod Deus sit immutabilis (Deus) 8 18 n. 108 111 51 144 139 De ebrietate (Ebr.) 14–15 62, 143 >1 14 ff. 53 20 62, 144 20–21 198 >1 20–23 42 20–29 62, 143 >1 21 143 33 53 33–110 53, 194 34 54 >1 36 55, 56 36–64 33, 55 37 54, 55 38–39 56 38–40 55 40–41 56 41 f. 56 43–45 56 44 159 45 140 45–47 33 48 57 >1 48–51 55 49 54 50 57 52 57 53 57 54 37, 38 54 f. 55 54–59 37, 193 57–58 40 58 33 64 55

258 65–76 69, 70 73 75 77–90 80–84 80–92 88–89 88–92 89 89–90 90 91–92 95 95–100 97–105 98, 99 100–103 108–110 109 124 127 133 144 177

Index of References

35, 55 35 36, 60 36 50 54 54 61, 194 74 >1 61 n. 6, 67 >1, 72, 74 >1, 75 >1 194 73, 74 74 50, 62, 143 >1, 144, 153, 198 153 47 50 50 30, 66, 140, 193 64, 65 n. 28 153 153 74 36 42

In Flaccum (Flacc.) 4 42, 143 55 43 136 42 De fuga et inventione (Fug.) 23–30, 36 33 n. 19 90–91 47, 50 126–128 52 n. 115 166 f. 81 De gigantibus (Gig.) 4 35, 140 8 49 n. 99 23–28 84 47 84 59 61, 64, 72 >1, 194 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (Her.) 12 37, 67 96–99 32 n. 18 97 32

155 169 201–206 203–204 204 267–272

69 28, 29, 32, 139, 193 80 80, 81 81 33 n. 21

De Iosepho (Ios.) 9 50 32–36 50 40–53 50 41–49 52 67 51 70 51 81 45 n. 75 Legum allegoriae (Leg.) 1.25 40 2.46 139 2.86 83 3.65–68 68 3.69–70 68 3.70 67 n. 37 3.97–99 75 3.155–156 143 3.155–159 42 3.156 144 3.167 41, 57 3.167–168 17 3.174–176 83 Legatio ad Gaium (Legat.) 81–113 45 98 37, 139 134 65 n. 32 151 42, 65 n. 30, 67, 194 203–213 179 n. 46 290 65 n. 34, 71 290–292 60 310 60, 65 n. 34 311–315 143 317–319 60 De migratione Abrahami (Migr.) 13 38 16 53 17 52 18 53 19 52 64–69 33, 34

259

Index of References

69 130–131 148, 149 148–150 148–151 150 151 151–160 152 154 f. 158 158 ff. 160 176–195 178–179 179

139 17 38 51 n. 109 39 38, 39 51 194 51 51 51 51 52 32 n. 18 31 32, 139

De vita Mosis (Mos.) 1.23 45 1.30 f. 28 n. 9 1.31 46, 144 1.66–67 64 1.177–179 82 1.263–318 34 1.278 144 1.294–304 23, 154 1.295 154 1.295–299 154 1.295–304 66 1.296–299 23 1.298 154 1.300–302 23, 154 1.302 30, 154 1.303 154 2.160 153 2:160 ff. 49 2.160–173 47, 194 2.161 47, 90, 92, 152 2.162 47, 65 n. 34, 152, 153 2.167 90, 144, 152, 155 2.167–172 198 2.168 48, 152 2.168–173 90 2.169 28 2.171 48, 152, 153 2.172 153 2.204–205 63 2.205 37, 42, 66, 139, 194

2.253–255 2.270 2.270–271 2.270–274 2.271 2.272–274 2.273 2.274

82 90, 92, 144, 152 152 47 90, 98, 102, 155 90 153 153

De mutatione nominum (Mut.) 66–76 32 n. 18 172 45 n. 75 215 52 n. 115 258–260 81 De opificio mundi (Opif.) 3, 12 35 n. 26 16–21 75 21–23 35 n. 26 28 45 n. 75 55 69 69 69 >1, 70, 73 >1, 74 72–75 35 n. 26 82 69 >1 134–139 69 137 64, 69 >1, 70, 73 141 72 n. 56 158 81 171 29, 31 n. 12, 35 n. 26, 139 De plantatione (Plant.) 28 69 De posteritate Caini (Post.) 138 81 155–156 36 155–159 73 158 f. 68 158–164 34, 35, 50, 139, 140 158–165 47 158–166 198 164 34, 50, 140 37, 57, 61, 66, 139, 198 165 165–166 34, 35, 140 >1 De praemiis et poenis (Praem.) 24–27 28 25 28, 36, 139, 158, 198 >1 27 28 n. 7

260 41–43 41–45 58 78, 79 152 162 162–165 163–165

Index of References

75 139 28, 28 n. 7, 53 28 40, 157, 198 22, 27, 28, 36, 135 21 21

Quod omnis probus liber sit (Prob.) 26, 141 42 De providentia (Prov.) 2 16, 17, 18 2.5 42 2.47–50 17 2.92 41 n. 45 2.113, 116 17 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Sacr.) 103, 111 f. 35 De sobrietate (Sobr.) 3, 38 64 De somniis (Somn.) 1.50 81 1.160 f. 28 1.169 45 n. 75 1.219–225 53 1.246–248 38 2.11 51 2.11–12 194 2.11–13 52 2.12 51 2.43–51 52 2.105 ff. 52, 52 n. 115 2.109 52 2.223 68 De specialibus legibus (Spec.) 1.13–20 71 1.14–15 140 1.21 30, 42 1.21–22 32 1.21–27 29 1.21–28 32, 139 1.22 158 n. 103 1.23–28 35, 193 1.25 33, 158 n. 103

1.28 1.28–29 1.28–30 1.28–31 1.29 1.30 1.31 1.33 1.33–35 1.54–57 1.56 1.56–57 1.79 1.315 ff. 1.316 1.317 1.319 1.319–320 1.331–332 1.335 f. 2.165 2.193 2.224 2.229–230 2.230 3.29 3.123 3.124 3.124–127 3.126 3.171 3.189 4.76

28 n. 7, 29, 36, 41, 139 >1, 141, 193, 198 29, 73, 193 198 158 37, 61, 63, 139 158, 158 n. 103 158 65 n. 30, 67 75 39, 135 66 30 47, 49, 152, 153 40 n. 37 22, 39, 42 n. 51, 50, 135, 157 157 22, 143 133 31, 141 57/58 n. 129 29 n. 10 143 60 10, 44, 45 n. 75, 135 46 n. 81 46, 193 144 49, 153 47, 153 49, 153 18 n. 108 75 65

De virtutibus (Virt.) 102 157, 198 102–104 156 178–182 142 181 156 181 f. 39 182 135, 156, 157 187188 68, 70 203 68 212 31, 32, 139 212–213 193 213 31, 141

261

Index of References

214 214–216

29, 139, 158 28

219 221

156, 157 65 n. 28

Pseudo Philo 11:15 18:13–14

Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (L.A.B.) 10:7 79

79 23 n. 123

Rabbinic literature Mek. Ex. 14:16 82 Tos. Sot. 6:6 87

Tos. Suk. 3:11

79

Greek and Roman authors Aristotle

Pausanias

Metaphysics 1074b

48

Dio Cassius Roman history (Hist. Rom.) LXVII 1 187 n. 105 Dio of Prusa

71 n. 49

Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historia XXXIV–XXXV, 1–5  23/24 Epictetus Discourses 4.1.62, 68

25 n. 131

Euripides Bacchae

127

Herodotus Book II 172

71

Livy History of Rome I 32, 6–7 16

Description of Greece II 4.5 136 n.20 Philostratus Life of Apollonius V 33 24 Plato Greater Hippias (Hp. ma.) 290 A–D 61 n. 6 Laws (Lg.) 801d–e 931a 969b

72 71, 72, 75 70 n. 44

Phaedo (Phd.) 81b

73

Republic (Rep.) 597b–598c 598a–c 603 a–c 603–604 603c–605c 605a–b 605b 607a

72 72 n. 56 72 72 n. 54 73 72 62 72

262 Timaeus (Tim.) 26e 28a,c 28a–29b 29a–b 30a–c 31a 37c–d 46d

Index of References

Seneca

62 75 75 73 73 74 74 73

Fragm. 120

72

Stoics: Chrysippus, Cicero, Polybius, Zeno etc., and fragments 25 n. 131, 48 n. 93, n. 94, 49 n. 96

Pliny

Suetonius

Ep. 10, 96.1–10 188 n. 117 Ep. 10.97.1–2 176 n.37, 188 n. 117 Paneg. 187 n. 105

Lives of the Emperors XIII 1–2 187 n.105 LXVII 1, 4:7 180 n. 54

Plutarch

Tacitus

Isis and Osiris (De Is. et Os.) 379CD 72

Histories (Hist.) II 79 16 V 4–5 24 n. 127

On superstition (De superst. ) 167DE 72 Quaest. conviv. IX 1.1 43 n. 62

Theon Progymnasmata 3.175 45

Polybius Histories (Hist.) II 25, 6–9 16

Inscriptions Asia Minor Jasus Phrygia Sardis Thyatira

10 n. 50, 12 n. 59 12 ns. 62, 63 11 n. 51 13 n. 70

Cyrenaica

43 n. 61

Cyrene

10 n. 48 14 n. 83 43 n. 60

Egypt

14 n. 78 16 n. 93



18 n. 104 43 n. 60

Greece Oropus

11 n. 55

Russia Gorgippia (Anape) 13 n. 72 14 n. 75 Syria Si‘a

8 n. 41

Index of References

Papyri Egypt

15 n. 89 43 n. 60 46 n. 84

Syria Dura Europos 11 n. 52

263

Index of Modern Authors Alexandre, M.  44 n. 67 Applebaum, S.  13, 13 n. 67, 15 n. 85, 41 n. 45, 43 n. 64, 44 n. 66, 46 n. 87 Arnaldez, R.  35 n. 24 Aune, D.  171 n. 14, 173, 173 n. 23, 174 n. 31, 177 n. 39, 178 n. 40, 180 ns. 50, 53 Bandstra, A.  77 n. 2, 79 n. 5, 84 n. 26, 103 n. 33 Barclay, J.  4 n. 14, 5 n. 19, 15, 15 ns. 87, 88, 91; 16 n. 92, 18 ns.107, 108; 20, 24 Barker, M.  174 n. 30 Baron, S.  46 n. 83 Barraclough, R.  40, 52 ns. 112, 113 Barrett, C.K.  78 n. 4, 81 n. 14, 84 n. 23, 87 n. 36, 97 ns. 20, 21; 112 n. 12 Bassler, J.  50 n. 103, 51 n. 106 Bauckham, R.  179 n. 49 Baumert, N.  128 n. 25, 130, 130 n. 34, 131 Beagley, A.  171 n. 12, 181, 182 Beale, G.  172 n. 19, 172 n. 21, 179 n. 48, 183, 195 Beckaert, A.  28 n. 7 Bekken, P.-J.  XI Blanchetière, F.  46 n. 87 Borgen, P.  XI, 2, 15, 22 n. 120, 26 n. 120, 26 n. 133, 41 ns. 46, 47; 43 n. 64, 46 n. 82, 57 n. 127, 61, 62, 76, 109, 113, 119, 121 n. 53, 137, 143, 147 n.66, 156 Boring, M.E.  185n. 93 Bornkamm, G.  77 n. 2, 94 n. 3 Bosman, P.  138, 145 n. 56, 146 n. 59, 147, 149 n. 75, 150, 151 n. 83 Boxall, I.  171 n. 13, 184 n. 84 Bréhier, É.  17 n. 99, 158 n. 105

Broer, I.  85 n. 27, 87 n. 36, 106, 106 n. 43 Bruce, F.  112 n. 11, 138 Cazeaux, J.  31 n. 15, 34 n. 23, 51 ns. 109, 111; 52 n. 115, 53 n.117 Charles, R.  172 n. 17, 173 n. 22, 179 n. 49 Charlesworth, J.  49 Chester, S.  138, 138 n. 36 Cheung, A.  115, 118 n. 39, 121 n. 54, 122 n. 57 Collier, C.  154, 155 Collins, J.  6 n. 23 Colson, F.  40 n. 39, 44, 46 n. 83, 57 n. 128 Conzelmann, H.  80 n. 10, 82 n. 18, 84, 84 n. 23, 95, 95 n. 10, 97 n. 21, 113 n. 16, 124 n. 9 Cope, L.  150, 155 Daniel, S.  33 n. 20, 44 n. 70, 49 ns. 100, 101; 158 ns. 103, 105 Deaut, R. Le  24 n. 115 Delia, D.  10 n. 41, 135 n. 9 Delling, G.  45 n. 75 Derrett, D.  164 n. 13, 164 De Vos, C.  134 n. 4 Downing, F.G.  41 n. 44 Duff, P.  170 n.10, 172 n. 18 Eckstein, H.-J.  119 n. 42 Engels, D.  136 ns. 21, 22 Eriksson, A.  112 n. 13, 149 Farla, P.  123 n. 3, 114 n. 23 Fee, G.  112, 112 n. 11, 114 n. 22, 115, 116 n. 32, 117 n. 34, 118, 118 n. 38, 137

Index of Modern Authors

Feldman, L.  6 n. 23, 27, 42 n. 50, 44 Finney, P.  163 n. 7 Fisk, B.  112 n. 13, 113, 113 n. 16, 114, 116 n. 31, 118 n. 38, 121 n. 50 Flusser, D.  27 Ford, J.M.  171 n. 14, 180, 180 n. 50, 181 n. 55, 182, 180, 181 n. 55, 182, 184 Foster, S.  41 n. 43 Fotopoulos, J.  137 n. 24, 137, 138, 147 n. 67, 148 n. 71, 149, 151 ns. 81, 83 Fraser, P.  20 n. 116, 28 f. n. 9 Freudenberger, R.  175 n. 37 Frey, J.-B.  11 n. 51, 14 n. 77 Friesen, S.  170 n. 9, 172 n.18, 174 n. 31, 175 n. 32, 175 n. 36, 178 n. 40, 179 n. 47, 187 ns.108, 109; 190 n. 126 Gaca, K.  141 n. 41, 142 n. 45 Garland, D.  137 n. 28, 145 n. 52, 146, 147 n. 64, 150, 150 n. 77, 151 n. 82 Gärtner, B.  162 n. 6 Giesen, H.  179 n. 48 Gilmour, S,M.  170 n. 10 Goldenberg, R.  12, 14 n. 80, 61, 63 Goldstein, J.  4 n. 17, 5 n. 19, 6 n. 24 Gooch, P.  122 n. 58 Goodenough, E.  42 ns. 52, 53; 53, 64, 67 Goodwin, W.  116 ns. 30, 31 Gradl, H-G.  186 n. 99 Griffith, G.  5 n. 21, 43, 168 n. 27 Groag, E.  13 n. 68 Grundmann, W.  165 n. 18, 166 n. 22 Gutmann, J.  42 n. 55, 72 f. Guttenberger, G.  174 n. 31 n. 32, 175 ns. 32, 33, 35 Hadas-Lebel, M.  17, 135 n. 17 Hainz, J.  125 Harl, M.  32 n. 18 Hartman, L.  XI, 61 f., 190/191 n. 128 Hay, D.  60, 66 n. 35 Heinemann, I.  158 n. 103 Hemer, C.  170 n. 8, 172 n. 21, 176 ns. 37, 38 Hengel, M.  5 n. 18, 6 n. 23 Henten, J. van  173 n. 22, 178 n. 40 Herms, R.  178 n. 40

265

Hirschberg, P.  172 n. 19, 173 n. 21, 175 n. 35, 176 n. 38, 184 n. 85, 190 n. 126 Horrell, D.  113 n. 16 Horsley, R.  111, 119 n. 42, 142 Horst, P. van der  63 n. 20 Hurd, J.  121 n. 55, 137 n. 28 Jeremias, J.  163 n. 11 Jeske, R.  102 n. 29 Kahn, J.  31 n. 14 Kant, L.  27 n. 5 Käsemann, E.  77 n. 2 Kasher, A.  44, 44 ns. 70, 73; 45 ns. 74, 75 Kee, A.  162 n. 6 Klauck, H.-J.  82 n. 18, 88, 125, 126, 127, 127 n. 24, 179 n. 47, 188 n. 117, 190 n. 126, 190 n. 126, 191 n. 129 Klemm, H.  162 n. 6, 165 n. 16 Klostermann, E.  164 n. 13 Koch, D.-A.  113 n. 14, 114 n. 21, 120 n. 49 Kokkinos, N.  7 n. 25, 7 ns. 27, 30; 8 n. 34 Kraus Reggiani, C.  52 ns. 114, 115 Kümmel, W.  80 n. 8, 83 n. 21, 124 Lane, W.  162 n. 6 Lang, F.  88 n. 39, 97 ns. 20, 21 Leitch, J.  125 n. 14 Levine, B.  22 ns. 121, 122 Lietzmann, H.  80 n. 10, 84 n. 23, 86 n. 32, 95, 124, 125, 126, 128 Lifshitz, B.  12 Lindeskog, G.  171 López, J.  178 ns. 40, 42 Lupieri, E.  171 n. 14, 175 n. 32, s. 190 n. 44, 180 n. 52, 182, 184, 185 Mayo, P.  184 n. 84 Mealand, D.  33 n. 19 Méasson, A.  35 n. 24, 39 n.32, 51 n. 111 Meeks, W.  87, 88, 91 n. 45, 98, 99, 103 n. 30, 104 n. 37, 107 n. 51, 154 Mendelson, A.  30 n. 12, 31 n. 16, 40 n. 37, 44 n. 67, 46 n.85, 53 n. 118, 54 n. 122, 53 n. 124, 57 n. 129, 157 n. 101

266

Index of Modern Authors

Merklein, H.  96 n. 19, 111, 112, 113, 114 ns. 22, 23; 116 n. 32, 117, 117 n. 33, 119, 120 n. 46, 126, 129 Metzger, B.  101 n. 28 Millar, F.  12 n. 60, 14 ns. 76, 80 Moore, C.  9 n. 36 Murphy-O’Connor, J.  97 n. 20, 136 ns. 20, 21, 22, 23 Newton, D.  111 n. 8, 114 n. 20, 114 ns.22, 23; 116 n. 31, 122 n. 60, 137, 148 n. 70 Niehoff, M.  61, 62, 63 Orr, W./J.Walther  93 n. 46 Oster, R.  96 n. 19 Pagels, E.  170 n. 10 Pakkala, J.  1 n. 1 Pasetti, E.  32 n. 18 Pelletier, A.  36 n. 28 Penna, R.  173 n. 24 Pezzoli-Olgiati, D.  185 n. 90 Probst, H.  127 n. 24 Räisänen, H.  123 n. 6, 148 n. 70, 185 n. 32 Ramsay, W.  13 ns. 65, 67 Reynolds, J.  41 n. 48 Richardson, P.  7 n. 29, 8 Riemer, U.  179 n. 44, 183, 185 n. 92, 186, 186 n. 103, 188 n. 119 Robert, L.  12 n. 57 Robertson, A./A. Plummer  78 n. 4, 97 n. 23 Robinson, J.  186, 186 n. 102 Runia, D.  17 ns. 100, 101; 61, 70 ns. 43, 45; 74 ns. 63, 64, 65 Saez Gonzalvez, R.  111 n. 4, 113 n. 14, 118 n. 39, 122 n. 59 Sals, U.  183, 183 n. 83 Sandnes, K.O.  139 n. 36, 148, 148 n. 73, 153, 155 Schaller, B.  155 Schenk, W.  88 n. 40 Scherrer, S.  180 n. 54 Schmithals, W.  98 n. 23, 111

Schmitt, R.  2 n. 4 Schnackenburg, R.  166 ns. 21, 22, 23 Schrage, W.  111, 112, 113 n. 16, 114, 116 ns. 29, 32; 119 n. 40, 121 n. 50, 126, 129, 129 n. 26, 137, 147 n. 65 Schubart, W.  46 n. 84 Schüssler Fiorenza, E. 99 n. 24, 100 n. 26, 184 n. 85 Schwartz, J.  40 n. 43, 46 n. 84 Schweizer, E.  166 ns. 21, 23 Seland, T.  10 n. 46, 39 n.36, 42 n. 51, 135 n. 14, 143, 144 ns. 49, 51 Sellin, G.  70 n. 45 Simon, M.  46 n. 86, 168 n. 25 Smallwood, E.M.  43 Smit, J.  123 n. 3, 150 n. 78 Soden, H. von  77 n. 2, 98 n. 23 Söding, T.  137 n.26, 146 n. 59, 147 ns. 62, 65 Speigl, J.  186 n. 100 Stauffer, E.  162 n. 6 Stern, E.  1 n. 4 Stern, M.  24 Still, E.C.  138 n. 30 Taeger, J.-W.  174 n. 30 Tannehill, R.  165 Tannenbaum, R.  41 n. 48 Tarn, W.  43 Tatum, W.B.  61, 63 f., 67, 72, 73 Tcherikover, V.  41 n. 45, 45 ns. 73, 75 Terian, A.  17 ns. 99, 103; 41 n.45 Thiselton, A.  137 n. 26 Thompson, L.  186, 187, 187 n. 109, 189 n. 120 Tobin, T.  51 n. 106, 70 n. 45, 73 Tóth, F.  187, 188 ns.116, 118 Trebilco, P.  13, 13 n. 67, 13 n. 73 Trocmé, E.  174 n. 30, 175 n. 32 Turner, N.  116, 137 Unnik, W. van  22, 26 n. 133, 154 Vanni, U.  178 n. 42 Walter, N.  83 n. 21, 173 n. 24, 175 ns. 33, 34 Water, R. van de  181, 182, 184, 186

Index of Modern Authors

Wedderburn, A.  82 n. 17, 83 n. 22, 127 n. 24 Weimar, P.  47 n. 91 Weiß, J.  83 n. 22, 96, 112 n. 12, 121 ns. 50, 52 Wendland, H.-D.  93n. 46, 98 n. 23 Willert, N.  168 ns. 24, 26 Willis, W.  79 n. 5, 83 n. 21, 87 n. 36, 93 n. 46, 98 n. 23, 113, 122 n. 57, 129 n. 30, 130, 148 n. 70 Winston, D.  61 n.6, 66 n. 35, 70 n. 44 Witulski, T.  173, 174 n. 30, 177 n. 39, 179 ns. 48, 49; 180 n. 53, 185 n. 93,

267

186, 187, 188, 188 n. 118 n. 119 n. 120, 189, 189 n.125, 191 Wolff, C.  97 n. 21, 106, 107, 107 n. 50 Wolfson, H.  28, 28 n. 9, 40 n. 38, 42 n. 49, 44 n. 67, 45 n. 73, 48 n. 93, 64, 67 Worth, R.  174 n. 30 Yarbro Collins, A.  176 n. 37, 179 n. 47, 204 n. 126

Index of Subjects and Names The page numbers also refer to notes on each page.

Abomination of desolation  5, 165 f. Abraham  38 Acmonia, Phrygia  12 adjustment to society, loyalty  168, 192, Alexander, brother of Philo  43 Alexandria  10, 40, 42–46, 133–136, 198 allegory  50 Antiochus Epiphanes  3–5, 8, 192 Antiochus, a Jew  19 f. Antipas (Pergamum)  175 f., 201 Apis bull  47, 152 apostasy  28, 39 f. 85 f. 88 f., 152, 155 f., 198 Apostles’ decree  123 Apostolic council  123 Asclepius  137 Asia Minor  12–14, 46 f. astronomy  32 atheism  27, 34 attitudes towards Jews  24

conditional clauses  116, 137 f., 147 f. 149, 196 Corinth  134, 136 f., 198 Cyrene  10, 14 f.

Babylon  177–184, 190, 202 Babylonian religion  9 Balaam  22, 153 f., 200 banquets  112 ff., 117, 122 f., 136 f., 195, 197 Baptism  80–82, 194 Biblical pattern  88–91, 101 f., 195

fornication/adultery  23, 86 f., 100, 102

Caligula  65, 179 Chaldaean creed  32, 48–49, 152 circular argument  97, 186 citizenship  10, 42–44, 193 Claudius  10, 18 Cloud in the desert  80 f. clubs  62, 143 f., 153, 198 conscience  See: syneidesis

death penalty  22, 39 f., 49 f. , 157 deification of the created  30–33, 48, 193 Demeter  137 demons  120, 123 ff., 142, 156, 198 The Denarius  162–165, 199 Dionysos  5, 12, 18, 125–127 Domitian  168, 186–188, 200 Dositheos, Egyptian Jew  15, 19, 193 Egypt  14–16, 18, 51, 152 eidoleia  110, 113–115, 118, 137, 147 f. encyclia  53–57 ephebes  10 Eucharist  128–131 Euripides  127

glory  35, 38, 193 Gnostics  93, 95 f., 105 f., 172 f. Golden Calf  34, 47–50, 89–92, 103, 129, 139 f., 144, 152 f., 156, 193 f., 198 Gorgippia, Black Sea coast  13 Greece  12 Greek myths  62 f., 193 gymnasia  4, 9, 10, 42–46, 134–136 Hadrian  188 f. Heracles  5, 10, 12 hermeneutical circle  109, 111 Herod the Great  6–8, 42, 192 Herod’s temples  7

Index of Subjects and Names

Holy Land  4–9 human body  35, 51 f., 68, 73, 140 human soul  69 f., 73 idolatry  27 ff., 86–89, 94 ff., 100, 103, 142, 147, 158 f., 161 ff., 184, 190, 193, 195–197, 201 f. idols  139, 141 f. images and statues  5, 7–9, 29–32, 35–37, 39, 42, 58, 60, 64, 71, 92, 139f–141, 144, 152, 154, 156, 162–164, 165, 176–180, 184–191, 193 f. imperative  109, 116, 196 Imperial cult  7, 162–165, 178 f., 185, 190, 202 Ionia  19 Iranian/Persian period  1, 27 Isthmian games  136 Jason, High priest  4, 12, 192 Jerusalem Temple  5 f., 130 Jasus, Asia Minor  12 Jesus  161 Jethro  55 f. 194 Jezebel, Queen of Israel  1, 174, 201 Jezebel (Thyatira)  172–175, 200–202 Joseph  50–53 Judas Maccabaeus  6 Kiddush meal  128 knowledge  113, 118–120, 145 koinonia  126, 129–131, 197 legitimate right  114–115, 118, 120 Levites  49, 153 logic  164 f. Lord’s Prayer  166 f., 199 Lot  38 f. macellum  113, 149–151 Mattathias  6, 192 Mesopotamian religion  1 Midianite women  22–25, 60, 153 midrash  47, 87, 155, 195 Moschos, the hellenized Jew  12, 192 mysteries  20, 22, 125, 143 Nicolaitans  172, 176, 200 f.

269

Octavian/Augustus  7, 18 Oropus  12 over-confidence  see: security over-interpretation  138, 176 Pan  14 passions  33–36, 139 f., 193, 198 Pergamum  172 f., 175 f., 201 f. Phidias  61, 74 f. Philo  21f, 40 philosophy  55, 57 Phinehas  22, 24, 39, 60, 153 f. Plato and Platonism  62, 70–75, 194 Plutarch  72 politics  52 f. polytheism  27–30, 34, 36–37, 56, 139, 155–157, 193, 198 Pontius Pilate  161, 168, 200 Pothos (Gorgippia)  13 f., 193 proselytes  142, 156 f. Ptolemies  3 Ptolemy Philopator  18 f. Pythian Temple  7 rebellion  100 rhetorical approach  88, 123, 145 rise of polytheism  140 f. rituals and cult  3, 6–9, 11, 13, 16, 22, 26, 29, 42–44, 47, 58, 95–97, 113, 117, 121, 125 f., 130, 136 f., 151, 173 f., 185 f., 190 f., 192 f., 201 f. Rock in the desert  79 f. Roman Empire  15–18, 178–180, 185–189, 201 f. sacramentalism  77 ff., 94–98 Sacraments  82–85, 103 f., 195 sacrificial food  118–122, 138, 144 f., 149, 197, 202 Second Commandment  60, 66 f. security  91, 93, 97, 104–107, 195, 196 Seneca  71 f. Shema prayer  166 spiritual food and drink  82–85, 195 spiritual progress  52 f., 158 f. sports  3, 42, 58, 136, 193 stars  32, 49, 69, 71 Stoics and Stoicism  25, 48f, 152 f., 194

270

Index of Subjects and Names

symposia  143 f. synagogues  12 f., 28 f., 133, 158, 169–172, 200, 202 syncretism  1, 124 syneidesis  114, 116, 119–121, 146 f., 149–151, 197

translating German  125 f., 164 Tyrronius Rapon  12 f., 192

temple prostitution  20 temples  7, 8, 47 temptation  107, 167 theatre  3, 9, 42, 47, 58, 193 theophagy  125 ff., 128 ff., 198 Tiberius, Emperor  162 Tiberius Julius Alexander  15–18, 41, 135 f., 193 Toubias  11, 193

the “weak”  145 f. wealth and greed  33, 35, 37–39, 51, 162, 193 Wisdom  80 f., 83 f.

unbeliever’s home  150 Vespasian  16, 19, 168, 200

Zeno papyri  11 zeitgeschichtlich  185, 202 Zeus  5, 7, 14, 75, 180 Zimri / Zambrias  22–25, 153 f., 193