Temple Purity in 1-2 Corinthians (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161523809, 9783161523816, 3161523806

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie † (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)

343

Yulin Liu

Temple Purity in 1-2 Corinthians

Mohr Siebeck

YULIN LIU, born 1976; 1998 BA from Yunnan University, China; 2004 MA from China Theological Seminary, China; 2005 M. Div. from Alliance Theological Seminary, New York, USA; 2006 Th. M. from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Boston, USA; 2012 PhD from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Chicago, USA; presently, the Executive Director of China Servant Leadership Center, Illinois, USA.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-152381-6 ISBN 978-3-16-152380-9 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2013 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 printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

To my dear parents, Mr. Guo Ping Liu and Ms. Bi Qun Yang, who suffered in the Great Cultural Revolution and converted to Christian faith in 1998 “And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, yet your Teacher will not hide himself any more, but your eyes shall see your Teacher. And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, ‘This is the way, walk in it’, when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left.” Isaiah 30:20-21

Preface This book is a slight revision of my dissertation written under the supervision of Dr. Eckhard Schnabel at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School during the year of 2006-2012. When I started my seminary life from 2002 in mainland China, I did not foresee that I would spend 10 years in such a journey from China to America to complete the study. During the first few years of being equipped in a small seminary in the southern part of China, I traveled by many villages and cities, witnessing Christian revivals among them. So many Chinese Christians are hungry to study the Bible and hear the preaching of God’s Word. When I taught the Bible among them, they usually respected me by saying: “Oh, master, thank you so much for providing us with spiritual bread.” Their genuine words of thanksgiving and serious attitude regarding their faith stimulated me to see the importance of interpretation of the Bible in careful and proper ways, and master the knowledge of it as much as I could. The shortage of biblical sources in mainland China and the effort of interpretation of God’s words in right ways made me determine to study theology overseas. However, as a traveling evangelist who had no official religious degree, I could not figure out how this dream could be realized. After two and half years, a senior brother in Hong Kong recommended me to a seminary in New York, after which I went to Gordon-Conwell Theological seminary and finished another master degree in the biblical study. Then I came to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for the doctoral study in the New Testament. Although the journey through different seminaries sometimes was tedious, challenging and lonely, and although the chilly winters of Chicago were seemingly endless and oppressive, I still could not forget the faces of those who were thirsty to learn about God’s word in my country, which has caused me to cherish the educational opportunity to deepen my biblical knowledge. Those faces also reminded me that my interpretation of the Bible should be as accurate as possible for the worthiness of educating them to know God and love him. When I first came to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, I wanted to write a dissertation about the prophetic spirit in Luke-Acts. However, the topic had been written about a lot by other scholars. Then, I shifted my focus onto Paul’s eschatology. After a period of time in research, I noticed that Paul’s temple metaphor was strongly related to his eschatology. Since Paul used the temple metaphor to deal with the ethnic issues among the Corinthians, the idea of temple purity began to arise in my heart. This topic was quickly approved by my supervisor.

VIII

Preface

The process of completing the dissertation has been full of many exciting moments of finding good material during research and connecting various ideas together into thematic writing. However, there were also quite a few challenging and non-productive periods. I had a car accident in 2009 and my left side was seriously injured, which has caused frequent pain in my left arm. The effects of this incident affected me for many days and nights, and could have killed my hope of finishing my dissertation. When I finished my draft in the spring of 2010, I went back to China and participated in ministry. I came back to school after 7 months of non-academic life to resume the research for revision, and the work became very dreary due to its discontinuity caused by the uncertain days of waiting to get each draft back and figuring out how to improve it. Although the goal of completion was tough, I went back to Asia again in the summer of 2011 and led the ministry there for four months. Finally, by the Lord’s grace and providence I came to the point of completing the revision and was approved to set up a time for my dissertation defense on December 20 of 2011, which is exactly the date of my conversion to Jesus Christ 14 years ago in Yunnan, China. Exhilaratingly, I become the first mainland Chinese doctoral graduate in the New Testament area of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and the first mainland Chinese author to have his dissertation published by Mohr Siebeck. Dr. Eckhard Schnabel as my supervisor has been very helpful in guiding me to read related books and discussing each chapter with me with his profound knowledge of Second Temple Judaism and 1 Corinthians. Also, after the dissertation was done, Dr. Schnabel referred it to Dr. Jörg Frey, who gladly accepted it to be published in the series of WUNT II, and Dr. Henning Ziebritzki quickly issued me the invitation letter for publication. Ms. Dominika Zgolik is helpful on giving me the suggestions of re-formation of my dissertation according to WUNT II publishing standard. All these factors made it possible for my writing to be published. Furthermore, I want to thank Hans Madueme and Joy Wong for proofreading my dissertation, and Dr. Hingkau Yeung, Elder Muh-Chieh Yu, Rev. Stanley Kwong, Rev. Yamin Huang, Rev. Ted Lam, Dr. Enoch Wan, Dr. Chow Lam, Stephen Meng, Anthony and Dorcas family, James and Ling family, John and Barbara family, Paul and Linda family, Yao and Helen family, who have encouraged me with their support and friendship in the process of my study. Lastly, the deep appreciation is owed to my brothers and sisters from the churches in the mainland of China who have prayed for my completion of study. There are still too many names to be mentioned here and it always reminds me that this academic work cannot be finished alone because it testifies to the Lord’s grace and mercy among his people who are his temple to glorify his name together. Soli Deo Gloria 12th December 2012

Yulin Liu

Table of Contents Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV Chapter 1: Introduction to the Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 The Problem and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 History of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.1 Paul’s Temple Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.2 Paul’s Application of the Temple Metaphor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2.3 Evaluation of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.3 Methodological Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.4 Significance of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 1.5 Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 1.5.1 Metaphor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.5.2 Purity and Impurity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.5.2.1 Definition of Purity and Impurity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.5.2.2 Types, Sources, and Effects of Purity and Impurity. . . . . . . . . . 20 1.5.2.3 Restoration of Purity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1.5.2.4 Purity in the Greco-Roman World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1.5.2.5 Temple Purity in the Jewish and Greco-Roman Worlds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1.6 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Chapter 2: Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.2 The Jerusalem Temple. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

X

Table of Contents

2.2.1 The Jerusalem Temple: Its Significance and Character . . . . . . . . . . .39 2.2.2 The Temple’s History and Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 2.3 Temple Purity in Second Temple Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.3.1 Palestinian Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.3.1.1 Tobit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.3.1.2 Judith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.3.1.3 1 Enoch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 2.3.1.4 Jubilees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 2.3.1.5 1 Maccabees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.3.1.6 2 Maccabees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.3.1.7 Testament of Levi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 2.3.1.8 Testament of Benjamin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 2.3.1.9 Prayer of Azariah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 2.3.1.10 Sirach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 2.3.1.11 1 Ezra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 2.3.1.12 Psalms of Solomon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 2.3.1.13 Testament of Moses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 2.3.1.14 4 Ezra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 2.3.2 Dead Sea Scrolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2.3.3 Diaspora Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 2.3.3.1 Letter of Aristeas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 2.3.3.2 Wisdom of Solomon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 2.3.3.3 Sibylline Oracles 3-6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 2.3.3.4 3 Maccabees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 2.3.3.5 4 Maccabees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 2.3.3.6 2 Baruch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 2.3.4 Philo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 2.3.5 Josephus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 .

.

2.4 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Chapter 3: Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 3.1 Introduction of Greek and Roman Religions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3.2 Temples in the Greco-Roman World. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 3.2.1 The Role of Temples in Greek Religion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 3.2.2 The Role of Temples in Roman Religion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 3.3 The Temple of Apollo and Its Purity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 3.4 The Temple of Isis and Its Purity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

XI

Table of Contents

3.5 The Temple of Asklepios and Its Purity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105

Chapter 4: Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4.1.1 Jesus and the Temple. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4.1.2 Stephen and the Temple. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 4.1.3 Conclusion for Paul. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 .

4.2 Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 4.2.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114 4.2.2 The Historical Background for the Reader Community. . . . . . . . . . .116 4.2.3 The Temple Metaphor in 1 Cor 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 4.2.4 Partisanship as the Defiling Factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 4.3 Temple Purity and Excommunication in 1 Corinthians 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .127 4.3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127 4.3.2 Purity and Pollution at a Corporate Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 4.3.3 Paul’s Execration and Restoration of Temple Purity. . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 4.4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 4.4.2 The Incompatibility of Christ’s Body and Prostitute’s Body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 4.4.2.1 Porneia: Disgraceful Behavior in the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 4.4.2.2 The Concept of Soma in 1 Cor 6:15-20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 4.4.2.3 Offense against Christ and the Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159 4.4.3 Mutilation of the Deity’s Image: Sacrilege of the Temple. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165 4.4.3.1 Image-Mutilation as Sacrilege in the Jewish World. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165 4.4.3.2 Image-Mutilation as Sacrilege in the Greco-Roman World. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 4.4.3.3 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 4.5 Temple Purity and Intermarriage in 1 Corinthians 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 4.5.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 4.5.2 Unbelieving Partner as Threat to Temple Purity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

XII

Table of Contents

4.5.2.1 Impurity of Gentile Women and Offspring vs. the Temple. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 4.5.2.2 Intermarriage Impurity: Not an Issue for the Gentile Converts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 4.5.2.3 Not to Divorce: Sanctification of the Family for the Temple Purity. . . . . . . . . . 182 4.5.3 Paul’s Attitude Revisited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 4.6 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Chapter 5: Temple Purity in 2 Corinthians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 5.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 5.1.1 The Integrity of 1 Cor 6:14-7:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 5.1.2 Paul’s Use of the OT Quotations: An Illustration of 2 Cor 6:16b-18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199 5.2 The Purity Order of the Temple Community (2 Cor 6:14-16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 5.2.1 Why Separation: Purification of the Temple for the Covenant Prescription . . . . . . . . 201 5.2.2 Enforcement of the Temple Boundary: Its Historical Counterparts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 5.3 God’s Providence of the Temple for his People (2 Cor 6:17-18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 5.3.1 New Exodus to Entail a New Temple-Abode from God. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 5.3.2 Kinship Language and Temple Household. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221 5.4 The Progressive Temple-Building toward Consummation (2 Cor 7:1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 5.5 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233

Chapter 6: Summary and Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234 Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241 Reference Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270

Table of Contents

XIII

Index of Modern Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 Index of Subjects and Key Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 .

List of Abbreviations Translations of Greek and Latin texts refer to the Loeb Classical Library, unless otherwise noted. Most translations have been taken from a most recent standard authority. If such authorities are not available in some occasions, the author has facilitated the translation himself. New Testament quotations follow the NestleAland 27th edition. The bibliography, footnotes, and abbreviations follow the SBL Handbook of Style (1 st edition, 1999). The following list mentions those materials not included in the SBL Handbook’s list of abbreviations. AB ABISRB AGAJU APEC ASNU BNP BS BTS BZABR BZNWKAK CEJL CJAS CQS CWA DCLS FIOTL GAP HCOT IGR ILS JPICL JRASS

Academia Biblica Analecta Biblica Investigationes Scientificae in Res Biblicas Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity Acta Seminarii Neotestamentic Upsaliensis Brill’s New Pauly The Biblical Seminar Biblical Tools and Studies Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series Companion to the Qumran Scrolls Cambridge World Archaeology Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae The Joan Palevsky Imprint in Classical Literature Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series

List of Abbreviations JSJPHRP JSRC MPIL NSBT PACS RGRW RM SBEC SC SCL SCS SDSSR SVTP THNT TSAJ

Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden New Studies in Biblical Theology Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series Religions in the Graeco-Roman World Rheinisches Museum Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity Studies in Classics Sather Classical Lectures Septuagint Commentary Series Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha Theologischer Handkommentar yum Neuen Testament Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism

XV

Chapter 1

Introduction to the Issues 1.1 The Problem and Purpose Temple purity is one of Paul’s teachings to the Corinthian Christians, which defines who they are and what they are supposed to do to be compatible with God’s holiness and presence for the Christian community. In his letters to the Corinthian Christians, Paul writes: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1 Cor 3:16-17, NRSV). Then, he urges them: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (1 Cor 6:19). Later, Paul firmly points out: “What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God” (2 Cor 6:16). Paul employs a cultic metaphor to convey his concern for preserving the holiness of the Corinthian community in light of the salvation work accomplished by Jesus Christ among them (1 Cor 3:11; 5:7; 6:17; 7:12-14; 2 Cor 6:15). For Paul, Jesus Christ’s atonement procures the presence of God among the community and defines them in terms of holiness, which requires the Corinthians to resemble God in their virtues (cf. 1 Cor 5:8; 6:19-20).1 As a quick summary which will be explained later, Paul’s temple purity conveys the following ideas: (1) the community is an authentic worshiping community of God; (2) the community is the dwelling place of the Spirit; (3) the community is a good testimony of unity and holiness; (4) the community has an eschatological identity and represents the new people of the “world-to-come.”2 By preserving its purity, the community leads an ongoing sanctified life in the worship and service of God toward its consummation (cf. 2 Cor 6:18-7:1).3 The construction of the temple will end up with God’s people entering his eternal rest. Temple purity conveys the Corinthian church’s participation in Christ as an inseparable member of his body and the one temple as the domicile of God. The

1 Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 91. 2 Nicholas T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 135, 290, 406. 3 Michael Parsons, “Being Precedes Act: Indicative and Imperative in Paul’s Writing (1988),” in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches (ed. Brian S. Rosner; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 225-26; Stephen Finlan, The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 217.

2

1.2 History of Research

unified salvific work of God is manifest in building the Corinthian community as the holy temple; that is, God the Father’s assembling of them to himself (2 Cor 6:16-18), Christ the Son laying the salvific foundation for building this temple (1 Cor 3:11), and the Holy Spirit making it the dwelling place for guiding them to glorify God (1 Cor 6:19-20). By simply surveying Paul’s mention of temple purity in his letters, one question arises: Does Paul use the temple metaphor as a spiritualization of the Jerusalem temple cult? Here “spiritualization” means a reflection of the inner spiritual and religious realities of the temple apart from its external cultic practices.4 Since Paul juxtaposed the community and the temple in analogy, spiritualization of the community as the temple would most likely be in his mind. However, while Paul’s perception of the community as the temple may not oppose the institution of the Jerusalem temple, it may foster the idea of the replacement of the Jerusalem temple with the community-temple.5 On the other hand, Paul is not the pioneer who proposes the community as the temple. Paul’s use of the temple metaphor could have been influenced by the early Jewish religious context such as the Qumran community, and the contemporary Jerusalem church’s view (cf. Acts 7). However, Paul uses the metaphor to reach his own purpose in teaching. He attempts to impress upon the Corinthians their identity (as the property of God) and an ethical boundary (as confined within the sanctified life) within a “yet-fulfilled” redemptive maxim (cf. 1 Cor 6:20; 2 Cor 6:17-18). As such, the temple metaphor becomes a literary means for Paul to define an ethic boundary of the community compatible with God’s holiness. 6 For Paul, bodily holiness is the evidence of God’s dwelling in the individual believer and in the community. At the same time, to lead a proper life actually contributes to God’s temple-building. Finally, God himself will bring his temple’s construction to its completion. The temple which connects the present and the future, God and his people is figuratively used in Paul’s message with emphasis on the community as the dwelling place of God.

4 Hans Wenschkewitz, Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe: Tempel, Priester und Opfer im Neuen Testament (Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1932); For the details of spiritualizing God’s temple in the NT, see also R. J. McKelvey, The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 56; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Cultic Language in Qumran and in the NT,” CBQ 38 (1976): 160, gives the following definition: “NT research has partly continued to understand and to employ ‘spiritualization’ in this anti-cultic sense. The term has also been used to denote religious, spiritual, inner attitudes and realities in distinction and often in opposition to secular, worldly, physical or outward realities.” 5 Floyd Vivian Filson, “The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East. Part IV, Temple, Synagogue, and Church,” BA 7 (1944): 85-86. Albert L. A. Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 380-84, also refutes Paul’s community as the substitution of the Jerusalem temple and argues that “the idea of the [substitutional] spiritualization of the cult in Paul’s letters” is not well founded. 6 Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple, 384.

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

3

In light of Paul’s description of the Corinthian Christian community as the temple of God, this study will concentrate on the ways in which Paul addresses the purity issue concerning their identity as God’s temple. Inasmuch as temple purity is an important imagery for Paul as he addresses communal and individual holiness, this dissertation will explore temple purity in the context of Second Temple Judaism and the Greco-Roman world aiming to understand Paul’s situational message.

1.2 History of Research Since there is no specific work on linking temple and purity in the Corinthian letters, this review will look into two distinct streams of the scholarly research. The first stream includes discussion of Paul’s temple language. The second stream concerns the scholarly inquiry of Paul’s application of the temple metaphor to the Corinthian community. 1.2.1 Paul’s Temple Language Regarding Paul’s temple language, in 1932, H. Wenschkewitz suggested that a reflective form of spiritualization could be found in Paul’s temple metaphor because Paul was influenced by Stoic and Philonic spiritualization of cultic practice.7 C. F. D. Moule affirmed Wenschkewitz’s point that Paul’s use of temple metaphor conveys a spiritual sense beyond the Jerusalem temple cult.8 After the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, the scholarly inquiry into Paul’s temple language began to cast light on Palestinian Judaism. The research done by B. Gärtner in 1965 and R. J. McKelvey in 1969 gives a close examination of the temple imagery in the Jewish and Greek literature. Gärtner believed that the temple imagery developed in the Qumran community reflected a critical view of the Jerusalem temple and its religious practices.9 The community regarded itself as the eschatological dwelling place of God. McKelvey studied how the idea of a new heavenly and spiritual temple is presented in terms of Hellenistic Judaism and Palestinian Judaism. As a result, he assumed a Jewish background for Paul’s temple language and perceived the church as the new temple.10 In 1971, G. Klinzing presented a comparative study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Despite his denial that the Qumran spiritualized the temple and the cult, he affirmed that the Qumran community reinterpreted the cultic

7

Wenschkewitz, Kultusbegriffe, 49-87, 110-131. C. F. D. Moule, “Sanctuary and Sacrifice in the Church of the New Testament,” JTS 1 (1950): 36. 9 Bertil E. Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 16-46. 10 McKelvey, The New Temple, 42-57. 8

4

1.2 History of Research

language and perceived itself as the true apocalyptic community awaiting the final redemption and judgment.11 Later, E. Schüssler Fiorenza pointed out the confusion caused by using spiritualization in regard to the temple metaphor. Being dissatisfied with simply applying “spiritualization” to the Qumran’s and Paul’s temple ideology, she argued that we should approach the temple concept in each community with its own peculiarity. Finally, she preferred the term “transference” to “spiritualization.”12 R. Bauckham suggests that the analogy between the temple and the community is found only among the early Christians and in the Qumran community. The Jerusalem church’s reinterpretation of the temple in Judaism separates them from the explanation of the other three pillars (election, torah and monothesim) in Judaism. The Christological understanding of the community as God’s temple distinguishes the monotheism in Christianity from the monotheism in Judaism.13 J. D. Levenson advocates that spiritualization of the temple is not a strategic adaptation to the disillusionment of the earthly temple (from the Qumran) or the temple’s destruction in 70 A.D. Rather, the Jewish temple ideology had included the spiritual dimension long before the temple was destroyed. Paul, a Pharisaic Christian, would not have ignored this tradition.14 1.2.2 Paul’s Application of the Temple Metaphor Regarding Paul’s temple metaphor, M. Newton notes that since Paul’s view of the Spirit dwelling in the community reminds us of God’s glory resting on the Jerusalem temple in the Old Testament, it enables Paul to call the Corinthian church the holy temple. Thus the church as the temple is not merely a figurative idea but it “is the expression of the deep reality that [Paul] felt regarding the nature of the Church.”15 By using J. Milgrom’s purification offering theory (offering which purifies the sanctuary rather than the sinner), Newton suggests that 11

Georg Klinzing, Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament (SUNT 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 143-66. 12 Schüssler Fiorenza, “Cultic Language,” 161, says: “Since the category ‘spiritualization’ has so many different shades of meaning and entails certain dogmatic presuppositions, its use tends not to clarify but to confuse. Therefore, instead of using the category of ‘spiritualization’ I shall employ the more descriptive term ‘transference.’ This term indicates that Jewish and Hellenistic cultic concepts were shifted to designate a reality which was not cultic.” 13 Richard Bauckham, “The Parting of the Ways: What Happened and Why,” ST 47 (1993): 147-48; see also Richard Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Community,” in Jewish Believers in Jesus (ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 55-95. 14 Jon Douglas Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 182, says: “It would be a mistake to regard these dislocations and transformations as a spiritualization of mundane realities recently terminated. Rather, land, Temple, and sovereignty were never strictly mundane in character. They had always been perceived mythically as well as historically, and it is this spiritualization of them while they yet stood which has enabled the Jews to survive, and even at times to thrive, despite dispersion to the ends of the earth.” 15 Michael Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (SNTSMS 53; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 76.

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

5

since for Paul, Jesus’ blood has cleansed the throne seat in the holy of holies, the presence of God is assumed by the Christian community.16 Due to the inclusion of Gentiles in the Corinthian community, J. Lanci argues that Paul’s temple metaphor is closely related to the construction projects in the city of Corinth during that time. How pagan temples functioned symbolically is borrowed by Paul to strengthen the communal adherence to unity. His temple metaphor marks the community’s inviolable boundary and identifies it as a unified body filled with spiritual gifts.17 B. Rosner reads 1 Cor 3:16-17 and 5:6-8 as being governed by the purity motif. The former deals with the temple characterized by holiness, and thus the latter “carries a demand for the maintenance of purity” illustrated by excommunication of the incestuous believer.18 He notes that Paul had Josephus’ story in mind when he exhorted the Corinthian Christians to flee from porneia (1 Cor 6:18). The new life in Christ needs to be worked out through Christian behaviors and Paul’s condemnation of sexual immorality is rooted in Jesus’ “husband and wife” – like union with the believers.19 D. W. Odell-Scott argues that the temple metaphor was advocated by the partisans who sought “sacred perfection.”20 Paul did not call the community as the temple of God but simply cited the claim of the faction and made the critique against those who held this fantasy of sacredness, because they were none other than the defiling source in Paul’s eyes. This idea of “sacred perfection” leads to deception and destruction. Paul’s deconstruction of the faction’s temple ideology aims for reconciliation and unity of the community.21 G. K. Beale’s interpretation of building the communal temple starts by comparing it with Malachi 3–4; God testing his temple – the church – with fire is to fulfill Malachi’s prophecy that “the day is coming” (Mal 4:1). For Beale, to build the temple – community is a dynamic process of sanctification. A believer’s future resurrection is equal to becoming part of God’s eschatological temple. The Spirit being given as the down payment of God, the promise for the new creation is inaugurated and the building of a new temple comes into view.22 A. May studies Paul’s temple metaphor in terms of Christ’ body, which substantially represents both communal and individual identity. The ethical rules 16

Ibid. John R. Lanci, A New Temple for Corinth: Rhetorical and Archaeological Approaches to Pauline Imagery (New York: Lang, 1997), 133-34. 18 Brian S. Rosner, “Temple and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 5,” TynBul 42 (1991): 141. See also Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7 (AGAJU 22; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 77. 19 Rosner, Paul, 135-45. See also. James P. Sweeney, “Jesus, Paul, and the Temple: An Exploration of Some Patterns of Continuity,” JETS 46 (2003): 610. 20 David W. Odell-Scott, Paul’s Critique of Theocracy: A/Theocracy in Corinthians and Galatians (London: T & T Clark, 2003), 121. 21 Ibid., 152-56. 22 Gregory K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Temple (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 251, 257-58. 17

6

1.2 History of Research

mark the boundary of God’s temple community, and thus “Christian identity is conceived of in somatic terms.”23 Although one’s body can participate in Christ and be indwelt by the Spirit, immoral behavior destroys this identity rather than the body of Christ. Her reading of 1 Cor 6:12-20 is from a sexual perspective and contends that it is the believer’s body rather than the body of Christ which is permeable to porneia. The pollution of the body destroys the believer’s “spiritual union with Christ.”24 A. Hogeterp suggests that Paul borrowed the cultic features from the Jerusalem temple and applied them to the Corinthian community. The temple metaphor is a pedagogic way for Paul to address his ethical concerns. The metaphor is linked with the body of Christ, and the unity of Christ’s body heightens Paul’s concern for communal and individual holiness.25 R. Hays reads Paul’s concern for communal holiness in light of Deuteronomy, and he suggests that Paul quotes “the Deuteronomic formula” to deal with the trouble caused by the incestuous believer in 1 Cor 5. The excommunication of the sinner is due to Paul’s association of the Passover event with Jesus’ atonement.26 Considering Paul’s furious attitude against prostitution in the Corinthian church (cf. 1 Cor 6:15-16), D. Martin states that the body of Christ was sexually violated by the cosmos with the Corinthians’ prostitution. He argues that sexual immorality belongs to “boundary-transgressing activities” and pollutes the entire community – the temple of God.27 By reading 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, J. A. Adewuya presents two useful observations. First, Paul’s perception of communal holiness is not “inward-looking” but “mission-oriented.” 28 Second, this holiness is due to God’s redemptive work other than man’s effort. T. Wardle affirms that for Paul and other early Christians the cultic imagery is influenced by the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. “Templization” of the community is the Christian response to the hostility from the religious leaders of the Jerusalem temple.29 The early Christians’ dissent with Jerusalem’s priestly leadership is the primary reason for them to propagandize a communal temple idea.30

23 Alistair Scott May, The Body for the Lord: Sex and Identity in 1 Corinthians 5 – 7 (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 140. 24 Ibid., 130. 25 Albert L. A. Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 384. 26 Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 22-24. 27 Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 174-79. 28 J. Ayodeji Adewuya, Holiness and Community in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1: Paul’s View of Communal Holiness in the Corinthian Correspondence (New York: Lang, 2001), 86. 29 Timothy Wardle, The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity (WUNT 2. 291; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 11. 30 Ibid., 225.

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

7

1.2.3 Evaluation of the Literature The above studies can be evaluated as follows. First, some scholars approach Paul’s message from only one world, either the Jewish or the Greco-Roman. M. Newton contends correctly that temple purity prepares the community for eschaton. However, when he deals with the relevant Pauline passages, he comments only from his study of the Qumran community. He neglects the Old Testament and the Greco-Roman world.31 J. Lanci notes that Paul’s temple metaphor should be understood from the architectural context of Corinth. However, his work lacks any persuasive archaeological evidence.32 In particular, to identify the officer Erastus in Rom 16:23 with the aedile Erastus, whom is mentioned in an inscription from Corinth, is inaccurate.33 Neither does he discuss the Old Testament and Palestinian Judaism as part of the background for Paul’s temple metaphor. Second, Paul’s claim of the community as God’s temple is misinterpreted by some. D. W. Odell-Scott’s perspective fails to see the temple metaphor as Paul’s own literary device when he teaches the Corinthians “who they are” and “how to remain in what they should be.” In fact, 1 Corinthians 3 and 5 illustrate how Paul applies the temple metaphor to a situational case. The purpose of the temple metaphor is to help the Corinthians obtain a new perception of their redeemed status that they may live properly and faithfully according to God’s will because of his salvific dwelling among them.34 Third, in most scholars’ works the temple theme is discussed as a discrete theme without being viewed as a comprehensive motif interrelated in 1 Corinthians 3, 5, 6 and 7 for Paul’s paideutic purpose. Also, Paul’s concern for temple purity in these chapters is not handled by them thoroughly. G. K. Beale’s conclusion concerning temple-building in 1 Cor 3:10-17 briefly mentions the temple’s expanding boundary and holiness. However, we need to note Paul’s consideration of partisanship as pollution (destruction) of the temple. We also need to realize that purification of the temple in this passage is relevant to Paul’s excommunication of an incestuous Christian in 1 Corinthians 5 where Paul applied his purification-command to deal with the immorality (cf. 1 Cor 3:15, 17; 5:5). Moreover, Beale’s view of 2 Cor 6:16-18 lacks handling of its Old Testament prophetic background that God will purify the remnant people and be 31

Newton, The Concept. Lanci, A New Temple for Corinth, 34, shows his lack of assurance to identify Paul’s associate Erastus (Rom 16:23) as the aedile Erastus, which weakens his argument that the Corinthian church consists of the governors and laborers working on the municipal construction projects. 33 Steven J. Friesen, “The Wrong Erastus: Ideology, Archaeology, and Exegesis,” in Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society (ed. Steven J. Friesen et al.; SNT 134; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 242-45, gives two reasons for denying the identification: (1) an oikonomos (Rom 16:23) is not an aedile because the former is a financial administrator in a middle social status while the latter is the highest officer in Corinth; (2) the inscription should be dated to the mid 2nd A.D. 34 Odell-Scott, Paul’s Critique. 32

8

1.2 History of Research

their residence.35 Beale deals with Paul’s temple motif from the Jewish historical and literary background, but the study of the Greco-Roman world is missing from his works. A. May discusses the relationship between porneia and body, but she overlooks the fact that Paul treats prostitution as though it were cutting off a limb from the body of Christ, which is identical to the pollution of God’s temple. Moreover, she does not include the intermarriage issue in 1 Cor 7: 1-16 which relates to Paul’s concern of temple purity as well.36 Fourth, some scholarly inquiries either misinterpret Paul’s message regarding temple purity or miss Paul’s multiple theological dimensions concealed in his temple metaphor. B. Rosner insists that Paul impresses the Corinthian Christians about an ethical boundary with the temple metaphor. In his analysis of 1 Cor 6:12-20, Rosner perceives prostitution as a disloyal sin against the marital covenant between Jesus and his church. However, we need to think about why Paul uses the idea of mutilation of Christ’s body to describe prostitution rather than breaking the marital covenant. A thorough discussion will be given in Chapter four suggesting that mutilation of the deity’s image is identical to profanation of his temple, which conveys exactly Paul’s condemnation of sexual immorality in terms of temple purity.37 A. Hogeterp spends a good length of time studying the temple motif in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and the early Jesus movement, but his study of the Pauline temple is short and insufficient. He notes Paul’s temple metaphor as a way of teaching the church the holy life. However, he lacks awareness of Paul’s use of the metaphor from an eschatological perspective as well.38 From Paul’s use of the Passover story as an illustration, one can plausibly see a Deuteronomic influence in his theology, but R. Hays’ point still needs some nuance. From the immediate context, we do not see that salvation is totally stripped away from the sinner, for Paul declares that “his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor 5:5). Besides, driving out the sinner from the faithful community is incompatible with the Passover account in Exodus, because the Israelites stayed together as a community without driving out anyone! Also Hays fails to discuss that excommunication is a means of temple purification for Paul.39 D. Martin’s argument that Christ’s body is sexually penetrated by “the evil cosmos” is not convincing.40 Although Paul employs marital union as an analogy to our union with Christ, Paul nowhere says that the adultery committed by the believers causes the sexual shame of the exalted Christ. Moreover, Paul never means that the limb of Christ’s body continues to be the member of Christ when

35

Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 251. May, The Body for the Lord. 37 Rosner, Paul. 38 Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple. 39 Hays, Conversion. 40 Martin, The Corinthian Body, 178. 36

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

9

it is transferred to the body of the prostitute; instead, he uses this startling imagery to convey his concern of temple profanation. More reasonably, the mutilation imagery conveys the radical incompatibility of Christ’s members and those of the prostitute, and the dismembered limb will cease to function as part of the existing Christ-body.41 Since the metaphor of their body as the temple of the Holy Spirit is immediately emphasized by Paul after his consideration of bodily mutilation, we can plausibly infer that the Corinthians should have known such behavior would profane the temple of God. In other words, the mutilation of Christ’s body is a severe desecration.42 J. A. Adewuya notices God’s intercession behind the communal effort to build the temple, but he does not pay specific attention to Paul’s potential claim that God will provide the dwelling place for his people (cf. 2 Cor 6:17-18).43 Despite his mention of the communal separation from the world as a life witness, Adewuya lacks exegetical handling of the growth of the temple toward consummation (cf. 2 Cor 7:1). Though T. Wardle is aware of the transference from a priestly templecommunity (the Jerusalem temple) to a non-priestly temple-community (the Christian church) in the early church, he fails to mention God’s providence and his participation in the building process to complete the eschatological temple; also, he misses the study of the Greco-Roman world in his works.44 Above all, the studies on the temple metaphor in 1–2 Corinthians render different perspectives and approaches to the text, some of which are stimulating and helpful at discovering the Jewish heritage behind Paul’s message. However, a comprehensive study of all the passages about temple purity in 1–2 Corinthians needs to be initiated. Also the combination of the Jewish and Greco-Roman world requires our attention because Paul lived in a Hellenistic world as a Roman citizen.

1.3 Methodological Concerns This dissertation will apply socio-historical and exegetical-philological research to understand Paul’s theological and pastoral concerns regarding the purity of the community as God’s order. As G. Osborne rightly asserts, “both text and its background are essential components of meaning,” each part of Paul’s statements on temple purity will be considered within the scope of the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, the Greco-Roman world, the historical situation of the Co41

Eric R. Varner, Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture (MGR 10; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 3, points out that in the Greco-Roman world, attacks on an emperor’s image were “analogous to physical attacks against the emperor’s person.” 42 William R. G. Loader, The Septuagint, Sexuality, and the New Testament: Case Studies on the Impact of the LXX in Philo and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 93. 43 Adewuya, Holiness and Community, 193-200. 44 Wardle, Jerusalem Temple.

10

1.4 Significance of the Study

rinthian church, the fuller literary and theological context in the Corinthian letters.45 My interpretation is decided by alignment with the Corinthian readers who can “help us to discover the commissive or relational meaning of the narrative,” namely, the implied audience’s response will be taken into account.46 The interpretative question will be posed on how the Jewish converts and the gentile converts are able to understand Paul’s concern of temple purity respectively. The interpretative structure is largely dependent on unlocking the historical code of the Jewish world and the Greco-Roman world in terms of Paul’s message to reach the Corinthians’ comprehension of the textual meaning. The primary sources for this aim include the Old Testament, Second Temple literature, Greco-Roman literature, and the Pauline corpus. This is not a traditional historical study and thus it will largely omit other New Testament letters on the temple motif, and instead focus on Paul’s thought and his religio-historical background.

1.4 Significance of the Study Temple purity played an important role in both the Jewish and Greco-Roman world. In regard to Paul’s message to the Corinthian church composed of Jews and Gentiles, it is important to deal with the theme from both the Jewish tradition and Greco-Roman background (cf. 1 Cor 5:11; 8:7). The study will discern proper interpretative data without overplaying either the Jewish or the Greco-Roman sociocultural contextual world. The significance of the project is manifest in three aspects. First, since there is no monographic treatment with comprehensive exploration of temple purity from the entire context of Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, this dissertation will contribute to a fuller grasp of Paul’s use of this powerful imagery. Second, this study will allow us to contend that Paul has separated neither the bodily life from the spiritual life nor the earthly life from the heavenly life, because the apostle believes our life on earth involves the process of building us up into God’s dwelling temple. In other words, Paul’s ecclesiological ethic motivating his use of temple purity is always christological, eschatological and soteriological. Third, this study will shed light on how the temple’s growth and consummation is secured by God’s providence and sovereignty. The project will attempt to demonstrate that Paul’s exhortations are grounded in his conviction of the salvific and eschatological dwelling of God’s Spirit among his people. Paul perceives temple purity as a dynamic and Christ-centered concept when he exhorts the Corinthian church continually to grow up in holiness. Immorality in this life pro-

45 Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), 213-14. 46 Ibid., 312.

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

11

fanes God’s temple and negatively influences its developmental process. Communal and individual holiness is the fundamental identity to be maintained by Christians and kept under discipline by God, which is analogous to building a temple for God. However, God, the major builder, will finally complete the project and provide a temple for his people.

1.5 Terminology 1.5.1 Metaphor Aristotle defines metaphor as “the application of a word that belongs to another thing: either from genus to species, species to genus, species to species, or by analogy” (Poet. 1457b; cf. Rhet. 1406b, 1410b, 1412a). The modern definition generally assumes that metaphor is a figurative way of speech that speaks of the subject in terms of a symbolic reality. This symbolic reality depicts the subject in analogy. 47 Metaphor plays as a depictive analogy, so that description becomes lively and “a state of affairs” is specified.48 The analogy to another different element (domain) enables abstract concepts to “achieve concrete semantic reality” and broadens “the semantic field.”49 For example, Paul’s temple metaphor in the Corinthian letters juxtaposes two different domains – the temple and the Christian believers – in an analogous way (1 Cor 3: 16-17; 6: 19; 2 Cor 6:16). The individual or the community is the subject and the temple is the metaphoric object. The spiritual and theological characteristics of the temple are ascribed to a Christian individual or a community through the metaphorical lens. In other words, the temple metaphor serves as “the principle epistemic means” by which Paul transforms the knowledge of what a Christian does (regarding the temple) into that of what he or she is (the temple).50 Thus, Paul’s temple metaphor embodies in its context a reflective, depictive, performative and “transformative power” to create a special view of the communal and individual identity which is embedded in God’s holiness.51 However, metaphor should not only be analyzed as the interaction of two realms of expression or of two domains, as cognitive linguistics would formulate it, but should also be studied from the perspective of human communication. Metaphors do not only connect concepts, they also witness to the subjective involvement, the needs, emotions and evaluations of the speaker with regard to the subject of the utterance. In that way, metaphors are able to change the specific speech-act of the

47 Emmanuel Uchenna Dim, The Eschatological Implications of Isa. 65 and 66 as the Conclusion of the Book of Isaiah (New York: Lang, 2005), 75, 133-34; George B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980), 152. 48 Christine Walde, “Metaphor,” BNP 8: 788. 49 Ibid. 50 Phillip Stambovsky, The Depictive Image: Metaphor and Literary Experience (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988), 103. 51 Ibid.

12

1.5 Terminology

expression, but also to modify the relation the hearer will have with the text, as they call for a reaction by the hearer, be it assenting or repudiating.52

Substantially, metaphor conveys a reciprocal communication that the speaker puts himself in the situation of the hearer and shows his expectation of the action to be taken by the hearer. Paul’s temple metaphor is a speech-act which not only explains the Corinthian Christians’ essential identity, but also commands them to practice the things compatible with their identity. Furthermore, the Corinthian Christian community as the temple is not a figurative reality, but it is the reality which connotes the unity of God and his people. The Spirit’s dwelling in the community and in the individual makes them the resident house of God. Therefore, Paul has enough reason to worry about this temple purity. His rebuke on immorality is to arouse the Corinthian Christians’ repentance and help them turn away from evildoing lest the purity of God’s temple be destroyed by immoral sins. A socio-historical literary exegesis is the suitable way to understand Paul’s temple metaphor. In other words, metaphor should not be deducted from a theological presupposition but from exegesis in its socio-historical situation.53 1.5.2 Purity and Impurity Purity and impurity is an ideological concept which requires a thorough definition before its application. The following study understands purity and impurity in a systematic framework with regard to its substantial sense, types/sources, effects, restoration, and connection with the temple. In the later part, the study will deal with purification in the Greco-Roman world. This part will concentrate on the definition of several Hebrew and Greek terms regarding the subject, and then on the scholarly inquiries of its meaning in order to present a clarification of the concept. 1.5.2.1 Definition In the Hebrew world, purity or purification denotes a cultic sense. It refers to “a state of being” compatible with the divine or “the absence of impurity” (cf. Gen 7:2, 8; Lev 12:4; 15:28; Deut 14:11).54 The verb rhej' generally refers to cultic purity.55 In the OT, cultic purity involves dietary purity, cleansing of the cultic ob-

52 P. Van Hecke, “Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible: An Introduction,” in Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (ed. P. Van Hecke; BETL 187; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), 13. 53 Jonathan Gan, The Metaphor of Shepherd in the Hebrew Bible: A Historical-Literary Reading (Lanham: University Press of America, 2007), 25. 54 Hannah K. Harrington, The Purity Texts (CQS 5; London: T & T Clark, 2004), 9. 55 Regarding cultic purity, Gen 35:2; Exod 24:10; Lev 11:32; 12:4, 6; 13:6, 13, 17, 23, 28, 34, 37, 58; 14:4, 7, 11, 14, 17, 25, 28, 31, 48, 53; 15:13, 28; 16:19, 30; 17:15; 22:4, 7; Num 8:6, 15, 21; 19:12, 19; 31:23; Josh 22:17; 2 Kgs 5:10, 12; 2 Chr 29:15, 18; 30:18; 34:3, 5, 8; Ezra 6:20;

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

13

jects (the temple, 2 Chr 29:15-16, 34:3; Neh 13:9), purification of the bodily uncleanness (Neh 12:30). The term can also refer to moral purification like cleansing of iniquity, purification of filthiness caused by idolatry, and forgiveness of sins (Lev 16:30; Jer. 33:8; Ezek 36:33; Ps 51:2). In the Qumran community, there are two kinds of purity. One refers to ritual immersion, the daily meals, and something which cannot be touched by outsiders (1 QS 5, 13; 6, 16, 22; 7, 3, 16, 19, 25; 8, 17, 24). The other refers to purification of one’s sin and iniquity (1 QH 1, 32; 3, 21; 7, 30; 11, 10).56 In Jewish monotheistic worship, purity represents a status required of Israel in order that God’s tabernacle is protected and he will not leave his people (cf. Exod 25:8). Besides God’s presence among Israel, God’s calling on them as a priestly and holy nation is the other reason to speak of purity and holiness in Israel’s life (cf. Exod 19:6). A synonym of purity is “holiness” (vAdq'), a term which reflects the substantial character of God (cf. Lev 11:44-45). The Hebrew term usually refers to God’s nature and the sacred places where theophany occurred (Exod 3:5-6; 19:10-15).57 It also refers to consecration of people or the vessels that can be devoted to God (Lev 22:15; Num 4:15; 18:8-9; Deut 5:12-13; 26:19). Priests and Levites are capable of entering the sanctuary because they are holy (Exod 28:3, 41; Lev 20:26; 21:6; Num 6:5, 8; 15:40). On some occasions, it designates the sanctuary or the temple (cf. 1 Chr 6:49; 2 Chr 3:8, 10; 4:22; 5:11; 29:5, 7; 35:5). Besides, vAdq' can refer to the holy city, the holy things in the sanctuary, the holy gifts, and the holy ark (Exod 26:33-34; 40:9; Lev 19:8; 21:12, 23; Num 18:32). In Isaiah, vAdq' denotes the holy people sanctified by God, the remnant living at Jerusalem upon the time of the final judgment (Isa 4:3).58 In Ezekiel, the accusation of profanation of God’s holy name, his sanctuary and the holy priesthood is raised up by the author (Ezek 5:11; 22:26; 23: 38-39; 36:22-24; 44:23).59 In the LXX, it is translated as a[gioj, which occurs 317 times (Exod 19:6; Deut 7:6). In Qumran, holiness refers to the temple, the community and the army empowered by God (cf. 11Q19 29, 8; 35, 8–9; 52, 19; 1 QS 5, 13; 8, 17, 23; 9, 8; 1QM 3, 5; 6, 6).60 Since God is inherently holy, he demands his people to be holy too, namely, that they should set themselves apart from impure things and actions. Israel’s imitation of God will be a good witness to the world and transmit God’s salvation to

Neh 12:30; 13:9, 22, 30; Isa 66:17; regarding moral purity, Ps 51:4, 9; Prov 20:9; Jer 13:27; 33:8; Ezek 36:25, 33; 37:23. 56 H. Ringgren, “rhej,' ” TDOT 5: 287-96; Thomas Kazen, “Dirt and Disgust: Body and Morality in Biblical Purity Laws,” in Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible (ed. Baruch J. Schwartz and David P. Wright; LHBOTS 474; New York: T & T Clark, 2008), 63. 57 W. Kornfeld, “vAdq',” TDOT 12: 527-30; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (3 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1991-2001), 1:730. 58 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1974-2002), 1: 204. 59 Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel (3 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1983-1997), 2: 735. 60 H. Ringgren, “vAdq',” TDOT 12: 545.

14

1.5 Terminology

other nations (cf. Deut 4:6-8, 7:6-8). In a word, holiness is of God’s attribute, of his salvific faithfulness and of his “ethical goodness.”61 Certainly, purity is the most important element to activate holiness. Holiness as the divine energy can be conveyed to the material things, such as the holy items in the sanctuary. On the other hand, if a person preserves his holiness by following divine rules, he will get the advantage “in terms of access to God, gifts and privileges.”62 As an essential part of Israel’s practices and activities, ritual purification signifies that the Israelites and their God are characterized by holiness (cf. Exod 22:31). In the LXX, purity refers to the god’s otherness and holiness, a person with good virtue or a consecrated place. The Greek terms a`gno,j and a[gioj could point to gods and men. The term a`gno,j appears 11 times in the LXX with the meaning of chaste (4 Macc 18:7), sincere (Prov 20:9), divine (Prov 15:26), and cultic purity (2 Macc 13:8). Paul used it in reference to innocence (2 Cor 7:11) and chastity (2 Cor 11:2). It combines the meaning of ritual purity and moral uprightness. In the NT the word can be a reflection of a Christian’s relationship with God (1 Tim 4:12, 5:2; 1 John 3:3).63 The term a[gioj usually appears as an epithet of the gods in the Hellenistic period. In the LXX and post-biblical writings in Second Temple Period, a[gioj primarily refers to the god, the community and the sacred objects. In the NT, besides referring to God and Jesus Christ (John 17:11; Rev 3:7), it can be used for the people in Jesus Christ (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2), the Spirit of God and the life produced from the Spirit (Gal 5:22; Col 3:12; 2 Thess 2:13).64 In the Hellenistic world, when the term a[gioj was used in reference to gods or their temples, it not only referred to the need for holiness and purity, but also referred to the respect required through one’s holiness and purity. A worshiper usually kept purity in mind or went through a purification rite before he entered a temple. In so doing, he avoided offending the deity by protecting the sacred place

61

Harrington, The Purity Texts, 9; he notes: “Holiness can be defined loosely as divine energy. At its core, holiness is another way of saying God… [Israel] can never be inherently holy, but they can mirror the divine holiness in various ways (Lev.11.44-45; 19.2-37). They imitate his otherness and separation from impurity, they strive for his perfection as far as possible, they exhibit the divine goodness (i.e. true justice and mercy), and they partake of divine power… As ‘Consuming Fire’ holiness is that independent, separate ultimate power which reacts violently when coming into contact with any impurity or imperfection. This divine force is worshipped in other cultures as well. However, the second aspect of Holiness, ethical goodness, in Judaism describes the quintessential nature of God and so it is part of what holiness means. When an Israelite defrauds a fellow Israelite or simply withholds wages he is violating the command, ‘Be holy as the Lord your God is holy’ (Lev 19.2).” 62 Ibid., 10. 63 Friedrich Hauck, “a`gno,j,” TDNT 1: 122; H. Baltensweiler, “a`gno,j,” NIDNTT 3: 101; BDAG s. v. “a`gno,j,” 13. 64 Otto Procksch, “a[gioj,” TDNT 1: 88-97; H. Seebass, “a[gioj,” NIDNTT 2: 228; BDAG s. v. “a[gioj,” 10-11.

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

15

from defilement and displayed his great reverence to him, which was accepted as an expression of piety. 65 Two other important Greek terms for purity/impurity are kaqaro,j and avka,qartoj. The primitive sense of avka,qartoj can refer to a profane force associated with “the mysterious processes of birth, sex, sickness and death.”66 A person who wants to draw near to the god must keep himself clean and pure. Since Greek religion perceived uncleanness caused by daimones, “concerned with unclean things,” freedom from daimones is equal to the life purity.67 In the LXX the term kaqaro,j primarily refers to cultic purity (cf. Lev 7:19; 13:6, 17, 34; Num 9:13; 18:11, 13). It denotes one’s clean status or something clean. However, it can also mean moral disposition (cf. Ps 23:4; Prov 12:27; 20:9; Job 4:7, 17; 8:6; 2 Ma 7:40; Ps. Sol. 17:36; Sut. 1:46). The idea behind clean and unclean may go back to the distinction of the primitive concepts of holy (a[gioj) and profane (koino,j).68 When one touches unclean things, he or she needs to be purified. Also, a priest is required to touch nothing unclean so that he can remain clean (cf. Lev 10:10).69 The antonym of purity is impurity: amej' and ll;x.' The Hebrew term amej' “be unclean, defile” connotes both ritual impurity and moral impurity. Ritual impurity includes physiological matters (bodily discharge, menstruation, parturition), unclean animals, corpses, skin diseases, idolatry and cultic unsuitability. Moral impurity refers to humanity’s sins, which was weighted by the Mosaic law because it could defile the land, the resident place of Yahweh (Num 35:34).70 In the Dead Sea Scrolls, profanation of the sanctuary by moral impurity was a primary concern, such as disobedience of God’s ordinances, fornication and the filth of riches (cf. 1 QpHab 8, 8-13, 12, 6-9; CD-A 4, 15-19). The result of moral impurity cannot be annulled by purificatory rite.71 The term ll;x' (profane) is the antonym of vAdq' and occurs 134 times. It is used to distinguish the boundary of sacred and profane realms (Ezek 42:20, 48:15). Thus, it could refer to profanation of the sanctuary (Ezek 7:21-24; Ps 74:7). On other occasions, it connotes profanation of Yahweh’s name (Jer 34:16; Ezek

65 Robert Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 147-151. 66 Friedrich Hauck, “kaqaro,j,” TDNT 3: 415. 67 Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985), 76, 181; see also Friedrich Hauck, “kaqaro,j,” TDNT 3: 416. 68 Schattenmann, “kaqaro,j,” NIDNTT 3: 104; BDAG s. v. “kaqaro,j,” 489. 69 Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus, 1: 614-16. 70 Regarding ritual purity, see Gen 34:5, 13; Lev 5:2; 7:19, 21; 11:4-8, 7, 38; 13:11, 15, 36, 44-46, 51, 55; 14:40-41, 44-46; 15:2, 26; 20:3; 22:4; Num 5:2; 6:12; 9:10; 19:13, 15, 20; Deut 14:8, 10, 19; Isa 6:5; 35:8; 52:11; regarding moral purity, see Ezek 18:6, 11, 15; 22:11; 44:23; for more details, see also G. André, “amj,” TDOT 5:330-342; Kazen, “Dirt and Purity,” 55; Milgrom, Leviticus, 1: 690-98; R. E. Averbeck, “amj,” NIDOTTE 2: 365-75. 71 Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (ed. Carol L. Meyers et al.; ASOR 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 408.

16

1.5 Terminology

20:5-24), and other people like the prince of Tyre (Ezek 28:7, 16; Isa 23:9). Furthermore, it also refers to profanation of other things like the Sabbath (Ezek 20:13, 16, 21, 24), the holy offerings (Lev 22:9, 15), the priesthood (Ezek 22:26; Zeph 3:4), the altar of Yahweh (Exod 20:25), a holy vow or covenant (Num 30:32; Ps 89:31-34; Mal 2:10), and the land (Jer 16:18).72 One thing worth our notice is that “profane/profanation” may not be necessarily linked to the state of impurity. In other words, the purity law does not reckon some profanations as ritually impure. Essentially, this term connotes a violation of the sacred that is not connected to purity laws per se. A number of violations directly related to the sanctuary are seen as profanations, such as the use of tools in the construction of the altar (Exod 20: 22), the eating of the well-being sacrifice on the third day (Lev 19:8), and more importantly for our concerns, the entry into the sanctuary of a priest with a physical irregularity (Lev 21: 18). Priests in this category are not, however, seen as impure; they may eat sacred food, while the defiled priests may not (Lev 21: 22, 22: 4-7).73

Thus, some profane behaviors are of violating the rules rather than of causing ritual impurity. Two other terms commonly used in the OT are hb'[Ae T (abomination) and @nEx' (godless, profane). The former can refer to both ritual impurity (cf. Gen 43:32; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Deut 7:26; 13:15; 14:3; 17:4; 24:4) and moral impurity (cf. Prov 8:7, 6:16, 11:20, 16:12; Jer 44:22; Ezek 36:31). Ritually, it refers to sacrifices, unclean food, idolatry and offering of children. Morally, it connotes wicked thought and prayer, unchastity, and other abominable deeds. In the LXX, it appears 85 times in terms of something “irreconcilable with Yahweh,” either an idea or an action which is “ethically abhorrent.”74 In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the verb occurs 22 times and the noun 24 times, and it usually refers to “works of wickedness” or the abominations committed by the wicked priest (cf. 1QS 4, 25; 1 QH 16, 10; 1QpHab 8, 13).75 The term @nEx' generally means “make someone dirty” or “desecrate”.76 In an ethical sense, it refers to deception, unchastity, hypocrisy, and falsification. On some occasions, it connotes that the land is polluted by murder and idolatry (Num 35:33; Jer 3:2, 9). In Dan 11:32, it refers to pollution of God’s covenant. In the

72

W. Dommershausen, “llx,” TDOT 4:409-417; D. F. O’ Kennedy, “llx,” NIDOTTE 2: 145-

73

Jonathan Klawans, “Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism,” AJS 20 (1995): 191-

50. 92. 74

H. D. Preuß, “hb[AT,” TDOT 15:602. See also M. A. Grisanti, “b[T,” NIDOTTE 4: 314-18; Klawans, Purity, 55-56. Klawans points out: “The term ‘abomination’ is, of course, used with some frequency with regard to the well-documented sources of moral defilement (idolatry, sexual sin, and murder)” (Ibid., 150). 75 Preuß, “hb[AT,” TDOT 15: 602-3. 76 Num 35:33; Job 8:13; 13:16; 15:34; 17:8; 20:5; 27:8; 34:30; 36:13; Ps 35:16; 106:38; Prov 11:9; Isa 9:16; 10:6; 24:5; 32:6; 33:14; Jer 3:1f, 9; 23:11; Dan 11:32; Mic 4:11.

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

17

Qumran community, besides its common meaning like hypocrisy and deception, @nEx' can also point to the traits of the vicious spirit.77 In the OT, there are about fifty verses pointing to the defilement (amj) of God’s sanctuary, one defilement from moral impurity (cf. Lev 20:3; Ezek 5:11; 23:38) and the other from ritual impurity (cf. Num 19:20). Twenty-seven verses with the verb ll;x' also relate to the immoral behavior with which the people profane the sanctuary of God (cf. Ezek 23:39; 28:18). Among the immoral behaviors, sexual sins cause defilement to the land and sinners as we find in Lev 18:24-30. This kind of impurity causes an abiding degradation rather than a temporary defilement.78 The Greek term about defilement is molu,nw, which appears ten times in the LXX rendering of the OT and three times in the NT with regard to humanity’s immoral sins and inward impurity (Zech 14:2; Isa 59:3; Jer 23:11; 1 Cor 8:7; Rev 3:4, 14:4). Figuratively, it signifies one’s immoral actions which result in his or her defilement. 79 This word study shows that the issues concerning purity and impurity are derived from Israel’s religion and daily life which is based on God’s commandment for a holy and separate life. All things, such as humans, animals and objects, which are devoted to God should be consecrated and clean (Lev 11:47). Israel is chosen and consecrated from the nations as God’s possession (Deut 4:20, 9:26, 18:2).80 With regard to its definition, purity means a state of being approved and favored by God because it conforms to his holiness par excellence. Cultic purity signifies a person being in or restored to a status which enables him to approach the deity in qualified physicality and spirituality. 81 Impurity can allude to anything which threatens “the pure status of Israel and its sanctuary.”82 B. Chilton and C. A. Evans assert that purity means the condition of approaching God. Two kinds of impurity are cautioned by Israel in their ritual practice: “impurity by contagion and impurity by holiness.”83 For example, while contact with a corpse will result in impurity by contagion, the touching of God’s belongings could also be a risk (cf. Num 19: 9-11). J. Klawans notes that moral impurity derives from certain abominable acts – “sexual sins (Lev 18:24-30), idolatry (Lev 19:31; 20:1-3), and bloodshed (Num

77

K. Seybold, “@nx,” TDOT 5:44; R. E. Averbeck, “@nx,” NIDOTTE 2: 206-09. Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 27. 79 Friedrich Hauck, “µολυνω,” TDNT 4:736; J. I. Packer, “µολυνω,” NIDNTT 1: 449; BDAG s. v. “µολυνω,” 657. 80 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), xii; Walter J. Houston, “Toward an Integrated Reading,” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (FIOTL 93; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 161. 81 Erhard Gerstenberger, Leviticus (Louisville: Westminister John Knox, 1996), 128. 82 Harrington, The Purity Texts, 10. 83 Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration (AGJU 39; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 2. 78

18

1.5 Terminology

35:33-34)” – and they are defined as profane by Jews.84 J. Neusner’s definition of purity and impurity focuses on God’s conditional presence with Israel which is dependant on Israel’s moral status quo: First, impurity is seen as a sign of rejection of God or by God… Closely related to the use of purity as an indicative of divine acceptance, second, is the very frequent allusion to idolatry as unclean… The third application of purity as a sign of moral blamelessness and of impurity as a sign of moral evil comes in reference to sexual relations… Fourth, the land may be made unclean by evil doings, very frequently having to do with idolatry; thus, as we saw, Ezek. 36:18 says idols polluted land.85

Thus, the scholarly definition of purity and impurity gives the implication of Israel’s relationship with God and ascribes impurity with a defiling power. Purity means a living status required by God which Israel needs to obtain for access to God. Purity and impurity can also refer to classification and division indicated by the principle of creation in terms of God’s holiness. For M. Douglas, holiness as the fundamental attribute of God means “set apart” and it is the starting point in classifying creation. 86 On the one hand, procurement of holiness requires individuals to obey the rules of “the class to which they belong;” on the other hand, “holiness requires that different classes of things shall not be confused.”87 Furthermore, according to Douglas, dirt or uncleanness represents a system, and impurity “is matter out of place,” therefore one should reach it through orderliness.88 Following Douglas’ perspective, M. Newton affirms that “the whole question of purity and impurity” should be considered through “order and classification.”89 The structural approach to purity and impurity echoes Israel’s view that the divine purity rules should govern the cosmos as well as permeate “all aspects of the people’s lives.”90 The ideology conveys Israel’s essential view of life and worship that to worship God is to live a holy life and the purificatory system is an assurance for daily practice and implementation.

84

Klawans, Impurity, 26. Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism (SJLA 1; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 13-15. 86 Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Routledge, 1991), 51. 87 Ibid., 54, 59. 88 Douglas, Purity, 41; she contrasts dirt and purity by saying: “It implies two conditions: a set of ordered relations and a contravention of that order. Dirt then, is never a unique, isolated event. Where there is dirt there is a system. Dirt is the by-product of a systematic ordering and classification of matter, insofar as ordering involves rejecting inappropriate elements. This idea of dirt takes us straight into the field of symbolism and promises a link-up with more obviously symbolic systems of purity” (ibid., 36). 89 Newton, The Concept, 5. 90 Ibid; Klawans, Impurity, 8, notes: “Defilement is, then, a structure, whose individual components are not to be analyzed as if they were freestanding… What must be studied, and then compared, are systems of defilement: the totalities of things that pollute, and the ways in which pollution can be conveyed.” 85

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

19

Douglas’ systematic definitions of purity and impurity exert an influence on J. Milgrom in terms of the ethical sense behind ritual purification.91 However, J. Milgrom abandons her structural perspective. Instead, he focuses on purification with emphasis on impurity as a physical substance. Milgrom insists that impurity has the defiling force which needs to be eliminated by purification rites.92 Moral purity rule is “an indispensable factor in determining Israel’s destiny” since they are the chosen nation of the holy God.93 Death is the primary reason to cause ritual impurity, and ritual purification symbolically represents “choosing life over death.”94 W. Houston rebuts Milgrom’s ‘reverence of life’ as the governing rule over discernment of clean and unclean animals. He contends that behind the dietary law lies a goal of imitatio Dei, “to avoid what is unworthy of the presence of God.” 95 Israel abstains from unclean animals not because they revere those animals’ lives but because they are abominable and unclean, which will defile the eater. F. Gorman criticizes Milgrom’s ‘death-as-defilement’ system for not encompassing ritual and moral purity/impurity. He argues that genital discharges and cracking skin are not necessarily linked with life and death. Rather they convey sexual concerns and the erosion of bodily boundaries.96 Klawans points out that Milgrom’s treatment of moral impurity is not systematic and coherent because of his lack of “terminological consistency.”97 While Milgrom differentiates that the defilement of the land is a direct “contactcontagion phenomenon” and that the defilement of the sanctuary is “an aerialcontagion phenomenon,” Klawans contends that it is not necessarily so.98 Disputing that Milgrom’s “impurity-as-death theory” is not sufficient to explain all the cases in Leviticus, Klawans presents his systematic approach to ritual purity and sacrifice: imitatio Dei (imitation of God), that is, Israel’s need to sepa-

91

Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, xiii, asserts: “Since then, her anthropological school has taught me, among other things, that when a ‘primitive’ community wished to preserve and teach its basic values, it did not rely on words but ensconced them in rituals. Accordingly, I have discovered that the rituals in Leviticus contain fundamental values that in aggregate prescribe a holy and ethical life.” 92 Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, 172. 93 Ibid., 43. 94 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1: 46-47. 95 Houston, “Integrated Reading,” 150; Walter Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 140; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 181-200. 96 Frank H. Gorman, “Pagans and Priests: Critical Reflections on Method,” in Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible (ed. Baruch J. Schwartz and David P. Wright; LHBOTS 474; New York: T & T Clark, 2008), 106. 97 Jonathan Klawans, “Ritual Purity, Moral Purity, and Sacrifice in Jacob Milgrom’s Leviticus,” RSR 29 (2003): 22. 98 Ibid., 23.

20

1.5 Terminology

rate from the things “least God-like” and emulate God in virtue so that they are eligible to draw near to God.99 Douglas’ view of purity/impurity stems from system and order, and is thus symbolic. Klawan’s view of purity/impurity stems from imitatio Dei (imitation of God), and is thus relational. Milgrom’s view of purity/impurity stems from an ontological perspective with emphasis on its realistic and actualized effect. Although they have different advantages, Klawans admits that Milgrom’s two propositions – the defiling power of sin and its pollution of God’s temple – are universally accepted by scholars.100 Convinced by Milgrom’s thorough research on purification and purity/impurity in Leviticus, I will follow his understanding of purity and impurity per se regarding its definition and application. In fact, Milgrom’s ontological approach does not deny the essential connection of purity with God’s creation purpose and imitatio Dei. According to Milgrom, the priestly code shows that “Israel has to strive for holiness, a higher rung on the ladder of virtue, [and] holiness implies moral as well as ritual perfection; it is imitatio dei.”101 Purity order is the original plan of God’s creation of the world which is the abode of God and of human beings. Milgrom is right to see that the Levitical purity/impurity code reflects a coherent and symbolic system, behind which is the demand for Israel to live a holy life compatible with God’s glorious presence within them. 102 Both ritual and moral purity have ethical qualifications and implications, that is, anyone who desires to meet or get close to God must bear purity. Adherence to the purity code and “physical synchronization with holiness of God” will result in his “spiritual synchronization.”103 In sum, purity usually connotes a state of being linked with God’s tabernacle and the nation of Israel, a condition for contact with God. Being caused by humanity whether ritually or morally, impurity represents a substance and a condition which can remove purity and pollute God’s sanctuary. Ritual impurity can be resolved by purification offerings, but moral impurity cannot be done in the same way. Severe punishments and death sentences of evildoers, prescribed by the Mosaic law, are the common ways to remove pollution and restore purity of the land, the people and the temple. 1.5.2.2 Types, Sources and Effects This part will give a study of the sources and the effects of purity and impurity. In the OT and ancient Judaism, purity and impurity are primarily categorized into ceremonial (ritual) and moral. Each type can be applied to both individual and

99

Klawans, Purity, 58. Klawans, Impurity, 15. 101 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1: 696. 102 Jacob Milgrom, “Confusing the Sacred and the Impure: A Rejoinder,” VT 44 (1994): 557100

58. 103

Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 128.

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

21

corporate entities. Sources, effects and restoration of ritual impurity are generally defined in Lev 11-15, 21-22 and Num 19, and those of moral impurity in Lev 1820, Num 35:33-34 and Deut 24:1-4 and 27:15-26. J. Klawans defines ritual impurity with three features: (1) it has clear sources (birth, death, sex, disease, and bodily discharge); (2) to contact these ritual impurities is not counted as sinful; (3) ritual impurity does not cause permanent contamination to people. Also, there are six characteristics with regard to moral impurity: (1) it stems from humanity’s sin; (2) it has a deleterious effect on Israel’s land; (3) it does not convey a contagion through personal-contact; (4) no ritual purification can ameliorate moral defilement; (5) as a defiling factor over sacred precincts, moral impurity produces pollution not upon a sinner’s entrance into the sanctuary, but as “a potent force unleashed by sinful behavior,” it has a special way of defiling the sanctuary from afar;104 (6) it could result in an enduring debasement of the sinner and of the land. J. Milgrom contends that for Israel, both ritual and moral impurity is caused by the same source – human beings. He regards the rules of moral purity as “an indispensable factor in determining Israel’s destiny.”105 Impurity has a defiling power which needs to be eliminated by purification rites.106 Then, he identifies three sources of ritual impurity in the priestly code – “corpse/carcass, scale disease, and genital discharges,” and he suggests a comprehensive system to explain all of the cases, that is, contamination because of death.107 Death is the primary reason to cause ritual impurity, and ritual purification symbolically represents “choosing life over death.”108 Certain forms of ritual impurity are connected with sexual organs. Although bodily discharge and menstruation might represent a form of life loss, the fall of humankind should be reckoned as a root. In Gen 3:7, the humans’ shame is caused by their awareness of nakedness. The woman’s birth pang as a curse from God toward their sin also indicates that uncleanness in Lev 12 and 15 is connected with Eve’s fall.109 Ritual purification is primarily practiced within Israel without exerting its effect on Gentiles. However, moral impurities like idolatry, bloodshed and sexual immorality can pollute the land and the sanctuary. The moral purity code governs Israel and other nations because anyone living among Israel is possible to profane the land and the sanctuary.110 Moreover, J. Milgrom’s theory emphasizes the result caused by impurity and sin. He contends that unrepented sin can penetrate the holy of holies and defile the throne seat (cf. Isa 37:16).111 Ritual purification is not to purify the sinner but

104

Klawans, Purity, 55. Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, 43. 106 Ibid., 172. 107 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1: 46. 108 Ibid., 1: 46-47. 109 N. Kiuchi, “Leviticus, Book of,” DOTP 528. 110 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1: 1055. 111 Ibid., 1: 257. 105

22

1.5 Terminology

to purify God’s altar and sanctuary which is defiled by sin. He asserts: “Sin may not leave its mark on the face of the sinner, but it is certain to mark the face of the sanctuary; and unless it is quickly expunged, God’s presence will depart.”112 This scar on the face of the temple results in Milgrom’s theory of “purification offering” which aims to purify God’s temple.113 As a result of defilement, God will depart from this polluted temple and abandon the entire Israelite community. 114 Another effect caused by moral impurity is the defilement of the land. Maccoby connects the metaphor of the land’s vomit of immoral inhabitants with physical disgust toward abominable animals (Exod 22:31; Lev 11; 18:25, 28; 20:22).115 Again, it signifies the aforementioned point that moral repulsion and ritual uncleanness convey a similar ethical sense, that is, to live a life without being disgusting – a life in accordance with God’s holiness. The land’s pollution results in God’s departure from all his people rather than the sinners.116 It connotes a communal responsibility paid to the consequence of moral impurity. Purity sources are connected with holy vessels, sacrifices, priests, blood, the ashes of a red heifer, water and morality (Exod 19:22; Lev 6:18; 7:6; 11:45; 23:37; Num 19:9; Deut 23:14). First, the holy vessels placed in the tabernacle are holy and they can convey holiness to any other thing which touches them (Exod 30:29). Second, the offerings made to God are consecrated and thus they become holy. However, the offering meat which is edible for Israel should not be kept more than two days (Lev 7:15-21). Furthermore, the sacrifices for the priests’ consumption only are holy and they can transmit their holiness to other things (Lev 6:18). Third, the priest plays the central role in the ceremonial purity system. He can make the atonement sacrifice on behalf of a ritually impure person in order to purify him or her (Lev 12:7-8; 14:14, 19, 29). Also a priest can separate a person from the community due to his illness, or restore that person’s membership by pronouncing his rehabilitation from the disease (Lev 13:7-55).117 Certainly, the priest himself needs to be purified and holy before he enters the tabernacle (Num 8:21; 19:7; Lev 22:4-6). Fourth, Israel is forbidden to consume blood because life is contained within it (Lev 17:12; Deut 12:23). In the ritual atonement and sprinkling rite, the animals’ blood is an essential element which can provide purification for a person, a house and God’s altar (Lev 8:15, 23; 14:14, 28, 52; 16:18). Since blood is identified

112

Jacob Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray,” RB 83 (1976):

398. 113

Ibid. Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, 15, 30-45; Jacob Milgrom, “Sin-Offering or Purification-Offering,” VT 21 (1971): 237-39. 115 Hyam Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Judaism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 201. 116 Klawans, Impurity, 133. 117 Lester L. Grabbe, “The Priest in Leviticus,” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler; FIOTL 93; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 210. 114

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

23

with life, it can “function as a ritual detergent” and has a power of purification.118 Fifth, the ashes of a red heifer have purification effectiveness for the people who touch corpses (Num 19:1-22). A red heifer behaves as a purification offering.119 According to the prescription, its virginity, unyoked status, and color red make it eligible for a ritual detergent.120 Sixth, immersion functions as part of the ritual purification process (Exod 40:12; Lev 8:6; 14:8; 15:5-27; 16:4-28). Seventh, morality is always a determinative factor in terms of a person’s clean or unclean status before God (Lev 18:26; 20:23). One’s ethics and his purity are interwoven. To behave righteously conveys a merged point of cultic and moral matters.121 From Lev 18:24-25 and 20:23, a universal enforcement of the sexual code is clearly indicated, which is not issued by God only for Israel but should have been obeyed by the nations who lived in the Canaan before Israel.122 1.5.2.3 Restoration of Purity In regard to ritual impurity, restoration is connected with the use of the aforementioned purity sources. A ritually impure person is temporarily excluded from the community because his or her physical rehabilitation is necessary (Lev 17:15; Num 19:19; Deut 23:11). The animals are sacrificed to cleanse Israel and the tabernacle. For example, the atonement requires two goats as the sacrifice. One goat is slaughtered and its blood shed to purify the tabernacle. The other will bear all the iniquities and be sent to the wildness (cf. Lev 16). In regard to moral impurity, it produces no “contact-contagion” and receives no ritual purification. 123 For some severe moral impurities such as adultery of a married woman, blasphemy of God’s name, idolatry, and bloodshed, no ritual purification can remove the result. Instead, severe punishments like the death penalty, the expelling of inhabitants, and attacks from other nations are counted as the atonement (Deut 21:21; 28:33, 49).124 For example, the one who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife must be stoned to death before the evil is removed from the land (Deut 22:24).

118 William K. Gilders, “Blood as Purification in Priestly Torah: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?,” in Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible (ed. Baruch J. Schwartz and David P. Wright; LHBOTS 474; New York: T & T Clark, 2008), 82-83; Jacob Milgrom, “The Modus Operandi of the Hatta’t: A Rejoinder,” JBL 109 (1990): 112 and Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 106. 119 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1: 270-78. 120 Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 105-17; he suggests: “the colour red is multi-valent: it can signify violence and death, when the emphasis is on blood-shedding, but also fertility and life when the main positive significance of blood is held in mind” (Ibid., 110). 121 Kazen, “Dirt and Disgust,” 46. 122 Houston, “Integrated Reading,” 159. 123 Klawans, Impurity, 26. 124 Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 200-1; Klawans, Impurity, 133.

24

1.5 Terminology

Another kind of purification is circumcision. At the beginning, circumcision functions as a covenant sign. However, in the prophetic books, the image of circumcision primarily refers to individual lustration from evil, devotion, penitence and other features that are suitable for Israel as God’s people (cf. Jer 4:4; 9:25-26; 31:33; Ezek 18:31; 36:26; 44:7-9 ).125 Apart from the regular purification ceremonies, the yearly Day of Atonement is a very important time to clean God’s sanctuary through purification sacrifices. Atonement carries a sense of cleansing and it aims for restoration of the purity of the sanctuary which is profaned by Israel.126 Lev 11:44-45 demands Israel to preserve holiness from the unclean animals and preservation of holiness is also demanded by God for Israel’s moral life (Lev 20:7). Can the moral code and the ritual code be unified as one grid? God’s holiness and his ordination of the cosmic order is the answer to this question. Both the ritual and moral codes are rules of mandating holiness. The ritual code does not “symbolize, but exemplify, justice and righteousness;”127 all the issues concerning cultic and moral purity can be taken into account of “a much broader structure of moral and cosmological thinking, and serve to maintain not only the specific holiness of Israel in relation to Yahweh, but universal righteousness or right order in general.”128 Impurity and sin may endanger the social structure and casuse God’s curse. However, the most harmful matter is the perversion of God’s holiness and the destruction of Israel’s health, both physically and spiritually.129 Restoration signifies an organic community that aims to maintain her purity and renew her relationship with God. Priests behave as the mediator between the community and God. They have the authority to get rid of impure elements and restore individual or communal purity so that God’s forgiveness and his presence will not be withdrawn from Israel. 130 The ethos behind restoration reflects Israel’s identity that this is a community of Yahweh. In the Second Temple Period, immersion for purification was commonly practiced by pilgrims and outsiders before they entered the Jerusalem city. Before daily meals and prayers, purification was practiced by many laymen. Josephus reports on the ceremonial purification before the pilgrims headed into Jerusalem (Josephus, A. J. 14.285). Philo affirms that when Jews had sex or contact of corpse, they would immerse in water for purification immediately (Philo, Spec. 3.206, 363).131 This strict sense of preserving purity is perhaps because the priest-

125

Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; trans. Leo G. Perdue; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 2: 238. 126 Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 179. 127 Houston, “Integrated Reading,” 160. 128 Ibid., 161. 129 Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 210. 130 Ibid., 185. 131 Gedalia Alon, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), 230-31.

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

25

ly purity law was extended to the Palestinian Jews by Pharisees. Also regarding the Qumran community, the awareness of God’s presence in the community is the reason of keeping its purity and holiness strictly. 132 This will be discussed in Chapter 2. 1.5.2.4 Purity in the Greco-Roman World In contrast to the Jewish ontological view, purity and impurity in the GrecoRoman world appear to be relational. The Greek purification rites are concerned just as much as the ancient Jews with the removal of sins and cleansing of the god’s shrine, and they also care about right relationship with the god, effectiveness of the ritual performance, or “warding off of demonic spirits.”133 Purification can be given to laymen, priests, temples, cultic images and sacred precincts. W. Burkert cogently defines purification in Greek religion Purification is a social process. To belong to a group is to conform to its standard of purity; the reprobate, the outsider, and the rebel are unclean… By celebrating the elimination of irritating matter, these rites delimit a more highly valued realm, either the community itself in relation to a chaotic outside, or an esoteric circle within society; they mediate access to this realm and so to a higher status; they play out the antithesis between a negative and a positive state and so are suited to eliminate a state which is truly uncomfortable and disruptive, and to lead over to a better, pure state. Purification rituals are therefore involved in all intercourse with the sacred and in all forms of initiation; but they are also employed in crisis situations of madness, illness, and guilt.134

Compared to animals’ blood as the purification substance, water is most used as purification means.135 Furthermore, fire is regarded as the purifying matter, which is used with water together “when a log is taken from the altar fire, dipped in water, and used to sprinkle the sanctuary, altar, and the participants.”136 Impurity usually refers to “a breach of order – of communal systems of classification, of bodily boundaries, of times of social transition, of sexual misdeeds” which impeded communal unity and interest.137 Purification is to remove the impure effects caused by sins, calamities and some mysterious power. Purity is not only obtained from the effect of purification rites, but also from a pious mind and a good moral life. In the realm of lustration, “ritual and ethical reflection could

132 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 62, 153, 315. 133 J. Schattenmann, “kaqaro,j,” NIDNTT 3:102. 134 Burkert, Greek Religion, 76; regarding the priest’s purification, see ibid 110; Thomas Podella, "Purification," BNP 12:227, notes: “Regular purification was carried out prior to sacrifice and prayer; and upon entering a shrine, by cleansing images of the gods, the temple, the temenos and public spaces;” regarding the details of purifying the cult image and the sanctuary, see Burkert, Greek Religion, 134-35, 228. 135 Burkert, Greek Religion, 77. 136 Ibid., 78. 137 Amy Mullin, “Purity and Pollution: Resisting the Rehabilitation of a Virtue,” JHI 57 (1996): 515.

26

1.5 Terminology

therefore merge without a break.”138 Since there is a concept of ethical guilt in the form of impurity required to be cleansed, purification signifies an atonement sense. 139 The ancient Greek purification commonly took place in “marking off sacred areas from profane.”140 As R. Parker suggests, purification in the Greek world is “a science of division.”141 The abundant evidence from Greek literature shows the people’s concern for entering a sacred place, and they marked boundaries to “the sanctuaries and precincts of the gods, so that nobody may cross them unless he be pure.”142 If an Athenian was deprived of civil rights, he was not allowed to enter the Agora which was deemed sacred, which indicates that the purity rule extends its influence on communal life.143 The Greek society also associates its games with cultic purification, and the custom of purifying the games is inherited by the Roman society (776 B.C.-A.D. 520). For example, V. Smith notes: “the [Olympian] Games started with a sacred procession winding its way from the city of Elis along the Sacred Way towards a great sacrifice to Zeus at Olympia, stopping to purify at the sacred fountain at Pieva.”144 In the Roman world, the place of the god is sacred and the god is the patron of the local society. The protection of the sacred place is to secure safety and wealth of the community under the god’s favor. The distinction between sacred and profane is usually predicated in terms of place, time, and sound. Sacrifice usually took place on sacred land, dedicated to the god and separate from the profane land beyond the sanctuary; if no such sanctuary was available in the circumstances of the sacrifice, the site had to be carefully chosen and marked out or set aside for the god. In terms of time and sound, spoken formulas opened, finished, and thus framed the rite; and musical accompaniment established a sound wall to shield the rite from profane noise from outside the ritual framework.145

The primary ritual of purification was the lustratio (purify), which originally refers to ‘illuminate.’146

138

Burkert, Greek Religion, 77. Ibid. 140 Parker, Miasma, 19. 141 Ibid., 18. 142 Ibid., 19. 143 G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972), Appendix 43. 144 Virginia Sarah Smith, Clean: A History of Personal Hygiene and Purity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 88. 145 Ittai Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 25; Clifford Ando, The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 110, notes a similar idea: “The Romans acknowledged and negotiated the place of the gods in the landscape through religious laws, which oversaw the use and management of space, the organization of time, and performance of ritual.” 146 Marcus Tullius Cicero, Cicero on Divination: De Divinatione, Book 1 (CAHS; trans. David Wardle; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 354. Dorothea Baudy, “Lustratio,” BNP, 7:892, 139

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

27

The most impressive ritual of the Roman state-cult was the lustratio, the purification ceremony, involving a procession and the sacrifice of a pig, a ram, and a bull (suovetaurilia). The procession traced a “magic circle” about the group or territory being lustrated, purifying it from all previous lapses from proper religious form and protecting it from future external dangers. It was the solemn religious act by which the censors closed the census every five years. 147

Obviously, lustration was frequently adopted in cultic affairs and social events. Purification (lustratio) in the Roman world plays “a smaller role than in Greek religion.”148 It involves feasts, cities, people, marriage, and private estates. A lustrum usually takes place in a pre-determined sacred precinct, preceding “prayer and sacrifice.”149 Corpses were a primary pollution to the people and cults, and whoever touched the dead was mandated to be purified.150 A lustratio rite would take place when a priest offered the sacrifice at the altar, a commander purified his army, a censor purified the people or the Olympian Games marched toward the god’s temple.151 At the beginning of a sacrificial rite, the sacrificer would purify himself or keep himself pure. Then he could proceed to sacrifice. Otherwise, his impure status would pollute the whole sacrificial process. Since sacrifice was such a holy matter, the corruption of sacrifice can be regarded the same as the corruption of communal order.152

says: “A ritual model that comprised a circular procession with the animals to be sacrificed later and possibly other cult objects, which was used in many circumstances.” 147 Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, eds., Roman Civilization: Selected Readings (2vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), 1: 157-56. 148 Podella, "Purification," BNP 12:227. 149 Betty Rose Nagle, Ovid’s Fasti: Roman Holidays (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 25. Lewis and Reinhold, eds., Roman Civilization: Selected Readings, 156-57, 515; Carin M. C. Green, Roman Religion and the Cult of Diana at Aricia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 59, notes: “Caligula’s successor Claudius likewise turned to the sanctuary when the question of his successor became a crisis. Being about to marry his niece Agrippina, he ordered public rituals of purification for incest (Tac. Ann. 12. 8.2);” Regarding purification of private assets, see also Mary Beard et al., Religions of Rome (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 2: 152. 150 Richard M. Rothaus, Corinth, the First City of Greece: An Urban History of Late Antique Cult and Religion (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 53. 151 Cicero, Divination, 78; Lewis and Reinhold, eds., Roman Civilization: Selected Readings, 120, point out: “To their original duty of taking the census were gradually added the supervision of morals (which gave them the important power of reviewing the membership of the senate) and the leasing of contracts for public works, the collection of public revenues, and the maintenance of state properties. At the end of their term of office the censors performed the solemn ceremony of purification of the citizen body, the lustratio;” Valerie M. Warrior, Roman Religion (CIRC 17; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 57, notes: “A scene from Trajan’s Column showing the ritual purification of the army by means of a pig-sheep-bull sacrifice (suovetaurilia). The victims are being led by various attendants around the outside of the military camp and then through a gate (center). ” 152 C. Robert. Philips, “Sacrifice,” BNP 12: 849-52.

28

1.5 Terminology

Moreover, in Roman religion “the exact performance of the ritual actions and words was essential,” aiming to appease the gods and procure their blessings.153 Pollution could occur through a ritual mistake made by the priests. If one falsified the auspice, it would result in the ritual pollution of the Roman people.154 The worst form of pollution would be a person’s deliberate subversion of correct relationship with the deity.155 Therefore, purity is the active force of sacredness and impurity the active force of profanation in the Greco-Roman world. Purity in the Greco-Roman world marks the distinction between sacred and profane. Purification before entering the sacred place reminds a person of the god’s being and it is conducive to the transformation of his identity through the transition from one world to the other world. In both the Jewish and the Hellenistic world, purity is the fundamental element to define the relationship between the god and the human. In conclusion, both the Jewish background and the Greco-Roman world link purity with the gods’ attributes and presence. Purification rites in both worlds are very functional and pragmatic. Although they have different definitions of the defiling sources, they both admit the distinction between immortal and mortal, heavenly and earthly. This actually relates temple purity to the god’s dwelling presence, the people’s identity and ethical life, their fellowship with the god (possession of koinonia), and their communal unity as the witness and propaganda of the god’s power. 1.5.2.5 Temple Purity Paul calls the Corinthian Christians nao,j of God (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16) and warns them to keep their bodies in unity and holiness. The Greek term nao,j specifically refers to the dwelling place of deity, which may also be called the “cella” or the “templum” in the Roman world.156 In Acts 17:24, Luke also uses naoi, in reference to the dwelling places of the pagan gods. Another Greek term for temple is i`ero,n which only appears two times in 1 Cor 9:13, and it conveys the more general sense and the broader inclusion of the temple precincts (cf. Plutarch, Sull. 7.3).157 In the Greek works during the period of 300 B.C. to A.D. 100,

153

Nagle, Ovid’s Fasti: Roman Holidays, 25. Cicero, Divination, 185; see also Ando, Matter of the Gods, 112. 155 Roger Beck, “Sin, Pollution, and Purity: Rome” in Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide (ed. Sarah Iles Johnston; Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2004), 509. 156 John Scheid, An Introduction to Roman Religion (trans. Janet Lloyd; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 71, says: “The Temple itself was built on a raised podium, a typically Roman characteristic. A staircase led to the temple pronaos (porch), in which ‘open-air’ rituals were performed. At the back of the pronaos a doorway led to the cella, where the deity lived.” See also O. Michel, “nao,j,” TDNT 4: 880-90. 157 Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 134, comments that in the LXX the word i`ero,n “refers to the Jerusalem Temple in general and includes all its parts and its use in the New Testament reflects this understanding;” see also Gottlob Schrenk, “i`ero,n,” TDNT 3:232. 154

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

29

nao,j, occurring around 400 times, usually refers to the housing place of the statue of a deity (cf. Plutarch, Sull. 31.5). In the LXX, nao,j occurs 68 times, and a[gio,j occurs 659 times. Both are linked together in many passages.158 In the Greek world, if the common ritual practices were given among the temple boundaries, the precincts were also regarded as a deity’s dominating ground, where the worshipers were cautioned to preserve purity in entering the realm. Usually, the ritual practices required people to remove morally impure reasons, which represented a form of moral enforcement. Purification of the temple and its precinct were regularly expected.159 Porphyry of Tyre (A.D. 233-309) mentioned an inscription “at the entrance to the temple of Asclepius at Epidaurus,” which warned the visitors and pilgrims by saying: “Within the fragrant temple one must be pure; and purity is to think holy thoughts.”160 Epictetus taught his students to be observant of their thoughts and actions because a man actually carried a god within himself, therefore he ought to be awed before “an image of God” and prevent himself from polluting the god by “impure thoughts and dirty deeds” (Epictetus, Disc. 2.8.13). Plutarch pointed out that if a man used his tongue to pray to the gods, he should not fill the tongue with “strange names and barbarous phrases” to defile his religion (Plutarch, Superstition, 166B). The temple in the Roman world supplied a residence for the deity, whose anthropomorphic cult image was usually placed in the cella.161 The temple was usually located on a raised podium, which included a stairway leading to “the pronaos of the temple.”162 For the Roman people, the temple is a sacred place sometimes only accessible for “worship and maintenance.”163 In other cases, it was open to “mortals’ activities and offerings.”164 In regards to the god’s residence, the terms aedis and delubrum specify the place dwelt by the god’s agency and the place dwelt by the god’s image: “If the use of aedis, ‘domicile,’ could be taken to emphasize the agency of the god in taking up residence, the derivation of

158

1 Kgs 7:36; 2 Chr 4:22; 29:7; Ps 5:8; 10:4; 17:7; 27:2; 65:5-6; 78:1; 137:2; Jonah 2:5, 8; Hab 2:20; Ezek 41:4, 21, 23, 25; Dan 3:53. 159 Eyal Regev, "Moral Impurity and the Temple in Early Christianity in Light of Ancient Greek Practice and Qumranic Ideology," HTR 97 (2004): 394, says: “In Greek religion, furthermore, moral impurity affected the cult in the temples and the civil prayer, since the morally defiled were excluded from these religious activities.” Thomas Podella, "Purification," BNP 12:227, notes: “Regular purification was carried out prior to sacrifice and prayer; and upon entering a shrine, by cleansing images of the gods, the temple, the temenos and public spaces.” 160 Jon Mikalson, “Greece,” in Religions of the Ancient World (ed. Sarah Iles Johnston; Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2004), 508; Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 224; Burkert, Greek Religion, 77. 161 James B. Rives, Religion in the Roman Empire (Malden: Blackwell, 2007), 27, 101, 173. 162 John Scheid, "Sacred Times and Spaces," in Religions of the Ancient World (ed. Sarah Iles Johnston; Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2004), 278. 163 Ibid. 164 Ibid.

30

1.5 Terminology

delubrum offered by Varro stressed rather the agency of the humans in placing the god therein.”165 In the late first century A.D., an inscription from Sardis implies an “innermost sanctum” within Zeus’ temple and warns its temple-wardens to keep away from certain ritual mysteries in case of pollution of the cult. 166 Also a first-century Rhodian inscription reads: “Who enters within the temple fragrant with incense, must be holy; pure not through washing, but in mind (ll. 4-7).”167 A law issued in the second century A.D. at Lindos (SEG 983. 4-7) shows a similar idea found in Plato’s works (Plato, Laws, 4.176 c-d), demanding purity for those who wanted to enter a temple: “It is of primary importance that those who enter be pure and sound in hands and mind and have no guilt on their conscience.”168 As for the attitude toward building a temple for the gods, the Greeks and Romans show a similar desire to increase their piety, wishing the gods to inhabit their cities.169 When temple purity is common to the Greek world, sometimes the human’s body can be metaphorically understood as “a temple, surrounded by a temenos on which no outsider may intrude without due cause.” 170 For example, Epictetus (A.D. 55-135) stresses an idea that man carries a god in his life and therefore he should preserve holiness in his physical body.171

165

Ando, Matter of the Gods, 110. G.H.R Horsley, ed., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (8 vols.; North Ryde: Macquarie University Press, 1981-1987), 1:21-23. 167 Ibid., 4: 111. 168 The inscription is cited in Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a GrecoRoman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982), 355-356. Regev, “Moral Impurity,” 393-94, adds that “Ancient Greek texts, as well as epigraphic evidence from Hellenistic Egypt and Asia Minor, testify to the exclusion of sinners from Greek and Hellenistic temples. For instance, an inscription that prohibited those who stole, murdered, or committed adultery from entering was found in a private temple in Philadelphia (Asia Minor). Temples in Hellenistic Egypt also forbade entrance to sinners and evil people. In these cases, moral miasma seems to have been acknowledged as endangering the sacred.” 169 Ando, Matter of the Gods, 110, notes: “As Greeks and Romans knew of races that worshipped aniconic objects, so they knew of races whose gods did not live in their cities. Citing Xerxes’ famous complaint that the Greeks trapped their gods within walls, Cicero affirmed Greek and Roman practice: wishing to increase piety toward the gods, the Greek and Romans easdem illos urbis quas nos incolere voluerunt, ‘desired that the gods should inhabit the same cites that they did.’” The Latin quotation from Cicero Leg. 2:26. 170 Parker, Miasma, 152. 171 Epictetus, Discourses, 2.8.11-14, “But you are a being of primary importance; you are a fragment of God; you have within you a part of Him…Whenever you mix in society, whenever you take physical exercise, whenever you converse, do you not know that you are nourishing God, exercising God? You are bearing God about with you, you poor wretch, and know it not! Do you suppose I am speaking of some external God, made of silver or gold? It is within yourself that you bear Him, and do not perceive that you are defiling Him with impure thoughts and filthy actions. Yet in the presence of even an image of God you would not dare to do anything of the things you are now doing. But when God Himself is present within you, seeing and hearing everything, are you not ashamed to be thinking and doing such things as these, O insensible of your own nature, and object of God’s wrath!” 166

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Issues

31

Thus, the Greco-Roman world does supply a legitimate background to approach temple purity, and I will present more evidence in section 3.2.1. However, given Paul’s Jewish identity, the discussion of temple purity cannot go further without looking at the ancient Jewish tradition. The temple requires purity as the dwelling place of God because his attribute is holiness. In the Old Testament, ritual impurity and moral impurity are the primary threats to God’s dwelling place (Lev 15:31; Num 19:13; Ezek 44:7). There was an annual ceremonial cleansing of God’s temple before the celebration of the Passover (2 Chronicles 29-30; 34-35).172 Moral impurity is deemed more severe than ritual impurity with regard to its destructive influence. Among the immoral behaviors, sexual sins cause lasting defilement to the land and sinners as seen in Lev 18:24-30.173 With respect to the defilement of the sanctuary, the Qumran community recorded that the abominable acts of the wicked priest defiled the holy sanctuary, and here the defilement was of both the moral profanation and the ritual profanation (cf. 1QpHab 8, 8-13; 12, 6-9).174 In the Psalms of Solomon, the author censured those who defiled the holy place of God by all unclean manners and immoral behaviors (cf. Ps. Sol. 8:1012).175 And in the Testament of Levi 9:9, readers were exhorted to watch out for pornei,a which would defile the sacred place. Notably the author predicted that a group of greedy priests would rise into office and defile the temple of God because of their covetousness and insatiable desires (cf. T. Levi. 14:5-15:1). The parallel case is also found in Jubilees 23:21, where the author foretold that a sinful generation would desecrate the temple with their corrupted behaviors. Thus, Israel’s rules for preserving the temple purity and the sacred precincts show heightened concern for avoiding immoral behaviors.176

1.6 Summary From the aforementioned study, an explicit conclusion is that the concern for temple purity can be found in both the Ancient Jewish and the Greco-Roman world. The former’s ceremonial purification of the temple is more complex than that of the latter. However, they both link one’s moral integrity with temple purity. Since performances surrounding temple purity function actively in both worlds, it strengthens our confidence to foresee Paul’s concern of temple purity 172

May, The Body for the Lord, 74. Klawans, Impurity, 27. 174 Ibid., 71, 83. 175 Klawans, Purity, 149, comments: “Finally, sexual sins, unbridled greed, and sanctuary defilement are all juxtaposed yet again in passages from Psalms of Solomon, it would appear that the sexual sins is emphasized in 2:11-13 and 8:9-13, 21-22.” 176 Brian S. Rosner, Greed as Idolatry: The Origin and Meaning of a Pauline Metaphor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 114 and Klawans, Purity, 55. 173

32

1.6 Summary

that indeed fits in his audience’s historical context well. Further discussion of temple purity in the Jewish and the Greco-Roman world will be presented separately in chapter two and chapter three in regard to the temple’s/temples’ pragmatic functions in the two worlds.

Chapter 2

Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period 2.1 Introduction: Temple Purity – A Dominant Issue? Now that chapter one has defined purity and the temple lexically, historically and theologically in Old Testament sources, this section will primarily examine the integration of those two concepts in terms of the Jewish monotheistic belief and sacrificial practice. The Temple cannot function effectively and properly without purity. Temple purity merges two substantive concepts viz. “temple” and “purity”. Temple defines the locus of purity and purity characterizes temple. Nevertheless, temple purity is not simply referring to the attribute of the Temple, nor does temple purity mean merely the maintenance of the sacredness of the Temple. For the Jews, temple purity is connected with their national identity and embodies their faithful worship of the one God. In this introduction, I will first present the consensus and the debate about purity in Second Temple Judaism. Second, I will explain what position I will take in light of certain archaeological facts and scholarly arguments. Third, I will outline what attitude the Jews held toward temple purity in the Second Temple period. Not only did the purity rules in the Torah lay the foundation for the purity rules in Second Temple Judaism, but also it was during Second Temple Judaism that the expansion and interpretation of the purity rules in the Torah took place. Scholars agree that the purity rules received intensive interest from the Jews in the Second Temple period, and purification as the prerequisite of meeting the divine in the Jerusalem Temple is a ruling principle for ancient Israel. Some Jews expand the purification request to entering the heavenly Temple in certain mystical visions (cf. 1 En. 14:21; T. Levi. 3:5-6).1 Since temple purity is related to the national identity of Israel, maintenance of the purity rules often manifests the ultimate concern: God whom Israel worships is holy and he called the Israelites to be “a priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6).

1

Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 212-13, notes: “If the Torah prescribed certain means of attaining purity before entering the Temple, there would always be those who saw the observance of these rules as a means of attaining spiritual progress. That is why we find the ritual purity was demanded of those who engaged in the mystical procedures of the ma’aseh merkabah and ma’aseh bereshit. If purity was required to enter the earthly Temple, it must surely be required to enter the heavenly Temple. This again was part of the voluntary character of the haburah, since none was obliged to be a mystic.”

34

2.1 Introduction: Temple Purity – A Dominant Issue?

As regards the intensity of the Jewish attitude to the Temple’s purity, two different views arise. The first view argues that the purity of the Temple did not dominate the sphere of purification practice. Some purification is not linked to the Temple. For example, bathing and hand-washing in some Jewish texts are simply ritual actions (cf. Tobit 2:9; Philo, Spec. 3.206).2 Moreover, Jews have little concern about secondary impurities like emitting semen and touching the bed of a menstruant, because they are unavoidable. If one has no need to go to the Temple, such an impure status would be irrelevant.3 Although ritual impurity is something negative, on certain occasions impurity will not bother some ordinary Jews if their work is burial of the dead.4 Additionally, there was no extension of priestly purity to the Pharisees and other Jews. The Pharisees showed “a desire for purity for its own sake” and kept the purity laws as a manifestation of their godliness rather than the emulation of priestly purity.5 The high view of purity and impurity was not actually upheld by early Jews but simply a scholarly imagination today. The second view insists that ritual purification among ordinary Jews before A.D. 70 is linked to the Temple, though not every practice is temple-oriented. The halakhah expands the interpretation of the purity laws by extending priestly purity to all of Israel and “the purity of holy things to common foodstuffs.”6 However, considering the limitation of complying with Levitical purity in normal life, the Pharisaic halakhah represents a compelling principle rather than an abso-

2

John C. Poirier, “Purity beyond the Temple in the Second Temple Era,” JBL 122 (2003): 251 comments: “However, washing one’s hands before prayer or Torah study was a widespread practice from Second Temple times that the rabbis accepted into their system. Indeed, the fact that it is not a temple-oriented practice, and yet was adopted by the rabbis, speaks of its universality outside of rabbinic circles.” See also Gedalia Alon, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World, 230-31. 3 E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM, 1990), 145. See also E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM, 1992), 229. 4 Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 149, notes: “Some of the most respected members of the Jewish community were members of burial societies, which, without pay, looked after the corpses of the dead and prepared them for burial. Such people dedicated themselves to impurity, just as the haberim dedicated themselves to purity, and with equal sense of service and general approval.” 5 Sanders, Jewish Law, 192. See also Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 229 and Thomas Kazen, Issues of Impurity in Early Judaism (CBNTS 45; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 11523. 6 Alon, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World, 231; in ibid., he points out: “This underlying motive of the Halakhot under discussion is well expressed by the author of Tanna de-be Eliyyahu (Ish Shalom, xvi, p. 72), who makes the following statement concerning the washing of the hands for ordinary food: ‘Now we learn that the obligation to wash the hands is Pentateuchal… But what does Scripture say with regard to the Israelites? ‘Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy.’ On the basis of this verse Rabban Gamaliel used to eat common food under conditions of levitical purity. The Sages declared: Holiness was not bestowed upon the priests only, but to the priests, the Levites, and to the Israelites. Hence the Rabbis said: If one treats the washing of the hands lightly, it is a bad augury for him.’”

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

35

lute principle for all Israel to make an effort at maintaining Levitical purity as much as possible.7 The second view also advocates that priestly purity is extended by the Pharisees to the laity. Advocates suggest that the Pharisees emulated priestly purity outside of the Temple and had their meal in “a state of ritual purity as if they were dining” in the Temple before God.8 They believe that God asked Israel to be holy because he is holy, so the purity rules applied to “all Jerusalem, the entire people, and the entire land entrusted to them by God.”9 Since the Pharisees reckoned the Temple’s courts as important teaching places, and they had some priestly adherents as well, it is plausible to infer that the Pharisees must have maintained priestly purity and taught the laity to emulate that purity in descending degrees.10 Given the fact that the Temple reminded Israel of their identity as the holy nation of God, the purity rules were associated with the Temple and its personnel even though the association is not explicit sometimes.11 Additionally, since there is an inherent “conceptual link between purity and encountering the sacred” in the Temple, synagogues in the Second Temple period imitated the Temple as a sacred place and demanded ritual purity for the people to enter them for praying and assembling.12 Although synagogues were not built to replace the Temple and they resembled no architectural form of the Temple, their sanctity, inner decoration and liturgy took on certain forms in imitation of the Temple cult.13 Thus, when the diaspora Jews attended synagogues and ob-

7

Ibid., 233-34. Joachim Schaper, “The Pharisees,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism (ed. W. D. Davies et al.; 4 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1984), 3:421. See also Eyal Regev, “Moral Impurity and the Temple in Early Christianity in Light of Ancient Greek Practice and Qumranic Ideology,” HTR 97 (2004): 24; Albert I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (JSJS 55; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 99; Jacob Neusner, Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 57. 9 Martin Hengel and Roland Deines, “E.P. Sanders’ ‘Common Judaism’, Jesus, and the Pharisees,” JTS 46 (1995): 46-47. 10 Hengel and Deines, “E.P. Sanders’ ‘Common Judaism,’” 52, point out: “Therefore, the question of purity, in daily life and outside Jerusalem, cannot have been of relative indifference to the Pharisees. On the contrary, this question, and its casuistic answer in points of detail, formed one of the pillars in the Pharisaic effort to sanctify all of life according to God’s commandment, and to invite – though not to ‘coerce’ – all Israel to such sanctification through their own example.” 11 Hengel and Deines, “E.P. Sanders’ ‘Common Judaism,’” 46. 12 Klawans, Purity, 171. 13 Steven Fine, This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period (CJAS 11; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997), 33, 55, 79-94. See also John M. Lundquist, The Temple of Jerusalem: Past, Present, and Future (Westport: Praeger, 2008), 135. Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 199 and 618, suggests that the chancel screen of a synagogue symbolically imitated the Temple balustrade of marking off sacred area, and “some rabbinic traditions aimed at encouraging Jews to build synagogues in imitation of the Temple.” 8

36

2.1 Introduction: Temple Purity – A Dominant Issue?

served certain purity rules, it symbolized a spiritualized sacrifice for them and conveyed their faithful service of God and his Temple.14 These two views do not agree on whether priestly purity is extended by the Pharisees to the laymen. However, most scholars agree that ritual purity is a tenet embedded into the life of individuals in the Second Temple period. No one denies that going up to the Temple and encountering the divine requires purification. There is some evidence to support the view that extension of priestly purity is possible. First, the widespread purification performance among Israel in the first century A.D. is evidenced by many excavated immersion pools (miqvaoth) and stone vessels in Judea and Galilee. “At Sepphoris, the earliest recoverable stratum in the western domestic quarters from about 100 B.C.E to 70 C.E. includes more than one hundred stone vessel fragments and more than twenty miqwaoth.”15 A miqveh is an immersion pool which collected water for the purpose of purification. Everyone heading for the Temple needed to take immersion first in order not to defile it. 16 Nearly 300 miqvaoth have been identified from the Second Temple Period, “262 of which are located in Judea, with 151 in Jerusalem and another 31 in Jericho.”17 Certain miqvaoth located far from the Temple, which were found in private homes or near farming equipments and synagogues, attest that Palestinian Jews employed miqvaoth before they went up to the temple or to get rid of bodily impurity from semen-emission, menstruation etc.18 Walking in the streets of Jerusalem, a visitor could encounter numerous miqvaoth, which are dated in the Hasmonean era and the Herodian era. They demonstrate that the ritual purity was a serious concern among the priests and laymen.19 In Jerusalem, Judea, Galilee and Golan, excavated stone vessels from 14

Klawans, Purity, 171. Jonathan L. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 49; Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 93-4, notes; “Moreover, the number and variety of ritual baths were unique to the city and attest to the marked emphasis on ritual purity observed by many Jews, by the priests on a regular basis, and by others before entering the holy precincts of the Temple. The extensive use of stone tables and eating utensils within the city likewise attests to punctilious Jewish observance of ritual purity, certainly by the priest but possibly by others as well.” 16 Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (HCS 31; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 222. For the archaeological detail, see also Jonathan David Lawrence, Washing in Water: Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (AB 23; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 20617; Benjamin G. Wright, “Jewish Ritual Baths-Interpreting the Digs and the Texts: Some Issues in the Social History of Second Temple Judaism,” in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present (ed. Neil Asher Silberman and David B. Small; JSOTSup 237; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 190-214. 17 Lawrence, Washing in Water, 158. 18 Sanders, Jewish Law, 257; see also John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts (San Francisco: Harper, 2001), 210. 19 Levine, Judaism, 93. 15

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

37

the first century A.D. including “dishes, bowls, jars, drinking cups, measuring cups” attest to the observation of ritual purity among priestly and nonpriestly families in the Herodian era.20 Those stone vessels were “tied to priestly households and related to the Temple, pharisaic circles, and the washing of hands or, more broadly, are attributed to common Judaism.”21 The evidence of intensive concern about cultic purification is also attested by the discoveries of miqvaoth in the resident site of the Qumran community.22 The community thought of themselves as the eschatological Temple marked by daily purification (cf. Josephus, B. J. 2.159). The Qumran people criticized the Jerusalem Temple’s impurity and instead desired an untainted Temple without the blemish of moral corruption or ritual impurity.23 To spiritualize the Temple’s service into communal and individual sanctification becomes good evidence for the purity of the community-temple. Second, the widespread purification performance among Israel in the first century A.D. is evidenced by texts that indicate that purification from immersion to handwashing was performed among ordinary Jews before eating, reading the Scripture, praying or after contact with the dead.24 For example, Josephus (A. J. 12.106) and Aristeas 305 mention the story that a group of Jews washed their hands in the sea and purified themselves before they translated the law. Josephus notes that to perform ritual “purification” (a`gnei,aj) in daily life of ancient Israel was an ancestral tradition “concerning God and his worship” (Josephus, C. Ap. 2.198). To keep the purity laws and to show obedience to God’s word was equivalent to the service and worship of God (Josephus, A. J. 3.258). Third, as an influential sect in Second Temple Judaism, the Pharisees showed a large concern over purity and impurity as major interpreters of the Torah. Since they probably wanted to earn social influence in competing against priests, they

20 Lee I. Levine, Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E.-70 C.E.) (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 141. Harrington, The Purity Texts, 7, also notes: “Issues of cult and purity engaged and divided Jews more in [the Second Temple Period] than at any other time in antiquity… Purification in the Second Temple era was expected in a variety of situations. Many Jews purified before meals and before prayer. Jews regarded the city of Jerusalem as the holy city and purified themselves before participating in the festivals there. Priestly portions of the harvest were selected in a state of ritual purity. Initiations into various forms of Judaism were marked by purifications. Purity rituals preceded divine revelation (War 2.159; Mt. 3.16-17). Immersion was required after ritual impurities and was sometimes a sign of atonement as well.” 21 Reed, Archaeology, 44. 22 Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 134-162. 23 Adolfo Roitman, Envisioning the Temple: Scrolls, Stones, and Symbols (Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 2003), 84; see also Susan Haber and Adele Reinhartz, They Shall Purify Themselves: Essays on Purity in Early Judaism (EJIL 24; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 2, 109. 24 Tob 2:9; Jdt 12:7; 2 Macc 12:38; Aristeas 305; Sib. Or. 3:591-593; 4:162-66; Josephus, A. J. 12.106; Philo, Spec. 3.206; Mark 7:1-23.

38

2.1 Introduction: Temple Purity – A Dominant Issue?

applied priestly purity to their activities, and by eating their food in purity they acknowledged that the divine presence could be manifested in other realms of life (cf. b. Ber 55a; t. Dem 2:11).25 With enforcement of the Pharisaic teaching, the ecumenical Jews may easily have accepted the preservation of the purity rules in terms of the temple cult.26 M. Hengel and R. Deines rightly put forward this observation: The Mishnah’s two longest divisions concern ‘Purities’ (Tohorot) and ‘Hallowed Things’ (Qodashim), and this provides some indication of the importance which purity laws and the associated questions about the sanctuary still had as late as AD 200. Therefore, the importance of purity laws, which are always (though not exclusively) concerned with the temple and its personnel, for the Tannaim and especially for the Pharisees before AD 70, must not be underestimated. On the contrary, these concerns must have been all the more pressing while the temple still stood.27

It is through the Pharisaic propaganda that the purity laws were extended to ordinary Jews inside and outside Judea, and subsequently an intense discussion of purity in the Pharisaic Halakha occurred from the last third of the first century B.C. (cf. Josephus, A. J. 13.298; 18.16-17).28 Those materials can demonstrate the emphatic view of the purification system upheld by the Pharisees. Therefore, I take the position that the underlying influence of the Temple cult in shaping the sphere of purity and impurity is undeniable in Second Temple Judaism. The Pharisaic group had their own interpretation of the purity rules in respect to the Temple, and they integrated the performance of purification with their ordinary lives in a cultic sense. This performance is extended by the Pharisees to ordinary Jews as well. Their purification with respect to the Temple is a

25 Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, 212; b. Berakhot 55a says: “As long as the Temple stood, the altar atoned for Israel. But now a man’s table atones for him,” and see Jacob Neusner, Early Rabbinic Judaism: Historical Studies in Religion, Literature and Art (SJLA 13; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 45; t. Dem 2:11 says: “He is accepted first with regard to ‘wings’ (cleanness of hands) and after that with regard to pure food. If he takes upon himself only the obligation concerning pure food, but not concerning ‘wings’, he is not considered reliable even concerning pure food,” and see Philip S. Alexander, “Essays with Commentary on Post-Biblical Jewish Literature,” in The Oxford Bible Commentary (ed. John Barton and John Muddiman; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 825; Levine, Jerusalem, 380, points out: “Alternatively, the Pharisees have been viewed primarily as a table fellowship, where concerns of purity, tithing, and distancing oneself from ordinary, non-punctilious Jews, were considered fundamental. They are thus viewed more as a brotherhood or fraternity, separated from others socially, each pursuing some sort of trade or profession.” See also Hannah K. Harrington, “Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in a State of Ritual Purity,” JSJ 26 (1995): 42-54. 26 Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4. V: Miqs at Ma’aśe ha-Torah (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 142-43. 27 Hengel and Deines, “E.P. Sanders’ ‘Common Judaism,’” 46. 28 Ibid., 52. See also Roland Deines, Jüdische Steingefässe und pharisäische Frömmigkeit: Ein archäologisch-historischer Beitrag zum Verständnis von Joh 2,6 und der jüdischen Reinheitshalacha zur Zeit Jesu (WUNT 2.52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 244-45 and Schaper, “The Pharisees,” 421.

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

39

manifestation of Israel as the priestly nation and as the witness of Yahweh’s glory and holiness before other nations.29

2.2 The Jerusalem Temple This section will shed light on the importance of the Jerusalem Temple and its purity in terms of the symbolic and theological meaning of the Temple proper. First, I will deal with the Temple’s significance in the Second Temple Period as a place of meeting God and the symbolic unity of Israel – the chosen of God. Its purity was essential to Israel’s religion in the Second Temple Period. Then, I will discuss the building history, the structure and arrangement of the second Temple to see how purity concerns are manifested by the Temple’s architecture. The section will primarily focus on the significance of the Temple and its purity historically and architecturally. 2.2.1 The Jerusalem Temple: Its Significance and Character The Jerusalem Temple was like the center of the world for Israel. Before A.D. 70, the Temple, the Torah, and the deeds of loving-kindness were widely recognized by the Jewish people as the pillars which made the world stand. The Temple exerted its influence widely on the religious, political, and economic life of the Jews.30 The relationship and identity of the Jews as the chosen of God was associated with the Temple and its services. As the focal point of the religion, the [Jerusalem] temple was the central communal institution not just for the Jews of the land of Israel but also for those of the diaspora. The half shekel contributed annually by diaspora Jews and the pilgrimages undertaken for the festivals bound together the entire Jewish community. The ideology of the temple also served as a binding force: it represent-

29 Jack N. Lightstone, “Roman Diaspora Judaism,” in A Companion to Roman Religion (ed. Jörg Rüpke; Malden: Blackwell, 2007), 359, says: “Beyond the Israelites were the other nations of the earth, who did not acknowledge YHWH or practice his laws of purity, and therefore, unbeknown to themselves, endangered the very continued welfare of the world, because they let the powers of uncleanness run rampant. In other words, if uncleanness was kept away from the center, YHWH’s life-giving and world-maintaining power could flow out of it to the world, albeit diluted and dispelled by uncleanness as it reached areas in which necessary purity rites were either unknown or not practiced. In this sense, all of the people of Israel (in their Land) constituted ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ (Exod 19. 6) for all nations.” See also Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The Modern Study of Ancient Judaism,” in The State of Jewish Studies (ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen and Edward L. Greenstein; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990), 64. 30 Martin Goodman, “The Temple in First Century CE Judaism,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. John Day; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 459. Pirqe Aboth 1.2 says: “On three things the world is stayed; on the Torah, and on the temple service, and on the bestowal of Kindness,” and the translation is from Charles Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (Amsterdam: Philo, 1970), 12. See also James P. Sweeney, “Jesus, Paul, and the Temple: An Exploration of Some Patterns of Continuity,” JETS 46 (2003): 607-08.

40

2.2 The Jerusalem Temple

ed monism and exclusivity. Only one place was suitable for God’s home on earth, and that place was the temple mount in Jerusalem.31

The temple firmly evidenced God’s dwelling among Israel and marked a distinctly privileged identity. The Temple Mount stood as “a scene of legal, political, social, economic, and cultural activity” in the Jewish world.32 The connection of the Temple and mountain can be found in the Old Testament. Two particular mountains in biblical times, Mt. Sinai and Mt. Zion, are worth our notice since their interplay represents the transition of YHWH’s dwelling place and a new relationship with Israel. Mt. Sinai was a holy place, where God descended and issued his laws to Israel. The tent of YHWH was established in the wilderness of Sinai and his glory dwelt in it (Exod 40:34-35).33 When the Temple was dedicated by Solomon, God’s glory filled that Temple (1 Kgs 8:10), which indicates “the transfer of motifs from Sinai to Zion.”34 The second confirmation of this transference is from Isa 2:2-4 where Mt. Zion was said to be the source of the Torah. The replacement of Sinai by Zion is once again implied. The third and most important confirmation of the replacement is the Davidic covenant made by YHWH in his oath to David and his descendants about the eternal throne and kingship as well as YHWH’s choice of Zion to be his habitation forever (Ps 132:12-13; cf. Ps 89:29; 93:5). From this sense, Mt. Zion overshadows Mt. Sinai as God’s new dwelling place.35 The Jerusalem Temple enjoyed a unique fame in the Jewish religion.36 Josephus’ declaration of “One temple for the one God” (C. Ap. 2.193) precisely expresses the common Jews’ exclusive regard to the Jerusalem Temple. Similarly, Philo pronounced that the city of Jerusalem was called the “mother” city of all the 31 Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), 106. 32 Roitman, Envisioning the Temple, 64, and he presents some examples: “It was on the Temple Mount that the spiritual leaders of the people met to instruct their disciples and preach to the masses (as did Jesus and R. Yohanan b. Zakkai). The Temple Mount was also the focus of the supreme rabbinical courts – the court of appeals on the steps of the Temple Mount (some believe the venue to have been the staircase near the present-day ‘Huldah’s Gates’), and the Great Court, known as the Sanhedrin, in the so-called Chamber of Hewn Stone (in the Temple courtyard).” 33 John S. Kselman, “Sinai and Zion in Psalm 93,” in David and Zion (ed. Bernard Frank Batto et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 73. 34 Ibid., 74. 35 Ibid., 75. 36 Cohen, Maccabees, 106, mentions other Jewish temples in the Second Temple Period: “The first was the temple built by the Jews of Elephantine (in upper Egypt) in the sixth century B.C.E., which was completely forgotten by later Jewish tradition and is known only through an archive discovered in Egypt at the end of the nineteenth century. The second was the temple of the Samaritans, erected on Mount Gerizim about the time of Alexander the Great. This temple, which became the focal point of the Samaritan schism, was later destroyed by John Hyrcanus. The third was the temple built in Heliopolis (or Leontopolis) in Egypt by Onias, a scion of the high priestly family who fled from Jerusalem during the Antiochan persecution. Whatever Onias’ intention, this temple did not gain the support or recognition of the Jews of Egypt; Philo does not even mention it.”

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

41

Jewish communities in the Diaspora, while the Diaspora communities were “colonies” of Jerusalem (cf. Legat. 281-83). As long as the Temple stood, the Diaspora Jews would go to Jerusalem at least once annually for at least one of the three primary agricultural festivals (Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot). Also, the Temple tax in terms of Exod 30:11-16 was enforced among the Diaspora communities, and this money would be collected yearly and sent to the Jerusalem temple.37 Since the Temple was the house of YHWH whose holiness was like fire (cf. Lev 10:1-3; Num 16:35), the purity of his house was critical for worship practice and the prohibition of any defilement was Israel’s obligation (cf. Lev 16:16; 20:3; Num 19:20; 2 Chr 29:5, 16). The Jewish zeal for the Temple’s purity can be viewed from three historical illustrations. The first is Ezra and Nehemiah’s cleansing of the Temple. After the Temple was rebuilt with the permission of Persian King Cyrus, Israel made atoning sacrifices for the dedication of the Temple in 515 B.C. (Ezra 6:16-17). It signified the guilt of Israel to be cleansed by the restored cultic practices.38 The wall and gates of Jerusalem were also purified by the priests and Levites (Neh 12:30). Nehemiah cleansed the chambers in the Temple court and brought the holy vessels into those chambers (Neh 13:9, 14). Priests and Levites followed the purity rules and sanctified themselves to their office (Neh 12:45). From Nehemiah’s cleansing action, the purity of God’s house according to the Mosaic Law was reinforced.39 The second is the Maccabean revolt of 167 or 168 B.C. when Judea was under the control of Antiochus IV. This revolt was triggered by the Greek king’s profanation of the Jerusalem Temple. Erection of an idolatrous altar in the Temple, offering pigs to the heathen gods and brutally persecuting the Jews fostered the revolt against Antiochus (cf. 1 Macc 1:44-64). The radical uprising finally won its victory. The Temple was purified and rededicated by the Jews in 164 B.C. (cf. 1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 10:1-8; A. J. 12:316-25). When the Temple’s purity was threatened and violated by the pagans, the zealous reaction from the Maccabeans became a model of forming the subsequent national zeal toward temple purity. 40 The third is from Acts 21, where Paul was accused by the Jews of defiling the Temple by taking a Greek man, Trophimus, into the Temple. According to Luke, the accusation was false, for the Jews assumed wrongly that Trophimus had entered the Temple by merely seeing Paul and Trophimus in Jerusalem (Acts 21:29). However, this event indicates that non-Jews cannot enter the Temple, otherwise the Temple will be defiled. A balustrade surrounding the inner court warned the gentiles about the danger of stepping across in the first century A.D. (cf. section 2.2.2). Thus, any threat to the Temple’s purity needs to be quickly removed and

37

Lightstone, “Roman Diaspora Judaism,” 366. Mark A. Throntveit, Ezra-Nehemiah (Louisville: John Knox, 1992), 35. 39 Morton Smith, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh: Historical Method, Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism (2 vols.; RGRW 130; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1: 174-75. See also Levine, Jerusalem, 30-31. 40 Sweeney, “Jesus, Paul, and the Temple,” 608. 38

42

2.2 The Jerusalem Temple

subsequently the perpetrator will be punished.41 The Jews’ attempt to kill Paul is “the well-evidenced notion of the legitimacy of ‘zealot’ action against Jews caught in such outrageous violations of covenant holiness.”42 The significance of Jerusalem and the Temple is also indicated by the vast numbers of pilgrims for agricultural festivals. Pilgrimage became an international event since the Jews from Palestine and the Diaspora attended the celebration of the festivals in Jerusalem.43 In the first century A.D. (before A.D. 70), three pilgrimages assembled in Jerusalem annually (cf. Exod 23:17, 34:23; Deut 16:16). The Passover attracted the most pilgrims although the other two festivals were also attended by a good number of people (the Pentecost and Tabernacle).44 Philo proudly pronounced: “Innumerable companies of men from a countless variety of cities, some by land and some by sea, from east and from west, from the north and from the south, came to the temple at every festival” (Spec. 1.69). According to Josephus, 2,700,200 men came to the Jerusalem Temple for the Passover of A.D. 65 (B. J. 6.420-27), and they were made ritually pure through miqvaoth.45 The prosperity of pilgrimage in the Herodian era was due to the effort and strategy of Herod the Great.46 In order to guarantee pilgrims’ ritual purification during the festivals, the pool of Siloam and the pool of Bethesda were used for public immersion.

41 Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, 360-62. See also Levine, Jerusalem, 238-39 and Paul W. Walaskay, "And so We Came to Rome": The Political Perspective of St. Luke (SNTS 49; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1983), 53. 42 Richard Bauckham, The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (BAIFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 476. 43 Martin Goodman, “The Pilgrimage Economy of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period,” in Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (ed. Lee Levine; New York: Continuum, 1999), 71, comments: “It seems clear that mass international pilgrimage was a feature of Judaism which distinguished it from other religions, thus explaining the nervousness of the Roman authorities at the potentiality for political unrest among such huge crowds.” 44 Martin Goodman, Judaism in the Roman World (AJEC 66; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 61. 45 Some scholars point out that the number of pilgrims from Josephus is exaggerated. Though the specific number is uncertain, the importance of pilgrimage to Jerusalem is not questionable. Regarding this debate, see Shemuel Safrai, Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (FJCD 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 97, and Shemuel Safrai, “The Temple,” in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (ed. M. Stern and Shemuel Safrai; CRINT 1.1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), 902-3; Bauckham, The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, 261; Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadephia: Fortress, 1969), 78, 246. 46 Goodman, Judaism, 65-66, points out: “Some methods of encouragement were simply practical. Herod protected the pilgrimage route from Babylonia by installing a military colony in Batanaea (A. J. 17, 29-31)... The Temple provided, either through its own staff or by leasing space to entrepreneurs, good facilities for the exchange of foreign currencies (M Sheqalim 2:1, 4)... Among more blatant moves was the appointment of high priests from the principal Diaspora communities... It is plausible to postulate a similar dual motive for the single action by Herod most likely to have stimulated pilgrimage – the rebuilding of the Temple.”

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

43

Certain arrangements were made on the streets of Jerusalem to ensure that the masses of pilgrims who had immersed themselves in the waters of the large pools of Siloam and Bethesda would not subsequently lose their state of ritual purification en route to the Temple precincts for the festivities… The few oversize mikva’ot found in front of the gates to the Temple precincts, as well as beneath the courts inside, can only have been used by the festival overseers and Temple officials, and were definitely not large enough to serve the many thousands of pilgrims to the city at the height of the festivals. The sizes and interior arrangements of the Bethesda and Siloam Pools, however, were suitable for exactly such a task and they should therefore be identified as large ritual immersion pools (mikva’ot).47

The evidence of the two big pools stands for Josephus’ account that the massive population could be purified rapidly so as to attend Passover. The Siloam Pool was excavated in 2004 “at the junction of the Tyropoeon and Kidron Valleys” and its shape is trapezoidal (40 x 60 x70 meters) “with built steps and landings along at least three of its sides.”48 Its water supply was directly from the Siloam spring. Surrounded by colonnaded halls on the four sides of its two basins, the Bethesda Pool is located at the north of Jerusalem and composed by “the northern pool (53x40 meters) serving as the upper reservoir (the otsar) for the collected rainwater and the southern pool (47x52 meters) as the lower place of purification.”49 These big pools met the need of purification for pilgrims. Additionally, the Temple stood as the center of purification and sacrificial rites. The sacrificial system aims to remove ritual impurity of Israel and keep the temple’s holiness, which prescribes the ritual to be correct and the performance to be effective. Otherwise, Israel’s state of impurity cannot be annulled if the priesthood is corrupted or a ceremony is misconducted by priests.50 The priests who perform rituals are like the angels serving in the heavenly Temple (cf. Philo, Heir 112-113; Spec. 1.66-67, 116; Jub. 2:2). During the night prior to Yom Kippur, the chief priest cannot fall asleep in order to avoid a nocturnal emission since the discharge would make him unclean for the Temple’s service (cf. m. Yoma 1:7).51

47

Shimon Gibson, “The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem and Jewish Purification Practices of the Second Temple Period,” PrOC 55 (2005): 282, 291. 48 Ibid., 285. 49 Ibid., 286. 50 Johann Maier, “Self-Definition, Prestige, and Status of Priests Towards the End of the Second Temple Period,” BTB 23 (1993): 142, clarifies: “An adequate state of purity in each realm, the prescribed garments, and the necessary preliminary rites of atonement for the officiating priests were, of course, necessary requisites for a ritually correct and effective cult performance… The sacrifices aimed primarily at atonement for the collective group and the land of Israel as the holy area, or for the individual in the case of certain transgressions and connected with the ceremonies revolving around the removal of a state of ritual impurity.” 51 Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 117; m. Yoma 1:7 says: “If he sought to slumber, young members of the priesthood would snap their middle finger before him and say to him, ‘My lord, high priest, get up and drive away [sleep] this once [by walking] on the [cold] pavement.’ And they used to divert him until the time of slaughtering drew near.” See Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, 80.

44

2.2 The Jerusalem Temple

When a priest is off duty and outside of Jerusalem, he is still subject to certain regulations concerning purity and impurity. 52 The aforementioned study speaks of the significance of the Jerusalem Temple in the Second Temple Period; its purity attested by the Second Temple literature will not be discussed until section 2.3. In section 2.2.2, I will deal with the connection between the Temple’s structure and its sanctity. 2.2.2 The Temple’s History and Structure The geographic expansion of the Temple Mount at the end of the Second Temple Period started from Antonia in the north to the City of David in the south. The Upper City was located on the Temple Mount’s western side and the Kidron Valley bounded it on the east.53 The literary descriptions in Jewish writings that connect the Temple and the mountain are abundant, and those two things are alternatively used for each other. For example, Mt. Zion was used by the Psalter and prophets to speak of the Temple (cf. Ps 3:4, 43:3, 48:1, 87:1, 99:9; Isa 27:13, 56:7, 65:11, 66:20; Ezek 20:40). At the same time, Jerusalem also obtained a similar level of sanctity because of its proximity to the Temple (cf. Isa 48:2, 52:1; Dan 9:24; Let. Aris. 105-6). At the end of time, YHWH’s new Temple will be established in Jerusalem and on Mt. Zion (Jub. 1: 27-29; 4:26). A new Jerusalem and a new Mt. Zion will appear at the center of the earth (1 En. 26:1-6). Evidently, a number of Jewish writers already make note that the Temple’s sacredness extends to Jerusalem and to Mt. Zion.54 The Temple was rebuilt and expanded by Herod the Great, beginning around 20/19 B.C. and was completed at about 12 B.C. There was continual work on the building until A.D. 64, because the Temple demanded frequent repair. Due to Herod’s building project, the Temple became one of the wonders in the Roman world, and pilgrimage to it a wonderful experience. 55 From the design of the Temple’s inner structure, we can discern a distinct separation concerning purity in the different interlocking courts. The Temple showed a strict rule of the visitors and the clergies, and its inner structure was composed by “a series of rectangular courts to the innermost sanctum with increasing levels of prohibition.”56 Herod’s building operations separated the Temple Mount into three major elements. The first is the Inner Enclosure composed of the Temple proper and the Priestly Court, “a space around the Temple open to the sky, including the Court

52

Maier, “Self-Definition,” 147. Ehud Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 138. 54 Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 89-184, Yaron Z. Eliav, God’s Mountain: The Temple Mount in Time, Place, and Memory (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), 6-8, and Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 99. 55 Goodman, Judaism, 67. 56 Simon Goldhill, The Temple of Jerusalem (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 70. 53

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

45

of Israel, the court of priests and the altar.”57 The second is the Court of Women, “an enclosed forecourt of sorts attached to the Inner Enclosure’s eastern side.”58 The third is the Outer Court, “the area surrounding the Inner Enclosure and the Court of Women.”59 The Outer Court consists of “the rachavah, a huge paved square, the stoa basileia, fringing the rachavah on the south, and the Court within the Outer Court.”60 Gentiles were allowed to enter only the rachavah and the stoa basileia. When one enters the Temple Mount from outside, he will first meet the Court of Gentiles. Proceeding to the inside, he will enter the Court of Women, where the main entrance to the Temple is located, the Court of Israel, the Court of Priests, and finally he will encounter the Holy of Holies, which was entered by the chief priest only on Yom Kippur annually.61 The Inner Enclosure, only accessed by Jews, has further distinctions among them, such as the Court of Israel, “an area open only to ritually cleansed Jewish males,” and the Priestly Court.62 Before priests and male adult Israelites entered the Court of Priests, they would receive “extra-purification” in the ritual baths in proximity to the Temple Mount.63 The extreme caution for purity is actually “a tribute to God, the risk of contacting the sacred place and a psychological transition from the ordinary to the sacred.”64 Such an orderly designed edifice with stringent rules for access to different elements reflects the strong concern of its purity in terms of the purity-principles from the OT.65 Lest any violation of the Temple purity occurred, the restrictions and warnings were issued to guard the entrance of the Temple courts (cf. Josephus, B .J. 5.2, 5, 190-226; A. J. 15.5, 11, 417-20). The Inner Enclosure and the Court of Women were enclosed by a stone balustrade, which was decorated with plaques inscribed by Greek and Latin languages. It was used to prevent Gentiles from access (cf. B. J. 5.193-94; 6.124-26; A. J. 15.417).66 This balustrade be-

57

Netzer, Architecture of Herod, 138. Ibid., 140. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Levine, Jerusalem, 233-43. 62 Goldhill, The Temple of Jerusalem, 70. 63 Yonatan Adler, “The Ritual Baths near the Temple Mount and Extra-Purification before Entering the Temple Courts: A Reply to Eyal Regev,” IEJ 56 (2006): 214. He points out that ritual ablution in the pools at the Temple Mount “was required of all visitors to the ‘azara (PT Yoma 3:3 [40b]), and was not limited only to ‘serving priests and lay Israelites who took an active role in the sacrificial rite’.” Adler’s quotation is from Eyal Regev, “The Ritual Baths near the Temple Mount and Extra-Purification before Entering the Temple Courts,” IEJ 55 (2005): 197. 64 Regev, “Ritual Baths,” 201. 65 Goldhill, The Temple of Jerusalem, 68. 66 Peretz Segal, “The Penalty of the Warning Inscription from the Temple of Jerusalem,” IEJ 39 (1989): 79; James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 158; see also Goldhill, The Temple of Jerusalem, 68; Maier, “Self-Definition,” 143. 58

46

2.2 The Jerusalem Temple

longed to “the inner part of the rachavah.”67 Some inscriptions have been found in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. One of them reads: “No foreigner is to enter within the forecourt and the balustrade around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his subsequent death.”68 According to the basic principle of designing the Temple, the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies are the most important parts to be separated from the profane. The Upper Chamber, the Vestibule and “the system of cells” mark off those two elements from the profane. 69 The three crucial elements in the sanctuary are worth being mentioned: “the Menorah (seven-branched candelabrum), the golden Showbread Table, and the incense altar.”70 Between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, “the two aforementioned parallel curtains effectively blocked any view into the latter from the former.” 71 The Holy of Holies of the Second Temple housed no furniture and was empty in the Second Temple period because the Ark of the Covenant disappeared when the first temple was razed.72 In sum, the Temple was regarded by Jews as the central locus of holiness and sanctity. Participators of the cultic system were required by law to secure a state of purity. The Temple stood for God’s sustenance of the world and his presence among Israel. The Temple allowed the mortal to meet the immortal for it was the joint point of heaven and earth.73 The Temple’s sanctity confronted those who were to approach it in their purity status.74 As long as the Temple stood in Jerusalem, its purity was always integral to Israel’s identity, and this identity was embedded in the divine oracle: “I am the Lord; I sanctify them” (Lev 20: 8; 21: 15, 23; 22: 9, 16, 32).

67

Netzer, Architecture of Herod, 140. Regarding the translation and figure of the inscription, see Levine, Jerusalem, 238-39 and Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (AGAJU 25; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 360. 69 Netzer, Architecture of Herod, 146. 70 Ibid., 148. 71 Ibid., 149. 72 Levine, Jerusalem, 242-43. 73 Lundquist, Temple of Jerusalem, 94; Roitman, Envisioning the Temple, 57, notes: “In the perception of the ancient world, the destruction of the Temple was a tragedy of cosmic proportions, a veritable return to primeval chaos. We have already pointed out in the Introduction that for the ancient believer, a temple symbolized the victory of the divine over primordial forces, the essence of the whole world (imago mundi). The destruction of the Temple thus meant the loss of an existential fulcrum, in both personal and national senses; it was the collapse not only of a building, but of an entire understanding of the universe.” 74 Gregory Stevenson, Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation (BZNW 107; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), 181, comments: “The Jerusalem Temple mediated the tension between immanence and transcendence, providing a sense of God’s presence in the midst of the people while emphasizing God’s holiness and otherness.” 68

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

47

2.3 The Temple and Its Purity in Second Temple Jewish Literature This section will give a literary review of the Jewish writings in the Second Temple Period in respect to the Temple and its purity. By citing and interpreting the selected texts, I will attempt to present that temple purity is used by the Jewish writers to engage with social, ritual, moral and eschatological issues. With the exception that Philo, Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls are appointed to the independent sections, I will assign all other texts to a whole section classified by their chronology and where they were written.75 2.3.1 Palestinian Texts 2.3.1.1 Tobit The book of Tobit (190-170 B.C.) mentions Jerusalem as the holy city (po,lij a`gi,a). Although afflictions come to the city for its deeds, the Lord will have mercy on the descendants of the righteous. In the end Jerusalem will be built as God’s house and his temple (skhnh,) will be reestablished in the city (cf. Tob 13:10-16; 14:5). In Tobit 13 the hymn of God’s redemption and glory reflects the author’s view of Israel as the chosen people and their relationship with God which can be represented by God’s re-dwelling in the holy city.76 Whereas the author seldom talked about temple purity explicitly, he did show his knowledge that “the Temple was consecrated” (h`gia,sqh o` nao,j) as the dwelling place of God and it was the only legitimate place for sacrifice and worship (Tob 1:4-5). The underlying motifs, which are the anticipated restoration of Israel from their iniquities and the exaltation of Jerusalem as the holy central place on the earth, imply that the covenant relationship between God and his people is relied upon and that monotheistic worship is affirmed (cf. Tob 1:4; 14: 6-7).77 2.3.1.2 Judith The book of Judith (second century B.C.) foresaw that the Assyrians were going to defile the sanctuary once they conquered Jerusalem (cf. Jdt 9:8). The forthcom-

75 Unless noted, all the translations of Apocrypha are from NRSV and all the dates of the Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha refer to James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983); H. F. D. Sparks, ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984); Otto Kaiser, The Old Testament Apocrypha: An Introduction (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 1-125. Regarding where the text was written, see Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 9-75. 76 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Tobit (CEJL; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 312, points out: “The fate of the people of Israel is understood to be closely related to the restoration of Jerusalem’s Temple as the glorious dwelling-place of the Almighty.” 77 Ibid., 104-5; see also Carey A. Moore, Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 40A; New York: Doubleday, 1996), 107, 291.

48

2.3 The Temple and Its Purity in Second Temple Jewish Literature

ing captivity by pagans stirred up Judith who was anxious about the “desecration” (miai,nw) of the temple as a result of plunder and invasion. At the author’s time, the people who arrived in Jerusalem would “purify” (kaqari,zw) themselves before they offered any sacrifices or gifts (cf. Jdt 16:18). The author also speaks of Judith’s bath (a ceremonial purification) before her prayer to God (cf. Jdt 12:8).78 It is well-noted in all those verses that the temple and the people of God need to be holy because God is holy. 2.3.1.3 1 Enoch 1 Enoch (second century B.C.) shows a well-noted concern of temple purity. First, the Watchers are condemned for abandoning “the high heaven, the holy eternal place (temple)” and for defiling themselves by having intercourse with the women (1 En. 12:4-5; 15:3-4).79 This angelic sexual immorality is interpreted by some scholars as “analogous to sexual sins of earthly priests, as explicitly noted in other texts such as T. Levi.”80 However, the author’s critique of earthly priesthood does not mean a rejection of the Jerusalem Temple.81 Second, the author refers to the flood over the earth as the cleansing of all pollution, all sin, all plagues and all suffering (cf. 1 En. 10:18-22). Third, a portrait of the heavenly temple highlights its exclusive purity so that only the holiest ones are allowed to enter it (cf. 1 En. 14:21-25).82 Such as when Enoch went to the center of the earth, where he saw the new Jerusalem and the new Mt. Zion (cf. 1 En. 26:1-6).83 Fourth, the angel interprets Enoch’s vision of a mountain and a tree that the throne of God is established on the holy mountain and the tree will be placed in proximity to the temple of the Lord with its fruit for the righteous (cf. 1 En. 25:45). 1 Enoch 25:6 says: “Then they shall be glad and rejoice in gladness, and they

78 Carey A. Moore, Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 40; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 219; see also Neusner, Idea of Purity, 36. 79 Unless they are well noticed, all the translations of Pseudepigrapha are from James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983). 80 Klawans, Purity, 130. See also David W. Suter, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6-16,” HUCA 50 (1979): 115-35; George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee,” JBL 100 (1981): 575-600; Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 20-23. 81 Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 65, asserts: “If this passage was, in fact, meant to condemn impure priests of the text’s own time, it is striking that the authors chose to situate it within a glorification of the Temple and the priesthood as heavenly… Similarly, the parallel between wayward priests and fallen angels is here attenuated by the depiction of pure priests as truly angelic; any critique of certain priests is amply balanced with praise of priesthood in general. This, in my view, speaks against Nickelsburg’s assumption that a negative appraisal of some priests must be read as a rejection of the Second Temple.” 82 Reed, Fallen Angels, 48. 83 George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 318.

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

49

shall enter into the holy (place); its fragrance shall (penetrate) their bones, long life will they live on earth, such as your fathers lived in their days.”84 Explicitly, the author of 1 Enoch envisions a garden-like house from God as the home of the holy ones, and this holy house seems to be a healing and life-giving place. Holiness as the house’s attribute is connected with life and blessing. As for the current temple on the earth, Enoch sees its destiny in destruction that all its parts are packed and “abandoned in a certain place in the South of the land” (cf. 1 En. 90:28-29; 91:16; 93:8).85 God’s rule from the eschatological new Temple is the assurance for the new creation.86 2.3.1.4 Jubilees In the book of Jubilees (second century B.C.), a ritually unclean woman shall keep herself from entering the sanctuary (cf. Jub. 3:10-13). Also the author condemns exogamy within Israel since it defiles the sanctuary of God (cf. Jub. 30:14-16). Inasmuch as intermarriage is concerned, which threatens the Temple purity, the author of Jubilees shows a more rigorous attitude at placing priestly responsibility on normal Jews than the Holiness Code (cf. Lev 20:3).87 Furthermore, the author advances: “the Garden of Eden was the holy of holies, and the dwelling of the Lord. And Mount Sinai in the midst of the desert and Mount Zion in the midst of the navel of the earth. The three of these were created as holy places, one facing the other” (Jub. 8:19-20).88 The author also predicts 84

Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 405, comments rightly: “What seems certain is this: all Israel will be present in ‘the house’, which is located in Jerusalem and reprises the desert camp. If the house is thought of as city and temple, it will be a temple in which God dwells (1 En 90:34) and where no traditional cult is necessary both because of God’s presence and because the human race has been fully and permanently purified of sin.” 85 David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran and Apocalypticism (trans. Azzan Yadin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 210, comments: “This solution is reminiscent of the account in 1 Maccabees 4.43-46, regarding the impure altar stones that were removed from the temple during its dedication, and placed in an appropriate location on the Temple Mount.” 86 Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91-108 (CEJL; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 150. 87 Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 71, comments: “In the passages under discussion (30:15-16), both the Holiness Code and Jubilees confer a sort of priestly responsibility on ordinary Jews, who must avoid idolatry or intermarriage in order to keep the temple from becoming impure. But Jubilees makes ordinary Jews even more priest-like. Only if they observe God’s commandment regarding sexual relations with foreigners will sacrifices, the priestly work par excellence, be acceptable.” 88 Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (SJSJ 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 49, explains the reason behind the author’s connection of the Temple and Eden: “The temple is associated with Garden of Eden in the Bible itself, and this motif is developed further in postbiblical literature. The author of this legal passage drew a parallel between the birth of a Child, the beginning of life, and the creation of the first man and woman. Just as the birth of the baby cause impurity and prevents the mother from entering the temple, so too the creation of the first person caused impurity and prevented him from entering into the Garden.”

50

2.3 The Temple and Its Purity in Second Temple Jewish Literature

that Israel will abandon the Temple and break God’s commandments (cf. Jub. 1:10). However, more important is the motif concerning an eternal and holy temple in the new creation after the old creation is cleansed and Israel is renewed. In Jub. 1:27-29 the establishment of a new sanctuary in Jerusalem is pronounced and this earthly Temple is the shadow of the heavenly one guarded by the angelic priests (cf. Jub. 2:2).89 According to the author, the interrelation of two Temples as well as “the creation of heaven and earth” is evocative of God’s cosmic, predestined and salvific creation.90 When the new age dawns, Mt. Zion will be sanctified and the earth be cleaned from its guilt and uncleanness (cf. Jub. 4:26). God will save his people from all trials, make them righteous, and build his temple within them (cf. Jub. 1:16-18).91 This temple on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem will last forever and ever (cf. Jub. 1:27-29). 2.3.1.5 1 Maccabees In 1 Maccabees (second century B.C.), the caution on sacredness and holiness of the Jerusalem temple is conveyed time and again. 92 The Jerusalem Temple’s sanctity was undoubtedly merged with Israel’s religious zeal and piety (cf. 1 Macc 4:49; see also 2 Macc 5:15, 13:10, 14:31). 1 Maccabees narrates that in the reign of Antiochus IV, the sanctuary and its precinct were defiled by pagans’ sacrifice of “swine and other unclean animals” (cf. 1 Macc 1:46-47). Simultaneously, along with “the interruption of the daily offerings,” the profanation was also contagious to the holy things (a`gi,ouj, 1 Macc 1:46), “including the meat of peace offerings, and sin offerings, as well as the vegetable heave-offering.”93 Subsequently, the author mentioned the altar for sacrifices was defiled by erecting “a desolating sacrilege” on it (bde,lugma evrhmw,sewj, 1 Macc 1:54-59). The pagan king’s intent was to “force the Jews to violate the laws of Deuteronomy which allowed sacrificial altars only in the temple and permitted only one temple” (cf. Deut 12:5-29).94 2.3.1.6 2 Maccabees The author of 2 Maccabees (late second century B.C.) notes that Menelaus entered the most holy Temple (to. pa,shj th/j gh/j a`giw,taton i`ero.n) and polluted the holy vessels and votive offerings with his hands (2 Macc 5:15). Temple pollution was resulted from ritual or moral misdemeanors. 89

Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple, 63; Flusser, Qumran and Apocalypticism, 209. Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple, 63. 91 James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (GAP; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 133. 92 Neusner, Idea of Purity, 34-5. 93 Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 41; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), 222. 94 Ibid. 90

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

51

For the temple was filled with debauchery and reveling by the Gentiles, who dallied with prostitutes and had intercourse with women within the sacred precincts, and besides brought in things for sacrifice that were unfit. The altar was covered with abominable offerings that were forbidden by the laws. People could neither keep the sabbath, nor observe the festivals of their ancestors, nor so much as confess themselves to be Jews (2 Macc 6:4-6).95

This picture of profaning the Temple indicates the crisis of Israel’s religion and the potential desire of reversing the profane situation with divine help. The sacrilegious behavior stirred up the Maccabean uprising. Finally, the Jews crushed the army of Antiochus IV in the spring of 164 B.C., but it wasn’t until several months later that Judas rededicated the temple with purification in the autumn of 164 B.C. (cf. 2 Macc 10:1-8; 1 Macc 4:36-59).96 In 2 Macc 10:5, the author used the Greek term kaqarismo,j as the means of purification of nao,j, noting that purification occurred the same day as the Temple’s profanation. According to the author of 2 Maccabees, purification of the temple is one of the motifs underlying the story of Judas Maccabeus (cf. 2 Macc 2: 16-19).97 In another place, when Judah sent a message to the Jews in Egypt, he linked the rescue of Israel with the purification of the temple, and ascribed this “double causality” to the work of God.98 Since, therefore, we are about to celebrate the purification, we write to you. Will you therefore please keep the days? It is God who has saved all his people, and has returned the inheritance to all, and the kingship and the priesthood and the consecration, as he promised through the law. We have hope in God that he will soon have mercy on us and will gather us from everywhere under heaven into his holy place, for he has rescued us from great evils and has purified the place (2 Macc 2:16-18).

The message is clear that it was God who saved Israel and purified his temple through Judah and his adherents. The author used the Greek term basi,leion (the 95 Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees (CEJL; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 277, comments: “Antiochus introduced Dionysiac practices into Jerusalem on the notion that it was appropriate for the Jews, whom he took to be a type of Egyptian. In any case, as Stern noted, even if this was a Syrian cult, the Jews viewed it as ‘Greek’. Jewish sensitivity concerning this type of activity was especially great given its introduction into the Temple.” 96 Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 273, suggests that the delay was a deliberate behavior of the pietists who “believed the prophesies of the apocalyptic seers” and thus they “insisted on waiting for God to fulfill them.” 97 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 377, states: “The motif is well known. Thus, for example, the Messiah was born on the same day the Temple was destroyed (y. Berakhot 2:3 [5]), Ventidius defeated the Parthians on the anniversary of their defeat of Crassus (Eutropius 7.5), the Caesareans murdered thousands of Jews in their city ‘on the same day and same hour, as if out of divine providence’ that the Jews perfidiously murdered Roman soldiers who had surrendered in Jerusalem (Josephus, War 2.457); etc. This motif, as other types of poetic justice, functions as another indication that God providentially rules the world;” John R. Bartlett, 1 Maccabees (GAP; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 78, notes: “1 Maccabees dates the dedication of the new altar before Antiochus IV’s death; 2 Maccabees dates the purification of the sanctuary immediately after it.” 98 David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period: The Jewish Sages and Their Literature (trans. Azzan Yadin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 131.

52

2.3 The Temple and Its Purity in Second Temple Jewish Literature

royal palace, 2:17), which is probably reminiscent of God’s promise in the Septuagint Exodus: “But you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (basi,leion, 19:6).99 Thus, restoration of the temple’s purity is associated with re-establishment of Israel as a holy kingdom in 2 Maccabees. Removing profane things and restoring the temple’s purity is connected with Israel’s consciousness of their identity and vocation. 2.3.1.7 Testament of Levi The concept of the Heavenly Temple is emphasized by the Testament of Levi (around the second century B.C.). First, the priest Levi sees a holy temple in heaven wherein sanctification will flow from the temple (cf. T. Levi 5:1; 18:6).100 The heavenly temple emulates the earthly temple in some architectural details, where the archangels “offer propitiatory sacrifices to the Lord” (T. Levi 3:2-8). More importantly, given Levi’s vision that seven angels put on him the priestly robe and decorations, the priests are actually in emulation of angels as well as earthly purity emulation of heavenly purity (cf. T. Levi 8:1-19).101 Second, the priest Levi is warned of the spirit of fornication which will defile the holy place (T. Levi. 9:9-10). The book also states that the priests are about to profane God’s temple and city by their sexual immorality and the temple will be laid waste through their uncleanness (cf. T. Levi. 14:1-8; 15:1-2). When the priesthood and the sacrifices are polluted with the holy place laid waste, there is no clean place for the priests and they will be expelled into the Gentiles as a curse and a scorn (cf. T. Levi. 16:1-5). However, with the termination of the corrupted priesthood, a messianic priest will rise up (cf. T. Levi. 17:1-18:14).102 2.3.1.8 Testament of Benjamin In the Testament of Benjamin (around the second century B.C.), the author envisions a new Temple established in the last days that will exceed the formerly built Temple in glory. The spirit of God will pour out like fire on the Gentiles and purify them so that they can gather at the new Temple along with Israel. And there shall be a gathering of the twelve tribes and all the nations to receive God’s salva-

99

Ibid., 94, 130. Harm W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 144. 101 Klawans, Purity, 132; Timo Eskola, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse (WUNT 2.142; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 78, comments: “In the context of the Testament of Levi the merkabah tradition is appealed to for the justification of the Levite priesthood. This is why the context is naturally cultic, though it has not been exploited to its full potential.” 102 Robert A. Kugler, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (GAP; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 47. 100

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

53

tion, which will inaugurate the reign of the Messiah (cf. T. Benj. 9:1-5).103 In the text, temple purity is implied by the new Temple’s glory and the purification of the Gentiles. 2.3.1.9 Prayer of Azariah Probably having composed the text in Palestine, the author of the Prayer of Azariah (second century B.C.) particularly praised God with the phrase “Blessed are you in the temple of your holy glory” (evn tw/| naw/| th/j a`gi,aj do,xhj sou, Pr Azar 1:31).104 Temple sacrifice was spiritualized by the author to be “a contrite heart and a humble spirit” (yuch/| suntetrimme,nh| kai. pneu,mati tetapeinwme,nw|, 1:16). Temple purity is implied by the individual sanctification and the temple as the dwelling place of the Holy Lord. 2.3.1.10 Sirach A new holy Temple, which will be built for and dedicated to God, is also mentioned in the Wisdom of Ben Sira (second century B.C.). Ben Sira connected the establishment of the new Temple with “the Messianic hope of Judaism” (Sir 49:12).105 Also, Ben Sira 24:4 associated the divine wisdom with the temple cult, stating that the Temple is the abode of Wisdom (cf. Prov 8:12; Job 28:12-28).106 Such imagery seems to reckon the Temple as a glorious place full of the knowledge of God. 2.3.1.11 1 Ezra According to 1 Ezra (probably second century B.C.), holiness as a fundamental character trait is linked to the Temple and the holy vessels.107 In Cyprus’ time, the

103

Hollander and Jonge, Twelve Patriarchs, 411. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. Michael E. Stone; CRINT 2.2; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 150, comments: “Verses 29-34 are a doxology to the God who is enthroned in his temple (vv. 31-33), perhaps his heavenly temple (v. 34).” Regarding the text’s composing place, see Daniel G. Powers, Salvation through Participation: An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’ Corporate Unity with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology (CBET 29; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 220. 105 Patrick W. Skehan, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 544. See also Pancratius Cornelis Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research (BZAW 255; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 37. 106 R. C. T. Hayward, “Sirach and Wisdom’s Dwelling Place,” in Where Shall Wisdom Be Found?: Wisdom in the Bible, the Church, and the Contemporary World (ed. Stephen C. Barton; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 33-35. 107 The date and writing purpose of 1 Ezra are interrelated, and thus it raises several assumptions of the date, which is noted by Jacob Martin Myers, I and II Esdras (AB 42; Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 8-13 and H. G. M. Williamson, Studies in Persian Period History and Histori104

54

2.3 The Temple and Its Purity in Second Temple Jewish Literature

holy vessels being restored into the Temple signified the restoration of the “preexilic religious institutions” (cf. 1 Ez 1:3, 41, 49, 53; 2:10; 6:18; 7:2; 8:17).108 The immoral behaviors of Israel polluted the Jerusalem Temple and resulted in the divine punishment through the Chaldeans. When God’s glory departed from the Temple, the divine protection moved away and the Temple was given into sacrilege and destruction from the Gentiles (cf. 1 Ezra 1:49-58).109 2.3.1.12 Psalms of Solomon The Psalms of Solomon (first century B.C.) grieves about the priests’ and laymen’s moral transgressions which defile the offerings of God, the sacrifices, the temple and the city (cf. Ps. Sol. 1:8; 2:3, 13, 8:13, 25-26). In particular, the author perceives sexual immorality as a severe cultic pollution.110 The utter defilement of God’s temple results in the severe attack of the alien nations against Israel (cf. Ps. Sol. 1:8-2:3).111 2.3.1.13 Testament of Moses The Testament of Moses (first century A.D.) mentions the pollution of idolatry: “Consequently the word was fulfilled that they will avoid justice and approach iniquity; and they will pollute the house of their worship with the customs of the nations; and they will pay the harlot after foreign gods” (T. Mos. 5:3). The Temple’s destruction from the Gentiles represents the divine punishment in terms of Israel’s break of the covenant (cf. T. Mos. 3:1-3).112 2.3.1.14 4 Ezra 4 Ezra (late first century A.D.) speaks of the lament of Ezra who was grieved by the desecration of the Temple: “For you see that our sanctuary has been laid waste, our altar thrown down, our temple destroyed” (10:21-22). With his remonstrance for the destruction of the Temple, Ezra continued to mention that the various items found in the Temple services were discontinued, an allusion to the termination of the Temple’s institutions. At the same time, by calling Israel the

ography (FAT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 303-4; F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 2-4. 108 Myers, I and II Esdras, 38, comments on 1 Esd 2:7-14 that “the emphasis on the cultic vessels of the house of the Lord seems to point to continuity with the pre-exilic religious institutions.” 109 The correspondent LXX verses are 1:47-55, and Zipora Talshir, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary (SCSS 50; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 82, suggests that the temple pollution was primarily caused by the slain in the war against the Babylonians. 110 Neusner, Idea of Purity, 35; see also Kenneth Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon (SBEC 49; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2001), 27. 111 Atkinson, Psalms of Solomon, 16-17. 112 Ellen Spolsky, Summoning: Ideas of the Covenant and Interpretive Theory (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 136.

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

55

house of God, Ezra pleads with God to clean and reestablish the order of this house (cf. 14:13-14).113 According to Ezra, the eschatological restoration will fall with the inauguration of the messianic reign, and the remnant within the Jerusalem city will be redeemed.114 In conclusion, Palestinian texts show a great degree of caution about temple purity and regard the Temple as the dwelling of God. A new holy Temple is expected to replace the old one and stand as a central place for the worship of God. Many a time, the text combines the concept of purity with the concept of holiness. 2.3.2 The Dead Sea Scrolls Impurity as a threat to the temple is heavily discussed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sins incurred from ritual and moral impurity endanger the Temple. Getting rid of a potential defiling source is prescribed in the Qumran community regarding different cases. Corresponding to the removal of ritual impurity, three types of ritual washing are employed by the community. The first type is general washing, which applies to all members when they encounter bodily discharge, contact someone with a discharge, or touch a corpse (cf. 11Q19 XLV, 7-10, 15-16; 4Q274 1 I, 1-9; 4Q514 1 I, 1-6). One needs to bathe his body in “fresh water” (~yyx ~ymb, 11Q19 XLV, 15-16; cf. Lev 15:13). Afterwards, he still cannot enter the Temple until he has waited for a certain number of days. The second is priestly washing which prescribes the purity rules only for the priests and Levites regarding the services in the Temple, and can find its semblance to the Hebrew Bible (4Q277 1 1-13). The third refers to some uses of ritual washing not found in the Hebrew Bible, such as “hand-washing, prayer, and defecation, in addition to several situations where purity was extended as well without washing” (4Q213 1 I, 6-10; 4Q274 2 I, 1-9; CD XI, 1-2; 1QS VI, 16-24; 4Q284a I, 2-5; II, 2-7).115 Generally speaking, the Qumran community shows a very rigorous approach to guard “purity” (rhj) or “holiness” (vAdq) from “impurity” (amj).116 They take the ideas from the Torah about ritual purification. For example, on the one hand, they prescribe certain rules of purification regarding bodily discharge and contact of the dead which can be found in Leviticus 15 and Numbers 19 (cf. 4Q512 1-3, 7-9, 10-11). On the other hand, they extend these rules to the community, namely, the community is reckoned as a holy place with no toleration of defilement.117

113 Michael Edward Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 320. 114 Ibid., 405. 115 Lawrence, Washing in Water, 109; regarding the specific definition of the three washings, see ibid., 86-109. 116 Himmelfarb, Kingdom of Priests, 113. 117 Maurice Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4. III: 4Q482-4Q520 (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 262-63.

56

2.3 The Temple and Its Purity in Second Temple Jewish Literature

Before being affiliated into the community, new members needed to take a pledge of leaving the realm of sin and entering “the covenant in conjunction with their repenting and receiving God’s forgiveness” (cf. 1QS I, 21-26; CD XIX, 16).118 Once a man entered the community through washing and repentance, he would be cleansed “by the Holy Spirit from all ungodly acts,” that is, he became a new creation with purification of his life and in the glory of Adam (cf. 1QS IV, 20-23).119 Also, the community ate their food as if they were in the temple of God. Immersion in water was a routine for the members before they touched the food. If a member received probation of two years due to his misdemeanor, he could not touch “the pure-food of the Many” (~ybrh trhjb) during the first year and he could not touch “the pure-drink of the Many” (~ybrh hqvmb) during the second year (1QS VII, 19-20).120 An outsider was strictly excluded from the table of the community unless he was permitted to receive immersion in order to touch “the purity of the men of holiness” (vdwqh yvna trhjb). However, he had no admission to “take the purificatory bath preparatory to eating the meal” (1QS V, 13).121 Only a full member could partake of the pure meal, and a novice was forbidden to touch “the pure food of the Many” until one year of examination of “his spirit and his work” (1QS VI, 16-17). As such, any behavior threatening to the purity of the community was strictly forbidden and punished. A usual punishment for deliberate sinners was excommunication (cf. 1QS VIII, 21-24).122 In regards to the “defilement” (amj) of the “sanctuary” (Xdqm), 1QpHab VIII, 8-13 and XII, 6-9 states that the “abominable acts” (hb[wt) of the wicked priest defiled the sanctuary and the defilement was due to his immoral behaviors.123 In CD VI, 11-17, wicked wealth, stealing from the temple and the poor, murdering, seizing widows’ properties and other sins are juxtaposed as the immoral reasons of defiling the temple.124 The Temple’s precincts are regarded as “sacred” (vAdq) which should not be violated by “impurity” (amj). No man shall sleep with a woman in “the city of the Temple,” because they will pollute (amjl) the city of the Temple (Xdqmh) (cf. CD XII, 1-2).125

118 Richard J. Bautch, Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period (LHBOTS 471; New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 149. 119 James H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol. 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. James H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Louisville: John Knox, 1994), 19. 120 Joseph M. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law (SJLA 24; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 48. 121 Todd S. Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (SNTSMS 58; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 58. 122 Haber and Reinhartz, They Shall Purify Themselves, 52. 123 Klawans, Impurity, 71. 124 Klawans, Purity, 148. 125 James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (DSS; Louisville: John Knox, 1994), 2: 50.

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

57

In CD IV, 15-19a, three nets from Belial will catch Israel in the end, and no one can escape from them. These three are “fornication, wealth, and the defilement of the temple” (vdqmh amj; cf. Lev 12:4; Num 19:20).126 In CD IV, 19b-V, 11, moral purity related to temple purity is presented by the author who sees fornication as a severe pollution of the Sanctuary. There is a charge against “the builders of the wall” involving their sexual intercourse with two wives (CD IV, 21). The titling of the group seems to link them to the Temple erection. Then, the author of the Damascus Document immediately speaks of the flood story in Noah’s time and stresses that the ones who entered the ark were two by two (cf. CD V, 1). In fact, this shift of the stories alludes to the immoral defilement according to the context. Noah’s innocence about marriage is in sharp contrast with the Watchers’ sexual sins (cf. Gen 6:1-7; CD II, 14-21; 1 En. 15:3-7) and the aforementioned polygamy committed by the builders of the temple. God’s wrath against adultery and polygamy which defiled creation caused the flood to purify the earth. Despite vagueness and discontinuity, the author’s immediate mention that David’s adultery with Bathsheba defiled the temple deals with the same motif about the cultic pollution from immorality (CD V, 6; cf. 2 Sam 11:3-5).127 Besides polygamy as the defiling factor, temple pollution from Israel’s “sleeping with menstruants” is the other reason which the author severely hates (cf. CD V, 6-9; Lev 15:24; Ezek 18:6).128 Other stories about Israel’s immoral defilement of the Temple can also be found in: (1) CD XX, 22-23, which states that the people from the house of Peleg left the holy city because the temple was defiled by Israel’s evils; (2) Temple Scroll LI 11-15, the mandatory teaching required the judges to be just lest their perversion by bribery defile the House (tybh amjw; cf. Lev 14:41, 45); (3) Temple Scroll LII 5-7 offering a pregnant animal as sacrifice is prohibited for such a sacrifice is an abomination;129 (4) 4Q390 (4QPseudo-Mosese) blames the people’s sins of stealing, oppressing one another and defiling the temple (cf. 4Q390 2, I, 9); (5) Moreover, Klawans believes the “prophetic concerns” that the sanctuary is defiled by sin has appeared in “4Q385a frag. 3a, C:6-7, 4Q387 frag. I, 4 and 4Q388a frag. 3, 5.”130 The Qumran community not only links moral purity and impurity to the Temple cult, they are also called “the house of truth in Israel” (1QS V, 4-7) or “a house of holiness” (Xdwq tyb; 1QS VIII, 5). According to the Torah, there are two kinds of exclusion to protect holy places: (1) “exclusion or isolation of impure

126

Ian C. Werrett, Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 72; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 76-

77. 127

Werrett, Ritual Purity, 83-85. Harrington, The Purity Texts, 47. 129 Klawans, Purity, 148, suggests: “[S]uch a sacrifice is not only sinful but also odious and therefore a threat to the maintenance of God’s presence in the sanctuary – that is, such an offering threatens to morally defile the temple.” 130 Ibid. 128

58

2.3 The Temple and Its Purity in Second Temple Jewish Literature

people” and (2) “preventing of certain classes from entering holy places.”131 The Qumran community applies the exclusion rules not only to the Temple but also the communal assemblies. They forbid the Ammonite, the Moabite, and the people with “incurable fleshly defections, illicit marriages, or genitals cut off” to enter the community (4QMMT B 39-49; see also 4Q174 1-2 I, 3-4).132 The community council is figured as “the holy of holies for Aaron” (1QS VIII, 5-11), and 1 QS IX, 4-6a says: They shall atone for iniquitous guilt and for sinful unfaithfulness, so that (God’s) favor for the land (is obtained) without the flesh of burnt-offerings and without the fat of sacrifices. The proper offerings of the lips for judgment (is as) a righteous sweetness, and the perfect of the Way (are as) a pleasing freewill offering. At that time the men of the Community shall separate themselves (as) a House of Holiness for Aaron, for the Community of the most Holy Ones, and a house of the Community for Israel.133

It well testifies to the author’s understanding of the Qumran Community as a spiritualized temple whose purity is inviolable. A similar point is also found in 1QS IX, 33ff, which refers to the two rooms (‘the Holy place’ and ‘the Holy of holies’), “corresponding to the priests and the laymen, Aaron and Israel, in the community.”134 In the Damascus Documents, the author warns the people of defiling their holy spirits by uncleanness. They shall keep from fornication according to the statue ([CD] 7.1-2). The rationale is given, “They shall keep apart from every uncleanness according to the statutes relating to each one, and no man shall defile his holy sprit since God has set them apart” (7.3-4). This “holy spirit” is apparently a divine gift to every Israelite, not just to those in the community (probably of Essenes). But other texts show that the community at Qumran considered itself to be the new focus of holiness in Israel. They thought of themselves as “the holy place,” “the holy of holies,” in short, as the real temple of God, as opposed to the polluted one in Jerusalem.135

Those ideas have plentifully manifested that the Qumran Community functions as a holy temple and the way of righteousness is appropriated as a sacrifice in the community. In 4Q174 and 4Q177 (4QMidrEschat), the author states that two temples will be established in the last days. The first temple refers to the reigning place of Yahweh, where the holy ones assemble, and Yahweh is the major builder to provide this temple for his people as a haven. The second temple refers to the “temple of man,” the community as the temple of God which functions as fire for this world (cf. 4Q174 I, 2-7; 4Q177 III, 5-7; 1QS VIII, 5-9; IX, 3-6).136 By cherishing

131

Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4. V: Miqs at Ma’aśe ha-Torah, 145. Ibid., 158-59. 133 The translation is from Charlesworth, Rule, 39. 134 Gärtner, The Temple and the Community, 29. 135 Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Function of ‘Excommunication’ in Paul,” HTR 73 (1980): 262; for the discussion of these passages in CD, see Gärtner, Temple and the Community, 4-46. 136 Cana Werman, “God’s House: Temple and Universe,” in Philo und das Neue Testament (ed. Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr; WUNT 172; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 315. 132

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

59

their religious superiority, the Qumran Community already regards them as that “temple of man.”137 Bodily purification and blood atonement are the two conditions to keep the Temple holy. Protesting against the Temple’s impurity by their withdrawal from Jerusalem, the community reckoned themselves as the substitution of the Temple. Degrees of the communal purity are identical with degrees of purity prescribed for Jerusalem and the temple.138 Disillusioned by the temple for not meeting their standard of purity, the community portrayed another temple with details of its structure and cult in the Temple Scroll. According to their account, temple purity in the Qumran was integrated into an eschatological vision of an ultimate temple constructed by God which stands eternally: All that they will offer, all their vows and all their presents which they bring me for th[eir] acceptance, I shall accept them. They shall be for me a people and I will be for them forever; and I shall dwell with them forever and always. I shall sanctify my [te]mple with my glory, for I shall make my glory reside over it until the day of creation, when I shall create my temple, establishing it for myself for all days, according to the covenant which I made with Jacob at Bethel (11Q19 XXIX 5-10).

This eschatological temple was prepared for the new creation and could have been the same temple envisioned by Jacob at Bethel (cf. Gen 28:17). D. Flusser states that “column 29 of the Temple Scroll is the final proof that the belief in an eschatological temple was already circulating during Second Temple times.”139 The strong apocalyptic character of the community also suits their strenuous advocacy of purity and holiness. The purity rules conduct them in holiness which best conforms to God’s character, and avails them to fight the enemies in an eschatological finale with God’s favor (1QM XI, 3; CD XX, 34). Additionally, the power released from the spirit of holiness can purify the sinner from “every wicked deed” (1QS IV, 21; cf. 1QS IX, 3; 1QH XV, 7), and the holiness of the community can avail them to receive divine revelation in the study of Scripture and their sectarian works (1QH II, 15; IV, 10; XX, 12; 1QS VIII, 16; CD II, 19).140 In sum, the Qumran Community has a stringent sense of purity, and was cautious of preserving their covenant status. Their attitude towards impurity and sin was more rigorous than other Jewish sects at that time. Particularly, their percep-

137

Stefan Krauter, Bürgerrecht und Kultteilnahme: Politische und kultische Rechte und Pflichten in griechischen Poleis, Rom und Antikem Judentum (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 165-67, has a thorough discussion about 4QMidrEschat, and he rightly points out: “Im folgenden soll von der plausibel erscheinenden Deutung ausgegangen werden, daß das Heiligtum, das Gott errichten wird, ein eschatologisches Heiligtum ist, daß die Qumrangemeinde als Heiligtum aus Menschen proleptisch schon in der Gegenwart realisiert, so daß beide im Unterschied zum Heiligtum Israels, d.h. zum Jerusalemer Tempel, Orte korrekten Kultes sind.” 138 Harrington, The Purity Texts, 38. 139 Flusser, Qumran and Apocalypticism, 212. See also Werrett, Ritual Purity, 177 and Klawans, Purity, 159. 140 Harrington, The Purity Texts, 39-41.

60

2.3 The Temple and Its Purity in Second Temple Jewish Literature

tion of the community as the new Temple was distinguished from other sects’ views which were prone to revere the second Temple. As signified by the survey of Second Temple literature, the spiritualization of the temple cult was not rare but rather became a tradition, and an idealized heavenly Temple as the archetype of the earthly Temple was often envisioned and widely portrayed. Although the longing for an unblemished new Temple was evoked by some authors, they considered its construction as eschatological rather than imminent. As an exception, the Qumran Community already initiated this replacement by forming their community after the temple cult, and applied the cultic practices to the community both ritually and morally. This understanding of the Qumran Community’s perspectives, practices, and beliefs are important in the study of Paul’s perception of the Corinthian Christian community as the temple of God. 2.3.3 Diaspora Texts 2.3.3.1 Letter of Aristeas In the Letter of Aristeas (third century B.C. – first century A.D.), an account of the pilgrims who avoided the main road to Jerusalem by taking other paths lest they touched any forbidden project, “offer additional information about purity and Temple activities which are not found in the Hebrew Bible” (Let. Aris. 1056).141 2.3.3.2 Wisdom of Solomon In Wisdom of Solomon (first century B.C. – first century A.D.), a “holy tent” (skhnh/j a`gi,aj) had existed from the very beginning and the Jerusalem temple was just a copy of the former (9:8). More interestingly, Wisdom was sent from the heavenly Temple (9:10) and it saved those who cautioned the counsel of God by walking on the righteous path (9:17-18). Temple purity is indicated by God’s Wisdom which dwells in the Temple and can purify the soul of the human beings.142 2.3.3.3 Sibylline Oracles 3-6 Given the part of the Sibylline Oracles (second century B.C. – first century A.D.) written before the first century A. D., the Temple is remembered as the posses-

141 Lawrence, Washing in Water, 54. See also Sara Raup Johnson, Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabees in Its Cultural Context (HCS 43; Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 11. 142 M. Gilbert, “Wisdom Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. Michael E. Stone; CRINT 2.2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 310. See also David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 43; Garden City: Doubleday, 1979), 20-23, 205-208.

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

61

sion of God. The Temple’s grandeur represents the mightiness of God and reminds people of the deity’s immanent reign on the earth (cf. Sib. Or. 3:565-75, 703-18; 5:433). Its ruin manifests God’s wrath and punishment toward his people’s iniquities (cf. Sib. Or. 3:274-79). However, the author insists that God needs no temple as his dwelling place because his greatness is beyond heaven and earth (cf. Sib. Or. 4:8-24; see also Isa 66:1-2; Acts 7:48-50).143 Building a new temple from desolation symbolizes a recommitment unto God and the celebration of his people’s restoration from exile (cf. Sib. Or. 5:493-501). The text also mentions “a great holy temple in Egypt” and people bringing sacrifices to it (Sib. Or. 5:500). Temple purity is implied as the Temple is the central place for the worship of the holy God. 2.3.3.4 3 Maccabees The book of 3 Maccabees (first century B.C.) perceives the Temple’s pollution as divine punishment and pleads for divine intercession to achieve restoration of the Temple’s purity. The Temple’s defilement caused all of Israel to be dismayed and anguished ashamedly at the sins committed by them before (cf. 3 Macc 2:1423).144 2.3.3.5 4 Maccabees The author of 4 Maccabees (ca. 50 A.D.) gave an account of Antiochus’ tyrannical persecution on Eleazar who rejected unclean meat because it would defile his soul and make him betray the law (cf. 5:2-38; 8:1-12; 2 Maccabees 6:18-31). Here, J. Neusner notes a figurative cultic concern behind Eleazar’s speech, namely, “eating unclean food” (miarofagh/sai, 5:25) is like idolatry which “profanes” one’s faith in one God and one Temple (mianei/j, 5:36).145 3-4 Maccabees both mentioned that Israel’s zeal and piety was integrated with the Temple’s sanctity (cf. 3 Macc 1:10-16; 4 Macc 4:9-10). 2.3.3.6 2 Baruch In 2 Baruch 32 (late first century A.D.), Baruch announces that Mt. Zion is not forgotten by the Lord though the Jerusalem temple will be uprooted and remain deserted. When the new age comes, “it will be renewed in glory and perfected

143

J. L. Lightfoot, The Sibylline Oracles: With Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the First and Second books (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 27. 144 Johnson, Fictions, 131, 175. 145 Neusner, Idea of Purity, 35. See also David Arthur DeSilva, 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus (SCS; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 128, 143-45, and Jan W. van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (SJSJ 57; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 70-72.

62

2.3 The Temple and Its Purity in Second Temple Jewish Literature

into eternity” (2 Bar. 32:1-9).146 According to Baruch, the image of the heavenly Temple was already shown to Adam, Abraham, and Moses (cf. 4:3).147 In conclusion, the Diaspora text respects the Temple as a holy place and perceives temple pollution as an abominable thing. The text anticipates a new age when a new Temple will be established to replace the old one. Temple purity is merged with temple holiness. 2.3.4 Philo The Greek term i`ero,n occurs 97 times and nao,j 32 times in Philo’s work. The word i`ero,j is used by Philo to discuss something sacred, and he also applies a[gioj to God’s temple in many passages.148 In Philo’s On the Special Laws 1.66-67, the cosmos is portrayed as the true and holy temple, and the angels composed of pure and rational natures serve in this temple as the priests. In Opif. 1.27 and 1.55, heaven is revered as the temple (the holiest abode) of God, in which God placed the most beautiful images, i.e. the stars.149 According to Philo, the Jewish monotheistic worship conveys the clear idea of one temple on the earth. The Jerusalem Temple is the shadow of the real temple-the universe to manifest the mighty acts of the one God on earth. The highest, and in the truest sense the holy, temple of God is, as we must believe, the whole universe, having for its sanctuary the most sacred part of all existence, even heaven, for its votive ornaments the stars, for its priests the angels who are servitors to His powers, unbodied souls, not compounds of rational and irrational nature, as ours are, but with the irrational eliminated, all mind through and through, pure intelligences, in the likeness of the monad. There is also the temple made by hands; for it was right that no check should be given to the forwardness of those who pay their tribute to piety and desire by means of sacrifices either to give thanks for the blessings that befall them or to ask for pardon and forgiveness for their sins. But he provided that there should not be temples built either in many places or many in the same place, for he judged that since God is one, there should be also only one temple (Spec. 1.66-67).

146

Flusser, Qumran and Apocalypticism, 211, comments: “God will then bring about a new creation and only then will the temple be renewed and formed as the most beautiful edifice in the world. There is a great similarity between this account and the description in the Qumran Temple Scroll, on the one hand, and the discussion of the third temple in the rabbinic midrash, on the other.” 147 David E. Aune and Eric Stewart, “From the Idealized Past to the Imaginary Future: Eschatological Restoration in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (ed. James M. Scott; SJSJ 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 168, point out: “[The author] failed to achieve consistency in his preservation of eschatological traditions concerning the restoration of Jerusalem. It is particularly striking that in the revelatory dialogue (26:1-30:5) and two visionary narratives (36:1-40:4; 53:1-76:5), which have been inappropriately labeled ‘Messianic Apocalypses,’ and which center on the activity of the Messiah, that the restoration of Jerusalem and the Temple are not even mentioned.” 148 Leg. 3.118; Cher. 1.94; Det. 1.133; Post. 1.133; Ebr. 1.66; Sob. 1.40; Mig. 1.92; Her. 1.84, 110; Fug. 1.93, 196; Somn. 1.33, 149, 207, 226; 2.231, 246; Abr. 1.56; Spec.1.74, 115, 131, 151, 234; 4.105; Contempl. 1.81; Legat. 1.278, 295; QG 1.17. 149 David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses (PACS 1; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 159, 204.

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

63

C. Werman correctly comments on Philo’s idea of the Temple: Thus, God’s temple is the universe; however, there is also a temple Jerusalem, and sacrifices to fulfill human religious needs. In Philo’s view, God has no need of sacrifices; rather, they serve as a human means for giving “thanks for the blessings that befall them or to ask for pardon and forgiveness for their sins.” The temple is a haven for those who “see to find calm weather, and, released from the cares whose yoke has been heavy upon them from their earliest years, to enjoy a brief breathing-space in scenes of genial cheerfulness.”150

In a respectful sense, Philo pronounces that the priests bear the “perfection of body and soul” formed after imago Dei, and only they can minister the Jerusalem temple service.151 When the high priest enters the sanctuary for sacrifice after the strict purification, he actually inclines himself to the divine position. In other words, he is the mediator between God and Israel (cf. Spec. 1.114-116) and a small cosmos of God (bracu.j ko,smoj, Moses 2.135) . Also, Philo calls the high priest as God’s Logos, separating holy thoughts from the unholy, mediating between Israel and God, and presenting Israel as “the priesthood of all nations” (Fug. 108, 112; cf. Somn. 2.189, 231).152 This idea that the Logos dwells in the sanctuary denotes God’s presence within the temple. Philo uses the phrase “the perfection of divine virtue” to refer to the one who dwells in the temple rather than God himself which may not be different “from earlier understandings of God’s name, glory, or presence dwelling there” (cf. Heir 112-113).153 In another place, Philo presses: For the law desires him [the high priest] to be endued with a nature higher than the merely human and to approximate to the Divine, on the border-line, we may truly say, between the two, that men may have a mediator through whom they may propitiate God and God a servitor to employ in extending the abundance of His boons to men (Spec. 1.116).

The statement reflects Philo’s perception of the high priest as the holy agent of God. Plainly speaking, Philo’s portrait of priests analogous to angels illustrates the Temple service as sacred, which echoes God’s holiness. For Philo, a number of restrictions concerning priestly purity shed light on the understanding of the divine selection of Israel as a priestly and holy nation (cf. Sacrifices 68; Spec. 1.80-

150 Cana Werman, “God’s House: Temple or Universe,” in Philo und das Neue Testament (ed. Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr; WUNT 172; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 310; the quotation is from Spec. 1. 69. 151 Klawans, Purity, 122. 152 Michael E. Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT 2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 270, summarizes: “Along the lines of Jewish tradition, Philo attributes cosmic significance to the high priest. His vestments symbolize the whole cosmos, he is consecrated to the Father of the world, and thus is invested with universal meaning for the service of the Creator. The worship of the One God is seen in contrast to the erroneous polytheism of other nations. Therefore, it is worship on behalf of all mankind: through the Levites, the Jewish nation is the priesthood of all nations.” 153 Klawans, Purity, 122-23.

64

2.3 The Temple and Its Purity in Second Temple Jewish Literature

81, 102, 117-118; see also Exod 19:6). To some extent, priestly purity is defined by their service and sacrifice in the holy Temple, that is, the contact with and transition into the transcendent world requires purification and divinization. For Philo, priestly holiness exemplifies the general endeavor to emulate the divine, a desire that comes naturally to people. Thus while the laws he describes apply especially to priests – and particularly to the high priest – all people in their own way are to emulate this priestly purity when they approach the sanctuary to worship (Spec. 2:163-164). By doing so, the entire nation becomes more priestly, and by extension, more divine-like.154

What is addressed from the citation presents Philo’s thought of the nation of Israel as “a holy people, a kingdom of priests,” and the dwelling place of God, which was also found in the Old Testament (Philo, QE 2.51; see also Exod 19:6; 25:8; Ps 114:2). The role of Israel is analogous to the priesthood of the nations and the temple cult implements a universal influence.155 Meanwhile, Philo shows his heightened concern for bodily purity which is linked with the soul’s situation. He asserts that ritual purification of one’s body before sacrifice and entering the Temple embodies analogously his innocent soul before God (cf. Spec. 1.258). In Spec. 1.269, he emphasizes that before the Jewish people enter the Temple and participate in sacrifice, they “must need to have their bodies made clean and bright, and before their bodies their souls” (to, te sw/ma faidru,nesqai kai. th.n yuch.n pro. tou/ sw,matoj). For Philo, a sanctifying process takes place when one is in “both bodily and moral perfection” and ready for sacrifice. 156 This sanctification is to make one suitable to encounter the divine. Thus, the purity laws are actually used by Philo metaphorically in a moral sense. 157 Philo also gives a description about the Therapeutae (the Essenes in Egypt), that the sect proceeded to eat their meals around the table in a sacred ceremony because of their great reverence for the sacred table “which lies thus in the holy outer temple” (cf. Contempl. 1.3, 80-81). It indicates that the community purposed to form a spiritual house, but they did not thereby intent to replace the Jerusalem Temple.158

154

Ibid., 120. Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (SNT 86; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 149; Norman Bentwich, Philo-Judæus of Alexandria (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1948), 258. 156 Klawans, Purity, 120-21. Furthermore, the priestly imitation of God is also suggested in Ben Sira and Aristeas. Ben Sira gives details of what a high priest wore and his glowing appearance which testifies to the high priest’s extraordinary nature in imitation of God (Ben Sira 45:8-12, 50:5-11; Let. Aris. 96-99). See also Bentwich, Philo-Judæus of Alexandria, 127-28. 157 Neusner, Idea of Purity, 45, 47, affirms: “First, purity [for Philo] is treated as a metaphor for moral cleanness, as in Scripture. But second, it further serves as a metaphor for self-control, since the self-controlled are not ‘defiled’ by the passions… The allegorization of other rules of cleanness tends to move beyond the appeal to live a ‘blameless life’ and maintain the right attitude.” See also Lawrence, Washing in Water, 65. 158 Valentin Nikiprowetzky, Le Commentaire de L’écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie: Son Caractère et sa Portée, Observations Philologiques (ALGHJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 23. 155

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

65

Furthermore, Philo’s anthropological view does not escape Hellenistic influence and he believes that the soul is the suitable abode for God, who can fill in the place as the incorporeal power (Philo, Somn. 1.62, 149; Cher. 98). From his perspective, the soul is superior to the body.159 Briefly, Philo links the Temple to the cosmos and likens the high priest to the angel. That he universalizes the role of Jerusalem is to reinforce the Jewish identity, the unique position before the one God of the universe whom all the Jews believe.160 Given his view of “ritual (and moral) purification as part of a process of divinization that leads to the sacrificial encounter with God’s earthly presence,” temple purity is not only a concept regarding cleanness and sacredness of the Temple, but also refers to Israel’s imitatio Dei (imitation of God) and their attempt to remain the divine presence.161 It is not only ritually, but also morally. Philo’s interpretation of temple purity is well demonstrated by his monotheistic belief and concern of priestly purity. It is both practical and figurative. Furthermore, the cosmic sense behind Philo’s temple metaphor connotes that the nature of creation should have conformed to its creator in purity and holiness. 2.3.5 Josephus Josephus shows that the Jerusalem Temple as a holy place in its totality is deeply rooted in his mind.162 When he handles the Temple’s purity, his interpretation is primarily based on the Temple cult and appeals to the Pentateuch as his major reference. 163 In his historical account, three primary things referring to temple purity are noted. First, when the Maccabean revolt achieved victory, Judah Maccabee rededicated the temple after purifying it and replacing the polluted vessels (cf. B. J. 1.39). Second, without touching anything Pompey entered the holy of holies in 63 B.C., which was an illegal issue to Josephus because only the chief priest could enter it, though later the emperor issued an order to cleanse the temple and “to perform the customary sacrifices” (B. J. 1.148-153). Third, in his lengthy description of the Jewish War, Josephus asserts that it was Zealot blood that polluted the sacred temple (B. J. 4.201). Even Titus, the opponent of the Zealots, want-

159 Lorenzo Scornaienchi, Sarx und Soma bei Paulus: Der Mensch zwischen Destruktivität und Konstruktivität (NTOA/SUNT 67; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 106. 160 Pieter Willem van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom (PACS 2; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 141, says: “Philo modeled the role of Jerusalem on the position of Rome in the empire. He hoped to render the idea of Jerusalem’s centrality attractive for educated contemporary Jews. Loyalty to Jerusalem would provide them with the same kind of identity as Roman citizenship – an identity which, though ethnic in origin, transcended the narrow boundaries of a specific state and created the sense of world-wide community.” 161 Klawans, Purity, 123. 162 A. J. 3.125, 142; 7.342; 8.75, 90, 115; 9.223; 10.58; 12.10; 13.67, 128; 14.72; 16.115; B.J. 1.10, 25-27, 152, 354; 2.129, 400; 5.7, 36, 102, 207; 6.120, 126, 249, 251, 260, 316; 7.379. 163 Christopher Begg, Flavius Josephus on Judean Antiquities 5-7 (FJTC 4; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 299.

66

2.3 The Temple and Its Purity in Second Temple Jewish Literature

ed to protect the Temple’s purity, but John of Gischala, the Zealot chief, refused to fight against the Romans outside the Temple. Sacrifices were ended due to the Zealot’s possession. Thus Josephus thought that God’s daily food was deprived by them and that the destruction of the Temple was doomed. This was expressed by him straightforwardly: “God it is then, God Himself. Who with the Romans is bringing the fire to purge His temple and exterminating a city so laden with pollutions” (B. J. 6.93-110).164 Josephus, as a priest who took his office in Jerusalem, had a stringent view of keeping the Temple’s purity. He considered observance of food and purity laws as religious piety offered to God (Vita 14.75).165 In C. Ap. 2.102-104, Josephus declares: All those who saw the design of our temple know what it was like and how its sanctity was kept intact and impenetrable. For it had four surrounding courts, and each of these had its own protection in accordance with the law. Thus, anyone was allowed to enter the outer court, even foreigners; only menstruating women were prohibited entry. To the second court all Judeans were admitted, together with their wives if they were free of all impurity; to the third, male Judeans if there were clean and purified; to the fourth, priests wearing priestly vestments; but to the inner sanctuary, only the high priests dressed in the vestments special to themselves.166

For Josephus, the priests as ministers of the Temple services need to maintain their priestly purity by washing in water and consecration with sacrifices (cf. A. J. 3.114, 258), which is largely in agreement with the Old Testament.167 This restriction for temple purity also won the respect of the Romans (cf. B. J. 2.341; 4.182; 6.124-26; cf. Philo, Legat. 212). From his accounts of temple purity, Josephus emphasizes three things. First, “the law of purity” (to.n th/j a`gnei,aj no,mon) forbids foreigners to enter the sanctuary (B. J. 5.194; cf. C. Ap. 2.103-4).168 Second, people with contagious skin diseases and women during their menstruation were not allowed to enter Jerusalem or to go to the Temple (B. J. 6.426-7). Third, if a man was not thoroughly pure, he was forbidden to enter the inner court. The same also applied to priests (B. J. 5.227).169 Moreover, in respect to ritual purification, Josephus speaks of the city of Tiberias which was built on the site of many sepulchers. Habitation in such a place 164

Neusner, Idea of Purity, 39-40. Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (SPB 39; Leiden: Brill Academic, 2001), 86, and Oliver Gussmann, Das Priesterverständnis des Flavius Josephus (TSAJ 124; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 411; for more comments on the verses, see Flavius Josephus, Life of Josephus (FJTC 9; trans. Steve Mason; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 23, 64. 166 The translation is from John M. G. Barclay, Against Apion (FJTC 10; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 222-23. Barclay also points out: “Josephus oversimplifies, since he says elsewhere that even priests who did not, or could not, officiate could go into the priests’ court, if they were in a state of purity, to receive their portions of the sacrifices (War 5.227-28); but only the officiating priests, totally sober and clothed in fine linen, could approach the altar (War 5.229)” (ibid., 223). 167 Lawrence, Washing in Water, 52-3. 168 Klawans, Impurity, 61. 169 Neusner, Idea of Purity, 41. 165

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

67

was a transgression of Jewish laws and the inhabitants were “unclean for seven days” (miarou.j de. evpi. e`pta. h`me,raj, A. J. 18.36-38). If these settlers were about to visit the Temple, they either needed purification or they needed to move to an ordinary residence for the sake of purity.170 Outside the Temple cult, the Essenes are mentioned by Josephus concerning their immersion, dress, and food laws (cf. B. J. 2.123, 129-33, 138, 2.143-44).171 In particular, Josephus describes the Essenes’ dinner procedure as if it were a ritual practice in the Temple. After these things, they are dismissed by the curators to the various crafts that they have each come to know, and after they have worked strenuously until the fifth hour they again assembled in one area, where they belt on linen covers and wash their bodies in frigid water. After this purification they gather in a private hall, into which none of those who hold different views may enter: now pure themselves, they approach the dinning room as if it were some [kind of] sanctuary (“kaqa,per eivj a[gio,n ti te,menoj”, B. J. 2.129).172

He also details that the Essenes offered the sacrifices to the temple by themselves because “they have more pure lustrations of their own” (A. J. 18.19). Besides many descriptions of the conventional cultic purity, Josephus allegorizes the temple cult by ascribing a universal aspect to the Temple without going beyond traditional Jewish interpretation. For Josephus, the veil hanging on the doors of the sanctuary “was a kind of image of the universe” (B. J. 5.212). On another occasion, he proudly speaks of “the construction of the Tent,” the garments of the priest and the holy vessels made in way of “imitation and representation of the universe” (A. J. 3.180; cf. A. J. 3.132, 183-87).173 Then, he reiterates Moses’ principle of separating the tabernacle into three parts. Two of them are accessed by the priests with denotation of the land and the sea, but the third one represents heaven as accessible only to God (cf. A. J. 3.181). In the Hellenistic world, Josephus’ metaphoric interpretation of the tabernacle can find its counterpart from “the Stoic view of no,moj as the expression of the ko,smoj.”174 Also, he allegorizes other cultic objects: “the seven lamps represented the planets; the loaves on the table, twelve in number, the circle of the Zodiac and the year; while the altar of incense, by the thirteen fragrant spices from sea and from land, both desert and inhabited, with which it was replenished, signified that all

170

Ibid., 42. Steve Mason, Judean War 2 (FJTC 1b; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 102, points out: “According to 2.137, the novice Essene is presented with white clothes at the point of probationary acceptance, 3 years before full membership. White was widely recognized in the ancient Mediterranean world as the color of purity, of the Gods’ clothing, of temple service, and to some extent of celebration.” 172 The translation is from Mason, Judean War 2, 106-7. Manson further comments: “Josephus chooses generic language (kaqa,per eivj a[gio,n ti te,menoj), readily intelligible to his audience. Although te,menoj was the standard Greek term for a sanctuary, War uses it sparingly and usually of a foreign precincts. . . In Antiquities it occurs chiefly in descriptions of the first and second temples” (ibid., 107). 173 Louis H. Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1-4 (FJTC 3; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 279-80. 174 Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1-4, 280. 171

68

2.4 Summary

things are of God and for God” (B. J. 5.217-18; cf. A. J. 3.146, 182; Philo, Spec. 1.35, 172).175 In conclusion, Josephus demonstrates his notable respect for the Temple and its purity by his distinct description of the hierarchical holiness in terms of the Temple’s structure. Moreover, he also shows his concern of purification in daily life which may threaten the Temple’s purity. Josephus’ description of the Essenes’ dinner as a cultic activity, but with a generic Greek term te,menoj, seems to discourage the sect’s view of themselves as the replacement of the Second Temple. This is also supported by the fact that Josephus shows no disparagement to the Second Temple.

2.4 Summary Given the study of Second Temple Judaism regarding the Temple and its purity, several points have become clear. First, purity and purification in Second Temple Judaism attracts scholarly contention. However, nobody disputes that the Temple was the center of sanctity and that no one could enter it without purification. If the Temple was to become polluted by the guilt of Israel or its priests, the ramifications would be the departure of God’s glory from the Temple resulting in its desolation. Second, ritual purification is a common practice among the Jewish people in the Second Temple Period. The Temple reminds Israel of God’s covenant and their identity as the holy nation of God. The Temple also becomes a primary reason for the Jews to keep the purity rules in the land of Israel. The purity rules are extended to the Jews outside of Jerusalem and elevated to a degree beyond that of the biblical laws. The Temple’s purity provides the framework for the purity laws which are richly expanded and interpreted in Second Temple Judaism. Third, the Temple and its purity are abundantly used by the Jewish authors to address ritual, moral, and eschatological issues. When Israel is faithful to God, their sacrifice and worship is pleasing to him. If Israel defiles the Temple by their immorality and iniquity, God’s protection and presence will withdraw and the Temple be made desolate. The Temple is like a thermometer to measure the relationship between God and Israel: If God favors Israel, he will favor dwelling among them, and vice versa. When the Temple is profaned, the restoration of the Temple’s purity becomes Israel’s vocation, which is likened to the restoration of Israel as God’s holy nation. Fourth, the Temple’s purity reflects the holiness of God. In Second Temple Judaism, temple purity is used metaphorically as the purity of one’s flesh and

175 Josephus, Jewish War, 267. Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1-4, 270, comments: “Philo and Josephus are dependent on a Jewish tradition that by their time had attributed cosmic significance to the Temple and its cult objects. The same symbolism for the lampstand is found in Midrash Num. Rabbah 15.7 and in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 39:37.”

Chapter 2. Jewish Views of Temple Purity in the Second Temple Period

69

soul. The Qumran Community spiritualizes temple purity and regards their community as the authentic and eschatological Temple of God. The spiritualization of temple purity is also used by the Jewish authors who have a vision of the heavenly Temple or of a new unblemished Temple which will appear in Jerusalem in the endtimes. Fifth, in contrast to the concept of temple purity in the Old Testament, Temple purity became a more ethnocentric concept in the Second Temple Period conveying Israel’s superiority and the Gentiles’ inferiority before God. Also, the cultic purity was spiritualized into daily activities by the Qumran Community, while there is no explicit account of this spiritualization in the Old Testament. Sixth, despite the destruction of the Temple and the fate of exile, God’s mercy will not withdraw from his people and he will restore them to his holy mountain. This is fully represented by the new and eternal temple vis-à-vis the old and temporary temple. When the earthly Temple is corrupted and polluted by the people’s sin, a new Temple will be built by God as the place for the righteous and the holy (new creation), whose glory will exceed that of the old one. This contrastive ideology between two Temples – the earthly Temple as a copy of the heavenly one – reflects the Jewish view that God’s creative and salvific power actually flows from his eternal sanctuary. In sum, Second Temple Judaism already indicates that God will not necessarily dwell in the Temple but he likes to be with those who sanctify themselves and worship him in truth and in spirit. Purity requires Israel to lead a holy life because they are chosen to be the people of God. When the Temple stood, this requirement was partly integrated with the services surrounding the temple cult. Briefly, to watch one’s purity is a ruling principle for God’s people no matter whether the Temple exists or not, which I will discuss in Chapter Four regarding Paul’s perception of the Corinthian Christian community as the Temple of God. In the next chapter, we will study whether the concern of the temple’s purity is well recognized in the Greco-Roman world, and in what conditions the temple will be considered polluted according to Gentiles. It will help us to understand whether Paul’s teaching of the temple purity can find some echo from the pagan world.

Chapter 3

Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World 3.1 Introduction of Greek and Roman Religions The basic concept of temple purity in the Greco-Roman world has been discussed in Chapter One (cf. Section 1.5.2.4-5.), and Chapter Three will further our understanding of the Greco-Roman temple cult and purity. The time period in the study spans from 300 B.C. to A.D. 100. That period will shed light on the background of Paul’s epistles to the Corinthian Christians. First, we will consider what the Greek religious attitude was and how purification rites functioned in their belief system. The Greeks were proud of their religious piety and multifaceted ritual practices. Piety (and impiety) was a very corporate concept: to be pious meant “to believe in the efficacy of the symbolic system” of the city, and to attend it with a fervently active way.1 This symbolic system aimed to manage cultic practices and relations. Impious, conversely, meant the lack of respect “for the beliefs and rituals” mutually held by the residents of a community or a city. 2 It involved such activities as “malicious damage to the property of the gods, their rituals or figural representations; the introduction of new gods and cults not (yet) officially recognized by the city; opinions of the gods held by certain individuals.”3 Greek religion was an open system without distinction between true and false deities. Deities were understood as “merely powers known and acknowledged since time immemorial, and new powers, newly experienced as active among men and newly acknowledged in worship.” 4 Their myths could be reiterated “with new meanings, new incidents, new persons, even with a form reversal of old meanings.”5 For the Greeks, winning the favor of the gods was the core of their religion, which was usually realized by dedication, sacrifice and choruses.6

1

Louise Bruit Zaidman and Pauline Schmitt Pantel, Religion in the Ancient Greek City (trans. Paul Cartledge; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 15. 2 Ibid., 11. 3 Ibid., 11-12. 4 John Gould, “On Making Sense of Greek Religion,” in Greek Religion and Society (ed. P. E. Easterling and J. V. Muir; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 8. 5 Ibid. 6 Robert Parker, “Greek Dedications,” in Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum (ed. Vassilis Lambrinoudakis and Jean Ch. Balty; 5 vols.; Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2004), 1: 280, comments that treasuries were usually built in Greek sanctuaries to house dedications, and “a temple rich in dedications was the temple of a powerful god.” The temple of Ascelpios at Corinth

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

71

In Greek rituals, the implementation of purification and cleanliness played an important role. It marked a social process in which a group could define their criterion of purity and delimit their social boundary. Also, by holding rituals of purification, a community expected to resolve a crisis, restore the orderly communal status, protect the communal commonwealth, and reclaim the favor of the gods.7 The Greek term for “pure” is a`gno,j, and for “sanctuary,” it is i`ero,n. Purification was not only emphasized in rituals, but also engaged ethics. The Greeks forbid any immoral behavior to happen in sacred areas and holy thinking was highly recommended by many temple prescriptions. Ritual purity was guarded by getting away from the sources of defilement, such as sexual intercourse, childbirth, death and certain unsuitable foods. 8 Purification provided a religious sphere where “ritual and ethical reflection could therefore merge without a break.”9 Water as a purifying constituent was used in most Greek temples and partakers needed to take either bathing or sprinkling before they entered the temple and other rooms within the sacred precinct. Water can not only purify the visitors but also the sacred areas. Shower facilities or water basins were necessary components of a temple. For example, in the fourth century B.C., before entering the dining rooms in the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth, one was required to go through purification which was aided by some “small shower stalls near the entry.”10 Also, the purification for temple-entry required visitors to abstain from having sex, touching corpses or contacting women in childbirth for a certain number of days. Those behaviors were deemed as unclean and should be avoided before one went up to the temple and participated in religious activities. An inscription from the temple of Athena Nikephoros in Pergamum says (Sylloge3 982): These are the rules of purification for entry into the temple of the goddess, whether for citizen or others: they must abstain from their own wife or husband for that particular day, and from the wife or husband of another for two days, and must perform the ceremonial ablutions. Similarly they must abstain for two days from contact with a dead body or a woman in childbirth. After a

is an illustration of its power by dedications, and see Carl Angus Roebuck and Ferdinand-Joseph M. de Waele, The Asklepieion and Lerna (Corinth 14; Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1951), 111-147. 7 Geoffrey E. R. Lloyd, In the Grip of Disease: Studies in the Greek Imagination (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 6. 8 Burkert, Greek Religion, 78. 9 Burkert, Greek Religion, 77. Regarding purification rite during the foundation of a Greek city, see François de Polignac, Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City-State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 70. 10 Susan Guettel Cole, “Demeter in the Ancient Greek City and its Countryside,” in Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (ed. Susan E. Alcock and Robin Osborne; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 207. In the Roman period, dinning in the sanctuary was held outdoors rather than indoors, and see Ronald S. Stroud, “The Sanctuary of Demeter on Acrocorinth in the Roman Period,” in The Corinthia in the Roman Period (ed. Timothy E. Gregory; JRASS 8; Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1993), 69.

72

3.1 Introduction of Greek and Roman Religions

funeral ceremony they must receive ritual aspersion and entry through the gate where the holy water vessels stand, and they shall be purified the same day. 11

The regulation prescribes the conditions to be met for going into the temple, and purification is required for man’s visit of the deity. Priestly purity met a much higher standard than ordinary purity for the laity. Chastity was mandated for priestesses of the cult of Isis, Demeter and Kore, and Eleusis. The primary task of priests was to serve the divinity: “He would serve only the cult of one deity, and his authority as priest was limited to the cult of that deity.”12 Second, I will discuss Roman religion in terms of their religious customs under Greek influence and their attitude toward sanctity and sacredness. Religious activities included inaugurating temples, placing images in the sanctuaries, using various ritual washings, offering sacrifices, adopting Hellenistic games, Greek beliefs and other religious forms, marking the sacred realm, and discerning omens from nature or the entrails of animals. The Romans originally considered divinities to be invisible powers without specific images. When Greek religious practices were introduced to Rome around 584 B.C., religious simplicity began to vanish.13 Although the Romans held a small number of myths, they believed that they could assume power by means of borrowing Greek myths to shape their culture and literature.14 Roman deities were acknowledged with defined attributes, possessing “a place in the structure of the universe,” and were in charge of a specific area corresponding to his or her ability.15 People called upon a god to meet their need in respect to his functional effectiveness in a particular area, such as physical health, business wealth, agricultural fertility, or sailing safety. According to Robert Turcan, “this splitting-up of the divine powers legitimized a precise, specific, and finicky ritualism which avoided a frenzy for the supernatural but also correspondingly excluded any cosmic view, any response to intellectual queries.”16 The Roman understanding of religio was the precise observation of officially approved rites on behalf of the whole society. Religious fear was conducive to removing the tension caused by helplessness and winning the favor of the gods.17

11 The translation is from John Ferguson, Greek and Roman Religion (Park Ridge: Noyes Press, 1980), 50. 12 Jon D. Mikalson, Ancient Greek Religion (BAR; Malden: Blackwell, 2005), 11. See also Gould, “Greek Religion,” 15. 13 Matthew Fox, Roman Historical Myths: The Regal Period in Augustan Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 131; see also Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995), 347. 14 Dennis C. Feeney, Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 66. 15 John H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change in Roman Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 37. 16 Robert Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1996), 22-23. 17 Liebeschuetz, Continuity, 10.

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

73

The Roman deities behaved like the patrons of the country and they were believed to make the Romans procure agricultural fecundity, social wealth, personal health, successful war, and lasting peace. The Romans embraced piety as one essential life character, which “meant the faith observation of ritual duty because the life of the individual, as well as of the community a whole, was permeated by divine powers, whether in birth, marriage, or death, the seasons of the year, popular assemblies, or warfare.”18 Although the Romans imported numerous cults from the Hellenistic culture as official religions, they still adopted a very strict attitude towards foreign religions, especially the mystery practices without official sanction.19 For the Romans, superstition referred to “everything that was alien to Roman religious rites,” which is a disparaging term for “foreign cults practicing religious rites that the Romans judged to be strange and undignified.”20 Roman politics were intimately merged with religion. All the temples with official recognition were under the political power and the law of Rome. Moving or dedicating a temple or statue needed to comply with the respective law. Tacitus accounts that some knights wanted to make offering to “Equestrian Fortune” but they could not find a temple with that epithet in Rome (Tacitus, Ann. 3.71.1). Finally, they discovered one at Antium. Then, Tacitus adds: “all sacred rites in the country towns of Italy, with all places of worship and divine images, were subject to the jurisdiction and authority of Rome” (Ann. 3.71.1).21 Purification (lustratio) in the Roman world played “a smaller role than in Greek religion.”22 It involved feasts, cities, people, marriage, and private estates. A lustrum usually took place in a predetermined sacred precinct, preceding “prayer and sacrifice.” 23 Roman emperors sometimes used purification rites to 18

Koester, Introduction, 348. Simon Price, Religions of the Ancient Greeks (KTAH; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 145, gives an illustration: “Following established Greek practice, the Romans imported the cult of Asclepius from Epidauros… In 293 BC, because of a serious epidemic affecting the city, the Romans were advised to bring the god of medicine from Epidauros. According to Roman tradition, the ambassadors brought back a snake, symbolizing the god, which jumped ship at Rome and made for an island in the river Tiber. Here the Romans built a temple to Aesculapius.” 20 Koester, Introduction, 348. 21 Clifford Ando, The Matter of the Gods, 117; he notes: “The interdependence of the sacred and political emerges with particular clarity in the definition of municipalia sacra preserved by Festus: ‘Those sacra are called municipalia that a people had from its origin, before receiving Roman citizenship, and that the pontifices wanted them to continue to observe and perform in the way in which they had been accustomed to perform them from antiquity.’… When Pliny wrote to Trajan asking whether he could safely move a temple of the Great Mother in Nicomedia, he attributed his hesitation to the lack of a lex for the temple” (ibid., 116-17). 22 Thomas Podella, "Purification," BNP 12:227. 23 Nagle, Ovid’s Fasti: Roman Holidays, 25; see also Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, eds., Roman Civilization (2vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), 1: 156-57, 515. Regarding purification of private assets, see Mary Beard et al., Religions of Rome (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 2: 152. 19

74

3.1 Introduction of Greek and Roman Religions

justify their behaviors. For example, Claudius, the successor of Caligula, “turned to the sanctuary when the question of his successor became a crisis.”24 When he plotted to marry his niece Agrippina, he ordered “expiatory ceremonies to be carried out by the pontiffs in the grove of Diana,” and consequently his act stirred up the derision of the Romans who regarded it as “purifications of incest” (Tacitus, Ann. 12. 8.2). Corpses were a primary source of pollution to people and cults, and whoever touched the dead was mandated to receive purification.25 A lustratio rite would take place before a priest offered a sacrifice at the altar, a commander purified his army, a censor purified the people or the games marched toward the god’s temple.26 Purifying the army was wrought by “a pig-sheep-bull sacrifice (suovetaurilia),” and the victims were led “by various attendants around the outside of the military camp and then through a gate (center).”27 The purification also included the devices used in war.28 As for the purification of Roman citizens, a censor would usually perform it at the end his official term as the following text indicates: To their original duty of taking the census were gradually added the supervision of morals (which gave them the important power of reviewing the membership of the senate) and the leasing of contracts for public works, the collection of public revenues, and the maintenance of state properties. At the end of their term of office the censors performed the solemn ceremony of purification of the citizen body, the lustratio.29

The lustration could mean a blessing to the empire which is purified to please the gods. The lustration rites were also an essential component in the Roman mysteries. The initiates would receive purification by water before they could go into the sanctuary of the deity. In the Eleusinian cult, purification by air and fire was employed to be a part of the initiation.30 Overall, we can discern that people in the Greco-Roman world showed a great devotion to various religious beliefs which permeated their life. Purity and purifi24

Green, Roman Religion and the Cult of Diana at Aricia, 59. Rothaus, Corinth, the First City of Greece, 53. 26 Cicero, Divination, 78. 27 Warrior, Roman Religion, 57. Stewart Perowne, Roman Mythology (New York: Peter Bedrick Books, 1984), 37, points out: “On the 14th occurred the second Equirria, which means that the horses of the army were being lustrated. Spears, shields, and horses – all the panoply of the host is put into good order and spiritual repair during this month of Mars.” 28 Ferguson, Greek and Roman, 44, defines the Latin terms of Roman calendar: “QUINQUATRUS: fifth day after the Ides; purification of shields of war. TUBILUSTRIUM: purification of trumpets.” 29 Lewis and Reinhold, eds., Roman Civilization, 1: 120. 30 Hans-Josef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 98, points out: “A winnowing fan, such as is used at threshing to separate chaff from corn, is held over his head (purification by air); a torch is brought near him (purification by fire). Then comes an instruction about certain matters.” 25

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

75

cation played an important role to separate the divinity, sacred spaces and religious items from secular defilement. The next section will cast light on temple cults and see how the purity concept is embodied by them.

3.2 Temples in the Greco-Roman World After reviewing why religious fervor was an essential part of the Greco-Roman world and what the Greeks’ and Romans’ understandings of sacredness and sanctity were, we will consider the temple’s function in the Greco-Roman religion. In this section, I will first give an analysis of the temples’ integral role to the GrecoRoman religions; then I will discuss the topic as it pertained in the Greek world as well as in the Roman world. Regarding a lexical study of ‘temple’ and ‘purity’ in the Greco-Roman world, see section 1.5.2.5. According to Cicero, the temples shut up the deities within their walls, but the Greeks saw that the whole universe was the gods’ “temple and home” (Cicero, Leg. 2. 10. 26).31 In a similar way, the Romans would consider that the deities represented the aspects of the cosmos and each of them deserved a place in the cosmos.32 For people in the Greco-Roman world, building a temple outside a city or in an urban area primarily signified the deity’s presence and dwelling within that community, which conveys a benefactor-beneficiary relationship.33 The reason for building the gods’ temples was affirmed by Cicero as the people’s pious desire and genuine invitation for the gods to dwell in their cities (cf. Leg. 2. 10. 26). Cicero elucidated that everything performed in religious rites before the people’s eyes was “filled with the gods,” which made the spectators purer, just as “they feel the power of religion most deeply when they are in temples” (Leg. 2. 11. 26-27).34 In other words, temples could enhance the religious impression of those who entered them, to the extent that their minds might become pure because of that impression. Cicero stressed that approaching the gods should be accompanied with purity of mind. If men believed everything they saw was filled with gods, they would become purer (Leg. 2. 10. 24-6). On the other hand, “men would live purer lives if they saw temples all around them.”35 If a human’s mind was purified from the old and past offensive activities, the gods would show their favor “to maintain the greatness of the Roman state, or to make the new age happier than the old.”36

31

Marcus Tullius Cicero, De re Publica, De Legibus (LCL trans. Clinton Walker Keyes; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928), 403. 32 Liebeschuetz, Continuity, 37. See also Fox, Roman, 25. 33 Jerome H. Neyrey, “God, Benefactor and Patron: The Major Cultural Model for Interpreting the Deity in Greco-Roman Antiquity,” JSNT 27 (2005): 471-77. 34 See also Gregory Stevenson, Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation (BZNW 107; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), 77. 35 Liebeschuetz, Continuity, 49. 36 Ibid., 99.

76

3.2 Temples in the Greco-Roman World

Since temples were usually the splendor of cities, a temple could be regarded as a city’s identity, such as the temple of Asklepios at Epidauros, the temple of Aphrodite at Corinth or the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. The temple of Artemis at Ephesus in the first century A.D. had made its influence felt in the political, social, cultural, religious, and economic framework of the city. 37 The interdependence of the temple and the city was evidenced by the knowledge that “honoring the goddess is honoring the city.”38 The city is regarded as the warden of the temple, and the goddess as the patron of the city. The unique bond of tutelage that characterized the relationship between the city of Ephesus and Artemis was long-standing and multifaceted. Indicative of this bond are various epithets used of the goddess such as “Leader,” “Guide,” “Founder” of the city, ancestral goddess, and patron deity. Two verbal expressions which are representative of this covenant tie between Artemis and the city are trofo,j and newko,j. In an inscription dating from the period of Antoninus Pius one discovers the Ephesians’ self-designation as trofo,j of Artemis. This nurturing motif defined a city’s relationship to a cult as the benefactor of a temple or shrine. The second Greek term newko,j expressed the belief that the city was the sacred protectress of the deity and her cult. The city and its people served, metaphorically, as the sacerdotal officials in this tutelary covenant between Artemis and Ephesus.39

Explicitly, the temple shows a symbiotic relationship with the city and its role is integral to the benevolent system of the Roman society.40 The next two sections will probe the temple role in the Greek and the Roman worlds distinctly. To discuss the temples in the Greek and Roman worlds separately is based on three reasons. First, their architecture is different. The Roman

37

Rick Strelan, Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus (BZNW 80; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996), 24, says: “The Artemis cult was more than ritual, sacrifice and myth. It was also ‘a social institution par excellence; it participated in the financial, legal, educational, family, civic and athletic activities of Ephesian society’.” Its quotation is from Richard Oster, “Numismatic Windows into the Social World of Early Christianity: A Methodological Inquiry,” JBL 101 (1982): 215. See also John R. Lanci, A New Temple for Corinth: Rhetorical and Archaeological Approaches to Pauline Imagery (SBL 1; New York: Lang, 1997), 96. 38 Stevenson, Power, 77. 39 Oster, “Numismatic,” 215. 40 Stevenson, Power, 77; in ibid., 78-80, he comments: “Temples intersected this system in three ways. First, temples and their cults were both benefactors and beneficiaries. By performing their various religious, economics, social, and civic functions with distinction, cult officials were viewed as benefactors of the city… A second way that the temple operates within the system of benefaction is the use of temples and sanctuaries to advertise both the services of benefactors and the honors awarded them. The practice of setting up honorary statues and decrees for prominent benefactors in sanctuaries and next to temples serves a dual purpose. On the one hand, it grants great honor to the benefactors by placing these public badges of honor in highly visible and frequently trafficked areas, as is evident by the order that decrees or statues are to be set up ‘in the most manifest place’ in the sanctuary or in the ‘most distinguished’ place. On the other hand, this practice benefits the city as much as the benefactors… The third way that temples function within the system of benefaction is as honors themselves. The major deity of a city was the patron of that city. The god or goddess provided numerous benefits for the people and in exchange was deserving of great honor;” the quotations are from IvEph 1a.27, LL. 87-88; IvTralleis 23.

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

77

temples were constructed on an increased podium while the Greek temples were built on an open platform.41 Second, the Romans put the statues of their emperors in the temple while the Greeks had no such custom. Third, the purposes of ritual purification were, in some cases, different between the Roman and Greek cultures. Thus, a separate discussion of their temples can provide a better scope to present our topic. 3.2.1 The Role of Temples in Greek Religion The great piety of the Greeks toward their gods was proverbial, and they invested tremendous expense and effort on building the temples as the gods’ houses.42 Building sanctuaries served not only the performance of rituals but also the representation of communal and individual piety and gratitude toward the deity.43 As the house of the gods, the temple was the place where rituals and sacrifices were held, but it was not primarily used for congregational worship services.44 Several Greek sanctuaries functioned as the centers for “the state cult (as in the Acropolis of Athens) or as the locations for major, panhellenic festivals (such as Delphi and Olympia).”45 Regarding the sites of the Greek temples, there is no simple explanation for the reasons a particular site was chosen. While some of the main temples sat on the acropolis of a city, other main temples sat in suburban areas for functional concerns. For example, the temples of Asclepius at Epidaurus and Corinth were connected with healing, and they sat close to the suburban area with rich springs because a clean and quiet environment was believed to make healing happen more easily.46 In the sanctuaries were placed cultic images, which were made of wood or stone by famous craftsmen and might have been a colossal size. Certain ancient wooden images (xoana) were said to have fallen from heaven, such as the image of Dionysos at Thebes and the statue of Artemis at Ephesus. Going up to the im-

41

Scheid, Introduction, 71. See also Jerome J. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 235. 42 Burkert, Greek Religion, 92, comments: “However much skill and craftsmanship of the highest quality went into the construction of a Greek temple, the scale and expenditure were kept within human proportions: the entire Periclean building programme on the Acropolis cost the city of Athens no more than did two years of the Peloponnesian War.” 43 Price, Religions of the Ancient Greeks, 58. 44 Zaidman and Schmitt Pantel, Religion, 59, add: “Not all temples, however, were designed either solely or principally as the house of a god. Some ‘sanctuary temples’ were built to protect a holy place and the rituals attached to it. That of Pythian Apollo at Delphi, for example, contained the Pythian hearth, the altar of Poseidon and, in its holy-of-holies (aduton), the oracular seat of the Pythia.” See also P. E. Easterling and J. V. Muir, Greek Religion and Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), xvi. 45 James Whitley, The Archaeology of Ancient Greece (CWA; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 134. 46 Easterling and Muir, Greek Religion, xvii.

78

3.2 Temples in the Greco-Roman World

age and praying was a good reason for people to enter the temple.47 The adherents met the god by seeing his statue and the god met them inside the temple, so that the doorway of the temple almost became “a liminal zone between This World, the world of the mortals, and the Other World, the world of the immortals.”48 At a festival rite, the image would receive ritual cleansing in respect to its accumulation of dirt or basic maintenance. 49 Moving the image and cleansing it were reckoned as a “breaking up of order,” but the process also “led back to the established order” when the image was cleaned since the distinction between the immortal and the mortal was reformulated.50 The gods were imagined to be present in their cultic images at festival time or during sacrificial rites, looking out “through the doors of the temple especially opened for the occasion at the ritual happening outside.”51 During the sacred work of sacrifice at the altar the temple is at the back of the participants; they look towards the east and pray to the sky, just as the temple opens out to the east. So the pious man stands as it were beneath the eye of the deity; but it is not the inner space of the temple which draws him in, withdrawing him from the world. The festival is enacted in the open air around the altar and temple; built as a façade, the temple, which can be circled in the shade of the columnborne entablature, provides the magnificent background; it stands giving strength behind the man who looks out on the world; it dismisses him as it welcomed him.52

Over all, the temple and the cultic image had the very intimate nexus because the former extended the witness of the latter’s power and presence in both cultural and religious dimensions. The link of “temple, anthropomorphic cult statue and sacrifice formed part of the Greeks’ awareness of their own cultural identity in contrast with their neighbors.”53 Visiting temples was a delightful experience for the Greeks. They recognized that one of life’s pleasures came from the time when a feast was held “on the occasion of some sacred rite or sacrifice,” and when they honored the gods in the temples.54 The Greek temple area consisted of temenos (sacred precinct), altars, the temple proper, treasuries, and fountains, which provided ritual ablutions. There were also different functional structures “such as dining-rooms and dormitories,” which are used by priests and pilgrims, and “stadia or other arenas for 47

Burkert, Greek Religion, 92, 167. Clemente Marconi, Temple Decoration and Cultural Identity in the Archaic Greek World: The Metopes of Selinus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 190. 49 Catherine Lochin, “Déplacements Provisoires d’images Cultuelles,” in Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum (ed. Vassilis Lambrinoudakis and Jean Ch. Balty; 5 vols.; Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2004), 2: 478. 50 Burkert, Greek Religion, 79, 92. See also Thomas Podella, "Purification," BNP 12:227. 51 Price, Religions of the Ancient Greeks, 58-9. 52 Burkert, Greek Religion, 92. 53 S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 201. 54 Luke Timothy Johnson, Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity (AYBRL; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 107. 48

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

79

cults that involved athletic and other competitions, such as those of Olympia and Delphi.”55 The temple and its precinct were marked by boundary stones or by a “massive stone wall” inscribed with letters which warned travelers of the temple’s “inviolability” (avsuli,a).56 The stone walls that stood to address the asylia of the temples perhaps began around the fifth century B.C. and flourished from 260 B.C.57 For example, an inscription from the first century B.C. issues a warning written on the exterior wall of the temple of Artemis at Ephesus: “the temenos of Artemis is inviolate, the whole area inside the perimeter. Whoever transgresses (this provision) will have himself blamed” (I. Eph. V. 1520).58 The practice of putting warning signs in the exterior area of the temple was also adopted by the Romans on several Panhellenic temples: Apollo of Delphi, Zeus of Olympia, and Poseidon of Isthmia.59 Some temples’ access was restricted to certain times (Pausanias, Descr. 6.25.2; 9.16.6; 10.35.7). For example, according to Pausanias, “the sacred enclosure of Hades and its temple are opened once every year, but not even on this occasion is anybody permitted to enter except the priest” (Descr. 6.25.2). Some temples kept their doors locked except to open during specified times only in order to guard against pollution of the sanctuaries. For example, the wardens in the temple of Asklepios at Pergamum usually kept the keys for the doors of the temple and its interior parts (Aelius Aristides, Sacred Tales. 1.10).60 A Greek temple usually opened only one entrance where the water basins were set up for purification. Worshippers entering a sanctuary were obliged to purify themselves, and stoas near the gates into sanctuaries often provided the necessary space and implements. Water basins were installed near the entrances too, and near entrances to temples, for visitors to perform ritual ablutions before crossing into sacrosanct territory… At political gatherings purificatory offerings were made. Before any sacrifice, hands were washed, and the place of sacrifice itself was purified.61

55

Zaidman and Pauline, Religion, 59. Burkert, Greek Religion, 86. 57 Kent J. Rigsby, Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (HCS 22; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 3, notes: “A fifth century boundary of a temple in Corinth uses the word for what could be said of any Greek temple at any time: [ho,roj i,aroj?] a.s, uloj me. katabibasske,to zami,a.” Graham Shipley, The Greek World after Alexander, 323-30 B.C (RHAW; London: Routledge, 2000), 80, points out that many inscriptions from 260 B.C. mentioned the inviolability of the temples in the Aegean and Asian Minor, such as the temple of Atheman Itonia at Koroneia (SEG xviii. 240, ISE ii. 74), and the temples at Delphi. 58 The translation is from Horsley, ed., New Documents, 4: 168. 59 Jon D. Mikalson, “Greek Religion: Continuity and Change in the Hellenistic Period,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World (ed. Glenn Richard Bugh; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 216-17. 60 Aelius Aristides, The Complete Works: Orations 17-53 (2 vols.; trans. Charles A. Behr; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 2: 279-81. See also Stevenson, Power, 49. 61 John Griffiths Pedley, Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 98. 56

80

3.2 Temples in the Greco-Roman World

In the sanctuary, anything with a defiling effect would be prohibited – sexual intercourse, murder, all kinds of death, childbirth, and even illness. Similar prohibitions continued to be adopted in the Roman world (Pausanias, Descr. 2.27.1-6).62 For example, a pregnant woman was required to leave the abaton (a;baton) of the Asklepios temple and bear her child outside of the “sacred area” (i`ero,n).63 Some temples issued purity rules requiring visitors to keep ritually pure. For example, an inscription from Astypalaia around the fourth century B.C. reads: “Let not anyone enter the sanctuary who is not pure; either he will pay or he will become aware of it” (SIG3 980). 64 A stone “basin” (περίρραντήριον) usually stood at the gate of the temple, which contained water for the visitors to sprinkle themselves as a symbolic purification before they approached the deity. Men and women who had sexual intercourse, childbirth or attended funerals were required to bathe to eliminate their pollution before stepping into the sanctuary. In addition, according to Mikalson, “those who had killed another, except in battle, voluntarily or not, were also polluted, and they were forbidden entrance until they had undergone formal rites of purification, rituals distinct from any legal proceedings that might be involved.”65 The Greeks believed that rituals would be held in vain if a defiled person was in the sanctuary, which would prevent the god from coming. Murderers were never to make an offering in the temple lest they pollute the temple and be avenged by the divinity on behalf of the victims, as the gods were believed to watch their sanctuaries against defilement (Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists 2.556). The aforementioned acts which defiled individuals and disqualified them from going into the temples were “all the greater dangers if they occurred in a sanctuary, and therefore every effort was made to prevent sexual intercourse, childbirth, or a death from occurring there.”66 In addition, any immoral behavior was regarded as profane, which the temple wardens also made every effort to prevent from happening in the sanctuary.67 Broadly speaking, pollution could derive from a violation of temple rules, including speaking defiantly any word against “the efficacy of divine vengeance.”68

62 Burkert, Greek Religion, 87. Lynn R. LiDonnici, The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions (SBLTT 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 13, says: “All Greek sanctuaries were kept free from pollution, not only of birth and death but also, usually, of illness. Although pregnant women and the sick could approach Asklepios, the Iamata show that birth was prohibited within the sacred boundary.” 63 LiDonnici, Miracle Inscriptions, 14, 19. 64 Horsley, ed., New Documents, 4: 111. 65 Mikalson, Ancient, 8. Hippocrates states: “We ourselves establish boundaries of the sanctuaries and precincts for the god so that no one may pass over them unless he is pure. When we go in, we sprinkle water around ourselves, not as though we were polluted but to purify an uncleanliness we had before” (On the Sacred Disease 4.55-60), and the translation is from Mikalson, Ancient, 9. 66 Ibid., 9. 67 Stevenson, Power, 101. 68 Parker, Miasma, 146.

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

81

Plutarch tells a story of an Aetolian slave-girl who had an adulterous affair, which resulted in a temple guardian standing before the temple of Leucothea at Chaeroneia to proclaim: “Let no slave enter, nor any Aetolian, man or woman!” (Plutarch, Mor. 4. 267. 16) From that illustration, we can see how important temple purity was to the Greeks and how the temple sanctity was defined by its purity. Purification was to remove any intrinsic pollution which would have contact with the sacred. Some areas in the temple were reserved only for those who went through special purification rites and wanted to have intimate contact with the deity. 69 Similar rules governed the use of special areas within other sanctuaries. Sacred space reserved for intimate personal contact with divinity (mysteries, oracles, or incubation) was accessible only to those qualified by special purification. In such cases, payment of fees and closely monitored participation in rigidly structured preliminary rites defined ritual eligibility.70

Thus, the level of purity required for entry increases according to the raising particularity of an area. Purity was also reflected in the temple festivals when women were forbidden to wear “elegant and alluring clothing” so that they could temporarily “renounce the paraphernalia of sexual attraction.”71 In fact, impurity of the human body was believed to make the social body suffer a breach of its order and a loss of its integrity (cf. section 1.5.2.4). The body was metaphorically reckoned as a sacred vessel, which required purity to obtain its health, as “a container whose purity is naturally maintained by periodic spontaneous ‘purification’ (excretion, menstruation, and the like).”72 Besides it, the body is believed to carry the part of the god and functions as a holy temple. Subsequently, disease was thought of as a kind of pollution, and patients needed to undergo purifications when they resorted to the healing of the deities.73 The mortal body was also perceived as “the temple and mirror of the immortal soul and enduring personality” in the Roman world according to its ceremony of inhumation.74 In the similar sense, the community is treated as holy. The purification of the Athenian assembly in 370 B.C. was held after hundreds of people at Argos were killed by the Argives (cf. Plutarch, Praec. ger. rei publ. 814 b), and “the community itself was in a sense a sacred entity.”75

69

Ibid., 144. Susan Guettel Cole, Landscapes, Gender, and Ritual Space: The Ancient Greek Experience (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 62. 71 Parker, Miasma, 144-45; 72 Ibid., Miasma, 213. 73 Ibid. A view of a human as the temple is testified in Epictetus, Discourses, 2.8.11-14, and see section 1.5.2.5. 74 Jocelyn M. C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1996), 41. See also Thomas G. Long, Accompany Them with Singing: The Christian Funeral (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 60. 75 Parker, Miasma, 153. 70

82

3.2 Temples in the Greco-Roman World

What if an act of pollution occurred in the temple area? If a transgression was detected within the temple precinct, there would be a purification of the shrine. For the Greeks, humans could profane the temple, violate the god’s purity, and counteract the effectiveness of rituals. Pollution of the temple in a metaphysical way could mean the lack of honor toward the contact of the sacred. In a word, whoever made the temple defiled would receive a trial once he or she was found out.76 3.2.2 The Role of Temples in Roman Religion In the Roman world, marking boundaries and defining spaces were part of religious practices. Before a city’s foundation was laid, there would be the performance of auspicious and inaugural rites. The term templum refers to an area of “dedicated ground and the sky above,” or a building inaugurated and set aside by augurs ceremonially.77 Before building a temple, two things required consideration. First, the augurs needed to decide where the most pleasant place would be for the gods. Second, the Romans needed to decide the exact place where the temple’s foundation was to be located. After the building project was finished, a temple or a sacred place required a dedication (aedes sacrae) for the deities.78 An undedicated temple containing a cultic statue was called aedes.79 Religion and politics were merged with each other in the Roman world. Since construction of an official temple as well as its inauguration needed to have “the consent of state (pontifices, senate, emperor),” the authorized temples were also a popular site for political activities. 80 The Roman provincial officials would celebrate provincial rituals with the provincial cost.81 In order to protect the temples and shrines which belonged to the city, the Roman laws forbade anyone to buy, grasp or assume them as payment or present. The sanctuary of the god was be-

76

Ibid., 145-146. Ferguson, Greek and Roman, 50, and in ibid he cites the word of Varro: “On earth the world templum is applied to a place delimited by a particular formula for purposes of augury or auspices. The formula is not identical in every instance” (Varro, On the Latin Language 7.8). See also Scheid, Introduction, 66, 114 and Lanci, New Temple, 100. 78 Vassilis Lambrinoudakis, “Consecration,” in Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum (ed. Vassilis Lambrinoudakis and Jean Ch. Balty; 5 vols.; Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2004), 3: 341, and in ibid he also notes: “When the building had been finished, on the day of the dedication the pontifex pronounced the dedicatory formula and the official appointed for the dedication repeated it holding with both hands the posts of the door, while the public was silent. The formula of the dedication seems to have been included in the libri pontificales and it presumably included regulations referring to the sacred space, the kind of sacrifices, and the administration of the sacred property, which were then written as lex dedicationis on stones erected in the sacred area.” 79 Anna Clark, Divine Qualities: Cult and Community in Republican Rome (OCM; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 130, 226; see also Jörg Rüpke, Religion of the Romans (trans. Richard Gordon; Malden: Polity, 2007), 71 and Lanci, New Temple, 100. 80 Lambrinoudakis, “Consecration,” 3: 341. See also Lanci, New Temple, 100-01. 81 Warrior, Roman Religion, 7. 77

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

83

lieved to be a sacred property to the public which should not be violated or owned by any individual.82 From the third and second centuries B.C., the Romans started to adapt the Hellenistic style, especially the Ionic order, to build their temples. Temples were constructed as a powerful religious and political symbol to propagandize Roman society’s astounding prosperity and authority. The establishment and maintenance of political and religious auctoritas through architecture and ceremony was a part of Rome’s development from its founding in the eighth century B.C. to the end of the Empire… Architecture and its urban settings, combined with the ritual ceremonies that took place within them, were the very essence of Roman society and culture. While symbolizing the apparent presence of an overriding political authority, the public buildings and urban spaces of ancient Rome also represent a social balance, a mutually held belief in the value or urban settings and ritual ceremonies, an acceptance and, in many cases, a powerful visual expression of the overt presence of state authority.83

The above statement indicates that the temple represented a mutual belief shared by those who practiced the same religious ritual. Then, besides its architectural phenomenon, the temple symbolized unification in three ways. First, unification is suggested by the fact that the temple stood as a joint possession and a central place in the community, which could attract different social classes to establish a common relationship based on the same religious practices and devotions.84 As a joint possession, the temple was capable of generating cohesion and consolidating relationships within the community. In Geogr. 14.2.25, Strabo says that the temple of Zeus near Stratonikeia in Asia Minor was “the common possession of all Carians, whither they gather both to offer sacrifices and to deliberate on their common interests.”85 This portrays the temple as a public gathering place owned by the community for religious purposes. Diogenes Laertius (A.D. 200) – a biographer of the Greek philosophers – states that in the testament of Theophrastus, the student of Aristotle in the Peripatetic school, he gives all his possessions to his friends and wishes them to use those properties “in common (koinh/)| as if they were a temple (i,ero,n), sharing them with one another in a kindred and friendly spirit” (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 5.53). 82

Lewis and Reinhold, eds., Roman Civilization, 617. John W. Stamper, The Architecture of Roman Temples: The Republic to the Middle Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 221. 84 Stevenson, Power, 55, notes: “Temples were normally not private institutions, but a common possession (koino,n) of the community and, as such, were appropriate vehicles for conceptualizing the relationship between community and deity. As common possessions, however, they also were a force that could unite those who held them in common. In the Greek city-state, temples were the joint-possession of the people and capable of uniting them around that central symbol. Although the particulars vary, the idea of joint-possession continued into the Roman imperial period. Individual temples could belong to entire provinces and to the empire itself. Common possession encouraged a sense of kinship and solidarity.” 85 Strabo, The Geography of Strabo (8 vols.; trans. Horace Leonard Jones and John Robert Sitlington Sterrett; London: Heinemann, 1960), 6: 297. 83

84

3.2 Temples in the Greco-Roman World

This statement shows that if one’s property was given out and used like temple property, it was shared as a common possession. 86 Second, the project of building a temple required the involvement of many social aspects and allowed a community to cohere “in the act of creation and the shared financial burden.”87 Plutarch described the construction of public temples and palaces supervised by Pericles at Athens, and he elaborated on the diversity of the building materials and the skills of the builders from different classes contributive to the magnificence of the building: The materials were stone, brass, ivory, gold, ebony, cypresswood, and the arts or trades that wrought and fashioned them were smiths and carpenters, moulders, founders and braziers, stonecutters, dyers, goldsmiths, ivory-workers, painters, embroiderers, turners; those again that conveyed them to the town for use, merchants and mariners and ship-masters by sea, and by land, cartwrights, cattle-breeders, wagoners, rope-makers, flax-workers, shoemakers and leatherdressers, road-makers, miners… Thus, to say all in a word, the occasions and services of these public works distributed plenty through every age and condition (cf. Plutarch, Per. 159b-c).

The statement shows the phenomenon of the unified work in building the temple due to its complicacy and magnificence. The construction of the temple involved the employment of various classes because it required different techniques. Unless all the building classes worked together at their best, the edifice could not be completed or its quality would be undermined.88 Third, the cultic worship in the sanctuary attracted the participation of the entire community and united different social groups. When the temple was dedicated, the covenant relationship between the gods and the city was reinforced with asserting that “benefactions are mutual examples both of piety to the gods and goodwill to the city.”89 For example, the temple of Artemis in Ephesus is a symbol of unity, and the goddess is worshiped by many believers in Asia Minor.90 In this sense the temples in some Roman regions can represent cohesion of political power, religious belief, and mutual value shared by the communities or cities. Although cultic practice was not the only reason to build temples, temples were definitely the ideal places for sacrificial activities. The sacrifices proceeded on the altar in open air rather than in the temple. After sacrifice and prayer, a vow was made with votive offerings, which would be stored in the treasury or shrine to commemorate the giver’s gratitude. Performance of a sacrifice usually occurred more frequently in times of crisis, such as plague or defeat in war, when the Romans needed to examine whether their recent conduct might be reprehensible to the gods.91

86

Ibid., 55 and F. Hauck, “koino,j,” TDNT 3: 789-97. Stevenson, Power, 80-81. 88 Scornaienchi, Sarx, 107. 89 Stevenson, Power, 80. 90 Koshi Usami, Somatic Comprehension of Unity: The Church in Ephesus (AB 101; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1983), 14. 91 Warrior, Roman Religion, 80; in ibid., 8, he comments: “The altar, not the temple, was the focal point of the gods’ worship. Altars were in the open and freestanding, though frequently lo87

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

85

Cultic statues were the objects of the Romans’ worship and prayer, which represented the divine presence status quo. The anthropomorphic statues allowed humans to have an oriented imagination in ceremonial operation or worship. Some rituals counted the statue as a living being, and put the clothes on or made a wash of it in ceremonial ways. Also it was demonstrated “from the custom at Rome of announcing to Jupiter the names of people entering the Capitoline temple, and telling the god the time of day.”92 Placing food in front of the statue to feed it and prostrating oneself on the ground to pray with his hands lifted up to the statue were also part of the cultic practices.93 When the god’s statue was placed in a temple, the god’s domicile was fixed, and then the places for performing the rites were also fixed.94 According to the Romans, the temples secured the gods’ effective functions, for the gods were thought of being “more effectively present in their temples than elsewhere.”95 To transfer the cult statue of the god was equivalent to transferring the god with the condition that the god was willing to move and then his cultic statue would be moved from its original place to a new place in the Roman world.96 Moreover, cultic statues required cleansing regularly due to accumulation of dust as the following procedures: “washing, oiling, purifying and dressing.” 97 Participation in temple sacrifices and rituals required purity. As a basic requirement, one would be splashed by water and wash his hands. If he had sexual intercourse, he must undergo more purification. The regular maintenance of the temple purification and performance of the temple cult was the responsibility of priests and priestesses. A large temple usually entailed religious offices for maintaining its buildings and precinct as well as performing rituals and festival ceremonies.98

cated in front of a temple. On the altar, sacrifice was made to a particular deity in the hope or expectation that the favor would at some time be returned. The offering could be a simple bloodless sacrifice of fruit, flowers, cakes, honey, or wine, or a more costly blood sacrifice when one or more domestic animals would be killed.” 92 Rüpke, Religion, 74. 93 Ibid., 103. 94 Ando, Matter of the Gods, 111, translates the text from Livy’s book 5.52.2: “We inhabit a city founded after auspices were taken and rites of inauguration were performed; no place in it is not full of religious associations and of gods; as many days are fixed for solemn rites as there are places in which they are performed.” 95 Liebeschuetz, Continuity, 53. 96 Ando, Matter of the Gods, 113. 97 Rüpke, Religion, 103. 98 Ross Shepard Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings: Women’s Religions among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 81, and in ibid he points out: “priestesses (and priests) generally served a particular deity in a particular sanctuary, where they were responsible for the care and upkeep of the sanctuary and the statue of the deity, the performance of rites of purification, and safeguarding the sanctuary treasures and gifts. In payment for their services, priestesses received modest fees and a portion of the sacrifices.”

86

3.2 Temples in the Greco-Roman World

Temple purity in the Roman world was heeded to an extent almost equivalent with the Greek world. Temples were usually equipped with purification facilities – fountains and water basins – like their Greek antecedents. 99 People entering them were required to undergo purification, and certain entry rules were prescribed for visitors. For example, a notice from the Olympian temple says: “you were to present yourself suitably clothed, uncontaminated by recent childbirth, by sexual intercourse with woman or dog, by sight or touch of a corpse, or by consuming pork or garlic or milk” (Georg. 5.13.3f).100 Furthermore, people were not to touch “sacred fish” or to cut “trees in the sacred grove.”101 Julius Pollux (second century A.D.) noted the sanctity of the sanctuary: “The area inside of the perirranth,ria is possessed by the gods, sacred, consecrated, and inviolable while that outside is open to ordinary use” (Onomasticon, 1:8).102 On some occasions, rules concerning temple purity would remind visitors of whether their minds were pure and whether their consciences were free of guilt before they entered the temple. From the late first century A.D., an inscription from Sardis implies an “innermost sanctum” within Zeus’ temple and warns its temple-wardens to keep away from certain ritual mysteries in case of pollution of the cult (ISard I/II). Also a first century Rhodian inscription reads: “Who enters within the temple fragrant with incense, must be holy; pure not through washing, but in mind” (EG IV, 31).103 The Greek term for “holy” is a`gno,n, and for “pure” is kaqaro,n. A law issued in the second century A.D. at Lindos (SEG 983. 4-7) shows a similar idea found in Plato’s works (Plato, Laws, 4.176 c-d), demanding purity for those who wanted to enter a temple: “It is of primary importance that those who enter be pure and sound in hands and mind and have no guilt on their conscience.”104 Various temples showed different attitudes toward purity. Some showed a more relaxed attitude than others. According to the stringent attitude of certain temple rules, normal personnel were not allowed to enter the special rooms of the temple. For example, a Sardis inscription of the late first century A.D. commanded the temple-warden not to enter the innermost part of Zeus’s temple where

99

Stamper, The Architecture of Roman Temples, 100. The translation is from Ramsay MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 12. 101 Ibid. 102 The translation is from Robert A. Wild, Water in the Cultic Worship of Isis and Sarapis (EPROER 87; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 130. 103 The translation is from Horsley, ed., New Documents, 4:111, and he refers to SIG3 985. 104 The inscription is cited in Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a GrecoRoman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982), 355-356. Regev, “Moral Impurity,” 393-94, adds that “Ancient Greek texts, as well as epigraphic evidence from Hellenistic Egypt and Asia Minor, testify to the exclusion of sinners from Greek and Hellenistic temples. For instance, an inscription that prohibited those who stole, murdered, or committed adultery from entering was found in a private temple in Philadelphia (Asia Minor). Temples in Hellenistic Egypt also forbade entrance to sinners and evil people. In these cases, moral miasma seems to have been acknowledged as endangering the sacred.” 100

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

87

some mysteries were held (ISard IV). In the early first century B.C., a private temple at Philadelphia in Lydia prescribed moral purity as the “principal qualification for being admitted and remaining a member.”105 In the Roman world, pollution could derive from a ritual mistake or a falsified auspice (cf. section 1.5.2.4). The profane was not necessarily bad but could be suitable for use by humans; however, the gods could only consume the consecrated. For example, when an animal was offered to the gods during sacrifice, a part of the victim’s meat was profaned for priests or attendees to consume.106 The issue concerning pollution of the temple and restoration of its purity in the Roman world was not as intense as in the Greek world because purification was primarily held for festivals, mysteries, cities, territories, victims, armies and citizens. 107 Nevertheless, intimate contact with the gods would require ritual purification. Temple sanctity forced humans to think about their own purity in the presence of the gods.108 Another important religious phenomenon in the Roman world was the imperial cult which emerged around the first century B.C. To imagine a Roman ruler to be a god was not a curious idea to the Romans. A temple dedicated to a Roman ruler is dated to 29 B.C., when Julius Caesar, after his death, was revered by the senate and people as a god, and a temple in his honor was built and dedicated in the same year.109 Later, Augustus encouraged “similar worship to his own genius in Rome, Italy and the western provinces; in formal state prayers, his genius was included among the divinities.”110

105

Horsley, ed., New Documents, 4:111. See also ibid., 1: 21-23. Rüpke, Religion, 144. 107 Beard et al., Religions of Rome, 1: 178 and 2: 119-124. Liebeschuetz, Continuity, 98, notes: “The ritual of the festival marks the succession of one generation of Romans by another. The old generation was ceremonially buried, the existing Roman people, inevitably tainted by the pollution of the past, were purified ritually, and prayers were said for a new and better race of Romans.” 108 Antonia Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 20, 54. See also Liebeschuetz, Continuity, 49. 109 Ittai Gradel, “Roman Apotheosis,” in Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum (ed. Vassilis Lambrinoudakis and Jean Ch. Balty; 5 vols.; Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2004), 2: 194, and in ibid he notes: “Dead imperials who were deified by the senate and received the title of Divus or Diva in the process were explicitly presented as full gods, partly by ritual actions (their worship in the state cult), partly by the terminology employed… With Caesar’s dictatorship and collapse of the republican constitution, his monarchical position was expressed in a series of unprecedented honours awarded to him by the senate. The evidence for his divine honours-a state temple in Rome, a state priest for his worship, a sacred couch for his image, and a cult name (perhaps: Cass. Dio is ambiguous), i.e.” 110 Martin Goodman and Jane Sherwood, The Roman World, 44 BC-AD 180 (RHAW; New York: Routledge, 1997), 129. In ibid., 130, Goodman points out: “Cult was part of the language of flattery of ruler by subject, as Antonius well knew when he identified himself publicly with Dionysus… A rash of temples in honour of Augustus, or more often Augustus and Roma, were dedicated in the years immediately after 31 BC.” 106

88

3.2 Temples in the Greco-Roman World

The statues of the emperors were placed in the temples of the gods on many occasions (Cat. no. 148).111 The message was clear: the gods and goddesses of the peoples supported the emperors; and, conversely, the cult of the emperors united the cultic systems, and the peoples, of the empire. The emperors were not a threat to the worship of the diverse deities of the empire; rather, the emperors joined the ranks of the divine and played their own particular role in that realm… The emperors were associated with symbols from the upper realms of the pantheon. The city recognized the benefits received from the emperors and acknowledged its cultic responsibilities toward them.112

Establishment of the imperial image and cult aimed to propagandize the enormous achievement of the Roman emperor, and convince the Romans or future generations that they witnessed “the best of all possible worlds in the best of all times.”113 Furthermore, the statues of the emperors were often imagined to be the presence of their divinity. The disfigurement or attack of an emperor’s image was “analogous to physical attacks against the emperor’s person.”114 Mutilation of an emperor’s image with official recognition signified an official condemnation of him and destruction of his memories among the Romans (damnatio memoriae).115 This shows that the temple cult was integrated into the empire’s prosperity and power. In sum, the temple in the Greek and Roman worlds exerted great influence on communal and individual life. The sacrifices and other cultic practices within the temples represented the bond and patronage relationship between gods and humans. The temple was also a symbol for the cohesion, commonwealth, and religious value of the community or nation. Temple purity in both worlds was kept in mind with the regularity of cleansing cultic statues, the temple interior, and purifying the worshipers who were about to enter it. Next, I will discuss how temple purity was related to its cultic efficacy in terms of three particular temples in the Greco-Roman world. All three temples had their counterparts at Corinth, and their cults were influential during the first century A.D.

111 Steven J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia, and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family (RGRW 116; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 73, points out: “There are numerous examples from the Roman imperial period where statues of emperors have been placed in temples of other deities, or where a separate building has been dedicated to the emperors in the precincts of a temple.” See also Price, Rituals, 178-79. 112 Friesen, Twice Neokoros, 75. 113 Paul Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988), 4; he comments: “Most importantly, through visual imagery a new mythology of Rome and, for the emperor, a new ritual of power were created. Built on relatively simple foundations, the myth perpetuated itself and transcended the realities of everyday life to project onto future generations the impression that they lived in the best of all possible worlds in the best of all times” (ibid). 114 Eric R. Varner, Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture (MGR 10; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 3. 115 Ibid., 199. See also Price, Rituals, 194.

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

89

3.3 The Temple of Apollo and Its Purity This section will explore the cult of Apollo without being limited to Corinth since the cult of Apollo was a panhellenistic phenomenon. My study of the god’s temple purity will primarily be supported by the literary or archaeological evidence from multiple areas. However, it does not impede the scope of Apollo’s temple at Corinth because many shared cultic characteristics among the temples of Apollo will presuppose reasonably that temple purity is part of the cultic character at Corinth. The study will include the cultic history, festivals, purification and the temples at Delphi and Corinth. Apollo, the god of medicine, music and prophecy, was said to be the son of Zeus and Leto. He was the father of Asklepios and served as the oracular giver at Delphi.116 The traditional image of Apollo as an archer originated from Homeric literature, and later the deity was identified with the sun (Ovid, Metamor. 2.1400), who conferred oracles and prophecies to humans (Strabo, Geo. 9.3.2-12).117 The first temple of Apollo dedicated by the Romans was about 431 B.C. at Rome. During the first century B.C., Apollo became a symbol for Augustus to serve his political purpose, representing the idea that imperial achievement came from the power of the sun. In 28 B.C., Augustus dedicated a new temple to Apollo on the Palatine Hill.118 One reason for erection of this building was that Augustus hoped to purify his guilt in the temple of Apollo due to “the bloodshed of the civil wars and the deaths of his enemies.”119 Apollo was so well-known in the Greco-Roman world during the first century A.D. that Philo even mentioned the emperor Gaius’s imitation of Apollo by dressing like this deity (Legat. 94-96). Josephus also included Apollo in his list of the Greco-Roman deities (C. Ap. 2.33-34, 239-49). Pausanias stated that the temple of Apollo at Delphi was the center of the whole world (Pausanias, Descr. 10.16.3). It attracted many adherents to go there by either paying vow-offerings or obtaining oracles. No other Greek temple could enjoy such an honorable status since the Greeks did not perceive a temple as the cosmic center.120 Furthermore,

116 Fritz Graf, Apollo (New York: Routledge, 2008), 35. See also Jack Finegan, Myth & Mystery: An Introduction to the Pagan Religions of the Biblical World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 161. 117 Allen Kerkeslager, “Apollo, Greco-Roman Prophecy, and the Rider on the White Horse in Rev 6:2,” JBL 112 (1993): 119. 118 John Ferguson, The Religions of the Roman Empire (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970), 45 and Mark P. O. Morford and Robert J. Lenardon, Classical Mythology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 682. 119 Melissa Barden Dowling, Clemency & Cruelty in the Roman World (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006), 161. 120 Simon Price, “Delphi and Divination,” in Greek Religion and Society (ed. P. E. Easterling and J. V. Muir; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 135 and Lanci, New Temple, 95.

90

3.3 The Temple of Apollo and Its Purity

Apollo’s temple was the largest Greek temple at Corinth, although smaller than the Temple of Zeus at Olympia.121 The history of the temple at Delphi spanned from the seventh century B.C. to the second century A.D., and the architecture was “surrounded by a circuit wall that marked the boundary of the sacred place,” as was the temple at Corinth.122 The sacredness of the temple and its precinct was also manifested by a “Sacred Way” along which all the edifices were situated, and from this way one entered “the sanctuary through a gate near the southeast corner at the bottom of the precinct.”123 Due to his “eight years in exile to purify himself from the murder,” Apollo at Delphi was also called Apollo kaqa,rsioj (Apollo the purifier).124 A local legend accounted that Apollo purified Orestes three times with the blood of pigs for being a murderer. Another story said that Apollo sought for purification in the valley of Tempe after he killed Pytho because he was a god of purity. 125 The rituals of Apollo were performed by the Greeks to purify their lands, cities and armies. Purification was also held in special days connected with Apollo. The Thargelia, a festival of Apollo, delegated a time of purification of city-residents. Those who were condemned to death would be chosen “for purgations and purificatory offerings” with the result of excommunication.126 This rite of expulsion was linked to Apollo’s lustrative attributes, which meant “a signal of transition, implying the closure of the old situation and the beginning of the new.”127 Beyond that, purification was also employed in the rite of integration which absorbed a group or an individual into the existing society, implying “a fundamental ‘recreation’, an end and a beginning on the level of total society.”128 The rites of expulsion and integration shared such commonality that both characterized “a gathering of the citizen-body including the introduction of new members of the community [and] both ceremonies marked the beginning of a new social period.”129

121 Christopher F. Rhodes, “Archaic Corinthian Architecture, ca. 600 to 480 B.C.,” in Corinth, the Centenary, 1896-1996 (ed. Charles K. Williams and Nancy Bookidis; Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2003), 117. 122 Janina K. Darling, Architecture of Greece (RGNA; Westport: Greenwood, 2004), 146. 123 Ibid. 124 Darling, Architecture, 146. 125 R. R. Dyer, “The Evidence for Apolline Purification Rituals at Delphi and Athens,” JHS 89 (1969): 40-43. 126 Jan N. Bremmer, Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible, and the Ancient Near East (JSRC 8; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 190; he notes: “At the Thargelia, a festival for Apollo, a man with white figs around his neck was expelled from the city as purification for the men, and another man with black figs for the women” (ibid., 177). See also Graf, Apollo, 16 and Fritz Graf, “Apollo,” BNP 1: 854. 127 H. S. Versnel, Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion: Transition and Reversal in Myth and Ritual (2 vols.; SGRR 6; Leiden: Brill, 1990), 2: 317. 128 Ibid., 317. 129 Ibid., 321.

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

91

Therefore, the operation of purification was regarded by the Greeks as Apollo’s typical trait, which aimed to restore harmony and order in society with the removal of harmful and foreign elements, as W. Burkert concludes: The Greeks unequivocally called this procedure ‘purification,’ katharsis. This individual driven away is called ‘offscourings,’ peripsema, or simply katharma. Thargelia is the festival of first fruits at the beginning of harvest. It appears that the city must be ‘cleaned’ on this day, as a receptacle is cleansed to take in and store the new wealth or ‘life,’ bios, which comes from the crops.130

Since Apollo’s separation of the pure from the impure represented a renewal and a fresh start, he was venerated as the deity of Greek colonization and was actively evoked when the Greeks were to purify a conquered land or city.131 In the Roman world, the myth about Apollo’s expiatory purification (expiation for bloodshed) was figured in certain artistic representations. The image of Apollo on the coins by the moneyer Antistius Vetus of 16 B.C. may recall that of his statue on the Palatine, whether the cult image in the temple itself or, more probably, the statue in the precinct bounded by the portico (Fig. 124). Holding his lyre, he is shown as pouring a libation on an altar, an act of purification.132

Given such a characteristic of Apollo, the purification of his temple would not be a minor issue. In the Greco-Roman world, people believed that the gods cared about purity and hated transgressing behaviors in their temples. Apollo was believed to be a god who banished defiled adherents from his sanctuary.133 The temples of Apollo in the Greco-Roman world held the purification rites regularly, which assured that the temples would be clean and free from any defilement. Around 269 B.C., “in Delos there was an altar of Apollo on which no blood might be shed, and the temple was purified each month with pig’s blood.”134 A similar ceremony was also held to purify the temple of Apollo at Delphi with a laurel bough and clean water (Eur. Ion 95-153).135 Purification also symbolized Apollo’s right of pardon, which was presented by “a series of archaizing terra-cotta with alternating themes” that decorated the sanctuary of Apollo’s temple at Palatine (28 B.C.).136 In the mythic story, Apollo refused to purify Hercules when the latter sought purification for a killing. In fury, Hercules attempted to steal the shrine so as to establish his own purificatory rite.

130 Walter Burkert, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (SCL 47; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), 65. 131 Jan N. Bremmer, Greek Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 17 and Versnel, Inconsistencies, 2: 298-99. 132 Karl Galinsky, Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 221. 133 Parker, Miasma, 141. See also ibid., 145. 134 Dyer, “Evidence,” 43. See also Cole, Landscapes, Gender, and Ritual Space, 48. 135 Parker, Miasma, 228. 136 Dowling, Clemency, 135.

92

3.3 The Temple of Apollo and Its Purity

Finally, Zeus interceded and upheld Apollo’s right not to pardon Hercules since he had defiled the holy shrine.137 The Apolline temples at Corinth and Delphi were associated with springs since water was the important constituent of the purification cult. At ancient Corinth, the Greeks built the Glauke Fountain within the temple’s precinct around the fourth century B.C.138 Purifications were well-attested in sacrifices, processions, festivals and games of the Apollo cult in Greece during the third century B.C., and a part of the income from holding those activities was the money collected from purification rites.139 Water supply was never an issue for the temple of Apollo at Delphi: “the water of the Kassotis spring flows into the Apollo sanctuary itself, while the much more powerful and more famous Castalian spring gushes from the rocky gorge nearby.”140 The physical washings at Delphi were identical to spiritual purification, and certain Delphic oracles also issued instructions of purification rites in other places outside of Delphi.141 The oracles were given on the seventh day of each month, except for three months in the winter when Apollo was thought to be away from his sanctuary. Only men were admitted into the temple. They submitted their questions, written on lead sheets, to the Pythia (also known as the Delphic Sibyl), a woman who was at least fifty years old and lived in the sanctuary. After drinking from a sacred stream and chewing laurel leaves, the Pythia sat on a sacred tripod and inhaled vapors rising from the oracular chasm. She would fall into a trance, and the words she uttered would be written down and interpreted by priests.142

The above statement indicates that purity was an integral part of the oracular ritual while temple purity was reinforced with restricting the incomers to ensure a perfect ritual performance, free from mistakes. The purification for visitors before their access to the temple was not complicated. The priests would simply sprinkle water on them or they would take ritual washings by themselves instead. On some occasions, visitors were required to take an immersion bath before they entered the temple and sought physical healing. A poem, perhaps about the Delphic cult in Hellenistic time, “describe[s] a washing ritual which is meant to purify the spirit of those who are not guilty before they enter ‘the sanctuary of a pure divinity’ (AP xiv 71; cf. 74).”143 Sprinkling and immersion were not different in kind but in degree. Although the tiny

137

Ibid. Dora P. Crouch, Water Management in Ancient Greek Cities (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 85-86. 139 Franciszek Sokolowski, “From the History of the Worship of Apollo at Actium,” HTR 52 (1959): 220; Morford and Lenardon, Classical Mythology, 245, comment that the enquirers who came to the temple at Delphi “with his question for the god had to go through certain prescribed ceremonies that were in the nature of a fee.” 140 Burkert, Greek Religion, 86. 141 Dyer, “Evidence,” 42-43. 142 Darling, Architecture, 149. 143 Dyer, “Evidence,” 44. 138

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

93

amount of ritual water causes effectiveness, certain sins cannot be easily removed even with the entire river.144 Before an enquirer entered the innermost shrine of the temple and had his question answered by the Pythia (the prophetess), he needed to offer a sacred cake and a sheep or a goat to the temple. The Apolline cult also required a higher purity of its personnel, similar to that of the Isaic cult. The prophetesses or sibyls of Apollo were required to observe sexual purity (sexual abstinence) once they were appointed “to the service of the god for life.”145 Another point regarding temple purity is in regards to the sacred fire in Apollo’s temple. The Delphic temple included the sacred hearth whose fire never ceased to burn. Fire was reckoned as a purifying power and “a sudden burst of flame from the altar fire [was] seen as a sign of divine presence.”146 Extinguishing and rekindling of the fire symbolized “the sequence of completion, purification, and new beginning.”147 The fire in Delphic hearth was brought to the temples at Athens after ritual purification of the sixth Thargelion. Apparently, the purification rites around Apollo and his temple represented the god’s power of restoring the disorderly world to orderliness and assured a relationship of wellbeing between the god and humans.148

3.4 The Temple of Isis and Its Purity This section will be written for the cult of Isis in the Roman world without being limited to Corinth. Although the study of the goddess’ temple purity is supported by the literary and archaeological evidence from other areas, certain shared cultic characters among the temples of Isis will presuppose reasonably that temple purity is one of the important cultic factors for the temple of Isis at Corinth. The study will include the cultic history, initiation, mystery, festival, statue, and purification of mortals and the temple. Isis, the Egyptian goddess, whose name meant “throne” and was “written with the image of a throne,” was worshiped by the Greeks at least from the fourth century B.C.149 Later, the cult was introduced into the Roman Empire. Although the Romans were initially predisposed against the cult (51 B.C.–A.D.14) due to its

144

Parker, Miasma, 227. See also Dyer, “Evidence,” 43. Morford and Lenardon, Classical Mythology, 245-46. 146 Burkert, Greek Religion, 61. 147 Ibid. 148 Graf, Apollo, 101. 149 Reinhard Grieshammer, “Isis,” BNP 6: 965. 145

94

3.4 The Temple of Isis and Its Purity

conflict with the patriarchal feature of the Roman society,150 it was finally assimilated to Roman society and won the favor of the Roman emperors.151 The cult of Isis adapted “equally well to the Hellenic type of Demeter and those of Fortune (Tyche) or Aphrodite” without losing its Egyptianized iconographic features.152 Due to the worship of her universal sovereignty, the Isis cult appeared to be unique because the Roman gods were usually described with definite attributes. She was regarded as a protector of the sailors in navigation, a healer like Asklepios for people with all kinds of illnesses, a faithful wife with chastity, and a presider of fertility and birth.153 When the Isiac cult was established in Hellenistic Corinth before 146 B.C., there were at least 4 sanctuaries.154 The Isiac cult continued to thrive in Roman Corinth. Sarapis, the consort of Isis in the Greco-Roman world, was worshiped together with Isis, and there were two shrines of Sarapis at Corinth located next to those of Isis.155 An Iseum (temple of Isis) in the Roman period usually found its site outside of the “city border” (pomeria), and nearby the abundant watersupply areas, unlike other Roman temples which were located at the Agora. There were morning and afternoon ceremonies offered daily at the temple with sacrifices.156 Like most Greek and Roman temples, the temples of Isis required purification for visitors. In the first century B.C., the Iseum in Rhodes issued a sacred law to mandate those who entered the sanctuary to be “pure” (a`gno,n, cf. I. Priene, 195). Similar purity rules were also made regarding the access of believers and priests to the Iseum at Athens. When the people at Delos went to the Iseum, they were liable not to stain the temple by observing certain dress codes and behavioral rules (second century B.C.).157

150 Elizabeth A. McCabe, An Examination of the Isis Cult with Preliminary Exploration into New Testament Studies (Lanham: University Press of America, 2008), 38. 151 Colin M. Wells, The Roman Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 238-39. Malcolm Drew Donalson, The Cult of Isis in the Roman Empire: Isis Invicta (SC 22; Lewiston: E. Mellen Press, 2003), 14, notes: “By the late first century C.E., an emperor of Rome might choose to spend the night before his triumph in the Temple of Isis – such was the case with Vespasian and Titus celebrating the defeat of the Jews.” 152 Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire, 80. 153 R. E. Witt, Isis in the Ancient World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1997), 192 and Sharon Kelly Heyob, The Cult of Isis among Women in the Graeco-Roman World (EPRO 51; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 70. 154 Nancy Bookidis, “Religion in Corinth: 146 B.C.E to 100 C.E.,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth (ed. Daniel N. Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen; HTS 53; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 146. 155 Donald W. Engels, Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 103-5. 156 Mareile Haase, “Isis,” BNP 6: 971-72. 157 Françoise Dunand, Le Culte d’Isis dans le Bassin Oriental de la Méditerranée (3 vols.; EPRO 26; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 3: 198.

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

95

The initiation and mystery cult were held most often in the temple in order to “change an individual’s relationship” with the goddess, win her favor and fulfill the initiates’ vows.158 The primary hope of the initiate was to receive “the promise of blessedness after death through revelation and communion with the divine on conditions of ritual and moral purity.”159 Plutarch presented an account of the entire course of initiation and mystery, which included several procedures: (1) the initiate goes through a dead journey in great darkness; (2) he meets a “marvelous light” while entering a holy place signified by “sacred music” and holy ceremonies, visions and men (Plutarch, Mor. 4.52.49); (3) his life is totally transformed and he sees how impure and filthy the earthly residents are; (4) imprisonment of his soul in the body is ended in his vision of fulfillment.160 Cicero also affirmed that the initiate would procure happiness in his life and better hope towards his death (cf. Leg. 2.14.36). The will of Isis was asked to determine the time of one’s initiation and the priest who would perform the initiatory rites.161 Prior to an initiation or a mystery, purification and abstinence were adopted by devotees or priests in preparation. The initiation and its time were decided by the goddess who would concurrently inform the candidate and the priest responsible for the initiation in a dream.162 In the mystery of Isis, the candidate first took several baths and was splashed by the priest with sacred water. After this preliminary purification, the priest advised the candidate to have ten days of abstinence (wine and meat) but probably also of sexual continence. When evening came, the one to be initiated was offered presents. The profane were kept out of the way. The initiate was dressed in a linen robe never previously worn; then the priest took him by the hand to lead him to ‘the remotest part of the sanctuary’ or penetralia, the Latin equivalent of the ‘Holy of Holies’… The neophyte was probably shown statues that were concealed from the gaze of ordinary followers.163

The above details were written in an initiatory story (The Golden Ass) from Apuleius (second century A.D.), and they evidence the restriction of access to some parts of the Isaic temple due to the requirement of ritual ablution and purification.164 158

Scheid, Introduction, 187-88. Ferguson, Greek and Roman, 157. 160 Plutarch says: “For the soul’s entanglement with the body and confinement in it are against nature, as you may discern this” (Plutarch Mor. Stobaeus 4.52.49). See also the comment of Ferguson, Greek and Roman, 160. 161 John Gwyn Griffiths, The Isis-Book: (Metamorphoses, Book XI) (EPRO 39; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 133. 162 Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire, 119. 163 Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire, 119-20. Apuleius, Met. 11:17, says: “When we arrived at the temple itself, the chief priest and those who carried the divine images and those who had already been initiated into the awesome inner sanctuary were admitted into the goddess’s private chamber, where they arranged the breathing effigies in their prescribed places” (Rüpke, Religion, 92). 164 For the whole account of Apuleius, Metamorphoses 11. 5-6, 23-5, see Beard et al., Religions of Rome, 1: 298 and Griffiths, Isis-Book, 71-109. 159

96

3.4 The Temple of Isis and Its Purity

In the story of Lucius (Meta. 11:19), the initiate hoped to dwell within the precinct of the temple and to devote himself to the service of the goddess. In the Greek world, the temple of Isis sometimes functioned like an asylum and received those who volunteered to become the slaves of Isis and find protection from the goddess.165 Before they were admitted to dwell in the temple, they were required to make confession of sins and undergo purification rites. They were also called the “sacred prisoners” (katecome,noij), and this fact was indicated by an inscription from Priene (ca. 200 B.C.): “[t]oi/j katecome,noij u`po. tou/ qeou/” (I. Priene 1.29).166 In the Egyptian context, a priest would receive purification with water poured or sprinkled on his head by certain persons. As a priest of Isis, he needed to be professionally trained to become the protector of the temple, to keep strict purification and endure many privations, and to avoid mixing with laymen except at festivals.167 Purification for priests was a routine before they held a ceremony or stepped into some places within the temple.168 Due to many washings and sprinklings, priests were also called “the washed ones,” which showed how important ritual purity was for the clergy.169 Such emphasis on ritual purification persisted when the cult was introduced to the Roman world. Purification was also prescribed for the laity on a descending level. Before the laity entered the temple, they needed to sprinkle themselves for purification; before they prayed to Isis, they also underwent purification. 170 If they were chosen to be initiates, the purification ceremony was part of their initiatory process. For example, Metam. 11:1 states that Lucius, who was chosen by Isis to undergo initiation, plunged his head into the sea seven times to fulfill his

165 Rigsby, Asylia, 547, and in ibid he notes that the earliest formal decree, which granted the temples to be the asylum, was issued during the reign of Ptolemy X (96 B.C.), and “trilingual text (hieroglyphic, Demotic, Greek)” evidences the king’s order: “The right of asylum (nht) will belong to the temple (h.o.70; w.o.57; th.o.21).” Also, in ibid., 2, he said: “In A.D. 22, Roman authorities feared that the right of asylum practiced in their Greek provinces posed a threat to civic tranquility.” Moreover, Tacitus pointed out that around A.D. 22, the Roman senate began to investigate and reconsider the rights of the temple-asylums in Asia Minor and the Aegean islands because they became the shelters for runaway slaves, debtors and criminals (Tacitus, Ann. 3.60-3); Strabo mentioned that Augustus removed the boundaries of the asylum in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus due to a similar reason (Strabo, Geogr. 14.1.23). See also Beate Dignas, Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor (OCM; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 288-89. 166 H. S. Versnel, Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion: Ter Unus-Isis, Dionysos, Hermes, Three Studies in Henotheism (2 vols.; SGRR 6; Leiden: Brill, 1990), 1: 65. See also Ulrich Sinn, “Greek Sanctuaries as Places of Refuge,” in Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches (ed. Nanno Marinatos and Robin Hägg; London: Routledge, 1993), 70-87. 167 Witt, Isis, 95. 168 Wild, Water, 146. 169 Ibid. 170 Ibid., 146, 153.

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

97

purification.171 Lucius’ action is not unique, reminiscent of an ancient Egyptian ritual in the Roman world.172 Water for purification was supplied by the sprinkling basins and ablution basins in the Greco-Roman sanctuaries. The sprinkling basins were found by archaeologists as part of the structure of the Iseums in the State Agora at Ephesus, at Sabratha, at Pergamum and at Leptis Magna. Additionally, an inscription from Pergamum asserts that some offerings made to Isis were used to repair the “sprinkling basin” (περίρραντήριον), which “stood in front of the gateway” (SIRIS 313.7).173 Those facilities were not only used for washing the clergy’s hands but also their heads. In order to protect priestly purity, the priests of Isis in the Roman world shunned the context of the laity. 174 Overall, the temple personnel followed strict purification rules, and on a descending level the devotees also needed to receive a state of purity before they entered the temple.175 The purification rite was operated by using fresh and clean water. The Iseum at Serapeum was equipped with a water circulation system connected with the underground river which went through the sanctuary cryptically. As a result, the water in the temple basin could rise and fall, emulating the Nile. This elaborate water supply system tells us the importance of the purification rite. 176 Ritual washing was also part of the healing cult because Isis was thought to be the healing goddess. A bath and a cistern found at an Iseum in Eudiapractus were thought to be used by the patients to seek healing from Isis. Characterized by purification and incubation, the healing cult was similar to that of Asklepios.177 Also, ritual washing was associated with healing efficacy. Only if the patients purified their souls and bodies from contamination could they experience any therapy from Isis.178 Purification was also an essential part of the Navigium Isidis, the shiplaunching festival, “whose roots lay in an Egyptian procession from bank to bank at the time of the inundation of the Nile.”179 White clothes were worn among the procession because white represented purity. At the head of the procession down to the sea came women in white, with flowers on their heads, scattering herbs on the ground from their aprons… Next came the musicians, followed by young

171

Griffiths, Isis-Book, 71. Wild, Water, 146. 173 Wild, Water, 133. See also ibid., 3. 174 Donalson, Cult of Isis, 52. 175 Wild, Water, 146; Donalson, Cult of Isis, 54. 176 Wild, Water, 35. See also Jean-Pierre Laporte, “Isiaca d’Algérie,” in Isis en Occident (ed. Laurent Bricault; RGRW 151; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 290-91. 177 Sarolta A. Takács, Isis and Sarapis in the Roman World (RGRW 124; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 149, 176. 178 deTraci Regula, The Mysteries of Isis: Her Worship and Magick (St. Paul: Llewellyn, 1995), 12. 179 Kraemer, Blessings, 72. 172

98

3.4 The Temple of Isis and Its Purity

male hymn singers, also dressed in white, and trumpet players. After them, wearing the distinctive white linen, came the initiates… After the devotees came priests dressed in white robes bearing sacred objects… Next came the gods themselves: a person dressed as Anubis and a cow representing “the great goddess that is the fruitful mother of all.”180

Evidently, dressing in white is connected with sacredness, and the priests or the faithful in procession would wear masks to take the position of the deity.181 The procession was full of a sense of purity which proceeded from the temple to the sea and ended with returning to the temple.182 The priests would perform the purification rite and dedicate the ship to Isis after renaming it. Meanwhile, the initiates would receive purification. The story of initiation, Lucius’ three-time purification according to Metam. 11.1-23, occurred during that festival. The purification was meant to free the initiates from the bondage of sexuality and magic, and allowed them to enter the temple of Isis.183 The festivals of Isis in the Greco-Roman world were celebrated in the spring, evocative of the rebirth of vegetation, as well as in the fall, evocative of the mourning of Osiris. Before offering sacrifices on the third day, the priests would cleanse the sanctuary by the secret rituals. All the remains of the animal sacrifices offered previously would be removed from the sanctuary and buried in one place.184 Furthermore, the purity of an Iseum was embodied by the temple’s opening ceremony in the Roman world. When the priest opened the temple in the morning, his first task was to spread water (also known as “water libation”) and light a fire.185 All these actions symbolized the cleansing of the temple. Although we are not sure whether the fire burned ceaselessly in the sanctuary or whether it was switched on only when the temple was opened, it is certain that the spray of water was for the purposes of purifying the temple. Water for lustration was contained in the vases which were placed near the entrance of the temple. A wheel made of bronze with mobility was responsible for the work of spraying the water, and this wheel was called the instrument of purification. This purification system was widely installed in the temples of Isis and Serapis.186 Another method of purifying the temple was to cleanse the air. The priests would burn incense, resin and other spices on the altar. In the daytime, resin and myrrh were burnt while at night, “cypha,” a type of incense made with sixteen

180

Kraemer, Blessings, 72-73; the quotation is from Apuleius, Metam. 11.11. Lochin, “Déplacements,” 2: 477. 182 Takács, Isis and Sarapis, 88 and Kraemer, Blessings, 73. See also Dunand, Culte d’Isis, 225. 183 Reinhold Merkelbach, Isis Regina-Zeus Sarapis : Die Griechisch-ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen Dargestellt (München: Saur, 2001), 283-84; Judith K. Krabbe, Lusus Iste: Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Dallas: University Press of America, 2003), 137, 501; Heyob, Cult of Isis, 68. 184 Dunand, Culte d’Isis, 2: 176. 185 Griffiths, Isis-Book, 274. 186 Dunand, Culte d’Isis, 3: 198-99. 181

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

99

ingredients, was burnt within the temple. These actions aimed to renew the air as well as stimulate the effect of one’s body and mind when he was in the temple.187 Sexual intercourse, murder, accidental death and childbirth were considered to be sources of impurity. One duty of the priests was to guard the temple from being defiled by these impure sources and secure that no such behavior would be perpetrated within the temple. Moral purity was a distinct character of the Isaic cult. Since the Isaic religion cast a special emphasis on sexual chastity and Isis herself was revered as a chaste goddess, sexual virtue was venerated and observed by many female devotees who thought of their virginity as a mark of faith. Since the temple of Isis was the symbol of purity, betrothal ceremonies were made in the temple with the assumption that the goddess, a divine witness, approved of such a union in purity. 188 Although Josephus mentioned a story of Mundus’ deception for a sexual relationship with Paulina in the temple of Isis as the cause of Tiberius’ ban of the belief of Isis and his destruction of the temple (A. J. 18.65-80), the story lacked sufficient evidence to be credible. When Tacitus (Ann. 2.85) and Suetonius (Tib. 36) mentioned Tiberius’ decree of banishing Egyptians and Jews in A.D. 19, they did not ascribe the reason to Paulina’s incident as Josephus did.189 Another important point regarding temple sanctity is about the life of the cultic statue. The statue of Isis was thought to be the carrier of the deity. Through certain appropriate rites, the divinity would be embodied in the statue, which made the statue come alive. The statue was the most sacred, and it would awake every morning to the sound of flutes and anthems sung by the priests and the believers. Sometimes the statues of Isis and Serapis would shake the altar or burst into fire to manifest their will. Contemplation before the statue was seen as a dangerous action, which was reserved only for the sanctified priests. The temple at Phlius even admitted no one to see the statue of Isis except the priests (Pausanias, Descr. 2. 13. 6-8). The temple at Tithorea was believed to be open only for the people called by the goddess and there was one story that someone with a curiosity to see the cultic statue died immediately after he stepped into the temple (Pausanias, Descr. 10. 32. 13-14).190 Many believed that the statue of Isis was powerful due to its existence as the receptacle of the divinity, and that only priests could approach her without fear. In the eyes of adherents, the statue was so pure that it required appropriate rituals and formulas to perform for appeasement and propitiation of the goddess. To

187

Ibid., 199-200. Heyob, Cult of Isis, 69, 112. 189 Ibid., 118. 190 Dunand, Culte d’Isis, 3:200. Pausanias, Descr. 10. 32. 13-14, notes: “About forty stades distant from Asclepius is a precinct and shrine sacred to Isis, the holiest of all those made by the Greeks for the Egyptian goddess. For the Tithoreans think it wrong to dwell round about it, and no one may enter the shrine except those whom Isis herself has honored by inviting them in dreams. The same rule is observed in the cities above the Maeander by the gods of the lower world; for to all whom they wish to enter their shrines they send visions seen in dreams.” 188

100

3.5 The Temple of Asklepios and Its Purity

maintain the statue’s cleanness was also a religious activity. The statue would receive a ritual bath regularly. The women (not the priestesses) who held the office in the temple were responsible for washing and anointing the statue as well as adorning it with clothing and jewelry from the priests.191 Also, the adherents of Isis could visit her temple in a different city to make their dedications or even intercede with the local governor for the temple’s sanctity. For example, a Corinthian traveled to Delos and made a dedicatory offering to the temple of Isis around 146 B.C. Another adherent from Corinth requested a decree from Ptolemy XII and Queen Cleopatra to prevent the temple at Theadelphia from being violated by illegal visit.192 In conclusion, the Isaic cult issued certain rules concerning its temple purity and adherents’ purity. The purity of the goddess required that the temple as her house must also be sacred and pure. Since the cult had its thriving activities at Roman Corinth in the first century A.D., its purification practices at Corinth would manifest the characteristics mentioned before.193

3.5 The Temple of Asklepios and Its Purity This section will focus on the temple of Asklepios in Roman Corinth. The study will include its history, geography, structure, healing cult and purification rite. Also, there will be a brief description of the temple at Epidaurus. The study aims to prove that temple purity is manifested by the cultic practice. The Asklepios cult appeared in Greece about the end of the sixth century B.C., and it was introduced to Rome from Epidaurus around 293 B.C. because of an epidemic. The cult at Corinth was said to be established from Epidaurus and prospered from the late fourth century B.C. to the destruction of Corinth in 146 B.C. Though the city was put into ruins, the cult still survived through that time.194 Roman Corinth was reestablished in 44 B.C. on the basis of the old Greek Corinth, and the Temple of Asklepios was repaired and the sanctuary cleaned after the time of the reestablishment.195 In the pre-Roman period, the Temple of Asklepios was located in the area of Acrocorinth in the north suburb (Pausanias,

191

Merkelbach, Isis Regina, 284 and Dunand, Culte d’Isis, 3: 200-1. Dennis E. Smith, “The Egyptian Cults at Corinth,” HTR 70 (1977): 224. 193 Regarding the evidence of Isis cult at Roman Corinth, see Daniel S. Richter, “Plutarch on Isis and Osiris: Text, Cult, and Cultural Appropriation,” TAPA 131 (2001): 191-216 and Smith, “Egyptian Cults,” 201-31. 194 Morford and Lenardon, Classical Mythology, 682. 195 Dora P. Crouch, Geology and Settlement: Greco-Roman Patterns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 144, notes: “It is a grid parallel and perpendicular to the main axis… The grid was planned to fit within the Greek long walls, half on the lower terrace leading north to the edge where the Asklepeion stood and half on the next higher terrace leading south to the foot of Acrocorinth.” 192

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

101

Descr. 2.4.6). Plutarch wondered why the temple was out of town and reasoned that the way of life outside the city was conducive to Asklepios’ healing art (Mor. 286d). In the Roman period, the Temple was located on the northernmost scarp of the city, just inside the city wall. The purification ritual could explain why the temple stood far away from the center of town. There was plenty of water due to the abundant springs in this area, and it became an ideal condition for the patients and visitors to bathe before they entered the sanctuary.196 The Lerna complex with fountains, dining rooms, and incubatory rooms was located in the hollows on the west of the temple.197 There are a large gymnasium, a theater and other recreational facilities nearby, “which could also contribute to the god’s work of achieving a sound mind in a healthy body.”198 A long ramp in the south of the temple led down into the Lerna and had an entrance from the east.199 There were three kinds of water used for purification in the temple: “purification by sprinkling outside the temple of Apollo/Asklepios; bathing in the lustral chamber before incubation; and healing baths in the Lerna complex.”200 After stepping into the temple through “a gateway in the east wall,” a traveler would first encounter “a water basin set in a small columned porch.”201 He would then see the altar nearby which was used for sacrifices. Having passed by the altar, he would enter the temple where the cultic images of Asklepios and his daughter Hygieia were placed. Beyond the temple, a patient needed to prepare himself for an incubation ceremony. First, he would take “a ceremonial walk through the precinct to the abaton,” and then he would be instructed by the priests to take a bath in the lustral room before he proceeded to sleep in the abaton.202 The lustral room was water-proofed, and it had an elaborate system of water circulation and drainage. “The careful husbanding of the water from the lustral room in the shaft, S [south wing], along the south side of the precinct may have been designed to provide a sacred well as at Pergamon.” 203 The temple of Asklepios at Pergamum required the worshipers to abstain from sexual relationships before they went up to the temple to enter the sacred abaton to meet the deity.204 196

Roebuck and Waele, Asklepieion, 39, 154-55; Mabel L. Lang, Cure and Cult in Ancient Corinth: A Guide to the Asklepieion (Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1977), 3; Engels, Roman Corinth, 185. 197 Crouch, Geology, 147. Nancy Bookidis, "Religion in Corinth: 146 B.C.E. to 100 C.E.," in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches (HTS 53; ed. Daniel N. Schowalter et al.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 160, notes that the Temple of Zeus was located “after the theater and before the Asklepieion.” 198 Lang, Cure and Cult, 3. 199 Roebuck and Waele, Asklepieion, 6. 200 Crouch, Geology, 147. 201 Lang, Cure and Cult, 10. 202 Roebuck and Waele, Asklepieion, 157. 203 Ibid., 158. Regarding the function of South wing of the abaton, see ibid., 47. 204 Fritz Graf, “Asclepius,” BNP 2: 104.

102

3.5 The Temple of Asklepios and Its Purity

Since purification was expected for the visitors who went into the sanctuary, water played an essential role at the Asklepeion with three kinds of use: “purification by sprinkling outside the temple of Apollo/Asklepios; bathing in the lustral chamber before incubation (sleeping in a temple in hopes of experiencing a vision and a cure); and healing baths in the Lerna complex.”205 Before a suppliant went into abaton (a;baton) for incubation, he or she needed to pray to the god, and then bathe in cold water for purification.206 The term abaton usually means “untrodden, not to be trodden, inaccessible,” and the most sacred abaton is called the adytum (a;duton), “the innermost part of a temple.”207 Without a preliminary purification rite, one was forbidden to enter the abaton.208 The distribution of the temple at Corinth follows a procedure of lustration. Before entering the abaton, the patient was required to undergo two purifications: certain “token ablutions at the eastern water-basin,” and a bathing in the lustral area behind the altar and the temple.209 The supply of water for purification was not an issue because the temple had its own fountains, and the Fountain of Lerna, “with its large swimming pool, was conveniently close by, as was the old Greek gymnasium.”210 Furthermore, some patients were prescribed special diets and they had to stay in the temple for a while. The temple had its own dining rooms which were connected with the sanctuary, and there were clergy who could make the food for the patients and visitors. Therefore, those facilities became very useful for the patients to comply with their eating rules.211 Once they received healing, they would give votive offerings to the temple. Many dedications resembled parts of the human body, some of which were found in the temple at Corinth. Since these dedications were regarded as the property of the god, they would be stored in a special room (adyton), in which only the

205

Crouch, Geology, 147. See also Alice Walton, Asklepios: The Cult of the Greek God of Medicine (Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2006), 40. 206 Walton, Asklepios, 77. Gerald D. Hart, Asclepius: The God of Medicine (London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 2000), 68, translates an inscription at Pergamum about purification in the incubation: “The sick man shall go… ten days pass… he shall wash himself… take off his every day clothes and put on a white chiton… he shall gird himself with clean towels… approach God… he who seeks healing shall go into the large bedchamber…” (LSCG 22). See also Deate Dignas, “A Day in the Life of a Greek Sanctuary,” in A Companion to Greek Religion (ed. Daniel Ogden; BCAW; Malden: Blackwell, 2007), 173. 207 LiDonnici, Miracle Inscriptions, 19. 208 Hart, Asclepius, 81. Aelius Aristides mentioned his bathing in a sacred well for purification in the temple of Asklepios at Pergamum in Christopher Jones, “Aelius Aristides and the Asklepieion,” in Pergamon Citadel of the Gods: Archaelogical Record, Literary Description, and Religious Development (ed. Helmut Koester; HTS 46; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 70. 209 Lang, Cure and Cult, 13. 210 Engels, Roman Corinth, 100. 211 Ibid.

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

103

priests were admitted to enter. Some small valuable things were perhaps placed on the hand of the cultic statue of Asklepios.212 Furthermore, the healed patients may also hold banquets as a thanksgiving to the deity in the dinning rooms, which were located at the first floor of the temple and connected with the sanctuary by a long ramp.213 The dining rooms were furnished with couches and tables for those visitors to the sanctuary and “the provision of facilities for dining [was] completely consistent with the general air of elegance and luxury that characterized Lerna as a pleasant resort from the heat and noise of the city.”214 The temple of Asklepios attracted a lot of adherents due to its healing ministry. In order to be healed, the patients would follow the instructions of the priests to go through purification before their incubation in the abaton. The purpose of purification was part of the healing ceremony and conducive to a patient’s restoration. Underlying the purification rite was an acquiescent conception that “purification assimilates disease to dirt that can be washed off: Asclepius stretches out his gentle hand and wipes off diseases.”215 This imagination manifested the rationale that only if a patient received the preliminary purification, his visit would be compatible with the sanctity of the temple, and his body would be qualified to receive a consecration. From a psychological perspective, external purification encouraged the patients to firmly believe that the insides of their bodies would also be cleansed by the god in such a sacred and pure place.216 The sacred atmosphere in the temple, solemn serenity, and ritual drinking for cleansing the soul helped patients to construct a strong belief that they would be cured by the god. The sense of purity here was also beyond physical reality and linked with moral reality. The temple sanctity and its purity rules reminded patients of being physically and spiritually cleansed so that they could become ready to be cured.217 The temple at Epidaurus, southeast of Corinth, was thirty-seven miles away. The temenos of Asklepios temple was marked by a clear boundary, either a stone wall or a series of inscribed markers, usually with only one entrance. Within the enclosure only purity is tolerated. The boundary at Epidaurus consists of two parallel walls divided by a trench.218

Before the travelers arrived at the northern gateway (the propylaia), they needed to cross a stream to purify their feet. When they passed through the 212 Sara B. Aleshire, Asklepios at Athens: Epigraphic and Prosopographic Essays on the Athenian Healing Cults (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1991), 45. 213 Lang, Cure and Cult, 12; Roebuck and Waele, Asklepieion, 24. 214 Lang, Cure and Cult, 11. 215 Parker, Miasma, 216. Lambrinoudakis, “Consecration,” 330, notes: “Healing deities like Asklepios and Amphiaraos could in some cases perform the healing themselves, by touching the patient. This was an act of consecration, performed by the deity himself.” 216 Parker, Miasma, 216. 217 Hart, Asclepius, 82, 205. 218 LiDonnici, Miracle Inscriptions, 14.

104

3.5 The Temple of Asklepios and Its Purity

propylaia, a stone plaque would remind them: “He who goes inside the sweet smelling temple must be pure (hagnos) [a[gnoj]. Purity is to have an honest mind (literally, to think hosia) [o[sia].” 219 Then one would pass the sacred path, “a steep climb of almost eighty five yards.”220 When he walked to the end of the Sacred Way, he would come across “an irregular pentagon-shaped walled area containing the Abaton, altars, the Thymele, and temples.”221 Because the slope on the north site of the temple was very steep where the abaton was located, the buildings could only be a small size “if the planners desired to have the temple within the most sacred part of the temenos.”222 The design of the Epidaurus temple indicates “degrees of sacredness within the sanctuary as a whole, and a necessity to keep the ‘ultra’ sacred buildings together.”223 A bull and a cock would be sacrificed at the altar daily. Everyone who attended the sacrificial rite “gather[ed] around numerous decorative basins and washed each other’s feet.”224 Once the purification rite and the sacrifice ended, some visitors would proceed to bathe in the lustration room and prepare for their incubation at the abaton.225 Although the abaton was accessible to the ritually purified patients, its sacredness still forbid its openness to others, and even a curious peek into the abaton was reckoned as contemptible and profane behavior. It was believed that the god would surely punish the one who showed such a reckless attitude toward his sanctuary. An inscription from Epidaurus around the fourth century says: “Aischines, when the suppliants were already sleeping, went up a tree and peered over into the Abaton. Then he fell out of the tree and impaled his eyes on some fencing.”226 To guard the temple’s purity and its treasury, the door of the temple was locked at night. The key was considered to be sacred and its keepers were priests. A coin discovered in Pergamon (the second century B.C.) carries “on the obverse a bearded head of Asklepios, and on the reverse a serpent and key.”227 The above study shows that purity was integral to the temple and cultic healing of Asklepios, who required his adherents to procure purity before they could 219

Parker, Miasma, 322-23. Jon Mikalson, “Greece,” in Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide (ed. Sarah Iles Johnston; Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2004), 508, notes that Porphyry of Tyre, De Abstinentia II, 19 (233-309 CE) mentioned such an inscription in his works. See also Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 224. 220 Kris Jeter, “The Aesclepian: An Ancient Model for Health Maintenance,” in Alternative Health Maintenance and Healing Systems for Families (ed. Doris Y. Wilkinson and Marvin B. Sussman; New York: Haworth Press, 1987), 144. 221 Ibid. 222 LiDonnici, Miracle Inscriptions, 10. 223 Ibid. 224 Jeter, “The Aesclepian: An Ancient Model for Health Maintenance,” 144. 225 Ibid. 226 LiDonnici, Miracle Inscriptions, 95. 227 Walton, Asklepios, 45.

Chapter 3. Temple Purity in the Greco-Roman World

105

have intimate contact with him. Therefore, it is not difficult for us to infer that the Corinthians Christians would have been familiar with the temple sanctity of Asklepios and its purification operation in the first century A.D.

3.6 Summary The aforementioned study on the purification rites and three temple-cults in the Greco-Roman world allows us to conclude that temple purity in the GrecoRoman world was not a minor phenomenon. A temple’s sanctity was defined by its purity and sacredness. The Greek terms like a`gno,j, avsuli,a, kaqaro,j, ka,qarsij, and o[sia, were used to describe the temple’s sanctity, inviolability, and purification, and the temple rules required visitors to purify themselves so that their status was compatible with the sacred area. These terms were also employed by the Hellenistic Jews for cultic and moral purity (cf. Tob 3:14; 2 Macc 3:12; 13:8; 4 Macc 18:8, 23; Wis. Sol. 6:10). As for the terminology of the temple, the Greek term i`ero,n is often used rather than nao,j because the former includes the temple precinct while the latter only refers to the sanctuary.228 The Greeks and Romans did not have “one Temple” idea as the Jews did, but they propagandized their religious piety and honor toward gods by building temples and performing sacrificial rites. The temples in the Greco-Roman world functioned as the houses of gods while the cultic statues were regarded as the physical embodiment of the represented divinities. Temples represented the identity of cities, the power of cohesion, the patronage of commonwealth, and the communal value of religious views in the GrecoRoman world. The temple wardens were responsible for protecting the temple’s sanctity, and priests were designated to regularly perform the purification rites to clean the temple. Washing for purification was generally a requirement for those who wanted to enter the temples, though it was not always the case for the temples in the Roman world. The three temple cults at Roman Corinth that we studied show definite concerns for temple purity. Each cult shows a high caution of its purity by prescribing purification rites for entry of the temple and some particular areas within it. It helps us to understand that Paul’s message about temple purity would not have been an incomprehensible idea to the citizens of Corinth. In chapter four and five, we will engage the Scripture from 1-2 Corinthians to understand Paul’s reciprocal and inspirational message to the community in light of our findings from the Jewish and Greco-Roman world.

228

Regarding the Hellenistic use of i`ero,n, nao,j, a`gno,j and kaqaro,j, see my discussion in section 1.5.2.1.

Chapter 4

Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians 4.1 Introduction Chapter four will examine the passages about Paul’s temple purity from a philological and historical perspective. The aim is to discover how Paul uses the temple metaphor to address his concern of purity and impurity in the Corinthian Christian life. The passages to be examined are from 1 Corinthians 3, 5, 6, and 7. Due to space limitations, I cannot exegete every verse in each chapter in a thorough way. My more modest purpose will be to offer a careful analysis of certain core verses linked to the theme. In the introductory section, I will first pay attention to the scriptures of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple and discuss their historical authenticity. Then, I will deal with Jesus’ saying about the new temple established by him since it is connected with the identity of the early Christian community. Last, I will deal with Stephen’s speech in Acts and infer from his words about the attitude of the early Christians toward the temple, which may shed light on Paul’s perception of the community as the temple. By doing this comparative study, the introduction will prove that the idea of the new temple, which refers to the church, was already circulated among early Christians, and besides Second Temple Judaism is Paul’s temple metaphor possibly nurtured from his interaction with them after his conversion. 4.1.1 Jesus and the Temple The charge against Jesus in terms of his saying of the temple’s overturn and reestablishment is recounted in Matthew, Mark and John. Although Jesus prophesied that the temple would fall apart someday, the authors of the three gospels did not view Jesus as the one who directly spoke of himself as the temple destroyer but simply ascribed the point to his accusers. As Jesus came out of the temple and was going away, his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. Then he asked them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down” (Matt 24:1-2). This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days’ (Matt 26:61).

In Matthew, an accusation of Jesus who spoke against the temple and anticipated its overturn is mentioned. When he was brought to the chief priest, the Jews accused that Jesus would be responsible for his intention of destruction of the

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

107

temple and establishment of another, though Matthew thought that those accusations were falsified (cf. Matt 26:60).1 As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!” Then Jesus asked him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down” (Mark 13:1-2). We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands’ (Mark 14:58).

In Mark, the narrative almost remains the same with that of Matthew except the emphasis of the new temple not made by man. The assumption may arise from it that if the temple can be built in three days without participation of any human builder, it must not be a literal one.2 The best way to clarify this assumption is of the conversation between Jesus and the Jews from John. Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking of the temple of his body (John 2:19-21).

This conversation proves that the accusation in Matthew and Mark is falsified because Jesus does not identify himself as the one who will destroy the temple, though he is believed to speak against the temple in the first person. Indeed, the citation from John verifies the saying of Jesus about the temple’s destruction/reconstruction but the saying omits the first person “I” without placing Jesus as the temple destroyer.3 Nevertheless, the accusation against Jesus insists that he is the blasphemer of the temple. Another two statements related to the verification of the Jews’ accusation against Jesus appear in the ironic words of those who watch the crucifixion: Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days (Mark 15:29); You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself (Matt 27:40)!

It is almost certain that Jesus must have spoken something negative about the temple. Most probably, Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction and another temple’s appearance made the Jews wrongly believe that he means to destroy the temple by himself. Although the accusation cannot supply us the exact words of Jesus, it most probably takes us back to the historical Jesus. 4 Especially, the 1

Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 681; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 1021. 2 William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 534; R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 606. 3 Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel according to John (AB 29; Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 120; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 175. 4 Timothy Wardle, The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity (WUNT 2.291; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 197, points out: “In a prior discussion I argued that something akin to the charge against Jesus in his trial scene – that he would destroy the temple and in three

108

4.1 Introduction

foundation of a spiritual temple must have been mentioned by Jesus because both John and the accusers ascribe the message to Jesus.5 Regarding the historicity of Jesus’ demonstration in the temple and his sayings about the temple, we need to consider the following factors. First, except a few who reject its historicity,6 many scholars regard cleansing of the temple and Jesus’ sayings as a historical event which is not invented by the evangelists but represents the messianic figure of Jesus. Some never argue for its historicity but simply assume it without making an effort toward solving historical questions.7 Some restrict their focus on explaining the meaning behind the temple demonstration with no care of its authenticity.8 Others make a good attempt to prove its

days rebuild it – likely goes back to the historical figure of Jesus. Luke, however, has not followed Mark (and Matthew) on this point, choosing instead to omit the temple charge found in Jesus’ trial scene in Mark (14:58) and transfer the accusation to the episode involving Stephen. In so doing, Luke has moved the locus of confrontation with the temple and chief priests slightly later in the history of the early Christian community in Jerusalem, thus making the major Jewish Christian flight from Jerusalem dependent on Stephen’s accusations and speech.” See also Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 96; Ben F. Meyer, “Appointed Deed, Appointed Doer: Jesus and the Scriptures,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; NTTS; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 163. 5 Bruce J. Malina, “Criteria for Assessing the Authentic Words of Jesus,” in Authenticating the Words of Jesus (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; NTTS; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 27, notes: “The rather abstract, general principles used to evaluate the authenticity of statements attributed to Jesus include the following: criteria of discontinuity, embarrassment, incongruity, multiple attestation, explanation and coherence. There is general consensus that statements ascribed to Jesus that express ideas militating against Second-Temple Israelite behavior as well as against behavior espoused by later Jesus Messiah groups (discontinuity) trace back to Jesus with high probability. Similarly, Jesus’ statements that express sentiments and values awkward for Jesus Messiah groups (embarrassment) have a very high probability of tracing back to Jesus himself. Further, there is likewise general consensus that a statement attributed to Jesus in tension with other ideas in the same work (incongruity) as well as the statement found in a number of early sources (multiple attestation) has a high probability of tracing back to Jesus himself.” 6 Victor Eppstein, “The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple,” KAK 55 (1964): 42-58, shows little confidence in the plausibility of the account but lacks a solid argument of its historicity; Burton L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 270-295, treats the temple demonstration as a concocted story fitting Mark’s narrative framework. Regarding more discussion, see Robert J. Miller, “The (A)Historicity of Jesus’ Temple Demonstration: A Test Case in Methodology,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers (ed. Eugene H. Lovering; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 235-52. 7 Cecil Roth, “The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah XIV 21,” NT 4 (1960): 174-81; N. Q. Hamilton, “Temple Cleansing and Temple Bank,” JBL 83 (1964): 365-72; Samuel G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), 1-421; Martin Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 1-46; David Lenz Tiede, Jesus and the Future (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 53-56. 8 Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979), 170, 221, thinks of Jesus’ behavior as the restoration of Israel, but he insufficiently deals with its historicity; Also, the same problem with Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

109

historicity from several perspectives: historical plausibility and reliability, 9 dissimilarity, 10 political agitation,11 multiple attestation,12 and coherence.13 Second, without attempt to determine the original form of Jesus’ sayings, I suggest that the temple demonstration is historically plausible and Jesus did give a teaching about the temple, which became the cause for the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem to plot his execution, and made Jews identify him as a blasphemer intending to destroy the temple. Jesus’ demonstration in the temple is not unusual because at that time the evidence of the Essenes’ contempt of the priesthood and the temple due to priestly corruption and ritual impurity makes his forceful action comprehensible in its social context.14 The hope of purification of the Jerusalem temple in the end is also well attested in the Scripture and Second Temple Judaism (cf. Ezek 43:20-26; Zech 14:20-

Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 297-300, and Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 112. 9 Both A. E. Harvey and E. P. Sanders advocate the historical reliability of the story that Jesus’ ostentatious behavior provokes the concern of the Sanhedrin and makes them determine to kill him; A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), 120-131 and E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 73; Following E. P. Sanders, Klyne R. Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence (ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 430, holds the same point; Ben Witherington, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 110, suggests that Jesus’ deed is comprehensible because the trade in the temple was abused and corrupted at that time. 10 Witherington, Christology, 109, notes that the story is not fictional because the early church showed no interest of challenging the temple and its service, and they were actually involved with regular ritual activities; therefore, the account actually makes the situation of the early church awkward. 11 Malina, “Criteria,” 43, insists: “If a statement attributed to Jesus makes direct and immediate political sense, then it is authentic.” 12 M. Borg, B. Witherington, and E. P. Sanders state the abundant attestations of the story from the four gospels including the accusation against Stephen in Acts 6:14, see Marcus J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness & Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (SBEC 5; New York: Mellen, 1984), 172; Witherington, Christology, 109-10; Sanders, Jesus, 71-2. 13 E. P. Sanders and David Catchpole argue that the story coherently portrays Jesus as an eschatological prophet whose behavior inaugurates God’s judgment of the old age and anticipates the coming of a new age, and Sanders rejects the cleansing purpose behind Jesus’ deed, Sanders, Jesus, 73; David Catchpole, “The Triumphal Entry,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day (ed. Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 319-34; however, Craig A. Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?,” CBQ 51 (1989): 269, advocates Jesus’ eschatological vocation and insists the purpose of purifying the temple behind his deed. 14 Regarding the corruption of the priesthood, the story is told by Josephus: “Ananias, however, kept the upper hand by using his wealth to attract those who were willing to receive bribes” (A. J. 20.9.4-213); Evans, “Jesus’ Action,” 270, comments: “This would especially be so if the High Priests had recently authorized the selling of sacrificial birds and animals in the temple precincts for the first time, possibly as a result of a quarrel with the Sanhedrin and its business allies.” See also Nicholas T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 405.

110

4.1 Introduction

21; Mal 3:1; Jub. 23:21; Ps. Sol. 17-18).15 The authors of 1 Enoch 90:28-30, Jub 1:17, 11QTemple 29:8-18 and Sib. Or. 5:425 show the consensus that rebuilding the new temple is the second step after the first – the destruction of the old temple.16 Moreover, from John’s independent account about the temple demonstration, the sayings of Jesus by no means threatened the temple at all because Jesus never said: “I will destroy.” Instead, Jesus uses the second person account: “you destroy… I will build…” (John 2:19). The statement behaves as a promise of reestablishing the temple rather than a threat to tear it down.17 Third, since several texts testify to the prediction of Jesus concerning the temple’s destruction and his association with the reconstruction, it issues an eschatological sense in accord with the assumption held among Jews that the coming Messiah plays as the temple builder. This underlying sense is related to Jesus’ messianic vocation which aims to restore Israel as the new people of God and extend the salvation beyond Israel. 18 That is why the chief priest tried to verify whether Jesus claimed himself as Messiah by such a question: “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:61). Otherwise, it is hard to find a smooth transition concerning why the chief priest did not follow the accusation of Jesus’ blasphemy against the temple but started a different question.19 Also, the expectation of a new temple in place of the extant temple has been raised from Second Temple Judaism, when temple purity in the Jewish world is corrupted (cf. T. Levi. 17:1-18:14; T. Benj. 9:1-5; 4 Ezra 14:13-14; Sir 49:12). Therefore, Jesus’ prediction of a new temple is not new to Jews except his identification of himself as the temple builder. Obviously, Jesus refers not to a literal temple but to a spiritual temple built by his body according to John: “But he was speaking of the temple of his body” (John 2:21). This corresponds to the part of the accusation against Jesus that he predicted the rising of the temple “made not with hands” (Mark 14:58). By speaking of three days, Jesus was alluding to his bodily resurrection; it was only later that the disciples understood the full significance of his words (John 2:21). In other words, the resurrected Lord becomes the new locus where God’s glory dwells, his mercy is manifested and the true worship of God is conducted.20 For Jesus, the temple is the locus of God’s presence which requires purification. Furthermore, the temple will be destroyed someday, though it does not mean the removal of God’s presence from Israel. The promise of building a spiritual

15

Regarding the discussion of those texts, see Evans, “Jesus’ Action,” 250-60. Sanders, Jesus, 85-6. 17 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 174. 18 Sanders, Jesus, 73; Meyer, “Jesus,” 165. 19 Darrell L. Bock, “Blasphemy and the Jewish Examination of Jesus,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence (ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 628. 20 Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple, 183; George Raymond Beasley-Murray, John (WBC; Dallas: Word Publishing, 1989), 40; Morris, John, 176. 16

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

111

temple is made by Jesus and realized by his atoning sacrifice, the son of God, who came to save his people from sins and extend the salvation toward the nations.21 Elsewhere, Jesus even indicates that he will build the church as a new temple upon himself to overcome the authority of Hades (cf. Matt 16:18-19).22 Although there is lack of directly connecting the new temple to the community in Jesus’ sayings, Jesus relates his bodily resurrection to building of the new temple,23 which illumines Paul’s saying: “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11). From the above analysis, we can discern that the new temple in Jesus’ sayings shows a good connection with Paul’s temple metaphor. The image of the temple-founder is exactly how Paul attempts to identify Jesus Christ in his metaphor. The resurrected Jesus is the place where the glory of God indwells.24 The new temple and the resurrection of Jesus are largely integrated into Paul’s temple metaphor to address the identity and vocation of the community in Christ. 4.1.2 Stephen and the Temple The speech of Stephen is the lengthiest one in Acts (cf. Acts 7: 2-53), and there is a vehement debate surrounding its authenticity as Eckhard Schnabel points out: Many scholars have little confidence in the historicity of the speech, it being understood variously as an invention by the author of Acts, an “aetiology of the Antiochene Gentile mission” composed with the help of written and oral sources, a “salvation-historical credo” of the early church, a Christian revision of a Hellenistic-Jewish synagogue sermon adopted by Hellenistic Jewish Christians.25

However, the above reasons are not enough to abandon the historicity of Stephen’s speech. Some scholars have convincingly argued against those skeptical theories opposing authenticity. Regarding Luke’s use of the original account to reiterate the story, E. Schnabel rightly claims: The assumption that Luke freely composed Stephen’s speech after the event is implausible: (1) The speech, longer than any other in the book of Acts, contains elements that occur at no other

21

Sanders, Jesus, 73. Cf. France, Matthew, 622. 23 Morris, The Gospel According to John, 176. 24 Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple, 183. 25 Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission (2 vols.; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 1: 660. The first quotation is from Eckhard Rau, Von Jesus zu Paulus : Entwicklung und Rezeption der antiochenischen Theologie im Urchristentum (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994), 74-5; the second quotation is from Klaus Kliesch, Das heilsgeschichtliche Credo in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte (BBB 44; Köln: Hanstein, 1975), 11-47. Regarding the theory of a Hellenistic view of the salvation history and the temple, see James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 267. 22

112

4.1 Introduction

place in Acts. (2) The fact that circumcision plays no role whatsoever, even though Stephen is accused of attacking the law, points to the pre-Pauline period.26

In addition to it, the narrative structure is characterized by a trial setting (cf. Acts 6:10-15), and Stephen’s speech cannot be distinguished as a Hellenistic Jewish thought because it echoes Peter’s speech in many ways (cf. Acts 3:12-26).27 Thus, by accepting its authenticity, the study will take a look at the accusation against Stephen concerning his blasphemy of the temple. In fact, the charge against Jesus shows a certain connection with the charge against Stephen in terms of the anti-temple sense. They set up false witnesses who said: “This man never stops saying things against this holy place and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses handed on to us” (Acts 6:13-14).

Although the Lukan account denotes that the charge is false (cf. Acts 6:13), it does not remove the possibility of Stephen’s holding the similar view of the temple to other followers of Jesus as T. Wardle states, “Indeed, if Jesus held negative views of the cultic center in Jerusalem, then it seems perfectly plausible that at least some of Jesus’ followers would have continued to espouse the views of their teachers on this point. Stephen likely numbered among them.”28 Furthermore, Stephen said this about the temple It was Solomon who built a house for him. Yet the most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands; as the prophet says: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?” (Acts 7:47-50).

Obviously, the view of the temple “not made with human hands” is almost the same with Jesus’ talking about the temple in John and the charge against Jesus in Mark. Possibly remembering Jesus’ word of the temple destruction/reconstruction, Stephen believes that God is not bound to the man-made temple.29 The accusation against Stephen conveys the sense similar to that leveled against Jesus (Mark 14:58; Acts 6:14), that is, Jesus the Nazarene would destroy the temple.

26

Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:661. Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 264-65, points out: (1) Stephen’s speech is placed in a trial setting “complete with formal witnesses and testimony;” (2) the speech conveys a critical sense of the Jewish religiosity close to Peter’s speech in Acts 3-4, so it does not necessarily distinguish it as a Hellenistic Jewish thought. Regarding its source, form and redaction, Craig C. Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 50-92, attempts a good discussion to support the historicity of the speech. 28 Wardle, Identity, 198. 29 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 312 and C. K. Barrett, “Attitudes to the Temple in Acts,” in Templum Amicitiae (ed. Ernst Bammel and William Horbury; JSNTSup 48; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 352. 27

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

113

The mention of Solomon also shows that Stephen’s view echoes Solomon’s. Solomon’s prayer at the dedication denotes the same idea that God is not confined by any physical sphere (cf.1 Kgs 8:27). Indeed, both Solomon and Stephen would disagree that the temple functioned as “God’s stationary oi=koj and place of rest.”30 The physical place cannot domesticate God’s presence.31 Therefore, Stephen does not oppose the temple, but his remarks show a less respectful attitude toward the Jewish religiosity of the temple cult and its sacrifices. Possibly interpreting Jesus’ sacrifice superior to the temple cult, Stephen emphasizes the internal circumcision and the work of the Holy Spirit given only to the followers of Christ while “the purity laws of the Torah are no longer valid” (cf. Acts 7:51).32 The speech also indicates the “new sphere of sacredness.”33 Given the term ceiropoi,htoj used by Stephen concerning the rigidity of the Jewish temple cult (Acts 7:48), Paul later uses the same term to insist that “the temples made by man” cannot domesticate God (ceiropoih,toij naoi/j), while he pointed out the ignorance of Athens (Acts 17:25). Both Stephen and Paul agree that God’s universality is not confined within the temple, which could imply the evangelistic work among the Hellenistic Jews.34 Therefore, Stephen’s speech reflects the Christian consensus that the temple was no longer the only place to meet God. The ecstasy of Stephen before his death also testifies to a new place of meeting God and the dawn of the messianic era (cf. Acts 7:56). The faithful servant of the Son of Man is welcome to the heavenly realm, a new temple, where the throne of God sits, when he finishes the earthly ministry (cf. Acts 7:59).35 The Jerusalem temple is no longer the place where the throne of God is placed. Instead, the Christian community which is es-

30

J. Bradley Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts (Macon: Peeters, 1988), 126, and in ibid he declares: “What is more, only in Acts 6:13-14 and 21:28 does Luke use to,poj to denote the temple. This seems to indicate that Luke intended his readers to note the connections between the two incidents. I argued in chapter two that Stephen’s attack on the temple was not to be construed as a temple polemic per se. Rather, what Luke condemns through Stephen is the temple as it functions to restrict or confine God’s presence in the world… The violent killing of Stephen implies that it was his criticism of the restricted God which prompted his murder.” 31 Francis D. Weinert, “Luke, Stephen, and the Temple in Luke-Acts,” BTB 17 (1987): 90. 32 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1: 663. 33 Francis Schmidt, How the Temple Thinks: Identity and Social Cohesion in Ancient Judaism (BS 78; trans. J. Edward Crowley; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 259. 34 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1: 662. See also N. H. Taylor, “Stephen, the Temple, and Early Christian Eschatology,” RB 110 (2003): 79-81 and Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (ed. Janina K. Darling; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 8. 35 Frederick F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 127; Werman, “Temple,” 312-13.

114

4.2 Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians 3

tablished by Jesus’ death and resurrection rises up as the new dwelling place of God.36 In sum, we can infer that the early Christian church perceived the temple cult as an insufficient means to worship God.37 Stephen opposed not the Temple per se, but implied that the traditional ritual and worship was no longer sufficient and valid when Jesus’ death fulfills all the requirements of the laws and sacrifices. Given the insufficiency of the extant temple cult from Stephen’s speech, the thought of a new place “more to God and God’s presence” than the Jerusalem temple is implied, which may go directly to the belief that the Spirit of God dwells in the Christian community founded by Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection.38 4.1.3 Conclusion for Paul Both Jesus’ sayings and Stephen’s speech show an agreement that the Jerusalem temple loses its privilege as the only dwelling place of God, while the presence of God will move to a new temple not made by hands (Jesus’ prediction) or is universally manifested without being confined to the man-made temple (Stephen’s remark). This interest in a new place superior to the Jerusalem temple is conducive to understand Paul’s temple metaphor, and it also illumines that the prePauline Christian church is possibly aware of itself as the new temple indwelt by God’s Spirit. The discussion above shows that Paul was not the first Christian to think about the new dwelling residence of God. He could have learned Jesus’ sayings about the temple from the early Christian church which he persecuted (cf. Acts 9:1-2), and heard what Stephen spoke of the temple because he was the eye-witness of Stephen’s martyrdom (cf. Acts 7:58). Therefore, Paul’s idea of the new temple is not only derived from Second Temple Judaism, but also influenced by the early Christian thought.

4.2 Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians 3 4.2.1 Introduction This section will focus on the temple purity endangered by partisanship among the Corinthians. Chapter two shows that the Jerusalem temple was a sacred place for Jews and that the entry of the temple required purification. Purification was not only confined within the temple precinct, but also practiced by the laity in the

36 Bauckham, “Parting of the Ways,” 143. See also J. P. M. Sweet, “A House Not Made with Hands,” in Templum Amicitiae (ed. William Horbury; JSNTSup 48; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 384-85. 37 Frederick F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 190. 38 Darrell L. Bock, Acts (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 303.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

115

household. Temple purity was a common concept for Jews who were wellinformed that either ritual impurity or immoral impurity could defile the temple. To restore temple purity was to remove the defiling elements by punishing transgressors and implementing purification rites. Furthermore, the spiritualization of some aspects of ritual purification, such as pharisaic eating in emulation of priestly purity, emerged during the Second Temple period. Also, the perception of God’s people as the temple was attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Philonic works. When Paul talks about temple purity, the Jewish converts could sense the obligation for the community to maintain its purity due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit among them (1Cor 3:16-17). Chapter three shows that the Greco-Roman world had a good knowledge of the purity of temples. The three typical temples, the temple of Isis, the temple of Apollo, and the temple of Asclepius, had their respective purification rites and purity rules. Also, some internal parts of the temples were considered more sacred than other parts and ordinary people were not allowed to enter them. Despite their less popularity, the view of the community as a sacred entity and the perception of the individual as the carrier of the part of god are attested in the pagan world, which will be discussed in sections 4.2.2 and 4.3.3. Also, when Paul depicts the community as the temple with a rhetorical question which actually appeals to the readers’ previous knowledge (1 Cor 3:16), the Gentile converts could probably understand it because Paul talked about the metaphor among them during his stay at Corinth before (cf. Acts 18:11; 1 Cor 2:1-5). Apart from the metaphorical issue, the Gentile converts should have had no problem in agreeing with Paul that the temple required purity because they at least knew something about the purification rules of the pagan temples in Corinth. The study will consider the response of the community regarding whether they could grasp Paul’s use of the temple metaphor to address the purity issue. Also, one may ask how partisanship becomes a reason for defilement. When we have a literary analysis of Paul’s message, we will find that the background of Num 16 echoes Paul’s concern with partisanship, which is reflected by the apostle’s use of several key terms sci,sma, a[ptw, parakoh, and zh/loj in his two epistles to the Corinthians. More details are to be given in the coming sections. There are two primary reasons for Paul to write the letter. First, it appears that the community wanted to obtain Paul’s advice on certain issues, such as sexual purity, the collection, and the expectation for Apollo’s visit of Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 7:1, 25; 8:1; 14:1; 16:1, 12). Second, Paul received a private report from Chloe’s household about the church’s division (1:12), its spiritual immaturity and arrogance (4:6-13), the incestuous brother (5:1-8), prostitution (6:12-20), the reckless attitude toward eating and drinking (8:1-13), the veiling issue (11:2-16), the disorderly behavior during the Communion service (11:17-34), and the denial of physical resurrection (15:12).39

39

Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 3.

116

4.2 Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians 3

Paul offers his response to the exigent situation by writing a letter. Since the temple metaphor is presented with rhetorical questions, which appeal to the previous knowledge of the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor 3:16; 6:15-16, 19), the metaphor functions as a self-evident literary device to clarify Paul’s concerns and make the community aware of the severity of the corrupted issues among them. Once the metaphor is employed, Paul either turns to a conclusion (3:16-23) or wraps up his discussion (6:19-20). Therefore, the temple metaphor functions as a self-evident device to exemplify Paul’s view regarding purity and impurity. 40 In 1 Cor 1-4, Paul focuses on partisanship and uses the temple metaphor to address it (1 Cor 3:16-17). In the next sections, I will talk about whether the group from the Jewish or the Greco-Roman world would have understood the idea of temple-community. The study will be a historical analysis based on the research in chapter 2 and chapter 3; then I will do an exegesis of 1 Cor 3:16-17; lastly, given the fact that temple purity is related to partisanship, I will discuss why Paul views partisanship as the defiling element. 4.2.2 The Historical Background for the Reader Community This section will answer the question of whether Paul’s message of temple purity in 1 Corinthians 3 would have been understood by the community in light of their cultural context even while it consisted of both Jewish and Gentile converts. In the Old Testament, God’s presence among his people through the tabernacle or the temple is frequently mentioned.41 The Lord commands Moses to build a tabernacle for him so that he can be “seen” among Israel (ovfqh,somai, Exod 25:8). Also, Ezekiel foresees that “the abode” of God will be established among Israel when they are restored from the exile (ta. a[gia,, Ezek 37:26-28). Even during the exile when the temple was destroyed, God promised to be among his people as their “sanctuary” (a`gi,asma, Ezek 11:16). A few OT texts foster the idea of Israel as the abode of God who walks among his people (Exod 29:45; Lev 26:12). The author of Ps 114:2 says: “Judah became God’s sanctuary, Israel his dominion,” which means that God’s people are entirely holy and suitable to be God’s dwelling abode.42 Moreover, the vision of a new temple in lieu of the Jerusalem temple is proclaimed by the prophets before or during the time of the exile (cf. Isa 28:16-17; Ezekiel 40-48). In chapter two, I have already discussed the material about the community as the temple found in Second Temple Judaism. In an effort to reduce redundancy, I will now give a quick summary of this discussion with only a few examples. In the Second Temple period, a belief was held among Jews regarding a new Tem-

40 Calvin J. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 27. 41 Exod 25:8; 29:45-46; Lev 26:11-12; Num 11:20; 1 Kgs 6:13; Ezek 11:16; 37: 26-28; 43:9; Hag 2:5; Ps 114:2. 42 Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (WBC 21; Waco: Word Books, 1987), 138; Mitchell J. Dahood, Psalms III: 101-150 (AB 17A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), 134; Rosner, Paul, 75.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

117

ple to be built by God’s people restored from their exile (Tob 14:5) or to be transformed as a heavenly abode (cf. 1 En 90:28-29; 91:13). One will also find that some authors treated Israel as the temple of God. According to Philo, the soul is “the house of God” and “the holy temple” (qeou/ oi=kon gene,sqai, i`ero.n a[gion, Somn. 1.149). Philo proudly speaks of Israel as the kingdom of God and he considers this kingdom as also the house dwelt by God (ou- toi/j oi;koij h=n euvch. to.n qeo.n evnoikh/sai, cf. Philo, Sobr. 66). When Philo interprets Exod 25:8 regarding God’s residence, he suggests that every pure and holy place can receive God’s appearance and a consecrated man can become “an animate shrine of the Father” who will see God in awareness (QE 2.51). The spiritualization of the sacred object shows an affinity with the idea of the community as a sacred place.43 The author of 1 QS says: “The Community council shall be founded on truth, to be an everlasting plantation, ‘a holy house’ for Israel and the ‘foundation’ of the holy of holies for Aaron” (vdwq tyb, dwsw, 1 QS VIII, 5-6). The passage denotes that the community regards itself as the imitation of the temple.44 When Josephus and Philo describe the religious life of the Essenes, they notice that the group practices their eating in a cultic way and reveres their dining room as a sanctuary (cf. Philo, Contempl. 1.3, 80-81; Josephus, B. J. 2.129). Therefore, anticipating a new temple, spiritualizing cultic practice into daily life, and interpreting Israel or the community as the abode of God are all nurtured in Israel and in Second Temple Judaism. Given the pre-Pauline Jewish thought of the temple metaphor, the Jewish converts should have had no problem understanding Paul’s idea. Although the Gentile believers had no access to those Jewish materials, there were other ways they could understand Paul’s metaphor. First, chapter three proved that temple purity was an understandable phenomenon to the Gentiles because the purification rites were often implemented within the pagan temples to maintain their purity. Second, when Paul begins to describe a building process of the edifice and signifies himself as the master builder, he emphasizes that the building process requires much effort and testifies to the whole project invested by different materials and means (cf. 1 Cor 3:10-13). It is a corporate work which cannot be completed by a single party or class. In section 3.2.2, the study showed that the temple project requires various building classes and material suppliers to participate with good plans so that the completion of the project can be possible. In a similar sense, Paul requires the builders to think about their ways of construction with great care (cf. 1 Cor 3:10). Otherwise, the reckless builders will undermine the quality of the building and the disqualified parts will be torn down by fire (cf. 1

43 Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time, 149. See also Bentwich, PhiloJudæus of Alexandria, 258. 44 Steven Weitzman, Surviving Sacrilege: Cultural Persistence in Jewish Antiquity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 111.

118

4.2 Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians 3

Cor 3:15). Therefore, Paul encourages the community to work together for the building par excellence (1 Cor 3:10-13). Third, the temple functions as an affinitive place where the adherents can demonstrate their koinwni,a with their god by dining. Plutarch affirms that dei/pnon (the evening meal) represents a close fellowship among the participants (Quaest. conv. 726c-e).45 Since Paul uses dei/pnon for the Lord’s table two times (1 Cor 11:20-21), his mention of the demon’s table could refer to the dei/pnon fellowship in the pagan temple (1 Cor 10:20-21). Thus, the temple mediates the fellowship of the god and his adherents.46 Then, if the temple is defiled by the adherents, their fellowship with the god cannot persist properly and closely unless they rectify their behavior and restore the temple purity.47 Likewise, when Paul says “You are God’s temple,” he reminds the Corinthians of their corporate identity, intimate fellowship with God, and interconnection with each other, which should not be distorted by their impure behavior. Fourth, the idea of the individual or the community as a sacred place was not too strange to be understood though it was rare in the Greco-Roman world. In section 3.2.1, the study shows that the body was treated as the temple of the soul and the community was regarded as the sacred entity. A similar idea – man carries a god in his life and therefore he should preserve holiness in his physical body – is found in the teachings of Epictetus (ca. the first century A.D., Epictetus, Diatr. 2.8.9-14): But you are a being of primary importance; you are a fragment of God; you have within you a part of Him…Whenever you mix in society, whenever you take physical exercise, whenever you converse, do you not know that you are nourishing God, exercising God? You are bearing God about with you, you poor wretch, and know it not! Do you suppose I am speaking of some external God, made of silver or gold? It is within yourself that you bear Him, and do not perceive that you are defiling Him with impure thoughts and filthy actions. Yet in the presence of even an image of God you would not dare to do anything of the things you are now doing. But when God Himself is present within you, seeing and hearing everything, are you not ashamed to be thinking and doing such things as these, O insensible of your own nature, and object of God’s wrath!48

45 John Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Social-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1 (WUNT 151; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 160. Plutarch states that the breakfast is termed by to akratisma or ientaculum, the lunch by to ariston or prandium, and the dinner by to Deipnon/Sumposion or cena/convivium (Ibid., 159-60). 46 Alex T. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy (JSNTSup 176; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 37. 47 Lionel Spencer Thornton, The Common Life in the Body of Christ (London: Dacre, 1963), 14, says: “In short they are endangering the unity of the church by their vainglory, jealousy and partisanship. This is treachery to the common life. But worse still, it is a form of sacrilege.” Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 317, clarifies: “It is sacrilege because in sinning against ‘consecrated persons’ who are corporately God’s temple, it defiles the joint sharing in the Spirit who consecrates the temple (koinwni,a).” 48 The translation is from M. Eugene Boring et al., Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 395.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

119

This statement shows that the body of humans is a sacred place to be filled by a part of God. When they think of and implement good things, they are worthy of bearing the part of the nature of God.49 Furthermore, in the discourses of Epictetus, humans are identified as friends of the deities (Disc. 2.17.29; 3.24.60; 4.3.9), like the deities (Disc. 1.22.21), and equal to the deities (Disc. 1.12.27). Elsewhere, Epictetus claims: “But if our souls are so bound up with god and joined together with him, as being parts and portions of his being, does not god perceive their every motion as motion of that which is his own and of one body with himself?” (Disc. 1.14.69). These statements demonstrate the intimate relationship between men and gods.50 Since man’s mind and body are to be the bearers of God, the statement encourages people to pursue a life of goodness and holiness. This conception is very close to Paul’s cultic view of the corporeal purity in 1 Cor 6:18.51 Fifth, the gospel is related to Jesus’ death, resurrection and glorification (1 Cor 15:3-11; cf. Acts 26:13-18). Paul interprets Jesus’ death in a cultic perspective and refers to it as an atoning sacrifice (cf. 1 Cor 5:7; Rom 3:25). This cultic interpretation must have been given to the Corinthians in respect to Jesus Christ as the foundation of the temple-community (1 Cor 3:10-11). According to Paul’s rhetorical questions (1 Cor 3:16-17), the idea of the community as the temple is already accepted by the believers. Thus, the new temple is not a literal one but a spiritual one comprised by the followers of Jesus Christ. The indwelling of the Spirit in the new temple “marks the followers of Jesus (1 Cor 6:19; 12:13; 2 Cor 13:5; Rom 8:9; Gal 6:1; Eph 1:17), [and] makes them become the Messianic Temple of God.”52 Sixth, although I try to prove that the believers from both worlds may have understood Paul’s temple metaphor from their own background, it is certain that they received the same gospel, which talks about God’s saving purpose and reaches its climax with the death, resurrection and glorification of Jesus Christ. Paul then teaches them about Jesus as the foundation of the temple (cf. 1 Cor 3:11; see also Eph 2:20-22). Without those previous teachings, it would be difficult to see that Paul appeals to the previous knowledge of the Corinthians in his rhetoric of the temple metaphor (cf. 1 Cor 3:16). The above discussion shows that believers from both Jewish and Gentile worlds did have some clues from their own background to understand the temple metaphor. The next section will do an exegesis of the text and discover Paul’s purpose for using the temple metaphor.

49

Johnson, Gentiles, 74. See also Parker, Miasma, 152. Johnson, Gentiles, 73. See also Mark Harding, Early Christian Life and Thought in Social Context: A Reader (BS 88; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 199. 51 Boring et al., Hellenistic Commentary, 394. 52 Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der Erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (HTA 4; Giessen: R. Brockhaus, 2006), 215. 50

120

4.2 Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians 3

4.2.3 The Temple Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 3 In 1 Corinthians 1-4, Paul confronts partisanship among the community, which is reported by Chloe’s group. Paul’s disapproval of partisanship starts from his exhortation in 1 Cor 1:10: “Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.” This exhortation for unity among believers extends from criticism of divisions to the call to imitate Paul and Apollo (cf. 1 Cor 4:6). Partisanship is caused by the Corinthians’ arrogance and their jealousy of one another. The community may be divided into several groups marked by some superior spiritual figures like Peter, Apollo, and Paul himself (cf. 1 Cor 1:12-13; 1:18-20; 3:4; 3:18-23; 4:6, 18). This phenomenon is very common among the disciples of sophists (teachers) during the first century A.D.53 In the case of the Corinthian community, debates over knowledge “according to human ways” generates the partisanship (kata. a;nqrwpon peripatei/te, 1 Cor 3:3).54 Paul invites the Corinthians to see that the knowledge of Christ is not lofty, jealous, disobedient, arrogant, self-glorified and unholy. The knowledge of the cross conveys humility and the power of God (1 Cor 2:5).55 Paul vehemently rebukes partisanship by using several metaphors. The first metaphor is one of irony – describing the Corinthians as spiritual babies full of fleshly jealousy and spiritual shallowness (cf. 1 Cor 3:1-3) reflected by their divisive behavior of naming three distinguished groups among the community: the group of Paul, the group of Christ and the group of Apollo (1 Cor 3:4). Then, Paul moves from this ironic description to his second metaphor of calling Apollo and himself field laborers of God who can be counted as no more than servants doing assigned work (1 Cor 3:5-9). By describing the community as a field and as a building, Paul clarifies his accountability in the building project as a master builder who lays the foundation.56 This is his third metaphor, beginning with the description of an ongoing building

53 Winter, After Paul Left, 40; in ibid he notes: “By engaging in verbal battles with other students they were simply following a long-established requirement of demonstrating their exclusive loyalty to their own sophist. Zealousness for one’s teacher by promoting his attributes and at the same time openly criticizing the deficiencies of another epitomized the behavior of the disciples of first-century teachers.” 54 Ibid., 42. 55 William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, I Corinthians (AB 32; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), 149-77; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 66-164; Thiselton, Corinthians, 147-345; David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 81-135. 56 Alfred Plummer and Archibald Robertson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC 34; New York: Scribner, 1915), 60, comment that the Greek expression w`j sofo.j avrcite,ktwn in 1 Cor 3:10 is also used in LXX of Isa 3:3, and “sofo,j is frequent of the skilled workmen who erected and adorned the tabernacle (Exod 35:10, 25, 36:1-8).”

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

121

process, including a test of fire, and ending with his call of the community as the temple of God which should suffer no violation and destruction (1 Cor 3:10-17). In 1 Cor 3:16, Paul employs his temple metaphor with a question: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (Ouvk oi;date o[ti nao,j qeou/ evste kai. to. pneu/ma tou/ qeou/ oivkei/ evn u`mi/n). The rhetorical question beginning with ouvk oi;date is used several times (cf. 1 Cor 3:16; 5:6; 6:23, 9, 15-16, 19; 9:13, 24), and it shows that Paul is not telling his audience anything new. The question appeals not only to the audience’s previous knowledge, but also urges them to reflect on their behavior.57 Since the temple is the property of God, indicated by the possessive genitive qeou/, “you” (u`mi/n) being the temple of God must take the responsibility of avoiding unworthy behaviors and thoughts. The phrase o` nao,j tou/ qeou/ usually refers to the Jerusalem temple (cf. Dan 5:3; 1 Ezra 5:52; Jdt 4:2, 5:18), which represents the central place of Jewish worship in the world (cf. section 2.2.1). The temple is also characterized by holiness because it is indwelt by to. pneu/ma tou/ qeou/ (3:16). Immediately, Paul describes the temple as a[gioj (3:17). In the Old Testament, the equivalent Hebrew term vAdq' refers to the sanctuary and to the holy of holies (Exod 26:33-34; Lev 4:6; Num 18:10).58 Josephus uses a[gioj frequently in relation to the Jerusalem temple. He calls the whole temple “the holy place” (pa/j nao,j a[gion, A. J. 3.125; see also A. J. 12.413), and distinguishes the innermost sanctuary as “the holy of holies” (tou/ a`gi,ou to. a[gion, A. J. 3.125; see also B. J. 1.152; 4.171; 6.95). When Paul defines the attribute of the temple as a[gioj along with his identification of the plural pronoun u`mi/n as the temple, it demonstrates a rationale: (1) the temple is holy since it is indwelt by the Holy Spirit; (2) since you (the people in Jesus Christ) are the temple of God, (3) you need to be holy. The Spirit of God is different from dai,mwn or dai,monej in the Roman world because the latter is normally identified as a spiritual being which “can be good or evil” and even be invoked “in order to come under the control of the magician and perform his will.”59 The Spirit of God in the Old Testament is involved with creation (Gen 1:2), inspiration (2 Chr 24:20), prophecy (1 Sam 19:20, 23), sanctification and re-creation (Ezek 39:29; Joel 2:28), wisdom-pouring (Isa 11:2), selection and appointment (Isa 61:1).60 Given the heightened concern of holiness in 3:16-17, pneu/ma means the Spirit of holiness and sanctification whose abode cannot tolerate impurity. Paul does not simply treat the temple-community as the abode of God but also as the abode of the Spirit of God, which echoes Josephus’s account of Solomon’s prayer: 57

Schnabel, Korinther, 213. See also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 32; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 202. 58 Otto Procksch, “a[gioj,” TDNT 1: 88-97; H. Seebass, “a[gioj,” NIDNTT 2: 228; BDAG s. v. “a[gioj,” 10-11. 59 Terence Paige, “Who Believes in ‘Spirit’? Pneuma in Pagan Usage and Implications for the Gentile Christian Mission,” HTR 95 (2002): 432. 60 H. Kleinknecht, “pneu/ma, ktl.” TDNT 6: 368.

122

4.2 Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians 3

“And besides all this, I humbly beseech you that you will let some portion of your Spirit come down and ‘inhabit in this temple,’ that you may appear to be with us upon earth” (eivj to.n nao.n avpoiki,sai, A. J. 8.114). The juxtaposition and connection of the Spirit of God, the temple-abode and the community in the whole statement defines the community as holy as it is the consecrated house of God (1 Cor 3:16-17).61 However, the holiness of the community is endangered by the possibility that one’s actions may destroy the temple as Paul claims: “If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple” (Ei; tij to.n nao.n tou/ qeou/ fqei,rei( fqerei/ tou/ton o` qeo,j( o` ga.r nao.j tou/ qeou/ a[gio,j evstin( oi[tine,j evste u`mei/jÅ 1 Cor 3:17). The conditional phrase, ei; tij (if someone) with the indicative verb fqei,rei,62 describes a present reality or a possible consequence which can result from the presupposition.63 Although someone can cause destruction of the temple, he will be corrupted with retaliation from God. Clearly, Paul’s meaning is that the temple can suffer damage from the activities of the irresponsible builder. Moreover, Paul’s use of the term fqei,rw “destruction” also means corruption of purity. If we study the verb fqei,rw carefully, we will find that it not only means “destroy”, but also “defile” or “corrupt”, an antonym to evpoikodome,w (3:12).64 Plutarch uses it to mention a man with the severe disease which ‘corrupted’ (φθεi/ρας) his body and also ‘defiled’ (φθορa/ς) the daily vessels for his cleanness (cf. Plutarch, Sull. 36.2-4).65 Its equivalent Hebrew term is txv, which occurs 162 times in the OT and usually means the ruin of something or someone (cf. Gen 6:11; Exod 8:20; Jer 48:18). In certain situations, it conveys a moral sense “to act corruptly, pervert, defile” (Exod 32:7; Deut 9:12; 32:5). In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the use is the same. Besides its basic sense of “destruction” (cf. 1 QH III, 12, 16, 18, 26), the word also denotes a moral sense. For example, “whoever reverts from his path of corruption” can be accepted into the Qumran community by taking an oath (CD XV, 7).66 In the LXX, a sense of corruption is applied to Israel whose sin cannot be forgotten by the Lord because they have “fallen into the deep corruption” (evfqa,rhsan, Hos 9:9; NETS) and to “the world which was corrupted so severely”

61 Garland, 1 Corinthians, 120; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 173; Fee, Corinthians, 147; Thiselton, Corinthians, 252. 62 1 Cor 3:12, 17, 18; 7:12-13, 36; 8:2-3; 10:27; 11:16, 34; 14:37-38; 16:22; 2 Cor 2:5; 5:17; 10:7; 11:20. 63 Friedrich Blass et al., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 372. 64 Günther Harder, “fqei,rw,” TDNT 9: 102, Thiselton, Corinthians, 317, Schnabel, Korinther, 215 and Alan F. Johnson, 1 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 103. 65 Plutarch says: “This disease corrupted his whole flesh also, and converted it into worms, so that although many were employed day and night in removing them… and the swarm of vermin defied all purification” (Sull. 36.2-4). 66 Günther Harder, “fqei,rw,” TDNT 9: 96 and BDB, 1007-1008.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

123

(evfqa,rh de. h` gh/, Gen 6:11; NETS). Josephus uses the meaning of “corrupt” to refer to those who are treacherous (A. J. 18.100; cf. Vita 1.73). Philo not only notes that a human’s desire can corrupt everything (Decal. 1.173) and a false witness can corrupt holy things (Decal. 1.138), but also he is convinced that someone submitted to his desire will “seduce” (fqei,rh|) women and virgins will be “defiled” (evfqarme,naj) by those desirous people (Spec. 3.69, 81). In other New Testament letters, the verb usually means “corrupted” behavior which can defile and destroy a moral conscience and norm (Cf. 2 Cor 7:2; Eph 4:22; 2 Pet 2:12; Jud 1:10; Rev 19:2). For example, Paul uses fqei,rw to tell the Corinthians that to deviate from the gospel preached by him is corrupted behavior (2 Cor 11:3).67 Therefore, Paul employs the term in 1 Cor 3:17 to point out a moral corruption caused by partisanship, to which Paul refers in terms of temple purity. Paul then has to remind the community of the severe consequences caused by it, putting them at risk for profanation or corruption.68 If “the corporate and holy nature” of the community matters, Paul would not be hesitant to regard the divisive behavior as a risk of eroding the communal purity in regard to its entirety (cf. 1 Cor 5:4-5; 6:19).69 The meaning of fqei,rw merely as “destruction” seems to be narrow.70 If we accept the meaning of the word as “corrupt/defile,” it makes sense why Paul emphasizes the holiness of the temple, which is connected with moral/immoral in a figurative sense rather than the structure or the material of the building. As we have discussed before, a[gioj is a phenomenon related to moral purity. In 1 Cor 3:17, Paul links the attribute of the temple-community to holiness, which delimits its moral standard. Indeed, the corruption of the temple-community is conveyed in an ethical sense. If the temple-community should be holy due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, no one can escape judgment by defiling the temple with immoral matters. In the next section, I will explain why Paul treats partisanship as the defiling factor.

67

Harder, “fqei,rw,” TDNT 9: 98-103. Scornaienchi, Sarx, 106. 69 H. H. Drake Williams, The Wisdom of the Wise: The Presence and Function of Scripture Within 1 Cor. 1:18-3:23 (AGAJU 49; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 299. See also Raymond Pickett, The Cross in Corinth: The Social Significance of the Death of Jesus (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 94. 70 Christopher Rowland, “The Temple in the New Testament,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. John Day; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 475, notes: “Similarly, according to 1 Cor 3.17, to destroy God’s living temple is as serious a crime as perpetrated by those who defile the Temple, echoing the dire threat found at the entrance to the Temple, mentioned by Josephus and discovered at the end of the nineteenth century (‘whoever is caught going beyond the barrier will have himself to blame if death ensues’).” See also Sweeney, “Jesus, Paul, and the Temple,” 610. 68

124

4.2 Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians 3

4.2.4 Partisanship as the Defiling Factor This section will use the division story in Numbers 16 to support the reason of partisanship as impure matter which can defile God’s people. The study aims to discover the subtle echo between the story in Numbers 16 and Paul’s exhortation in terms of the division. The subtle echo is termed metalepsis or allusive echo, which “places the reader within a field of whispered or unstated correspondences.”71 Elsewhere, Hays specifically defines the term metalepsis: A rhetorical and poetic device in which one text alludes to an earlier text in a way that evokes resonances of the earlier text beyond those explicitly cited. The result is that the interpretation of a metalepsis requires the reader to recover unstated or suppressed correspondences between the two texts.72

This definition shows that the use of the original text is fleeting with a transumed form, which cannot be easily gripped by the reader if he is not familiar with the source material. Thus, if the reader cannot discover the source text borrowed by the author, the message may simply appear to be “a rich or rare expression, word, or concept due to its particular attractiveness in the way it looks, sounds, or turns a phrase.”73 However, once the reader detects the allusive echo between the author’s message and the original text, he will be inspired by seeing “unexpressed links that suggest rich stores of otherwise unnoticed insight.”74 Partisanship in 1 Cor 3 is the case to present the phenomenon. According to Paul’s letter, partisanship is generated by the Corinthians’ favor of different teachers and discrimination against others (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:3-4).75 Partisanship as an impure reason influencing communal holiness is well-attested from the battle between the Aaronic group and the Levitical group. In Numbers 16, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram attacked Aaron and Moses for their preemption of the leadership. Although the rebellious party’s two reasons – everyone in the congregation is holy and the Lord is among them – echoed Exod 19:6 and 29:45, their charge against Aaron’s priesthood was a charge against Yahweh, just as Moses says: “What is Aaron that you grumble against him?” (Aarwn ti,j evstin, LXX, Num 16:11).76 The designation of Aaron and Moses is from the Lord rather than from humans.77 Paul speaks of a similar issue in terms of God’s designation:

71 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 20. 72 Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 2. 73 Christopher A. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians (BIS 96; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 22. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid. 76 Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 305-8; Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 413. 77 Ashley, Numbers, 308.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

125

“What then is Apollos? What is Paul?” (ti, ou=n evstin VApollw/jÈ ti, de, evstin Pau/loj, 1 Cor 3:5). Accordingly, he exhorts the audience to be aware of God who is the designator of servanthood and selects Apollos and Paul to work with him. The contest between Aaron’s party and Korah’s party focuses on the test that Yahweh would “make known who is his, and who is holy” (Num 16:5a). As a result, Korah and Dathan’s party was removed due to their evil behavior (Num 16:24-35, 41). The envious mood of the party is reflected by their challenge of the leadership of Moses and Aaron with the pejorative attitude (cf. Num 16:30). Moreover, this rebellion is reiterated by the author of Ps 106:16, who ascribed their sin to their envy (anq) of Moses and Aaron. The term anq can be translated in the LXX zhlo,w (cf. LXX Num 5:14, 11:29), whose variant zh/loj appeared in Paul’s message related to the reason behind the partisanship (1 Cor 3:3).78 Partisanship created by Korah’s “party” (hd'[e, Num 16:16) results in their total “separation” (ldb) from the rest of the congregation according to Yahweh’s command (Num 16:21). The term ldb is equivalent with the Greek avposci,zw (LXX, Num 16:21, 26) a compound word by avpo and sci,zw. Paul uses sci,sma to identify the division among the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:10; 11:18; 12:25).79 At the same time, a concern of impurity by contact is raised by Moses’ request: “Turn away from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, or you will be swept away for all their sins” (Num 16:26). The Hebrew phrase W[ßGT> -i la;( (“do not touch in case of uncleanness”) strongly corresponds to purification decrees (cf. Lev 11:8; 15:21-23, 27; 22: 4-6; Num 4:15; 19:22; Deut 14:8). Contagion will occur by touch.80 The term [gn can also mean an unclean plague (cf. Lev 14:32-37). More significantly, the Hebrew term [gn is equivalent to the Greek a[ptw (LXX, Num 16:26) and Paul uses the exact term to exhort the community not to have fellowship with the unfaithful in 2 Cor 6:17.81 Elsewhere, Paul uses the term avfi,sthmi and exhorts the community not to partake the fellowship of the false Christians with filthy teaching (cf. 2 Tim 2:19), which echoes the imperative in Num 16:26.82 Consequently, fire is revealed from the Lord and it consumes Korah and Dathan’s party, which echoes Paul’s mention of the consuming fire which will come out and test everyone’s work in the end (1 Cor 3:1315; cf. Num 16:35; Ps 106: 18). Moreover, partisanship is of disobedience against God. Disobedience is perceived as an impure state. For example, King Saul’s disobedience against God is

78

E. Reuter, “anq,” TDOT 13: 48-49; Albrecht Stumpff, “zh/loj, ktl.” TDNT 2: 878-80. Benedikt Otzen, “ldb,” TDOT 2: 1-3; Christian Maurer, “sci,zw, sci,sma,” TDNT 7: 959-64. 80 Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (JPSTC; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 136. See also Levine, Numbers, 416. 81 L. Schwienhorst, “[gn,” TDOT 9: 204-5; BDAG s. v. “a[ptw,” 126. 82 Philip H. Towner, “1-2 Timothy and Titus,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 906. 79

126

4.2 Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians 3

considered to be as profane as divination and idolatry (1 Sam 15:22-23).83 Paul rebukes partisanship two times (1 Cor 1:11-13; 3:4-5), because jealousy and rivalry violate the love command in Jesus Christ (1 Cor 12:12-31; 13:1-13; 14:1). In 2 Cor 10:4-14, Paul warns the “Christ-party,” one of the factions, that their “disobedience” (parakoh,) will be condemned upon Paul’s next return (2 Cor 10:6). Partisanship among the Corinthians, triggered by the Greco-Roman sophistic culture, proves to be very harmful to the communal unity.84 As a result, Paul affirms his view of one holy “temple” (the singular form of nao,j, 3:16) – the entire Corinthian community, which should not be defiled by partisanship. Therefore, partisanship as a reason for defilement would make sense to the Jewish believers if they were familiar with the story of Numbers 16. For the Gentile believers, either they procured such Jewish background from Paul’s teaching, or they could still comprehend the pure/impure status simply by Paul’s use of the cultic terms – nao,j, a[gioj and fqei,rw (3:16-17),85 but they might not have “discover[ed] a number of intriguing resonances” as much as their Jewish peers did, which showed Paul’s emulation of Moses in speaking of partisanship as the rebellion against God and the reason for defilement of the community.86 In the pagan world, the temple represents a fellowship-oriented entity, which can be corrupted by partisanship (cf. section 3.2.2). According to the Romans, political alliance can also be corrupted by it.87 Given the Gentiles’ view of the temple as the joint place of koinwni,a, Paul’s words would have helped them to see that partisanship destroys (or profanes) the corporate fellowship in the Holy Spirit due to the broken cohesion and disunity among believers.88 A. Thiselton rightly clarifies: It is sacrilege because in sinning against ‘consecrated persons’ who are corporately God’s temple, it defiles the joint sharing in the Spirit who consecrates the temple (koinwni,a). By sinning against the consecrated corporeity, some are sinning against God and committing sacrilege against the Spirit.89

83

Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 169, 191, notes: “If we are to say that the impurity of a blameless person is not miasmic and has no deleterious effect on the Temple, but the same impurity becomes miasmic as soon as a person fails to take advantage of the first possible opportunity to remove it, then what we are really saying is that impurity itself has no effect, but only disobedience… It is not merely the failure to seek purification for states of impurity that creates the miasma, but also the disobedience involved in such sins as theft, murder, injustice or cheating, as well as non-purity ritual sins, such as eating on the fast of the Atonement, or wearing a garment made of a mixture of wool and linen.” 84 Geurt Hendrik van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity (WUNT 232; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 248. 85 Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, “Paulus und der Herodianische Tempel,” NTS 53 (2007): 191-92. 86 Hays, Echoes, 22. 87 Cicero declares: “Factionalism destroys any political body” (Amic. 7.23). 88 Garland, 1 Corinthians, 120. 89 Thiselton, Corinthians, 316.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

127

This comment accurately describes how severe the situation is, and the only solution is to remove partisanship (the profane reason) and restore unity (the corporate purity). In light of the story in Numbers 16 as well as Paul’s use of the cultic terms, we can conclude that partisanship affects the corporate unity and pollutes the spiritual temple per se.90 Like Moses, Paul wants the Corinthians to know that the partisans not only oppose the evangelists but also oppose God who appoints these evangelists to do his ministry. To restore the temple’s purity is to stop partisanship and to make different parties reunited in Jesus Christ with repentance and humbleness.

4.3 Temple Purity and Excommunication in 1 Corinthians 5 4.3.1 Introduction In this section, I will discuss Paul’s message in 1 Corinthians 5 regarding an incestuous sinner in the community, and uncover that the expulsion of an adulterous member was a way to purify the temple-community. I will focus on the key texts linked to temple purification and probe the potential connection among 1 Corinthians 3, 5 and 6 from literary and thematic evidence. Also, considering the understanding of Paul’s message by the reader-community, I will provide a historical study of both worlds concerning the incestuous sin in the text and how the Corinthian community discerns the purification of the temple-community from Paul’s message. 4.3.2 Purity and Pollution on a Corporate Level At the end of 1 Corinthians 4, Paul admonishes the believers that he will come to them with the authority of judgment (cf. 1 Cor 4:19-21), which preludes his rigorous opposition against two horrible immoral issues among the community in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6. In 1 Corinthians 5, the apostle’s astonishment is caused by someone who had a sexual relationship with his “stepmother” (gunai/ka, tina tou/ patro,j, 5:1). Even pagans did not endure such sin as evidenced by Roman statutes strictly forbidding marriage between a son and his stepmother, and also inferred from Paul’s word: “that is not found even among pagans” (1 Cor 5:1).91 Without any hesitation Paul

90

Finlan, The Background, 218-19. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (trans. James W. Leitch; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 96, translates the Roman law referred to Gaius, Inst. 1.63: “Neither can I marry her who has aforetime been my mother-in-law or stepmother, or daughter-in-law or step-daughter. I say ‘aforetime’; for if the marriage which has created the affinity still subsists, I cannot take her to wife for this other reason, --that neither can the 91

128

4.3 Temple Purity and Excommunication in 1 Corinthians 5

judges such a person on behalf of the whole assembly though he was not physically among them (5:3-6).92 To remind the Corinthians that their “assembling” (sunacqe,ntwn, 5:4) should be kept pure and holy, Paul likens the community to the new unleavened “bread” (o[lon to. fu,rama, 5:6), and reinterprets unleavened bread and yeast in a moral sense. In order to understand Paul’s bread and yeast metaphor, first we need to review the historical tradition of Passover. The first Passover is mentioned in Exodus 12. God commands Israel to eat Passover lambs, bitter herbs and unleavened bread (Exod 12:8). The festival testifies to the salvation of God for his people and the fulfillment of their days of living in Egypt (Exod 12:27, 41). During the first night of the Passover, the lamb’s blood is put on the doorposts to signify that the lethal destruction will pass over Israel (Exod 12:13).93 The second Passover is mentioned in Num 9:1-14, and the author notes that even people who touched a corpse and the Gentiles in Israel could keep the Passover before God, which started on the fourteenth day of the second month.94 Although the Passover is also mentioned in other Old Testament texts (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chr 35:1-19; Ezra 6:19-22), they only speak of the purification ritual for priests. It is Ezek 45:18-25 and 2 Chr 30:17 which talk about the purification for Israel in a broader sense. King Hezekiah cleansed and rededicated the temple in sixteen days of the first month, which was during the Passover (2 Chr 29:17), and he did not call the Israelites to celebrate the festival until the second month when the sanctified priests reached their maximum number (2 Chr 30:3; cf. Num 9:11). Since many among the congregation were not sanctified, the Passover lamb was slaughtered by the Levites to ritually purify the impure laymen (2 Chr 30:17). However, there were also some impure people who ate the Passover lamb and Hezekiah asked God to forgive them (2 Chr 30:18-19). It testifies to that God’s forgiveness can cause a purification efficacy. Thus, the Passover sacrifice was associated with the purification of the temple and the Passover celebration with the purification of the peo-

same woman have two husbands, nor can the same man have two wives.” More details will be discussed in section 4.3.3. 92 Thiselton, Corinthians, 394, points out: “In both cases, the model function of assembled together qualifying the whole makes the speech-act not simply an individual act of Paul, but a corporate act of the whole community, explicitly including Paul as its apostolic focus of unity and order.” 93 William Henry Propp, Exodus (AB 2-2A; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 437; John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Dallas: Word Books, 1987), 165. 94 Christine Schlund, Kein Knochen soll gebrochen werden: Studien zu Bedeutung und Funktion des Pesachfests in Texten des frühen Judentums und im Johannesevangelium (WMANT 107; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005), 29. See also Daniel Isaac Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 661-62 and Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48 (WBC 29; Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 266.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

129

ple. The prescription for the purity of the Passover community is reflected by the early Jewish view of Passover.95 In particular, Ezek 45:19 mentions the use of a bull’s blood to purify the temple for the preparation of the Passover, where the act of painting the blood on the doorposts is mentioned in addition to the instructions mentioned in Exod 12:7. Instead of viewing the blood on the doorposts as a sign that there is an inhibitor of evil, the author indicates that the blood is a cleansing factor, which signifies a development in the understanding of the Passover in Ezekiel’s time. Besides sacrificing a young bull on the first day of the Passover as a sin offering, a male goat is also offered on each of the seven days for the same purpose. Thus, the Passover is related to temple purity and ritual purification of Israel’s sins.96 According to Philo, the Passover was thought of as a symbol of the priesthood of Israel when there was neither temple nor Levites (cf. QE. 1.10). Everyone’s participation of the Passover sacrifice demonstrated that Israel was given equal piety to perform the sacrificial cult and their togetherness was likened to a holy temple. In the third place, because a temple had not yet been built, He showed that the dwelling together of several good persons in the home was a temple and altar, in order that in the first sacrifices of the nation no one might be found to have more than any other… And he decided that there is nothing more beautiful than that the divine cult should be performed by all in harmony. And also that the nation might be an archetypal example to the temple-wardens and priests… In the fifth place, because he wished every household and similarly (every) head of a household to act worthily and not to incur any profanation, (being) like a priest who is purified of all sins in whatever he says or does or thinks (Philo, QE. 1.10).97

Philo believes that the Passover exemplified the concept of national holiness and of Israel as the temple of God. Also, he allegorically notes that the Passover symbolized the passing of God’s children over Egypt, representing passion, perishableness and physicality, and their entrance into Canaan, representing wisdom, virtue, and spirituality (Sacr. 63; cf. Migr. 25).98 Philo interprets Num 9:11 from the perspective of the priestly wholeness and insists that the ritually-impure people did not want to forfeit the chance of honoring their priesthood. Therefore, the second Passover was prescribed in the second month (Mos. 1. 224).99 In Philo’s opinion, when animals are sacrificed, people are purified by washing ablutions, and the Passover feast is shared in a holy man-

95

Schlund, Kein Knochen, 37, 41-42; Raymond B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Dallas: Word, 1987), 245; Jacob Martin Myers, II Chronicles (AB 13; Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), 177. 96 Schlund, Kein Knochen, 31-33. 97 Regarding the lack of the Greek text of Questionns and Answers on Exodus except the Armenian version, see P. Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. Michael E. Stone; CRINT 2; Philadephia: Fortress, 1984), 242. 98 Schlund, Kein Knochen, 67-68. 99 Ibid., 72.

130

4.3 Temple Purity and Excommunication in 1 Corinthians 5

ner, each house ascribed with “the character and dignity of a temple” (Spec. 2.148).100 Moreover, Philo gives three reasons why leaven was not used in the Passover. First of all, there was not sufficient time for leavening bread because Israel needed to get out of Egypt in rush. Second, due to the Passover in the season of spring, the wheat and crop were not yet ripe, so the use of unleavened bread was representative of the fact that the perfect situation had not yet been reached (Spec. 2.158). Third, unleavened bread symbolizes a healthy and primordial state in contrast with a refined, luxurious and decadent status. Spring is the season of creation, and unleavened bread is the gift of nature, which can “kindle every year a desire to walk in the paths of a holy and rigid way of life” (Spec. 2.160).101 Philo furthermore emphasizes that twelve loaves on the sacred table were to be unleavened because they were prepared “not by human skill for pleasure but by nature for the most essential use” (Spec. 2.161). In sum, Philo understood the Passover cultically because it conveyed God’s favor of the universal priesthood and holiness. The houses for celebration and even the people were reckoned as the holy temple, separated from Egypt, the mother of evil, as well as from her temples (cf. Spec. 2. 145-49; QE. 1. 10; Migr. 25).102 Unleavened bread symbolized a primordial and status of purity, waiting to become perfection. Josephus notes that purification is prescribed for celebration of the Passover, when people went up to Jerusalem and “purified” themselves for the festival (a`gneu,ontej, A. J. 11. 109). All men, women and children needed to be purified. Elsewhere, he speaks of the Passover in A.D. 65 celebrated by a great number of people in Jerusalem, who were “purified” and procured a “holy” state before they could partake of the Passover feast (kaqarw/n kai. a`gi,wn, B. J. 6. 425; see also more details in Section 2.2.1). Those “profaned” by bodily diseases and other reasons of defilement were not allowed to take part in the sacrificial festival (memiasme,noij, B. J. 6. 426). Besides purification of people, purification of houses is also mentioned by Josephus: “then when the fourteenth day was come the whole body, in readiness to start, sacrificed, purified the houses with the blood” (A. J. 2.312). Those comments depict the Passover as a massive purificatory rite, which requires purity status for all partakers.103 Furthermore, Josephus describes the purification of Aaron and his sons with saying: “And when Moses had sprinkled Aaron’s vestments, himself, and his sons, with the blood of the beasts that were slain, and had purified them with spring waters and ointment, they became God’s priests” (A. J. 3.205). The phrase tou/ qeou/ gi,gnointo used by Josephus conveys that after Aaron and his children 100

Federico M. Colautti, Passover in the Works of Josephus (JSJSup 75; Leiden: Brill, 2002),

171. 101

Schlund, Kein Knochen, 186. Ibid., 74. Schlund, Kein Knochen, 89 and Federico M. Colautti, Passover in the Works of Josephus (SJSJ 75; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 139. 102 103

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

131

were purified, they were confirmed as the priests of God. The encounter between person and God was facilitated by purification rites.104 Josephus also uses the same Greek term a`gni,zw to describe the purification of oil (A. J. 3.199), houses (A. J. 2.312), tents (A. J. 1.341), the tabernacle (A. J. 3.197), the temple (A. J. 10.42, 12.318), the city (A. J. 9.272), as well as the purification of the priests (A. J. 1.342, 18.94), the Levites (A. J. 3.258), laymen (A. J. 10.45, 12.145), and the army (A. J. 5.45). In A. J. 9.271-3, Josephus recounts the story of King Hezekiah and the purification of the temple and the multitude in preparation for the Passover.105 The idea of purifying houses and the temple for an encounter with God is highlighted by Josephus in his writings. The washing of houses with water and blood is in preparation for sacred meals to be held in those purified places during the Passover, and when the purified hosts eat meals with worship and in praise of God, it represents the divine presence among his holy people.106 Unleavened bread is viewed by Josephus as commemoration of the want of Israel’s ancestors in the wilderness when they ate food only for necessity rather than for satiety. Eating unleavened bread connotes an avoidance of insatiated desires and a reminder of the harshness of life in the wilderness (A. J. 2. 316-7). Therefore, Josephus is primarily concerned with purification of the multitude, the temple and the houses in Passover, which shows that the Passover is the festival of encountering God and purity is required for those who want to partake of the sacrifice. Unleavened bread in the Passover meal became “the central feature” after A.D. 70 when the sacrifice was discontinued.107 It is related to “the purity of the newly ground grain, whether offered to Yahweh or eaten in his Presence” with a grateful attitude.108 Yeast smells poignant and generates decay. Unleavened cereal offerings are mandatory for Israel (cf. Exod 23:18; Lev 2:11; 6:9-10; Deut 16:3, 8), as yeast conveys a symbolic meaning in opposition to Yahweh’s holiness. During Passover week, “the entire land of Israel becomes like a vast altar to Yahweh, leaven-free.”109 In the NT, leaven generally conveys something negative (Matt 16:6; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1; Gal 5:9), but it is also employed in Jesus’ metaphor to convey something good (cf. Matt 13: 33; Luke 13: 20-21). D. Instone-Brewer’s comment on the role of leaven makes a good sense: “The ‘evil’ aspect of leaven is when it is in the wrong place – such as in a house during Passover, or when a small

104

Schlund, Kein Knochen, 91; Colautti, Passover, 43. Josephus ignores 2 Chr 30:18-19 which mentions that some impure people also ate the Passover lamb and Hezekiah prayed for God’s forgiveness of them. 106 Schlund, Kein Knochen, 91-93; Colautti, Passover, 162. 107 David Instone-Brewer, Feasts and Sabbaths: Passover and Atonement (TRENT 2A; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 197. 108 Durham, Exodus, 158. 109 Propp, Exodus, 432. 105

132

4.3 Temple Purity and Excommunication in 1 Corinthians 5

amount of unconsecrated leaven falls into a barrel of consecrated flour (m. Orl. 2.4-5).”110 The above study provides a good scope to understand Paul’s metaphor. In 1 Corinthians 5 the community is the unleavened bread consecrated to God, but an immoral member’s wicked behavior influences the community like the yeast spread in a batch. In his metaphor, Paul uses the popular image of leaven which can quickly penetrate a batch and cause it to decay easily. 111 Also, given that leaven needs to be removed before the start of the Passover and that it should not be mixed with other things, Paul asserts that it is wrong to blend two incompatible things, the batch and leaven, in Passover. In his metaphor, the community is the batch while the immoral member is leaven (1 Cor 5:7), so if the community is viewed as the holy entity, they are required to remove any leaven. Leaven itself is not necessarily bad as we have pointed out, but when it appears in the Passover, it is bad. Since Paul’s metaphor compares the immoral member in a community celebrating Passover to leaven in a batch, then leaven is regarded as evil. In Paul’s opinion, the immoral behavior can quickly defile and corrupt the entire community like leaven speedily permeating bread and decomposing it.112 Given that the Passover should be participated in by every Israelite of the assembly (Exod 12:6), Paul also insists that the entire Corinthian community should celebrate the Passover in Christ (1 Cor 5:4). In our survey of the OT texts, Joshua had Israel circumcised before they kept the Passover (Josh 5:9-10), King Hezekiah commanded Israel to keep the festival after he purified the temple (cf. 2 Chr 29-30), and King Josiah also arranged for the purification of the temple and the city Jerusalem before the Passover (cf. 2 Kgs 23; 2 Chr 35). Similarly, Philo and Josephus show their concern for the purity of the multitude as a legitimate condition for the festival. When Paul urges the community to be morally purified so that they can observe the festival in the right way, he spiritualizes the tradition of the festival not from a ritual sense but from a moral sense.113 Because of the disturbance of the immoral “yeast,” Paul calls the community to perceive itself as the unleavened bread of “sincerity and truth” (eivlikri,neia kai. avlhqei,aj, 5:8). The Greek term eivlikrinei,aj can be translated as “purity,” and it also occurs in 2 Cor 1:12 and 2:17, where Paul declares his ministry role as the priest of God for “holiness” (a`plo,thti) and “purity” (eivlikri,neia). In a letter written by Seleukos II (third century B.C.), the adjective eivlikri,neia is used to praise the purity of the people at Miletos (OGI 227. 12-13).114 In the LXX, the

110 111

Instone-Brewer, Traditions, 120. Schlund, Kein Knochen, 185; Thiselton, Corinthians, 400; Orr and Walther, I Corinthians,

188. 112

Schlund, Kein Knochen, 187, 191; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 180; Orr and Walther, I Corinthians, 189; Fee, Corinthians, 216-17; Thiselton, Corinthians, 406. 113 Schlund, Kein Knochen, 188; Rosner, Paul, 80. 114 Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton Pub. House, 1982), 356-57.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

133

term only occurs in Wis. Sol. 7:25, which describes wisdom as “a pure effluence of the glory of the Almighty” (avpo,rroia th/j tou/ pantokra,toroj do,xhj eivlikrinh,j). Also, from a contrastive perspective, the author praises the fact that wisdom prevails against evil and fills everything “by reason of her pureness” (Wis. Sol. 7:24). According to F. Büchsel, the term’s adjective and substantive “always denote moral purity.”115 The consistent rationale of the apostle makes us see his stringent attitude toward “adultery” inside of the community (pornei,a, 1 Cor 5:1; 6:18), which occurs in his lists of vices (1 Cor 5:11; 6:9-10). Also, Paul considers a believer’s body to be the temple of the Spirit incompatible with pornei,a (1 Cor 6:18). When this idea is placed in context of the Passover, it can be approached in light of Philo’s allegorical view of the feast that Israel is the archetype of the temple in the first Passover and the houses are purified to be ascribed the dignity of the temple (cf. QE. 1.10). When Paul clarifies the misunderstanding of his point in the previous letter regarding companionship and friendship among the Corinthian Christians (1 Cor 5:9), his final tone conveys fierce opposition against “associations” (sunanami,gnusqai, 1 Cor 5:11) with immoral members adherent to the wicked behaviors mentioned in his list of vices. Notably, he uses another longer list of vices in 1 Cor 6:9-10 to declare that anyone who is used to doing such things cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Although the apostle acknowledges that some Christians previously behaved immorally, he emphasizes the fact that they are now washed, sanctified, and justified “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (avlla. avpelou,sasqe( avlla. h`gia,sqhte( avlla. evdikaiw,qhte evn tw/| ovno,mati tou/ kuri,ou VIhsou/ Cristou/ kai. evn tw/| pneu,mati tou/ qeou/ h`mw/n, 6:11). Paul highlights the fact in terms of transformation of the believers from being morally filthy to being morally clean in Jesus Christ.116 The cultic term avpolou,w is used in Israel’s purification rites and means to wash away filthiness.117 This external cleansing washes away someone’s moral defects only figuratively, because the sinner still needs to be punished for his wicked behavior. However, it demonstrates God’s sanctification of Israel to make them a holy people. Philo notes that the internal washing can be exemplified allegorically by the external washing. In Som. 1.148, he differentiates those whose minds are to be “purified” by angels (tw/n avpolouome,nwn) from those whose minds are thoroughly “purified” by God (tw/n kekaqarme,nwn). Moreover, he explains that the washing of a victim’s feet means allegorically that we should walk in the air rather than on the earth (Spec. 1.207). Explicitly, Philo’s emphasis is the

115

Friedrich Büchsel, “ει,λικρινη,ς, ει,λικρι,νεια,” TDNT 2: 398. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 188-9; Orr and Walther, I Corinthians, 191-2; Fee, Corinthians, 245; Thiselton, Corinthians, 438-9. 117 BDAG s. v. “avpolou,w,” 117. 116

134

4.3 Temple Purity and Excommunication in 1 Corinthians 5

cleansing of one’s mind and soul.118 Paul uses the term, avpolou,w to clarify the fact that a believer has been broken off from his immoral history by the internal washing from Jesus’ atoning sacrifice (1 Cor 6:11). The other Greek term a`gia,zw is derived from the Hebrew root vdq', and its adjective a[gioj has been discussed in section 1.5.2.1. The act frequently refers to God as the sanctifier and the objects of sanctification are usually people, priests, utensils or places (cf. Exod 13:12, 28:38, 29:36, 40:8).119 Sanctification changes the state of a person from profane to sacred, making him suitable to meet God or enter a holy place. For Paul, the baptismal washing represents the connection of one’s life with Christ in his death and resurrection, washing him away from his past immoral filthiness (cf. Rom 6:3-5). On the basis of baptismal washing, sanctification is “a divinely effected state,” which works through one’s whole life by the Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ and makes him or her progressively transformed as the children of God.120 These two cultic terms along with the legal term dikaio,w illustrate that the sins of the Corinthian believers are washed away and that their lives are transformed into a sanctified, forgiven and righteous status which is compatible with a genuine life with morally pure qualifications. The body and the soul of a believer are like a sacred object which should not be spoiled by impure matters.121 Accordingly, it is not implausible to infer that when Paul talks about Jesus as the Passover lamb in a cultic perspective, he might also have the temple in mind as its purification was related to the festival in Hezekiah and Ezekiel’s time (cf. 4.3.2). However, purification in Paul’s mind shifts from the physical temple to the spiritual temple. Furthermore, Paul’s anticipation of the “destruction” (o;leqron) of the perpetrator’s “flesh” (th/j sarko,j, 5:5) reminds us of his similar attitude in 1 Cor 3:17 by using fqei,rw.122 Could the adulterer be the example of one who attempts to corrupt God’s temple and who will be destroyed by God? The possibility exists. If Satan can be thought of as the agent of God (2 Cor 12:79; 1 Tim 1:20), then the handing over of the adulterer to Satan is equal to God’s judgment that the criminal member be cut off from communal fellowship and expelled to the satanic sphere (cf. Job 2:6).123 As the Passover community is protected by the blood of the lamb from destructive powers (cf. Exod 12:13, 23), the

118

Albrecht Oepke, “lou,w, avpolou,w, loutro,n,” TDNT 4: 300-3. BDAG s. v. “a`gia,zw,” 9. 120 Otto Procksch, “a`gia,zw,” TDNT 1: 111. 121 Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 200; Fee, Corinthians, 246; Thiselton, Corinthians, 454; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 216. 122 David Raymond Smith, Hand This Man over to Satan: Curse, Exclusion, and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5 (LNTS 386; London: T & T Clark, 2008), 167, points out: “Whoever defiles God’s temple will be destroyed (fqei,rw). Likewise, the Corinthian offender is to be destroyed (o;leqroj: v. 5). The difference in terminology here is inconsequential, for destruction is denoted by both terms. Within Pauline thought, human sin can lead to physical destruction.” 123 Thiselton, Corinthians, 398. 119

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

135

immoral member is expelled from the community and is consequently exposed to Satanic power without protection.124 B. S. Rosner argues that the text of excluding the incestuous man manifests Paul’s concern of temple purity because the passages of 1 Cor 3:17 and 5:5 are of the same genre: “Both texts are holy law.”125 However, Rosner ignores that much literary similarity is found when the curse of the Qumran Community is compared to Paul’s condemnation because both of them took place in a liturgical context (cf. 1 Cor 5:4-5; 4Q266 11; 4Q270 7). Explanation of it will be given in section 4.3.3. Also, Rosner’s reason is not necessarily linked to his conclusion because the sense of retaliation can be applied to many other contexts (cf. 1 Cor 14:37-8; 16:22; 2 Cor 9:6; Rom 2:12). Nevertheless, Rosner plausibly suggests that Paul’s message is an allusion to the ceremonial cleansing of the Temple “prior to the Passover being celebrated” (cf. 2 Chr 29-30; 34-35).126 Our study of Philo’s view and the description in the book of Ezekiel also supports that point. Indeed, the establishment of the purity boundary due to Jesus as the Passover lamb is analogous to the purification of Israel during the Passover along with the slaughtered lamb as the atoning sacrifice. The sacrifice of animals as a means of purification has been discussed in Second Temple literature. To celebrate the new Passover with the Corinthians inaugurated by Jesus’ death, Paul was right to require them to be holy because Jesus as the Passover lamb is the alternative to animals and entails the purification of the temple-community (cf. 1 Cor 10:21; Rom 3:25; 12:1-3). Any immoral leaven should be searched and removed from the spiritually purified community in Jesus Christ. Given the theme of purification dominating both 1 Corinthians 3 and 5, the “destruction” (o;leqron) of the adulterer’s flesh should probably be seen in contrast with the imagery of one being consumed by fire and the destruction of transgressors in 1 Cor 3:15-17. The image of the man not completely consumed by fire can be read analogously to the image of the incestuous member who was given to Satan but whose soul may be saved by God’s grace.127

124

Schlund, Kein Knochen, 189. Rosner, Paul, 77. His reference is from Robert McQueen Grant, “‘Holy Law’ in Paul and Ignatius,” in Living Text (Lanham: University Press of America, 1985), 65-66. 126 Rosner, Paul, 79, says: “Having ‘cleansed the temple’, Paul calls upon the congregation to celebrate spiritually the festival of Passover/Unleavened Bread in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8. That this sequence of events occurred to Paul’s mind may itself testify to the influence of the Old Testament temple motif, since, in the Old Testament, there is an observable link between cleansing or restoring the temple and celebrating the Passover.” See also May, The Body for the Lord, 74; Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 180; Brian S. Rosner and Roy. E. Ciampa, “1 Corinthians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Commentary; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 708. 127 C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 127; Jay Shanor, “Paul as Master Builder: Construction Terms in First Corinthians,” NTS 34 (1988): 470-71; Rosner, Paul, 77; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 176; Fee, Corinthians, 209. 125

136

4.3 Temple Purity and Excommunication in 1 Corinthians 5

Moreover, recurring themes with later specifications are not rare in this letter, as B. S. Rosner declares: In 2:7-8 the connection of believers’ ultimate glorification to their union with Christ is a precursor of 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul’s chief point is that Christ’s resurrection guarantees the resurrection of believers. Believer’s possession of the Spirit, foundational to 3:16; 6:19; 12:13, is introduced emphatically in 2:12. In 6:12-14 Paul makes some pregnant statements that are expounded later in the letter. The question of unity addressed in chs. 1-4 resurfaces in 11:17-22.128

Thus, in reading this letter, one must be aware of the interconnection between the earlier and later parts. The motif of destruction of those who violate the temple purity in 1 Cor 3:16-17 “would have been in the forefront of the minds of the letter’s recipients when 1 Corinthians 5 was read.”129 Accordingly, reading 1 Corinthians 3 and 5 together in a similar scene of judgment concerning purity is not implausible. By acknowledging that o[lon to. fu,rama and nao,j convey the concept of purity in a corporate sense, and that the corporate purity is contaminated by disunity and immorality, we can see that the punishment of the incestuous member resonates with Paul’s emphasis of the holiness of the temple and his warning of severe judgment incurred by corrupted behavior. In other words, Paul’s concern of temple purity in 3:16-17 continues to show in 1 Cor 5:6-8 with his confrontation against the incestuous sinner.130 The sexual impurity in 1 Cor 5:5 also echoes 1 Cor 6:18-19, where Paul condemns prostitution and claims that the believers’ bodies are the temple of the Spirit. Paul exhorts believers to flee from porneia for the sake of temple purity (cf. 1 Cor 6:18). Thus, since the incestuous person enforces his trespass by “having” (e;cein) a sexual relationship with his stepmother (cf. 1 Cor 5:1), it consequently causes loss of temple purity on an individual level and also disturbance of purity on a corporate level.131 In order to restore temple purity, Paul has to use expulsion as a way of removing the defiling source. He employs the command “drive out” two times at the beginning and in the end (evxai,rw, 1 Cor 5:2, 13). As I have discussed in section 1.5.2.3, to remove the source of moral impurity is the only way for the restoration of purity. Driving the wicked person out of the community is necessary to stop profanation and maintain purification. During some festivals in the Greco-Roman world, purification of the temple and the statues would also happen, which has been discussed in chapter three regarding the festival of Isis and other gods (cf. 3.2.1, 3.3 and 3.4). Since Paul’s 128

Rosner, Paul, 78-9. Ibid., 79. 130 Thiselton, Corinthians, 399; Brian S. Rosner, “Temple and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 5,” TynBul 42 (1991): 141; Pickett, The Cross in Corinth, 109, also points out: “The operative image of the church in this portion of the letter is that of God’s holy temple (3.16-17), which suggests that what was ultimately at issue was the purity of the community. The man who was living with his father’s wife must be expelled in order to maintain this purity.” 131 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 96; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 164-65. 129

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

137

call for purification of the temple-community is related to the Jewish festival, it can be understood by the Gentile believers in terms of their custom of festival purification. Since the study shows that to expel the incestuous member is related to the restoration of temple purity, we need to ask how the Jewish converts and the Gentile converts could have understood the excommunication in a cultic perspective based on their respective historical background. This question will be probed by the next section. 4.3.3 Paul’s Execration and Restoration of Temple Purity This section will discuss how expulsion as a way of restoring communal purity can be discerned by both the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers. For the Jewish believers, abundant illustrations can be retrieved from the Old Testament and the Qumran texts. For the Gentile believers, the Greco-Roman world abhors incest, and shows no tolerance towards impure acts due to its pollution of the community. Then, Paul’s execration – “hand over XX to Satan” – will be discussed, as a way to restore individual purity (1 Cor 5:5). First, if we look into the OT texts, Paul’s execration in 1 Cor 5:5 may originate from Deut 27: 20. Given his prohibition of the adulterer from remaining in the community, Paul likely remembers the holy law that condemns incestuous sin in Deut 22:30. Immediately following this text, Deut 23:1-3 requests the congregation to forbid the offspring born from immoral sex to enter the assembly. The principle from Mosaic law also becomes an archaetype for other biblical authors to advocate exclusion in terms of moral and ritual impurity. 132 Accordingly, Paul’s exhortation could have resulted from an interweaving of those texts in his mind when he thought about how to deal with the wicked member. Second, chapter two has proved that expulsion is an effective means of restoring purity, and similar examples can be found in the Qumran community (cf. section 2.3.2). Due to the strict rules of the community, one’s acceptance by the community requires him to take the holy vow and curse Belial and idols (1QS II, 5-18). Such a verbal ritual demonstrates that he has cut himself off from sinful life. In other words, no one in the community shall go back to the old life. Simultaneously, he needs to undertake “waters of purity” for purification (1QS III, 9). The ritual symbolizes that his flesh is to be cleansed and he agrees to take “a covenant of the everlasting Community” (1QS III, 12). This spiritual enforcement behind entering the community echoes Paul’s view of the members of the community, who are already washed and sanctified in the Lord and his Spirit (1 Cor 6:11). When defilement occurs, excommunication or

132 Rosner, “Temple and Holiness,” 139, affirms: “Biblical evidence for this evolution includes the ‘entrance-torot’ (Ps. 15;24:3-5; Isa. 23:14-17), the exclusion of ‘rebels’ in Ezekiel 20:38-40 from the future congregation, and the indictment of Israel for admitting into the sanctuary aliens who are ‘uncircumcised in heart’ in Ezekiel 44:6-9. Josephus and Philo build upon this biblical background and ‘take Deuteronomy 23 to exclude not only aliens and defective Jews, but also gravely-offending Jewish sinners’.”

138

4.3 Temple Purity and Excommunication in 1 Corinthians 5

separation takes place consequently. The Damascus Document states that the house of Peleg separated themselves from Israel and left Jerusalem defiled by the sinful generation (cf. CD XX, 22-23). Furthermore, once immoral behavior is committed among members of the community, transgressors are cursed and excluded (cf. 4Q270 7 I, 12-13). Expulsion is the most severe punishment. The expellee would bear the curse of the “Holy Ones of the Most High” (CD XX, 1-8), and be given to Satan for destruction at the end of days (CD VII, 21-VIII, 3).133 Eyal Regev discusses various situations for a member to be expelled from the Qumran community. If a member made a false statement about financial items, created rumors about others, complained avowedly, and responded to others rudely or harshly, he would be prohibited from touching the foods and drinks on the table, which were ritually pure according to the community. If someone committed sexual sins or violated the Sabbath rules, he would be expelled from the community.134 Explicitly, the community resorts to expulsion as an efficient way to remove immoral members and restore the communal purity. The Qumran Community issued a law forbidding incest which is extended to situations beyond what is commanded in the Pentateuch (cf. 11Q19 LXVI, 12-17). For example, according to Qumran law, a man cannot marry his niece for it is a sexual “impurity” (hDn, 4Q524 XV-XXII). This regulation is not mentioned in the Pentateuch. The Hebrew term hDn is used to refer to the result that incestuous behaviors generate “impurity of the kind that threatened the sanctuary.”135 The counterpart of Paul’s eviction of the transgressor can be found in 4Q266 XI and 4Q270 VII. According to the community, the priest proclaims the curse on behalf of God to the expelled one and affirm God as the ultimate judge who curses “those who cross” the ruling boundary (4Q266 11 13-14). Expulsion is to purify the temple community and reinforce their sanctified identity. This also suggests the possibility that Paul’s removal of the sinner is emulative to the Qumran’s method of restoring the temple’s purity. The following analysis shows their embedment in a similar structural pattern, including five aspects (report, penitence, punishment, assembly and result).136

133 Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Function of ‘Excommunication’ in Paul,” HTR 73 (1980): 262; in ibid 263, Collins quotes the text: “Power, might, and great flaming wrath by the hand of all the Angels of Destruction (are) towards those who depart from the way and abhor the Precept (CD 2:5-6).” 134 Regev, “Moral Impurity,” 395-96. 135 Martha Himmelfarb, “Sexual Relations and Purity in the Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” DSD 6 (1999): 24. 136 The diagram is a modified reference to Tobias Hägerland, “Rituals of (Ex-)Communication and Identity: 1 Cor 5 and 4Q266 11; 4Q270 7,” in Identity Formation in the New Testament (ed. Bengt Holmberg and Mikael Winninge; WUNT 227; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 46.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

1 Cor 5:1-11

“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you” (5:1).

“And you are arrogant! Should you not rather have mourned” (5:2).

“so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you? I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing” (5:2-4).

“When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (5:4-5).

“Now I am writing to you not to associate with… Do not even eat with such a one” (5:11).

4Q266 Frag 11; 4Q270 Frag 7

Report

“Everyone who […] shall enter and inform the priest [who is appo]inted ov[er the Many he will] rea[di]ly [recei]ve his judgment” (4Q270 7 I, 15-16).

Penitence

“And in ano[ther place it is written:] “Tear your heart and not your clothes” and it is writt[en]: ‘to return to God in tears and in fasting’” (4Q270 7 I, 18-19; cf. 4Q266 Frag 11 4-5)

Punishment

“In rebellion, he will be expelled from the presence of the Many. And his sentence will be written down by the Inspector’s hand, as an engraving, and his judgment will be complete” (4Q266 11 7-8, 16).

Assembly

“[those who dwell in] the camps will assemble in the third month and will curse whoever tends to the right [or to the left of the] law” (4Q266 11 17-18; 4Q270 7 II, 11-12 ).

Result

“And the one who has been expelled will leave, and the man who eats from his riches, and the one who seeks his peace, (the one who has been expelled) and the one who is agreement with him” (4Q266 11 14-15).

139

140

4.3 Temple Purity and Excommunication in 1 Corinthians 5

We have seen that the Qumran sect viewed itself as the eschatological temple (cf. section 2.3.2), and those transgressors were publicly rebuked and evicted out of the community so as to maintain its purity. The diagram supports the comprehension of Paul’s expulsion of the incestuous member so as to purify the templecommunity. Expulsion demonstrates the possibility that one’s sin is contagious to others in the community. Thus, communal holiness needs to be maintained by moral purity rules.137 It also helps to clarify why Paul places the punishment in a liturgical context, and presents the idea of the temple-community as a whole in its participation in restoring purity. Third, not only is sexual impurity considered as the source of pollution, but also some Hellenistic Jewish material shows disapproval of any kind of sexual intercourse within a sacred precinct or community. For instance, the author of Jubilees reinterprets Genesis 2 and suggests that Eve was brought into Eden forty days later than Adam because the author is reluctant to imagine that sexual intercourse would happen in Eden, “a holy place, equivalent to the sanctuary” (Jub. 3:9-14).138 The priest Levi is warned of the spirit of fornication which will defile the holy place (T. Levi. 9:9-10), and that the temple will be laid waste through the sexual immorality of priests (cf. T. Levi. 14:1-8; 15:1-2).139 Elsewhere, sexual immorality is perceived as a severe defilement of God’s temple (cf. Ps. Sol. 1:82:3).140 Thus, to maintain temple purity is to prohibit any sexual behaviors within the sacred precinct. Fourth, another clue which points towards the restoration of purity is Paul’s insistence on the separation from immoral Christians in table fellowship (1 Cor 5:11). The disassociation from immoral Christians at the meal table is another extended specification concerning purity. Paul has probably entertained the Pharisaic idea of eating the food outside the temple in emulation of priestly purity.141 For Pharisees, table fellowship cannot be shared with Gentiles due to the latter’s moral impurity (cf. section 2.1).142 Given the community as the sacred residence of God (1 Cor 3:16-17), Paul’s restriction of the communal table fellowship (including the Eucharist), and exclusion of immoral members from it is plausible.143 Heightened concern of the purity of table fellowship can also be found in the Qumran community (cf. 1QS V, 14; VI, 2-5).144 The “pure food” (trhjb) can only 137

Ibid., 54-55. Regarding the comment, see Himmelfarb, “Sexual Relations and Purity,” 26 and James C. VanderKam, “Viewed from Another Angle,” JSP 13 (2002): 213. 139 Kugler, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 47. 140 Atkinson, Psalms of Solomon, 16-7. 141 Neusner, Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity, 57. 142 Regev, “Moral Impurity,” 24. See also Harrington, “Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in a State of Ritual Purity,” 42-54. 143 Thiselton, Corinthians, 415; John Paul Heil, The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 98; Jonathan Schwiebert, “Table Fellowship and the Translation of 1 Cor 5:11,” JBL 127 (2008): 164. 144 Gärtner, Temple and the Community, 13 and Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Communal Meals at Qumran,” RQ 10 (1979): 45-56. 138

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

141

be eaten by a member with both ritual and moral purity. If the purification of an individual is not complete, he will not be allowed to join the table fellowship or touch the food (4Q514 I, 4; cf. 4Q274 I, 2). A member who violates the community rules will be forbidden to touch “the pure food of the Many” (~ybr trhj) for a certain period of time (1QS VII, 2-21; VIII, 22-24). If someone mixes ordinary food with “priestly pure food” (yfna trhjb, 1QS V, 13; VIII, 17), he commits the “sin of immorality” (hmz ww[, 4Q513 X, 1-11; XI, 1-3).145 Therefore, purifying the table fellowship could be counted on as an essential means to delimit the boundary of the believing community. Table fellowship in the Greek community is a privilege for members within a household, and exclusion of a member from the meal table means cutting off his or her access to the community. According to Aristotle, “the partnership therefore then comes about in the course of nature for everyday purposes is the ‘house,’ the persons whom Charondas speaks of as ‘meal-tub-fellows’ and the Cretan Epimenides as ‘manger-fellows’” (Pol. 1.1.6). It means that partnership or membership can be evaluated from the table fellowship of a group or a household. When one is denied access to the dinner table, his privilege as a member of the household is forfeited.146 Furthermore, the behaviors in Paul’s list of vices are reminiscent of those in the catalogs found among the cults of Diana at Athens and Antinous at Lanuvium (cf. Anthenian Inscription, Z. 75; Lanuvischen Inscription, Z. II, 26.28). An exclusion of sexual misconduct was strictly prescribed for the meetings of worshipers because the gods had no tolerance towards sexually immoral men and women (cf. Philadephia IV, Z. 34). Men were forbidden to have extramarital relationships with a free woman, a married slave, a young boy or a young girl (cf. Philadelphia II, Z. 25-31). Those who condoned the immoral acts of others would forfeit their priviledge of attending the meetings (cf. Philadelphia II, Z. 14-25). The violation of the divine commandments would incur the curse of the gods and disqualify the violators from the worship of the gods (cf. Philadelphia II, Z. 38). Furthermore, disobedient people with a bad conscience were delivered to the penalties of the gods (Philadephia III, Z. 48-50). For example, an unclean woman due to idolatry was excluded from the house of Dionysios where the worshipers met (Philadelphia IV, Z. 38-41).147 Since incest was regarded as a severe moral pollution, the Greek community would expel the offenders.148 As a result, “the bearers of such impurity were de-

145

Charlesworth, Rule, 164; Harrington, The Purity Texts, 24. Mary Katherine Birge, The Language of Belonging: A Rhetorical Analysis of Kinship Language in First Corinthians (CBET 31; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 143-46. 147 Eva Ebel, Die Attraktivität früher christlicher Gemeinden: Die Gemeinde von Korinth im Spiegel griechisch-römischer Vereine (WUNT 2.178; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 183-191. 148 Regev, “Moral Impurity,” 410, points out: “In both Greece and Qumran, however, exclusion of the offender from the community was a frequent strategy for eliminating the threat posed by moral impurity.” 146

142

4.3 Temple Purity and Excommunication in 1 Corinthians 5

prived of honor or of rights of full citizenship, and thus could not partake in prayer on behalf of the city.”149 The Greek world also held a high view of the communal body, whose border could be infiltrated by profanation of the individual body. The Greek statesman Aeschines condemned Timarchus’ abominable act (around 346 B.C.), which “would defile the pure and noble Athenian ekklesia,” because Timarchus was a male prostitute (Aeschines, Tim. 185).150 This statement makes a point of protecting corporate purity, which concurs with Paul’s statement: “Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch” (1 Cor 5:6-7). The individual affair causes the entire community to suffer for its good or bad result.151 The Roman statute, lex Julia de adulteriis treated incest as a severe adultery and the punishment for it was denoted as stuprum, which stands for deportation to an island.152 The Roman jurist Gaius (A.D. 161) showed his opposition against incest and proclaimed: “It is illegal to marry a father’s or mother’s sister; neither can I marry her who has been quondam (formerly? at one time? ever?) my mother-in-law or stephmother” (Gaius, Institutes I, 63).153 Another Roman jurist Paulus (2nd century A.D.) also disapproved of incest and regarded it as a bad offense worthy of severe sentence: “It has been decided that the penalty for incest, which in case of a man is deportation to an island, shall not be inflicted upon the woman; that is to say when she has not been convicted under the lex Julia concerning adultery” (Paulus, Opinions 2.26).154 The Roman orator Cicero told a story that Sassia, the mother of Cluentius showed an uncontrolled passion for her son-in-law, Melinus, and had a sexual relationship with him. Cicero perceived it as a serious sin and said: “Oh! To think of the woman’s sin, unbelievable, unheard of in all experience save for this single

149 Ibid., 393; in ibid., 393-94, he says: “In Greece, the concept of moral defilement generated in turn specific means of eliminating impurity. Institutional means of coping with the problem included purification rites and legal procedures, such as purifying the entire city, depriving offenders of the rights of full citizenship, and secluding offenders from society.” 150 Fredrik Ivarsson, “A Man Has to Do What a Man Has to Do: Protocols of Masculine Sexual Behavior and 1 Corinthians 5–7,” in Identity Formation in the New Testament (ed. Bengt Holmberg and Mikael Winninge; WUNT 227; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 190. 151 Martin, The Corinthian Body, 101; Timothy L. Carter, Paul and the Power of Sin: Redefining ‘Beyond the Pale’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 26; John G. Lewis, Looking for Life: The Role of “Theo-Ethical Reasoning” in Paul’s Religion (JSNTSup 291; London: T & T Clark International, 2005), 136. 152 Jane F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law & Society (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 127. 153 The English translation is from Thiselton, Corinthians, 385; see also Schnabel, Korinther, 275-76 and Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–6 (AGJU 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 77. 154 The translation is from Clarke, Leadership, 78.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

143

instance” (Cicero, Pro Cluentio 6.15).155 Other Roman literary works showed a similar attitude towards incest and regarded it as an ugly crime (cf. Apuleius, Metamorphoses 10.2-12; Martial, Epigrammata 4.16; Tacitus, Annals 6.19; Dio Cassius, Roman History 58.22).156 In sum, both the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers could have approached the purity issue from the relevant material in their respective world. They may also have comprehended the message through Paul’s previous teachings on temple purity since the temple metaphor was a self-evident expression for them (cf. 1 Cor 3:16). In fact, they would have understood Paul’s concern, agreeing with him that incest is a severe sin forbidden to occur in the community, and that the incestuous sinner should be expelled! As for Paul’s harsh words of “handing over someone to Satan” (paradi,dwmi, 1 Cor 5:5), the Gentile believers may have discerned it as a mythical curse of the one who insulted the deity by his profane behavior and was assigned to the dark power. The contemporary Roman religious culture showed that paradi,dwmi, “hand over,” was a common phrase in cursing tablets.157 Adolf Deißmann suggests that a piece of Greek papyrus with a magic curse illumines the understanding of Paul’s stringent utterance in the contemporary socio-religious context: “Daemon of the dead,… I deliver unto thee (such a man), in order that…” (London Magical Papyrus 46: 334).158 For instance, one cursing tablet from the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth around the late second century A.D. notes: I consign and entrust Karpile Babbia, the weaver of garlands, to the Fates who exact justice, so that they may expose her acts of insolence, and to Hermes of the Underworld, to Earth, to the children of Earth, so that they may overcome and completely destroy her [-?-] and her heart and her mind and the wits of Karpile Babbia, the weaver of garlands. I adjure you and I implore you and I beg of you, Hermes of the Underworld, [to grant] heavy curses. 159

From the first century A.D. to the third century A.D., two cursing tablets have been discovered from the Athenian Agora. Excavated from Well V and VII, one says: “Mighty Betpyt, I hand over to you Eutychian, whom Eutychia bore, that you may chill him and his purposes, and in your dark air also those with him…” (IL 960); the other says: “Mighty Typhon, I hand over you Tyche, whom Sophia

155

Winter, After Paul Left, 47. Clarke, Leadership, 79. 157 Warrior, Roman Religion, 99, notes: “The ‘unintelligibly lettered metal tablets’ were probably defixiones, written spells intended to bind or tie and thus immobilize an individual, and devotions, spells that vowed or consigned the victim to the powers of the underworld.” 158 Adolf Deißmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1927), 302; see also Hägerland, “Rituals,” 51. 159 Nancy Bookidis and Ronald S. Stroud, Demeter and Persephone in Ancient Corinth (AEOC 2; Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1987), 29. 156

144

4.3 Temple Purity and Excommunication in 1 Corinthians 5

bore, that you may do her harm and - - - her - - - , her strength, capacity, sinews, muscles, breath, - - -, all members in your dark air” (IL 1737).160 The above discoveries prove that the language of “hand over XX to” is commonly used in pagan cursing practices, which can help the Gentile believers know how severe the punishment is. Nevertheless, Paul’s execration does not advocate a dichotomistic worldview but reveres the Lord as the final judge, who can redeem the sinner’s soul if the destruction of his flesh can bring repentance (1 Cor 5:5). The phrase “handing over XX to” is also used in the LXX to show either God’s help of his people or his punishment of them. For instance, Moses affirms that the Lord will hand over the enemies of Israel to destruction (Deut 23:14; 28:7). Jeremiah proclaims a punishment of Israel from God, and ‘I shall give you over into the hand of those who are seeking your life’ (paradw,sw se eivj cei/raj tw/n zhtou,ntwn th.n yuch,n sou), yes, into the hand of those whom you dread, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans (Jer 22:25; NETS).

Also, Ezekiel declares a similar judgment upon Israel: And I shall bring you out of the midst of the city, and ‘I shall deliver you into the hands of strangers’ and execute judgments against you (paradw,sw u`m a/j eivj cei/raj avllotri,wn; Ezek 11:9; NETS). ‘I shall also give you into the hands of your lovers’ (paradw,sw se eivj cei/raj auvtw/n kai. kataska,yousin to. pornei/on sou), and they will tear down your shrines, demolish your high places, strip you of your clothing, take away your jewels, and will leave you naked and bare (Ezek 16:39; NETS). And I shall pour out my indignation on you; I shall blow on you with the fire of my wrath, and ‘I shall give you into the hand of brutal men’ (paradw,sw se eivj cei/raj avndrw/n barba,rwn), skilled in destruction (Ezek 21:36; NETS). For thus says the Lord God, Behold, I will give you into the hand of those whom you hate (evgw. paradi,dwmi, se eivj cei/raj), into the hand of those from whom you were alienated (Ezek 23:28; NETS).

The above texts well attest that “handing over XX to” is a severe judgment. Although God hands over his people to their enemies, he will never withdraw his mercy and love from them. In the end of days, he will deliver them from captivity (Jer 39:17).161 Therefore, this punishment is conditional. Even if the Jewish converts had no sense of cursing matters in the Greco-Roman world, they still understood Paul’s words to mean a severe punishment from God upon the incestuous member to be delivered to the satanic force. Since the member committed an evil thing on which he behaved as a follower of Satan, he should suffer for the result. However, the saving opportunity for the sinner affirmed by Paul proves this judgment to be 160 D.R. Jordan, “Defixiones from a Well near the Southwest Corner of the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 54 (1985): 216, 253. 161 John A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 649; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 350.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

145

conditional without complete destruction (1 Cor 5:5).162 This saving chance provided by God’s mercy indicates the purification of one’s soul through a tough trial. The community had the capacity to understand that the expulsion of the sinner and the restriction of table fellowship was to defend the purity of the church as the temple-community and underscore “the household nature of the Corinthians’ kinship with one another.”163 Although Paul avoids using the temple metaphor in this section, the literary and historical analyses indicate that purification of the temple-community is implicitly embedded in Paul’s expulsion of the offender and reiteration of the purity rule. Expulsion is a powerful way of cutting off contact of the incestuous with Christian fellowship and purifying the temple-community so that no one would dare to commit the same sin again.

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6 4.4.1 Introduction The issues of sexual impurity do not conclude in 1 Corinthians 5, but continue to dominate Paul’s concern in the following chapter. In 1 Cor 6:12-20, the apostle confronts another kind of porneia (prostitution) among the Corinthians. Differing from the sole emphasis on corporate purity in 1 Corinthians 3 and 5, Paul emphasizes both individual and corporate purity this time (cf. 1 Cor 6:19-20). Paul’s view of corporeal purity is linked with the conception of the body as the abode of the Spirit. For Paul, prostitution is a brutal means of dismantling a member of Christ’s body and profaning the temple-body; thus, to flee from porneia is a must for Christians. In the next section, I will deal with Paul’s view of one’s body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. Since the body of a believer is the member of Christ’s body, he cannot misuse it for prostitution. Sexual sins as the defilement of the individual body exert a severe impact on the spiritual body of Jesus Christ and destroy the worthiness of one’s body as the limb of Jesus Christ. Most importantly, I will demonstrate how Paul’s mention of “taking off the members of Christ” shows prostitution to be like the mutilation of Christ’s image – a severe sacrilege of the temple in light of literary and historical evidence from both worlds (cf. 1 Cor 6:15). My argument is that since the members of Christ’s body are incompatible with prostitute’s body, prostitution can cause a severe violation against one’s body and results in its loss of the priviledge as the member of Jesus Christ. This loss behaves like the mutilation of Christ’ body and profane the entire community – the temple of the Holy Spirit.

162 Smith, Hand This Man, 171-72. Regarding non-curse interpretation, see also Thiselton, Corinthians, 396; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 154; Fee, Corinthians, 212. 163 Birge, Belonging, 146.

146

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

4.4.2 The Incompatibility of Christ’s Body and a Prostitute’s Body In chapters two and three, we discussed sexual sins as the primary defilement of the temple and its precincts in both the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds. In 1 Corinthians 5, the incest as a sexual crime profaned the temple-community. Consequently, expulsion of the sinner became necessary to purify the community. Before dealing with the prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6, Paul proclaimed that adulterers (po,rnoi) could not inherit the heavenly kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-10). Also, he affirmed the point of abstaining from porneia by noting that one’s body should be used for the Lord rather than for immoral sex (1 Cor 6:13). The topic of Paul’s anthropology and use of sw/ma has been discussed among scholars since the 19th century.164 Since “the body of Christ” is an issue primarily related to 1 Corinthians 12 rather than 1 Corinthians 6, I will not spend a lengthy amount of time probing sw/ma except to summarize major points to shed light on the temple purity in 1 Cor 6:19. Instead of exegeting the entire passage of 1 Corinthians 6, I will focus on 1 Cor 6:15-20, where Paul refers to the body as a member of Christ which cannot be united with a prostitute. As far as the communal body as the temple of the Holy Spirit is concerned, prostitution could cause severe defilement to the entire temple-community, seriously violating the temple purity. However, we need to ask whether the Jewish converts and the gentile converts would have stood beside Paul in resisting the immoral behavior and rebuking the offenders. 4.4.2.1 Porneia: Disgraceful Behavior in the Jewish and the Greco-Roman Worlds The basic meaning of po,rnh is prostitute, “literally, a man/woman for sale.”165 The Greek word pornei,a (porneia) means prostitution, the action of having sex with a harlot, and its Hebrew equivalent is ~ynIWnz (cf. Gen 38:24; Ezek 23:11, 29; Hos 1:2).166 However, Paul may use this term for various sexual sins such as in-

164

Regarding the review and categorization of those interpretative options, see Robert Horton Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology (SNTSMS 29; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 70-75 and Bruce N. Fisk, “ΠOPNEYEΙΝ As Body Violation: The Unique Nature of Sexual Sin in 1 Corinthians 6.18,” NTS 42 (2009): 542-43. See also Schnabel, Korinther, 301-47; Andreas Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief (HNT 9.1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 133-53; Scornaienchi, Sarx, 1-388; Renate Kirchhoff, Die Sünde gegen den eigenen Leib: Studien zu porne und porneia in 1 Kor 6,12 - 20 und dem soziokulturellen Kontext der paulinischen Adressaten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 1198; Michelle V. Lee, Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ (SNTSMS 137; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 103-98; A. Lindemann, “Die Kirche als Leib: Beobachtungen zur demokratischen Ekklesiologie bei Paulus,” ZTK 92 (1995): 140-65. 165 Konstantinos K. Kapparis, “The Terminology of Prostitution in the Ancient Greek World,” in Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean, 800 BCE-200 CE (ed. Allison Glazebrook and Madeleine Mary Henry; Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2011), 223. 166 Gary H. Hall, “hnz,” NIDOTTE 1: 1123-4; S. Erlandsson, “hnz,” TDOT 4: 99-100; H. Ringgren, “hnz,” TDOT 4: 99-106.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

147

cest (1 Cor 5:1), prostitution (1 Cor 6:13), and adultery (1 Cor 7:2; 2 Cor 12:21).167 The Jewish hate prostitution because the divine law commanded that none of the daughters and sons of Israel should commit prostitution (Deut 23:17). If a betrothed woman committed adultery, she would be stoned to death because she profaned her father’s house as a house of harlotry (cf. Deut 22:21). In the reign of King Josiah, he purified the temple by removing the idols, the pagan vessels, and the house of male prostitues (2 Kgs 23:7). Explicitly, prostitution was a disgusting practice which defiled the house of God. In the Second Temple period, fornication related to temple defilement is attested by the author of the Testament of Levi (cf. T. Levi. 9:9-10; 14:1-8; 15:1-2). Also, there is literary evidence from the Qumran community opposing fornication fervently, perceiving it as a severe pollution of the sacred place (cf. CD IV, 21; V, 6-9). Ben Sira satirically states that the unfaithful husband and the “whoring” (po,rnoj) wife are shameless in seeking immoral sex for their insatiated desire (Sir 23:16-17). Also, Ben Sira exhorts men not to entrust their lives to prostitutes, or they will lose their properties (Sir 9:6).168 Philo shows contempt for prostitutes and exhorts people not to participate in any kind of adultery because it is a violation of the holy law. Prostitutes caused jealousy among their lovers, and they deserved to be stoned to death because they “polluted” (aivscu,nomai) the whole state and “corrupted” (diafqei,rw) the beauty of a man’s mind and nature (Spec. 3.51; cf. 1.326). Philo also insisted that the money mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:18 must be rejected by the priest (Spec. 1. 104) because it was “profane” (be,bhloj), having been brought by a harlot to the temple.169 Elsewhere, Philo interpreted the story of Israel’s adultery in Numbers 25 and noted that Balaam suggested to Balak that he abrogate the law against sexual corruption and “prostitution” (pornei,a, Mos. 1.300). In sum, Philo interpreted the biblical tradition of Israel as demonstrating that prostitution was a severe violation of the holy law, defiling both the people and the temple.170 Josephus used the term pornei/on (brothel) for a city or state defiled by the impure behaviors of barbarians (cf. A. J. 19.357; B. J. 4.562), and he disapproved of extramarital sex and homosexuality, advocating that sex should only happen within marriage for the purpose of procreation (cf. C. Ap. 2.199-201). He extended the law of forbidding a prostitute to be the wife of a priest to the sons of Israel (A. J. 4.425; cf. Lev 21:7), and required all the daughters of Israel to keep their

167 Raymond F. Collins, Divorce in the New Testament (GNS 38; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 188. 168 William R. G. Loader, The Pseudepigrapha on Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 386 and Friedrich Hauck and Siegfried Schulz, “po,rnh, ktl.” TDNT 6: 588. 169 Hauck and Schulz, “po,rnh, ktl.” TDNT 6: 588-89; Kirchhoff, Sünde, 29-30. 170 William R. G. Loader, Philo, Josephus, and the Testaments on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in the Writings of Philo and Josephus and in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 218-24.

148

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

virginity before marriage (A. J. 4.428), not just the daughters of priests (Lev 21:9).171 Therefore, the Hellenistic Jews regarded prostitution as abhorrent behavior and exhorted man to avoid it. It would have helped the Jewish converts in the Corinthian church to understand Paul’s harsh attitude towards fornicators so that they could exhort the sinning Christians not to continue in their behavior. What about the gentile converts? Could they accept Paul’s repulsion of the fornication? We have proved that purification and holiness were required for those who visited certain temples in the Greco-Roman world. Sexual intercourse was forbidden within the temple precincts, and adherents of the temple needed to think holy thoughts when they had access to the sanctuary and when they contemplated before the statues (cf. section 3.2). Thus, when Paul conveyed his concern that prostitution defiled the temple-community, the gentile converts should have at least been willing to accept it. Since Paul handled the corporate case by using the plural sw,mata u`mw/n (1 Cor 6:15), one may ask in what social context certain members of the community got involved with prostitution. Actually, prostitution was a “disgraced but tolerated” phenomenon in the Roman world.172 Prostitutes worked at various urban areas and commercial sex was found at lower-class inns, cheap lodgings, harbors, theatres, circuses, amphitheaters, baths, restaurants and other places of public entertainment. In particular, “harbor towns were notorious for prostitution” because those areas were assembled predominantly by young laborers, sailors, travelers, traders and slaves which “encourage[d] the development of commercial prostitution.”173 The notable harbor sites like Corinth, the Piraeus, Pompeii, Puteoli, Ostia, and Delos had economic advantages due to their geographic privileges, but they also had moral disadvantages like ubiquitous prostitution.174 Although Roman policy required “the registration of prostitutes, and even supervision of the practice of prostitution,” it did not contain any regulations of zoning brothels or assigning certain particular areas for prostitution, 175 which meant that brothels could exist anywhere they thrived. A prostitute was easily spotted by “her short brightly coloured dress, elaborate hairstyle and make-up,” and she appeared at entertaining or gathering places of business, forum, religious

171

Loader, Philo, 353. Thomas A. J. McGinn, Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 17. 173 T. Davina Mcclain and Nicholas K. Rauh, “The Brothels at Delos: The Evidence for Prostitution in the Maritime World,” in Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean, 800 BCE–200 CE (ed. Allison Glazebrook and Madeleine Mary Henry; Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2011), 148; see also Thomas A. J. McGinn, The Economy of Prostitution in the Roman World: A Study of Social History & the Brothel (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004), 22-3. 174 Mcclain and Rauh, “Brothels,” 149. 175 McGinn, Prostitution, 142. See also Ray Laurence, Roman Pompeii: Space and Society (London: Routledge, 2006), 80-81. 172

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

149

or social intercourse.176 However, the dress code of a prostitute was not limited and could range from being nude to well-dressed.177 A variety of cheap lodgings or taverns in the Roman world offered commercial sex with food and drink services, such as tabernae (wine shops), thermopoliae and popinae (drinking houses).178 For example, a tavern bill with a list of services includes “the service of a puella (girl)” (cf. CIL 9.2689). Also, brothels could almost be identified as taverns for voracious activities, demonstrated by Horace’s “fornix et uncta popina (brothel and greasy cookhouse)” (Horace, Ep. 1.14.21).179 Seneca holds a satirical tone towards the people in fornix and stabulum due to their insatiated desire of amusing their stomachs and eyes with food and lust (Seneca, De. Vita. Beata 7.3, 11.4).180 Sexual entertainment provided after dinner parties was modestly phrased as convivium in moralizing writings. Seneca proclaimed, “I shall not mention the troops of luckless boys who must put up with other shameful treatment after the banquet is over” (Seneca, Ep. 95.23; cf. Ep. 47.7; Cicero, Phil, 2.104-5; De fin. 2.23; Dio Chrysostomos, Or. 78.4). C. Edwards rightly concludes: The after-dinner entertainers and the beautiful slave boys who serve the food and wine are often represented as providers of sexual gratification. This, also, was a costly pleasure. The vast sums spent on beautiful slave boys are often mentioned by moralists… Sometimes prostitutes are explicitly listed as part of the after-dinner entertainment. Often singers, dancers, and mimes are themselves viewed as sexually available.181

This statement shows that slaves of both sexes were obliged to provide sexual pleasure upon the request of party attendants. Prostitution was also established in private homes. A description from 52 B.C. tells a story about Gemellus, “a messenger for the tribunes,” who sponsored a dinner party at his house where two prostitutes Mucia and Fulvia had sex with him after they were drunk (Val. Max. 9. I. 8).182 At the time of Pompeii, the brothel at a private house was called the sex club, which was usually attended by 176

Laurence, Roman Pompeii: Space and Society, 84. See also McGinn, Prostitution, 248. Kelly Olson, “Matrona and Whore: Clothing and Definition in Roman Antiquity,” in Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World (ed. Christopher A. Faraone and Laura McClure; Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006), 195. 178 McGinn, Prostitution, 16. 179 The translation is from McGinn, Prostitution, 16. Laurence, Roman Pompeii: Space and Society, 81, comments that in the imperial period, Gaius issued the decree to forbid popinae to sell meat and hot water in Rome, and Nero “extended these restrictions to include the sale of all food with the exception of vegetables and pulses” (Dio 60.6.7, 62.14.2; Philo, Leg. 311-12; Suet., Nero 16.2l). 180 McGinn, Prostitution, 17 and Catharine Edwards, The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 188. 181 Edwards, Politics, 188. 182 The Latin text is: “Muciam et Fulviam, cum a patre tum a viro utramque inclitam, et nobilem puerum Saturninum in eo prostituit,” and the translation is from McGinn, Prostitution, 159. 177

150

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

the elite class because visiting it was “viewed as less dishonorable than visiting an actual brothel, something which upper-class Romans did only at risk to their reputation.”183 Whether the Greco-Roman temple was a place of whoring is very questionable. On the one hand, although the Roman poet Juvenal inquired rhetorically, “for in what temple does a woman not prostitute herself?” when he assailed the temple of Isis (Iuv. 9.24), others grumbled that their mistresses observed “a ten-day period of chastity in honor of Isis.”184 The cult of Isis was well-known for its strict requirement of chastity and purification which we have studied before (cf. Section 3.4). Therefore, it’s less likely that the temple was a place of promiscuity.185 On the other hand, the entertaining places surrounding the temple attracted many men and women by hosting public events of social intercourse where prostitution was noted as a phenomenon. However, it was forbidden to happen within the temple and its precincts as evidenced by chapter three. Seneca pronounced: Virtue is something lofty, elevated and regal, invincible and indefatigable; Pleasure is something lowly and servile, feeble and perishable, which has its base and residence in the brothels and drinking houses. Virtue you will meet in the temple, the forum and the senate house, standing before the walls, stained with dust, with callused hands (Beat. 7.3).

According to him, a moral boundary is delimited between the urban and sacred areas in the Roman world.186 As a result, B. Rosner’s argument is weakened by his assertion that prostitution happened within the temple when certain Corinthians members met the temple prostitutes while eating the temple meal. Even Rosner has to admit that he has no idea in which temple at Corinth the promiscuous sin was committed.187 Although we have mentioned the dining rooms in the temple of Asklepios (cf. section 3.5), the dining events there were restricted to normal social activities or thanskgivings to the deity because the temple could not allow any sexual intercourse to violate its purity. Nevertheless, dining in the pagan’s temple coud be

183

McGinn, Prostitution, 163. M. Isidora Forrest, Isis Magic: Cultivating a Relationship with the Goddess of 10,000 Names (St. Paul: Llewellyn Publications, 2001), 139. 185 Forrest, Isis, 139, notes: “Even in the face of these scandals and criticism, in ancient times the Isis religion was known much more for its purity than promiscuity, its morality than immorality.” 186 Andrew Wallance-Hadrill, “Public Honour and Private Shame: The Urban Texture of Pompeii,” in Urban Society in Roman Italy (ed. Tim Cornell and Kathryn Lomas; New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), 39. 187 Brian S. Rosner, “Temple Prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20,” NovT 40 (1998): 349-50. And Rosner argues that the dining setting in 1 Corinthians 6:12-13 would point to the context in 1 Corinthians 10 where prostituting and eating seem to be connected with the temple cult (ibid., 350). However, it was only an assumption. Most plausibly, prostitution happened in an entertaining place nearby the temple after the dinner party in the temple because the temple prohibits any sexual behavior. 184

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

151

equal to idolatry – a spiritual adultery which Paul juxtaposed with prostitution (cf. 1 Cor 10:19-22).188 R. Kirchhoff’s statement is also weak because he suggests that those who committed prostitution were possibly male slaves among the community because they had easy access to prostitutes within the lower-class residences.189 Our evidence has shown that “the brothel becomes a place that belongs to all in common” in the Greek world,190 and prostitution was a normal phenomenon in the Roman world, easily accessed by any class, especially by the people who went to a stabulum for drinking and eating. Moreover, Philodemus reported that homosexuality, adultery, rape, group marriage, and incest were practiced among the Cynics (cf. Stoic. P. Herc. 155, 339). Also, Dio Chrysostomus mentioned that Oedipus, a Cynic member felt shameless toward his incest and justified it with reference to such a relationship among certain domestic animals (Or. 10. 29-30).191 According to Plutarch, marital faithfulness is a request primarily for wives while husbands can have occasional lustful gratification from other women. Wives were exhorted to “avoid jealousy” (cf. Plutarch, Praec. Conj. 140 B, D; 144 C-D).192 The role of wives was defined as bearing children while that of prostitutes as supplying sensual pleasure (Dem. 59.122).193 Thus, on the one hand, men’s debauchery is tolerated to a certain degree in the Roman world, but total sexual freedom is only attested among the Cynics.194 On the other hand, a negative attitude towards prostitution can still be discerned among certain Roman moralists. First, marital sex was approved for the purpose of procreation rather than entertainment (cf. Epictetus, Gnom. 3.22.47; Plutarch, Mor. 142F, 144B, 770A-B). Musonius opposed any kind of non-marital sexual relationship while approving of sex only in marriage (Musonius, Frag. 12). The function of sex was only limited within marital bond for giving birth. Musonius pressed that “lawful” sexuality could only occur in marriage by saying: “Men who are not wantons or immoral are bound to consider sexual pleasures justified only when it occurs in marriage and is indulged in for the purpose of begetting children, since that is lawful, but unjust and unlawful when it is mere pleasure-

188 Schnabel, Korinther, 329. Lindemann, Korintherbrief, 148, points out that the temple prostitution suggested by Rosner is not explicit in the text and it may be a sexual relationship with a prostitute in a normal context. 189 Kirchhoff, Sünde, 100-101. 190 Kapparis, “Terminology,” 227. 191 Schnabel, Korinther, 327. 192 Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 314. See also Bruce W. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Roman Wives; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 20. 193 Schnabel, Korinther, 339. 194 Ibid., 327.

152

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

seeking, even in marriage” (Musonius, Frag. 12).195 The intercourse with a courtesan means “lack of self-restraint” and shameful behavior (Musonius, Frag. 12).196 Avoidance of pre-marital sex was highly recommended because it signified that a man was able to control his desire and showed a measure of maturity (cf. Marcus Aurelius, 1.17; Epictetus, Ench. 33.8; Seneca, Dial. 6.24.3). Epictetus offered a similar opinion in regard to the lawful position of having sex: “In your sex-life preserve purity, as far as you can, before marriage, but if you indulge in sex, take only those privileges which are lawful” (Epictetus, Ench. 33.8).197 In those statements, the same Greek term no,mima,, “lawful,” defines that legitimate sex could only be approved of within the marital bond. Marriage is a concession to man’s sexual desire, which is close to Paul’s point concerning man’s sexual need (1 Cor 7:1-2, 7, 33-34). A cultic expression, “in your sex-life preserve purity” by Epictetus (peri. avfrodi,sia kaqareute,on, Ench. 33.8), reflects a general socio-religious view of the Greco-Roman world that “sex is seen as impure as such, but it is legal to defile oneself in marriage.”198 Second, prostitution was considered a debauchery, signifying one’s lack of self-control and shameless nature (cf. Dio Chrysostome, Or. 4.106-114). The condemnation of visiting brothels is cited by Plutarch from Pisias’ speech: Good lord, what coarseness, what insolence! To think that human beings who acknowledge that they are locked like dogs by their sexual parts to the female should dare to transport the god from his home in the gymnasia and the parks with their wholesome fresh-air life in the sun and confine him in brothels with the vanity-cases and unguents and philters of disorderly females! Decent women cannot, of course, without impropriety either receive or bestow a passionate love (Plutarch, Mor. 752c).

As evident from this speech, prostitution was regarded as a dehumanizing act, which stripped one’s god-like nature. Having sex with a married woman was evil because it offended her husband, caused shame to her family, and transgressed against one’s social network (cf. Dion Chrysostome, Or. 47.24; Epictetus, Gnom. 2.4.2; Musonius, Frag. 12).199 Furthermore, having sex with a man’s slave signified his lawless nature with forfeiture of master-superiority, in addition to being a sin against the gods (cf. Musonius, Frag. 12). Third, brothels were the places of endangering one’s reputation, therefore “a legal arbitrator could not summon litigants to meet in a dishonourable place such as popina or a lupanarium” (cf. Ulpian, Dig. 4.8.21.11).200 Also, the moral resistance against brothels was found among the Roman lawyers who “were pre195 The translation is from Cora E. Lutz, Musonius Rufus: “The Roman Socrates” (YCS 10; 1947), 87. See also Niko Huttunen, Paul and Epictetus on Law: A Comparison (LNTS 405; London: T & T Clark, 2009), 76. 196 Lutz, Musonius, 87. 197 Kirchhoff, Sünde, 95-6 and Lindemann, Korintherbrief, 148-49. 198 Huttunen, Paul, 82. See also ibid., 76-77. 199 Ibid., 96-7. 200 Wallance-Hadrill, “Public Honour and Private Shame: The Urban Texture of Pompeii,” 52.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

153

pared to treat serving girls at inns as tantamount to prostitutes for the purposes of the adultery laws.”201 Fourth, marital fidelity is a good virture to be praised. Cicero insists that one should not kiss a woman with infamy and that a marital promise needs to be performed to accredit one’s fidelity (Cicero, resp. 4.6.3-4.7.4). Fidelity is the key component of justice and “a virtue dictated by the law of nature or by sociability as a fact of human nature” (cf. Cicero, Off. 1.7.23).202 An oath needs to be followed so as to manifest one’s honesty towards his relationship.203 Therefore, the principles regarding marital and extramarital sex were of great importance for Roman society and impacted the structure of home and state. The control of one’s sexual drive was a measure of maturity for a virtuous man.204 Paul’s exhortation of the Corinthians to flee from prostitution should have been well-advocated by the gentile converts who cherished such virtue. Since prostitution was pervasive in Roman Corinth, the historical context of porneia among the Corinthian community might have been incurred by the visitation of certain believers to taverns or restaurants where sexual services were offered. Definitely, Paul needed to fight against the pagan practice justified by those members and make them see that intercourse with a prostitute was an evil against God’s new temple.205 4.4.2.2 The Concept of Soma in 1 Corinthians 6:15-20 No scholar denies that porneia was a violation of one’s body according to Paul, but the debates are about how to undersetand the somatic concept in the text and in what degree the violation offends the body. This subsection will answer the first issue, and the next section the second issue. R. Bultmann and J. A. T. Robinson think of the body as equivalent to the whole personality, and a man as the body. The holistic definition of sw/ma denotes that if a sin is committed against the body, it negatively influences the whole self.206 Some scholars follow suit in their understanding of Paul’s use of soma.207

201

Ibid. Victoria Kahn, “Rhetoric, Rights, and Contract Theory in the Early Modern Period,” in A Companion to Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism (ed. Walter Jost and Wendy Olmsted; BCLC; Malden: Blackwell, 2004), 132. 203 Cicero says: “An oath is an assurance backed by religious sanctity; and a solemn promise given, as before God as one’s witness, is to be sacredly kept. For the question no longer concerns the wrath of the god (for there is no such thing) but the obligations of justice and good faith” (off. 3.29.104). The translation is from ibid. 204 Kahn, “Rhetoric,” 98-9. 205 Schnabel, Korinther, 327. 206 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 1951), 1: 192-95 and John A. T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology (Bristol: Wyndham Hall, 1988), 17. 202

154

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

Porneia as a severe sin against the body is qualitatively different from any other committed sin. E. Käsemann rejects R. Bultmann’s view of soma simply as “person,” and suggests that soma not only “denote[s] the corporeality of human life,” but also extends its communication with creation and God. It identifies humans as relational beings rather than independent beings.208 J. A. Fitzmyer disagrees with R. Bultmann and insists that the meaning of soma in 1 Cor 6:15-16 is not of self or personhood but of the corporeal reality – the physical body.209 R. Gundry critically asserts that the materiality of soma should not be underestimated as Bultmann does, though Bultmann is right to view the theological sense of the body beyond its physicality. He also argues that Robinson is wrong to limit the sense of soma to “the human personality” but Robinson is right to emphasize the physicality of the body for fornication is a violation of soma “even without going beyond its physicality.”210 K. Grobel and G. Fee suggest that Paul uses soma to represent the entire personhood metonymically. Physical aspect is related to spiritual aspect because one’s spirit can be influenced through bodily matters. In the figurative sense, one’s body is part of Christ’s body and its misuse will cause other members of Christ’s body to be impaired.211 B. Fisk and D. Martin affirm that sexual immorality not only invades one’s physical body but also Christ’s body. Christ’s body is sexually penetrated by the immoral force, so this sexual crime is related “respectively to Christ-violation, body-violation and Spirit violation.” 212 E. Schnabel advocates that prostitution defiles the body in a unique way and is destructive for one’s union with Jesus Christ.213 R. Kirchhoff combines the points from E. Käsemann and R. Gundry by noting that on the one hand, the physicality of soma should not be dismissed, yet on the other hand, soma represents one’s personhood which functions relationally in the ongoing redemptive reality by belonging to Jesus Christ as a member of his body.214 A. Lindamann approaches the body from a metaphorical relational perspective and regards prostitution as an offense against the community.215

207 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 110; C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: Hendrickson, 1993), 147 and Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 259. 208 Ernst Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM, 1964), 129. 209 Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 265. 210 Gundry, Soma, 244. 211 K. Grobel, “Soma as ‘Self, Person’ in the Septuagint,” in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (BZNW 21; Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1954), 52-9 and Fee, Corinthians, 258. 212 Fisk, “Violation,” 554-56. See also Martin, The Corinthian Body, 178. 213 Schnabel, Korinther, 345. 214 Kirchhoff, Sünde, 137. 215 Lindemann, Korintherbrief, 147-48.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

155

A. Thiselton furthers the point of E. Käsemann and B. Fisk by emphasizing that the body as the locus of the Holy Spirit’s work bears spiritual embodiment. It can represent “a oneness of physicial relationship” which should not contradict the Lord’s sovereignty over the body and the spirit.216 After examining the scholars’ works, I conclude that the concept of soma is better understood through a holistic and relational perspective. Namely, soma is a term used by Paul for the physical body which manfests reciprocity and unity with the spirit. Soma is not an entity inferior to the soul but united with the soul to represent the whole person. Also, soma as the dominion of the Holy Spirit presents a continuous and transformative connection with the future resurrected body.217 Regarding the holistic and relative perspective of soma and the spirit, we will first examine the evidence from the Jewish world. Philo not only refers to sw/ma as the living body of an animal or a man (Opif. 1.86; Spec. 1.102), but also thinks of the purity of sw/ma to be an ethical condition for a person to make an oath before God (Dec. 1.93). At the same time, it retains the Hellenistic sense in respect to the mortality of the body and the immortality of the mind (Opif. 1.135), or logos as the head of the body-cosmos (Aet. 1.51; Fug. 1.112). Philo regards the body as a vessel to contain the soul, and this vessel suffers the final dissolution (Som. 1.26). But without condemning the body as inferior matter, he even points out that the body is the “sacred temple for a reasonable soul,” and that the soul is the “most God-like looking of images” (Opif. 1.137). A similar idea is reflected in Paul’s temple-body metaphor in 1 Cor 6:19.218 Moreover, Philo also points out that every single person of the nation is like a body and united “in one and the same fellowship, making peace and good order” through the sacrifices offered by the priest (Philo, Spec. 3.131). He expresses a similar view elsewhere: … so too he means that the virtuous one, whether single man or people, will be the head of the human race and all the others like the limbs of a body which draw their life from the forces in the head and at the top (Praem. 125).

The statement demonstrates that Philo uses the body metaphor to convey the bond and interdependence among the nation and the race.219 It also attests to the relational use of the body as the figurative entity of the people. To Josephus, sw/ma has a strong corporeal sense (A. J. 4.291; 5.317), and bears an intimate relation with the soul. Thus, suicide is not accepted because it wrongly forces the soul to separate from the body (B. J. 3.378). In the religious sense, the body and the soul both share in sanctification. Provided that the soul had been

216

Thiselton, Corinthians, 469. Thiselton, Corinthians, 464. 218 Runia, On the Creation, 335; James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 545. 219 Lindemann, “Kirche,” 146; Schweizer, “sw/ma,” TDNT 7: 1051-55. 217

156

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

purified by righteousness, the body would also be washed with water and enter into sanctification (A. J. 18.117).220 In later Judaism, the body and the soul sometimes are viewed aspectively. The rabbis tell a story that when the body and the soul face judgment, each of them cannot be exempted by letting the other pay the debt because both of them participate in sins and should be judged as a corporate entity (b. Sahendrin 91a).221 Therefore, when Paul speaks of the bodies of Christians as the members of the body of Christ, the Jewish converts should be able to accept this corporate view of the spiritual and physical bond between the individual believer and the Lord. Although the Greco-Roman world holds a dualistic view and regards the body as the house or entanglement of the soul (cf. Plato, Phaed. 67 CD; 66 E; Cicero, Tusc. 1.74; 1.118; Off. 1.112), there is good evidence that the body is used as a relational metaphor to describe both nature and state. Manilius (c.a. first century A.D.) notes that the universe is the body unified and revitalized by the work of “a single spirit” which “shapes it [the universe] like a living creature” (Manilius, Astronomica 2.63-68). Elsewhere, he says: This fabric which forms the body of the boundless universe, together with its members composed of nature’s diverse elements, air and fire, earth and level sea, is ruled by the force of a divine spirit; by sacred dispensation the deity brings harmony and governs with hidden purpose, arranging mutual bonds between all parts, so that each may furnish and receive another’s strength and that the whole may stand fast in kinship despite its variety of forms (Manilius, Astronomica 1.247-54).

Evidently, the diverse parts of the body in harmony and unity are figuratively used to portray the formation and operation of the universe.222 The Stoic concept of the universe is a “unified body through the presence of pneuma which united all of the parts” (cf. Plutarch, Comm. not. 1085C-D; Stoic. rep. 1053 F, 1054 A).223 The body as an interdependent entity is mentioned by Plato who asserts that when one member is hurt, the whole body feels painful (cf. Plato, Pol. V 462d). Also, Epictetus metaphorically explains that the duty of a citizen is to “act like the foot or the hand” as the attached unit under the conduct of the nature of the body (Disc. 2.10.4; cf. 1.6.15). 224 Livy gives a story that when the Patrician Menenius faced rebellion from the Plebeians, he told them a fable. In the fable, other parts of the body insult the stomach because it consumes nutrition without toiling at all. When they decided not to give food to the stomach, all parts of the body become very weak and sick. Menenius used the fable to calm the turmoil and exhorted them to give up the rebellion against the Roman senate (cf. Livy, History of Rome 2.32.8-12).225

220

Schweizer, “sw/ma,” TDNT 7: 1056. Cf.Gundry, Soma, 108. 222 Lee, Paul, 51. 223 Ibid., 50. 224 Huttunen, Paul, 45. 225 Lindemann, “Kirche,” 143. 221

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

157

Seneca proclaims that Caesar is “the soul of the state” and the state his body, so when the emperor shows mercy to others, he is actually merciful to himself (Clem. I 5.1). Elsewhere, he points out that the emperor as the head of the empire (the body) can bring health to all parts when he bestows kindness because they “will be moulded into” his likeness (Clem. II 2.1). Also, Epictetus asserts that the whole body is more important than the part which can be used to denote the relationship of the city and the individual (cf. Disc. 2.10.4).226 This helps the gentile believers to see that Christ as the head of the church possesses the authority over their own bodies, which are members of Christ’s body (cf. 1 Cor 6: 15; 11:3). Moreover, chapter three mentioned that the body in the Greco-Roman world has connection with the divine and bears the part of a god (cf. Sections 3.2.13.2.2). The literary evidence shows that the Greco-Roman world owns a rich tradition of using the body as a metaphor to clarify socio-political and religious relationships. Thus, when Paul applied the evocative image of the body and the members to the vertical relationship between the believers and Christ, the gentile converts were likely able to understand that the believers are connected with Jesus Christ who has sovereignty over their bodies. Moreover, Paul himself thinks the current sw/ma in its physicality is not perfect and requires redemption, which is reflected in his idea of resurrection (cf. Rom 8:23). By referring to the transformation from sw/ma yuciko,n to sw/ma pneumatiko,n (1 Cor 15:44), “Paul underscores an essential continuity grounded in the import of the body to human existence and identity in this life and in lifeafter-death.”227 According to Paul’s description in 1 Cor 15:44, sw/ma pneumatiko,j is the new body filled by the Spirit, and it will not undergo decay as the new embodiment for all creation. Here Paul does not hold a pejorative view of the body because he distinguishes between the adjectival terms yuciko,n and pneumatiko,n.228 In the spiritual realm, sw/ma functions as the vessel which can be offered either to sin for death or to the Spirit for life (Rom 7:12-13). It then becomes an important battlefield between the sinful nature and the Spirit (Rom 7: 23-24). Thus, man should subject his body to the sanctified life because sanctification takes place in the body, the soul and the spirit as a whole (1 Thess 5:23).229 The body as the temple of the Spirit also characterizes Paul’s relational view of soma, which is ascribed with a religious sense (cf. section 2.3.2 & 2.3.4). The temple-body is “the total self” paid by Jesus Christ’s atonement and indwelt by

226

Ibid., 144-45. Joel B. Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 173. 228 Schweizer, “sw/ma,” TDNT 7: 1061; Ronald J. Sider, “Pauline Conception of the Resurrection Body in I Corinthians 15:35-54,” NTS 21 (1975): 435; J. Ramsey Michaels, “The Redemption of our Body: The Riddle of Romans 8:19-22,” in Romans and the People of God (ed. Sven Soderlund and N. T. Wright; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 101. 229 Dunn, Theology, 72. 227

158

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

the Spirit, awaiting final transformation. 230 The phrases ta. sw,mata u`mw/n me,lh Cristou/ evstin and to. sw/ma u`mw/n nao,j tou/ evn u`mi/n a`gi,ou pneu,mato,j evstin, clarify the responsibility of a believer in the use of his or her temple-body, which belongs to the larger temple-body founded by Jesus Christ and filled by his Spirit (1 Cor 3: 11; 6:15, 19; see also Eph 2:20-22). Each individual is the temple of the Spirit without being independent of the entire community – the body of Christ, and the indwelling of the Spirit aggregates all the individuals into one templebody (1 Cor 12:13-14). Thus, the temple-body metaphor refers to both a corporate and an individual reality. 231 “The body of Christ” is very significant in Paul’s ecclesiology, as we have proved that the Hellenistic view of the universe and the state may have inspired Paul to coin the phrase “the body of Christ.” “The body of Christ” is mentioned in Paul’s account of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:24) in the context of making the new covenant (Rom 7:4), equivalent to the church “as a unified body” with mutual assignments of many members (Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 12:27; Col 1:24, 2:19)232 concerning communal holiness (1 Cor 6:15) and unity (Eph 4:12).233 In Col 1:18, Christ as the head for the church, represented by the body, conveys that Paul perceives ecclesia as the redeemed community accompanied by the eternal presence of Christ. The reign of Christ is demonstrated by “filling his body with his own spirit” (Eph 1:23, 4:10; cf. Col 2:19).234 Given its meaning of the entire person, sw/ma is both “substantival and functional,” and it is also both “individualistic and social.”235 Sw/ma carries triple duties in its ethical, cultic and spiritual embodiment of its relationship with Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the church. Paul asserts that the Christian body is not independent and self-owned but rather under God’s charge. The body has become the temple of God’s Spirit to be prepared for the final redemption (1 Cor 6:19).236

230

Thiselton, Corinthians, 468. Harold W. Turner, From Temple to Meeting House: The Phenomenology and Theology of Places of Worship (RS 16; Hague: Mouton, 1979), 120, says: “There is no conflict between this application of the temple concept and the wider application to the whole community, for in Hebrew thought an individual exists as a person only when in community. Collectively speaking, the Church is… God’s temple, but the principle which makes her a temple exists in each individual believer and makes him also a temple… All Christians as persons are God’s temple. Where there is a believer, there also is a temple of God. Yet several believers are not several temples, for one Person dwells in and sanctifies them all.” 232 W. Bauer, “sw/ma,” BDAG, 800. See also Lindemann, “Kirche,” 153. 233 Karl Martin Fischer, Tendenz und Absicht des Epheserbriefes (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1973), 49-50. 234 A. Schweizer, “Body,” ABD 1: 771. See also Hanna Roose, “Die Hierarchisierung der Leib-Metapher im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief als ‚Paulinisierung‘: Ein Beitrag zur Rezeption paulinischer Tradition in pseudo-paulinischen Briefen,” NovT 47 (2005): 121. 235 Gundry, Soma, 222. See also Udo Kern, Liebe als Erkenntnis und Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit: „Erinnerung“ an ein stets aktuales Erkenntnispotential (TBT 109; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001), 151. 236 Dunn, Theology, 58. 231

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

159

Therefore, sw/ma is a holistic and relational term to reflect one’s corporeality and spirituality. The church as the body of Christ enjoys a privileged status in the cosmos as soma indicates the most intimate relationship with God. The misuse of the body may cause one’s loss of the privilege as the member of Christ, and it is our obligation to “live a life worthy of Christ also in bodily matters.”237 4.4.2.3 Offense against the Temple-Community and Christ Given the definition that soma conveys a holistic and relational sense, to sin against soma causes the violation of one’s physical body, spirit, community and union with Jesus Christ.238 In the early Jewish tradition, sexual immorality can leave an everlasting stain in the temple and the land of Israel (cf. section 2.3), and Paul’s sensitivity regarding sexual pollution might have been developed from the laws in Deuteronomy regarding sex (cf. Deut 22:13-30).239 Also, Paul already declared that sexual immorality opposes the kingdom of God and forfeits one’s heirship of it (1 Cor 6: 9-10), which prepares for his discussion of prostitution as an evil against the Lord.240 For the Greco-Roman people, sexual intercourse could be a defiling behavior in terms of cultic events and sacred areas (cf. section 3.1). Paul rhetorically throws the question to the Corinthians by asking: “Don’t you know that your bodies are members of Christ?” (ouvk oi;date o[ti ta. sw,mata u`mw/n me,lh Cristou/ evstin, 1 Cor 6:15). This question appeals to the foreknowledge of the audience and aims to obtain the consensus. In particular, it reminds the Corinthians of the fact that their bodies are Christ’s possession, the members of Christ’s body. One’s sexuality should not trespass against the ownership of one’s body, which belongs to Jesus Christ and must not be used in an offensive way against the master.241 When Paul grieves over certain believers’ misuse of their physical bodies, he points out the severity of the problem in two aspects. On the one hand, Paul condemns prostitution and perceives it to be a blatant violation of the Christian ethos; on the other hand, Paul asserts that such a violation not only sins against one’s body (1 Cor 6:18), but also is an offense against Christ’ body (1 Cor 6:15). Could Christ’s body be offended due to a believer’s sexual immorality? The answer is “yes” on a spiritual level but “no” on a physical level.242 On the physical level, porneia has strong negative effect on the individual body via the fleshly

237 Karl Olav Sandnes, Belly and Body in the Pauline Epistles (SNTSMS 120; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2002), 234. See also Roose, “Leib-Metapher,” 132. 238 Fisk, “Violation,” 557. 239 Erik Waaler, The Shema and the First Commandment in First Corinthians: An Intertextual Approach to Paul’s Re-reading of Deuteronomy (WUNT 2.253; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 56-61. 240 Schnabel, Korinther, 328-29. 241 Klaus Berger, Identity and Experience in the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 234-36; Fee, Corinthians, 257-8. 242 Rosner, “Temple Prostitution,” 336-51.

160

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

cleaving to a prostitute (1 Cor 6:15-20).243 K. Berger affirms that the value of the body is related to our identity in Christ, that is, “the body’s worth is determined instead by whether or not Christ lives within it.”244 Paul’s foundation for this ethic is constructed by the “controlling presence within the body of the indwelling Spirit.”245 On the spiritual level, the individual body is part of the community and the member of Christ, so the defilement is contagious to the whole community and contradicts the Lord’s owernship of the body (as we discussed in the example of incestuous sin). The somatic ethics govern both the individual body and the communal body.246 Thus, D. Martin’s argument that Christ’s body is sexually penetrated by “the evil cosmos” is overstated.247 First, Martin does not deal with the meaning of Christ’s body specifically in 1 Cor 6:15, namely, whether it is “Christic embodiment” by the Corinthian community, Christ’s exalted body or his presence within the community through the Spirit.248 Second, the uncertainty of i;dion sw/ma is not clarified by Martin’s point (cf. 1 Cor 6:18). Whether i;dion sw/ma means “his own or Christ’s own” or both remains ambiguous. In Thiselton’s opinion, it is plausible to see that when one’s physical body is violated by prostitution, his spiritual connection with Christ’s body is also jeopardized. There is an extension and transference from physical reality to spiritual reality. 249 Third, Martin totally misses the discussion of a;raj which is the key to see prostitution as a destruction of the wholeness of Christ’s body (cf. 1 Cor 6:15).250 Since Paul later mentioned the union with Christ in one spirit rather than in one body, the resurrected body of Christ is not the victim but his presence and bond spiritually embodied by the community indwelt by his Spirit (1 Cor 6:17). The community is the body of Christ, while the individual body is the limb of Christ, for just as both the community (the larger body) and Christ are unified in one spirit, so is the individual unified with Christ in the same way. Due to the in-

243 Brian S. Rosner, “The Function of Scripture in 1 Corinthians 5,13b and 6,16,” in The Corinthian Correspondence (ed. R. Bieringer; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 517. 244 Berger, Identity, 65, and in ibid he says: “Since the Christian is not autonomous, Christian identity is determined by the way one has become (in one’s body!) a point where experience of Christ and experience of the world intersect.” 245 Berger, Identity, 65. See also Waaler, Shema, 56-61. 246 J. Ayodeji Adewuya, Holiness and Community in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1: Paul’s View of Communal Holiness in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBL 40; New York: Lang, 2001), 20; Thiselton, Corinthians, 469; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 197; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 266. 247 Martin, The Corinthian Body, 178. 248 Yung Suk Kim, Christ’s Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 77. 249 Thiselton, Corinthians, 472-3. 250 B. J. Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and Falling away in the Corinthian Congregation (WUNT 2.115; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 147.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

161

dwelling of the Spirit, one’s physical body is extended spiritually to association with Christ’s body (1 Cor 6:17).251 Although personal sexual sin can have a bad effect on the community, it does not necessarily put the whole community under judgment unless the community tolerates it.We have discussed before that to punish the sinner or sinners is the way of restoring the communal purity. Thus, T. Holland’s argument that the sexual shame of a portion of the members makes the entire community look like a harlot is exaggerated.252 Moreover, Paul never means that the limb of Christ’s body continues to be a member of Christ when it is transferred to the body of the prostitute; he uses this startling imagery precisely to convey his shock. In any case, Paul’s answer to his rhetorical question indicates that this horrible situation is reversible, namely, they need to flee from porneia (1 Cor 6:18-20). When purity is endangered by prostitution, refraining from committing it “in the first place” is the measure to take.253 Since prostitution affects the spiritual body of Jesus Christ, Paul employs an impressive metaphor to describe it as the mutilation of Christ’s body. The participle a;raj and the subjunctive deliberative verb poih,sw together state a fact and a result which could happen in the future if one continues to participate in prostitution (1 Cor 6:15). The verb ai;rw denotes a “taking away by force” or “removing”, by which Paul points out the severity of the sin committed by the Corinthians.254 This immorality can spiritually cause the mutilation of Christ’s body and the destruction of the communal wholeness. Accordingly, this incompatibility between the members of Christ and the members of a prostitute continues to be manifested by Paul’s sexual ethics (cf. 1 Cor 6:16). Having sex with a woman is to become one body with her according to Genesis 2:24. The Greek word kolla,w is equivalent to qbd, which primarily means sexual intimacy or spiritual union (cf. Gen 2:24; Deut 30:20).255 Since sw/ma cannot be separated from man’s spirit while kolla,w can refer to spiritual union, “one body” (e]n sw/ma) shows no conflict with “one spirit” (e]n pneu/ma, 6:17). Paul’s quotation follows “the unanimous wording of the LXX tradition of Genesis 2:24.”256 251

Lindemann, “Kirche,” 157. Tom Holland, “A Case of Mistaken Identity: The Harlot and the Church (1 Corinthians 56),” ATI 1 (2008): 60-61. 253 Jonathan Klawans, “Moral and Ritual Purity,” in The Historical Jesus in Context (ed. AmyJill Levine et al.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 269. 254 William R. G. Loader, The Septuagint, Sexuality, and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 93; BDAG s. v. “ai;rw,” 28. Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (SPS 7; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 247, says: “The idea of the mutilation of the body is to be found in the Hellenistic rhetorical use of the body metaphor. That the mutilated body is the body of ‘Christ’ makes offense all the more egregious.” 255 George J. Brooke, “qbD,” NIDOTTE 1: 910-11; G. Wallis, “qbD,” TDOT 3: 80-1; K. L. Schmidt, “kolla,w,” TDNT 3: 821-23. 256 Thiselton, Corinthians, 467. See also Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 267-8 and Fee, Corinthians, 259-60. 252

162

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

By appealing to Gen 2:24, Paul regards sexual intercourse as “substantial oneness.”257 Having sex with a prostitute results in the believer’s body claimed by the Lord being surrendered to “the evil counterpart of the kingdom of God,”258 his bodily locus operated by the Spirit being possessed by the power of porneia, and the oneness of the communal body being broken by the cut-off limb.259 Thus, Paul’s answer is firmly “No!” (mh. ge,noito, 1 Cor 6:15). Meanwhile, Paul’s style of forming rhetorical questions and providing answers is typical of the Hellenistic diatribe.260 When Paul declares that “he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him” (o` de. kollw,menoj tw/| kuri,w| e]n pneu/ma, evstin, 1 Cor 6:17), he does not divert his logic if someone wonders why Paul employs pneu/ma rather than sw/ma. Paul’s portrait of the believer’s body as the temple of the Spirit has already indicated the indissoluble union of spiritual reality through corporeal operation (cf. 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). The fact of bodily union with Christ addresses the Lord’s sovereignty over one’s spiritual and bodily dimensions. Body and spirit could be Paul’s wordplay to convey two sides of one fact that the life in Christ governs both corporeal and spiritual matters. Every believer is responsible for using his or her body with respect to its redemptive purpose and dignity so that it can confer distinction from profane behavior according to one’s fleshly desires.261 When a Christian has sex with a prostitute, it is not merely a physical merger which affects the believer’s flesh, but rather it is the spiritual member of Christ “entering the body of the prostitute.”262 Such an immoral sexual union causes severe harm to the integrity of Christ’s body and makes the wholeness of the spiritual relationship disintegrated.263 The phrase e]n pneu/ma may allude to the work of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 6:17), who baptizes the believers to be bonded with Jesus Christ and maintains the oneness of unity in a spiritual sense (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13). Also, the current body waits to be transformed into sw/ma pneumatiko,n at the time of resurrection

257

William R. G. Loader, Sexuality and the Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005),

169. 258

Martin, The Corinthian Body, 133. Brendan Byrne, “Sinning against One’s Own Body: Paul’s Understanding of the Sexual Relationship in 1 Corinthians 6:18,” CBQ 45 (1983): 614 and I. Howard Marshall, “‘For the Husband Is Head of the Wife’: Paul’s Use of Head and Body Language,” in The New Testament in Its First Century Setting (ed. Andrew D. Clarke and P. J. Williams; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 167. 260 Roetzel, Conversations, 28; Lindemann, Korintherbrief, 148. 261 Scornaienchi, Sarx, 109. 262 Martin, The Corinthian Body, 176. 263 Gundry, Soma, 69, comments: “In Paul’s own thought, the twin thoughts add up to this: the whole man, body and spirit, belongs to the Lord. Therefore illicit union with a harlot, although it is ‘merely’ physical, as the Corinthians [or “the strong” at Corinth] would say, effects a oneness of physical relationship which contradicts the Lord’s claim over the body. ” 259

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

163

(cf. 1 Cor 15: 44).264 Thus, Paul proclaims firmly: “Shun immorality” (Feu,gete th.n pornei,an, 6:18). Some exegetes convincingly argue that Paul actually responds to the slogans made by the offenders who thought of prostitution as the sin out of the body regardless of negative effect on the individual and the community.265 In a broader context, the offenders want to claim their freedom or “rights” on everything “who think of themselves as spiritual beings” beyond corporeal reality and are immunized from the “inferior” bodily matters (1 Cor 6:12-20; cf. 8:1-11:1).266 We have discussed before that Paul truly understands that sexual immorality brought severe destruction to both the individual and the community in the history of Israel (cf. 1 Cor 10:7-8). Second Temple Judaism also evidences that sexual immorality brought the fate of desolation and exile to the temple and Israel. The abhorring crime absolutely influences the individual and the community, and endangers the privilege of the individual and even the community from having the spiritual union with Jesus Christ and hosting the presence of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Paul extends his exhortation with such a pronouncement: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own” (h' ouvk oi;date o[ti to. sw/ma u`mw/n nao,j tou/ evn u`mi/n a`gi,ou pneu,mato,j evstin ou- e;cete avpo. qeou/( kai. ouvk evste. e`autw/n, 6:19). Ac, L, and Ψ use the plural ta. sw,mata to be compatible with u`mw/n. However, many earlier manuscripts like P46, ‫א‬, A*, B, C, D keep the Greek singular to. sw/ma, which can also express a plural sense.267 Paul explicitly regards each body of the believers to be the temple of the Holy Spirit. Also, given Paul’s emphasis of the whole communal body, to. sw/ma u`mw/n, the misuse of the individual body has a direct impact on the entire community.268 Thus, shunning sexual immorality is a must. The singular to. sw/ma points to two dimensions – corporate and individual. For Paul, the issues of purity in these two spheres are interactive, and one cannot keep itself intact without the other.269

264 Fee, Corinthians, 260, points out: “Paul is probably referring to the work of the Spirit, whereby through the ‘one Spirit’ the believer’s ‘spirit’ has been joined indissolubly with Christ… the way to express that union is in terms of the Spirit.” See also Schnabel, Korinther, 342. 265 Thiselton, Corinthians, 471; Fee, Corinthians, 257; Denny Burk, “Discerning Corinthian Slogans through Paul’s Use of the Diatribe in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20,” BBR 18 (2008): 101; Byrne, “Sinning,” 608-16; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20,” CBQ 40 (1978): 391-96. 266 Thiselton, Corinthians, 473; see also Michael D. Goulder, “Libertines? (1 Cor 5-6),” NovT 41 (1999): 334-48 and Dieter Zeller, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 230-31. 267 Gundry, Soma, 77. 268 Carter, Paul and the Power of Sin: Redefining ‘Beyond the Pale’, 74, 123, says: “The physical body is a symbol of the social body and within the cosmology of the small bounded group, both are threatened by sin as an outside evil that infiltrates the physical and social boundaries… Paul portrays sin as an outside evil threatening to penetrate the boundaries surrounding the good inside of the social body of the church and the physical bodies of its members.” 269 Thiselton, Corinthians, 474; Fee, Corinthians, 263-5; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 269.

164

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

The presence of the Spirit in both communal and individual bodies manifests that God’s free gift has been poured out upon his church. The Spirit is from God (ou- e;cete avpo. qeou/) whose divine nature defines his dwelling place, and the Church is not merely an earthly assembling, but waiting for consummate glorification as a transcendent house of God (cf. 1 Cor 6:20; 15:43; Eph 5:27; Phi 3:21; Col 3:4). Philo expressed a similar idea by imagining the soul as a house of God (cf. Somn. 1.23, 1.149). Furthermore, the presence of the Spirit sanctifies both communal and individual bodies. As a result, the body of either community or individual is sacred and no longer self-determined. The individual has no right to take his or her body for any purpose incompatible with God’s purpose (ouvk evste. e`autw/n, 6:19). This temple-body is under the charge of the divine. 270 The scene behind 1 Cor 6:20 portrays an image of a slave who is “bought” (hvgora,sqhte) to serve his master. The master pays the “price” (timh/j) for the slave and the slave becomes the property of the master. Whatever the slave does is to satisfy and “glorify” (doxa,sate) his master. This imagery conveys the same meaning as the temple-body metaphor that Christians are God’s property and they need to please him who has paid the price for them.271 In Paul’s opinion, the proper use of the body matters not only for the purity of the individual, but also for the purity of the community. The body is spiritually united with Jesus Christ. Although it is endowed by purification, justification and sanctification in Jesus Christ, it is not immune to physical matters, and the things done to the body will be brought before future judgment.272 Paul’s holistic and relational view of soma stands against the dichotomistic view of the offenders. Thus, to understand Paul’s ethics of the body, it is necessary to see the interdependence between the part (individual body) and the whole (body of Christ). In particular, porneia as a sexual immorality is able to bring pollution to the temple in the Jewish and the Greco-Roman worlds, which we have discussed in chapter two and three. Paul was astonished to portray it as a mutilation of Christ’s body (1 Cor 6:15). Clearly, the imagery of mutilation conveys the radical incompatibility of Christ’s members with the prostitute’s, and thus the dismembered limb will cease to function as part of the existing Christ-body. Since the metaphor of the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit is immediately emphasized by Paul after his grief over the mutilation of Christ’s body, the Corinthians should have inferred that such behavior was related to cultic pollution. In other words, sexual immorality is a severe desecration of the community as the temple and Christ’s body.273 B. J. Oropeza suggests that image-mutilation means expulsion from Christ’s body and apostasy from Christian faith, however he ignores the interplay between

270

Thiselton, Corinthians, 475; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 269. John Byron, Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity: A TraditioHistorical and Exegetical Examination (WUNT 2.162; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 240-42. 272 Will Deming, “The Unity of 1 Corinthians 5-6,” JBL 115 (1996): 312. 273 Loader, Sexuality, 93. 271

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

165

1 Cor 6:15 and 19 in respect to the body as the limb of Christ and as the temple of the Spirit governed by the same rhetorical title “Don’t you know…?”274 B. Fisk argues that the brutal image is “more rhetorical than theological, designed to show the frightening incongruity of a Christian who makes use of a prostitute.”275 However, this argument is a weak interpretation which neglects the fact that the mutilation of a deity’s image was equivalent to profaning the temple in GrecoRoman culture. In other words, when Paul employed image-mutilation, would the Jews and the Gentiles have understood the consequence to be the sacrilege of the temple? In the next section, I will probe the issue from both worlds, affirming that the mutilation of the divine image is related to the temple’s sacrilege. Therefore, the present body is encircled in a life sphere redeemed by Jesus Christ’s atonement and waiting for a resurrection and transformation (1 Cor 6:1920). In a broader perspective, the deeds done to one’s physical body will be brought before the judgment of God (2 Cor 5:10), because his body can affect three aspects – the ethical, spiritual and eschatological – during the transition from the old world to the new world. 4.4.3 Mutilation of the Deity’s Image: Sacrilege of the Temple This section will talk about image-mutilation as sacrilege of the temple in the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds. The study aims to support the understanding that Paul’s employment of image-mutilation conveys his concern of temple purity endangered by the sexual union of the believer and the prostitute, which would have been understood by both the Jewish and the gentile converts. 4.4.3.1 Image-Mutilation as Sacrilege in the Jewish World Although there was no divine image in the Temple in Jerusalem, Israel knew that they needed to bear the spiritual image of God through their beliefs and behavior.276 A community unlike their God would desecrate their sacrifices and temple because of their failure to reflect God’s glory. When the focus on the Temple in Jerusalem shifted to the temple-community, the importance of purity for this new, spiritualized temple was not difficult to understand; in their Jewish understanding, a temple could never exist without purity.277 In the Old Testament world, a statue or image of a deity was the deity’s earthly form and could be entreated by worshipers invoking the god’s name. It was widely believed that the god would go into his image or statue to communicate with his believers, so that the image of the deity was deemed holy.278 Even the

274

Oropeza, Paul, 147. Fisk, “Violation,” 554. 276 Klawans, Purity, 58. 277 William R. G. Loader, The Septuagint, Sexuality, and the New Testament: Case Studies on the Impact of the LXX in Philo and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 93. 278 David J. A. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” TynBul 19 (1968): 9-32. 275

166

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

physical shape of a temple priest was regarded as inviolable and pure. The defection or deformity of his body was an issue related to temple holiness. Priests with a bodily blemish or any bodily damage were not allowed to enter the sanctuary of God because it would profane the sanctuary (Lev 21:16-23).279 The destruction or mutilation of a god’s image meant the overcoming of his power and sovereignty. A biblical story described Yahweh’s mutilation of the image of Dagon, throwing his limbs to the temple’s threshold, and satirized that the god of the Philistines was severely humiliated by Yahweh, so much so that “to this day” the Philistines do not step on the threshold (cf. 1 Sam 5: 1-5).280 The threshold usually marked the distinction between the sacred and profane. Since the image of Dagon touched it, the Philistines avoided stepping on it so that their feet would not defile it.281 Breaking off a god’s image meant that his power was dismantled. Gideon’s cutting off of the image of Baal gave him the name “Jerub-Baal” which proved “Baal’s impotence” (Judg 6:30-32).282 At the same time, Gideon’s cutting off of Baal’s image was also the profanation of Baal because “to desecrate a sacred object is to desecrate the one in whose name that object exists.”283 Another example linking image to defilement is derived from King Josiah’s cleansing of Jerusalem with the destruction of the images and statues of pagan deities (cf. 2 Kgs 23:1-14). Josiah’s radical destruction of several cults is referred to as the defilement of the places of those gods, especially as after the Hebrew phrase %l,M,(h; aMeÞji (the king defiled) follows a series of specific desecrating behaviors, including breaking the images (the stand statues/pillars), as well as cutting off Asherim and spreading human bones on the sites (1 Kgs 23:13-14). The mutilation of the divine images is seen as part of the desecration of the deity and his temple.284 In the Hellenistic period, Philo interprets Genesis 1:26 by replacing the term “image” (eivkw,n) with a;galma, “a statue of a god.”285 Philo also suggests that mind dwelt in body is analogous to “an image in its shrine” (Mos. 1:27). Philo’s depiction of the image of God is explicitly influenced by the pagan idea that a statue of a deity (image) is housed by a temple (man).286 Also, Philo notes that the priests bear the “perfection of body and soul” formed after the image of God, and only they can minister the Jerusalem temple

279

Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 292; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2: 1821-25. 280 David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 206; P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel (AB 8; Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), 121-22. 281 James E. Smith, 1 & 2 Samuel (Joplin: College Press, 2000), 94. 282 K. Lawson Younger, Judges and Ruth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 178. 283 Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 269. 284 W. Boyd Barrick, The King and the Cemeteries: Toward a New Understanding of Josiah’s Reform (VTSup 88; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 211-12. 285 Kooten, Anthropology, 201. 286 Ibid., 201-2.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

167

service (Philo, Spec. 1.80-81).287 When the high priest entered the sanctuary for sacrifice after his purification, he was, in actuality, inclining himself to the divine position. There are, as is evident, two temples of God: one of them this universe, in which there is also as High Priest, His First-born, the divine Logos, and the other the rational soul, whose Priest is the real man (Philo, Somn. 1.215).288

In other words, he is the walking temple of God and Israel (Philo, Spec. 1.114116) and a “small cosmos” of the divine (bracu.j ko,smoj, Philo, Moses 2.135). Thus, his bodily image should not bear any deformity and shame for the sake of purity and holiness. Therefore, given Paul’s use of image-mutilation regarding temple purity, the Hellenistic Jewish audience should have understood the interplay between the virtual disfigurement of Christ’s body and the temple sacrilege. 4.4.3.2 Image-Mutilation as Sacrilege in the Greco-Roman world In the Greco-Roman world, the statues usually stood as the earthly and visible embodiment of the gods. Far beyond a decoration, an image or a statue “was a symbol and ultimately a possessor of power.”289 Usually images portrayed the outstanding merits of gods and emperors, and those images were honored by ordinary people who revered them to be powerful and sacred.290 For example, the statue of Isis would receive a ritual bath regularly. It was also believed to manifest special signs and motions at times (cf. section 3.3).291 In the Greek world, the mutilation of divine images conveyed great contempt for both the gods and the existent institution established by the commonwealth, understood to be against the benefit of the entire community.292 For the Greeks, a malicious attack on a deity’s image was considered very impious. A humble

287

Klawans, Purity, 122. See also Michael E. Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT 2.2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 270. 288 The translation is from Kooten, Anthropology, 202. 289 Richard M. Rothaus, “Pagan Cult and Late Antique Society in the Corinthia” (Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1993), 97. 290 Zanker, The Power of Images, 9. Richard Gordon, “The Mysteries of Mithras,” in Image and Mystery in the Roman World: Papers Given in Memory of Jocelyn Toynbee (ed. M. Beard J. Huskinson, J. Reynolds; Gloucester: Sutton, 1988), 60, mentions the power of the image with the statue of Mithras as an illustration: “Mithras’ act of killing the bull is the most concrete aspect of his ‘invincibility.’ The act itself evokes superhuman strength. Iconographically, it is linked to a series of heroic acts of animal domination stretching back into the Archaic period.” MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire, 59-60, points out “three Greek pagans attribute miracles to statues of men who lived in their own, the second century.” 291 Merkelbach, Isis Regina, 284 and Dunand, Culte d’Isis, 200-1. 292 Parker, Miasma, 168-169, 190.

168

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

Greek citizen would not have violated the sanctity embedded in social relations by defiling the gods.293 The Romans normally showed the desire to approach the images, offer prayer requests to them and touch them. In some rituals, the statue was treated as though it were a living person, as is clear from clothingor washing-ceremonies, and the custom at Rome of announcing to Jupiter the names of people entering the Capitoline temple, and telling the god the time of day… We should rather put it that certain divine statues, namely cult-statues in temples, which had a privileged role in ritual communication, might act as mediators between human and gods, both by way of stories about their creation or fashioning, and through the responses of people who beheld them.294

Furthermore, since Roman emperors were also revered as gods and their statues were placed in the temples with other deities, attacking an imperial image was equivalent to attacking the “emperor’s person.”295 During the time of Julius Caesar, the number of statutes went up rapidly because the Romans believed in the power of the images and worshiped them. In the age of Augustus, the prosperity of the rituals represented by the visual images was “to project onto future generations the impression that they lived in the best of all possible worlds in the best of all times.”296 The thought that the gods could even be accessed by touching their images or offering special entreaties before their statues was widely held in the second and third century A.D., that is, people believed that the images or statues could actually work powerfully and miraculously.297 [They] thought first to touch the gods through images, because that was where the gods lived; or at least, to images they could be brought by entreaty, there to listen and to act. Whether or not they fitted exactly, whether they looked like their portraits in stone or wood, they were to be found inside… Moreover, three Greek pagans attribute miracles to statues of men who lived in their own, the second, century. One statue fell over and killed a man and then, being punished by drowning, got itself fetched up again from the sea. A second provided cures to suppliants. A third and fourth respectively provided cures and oracles. And a statue of Antinous in the city renamed for him wrought unspecified miracles, as even a Christian could concede. So ready were people to attribute powers to images even of mortals, so ready to see the divine even in their fellows… pious kisses and touches perhaps wear away parts of statues; on Antinous, his miracles after his death can only mean through his statue (Orig., C. Cels. 3.36).298

In regards to the supernatural moving and winking of cultic statues, more stories can be found in Christian and non-Christian works from the first century to third

293

Zaidman and Schmitt Pantel, Religion, 11-12. See also Parker, Miasma, 186. Rüpke, Religion, 73-74. 295 Varner, Mutilation and Transformation, 3; Price, Rituals, 203, says: “Images were of course recognized as substitutes, and panegyrist might contrast the greeting of the emperor in person and in his image, but in general little explicit attention was given to this issue.” 296 Zanker, The Power of Images, 3-4. 297 MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire, 59. 298 Ibid., 60. 294

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

169

century A.D. (cf. Pausanias, Geogr. 4.32.2; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 31.95; Athenagoras, Leg. 26; Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 5.34.6).299 Paul’s preaching to the Athenians also demonstrates the common idea among Athenians that the artificial image or statue of a god is his likeness and should be worshiped (cf. Acts 17: 23, 29). Luke refers to the idea that the image of Artemis was mobile and fell from heaven (Acts 19:35). It entitled the city Ephesus to be the watcher of the deity. 300 The missionaries were accused of sacrilege of the temple since they disturbed the business of the sellers of shrines and statues.301 This denotes that the image of god was divinized mystically by “popular superstition.”302 Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215) notes ironically that those pagan statues must not possess any power for they were powerless to prevent defilement from birds or damage from natural disasters. This argument to dispel “the idea of empowered statues” implies, however, that “for many this belief was entrenched.” 303 Another account elaborating the power of idolatrous images is found from Felix Marcus Minucius (A.D. 200-270): These unclean spirits, or demons, as revealed to Magi and philosophers, find a lurking place in statues and consecrated images, and by their breath exercise influence as of a present god: at one while they inspire prophets, at another haunt temples, at another animate the fibers of entrails, govern the flights of birds, determine lots, and are the authors of oracles mostly wrapped in falsehood (Felix Minucius, Octavius 27.1).304

Also the Greek philosopher Porphyry advocated: “[T]he temple must, through wisdom, be adorned with a living statue, i.e. with the mind, because God has erected himself in him as his image, and thus has adorned him” (Marc. 11).305 Therefore, cultic statues enjoyed people’s veneration and was ascribed certain mysterious power in the Greco-Roman world. Contrary to the reverence of images is “the mutilation and ritual destruction of statues.”306 According to the inhabitants in the Greek world, mutilation of divine images was considered severely impious behavior which threatened or even damaged the sound relationship between the gods and men.307 Statue defacement or desecration in Thucydides was

299 Ibid., 175 and Marvin W. Meyer, The Ancient Mysteries: Sacred Texts of the Mystery Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean World (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 133. 300 Fritz Graf, “Artemis,” BNP 2: 65. 301 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2: 1227; Peter Scherrer, “Ephesus,” BNP 4: 1025. 302 Walter Burkert, “The Meaning and Function of the Temple in Classical Greece,” in Temple in Society (ed. Michael V. Fox; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1988), 32. 303 Richard M. Rothaus, Corinth, the First City of Greece: An Urban History of Late Antique Cult and Religion (RGRW 139; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 106. 304 The translation is from Rothaus, “Pagan Cult”, 108. 305 The translation is from Kooten, Anthropology, 109. 306 Rothaus, “Pagan Cult”, 106. 307 Parker, Miasma, 169.

170

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

“the accusation made against Alkibiades (Thucydides, Mutil. Hermae. 6.2728).”308 In 415 B.C., the mutilation of divine images at Athens by an anonymous person one night stimulated the fury and fear of the Athenians. Though Thucydides regards this activity as intended to stimulate an uprising, he comments that the mutilation of Hermae was an act of the profanation of mysteries (Thucydides, Mutil. Hermae. 4.28). In Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica 33 (second century A.D.), he presents the simple comment: “To destroy statues of the gods, to throw out of a house the statues that are inside, to raze a temple, or to commit any sacrilegious act in a temple is inauspicious for all men and portends great crises. For men who are in great distress also abandon their reverence towards gods.”309 Plutarch, moreover, writes that the victim responsible for the defacement was thought to make the desecration of mysteries (Plutarch, Alc. 21.1).310 In late antiquity such ritual destruction strongly indicated, in addition to desecration, the removal of the power of the deity.311 Some Christian writers in the second and third century A.D. asserted the demonic powers behind the pagan images, like Athenagoras who perceived the images were equivalent to the gods for pagans, and Cyprian of Carthage who spoke of the demonic power residing in the pagan statues. 312 Eusebius asserted that the invisible enemies (demons) could work through the artifacts and enslave the whole pagan community (cf. Hist. eccl. 2.13.3).313

308

Rothaus, Corinth, the First City, 111. The translation is from Ramsay MacMullen and Eugene Lane, Paganism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 15. 310 Parker, Miasma, 169. Plutarch states: “He was held to be a foe to popular government, and an oligarch, but what most made him suspected of the mutilation of the Hermae, was the tall Hermes which stood near his house, a dedication of the Aegeid tribe” (Alc. 21.1). 311 Rothaus, Corinth, the First City, 111; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History (Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2004), 212, notes that Julian removed the statue of Christ at Caesarea Philippi and replaced it with the emperor’s image. 312 In Athenagoras’ Legatio 18, 23, 29, it says: “Now some say that these are only images, but that there are gods for whose sake the images exist. They say that their processions to the images and their sacrifices are offered up to the gods and celebrated for them because there is no way other than this to approach them. As evidence that this is so they refer to the activities associated with certain statues. With this in mind let us investigate the power of the divine names…rather we have made a careful examination both as to the reason why you think that the images possess power and who they are who usurp the names of the images and bring these things about…by invading their thoughts [the demons] flood them with illusory images which seem to come from the idols and statues;” Rothaus, Corinth, the First City, 106-07, quotes a saying from Cyprian: “Cyprian (de idol, vanitate 7) asked: ‘when we challenge daimones in statues, don’t they confess and leave?’” See also MacMullen and Lane, Paganism and Christianity, 183, 190, 194. 313 H.A. Drake, In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ Tricennial Orations (Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1976), 95. See also Maggie J. Duncan-Flowers et al., Art and Holy Powers in the Early Christian House (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989), 3. 309

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

171

Beyond that, imperial statues served as asylums for refugees, and it was backed up by the law of the Roman government. Refugees usually resorted to the asylum of statues by fleeing into their temples. For example, Pliny the Younger recounts that a slave, whose case was presented before him when he was the governor of Bithynia-Pontus, had received security from his chasers “by suppliancy at statues of Trajan” (cf. Ep. 10.74).314 Also, an imperial image was believed to portend the emperor’s fortune. On the day of the battle of Pharsalus at which Caesar defeated Pompey a palm tree grew in the temple of Victory at Tralles (the palm being a symbol of victory) and the goddess herself turned towards the statue of Caesar standing beside her; more dramatically, from one of the marble statues of Antony in Italy there oozed sweat, portending his fall.315

The above descriptions illustrate well the significance of imperial images, and signify that any minor alteration or disrespect of imperial images was perceived very dangerous. It is remarkable that cultic defacement by man can mean contempt toward the deity or dismantlement of the power of the deity. In late antiquity, many mutilated cultic images proved to be wrought by Christians. Christians showed their contempt against pagan religions and destroyed their statues to manifest the dominance of the monotheistic worship upheld by churches. Although numerous archeological discoveries safely dated to A.D. 400-600 show the defacement of pagan images by Christians as part of the iconoclastic movement, a small amount of literary sources report the mutilation of pagan images by Christians before the third century.316 The difficulty lies in the dating of those defaced sculptures. De Grazia prefers to date some mutilated statues later than Frank Johnson,317 and Richard Rothaus is also hesitant to affirm the earlier date of certain disfigured images.318 Neverthe-

314

Price, Rituals, 192; he gives two more examples that a statement made by a slave-seller assured the buyer that the slave “was neither a gambler, nor a thief, nor had he ever fled to (Caesar’s) statue (Ulpian in Digest XXI I, 19),” and “an anecdote in Philostratus’ life for the ‘holy man’ Apollonius tells of a governor at Aspendus in Pamphylia who was mobbed by a crowd irate at a corn shortage and who took refuge at the imperial statues (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. I 15)” (ibid). 315 Price, Rituals, 195 with reference to Caesar, BC III 105; Plutarch, Caesar 47; Dio XLI 61, 4; Plutarch, Antony 60, 2; Suetonius, Vesp. 5, 6; Plutarch, Otho 4. 316 For the archeological evidences from late antique society, see Rothaus, “Pagan Cult,” 97129. 317 For example, one female head found in “the great drain of the Peribolos of Apollo” bears two different dates. Franklin Plotinus Johnson and Harold North Fowler, Sculpture, 1896-1923 (9; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931), 87. says that it belongs to the first century A.D., but Catherine E. De Grazia, “Excavations of the American School of Classical Studies at Corinth: the Roman Portrait Sculpture” (Ph.D.diss., Columbia University, 1973), 238, puts it as late as the first quarter of the sixth century A.D. 318 Richard M. Rothaus, Corinth, the First City of Greece: An Urban History of Late Antique Cult and Religion (RGRW 139; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 120, says: “I think we are usually safe in assigning a late antique context to clearly mutilated statuary, but I am not certain.”

172

4.4 Temple Purity and Image-Mutilation in 1 Corinthians 6

less, some pieces of the mutilated images could be dated as early as the second century A. D.319 An inscription established at Ephesus by the church in the third century A. D. proclaims: “Destroying the delusive image of the demon Artemis, Demeas has erected this symbol of Truth, the God that drives away idols, and the Cross of priests, deathless and victorious sign of Christ” (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 2.4.4).320 It attests that destroying the image of the deity means driving away his power and causing his sovereignty to fall down. Moreover, during the excavations of Corinth, a statue of Apollo with his face thoroughly removed is dated to the first century A.D;321 the disfigured statue of a “man in Toga” (a pagan priestly figure) bearing a cross in its upper arm can be dated to second century A.D.322 Another interesting discovery is a male head inscribed with the cross which indicates the iconoclastic behavior from Christians, and it has been dated to the third century A.D.323 A colossal deity head possibly close to the same time was also found mutilated “with a chisel or similar device.”324 One additional point is that because the damage, pollution or displacement of imperial images with deliberation was considered sacrilegious, those accused of such acts were punished severely. For instance, a man was thought to dishonor Augustus by moving the statue of Augustus from a public place (SEG ix 8 ii). An imperial biography in the third century recounts that several people were executed because they peed near imperial statues, and even those who replaced the garlands from statues with the new ones were to be severely punished (Historia Augusta, Caracalla 5.7). Legal sources from the late empire show that immense care was taken by officials about moving imperial statues in order to repair a building,while deliberate alteration was a very risky busi-

319 Rothaus, Corinth, the First City, 119-20, says: “Several pieces of sculpture from Corinth appear to have been defaced. One of these pieces (S2654), a sculpted bust, has had its face sliced off, perhaps deliberately, and was placed in a well. This piece, however, was found in a second century well deposit. I include this as a warning. Without knowing the approximate date for the damage to this sculpted bust, one might easily assume that the mutilation occurred at the hands of the Christians. This could not be, however, in the second century. The piece may indeed have undergone some sort of ritual defacement, but at this early date almost certainly not at the hands of Christians.” 320 Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire: (A.D. 100-400) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 18. 321 Johnson and Fowler, Sculpture, 1896-1923, 27-28. See also De Grazia, “Excavations”, 130-31. 322 De Grazia, “Excavations”, 261-62. See also Rothaus, Corinth, the First City, 121. 323 Johnson and Fowler, Sculpture, 1896-1923, 91. See also Rothaus, Corinth, the First City of Greece: An Urban History of Late Antique Cult and Religion, 121. 324 Rothaus, Corinth, the First City, 120. See also Johnson and Fowler, Sculpture, 1896-1923, 28.

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

173

ness,and the deliberate damage caused by Thecla to the image on Alexander’s crown was classed as ‘sacrilege’. Stories circulated which illuminate the widespread recognition of the dangers.325

The above citation explicitly reflects that any behavior resulting in damage or disrespect of the images would not have been taken lightly, but regarded as a sacrilegious crime. In sum, the image was considered divine, embodying the deity or the emperor for the people in the Greco-Roman world. If the image was attacked or mutilated, it would portend the removal of the deity’s power or the sacrilege of the temple. 4.4.3.3 Conclusion Given Paul’s liken of prostitution to bodily cut, the aforementioned sociohistorical evidence can shed light on it. First, image-mutilation meant the removal of the deity’s power and the disavowal of his sovereignty. Second, imagemutilation caused temple sacrilege. As we have discussed before (cf. section 4.4.2.3), when Paul used the term ai;rw to denote that a member of Christ was cut off because of his cleaving to a prostitute (1 Cor 6:15), it means the disfigurement of Christ’s spiritual body – the community. In other words, the community is the embodiment of Christ and the believers are spiritualized as his bodily members. When one member was blemished by porneia, it impairs the whole Christ’s body. Attack of the deity’s body is identical to attack of the deity himself and pollution of of his temple in the common sense of the Greco-Roman people. Since Paul perceived prostitution as a mutilating behavior, his audience would grasp that the sovereignty of the Lord over one’s body is revoked and the defilement of the temple-community is caused by it (1 Cor 6:18). Also, this evocative violent picture should have been sufficient to awake the members who advocated for prostitution and justified their freedom of rights. They would have understood prostitution to be sacrilegious if it was believed to cause the mutilation of the image of Christ. In addition, Paul pointed out before that the resurrection power of God could be withdrawn from a believer if he or she remained in such horrible defilement without repentance (1 Cor 6:9). Remarkably, Paul associated temple purity with corporeal holiness. The physical body is connected with Christ in a spiritual dimension, and sexual misconduct is a violation of Christ’ body and endangers the purity of the temple-community. To refrain from immoral sexual practices is to acknowledge the Lord’s sovereignty over one’s body and to maintain the purity of the new temple.

325

Price, Rituals, 194-95 with reference to CJ VIII 11, 16 and Tacitus, Annals I 74.

174

4.5 Temple Purity vs. Intermarriage and Divorce in 1 Corinthians 7

4.5 Temple Purity vs. Intermarriage and Divorce in 1 Corinthians 7 4.5.1 Introduction After instructing the Corinthians to flee from porneia and glorify God with their temple-body, Paul turns to the issue of intermarriage. Since this issue is not as severe as division, incest or prostitution, one may regard it as independent from the previous sections. However, because Paul continues to use pornei,a in 1 Cor 7:2 and warns the people regarding premarital and marital sexual purity, it would be better to see 1 Cor 6:12-7:16 as the wider backdrop for Paul to answer the issues of moral/immoral sex in marriage and singleness. The caution against porneia in 1 Cor 7:2 also echoes the warning against porneia in 1 Cor 6:18 when Paul repeatedly addresses sex issues in association with temple purity and the community.326 The issues surrounding 1 Cor 7:1-16 appear too many to be exhausted, and the interpretation of 1 Cor 7:10-11 is particularly “the object of much discussion.”327 This study does not aim to conduct a thorough exegesis of 1 Cor 7:1-16, but rather to uncover the subtle sense behind Paul’s view of intermarriage and communal purity. First, why do certain Corinthians perceive the unbelieving partners as impure? Second, does Paul accept their accusation against the unbelieving partners and their suggestion of divorce? If not, what is Paul’s argument? Third, does this uneasiness come from a desire to guard the temple-community from the impurity of the unbelieving partners which might sneak into the community-body through marital union? Our focus is about Paul’s exhortation of the believers to maintain the marital bond with their unbelieving partners in 1 Cor 7:12-14. In these verses, Paul disapproved of the decision of believing husbands or believing wifes to divorce their unbelieving partners, and advocated for the continuation of the marital bond if the unbelieving partner wanted to stay. Also, Paul states that the marital bond would sanctify their children; otherwise, they would become unclean because the sanctifying effect would be cut off by divorce. First and foremost, I will present the reasons why certain members embracing divorce might possibly have understood the unbelieving partners as a threat to the purity of the temple-community. Then I will discuss Paul’s argument from 1 Cor 7:12-14 to advocate for marital obligation which should not be easily broken by either husband or wife. Finally, Paul’s view will be summarized to understand his instructional attempts to deconstruct the people’s assumptions and perceptions of the impurity of the unbelieving partners so that they might be included as part of the sanctified temple-community.

326

Byrne, “Sinning,” 615. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 32. 327

Chapter 4. Temple Purity in 1 Corinthians

175

4.5.2 Unbelieving Partners and Their Children: Threat of Temple Purity? 1 Cor 7:12-14: Toi/j de. loipoi/j le,gw evgw. ouvc o` ku,rioj\ ei; tij avdelfo.j gunai/ka e;cei a;piston kai. au[th suneudokei/ oivkei/n metV auvtou/( mh. avfie,tw auvth,n\ kai. gunh. ei; tij e;cei a;ndra a;piston kai. ou-toj suneudokei/ oivkei/n metV auvth/j( mh. avfie,tw to.n a;ndraÅ h`gi,astai ga.r o` avnh.r o` a;pistoj evn th/| gunaiki. kai. h`gi,astai h` gunh. h` a;pistoj evn tw/| avdelfw/\| evpei. a;ra ta. te,kna u`mw/n avka,qarta, evstin( nu/n de. a[gia, evstinÅ

Since Paul does not mention the temple except with regard to certain purificatory terms underlined in the text, one may ask whether Paul’s exhortation regarding divorce and marriage could be directed to the potential concern that the familial and communal purity was being endangered by the unbelieving partners among the community, and whether the interpretation from a cultic perspective would be excessive or whether it would find potential substantiation from Paul’s argument. If the problem from the community was sparked by the marital bond between believers and unbelievers, we first need to see what attitudes the Jewish converts and the gentile converts held toward intermarriage, and then we will examine Paul’s argument against the view of the unbelieving partners and children as impure. 4.5.2.1 Impurity of Gentile Women and Offspring vs. the Temple In the Old Testament, Israel and the aliens among them were equally governed by the purity laws regarding ritual and moral practices (Lev 17:15; Num 15:15-29; 19:10). The gentile proselytes were tolerated and approved to be part of the community (cf. Exod 22:21, 23:9; Lev 16:29). Regarding the “strangers” (yrIkn. ," LXX: avllo,trioj, Deut 14:21) who lived outside of Israel, they had no need to keep themselves ritually pure like Israel and thus they were free from the purity laws. Strangers outside of Israel were also called “uncircumcised” people (lre[,' LXX: avperi,tmhtoj, Ezek 28:10); that is, they had nothing to do with the covenant given to Israel by God.328 Several texts note that uncircumcised gentiles were a source of impurity to the Temple (2 Chr 36:14; Ps 79:1; Ezek 7:21; 44:7, 9; Jer 51:51). Since gentiles were not bound to the purity rules, Israel perceived them as impure and often connected gentiles with idolaters and evildoers (cf. Lev 18:27-30; Num 25:1-2; Ps 106:28; 135:15; Ezek 23:30). Regarding intermarriage, the Mosaic law sternly commands Israel not to mix with gentile daughters, who would seduce Israel into idolatry (cf. Exod 34:16; Num 31:18; Deut 7:3-4).329 This concern could be extended to the

328 Peter J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (CRINT 3.1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 152-53; Klawans, Impurity, 44; Harrington, The Purity Texts, 113. 329 Christine Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92 (1999): 6; Shaye J. D. Cohen, “From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage,” HAR 7 (1983): 23-39.

176

4.5 Temple Purity vs. Intermarriage and Divorce in 1 Corinthians 7

prohibition of intermarriage with any gentile women unless non-Jewish partners became proselytes of the Jewish religion.330 For Israel, gentiles lived without salvation and their impurity was a threat to temple purity.331 Explicitly, the access of gentiles to the temple was restricted due to their ritual and moral impurity. Given that gentiles were considered impure, foreign women would have been a primary danger to the holiness of Israel, attested by the author of 1 Kgs who accused of Solomon of marrying foreign women, likening his behavior to committing idolatry (cf. 1 Kgs 11:1-8). Also, Solomon moved the daughter of Pharaoh from the city of David to the palace built for her when the ark was moved from the city of David to the temple, which indicated that Solomon knew that a sanctified area was no longer a suitable place for a foreign woman to dwell (cf. 1 Kgs 3:1; 9:24).332 In the post-exilic era, the author of Ezekiel recorded the divine decree: “No foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary” (Ezek 44:9).333 When Nehemiah and Ezra summoned Israel to gather in Jerusalem, they urged Israel to expel the foreign wives (cf. Ezra 10:2-5; Neh 13). The purpose was to remove the impurity of Israel and sanctify them for the service of God.334 According to Ezra, Israel was the “holy seed” (vd