Benefaction in Galatians 9783161627637, 9783161627644

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Preface
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations
Editorial Signs for Papyri and Inscriptions
Chapter 1: Benefaction in the Study of Galatians
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Thesis
1.3 Survey of Post-1980 Research on Benefaction in Galatians
1.3.1 Benefaction Studies and New Testament Studies
1.3.2 Frederick W. Danker
1.3.3 James R. Harrison
1.3.4 John Barclay
1.3.5 David A. deSilva
1.3.6 Ferdinand Okorie
1.4 The Course of the Argument
Chapter 2: Benefaction – Gratitude and Decisions
2.1 Gratitude
2.2 The Calculus of Giving, Receiving, and Thanking
2.2.1 Calculus of Giving
2.2.2 Calculus of Receiving or Rejecting
2.2.3 Calculus of Gratitude
2.2.4 Cultural Misunderstanding
2.3 Gift as Bait
Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs
3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction
3.1.1 Civic Freedom
3.1.2 Promise
3.1.3 Starting and Completing
3.1.4 Word-Deed Congruence
3.1.5 Benefits to the Worthy and Unworthy
3.1.6 Generosity and Abundance
3.1.7 Time
3.2 Relational Dynamics of Benefactors and Recipients
3.2.1 Ingratitude
3.2.2 Fidelity and Disloyalty
3.2.3 Kinship Language
3.3 Memory, Imitation, and Survival
3.3.1 Memory
3.3.2 Imitation
3.3.3 Community Survival
Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Danger and the Gods
4.3 Self-Endangerment in the Greco-Roman World
4.4 Benefactors Facing Dangers and Serving in Crises
4.4.1 Diplomacy
4.4.2 Ousting Garrisons
4.4.3 Defending City and Country
4.4.4 Disease
4.4.5 Famine and Food Supply
4.4.6 Financial Trouble or Debt
4.5 Summary
Chapter 5: Endangered Benefaction in 1 Maccabees and Josephus’s Life
5.1 1 Maccabees and the Family of Endangered Benefactors
5.1.1 Judas
5.1.2 Eleazar
5.1.3 Jonathan
5.1.4 Simon and All the Sons of Mattathias
5.2 Josephus and His Life
5.3 Conclusion
Chapter 6: Convergence of Motifs
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Infidelity and Risk
6.3 Fidelity and Risk
6.4 Endangered Benefaction at Daulis
6.5 Conclusion
Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians
7.1 The Galatians as Endangered Recipients
7.1.1 “The present age of evil” (Gal 1:4)
7.1.2 “The elements of the world” (Gal 4:3, 8–9)
7.1.3 Mandatory Gentile Circumcision
7.1.4 Conclusion
7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah: Christ the Endangered Benefactor
7.2.1 Christ the Endangered Benefactor, Text 1 (Gal 1:4)
7.2.2 Christ the Endangered Benefactor, Text 2 (Gal 2:20)
7.2.3 Christ the Endangered Benefactor, Text 3 (Gal 3:13)
Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”
8.1 Freedom as Manumission?
8.2 Freedom as Civic Freedom
8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”
8.3.1 Torah, Pneuma, and Freedom
8.3.2 Civic Virtue Among Christ-Devotees
8.3.3 “The Law of Christ”
Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Benefaction and Belonging: God’s Promise and Paul’s Kinship Diplomacy
9.2.1 Adoption
9.2.2 Scope and Nature of the Inheritance
9.2.3 The “Seed of Abraham”
9.2.4 Spirit and Trust/Fidelity
9.3 Kephas and the Fearful
9.4 Galatians 3:1–5
9.4.1 God the Supplier
9.4.2 Starting and Completing
9.5 Gratitude, Ingratitude, and Decisions
9.6 Benefits to the Worthy and Unworthy
9.7 Time
9.8 Fidelity and Imitation
9.9 Conclusion
Chapter 10: Conclusion
10.1 Summary of Chapters
10.2 Significance of This Study
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Christina M. Kreinecker (Leuven) ∙ Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) ∙ J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

627

David Wyman

Benefaction in Galatians

Mohr Siebeck

David Wyman, born 1991; BA in History (Bridgewater State University); 2016 MA in New Testament (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary); 2016 MA in Biblical Languages (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary); 2022 PhD in New Testament (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary); Independent Researcher. orcid.org/0009-0009-8964-2969

ISBN 978-3-16-162763-7 / eISBN 978-3-16-162764-4 DOI 10.1628 / 978-3-16-162764-4 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio­ graphie; detailed bibliographic data are available at https: //dnb.dnb.de. © 2025  Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. 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 and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on non-aging paper. Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, Wilhelmstraße 18, 72074 Tübingen, Germany www.mohrsiebeck.com, [email protected]

Preface This book is a revised version of my dissertation, “Paul’s Endangered Benefactor: Galatians in Its Benefaction Context” (2022), written under the supervision of Daniel M. Gurtner (2017–2020) and Jarvis J. Williams (2020–2022) while I was a graduate student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The first several chapters are lightly revised, but the treatment of Galatians has undergone substantial revision and expansion. I owe a debt of thanks to Ross Wagner, who provided such detailed feedback in reviewing my original manuscript. He pointed out weaknesses and pushed me to expand my arguments in several ways, especially with respect to Galatians. Gratitude is also due to the editorial staff at Mohr Siebeck for their patience and kind reception of my work, including but not limited to Jörg Frey, Elena Müller, Markus Kirchner, Tobias Stäbler, and Tim Reichert. Writing this book would not have been possible without the help of numerous people. First, I owe thanks to Daniel Gurtner, who has taught me so much about being a scholar. He, along with the archivist Adam Winters, afforded me the opportunity to study the long-neglected Greek and Coptic papyri at the seminary archives. Delving into the field of papyrology, in turn, drew my attention to the study of other documentary sources, namely, inscriptions. An independent study with professor Gurtner in Hellenistic and early Roman history gave me the time to read extensively in the literary and documentary sources of the period. Even more so, Dan has helped and encouraged me even after his untimely and unfortunate departure from SBTS. He has truly gone above and beyond for me. Next, I must thank Jarvis Williams for kindly taking over as my supervisor. His doctoral seminars were an incubator for much of the groundwork of this book. I should also extend my gratitude to Jonathan Pennington and Tom Schreiner, who served on my dissertation committee. Furthermore, I thank James R. Harrison, who served as my external reader to the dissertation version of this book and provided extended and perceptive feedback. More than that, I thank him for encouraging me to submit it to Mohr Siebeck and for being so supportive of my research. I would be remiss if I did not also thank the faculty of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary during my time there from 2013 to 2016, especially Sean McDonough, Roy Ciampa, Gordon Hugenberger, and Adonis Vidu. I must also thank Keith Lewinstein and Michael Ierardi, whose history courses first attracted me to the study of antiquity. Professor Ierardi introduced me to the major events, people,

VI

Preface

and topics within Hellenistic history and the early Roman Empire. Likewise, he supervised my initial learning of ancient Greek and my first foray into academic biblical studies. Moreover, for most of the time I revised this book I did not have institutional access to an academic library. Consequently, a word of thanks is due to the myriad people who have made access to ancient and modern sources less cumbersome for the unaffiliated. And thank you to my parents and parents-in-law for their manifold kindnesses. Finally, and most of all, I am grateful to my wife, Emma, who truly embodies the self-giving love of the endangered benefactor. It is to Emma, Fred, and Samson that I dedicate this work: ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐθέν εἰμι (1 Cor 13:2). February 2025

David Wyman

Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................................ V List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................... XIII Editorial Signs for Papyri and Inscriptions .................................................... XXI

Chapter 1: Benefaction in the Study of Galatians................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Thesis ............................................................................................................. 9 1.3 Survey of Post-1980 Research on Benefaction in Galatians ......................... 9 1.3.1 Benefaction Studies and New Testament Studies .............................. 10 1.3.2 Frederick W. Danker .......................................................................... 13 1.3.3 James R. Harrison ............................................................................... 16 1.3.4 John Barclay ....................................................................................... 19 1.3.5 David A. deSilva ................................................................................. 22 1.3.6 Ferdinand Okorie ................................................................................ 23 1.4 The Course of the Argument ........................................................................ 27

Chapter 2: Benefaction – Gratitude and Decisions ........................... 30 2.1 Gratitude...................................................................................................... 30 2.2 The Calculus of Giving, Receiving, and Thanking ...................................... 37 2.2.1 Calculus of Giving .............................................................................. 38 2.2.2 Calculus of Receiving or Rejecting .................................................... 38 2.2.3 Calculus of Gratitude .......................................................................... 41 2.2.4 Cultural Misunderstanding ................................................................. 42 2.3 Gift as Bait................................................................................................... 43

VIII

Table of Contents

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs ................................................ 47 3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction .......................................................... 47 3.1.1 Civic Freedom .................................................................................... 47 3.1.2 Promise ............................................................................................... 66 3.1.3 Starting and Completing ..................................................................... 69 3.1.4 Word-Deed Congruence ..................................................................... 69 3.1.5 Benefits to the Worthy and Unworthy ................................................ 71 3.1.6 Generosity and Abundance ................................................................. 78 3.1.7 Time .................................................................................................... 83 3.2 Relational Dynamics of Benefactors and Recipients................................... 86 3.2.1 Ingratitude ........................................................................................... 87 3.2.2 Fidelity and Disloyalty ....................................................................... 93 3.2.3 Kinship Language ............................................................................... 94 3.3 Memory, Imitation, and Survival ................................................................. 98 3.3.1 Memory............................................................................................... 98 3.3.2 Imitation ............................................................................................ 101 3.3.3 Community Survival ......................................................................... 103

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction .................................................... 105 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 105 4.2 Danger and the Gods................................................................................. 105 4.3 Self-Endangerment in the Greco-Roman World........................................ 109 4.4 Benefactors Facing Dangers and Serving in Crises ................................. 118 4.4.1 Diplomacy......................................................................................... 118 4.4.2 Ousting Garrisons ............................................................................. 125 4.4.3 Defending City and Country ............................................................. 126 4.4.4 Disease .............................................................................................. 134 4.4.5 Famine and Food Supply .................................................................. 134 4.4.6 Financial Trouble or Debt ................................................................. 136 4.5 Summary .................................................................................................... 136

Table of Contents

IX

Chapter 5: Endangered Benefaction in 1 Maccabees and Josephus’s Life............................................................................................ 138 5.1 1 Maccabees and the Family of Endangered Benefactors ........................ 138 5.1.1 Judas ................................................................................................. 140 5.1.2 Eleazar .............................................................................................. 142 5.1.3 Jonathan ............................................................................................ 143 5.1.4 Simon and All the Sons of Mattathias .............................................. 144 5.2 Josephus and His Life................................................................................ 146 5.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 148

Chapter 6: Convergence of Motifs ....................................................... 149 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 149 6.2 Infidelity and Risk ...................................................................................... 149 6.3 Fidelity and Risk ........................................................................................ 152 6.4 Endangered Benefaction at Daulis ............................................................ 156 6.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 157

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians ............................ 158 7.1 The Galatians as Endangered Recipients.................................................. 158 7.1.1 “The present age of evil” (Gal 1:4)................................................... 159 7.1.2 “The elements of the world” (Gal 4:3, 8–9) ..................................... 162 7.1.3 Mandatory Gentile Circumcision ..................................................... 162 7.1.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 166 7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah: Christ the Endangered Benefactor .... 168 7.2.1 Christ the Endangered Benefactor, Text 1 (Gal 1:4) ........................ 169 7.2.2 Christ the Endangered Benefactor, Text 2 (Gal 2:20) ...................... 174 7.2.3 Christ the Endangered Benefactor, Text 3 (Gal 3:13) ...................... 179

X

Table of Contents

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ” ...................... 197 8.1 Freedom as Manumission?........................................................................ 197 8.2 Freedom as Civic Freedom ....................................................................... 202 8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ” .................................................. 204 8.3.1 Torah, Pneuma, and Freedom ........................................................... 205 8.3.2 Civic Virtue Among Christ-Devotees .............................................. 211 8.3.3 “The Law of Christ” ......................................................................... 225

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians................... 229 9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 229 9.2 Benefaction and Belonging: God’s Promise and Paul’s Kinship Diplomacy............................................................................... 229 9.2.1 Adoption ........................................................................................... 232 9.2.2 Scope and Nature of the Inheritance ................................................. 233 9.2.3 The “Seed of Abraham”.................................................................... 234 9.2.4 Spirit and Trust/Fidelity.................................................................... 236 9.3 Kephas and the Fearful ............................................................................. 239 9.4 Galatians 3:1–5 ......................................................................................... 241 9.4.1 God the Supplier ............................................................................... 241 9.4.2 Starting and Completing ................................................................... 242 9.5 Gratitude, Ingratitude, and Decisions ....................................................... 242 9.6 Benefits to the Worthy and Unworthy ....................................................... 246 9.7 Time ........................................................................................................... 248 9.8 Fidelity and Imitation ................................................................................ 249 9.9 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 253

Chapter 10: Conclusion ........................................................................... 256 10.1 Summary of Chapters .............................................................................. 256 10.2 Significance of This Study ....................................................................... 261

Table of Contents

XI

Bibliography .................................................................................................... 265 Index of References ......................................................................................... 291 Index of Modern Authors ................................................................................ 323 Index of Subjects ............................................................................................. 325

List of Abbreviations AB ABR ACNT AGRW

AIO A.J. Ant. rom. Austin2

BAR BBR BD2 BDAG

BECNT Ben. BGU BibAn Bib. hist. B.J. Braund

The Anchor Bible Australian Biblical Review Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament Ascough, Richard S., Philip A. Harland, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. Associations in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012 Attic Inscription Online, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/ Antiquitates judaicae Antiquitates romanae Austin, Michel. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006 British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Bulletin for Biblical Research Bagnall, Roger S., and Peter Derow, eds. The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004 Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament On Benefits Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen (later Staatlichen) Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden. Berlin, 1895–2005 The Biblical Annals Bibliotheca historica Bellum judaicum Braund, David C. Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook to Roman History, 31 BC–AD 68. New York: Routledge, 1985

XIV BTB Burstein

CGRN

Choix ID CID 4

CIG

CIL Comp. Danker DFHG DGE Diod. Sic. Disc. Ep. Epitome FD III

FGrH GEI035 Hands

List of Abbreviations

Biblical Theology Bulletin Burstein, Stanley M., ed. and trans. The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Cleopatra VII. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985 Carbon, Jan-Mathieu, Saskia Peels, and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge, eds. A Collection of Greek Ritual Norms (CGRN). Liège, 2016–. http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be; DOI: https://doi.org/10.54510/CGRN0 Durrbach, Félix, ed. Choix D’Inscriptions de Délos. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1976 Lefèvre, François, Didier Laroche, and Olivier Masson, eds. Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes. Tome IV, Documents amphictioniques. Paris: École française d’Athènes, 2002 Boeckh, August, Johannes Franz, Ernst Curtius, and Adolf Kirchoff, eds. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Berlin, 1828–1877. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1977 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin, 1863– De Compositione verborum, Dionysios of Halikarnassos Danker, Frederick W. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field. St. Louis: Clayton, 1982 Berti, Monica. Digital Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Leipzig: University of Leipzig. https://www.dfhgproject.org/ Adrados, Francisco R., and Juan Rodríguez Somolinos, eds. Diccionario Griego Español. http://dge.cchs.csic.es/xdge/ Diodoros of Sicily Discourses Epistulae morales Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus Bourget, Émile, Gaston Colin, Georges Daux, Théophile Homolle, and André Plassart, eds. Fouilles de Delphes. Vol. 3, Épigraphie. Paris: École Française d’Athènes, 1909–1976 Jakoby, Felix, ed. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. 15 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1923–1962 Fanucchi, Stefano. Greek Economic Inscriptions 035: Kyparissia. Regulations on Pentecoste Collection. https://geionline.sns.it/search/document/GEI035 Hands, A. R. Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1968

List of Abbreviations

Harding

Hist. HTR I.Aph2007 I.Assos IC ID I.Eleus

I.Eph I.Erythr IG IGBulg I2 IGLSyria 3.1

IGRR I.GCyr

I.Iasos I.Keramos

XV

Harding, Philip, ed. and trans. From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985 Histories Harvard Theological Review Reynolds, Joyce, Charlotte Roueché, and Gabriel Bodard, eds. Inscriptions of Aphrodisias. https://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/insaph/ Merkelbach, Reinhold, ed. Die Inschriften von Assos. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1976 Guarducci, Margarita, ed. Inscriptiones Creticae. Rome: National Institute of Archaeology and History of Art, 1935–1950 Durrbach, Félix, Pierre Roussel, and Marcel Launey, eds. Inscriptions de Délos. Paris: Champion, 1926–1972 Clinton, Kevin, ed. Eleusis. The Inscriptions on Stone. Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme. Athens: Athens Archaeological Society, 2008 Die Inschriften von Ephesos. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1979–1984 Engelmann, Helmut, and Reinhold Merkelbach, eds. Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1972–1973 Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin: 1873– Mihailov, Georgi, ed. Inscriptiones graecae in Bulgaria repertae. Vol. 1, Inscriptiones orae Ponti Euxini. 2nd ed. Sofia: Institutum Archaeologicum, 1970 Jalabert, Louis, and René Mouterde, eds. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Vol. 3.1, Région de l’Amanus, Antioche, Nos. 699–988. Paris: Geuthner, 1950 Cagnat, René, Jules Toutain, Pierre Jonguet, and George Lafaye, eds. Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. 3 vols. Paris: Leroux, 1906–1927 Dobias-Lalou, Catherin. Inscriptions of Greek Cyrenaica. Bologna: CRR-MM, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, 2017. http://doi.org/10.6092/UNIBO/IGCYRGVCYR Blümel, Walter, ed. Die Inschriften von Iasos. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1985 Varinlioglu, Ender, ed. Die Inschriften von Keramos. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1986

XVI I.Knidos I.Kyme I.Labraunda I.Milet I 3 I.Myl. IOSPE I2

IOSPE3 III

I.Perge I.Philai I.Priene I.RCyr2020

I.Rhamnous

I.ScM I

I.ScM II

List of Abbreviations

Blümel, Wolfgang, ed. Die Inschriften von Knidos. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolph Habelt, 1992–2010 Engelmann, Helmut, ed. Die Inschriften von Kyme. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolph Habelt, 1976 Crampa, Jonas. Swedish Excavations and Researches, vol. III, part 1, The Greek Inscriptions, Part I:1–12 (Period of Olympichus). Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1969 Rehm, Albert, ed. Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899. Vol. 1.3, Das Delphinion in Milet. Berlin: Reimer, 1914 Blümel, Wolfgang, ed. Die Inschriften von Mylasa. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolph Habelt, 1987 Latyschen, Vasilii, ed. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae. Vol. 1, Inscriptiones Tyriae, Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg: 1916 Makarov, Igor, ed., Irene Polinskaya, trans. IOSPE: Ancient Inscriptions of the Northern Black Sea. Vol. III: Inscriptions of Chersonesos. https://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/index.html Sahlin, Sencer. Die Inschriften von Perge. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolph Habelt, 1999–2004 Bernard, André, and Étienne Bernard, eds. Les inscriptions grecques de Philae. 2 vols. Paris, 1969 Hiller von Gärtringen, Friedrich. Inschriften von Priene. Berlin: Reimer, 1906 Reynolds, Joyce, Charlotte Roueché, and Gabriel Bodard, eds. Inscriptions of Roman Cyrenaica 2020. Society for Libyan Studies, 2020. https://ircyr2020.inslib.kcl.ac.uk/en/ Vasileios, Petrakos, ed. Ho demos tou Ramnountos. Synopsē tōn anaskophōn kai tōn ereunōn (1813–1998). Vol. 2, Hoi epigraphes. Athens: The Archaeological Society of Athens, 1999 Pippidi, Dionisie, M, ed. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. Vol. 1, Inscriptiones Histriae et vicinia. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1983 Stoian, Iorgu, ed. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. Vol. 2, Tomis et territorium. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1987

List of Abbreviations

I.Stratonikeia IVP IvP JBL JGRChJ JJMJS JSNT JSOTSS JTS LCL LSJ

Ma MAAR MAMA 8

Malay – Petzl NA28

NewDocs 9

NewDocs 10

XVII

Sahin, Mehmet, ed. Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia. Vols. 1–3. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolph Habelt, 1981– 2010 InterVarsity Press Fränkel, Max. Die Inschriften von Pergamon. Vols. 1–2. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1890–1895 Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism Journal of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series The Journal of Theological Studies Loeb Classical Library Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996 Ma, John. Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999 Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome Calder, William, and James Maxwell Ross Cormack. Monuments from Lycaonia, the Pisido-Phrygian Borderland, Aphrodisias. Vol. 8 in Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua (MAMA). Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1962 Malay, Hasan, and Georg Petzl, New Religious Texts from Lydia. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2017 Aland, Barbara, and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster/Westphalia, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012 Llewelyn, S. R., ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 9, A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1986–87. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002 Llewelyn, S. R., and J. R. Harrison, eds. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 10, A Review of the Greek and Other Published Inscriptions and Papyri Published between 1988 and 1992. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012

XVIII New Docs Lydia NICNT NTL NTS OGIS

O.Bodl 2

O.Cair PCNT PH P.Herc PHI PI

P.Mich 3 P.Mich 5

P.Münch. 3

Polyb. PSI 10 P.Tebt. 2

List of Abbreviations

Herrmann, Peter and Hasan Malay. New Documents from Lydia. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007 New International Commentary on the New Testament New Testament Library New Testament Studies Dittenberger, Wilhelm, ed. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae: supplementum Sylloges inscriptionum graecarum. 1903–1905. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag AG, 1960 Greek Ostraca in the Bodleian Library at Oxford and Various Other Collections, Vol. II: Ostraca of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Edited by J. G. Tait and C. Préaux. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1955 Ostraka greci del Mudeo Egizio de Cairo. Edited by C. Gallazzi, R. Pintaudi, and K. A. Worp. Florence, 1986 Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament Packard Humanities Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi PHI Greek Documentary Texts. CD ROM #7. Software Database. Los Altos, CA: Packard Humanities Institute, 1991–1996. https://epigraphy.packhum.org. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte. Edited by P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte. Rev. 4th ed. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009 Michigan Papyri, Vol. III: Miscellaneous Papryi. Edited by John Garrett Winter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1936 Michigan Papyri, Vol. V: Papyri from Tebtunis, Part II. Edited by E. M. Husselman, A. E. R. Boak, and W. F. Edgerton. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1944 Hagedorn, Ursula, Dieter Hagedorn, Robert Hübner, and John C. Shelton, eds. Die Papyri der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München.Vol. 3, Griechische Urkundenpapyri der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München, Part I. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1986 Polybios Papiri greci e latini. Vol. 10. Florence: Italian Society for the Study of Greek and Latin Papyri in Egypt, 1932 Grenfell, Bernard P., and Arthur S. Hunt. The Tebtunis Papyri. Vol. 2. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1907

List of Abbreviations

P.Yadin RC RDGE Reynolds RGDA Rom. Hist. RPC I

RPC IV.3 SB

SBL SEG Sherk [1984]

Sherk [1988] SP 2 Syll.3

TBN TDGR

XIX

Lewis, Naphtali, ed. The Documents from the Bar Kochba Period in the Cave of Letters. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989 Welles, C. Bradford. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934 Sherk, Robert K. Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1969 Reynolds, Joyce. Aphrodisias and Rome. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1982 Res Gestae Divi Augusti Roman History Burnett, Andrew, Michel Amandry, and Pere Pau Ripollès, eds. Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. 1, From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC–AD 69). London: The British Museum, 1992 Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. 4.3, The Antonine Period (AD 138–192): Lycia-Pamphilia to Arabia. RPC Online. https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/ Priesigke, Friedrich, Friedrich Bilabel, Emil Kiessling, Hans-Albert Rupprecht, eds. Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten. Vols. 1–21. Heidelberg: Im Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1915–2001 Society of Biblical Literature Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. 66 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1923– Sherk, Robert K, ed. and trans. Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984 Sherk, Robert K, ed. and trans. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988 Hunt, A. S., and C. C. Edgar. Select Papyri, Volume II: Public Documents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934 Dittenberger, Wilhelm, Friedrich Hiller von Gärtingen, Johannes Kirchner, Hans Rudolf Pomtow, and Erich Ziebarth, eds. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. 4 vols. 3rd ed. Leipzig: 1915–1925 Themes in Biblical Narratives Translated Documents of Greece and Rome

XX THGNT

TLG TM UPZ WBC WUNT ZECNT ZPE

List of Abbreviations

Jongkind, Dirk, Peter J. Williams, Peter M. Head, and Patrick James, eds. The Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House Cambridge. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae® Digital Library. Edited by Maria C. Pantelia. University of California, Irvine. http://www.tlg.uci.edu Trismegistos Wilcken, Ulrich. Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (ältere Funde). 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1927–1957 Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Editorial Signs for Papyri and Inscriptions α̣β̣γδ̣ ̣

letters uncertain

… or –10–

approximate number of letters illegible

[…] or [–10–]

approximate number of letters missing

] or [] or [

missing letters of unknown number

[αβγδ]

letters restored by the editor

< > or ***

lacuna in text (by scribe), not restored

additions of editor to fill lacuna

(αβγδ)

resolution of abbreviations by editor

{αβδ} or {…} or {α̣β̣γδ̣ }̣

interpolations

⟦αβγδ⟧

erasures by the scribe

αβγδ

letters read previously but no longer visible

vac

document is blank at that place

Chapter 1

Benefaction in the Study of Galatians 1.1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction

All languages are firmly embedded in culture. Ludwig Wittgenstein notes that “to imagine a language means to imagine a form of life.”1 Meaning in language is integrated into the activities and shared spaces of human (embodied) interaction and getting along together in the world. Wittgenstein uses the term “language-game” (Sprachspiel) “to emphasize the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or of a form of life.”2 The field of Cognitive Linguistics explains that “meaning is encyclopedic in nature,” that is, “word meaning cannot be understood independently of the vast repository of encyclopedic knowledge to which it is linked.”3 A word is like a node in a network that gives access to a large cultural storehouse of practices, customs, institutions, attitudes, emotions, values, concepts, know-how, hierarchies, stories, domains, schemas, frames, scripts, and more in any given usage.4 As Umberto Eco similarly observes, “every text (even the most simple sentence) describes or presupposes a possible world.”5 So, for example, the English word Monday can only be understood as a part of a seven-day week, which is itself understood 1

“Und eine Sprache vorstellen heißt, sich eine Lebensform vorstellen.” Wittgenstein, PI,

§19. 2 Wittgenstein, PI, §23. He categorizes a fairly comprehensive list of language games: “Giving orders, and acting on them,” “Describing an object by its appearance, or by its measurements,” “Constructing an object from a description (a drawing),” “Reporting an event,” “Speculating about the event,” “Forming and testing a hypothesis,” “Presenting the results of an experiment in tables and diagrams,” “Making up a story; and reading one,” “Acting in a play,” “Singing rounds,” “Guessing riddles,” “Cracking a joke; telling one,” “Solving a problem in applied arithmetic,” “Translating from one language into another,” “Requesting, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying.” 3 Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green, Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), 206. Bolded text removed. 4 For domains, schemas, frames, and scripts, see John R. Taylor, Linguistic Categorization, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 87–95. Taylor states, “Word meanings are cognitive structures, embedded patterns of knowledge and belief; the context against which meanings are characterized extends beyond the language system as such.” Thus, the term toothbrush gains its meaning “from the role of toothbrushes in dental hygiene, and not from paradigmatic contrasts with other terms in the language system” (87). 5 Umberto Eco, Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation (London: Phoenix, 2003), 19.

2

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

only with the temporal concept of “the recurring night-day cycle.”6 The week constitutes the domain within which Monday is comprehensible, and the nightday cycle of time the domain for the concept of the seven-day week.7 But Monday also needs to be understood as a part of the regular work week that is divided into five days of work and two days of rest – Monday being the day that begins the work week and ends the leisure period. 8 If a someone asks a coworker, “How are you?,” and they respond, “It’s Monday,” the response is only comprehensible in the context of the attitudes associated with the transition from leisure to work in the seven-day week. So, the answer, “It’s Monday,” would likely communicate an unenthusiastic or pessimistic attitude.9 To take an example in Greek during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, the term χαίρειν creates a greeting frame from the sender to the recipient.10 The simple term prompts the recipient to construe their interaction in a certain way, sets their expectations, and guides their response.11 Words are a door into a language-game and a wider cultural frame. As a result, understanding Paul’s use of certain terms in his letter to the Galatians opens the door to his cultural context – the ancient cultural encyclopedia – to help determine the sense of each word and what broader cultural scripts, practices, and institutions Paul is invoking for his auditors. New Testament scholarship in the last few decades has shown that Paul uses language and concepts drawn from the domain of civic benefaction and that understanding the reciprocity systems of patronage and benefaction helps contextualize Paul’s portrayal of divine generosity and the proper human response(s).12 Chiefly, the term χάρις is embedded in the benefactor-recipient relationship in the ancient Greco-Roman Mediterranean society of which Paul and his Christ-associations were a part. The term χάρις carries a different sense Taylor, Linguistic Categorization, 87. Taylor, Linguistic Categorization, 87. 8 Taylor, Linguistic Categorization, 89. 9 Nevertheless, the opposite attitude could be understood, depending on the person, the parties involved, the speaker’s general attitude toward their job, the tone of voice, shared knowledge of that particular weekend, or other local circumstances or relationships. 10 E.g., OGIS 223.2 (late 4th–mid 3rd c. BC); 2 Macc 1:1; BGU 6.1296.2 (210 BC); BGU 6.1248.2 (137 BC); P.Tebt. 2.519.1 (AD 11); BGU 7.1660.3 (AD 41); BGU 1.37.2 (AD 50). Unless otherwise noted, for the text of the LXX this dissertation uses Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart, eds., Septuaginta, rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006). 11 Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 11. 12 The two most significant studies in this regard are by Frederick Danker and James Harrison. See Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982); James R. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). For further bibliography, see the history of research section below. Another significant study, though not as focused on the institution of euergetism, is John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). 6

7

1.1 Introduction

3

based on the context in which it occurs: the sense of (1) generosity or favorable disposition (usually of the benefactor), (2) a concrete benefaction or favor in the form of deeds or items, or (3) the return favor or response of gratitude and thanks to the benefactor(s).13 Of the three senses of χάρις that Paul uses in his letters, sense three (gratitude) proves easiest to identify. Paul uses this sense regularly with the phrase χάρις τῷ θεῷ. The same usage of giving χάρις to God, who is conceptualized as the divine benefactor, occurs in Philo of Alexandria (Alleg. Interp. 2.60) and the Stoic philosopher Epictetus (Disc. 4.7.9).14 In this usage, the beneficiary or recipient of divine generosity (Paul) renders gratitude (χάρις) to the divine benefactor (God). Paul responds to God with gratitude as a response to the deeds and gifts of his great benefactor for liberation from slavery to sin (Rom 6:17– 18), deliverance from “this body of death” (Rom 7:24–25), and victory over death (1 Cor 15:54–57).15 Further, Paul thanks God for making his “scent” 13 Several people describe the senses of χάρις similarly. BDAG: “a beneficent disposition toward someone” (sense 1), “practical application of goodwill” (sense 2), and “response to generosity or beneficence” (sense 3). BDAG, “χάρις,” 1079–1081. LSJ: “on the part of the doer, grace, kindness, goodwill, τινος for or towards one” (sense 1; LSJ, “χάρις,” A.II.1), “in concrete sense, a favor done or returned, boon” (sense 2; LSJ, “χάρις,” A.III), “on the part of the receiver, sense of favor received, thankfulness, gratitude (sense 3; LSJ, “χάρις,” A.II.2). Zeller: “Die Gunst,” whether “als Gesinnung” (sense 1) or “konkret als Gunsterwies, Gab” (sense 2), “der darauf antwortende Dank” (sense 3). Dieter Zeller, Charis bei Philon und Paulus (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990), 13–14. Crook: “virtue of generosity” (sense 1), “act or item of generosity” (sense 2), “gratitude for generosity” (sense 3). Zeba A. Crook, “Grace as Benefaction in Galatians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 3:10, and Romans 12:3; 15:15,” in The Social Sciences and Biblical Translation, ed. Dietmar Neufeld (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 25–38. deSilva: “the disposition to show ‘favor’” (sense 1), “the ‘gift’ or ‘assistance’ given” (sense 2), “the response to the favor received, hence ‘gratitude’ or ‘thanks’” (sense 3). David A. deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 255. The other main sense of χάρις, “of the object of favor, the quality of charm or agreeableness,” occurs outside the benefaction frame and does not occur in Galatians. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 576–577; cf. Crook, “Grace as Benefaction.” BDAG posits another sense, “exceptional effect produced by generosity” (BDAG, “χάρις,” 1080). Others do not recognize this additional sense. 14 Speaking about Noah’s nakedness (which was contrary to virtue), Philo states, “But, thanks be to God (χάρις δὲ τῷ θεῷ), (ὅτι) the change of condition and the stripping of the mind which ensued upon the deprivation of virtue, did not spread out abroad and reach those outside, but stayed in the house” (Philo, Allegorical Interpretation, 2.60 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL]). Epictetus, speaking about the truly free person, says that “he will be free, serene, happy, unharmed, high-minded, reverent, giving thanks for all things to God (χάριν ἔχον ὑπὲρ πάντων τῷ θεῷ), under no circumstances finding fault with anything that has happened, nor blaming anything” (Epictetus, Disc., 4.7.9 [Oldfather, LCL]; cf. 4.4.7). 15 Rom 6:17 (χάρις δὲ τῷ θεῷ ὅτι ἦτε δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑπηκούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς); Rom 7:25 (χάρις δὲ τῷ θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν); 1 Cor 15:57 (τῷ δὲ θεῷ χάρις τῷ διδόντι ἡμῖν τὸ νῖκος διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ).

4

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

known abroad (2 Cor 2:14), giving the civic virtue of enthusiasm (σπουδή) to Titus (2 Cor 8:16), and for giving “his indescribable gift” (τῇ ἀνεκδιηγήτῳ αὐτοῦ δωρεᾷ; 2 Cor 9:15).16 Determining whether χάρις refers to the generous disposition of the benefactor (sense 1) or to the concrete manifestation of the benefactor’s generous disposition (sense 2) can be difficult. The most determinative factor is that when χάρις is the object of giving (e.g., δοῦναι) or receiving (e.g., λαβεῖν, δέχεσθαι), then it more likely refers to a concrete object (a deed or item).17 Typically, God is the giver and Paul and/or other people are the recipients.18 Thus, χάρις in these contexts refers to the giving and receiving of a concrete 16 2 Cor 2:14 (τῷ δὲ θεῷ χάρις τῷ πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ καὶ τὴν ὀσμὴν τῆς γνώσεως αὐτοῦ φανεροῦντι δι’ ἡμῶν ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ); 2 Cor 8:16 (χάρις δὲ τῷ θεῷ τῷ δόντι τὴν αὐτὴν σπουδὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ Τίτου); 2 Cor 9:15 (χάρις τῷ θεῷ ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνεκδιηγήτῳ αὐτοῦ δωρεᾷ). The term σπουδή is characteristic of benefactors. In 2 Corinthians 8:16, Paul is thanking God for providing the Corinthians with the same attribute of σπουδή (enthusiasm). In honorific inscriptions, σπουδή and its cognates are the most common ways to describe “the enthusiasm with which benefactors approach their responsibilities.” Danker, Benefactor, 320. For examples of σπουδή in honorific inscriptions, see, e.g., IG XI.4.687.4 (3rd c. BC, Delos); IG XII.4.135.20 (280 BC, Kos); IGBulg I2 13.41 (48 BC, Dionysopolis). Another identifiable instance of this sense of χάρις occur in 1 Corinthians 10:30 in which Paul speaks about partaking in a meal “with gratitude” (ἐν χάριτι). So, BDAG translates, “in thanksgiving.” BDAG, “χάρις,” 1080. 17 Rom 1:5 (δι’ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ); Rom 12:3 (λέγω γὰρ διὰ τῆς χάριτος τῆς δοθείσης μοι παντὶ τῷ ὄντι ἐν ὑμῖν μὴ ὑπερφρονεῖν παρ’ ὃ δεῖ φρονεῖν ἀλλὰ φρονεῖν εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν, ἑκάστῳ ὡς ὁ θεὸς ἐμέρισεν μέτρον πίστεως), Rom 12:6 (ἔχοντες δὲ χαρίσματα κατὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν διάφορα, εἴτε προφητείαν κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως); Rom 15:15 (τολμηρότερον δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἀπὸ μέρους ὡς ἐπαναμιμνῄσκων ὑμᾶς διὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ); 1 Cor 1:4 (εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῇ χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ δοθείσῃ ὑμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ); 1 Cor 3:10 (κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι ὡς σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων θεμέλιον ἔθηκα, ἄλλος δὲ ἐποικοδομεῖ. ἕκαστος δὲ βλεπέτω πῶς ἐποικοδομεῖ); 2 Cor 6:1 (συνεργοῦντες δὲ καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν μὴ εἰς κενὸν τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ δέξασθαι ὑμᾶς); 2 Cor 8:1 (γνωρίζομεν δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν δεδομένην ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Μακεδονίας); Gal 2:9 (γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι); cf. Eph 3:2, 7, 8; 4:7, 29. DGE gives χάριτας δέχεσθαι the gloss “aceptar favores.” DGE, “δέχομαι.” A particular stock usage of χάρις pairs it with ἀποδοῦναι (and cognates) and occurs in manifesto clauses of honorific inscriptions to indicate a reciprocal act with which the beneficiaries give a favor (χάρις) to the benefactor in return for his or her deed(s) or gifts. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 40–43. Such a construction, though, does not occur in Paul’s commonly accepted letters. See, e.g., IG II3 1 400.9–10 (ca. 350–339 BC; ὁ δῆμος χάριτας ἀποδ[ί]δωσιν τοῖς ε|ἰς ἑαυτὸν φιλοτι[μο]υμένοις). 18 A possible exception to God being the subject is Romans 1:5, where Christ may be the subject. In this case, it appears that Christ (a benefactor himself) is acting as an intermediary between God and Paul and whoever he includes in the “we.” The δία may suggest this arrangement.

1.1 Introduction

5

object. Perhaps, though, the English word “favor” may be helpful in covering some of the ambiguity of these two senses of χάρις. So, for example, one could render Romans 15:15 as “the benefaction given to me by God” or more ambiguously as “the favor given to me by God” (διὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ). The χάρις-language in Roman political displays of generosity or in local displays of gratitude for benefits helps contextualize Paul’s uses of χάρις. For instance, Sulla informs the Guild of Dionysiac Artists that they are granted exemption from liturgies, military service, and taxes by the Senate’s “generosity/favor” (χάριτι; RDGE 49B.6; 84 BC). In Ephesus, a partial tax-reduction or immunity was enacted “by the generosity/favor of Imperator Caesar Augustus” (χάρι Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος Σεβαστοῦ; SEG 36.1027.92–93). A road was constructed in Ephesus “by the generosity/favor of Caesar Augustus” ([τ]ῆ. .ι Καίσαρος τοῦ Σεβαστο[ῦ| χάριτ]ι.; 22/21 BC; SEG 41.971.1–2; see also NewDocs 10 §11). In Egypt, Tiberius Ilius Alexander reaffirmed a tax-immunity that was enacted “by the generosity/favor of the god Claudius” (τῆι τοῦ θεοῦ Κλαυδίου χάριτι; OGIS 669.28–29; AD 68; see Sherk [1988] §80). In the midfirst-century AD, the prefect of Egypt was lauded for “his godlike benefactions” (αἱ ἰσόθεοι αὐτοῦ χάριτες; OGIS 666.21; AD 55–59; see Sherk [1988] §63). A few decades later, the Aphrodisians attributed their longtime “freedom and autonomy” to “the generosity/favor of the Augustii” (τῇ τῶν Σε[βασ]τῶν χάριτι; Reynolds §42.8–9; AD 89–90).19 An inscription from Kyzikos remarks how local kings thanked the emperor Gaius for his benefactions, saying, “the kings, even if they racked their brains, were not able to find appropriate ways of repaying their benefactions to express their gratitude to such a great god.”20 The inscription remarks how the kings were “reaping the abundant fruits of his [i.e., Gaius’s] immortal favor” (οἱ τῆς ἀθανάτου χάριτος τὴν ἀφθονίαν καρπούμενοι; IGR 4 145.7–8) and enjoying their royal station “as a result of the favor of Gaius Caesar” (ἐ τῆς Γαίου Καίσαρος χάριτος; IGR 4 145.9).21 It is no surprise then that in an inscription from Sardis (AD 41–54) the demos displays their “piety and thanksgiving” (εὐσέβεια καὶ εὐχαριστία) to Tiberius Caesar by hailing him as “benefactor of the world” for his benefits (εὐεργέτης τοῦ κόσµου; SEG 36.1092.11–13).22

19 References to OGIS 669 and SEG 24.1108 thanks to Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 48. On the customs law of Asia (SEG 36.1027), see NewDocs 10 §16. 20 κἂν πάνυ ἐπινοῶσιν, εἰς εὐχαριστίαν τηλικούτου θεοῦ εὑρεῖν ἴσας ἀμοιβὰς οἷς εὐεργέτηνται μὴ δυναμέων (IGR 4 145.5–6; AD 37). IGR 4 145 = Syll.3 798 = PH288719. Translation from Simon Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 244. See also, Sherk [1988] §42B. 21 Translation from Price, Rituals and Power, 244. 22 Translation from NewDocs 9 §10.

6

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

In Galatians, Paul highlights the generosity/favor and benefaction of God and Christ. Not only does Paul open and close his letter to the Galatians by wishing upon them the generosity/favor or benefaction (χάρις) of God and Christ (Gal 1:3; 6:18), he invokes χάρις at key points in his letter to strengthen the persuasive force of his arguments. He remarks how the Galatian assemblies were “called” (καλῆσαι) “by the generosity/favor of Christ” (ἐν χάριτι χριστοῦ; Gal 1:6) and how accepting mandatory circumcision cuts them off from Christ’s generosity/favor or benefaction (τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε; Gal 5:4). Paul claims that he himself is the recipient of a divine benefaction from God (τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι; Gal 2:9), and that he was called by God’s generosity/favor to herald God’s messiah among the nations (καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ; Gal 1:15). Further, Paul asserts that his understanding of δικαιοσύνη does not nullify God’s benefaction (οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ; Gal 2:21). It is beyond the limit of the present study to exhaustively catalogue the senses of χάρις – this study is not an analysis of the term χάρις – but others have attempted to categorize every use of χάρις in the New Testament or Pauline corpus.23 Their categorizations indicate that Paul comfortably uses the word χάρις with its several normal uses within the civic benefaction framework. In Galatians, then, Paul’s uses of χάρις suggest that he is operating in the broad cultural domain of benefaction (Gal 1:3, 6, 15; 2:9, 21; 5:4; 6:18; cf. χαρίζεσθαι in 3:18).24 Importantly, though, his use of χάρις points beyond the term itself to the broader cultural encyclopedia of civic benefaction. In this study, the focus is not limited to the word χάρις itself; rather, the term χάρις is merely the entry point into the wider cultural scripts and motifs of benefaction.

23 E.g., Zeba A. Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004), 143; Crook, “Grace as Benefaction,” 36; BDAG, χάρις, 1079–1081. 24 On the use of χαρίζεσθαι in the epigraphical record to describe an act of benefaction/favor or disposition to do a favor, see, e.g., IG IX.1 78.12–13 (Abai [Phokis], 208 BC; καὶ ὑμῖν βουλό|μενος χαρίζεσθαι); Syll.3 588.67–69 (Miletos, early 2nd c. BC; τοὺς δὲ ὑπεράγον|τ̣α̣ς αἰχμαλώτους τοὺς Μιλησίων χαριζόμενος ὁ δῆμος ὁ Μαγνήτων ἔδωκεν [ἄ|ν]ε̣υ̣ λύτρου Ῥοδίοις); IG XII.6 1.145.6–7 (Samos, 2nd c. BC; βουλόμενος χαρίζεσθαι ἀπέστειλεν ἄνδρας κα|λοὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς); PH149475.Α29–30, Β50–51 (Beroia, 1st third of 2nd c. BC; οὔτε φίλωι χαριζόμενος οὔ-||τε ἐχθρὸν βλάπτων παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον [ll. A29–30]; ὃς ἂν αὐτῶι δοκῆι ἄριστα τὸ σῶμα διακεῖσθαι οὔτε χάριτ̣ος ἕνεκεν οὔτε ἔχθρας οὐδεμιᾶς [ll. B50–51]; note the parallel use of χαρίζεσθαι and χάρις to refer to doing a favor); Reynolds §13.4–6 (Aphrodisias, 31–19 BC; οὐ γάρ ἐστιν δίκαιον τὸ πάντων μέγιστον φιλάνθρωπον εἰκῇ καὶ χωρὶς αἰτίας χαρίζεσθαι· ἐγὼ δὲ || ὑμεῖν μὲν εὐνοῶ καὶ βουλοίμην ἂν τῇ γυναικί μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν σπουδαζούσῇ χαρίζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ | οὐχ ὥστε καταλῦσαι τὴν συνήθειάν μου); IG II2 5173.3 (41–54 AD; ἐχαρίσατο); PH345421.12–13 (Ariassos [Pisidia], ca. 238 AD; δίδημι δὲ καὶ χρίζομαι τῇ γλυκυτάτῃ πατρίδι μου| κτῆσιν μου).

1.1 Introduction

7

The institution of civic benefaction, or euergetism, was widespread across the Greek-speaking cityscape in the centuries surrounding Paul’s letters. 25 Civic benefaction typically consisted of a prominent local or foreign individual benefitting a civic body and in return the city, in gratitude, memorialized the benefactor’s deeds by giving public praise, prestige, and rewards. The benefactor(s) might help conclude a treaty (IG I3 227), assist in the liberation of a city (IG II3 1.918), supply food during a famine (OGIS 194), defend a city (OGIS 765), complete a building project (IG II2 505), provide medical services (OGIS 220; SEG 27.513), relieve debt (SEG 49.1041), act as an envoy to secure an advantageous alliance (Syll.3 591), ransom captives (IG II3 1.430, 875), or benefit the community in other ways.26 A public inscription in a prominent place like the acropolis, agora, or temple publicized the benefactions and rewards and in so doing enshrined the benefactor’s civic service(s) and virtues into public memory.27 For a civic community the act of publicly bestowing For the origins and early development of euergetism, see Marc Domingo Gygax, Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016). On its development in the Hellenistic period, see Philippe Gauthier, Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVe–Ier siècle avant J.-C.): contribution à l’histoire des institutions (Paris: École Française d’Athènes, 1985). On euergetism in the early Roman Empire in Asia Minor, see Arjan Zuiderhoek, The Politics of Munificence in the Roman Empire: Citizens, Elites and Benefactors in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). A wide view of the institution of benefaction across antiquity can be found in the collection of essays in Marc Domingo Gygax and Arjan Zuiderhoek, eds., Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021). On different aspects of Roman civic patronage, see, e.g., Claude Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), and John Nicols, Civic Patronage in the Roman Empire (Leiden: Brill, 2014). For benefactor-kings in the Hellenistic period, see Klaus Bringmann, “The King as Benefactor: Some Remarks on Ideal Kingship in the Age of Hellenism,” in Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World, ed. Anthony W. Bulloch, Erich S. Gruen, A. A. Long, and Andrew Stewart (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 7–24; cf. Gauthier, Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs, 39– 53. By the early second century BC at the latest, euergetism had made its way into Judea. On Jewish familiarity with Greek benefaction and how Judeans implemented a modified version of Greek-style civic benefaction, see Gregg Gardner, “Jewish Leadership and Hellenistic Civic Benefaction in the Second Century B.C.E.,” JBL 126, no. 2 (2007): 327–343. On women citizen-benefactors, see Przemysław Siekierka, Krystyna Stebnicka, and Aleksander Wolicki, Women and the Polis: Public Honorific Inscriptions for Women in the Greek Cities from the Late Classical to the Roman Period, vols. 1–2 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021). 26 See also the succinct list of benefaction types in W. W. Tarn and G. T. Griffith, Hellenistic Civilisation, 3rd ed. (Cleveland, OH: World, 1952), 108–109. 27 The rewards could include various packages of the following (among others): inviolability of possessions, public announcement of the crown at a festival like the Dionysia, freedom from certain taxes, free public meals, priority access to the city council, citizenship, the 25

8

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

praise (ἔπαινος) and rewards to benefactors functioned as a signal to would-be benefactors that the community returns appropriate gratitude to those who would do it good. With these public rewards the community sought to stimulate further generosity from the benefactor or from others. Despite the many studies in New Testament scholarship devoted to contextualizing the various documents in their benefaction context, the phenomenon of endangered benefaction and Paul’s letter to the Galatians have featured less in the scholarship compared to other topics related to benefaction.28 Endangered benefaction occurs in two distinct but often overlapping forms. The first expression of endangered benefaction focuses on the benefactor himself. In this form a benefactor voluntarily risks his or her life to benefit another person or a group, whether it be a king (e.g., OGIS 220), emperor (e.g., SEG 54.1625), or a city (e.g., I.Priene 17; SEG 28.60; I.ScM I 15; IG II3 1.1147). This pattern of endangered benefaction forms a part of a wider cross-cultural motif of selfendangerment in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods (e.g., Diodoros of Sicily, Bib. hist., 18.34.2; Theophrastos, Characters, 25.6; Josephus, Life, 14– 16). In the second expression of endangered benefaction an individual or group is in some sort of dangerous situation or crisis that a benefactor addresses through acts of service that deliver the imperiled person or group from the oppressive circumstances (e.g., I.ScM I 54). Not infrequently the benefactor’s service also involves self-endangerment on the recipient’s behalf (e.g., SEG 28.60; I.ScM I 15; SEG 54.1625). Paul’s portrayal of Christ’s self-endangerment unto death for the benefit of his constituents in Galatians (e.g., Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13) opens the possibility for comparing Christ with the wider phenomenon of endangered benefaction. Moreover, other cultural norms of gift-giving and reciprocity could use a fresh evaluation based on examples of gift-events and specific benefaction relationships in the historical records of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods – roughly the period of “the long Hellenistic Age” from Alexander III to Marcus Aurelius.29 The aim of such an evaluation is not to offer a comprehensive reconceptualization of ancient reciprocity systems nor is it to simply restate what right of import/export in war and peace, front seat privileges at games, statue(s), equestrian statue(s), a golden or leaf crown. 28 The phrase “endangered benefaction” and its first formulation as a distinct motif comes from Frederick Danker. See Frederick W. Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in LukeActs,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1981 Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards (Atlanta: SBL Press, 1981), 39–48; Danker, Benefactor, 417–435; Frederick W. Danker, “Imaged Through Beneficence,” in Reimagining the Death of the Lukan Jesus, ed. Dennis D. Sylva (Frankfurt: Anton Hain, 1990), 57–67, 184–186. 29 On the phrase “the long Hellenistic Age,” see Angelos Chaniotis, Age of Conquests: The Greek World from Alexander to Hadrian (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018), 3–9, 386–400. The present study also includes some sources from the late Classical period (ca. 400–323 BC).

1.3 Survey of Post-1980 Research

9

other New Testament scholars have already stated; rather, the goal is to survey the ancient sources for select dynamics and motifs that find prominent expression in Galatians and to focus on historical examples that can help calibrate likely cultural scripts and expectations for Paul and his audience. For example – to take some of the more noted themes from Galatians – the topics of freedom, enslavement, promise, fidelity, defection, and imitation all feature in the varied examples of benefaction and gifting. Thus, when these and other related topics are combined with the motifs of danger, self-endangerment, and benefaction, they come together to produce a more full-orbed account of the benefaction dynamics in Galatians. The ensuing chapters detail how examining a rich panoply of benefaction-events and attendant motifs affords one with conceptual resources to understand Galatians in its historical-cultural context.

1.2 Thesis The basic thesis of this dissertation is that in Galatians Paul uses benefaction terminology, motifs, and social scripts in continuity with their normal range of usage and understanding. Nevertheless, he configures and combines these various elements in a distinctive manner as a herald of the eschatological restoration of Israel from among the nations.30 In other words, in general Paul is culturally ordinary because he uses shared terminology, motifs, and social scripts related to benefaction, but (like anyone else) he is different in how he individually employs them in his specific local context. Consequently, comparing Paul’s message in Galatians with the wider cultural encyclopedia of benefaction yields similarities and differences at distinct levels of abstraction. The similarities are at the higher level of abstraction of shared language, motifs, and social scripts, and the differences are at the lower level of abstraction of how those shared cultural elements are combined and used in individual local contexts.

1.3 Survey of Post-1980 Research on Benefaction in Galatians 1.3 Survey of Post-1980 Research

Several studies have made comparisons between how Paul’s language and concepts in Galatians compare with other concepts or practices in his environment to better understand his message. For example, the topics of noble death, the Greek pharmakos ritual, Jewish Martyrology, and the Roman devotio have all featured in comparative works devoted to or involving Paul’s portrayal of the On Paul as proponent of an Israelite eschatological restorationist perspective, see Jason A. Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024). 30

10

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

death of Christ in Galatians.31 Lacking from the corpus of comparative studies is one that thoroughly investigates how Paul’s language of benefaction and endangered benefaction in Galatians exhibits similarities and differences to the wider cultural context.32 1.3.1 Benefaction Studies and New Testament Studies Modern English scholarship on Greek and Roman reciprocity systems in relation to ancient Judaism and the New Testament has proliferated since the 1980s.33 Frederick Danker’s 1982 monograph Benefactor marks a definitive moment for the study of benefaction in the New Testament because of its comprehensiveness and its detailed incorporation of Greek inscriptions. In the ensuing decade, Danker made several smaller contributions to the study of benefaction in Paul.34 After Danker, research into benefaction in Paul has been conE.g., David Seeley, The Noble Death: Greco-Roman Martyrology and Paul’s Concept of Salvation (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990); B. Hudson McLean, The Cursed Christ: Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and Pauline Soteriology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); Basil S. Davis, Christ as Devotio: The Argument of Galatians 3:1–14 (New York: University Press of America, 2002); Jarvis J. Williams, Maccabean Martyr Traditions in Paul’s Theology of Atonement: Did Martyr Theology Shape Paul’s Conception of Jesus’s Death? (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 112–113; Christ Redeemed ‘Us’ from the Curse of the Law: A Jewish Martyrological Reading of Galatians 3:13 (London: T & T Clark, 2019); Joel L. Watts, Jesus as Divine Suicide (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2019). See also Christina Eschner’s significant study, Gestorben und hingegeben „für” die Sünder: Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens und deren paulinische Aufnahme für die Deutung des Todes Jesu Christi, 2 vols (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 2010), esp. 1:383–413, 421–422, 423–445, 476–483. 32 Ferdinand Okorie recently examined Galatians in its benefaction context, but his work leaves room for a study that more closely attends to ancient sources and has a more detailed analysis of ancient Greek civic benefaction in relation to Galatians. Ferdinand Okorie, “Benefaction in Galatians: An Analysis of Paul’s Language of God’s Favor in Its Greco-Roman Context” (PhD diss., Loyola University Chicago, 2018). See now a revised and updated version of his dissertation in Ferdinand Okorie, Favor and Gratitude: Reading Galatians in Its Greco-Roman Context (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2021). Note that the published version of Okorie’s dissertation is significantly revised, the original being 297 pages long and the published version being 126 pages. I will primarily refer to the published version throughout. 33 On scholarship on benefaction (including on Paul) that spans the whole twentieth century, see the summary in Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 3–23. On prominent twentieth century studies on χάρις, see Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion, 132–148. 34 Frederick W. Danker, 2 Corinthians (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989); Danker, “Imaged Through Beneficence,” 57–67, 184–186; Frederick W. Danker, “Paul’s Debt to the De Corona of Demosthenes: A Study of Rhetorical Techniques in Second Corinthians,” in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhe31

1.3 Survey of Post-1980 Research

11

tinued by many scholars, most voluminously by James Harrison, who has devoted significant attention to the topic.35 Another important moment for benefaction in Paul studies was the publication of John Barclay’s Paul and the Gift (2015).36 Barclay takes a different approach than Danker and Harrison, less focused on documentary texts (inscriptions, papyri). He conceptually untangles notions of divine “grace” in the Western Protestant Christian tradition still toric in Honor of George A. Kennedy, ed. Duane F. Watson (JSNTSS 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 262–280. 35 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context; James R. Harrison, “Paul, Theologian of Electing Grace,” in Paul and His Theology, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 77–108; “Paul and the Gymnasiarchs: Two Approaches to Pastoral Formation in Antiquity,” in Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 141–178; “Paul and the Athletic Ideal in Antiquity: A Case Study in Wrestling with Word and Image,” in Paul’s World, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 81–109; “The Brothers as the ‘Glory of Christ’ (2 Cor 8.23): Paul’s Doxa Terminology in Its Ancient Benefaction Context,” NovT 52 (2010): 156–188; “The Imitation of the “Great Man” in Antiquity: Paul’s Inversion of a Cultural Icon,” in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 213–254; “Augustan Rome and the Body of Christ: A Comparison of the Social Vision of the Res Gestae and Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” HTR 106 (2013): 161–184; “Paul the ‘Paradoxical’ Parent: The Politics of Family Beneficence in First-Century Context (2 Cor 12:14–16),” in Theologizing in the Corinthian Conflict: Studies in the Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians, ed. Reimund Bieringer, Ma Marilous S. Ibita, Dominika A. Kurek-Chomycz, and Thomas A. Vollmer (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 399–425; “Paul and Ancient Civic Ethics: Redefining the Canon of Honour in the Graeco-Roman World,” in Paul’s Graeco-Roman Context, ed. Cilliers Breytenbach (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 75–118; “The First Urban Churches: Introduction,” in The First Urban Churches, vol. 1, Methodological Foundations, ed. James R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 1–40; “Paul and the Agōnothetai at Corinth: Engaging the Civic Values of Antiquity,” in The First Urban Churches, vol. 2, Roman Corinth, ed. James R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 271–326; “Sponsors of Paideia: Ephesian Benefactors, Civic Virtue and the New Testament,” Early Christianity 7 (2016): 346–367; “Negotiating the Seduction of Imperial ‘Peace and Security’ in Galatians, Thessalonians, and Philippians,” in Introduction to Empire in the New Testament, ed. Adam Winn (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 165–184; “Ephesian Cultic Officials, Their Benefactors, and the Quest for Civic Virtue: Paul’s Alternative Quest for Status in the Epistle to the Ephesians,” in The First Urban Churches, vol. 3, Ephesus, ed. James R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018), 253–298; “From Rome to the Colony of Philippi: Roman Boasting in Philippians 3:4–6 in Its Latin West and Philippian Epigraphic Context,” in The First Urban Churches, vol. 4, Roman Philippi, ed. James R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018), 307–370; Paul and the Ancient Celebrity Circuit: The Cross and Moral Transformation, WUNT 430 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019). See also his studies on the Gospels, James R. Harrison, “The Social Context,” in The Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition, ed. Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 105–126; “Beneficence to the Poor in Luke’s Gospel in its Mediterranean Context: A Visual and Documentary Perspective,” ABR 65 (2017): 30–46. 36 See also the companion volume, John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Power of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020).

12

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

endemic to New Testament scholarship. Numerous additional monographs and articles engage the topic of benefaction, including the notable contributions of David deSilva, Stephan Joubert, Zeba Crook, Orrey McFarland, and others.37 37 E.g., Stephan J. Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy, and Theological Reflection on Paul’s Collection (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); Stephan J. Joubert, “One Form of Social Exchange or Two? ‘Euergetism,’ Patronage, and Testament Studies,” BTB 31, no. 1 (2001): 17–25; Stephan J. Joubert, “Patrocinium and Euergetism: Similar or Different Reciprocal Relationships. Eavesdropping on the Current Debate amongst Biblical Scholars,” in The New Testament in the Graeco-Roman World: Articles in Honour of Abe Malherbe, ed. Marius Nel, Jan G. van der Watt, and Fika J. van Rensburg (Zürich: LIT Verlag, 2015), 171–196; Tessa Rajak, “Benefactors in the Greco-Jewish Diaspora,” in The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 373–391; David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000); Zeba A. Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion; “The Divine Benefactions of Paul the Client,” JGRChJ 2 (2001–2005): 9–26; “Grace as Benefaction in Galatians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 3:10, and Romans 12:3; 15:15,” 25–38; Jerome H. Neyrey, Render to God: New Testament Understanding of the Divine (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004); Jerome H. Neyrey, “God, Benefactor and Patron: The Major Cultural Model for Interpreting the Deity in Greco-Roman Antiquity,” JSNT 27, no. 4 (2005): 465–492; David J. Downs, The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts, WUNT 2.248 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); Jonathan Marshall, Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke, WUNT 2.259 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); Mark A. Jennings, “Patronage and Rebuke in Paul’s Persuasion in 2 Corinthians 8–9,” JGRChJ 6 (2009): 107–127; Erlend D. MacGillivray, “Re-evaluating Patronage and Reciprocity in Antiquity and New Testament Studies,” JGRChJ 6 (2009): 37– 81; Carolyn Osiek, “The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship: The Meeting of Ways,” BTB 39, no. 3 (2009): 143–152; David J. Downs, “Is God Paul’s Patron? The Economy of Patronage in Pauline Theology,” in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker and Kelly D. Liebengood (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 129–156; Cilliers Breytenbach, “‘Charis’ and ‘Eleos’ in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in Grace, Reconciliation, Concord: The Death of Christ in GrecoRoman Metaphors (Leiden: Brill, 2010): 207–238; Seth Schwartz, Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010); David Briones, “Mutual Brokers of Grace: A Study in 2 Corinthians 1.3–11,” NTS 56 (2010): 536–556; “Paul’s Intentional ‘Thankless Thanks’ in Philippians 4.10–20,” JSNT 34, no. 1 (2011): 47–69; Joshua Rice, Paul and Patronage: The Dynamics of Power in 1 Corinthians (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013); Brian J. Tucker, “The Jerusalem Collection, Economic Inequality, and Human Flourishing: Is Paul’s Concern the Redistribution of Wealth, or a Relationship of Mutuality (or Both)?,” Canadian Theological Review 3, no. 2 (2014): 52–70; B. J. Oropeza, “The Expectation of Grace: Paul on Benefaction and the Corinthians’ Ingratitude (2 Corinthians 6:1),” BBR 24, no. 2 (2014): 207–227; Nathan Eubank, “Justice Endures Forever: Paul’s Grammar of Generosity,” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 5, no. 2 (2015): 169–187; Orrey McFarland, God and Grace in Philo and Paul (Leiden: Brill, 2016); Peter Lampe, “Paul, Patrons, and Clients,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, ed. J. Paul Sampley (Rev. ed.; London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 2:204–238; Thomas Blanton IV, A Spiritual Economy: Gift Exchange in the Letters of Paul of Tarsus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017); Thomas R. Blanton IV

1.3 Survey of Post-1980 Research

13

Yet, as much as the scholarship on reciprocity in the study of Paul has multiplied and shown that benefaction and gift practices provide a critical interpretive cultural context for understanding many aspects of Paul’s letters and theology, still only a few scholars have engaged the particular theme of endangered benefaction or attempted an understanding of Paul’s benefaction language in Galatians. The present study seeks to understand Galatians in its benefaction context in general but also pays special attention to the sub-theme of endangered benefaction because, as will be seen in the following survey, scholars have not given attention to it in sufficient depth. 1.3.2 Frederick W. Danker Frederick Danker provides the most direct and original contribution to the study of benefaction and the New Testament as well as the phenomenon of endangered benefaction.38 His original description of endangered benefaction employs the phrase “peristatic narration” to characterize the phenomenon as “laudable performance in perilous circumstances.”39 Continuing, he notes that such narratives “may describe perilous circumstances that require the generous services of a deity or of an influential citizen” or “explicitly alert the public to the fact that a benefactor has personally undergone risk or danger in performing his or her service.”40 Furthermore, Danker saw how widespread this phenomenon of the endangered benefactor was in the Hellenistic world, calling it a and Raymond Pickett, eds., Paul and Economics (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017); Marcin Kowalski, “God the Benefactor and His Human Clients in Rom. 5–8,” BibAn 8, no. 1 (2018): 47–69; Ryan S. Schellenberg, “Subsistence, Swapping, and Paul’s Rhetoric of Generosity,” JBL 137, no. 1 (2018): 215–234; Jennifer Eyl, Signs, Wonders, and Gifts: Divination in the Letters of Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). 38 Danker, Benefactor; Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 39–48. Mention should be made of Stephen C. Mott’s study that preceded Danker’s work. Mott examined the language of σωτήρ in the Greco-Roman world, the popular moralists, the Greek Old Testament, Philo, and the New Testament letter Titus. He focuses on the term σωτήρ (and related terms) by mapping it from the normal usage with respect to a benefactor, monarch, or deity who delivers a group or individual from distress onto the moral psyche from which one could be delivered from the attacks of the passions or bodily desires, ignorance, a defective will, vice, or other maladies of “the πολιτεία of the soul.” In this moral realm, “the benefaction may now be deliverance from the passions rather than the Persians.” Stephen C. Mott, “The Greek Benefactor and Deliverance from Moral Distress,” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1971), quotes from 257, 378. 39 Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 39. Danker’s neologism “peristatic narration” bases itself on the term περίστασις (“crisis”) that sometimes occurs in ancient texts to characterize the dire situation that a benefactor addresses with his service. Danker further explains that the term περίστασις need not be present for his descriptive category of “peristatic” to apply to an ancient text. Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 39. 40 Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 39.

14

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

“deeply rooted cultural phenomenon” that is so widespread that it constitutes “public property in the Hellenistic world.”41 He furnishes a barrage of relevant and suggestive examples, but his comments tend to be brief summaries with a single, thematically significant quotation from the ancient source. A typical example from his brief 1981 article reads, “about the year 42/41, an administrator named Kallimachos received awards from the city of Thebes for bringing it through a most perilous period. The inscription in his honor states that he ‘brought aid and comfort to the city when it was on the verge of collapse in a variety of adverse circumstances.’”42 These short summaries allow Danker to fit numerous examples in a tightly packed manner to effectively illustrate his contention that endangered benefaction covers the length and breadth of the Hellenistic world in time and space. Danker conceptually organizes his examples of peristatic narration into four categories: (1) danger incurred by beneficiaries, (2) danger incurred by benefactors, (3) ultimate hazard – death, and (4) benefactors benefited.43 First, peristatic narration can highlight the jeopardy in which a community finds itself.44 Danker furnishes the cases of Tomi (Syll.3 731; 1st c. BC), Thebes (OGIS 194; 42/41 BC), and Sestos (OGIS 339; 2nd c. BC), which all experience a crisis out of which their benefactors deliver them. Second, an account of endangered benefaction may recount the dangers that benefactors, whether an individual or a group, undergo in order to benefit others.45 Danker produces nine instances of this variety from a range of locales and time periods.46 Third, death provides the hazard par excellence, and the willingness to experience death shows the lengths to which someone might go in order to benefit another.47 The seven examples that Danker relays, drawn from poets and orators, show how giving up one’s life to serve a beneficiary merits the designation “the supreme mark 41 Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 39, 41. Danker elsewhere aptly remarks that the various “terms, phrases, formulations, and themes” that appear in the textual sources for benefaction “serve as signals that are well understood across the centuries in the Graeco-Roman world of religion, business, and politics. They function with unerring force in bringing to noetic surface the distinctive cultural significance of people and deities who are praised for their contributions to the welfare of a smaller or a larger segment of humanity.” Danker, Benefactor, 317. 42 Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 40. 43 Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 40–43. 44 Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 40. 45 Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 40–41. 46 Demetrios Poliorketes (SEG 25.149), Antiochos I of Kommagene (OGIS 383), Eumenes II (OGIS 763), Akornion (Syll.3 762), Menas (OGIS 339), Kallisthenes (IOSPE I2 43), Aglaos (Choix ID 92), Seleukos of Rhosos (IGLSyria 3.1.718), the people of Smyrna (OGIS 229). Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 40–41. See also, Danker, “Imaged Through Beneficence,” 62. Elsewhere Danker adds another brief example from Cyrene, that of Phaos (OGIS 767). Danker, 2 Corinthians, 35. 47 Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 41–43.

1.3 Survey of Post-1980 Research

15

of ἀρετή.”48 Fourth, benefactors themselves on occasion find themselves in peril and receive aid from deities.49 Such an abundance of examples merits further exploration in terms of both the depth of analysis in the particulars and the quantity of examples that one can furnish from the ancient sources of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. Danker’s 1982 volume (Benefactor) devotes a section to the motif of the endangered benefactor in the New Testament.50 In Paul’s letters, Danker proposes that Romans 5:6–8 and Philippians 2:6–11 especially reflect the endangered benefactor motif with reference to Christ.51 He also suggests that Paul portrays himself (Phil 1:12–26) and Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25–30; cf. ΙosPE I2 39; Syll.3 762.29–32) as endangered benefactors.52 Danker makes further comments on Pauline peristatic narrations in 2 Corinthians that illustrate Paul’s self-portrayal as an endangered benefactor. 53 For example, he remarks that “Paul poses himself as an endangered benefactor, who experiences perils on behalf of his clients” in 2 Corinthians 1:6.54 Additionally, Paul employs an extended peristatic narrative in 2 Corinthians 11:16–33 that reveals his own life’s considerable travails whose number and severity credential him for his apos-

Alkestis (Hyginus, Fabulae, §51; Euripides, Alcestis, 644–645); Phintias (Iamblichus, Pythagoras, 33.234–236; Lucian, Toxaris, 20); Eukritos (Polyaenus, Stratagems of War, 5.2.22); Pseudo-Demades 4[179]; Demosthenes, On the Crown, 100; Lysias 6.40 (Against Andocides). Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 41–43; quote from Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 43. 49 Attalos III extols Zeus Sabazios for his aid (OGIS 331.50–52), Augustus has the Senate thank the gods (Res Gestae Divi Augusti 1.4), Nero thanks the gods (Syll.3 814.22–24). Danker, “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts,” 43. 50 Danker, Benefactor, 363–366, 390–391, 417–435; cf. 321–323 (διδόναι ἑαυτὸν). His examples include overlap substantially with his brief 1981 article (see above) and includes the following: Akornion (Syll.3 762 = Danker §12), Simon son of Mattathias (1 Macc 14:27– 49 = Danker §13), Demetrios Poliorketes (Danker §30; cf. OGIS 229), Menas (OGIS 339 = Danker §17), Eumenes II (OGIS 763), Antiochos I of Kommagene (Danker §41), Aglaos (Choix ID 92), Moschion (I.Priene 108), people of Smyrna (OGIS 229), OGIS 273, OGIS 328, OGIS 331 (= RC 67), Euphron (Syll.3 317), Phaidros (Syll.3 409). 51 Danker, Benefactor, 417–418. For Danker, 2 Cor 5:11–15 also portrays Christ as an endangered benefactor who “went to the outer limits of beneficence on behalf of humanity” and whose death “solve[s] the problem of humanity’s common malady – death in alienation from God.” Danker, 2 Corinthians, 78–81 (quote from 79 and 80, respectively). 52 Danker, Benefactor, 424–426. James Harrison also notes Paul’s portrayal of Epaphroditus as an endangered benefactor. See Harrison, “Paul and Ancient Civic Ethics,” 105. 53 Danker, 2 Corinthians, 35 (2 Cor 1:6), 66–68 (2 Cor 4:7–12), 89–91 (2 Cor 6:3–10), 150 (2 Cor 10:1–18), 167–169 (2 Cor 11:5–9), 180–186 (2 Cor 11:22–33), 193 (2 Cor 12:5– 7), 198–199 (2 Cor 12:12). 54 Danker, 2 Corinthians, 35. εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτηρίας· εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπομονῇ τῶν αὐτῶν παθημάτων ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν (2 Cor 1:6). 48

16

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

tolic task to a far greater extent than the “super-apostles.”55 Danker’s insightful work in 2 Corinthians encourages similar work for Pauline letters like Galatians that remain underexplored in terms of endangered benefaction. In Benefactor, Danker also offers studies on the terminology, benefits, and rewards of the institution of benefaction and their relevance to New Testament documents.56 With respect to Galatians, he does not examine the letter’s use of the lexicon of benefaction or the motif of endangered benefaction in a comprehensive way. The valuable resonances between Galatians and benefaction to which he draws attention come by way of either terse commentary or lists of references that illustrate Paul’s use of benefaction language across his corpus.57 For instance, he underscores Paul’s engagement with the obligation for beneficiaries to respond with appropriate behavior towards one’s benefactor in Galatians 2:20–21 in which he artfully suggests that the Galatians will turn God’s benefaction (χάρις) into a wasted gift if they reinstate νόμος as the agent through which δικαιοσύνη flows.58 Similarly, Paul omits his usual remark of gratitude (Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 1:4; Phil 1:3; Col 1:3; 1 Thess 1:2; 2 Thess 1:2) in order to chastise the Galatians for their shocking ingratitude to their benefactor Christ (Gal 1:6).59 In as much as Danker’s work has illuminated the social and linguistic domain of benefaction in Paul’s letters, the brevity of his passing references and comments on Galatians warrants a more concentrated approach to Galatians itself. This is not to take away from Danker’s perceptive work, merely to suggest that more can be done. 1.3.3 James R. Harrison James Harrison’s 2003 work, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, studies the term χάρις and attendant terminology and social contexts.60 He examines inscriptions, papyri, Greco-Roman popular philosophers, and Jewish usage before moving on to Paul. Harrison argues that Paul’s understanding of God’s χάρις to its human recipients displays an array of characteristics. For Harrison, Paul’s description of God highlights the commitment, scope, and abundance of his benefaction in Christ. God’s action in giving up his son for his constituents shows that he operates on their behalf with an “unswerving Danker, 2 Corinthians, 180–186. Danker, Benefactor, 317–392, 393–413, 436–486. 57 Danker, Benefactor, 74 (Gal 1:8), 199 (Gal 4:3, 9–10), 321 (Gal 2:10), 323 (Gal 1:4), 326 (Gal 5:22), 332 (Gal 3:3, 5), 334 (Gal 2:20, 21), 358 (Gal 1:13–14), 372 (Gal 6:10), 382 (Gal 2:6), 397 (Gal 3:23, 24; 5:1), 410 (Gal 6:11), 412 (Gal 5:22–23), 441 (Gal 1:6), 444 (Gal 4:15), 451 (Gal 2:20–21). 58 Danker, Benefactor, 451; cf. 334. 59 Danker, Benefactor, 441. 60 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context. 55

56

1.3 Survey of Post-1980 Research

17

commitment to beneficence” (Rom 8:32).61 Christ’s participation in God’s benefaction reveals his own role as a benefactor who deliberately acted to secure righteousness (Rom 5:15a, 16b [cf. 6:23]; 15b; 16a).62 Further, God’s gift of righteousness announces and commences a new reign of God’s eschatological beneficence (Rom 5:18–19; Gal 4:4) in a manner that is “simultaneously theocentric and christocentric” (Rom 5:12–21).63 This new reign of God’s generosity initiates God’s full dominion over sin and death (Rom 5:17, 21; 6:14).64 In addition, the scope of Christ’s benefits is cosmic (Rom 5:12–21; 8:18, 22, 23, 29, 35–39; Col 1:18; 1 Cor 15:21–22, 45–48).65 Moreover, the significance of “the language of abundance” in Paul’s descriptions of divine generosity comes to the fore in his letters (Rom 5:15, 17, 20; cf. 6:20; 2 Cor 4:15; 8:7; 9:8; Eph 1:7b–8; 1 Tim 1:14).66 Yet, God’s abundant generosity stands out in Paul’s Greco-Roman context because it is “conditioned by ἀγάπη rather than by reciprocity” and thus “surpasses in scope all contemporary Greco-Roman beneficence.”67 Such cruciform love provides an unusual counterpart to contemporary displays of beneficence. For Harrison, Paul also depicts God as acting prior to human initiative and despite human ingratitude and unworthiness. God gives the Christ-gift prior to human solicitation or any formal cultic petition (e.g., Gal 1:6, 15, 16; 2:9).68 That is, Christ initiated reconciliation instead of waiting for his constituents to supplicate God for his benefits.69 Paul’s auditors who heard his message of unconditioned divine χάρις would have, or at least could have, understood it as a contrast and rival to Augustan beneficence that only showed clemency to those who had the wherewithal to submit to terms with Octavian.70 Moreover, God’s generosity is impartial and generous to the ungrateful and unworthy (e.g., Rom 1–3; 5:6–8, 10).71 Questions remain about the conditionality and mutual obligations of the divine-human relationship that the Christ-gift inaugurated. Harrison contends that Paul eschews, at least in some sense, the dynamic of reciprocity and muHarrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 223. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 226. 63 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 226. 64 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 278. 65 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 233–234. 66 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 227. 67 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 225; cf. 267–268 on ἀγαπῆσαι. 68 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 277–278; cf. 225, 267–268; Harrison, “Negotiating the Seduction of Imperial ‘Peace and Security’ in Galatians, Thessalonians, and Philippians,” 174. 69 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 230. 70 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 226–234, esp. 230. 71 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 218–219, 224–226, 266–267. 61

62

18

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

tual conditionality that typically holds together a benefaction relationship.72 For Harrison, Paul’s portrayal of divine beneficence reveals that God’s fidelity to his people is not operative on the condition that his people are loyal to him; rather, “the acceptance (Eph 2:8–9) and maintenance of salvation (1 Cor 1:4, 8–9; cf. Phil 1:6) originates solely in the grace of God” and “is effected by the faith-union of believers with their Lord and by the continuous work of His Spirit in their lives.”73 Still, recipients of the Christ-gift are obligated to return thanks to their benefactor-God even though they are not able to render commensurate gratitude for such a bounteous gift.74 Instead of returning gratitude with the typical variety of gift-inducements in the form of offerings or sacrifices, the Christ-gift “imposes an obligation to live worthily of the Benefactor” and a certain “moral indebtedness to God as Benefactor” for having “expended everything on his dependents” (Rom 1:14; 1 Cor 15:1, 10; 2 Cor 5:15; 6:1; Gal 1:6–9, 15–16; 2:21; 3:1, 4–5; 4:6; 5:13– 15, 16–24; 6:2–4, 6, 14–15).75 For the Corinthians this “moral indebtedness” to God entails that the recipients of divine benefaction model their ethics, at least in some important respects, after Christ’s pattern of self-divestment to enrich others (2 Cor 8:9; cf. 2 Cor 6:10; 8:1–2, 9:11).76 Moreover, Paul strongly emphasizes the theme of moral obligation to the divine benefactor in Galatians.77 In fact, Galatians reveals how the divine gift puts into effect “a radical social reordering” that upturns the contemporary cultural standards and Roman imperial ideology that can be seen exemplified in North and South Galatia.78 The copy of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti at Ankara (North Galatia) and Pisidian Antioch (South Galatia), as well as the iconography of Augustan triple-arched propylon at the imperial cult temple (Sebasteion) in Pisidian Antioch, attest to the local Galatian elite’s decision to praise Augustus by replicating imperial

Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 284–285; cf. 215. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 241. Emphasis removed. 74 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 270–271. Besides incommensurability, Paul’s vision of gratitude differs from his Greco-Roman context in that “the unity of Christ’s church” rather than “the judgement of posterity” motivates thanksgiving to God. Also, the gratitude has an intense focus on God as the locus of all honor (2 Cor 4:15; 9:12b–13). Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 270– 272. 75 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 247, 248, 249. 76 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 250–251. 77 Gal 1:6–9, 15–16; 2:21; 3:1, 4–5; 4:6; 5:13–15, 16–24; 6:2–4, 6, 14–15. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 248–249. 78 Harrison, “Negotiating the Seduction of Imperial ‘Peace and Security’ in Galatians, Thessalonians, and Philippians,” 165–176, quote from 175. On Paul’s ethics as inverting “the canons of honor” in the Greek East, see also, Harrison, “Paul and Ancient Civic Ethics,” 75–118, and Harrison, Paul and the Ancient Celebrity Circuit. 72

73

1.3 Survey of Post-1980 Research

19

culture and adopting his self-laudatory messaging.79 In contrast to agonistic culture of self-advertisement in the quest for honor and the imperial ideology celebrating Augustan generosity and the subjugation of barbarians to Roman hegemony, Paul elevates the values of “self-effacement” (Gal 6:3b) and “mutual commitment” (Gal 6:2a), promotes an “unqualified extension of benefits ‘to all,’” and exhorts his audience to live in accordance with a cruciform new creation that nullifies old societal divisions (Gal 6:15).80 As a result, Harrison’s forays into Galatians reveal the potential benefits that a more concentrated systematic discussion of the themes of benefaction in Galatians might yield. Finally, the motif of endangered benefaction also features in Harrison’s work. He appends a few additional examples of endangered benefactors and elaborates on the related categories of the impoverished benefactor (a benefactor who impoverishes himself to benefit his constituents; e.g., 2 Cor 8:9), the enslaved leader (e.g., Odysseus and Herakles as representing to Cynics “the ideal slave king who endured suffering and privation for the sake of others”), and the cowardly benefactor (a would-be benefactor who abandons his duties in time of crisis; e.g., Demosthenes according to Aeschines; cf. 2 Cor 11).81 Although Harrison has continued Danker’s research program into endangered benefaction, a more extensive study remains to be undertaken. 1.3.4 John Barclay John Barclay examines Galatians with the aid of historical and anthropological studies of the domain of gift and in conversation with a variety of Second

Harrison, “Negotiating the Seduction of Imperial ‘Peace and Security’ in Galatians, Thessalonians, and Philippians,” 166–173. 80 Harrison, “Negotiating the Seduction of Imperial ‘Peace and Security’ in Galatians, Thessalonians, and Philippians,” 173–175. 81 Quote from Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 257. For Harrison on the endangered benefactor motif, see Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 246 (1 Cor 11:16–33), 259 (Odysseus), 332–342 (mainly 2 Cor 11:19–29), esp. 334 (1 Cor 15:30 [cf. Rom 15:31]; 2 Cor 11:26), 338, 338n167 (Aesch., Ctes., 170), and 339–340 (2 Cor 11:23–29). See also, Harrison, “Paul and Ancient Civic Ethics,” 91, in which he cites AGRW §74, Syll.3 613A (= Austin2 §88; 184–183 BC), Syll.3 528 (= Austin2 §144; 221–219 BC), Reynolds, §§28, 31, and Jean Pouilloux, Choix d’inscriptions grecques (Paris: Société d’édition Les Belles Lettres, 2003), §§4, 34; Harrison, Paul and the Ancient Celebrity Circuit, 89–90 (Res Gestae Divi Augusti 5). For enslaved leader, see Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 256–268, 297n30, 350. For impoverished benefactor, see Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 250–256, 350. For cowardly benefactor, 335–340. He also notes the theme of “deliverance in pressing times.” See Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 338. See also Harrison’s entry entitled “Times of Necessity” in, NewDocs 9 §4 [= SEG 37.957], and Harrison, Paul and the Ancient Celebrity Circuit, 89. 79

20

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

Temple Jewish texts.82 He employs the concept of “perfections” (i.e., taking an idea to its logical end-point) and analyzes Galatians with six categories: superabundance (size, significance, permanence), singularity (sole/exclusive spirit of the giver), priority (timing prior to the recipient’s initiative), incongruity (not taking the recipient’s worth into account), efficacy (the degree to which the gift accomplishes its purpose), and non-circularity (the degree to which the gift escapes reciprocation).83 These categories disambiguate a suite of potential characteristics to describe a gift relationship with God. In this analytical framework, Barclay’s reading advances the notion that Paul in Galatians focuses on the incongruity of God’s beneficence. In Galatians, Barclay’s core argument centers on the notion that Paul understands that God has given the Christ-gift “without regard to worth.”84 That is, Paul highlights the incongruity of divine benefaction, places the Christ-event at the top of the hierarchy of values – “the Archimedean point from which everything is judged” or the “single point of reference” that “reconfigures every other map” (Gal 6:14–15) – and thereby relativizes all Jewish and nonJewish systems of inscribing social or ethnic honor, status, or rightness (e.g., Gal 2:19; 3:1–5, 26–28; 4:12–20; 5:2–6; 6:11–16).85 The result of Paul’s reasoning is that whether males are circumcised or not belongs to the level of values secondary to the Christ-event. 86 This incongruous dynamic of the Christ-gift becomes the argumentative grounds by which Paul contends against the requirement for non-Jews to receive circumcision.87 At the same time, the Christ-gift nullifies the zero-sum quest for honor endemic in Greco-Roman cities and instead fuels an alternative series of community norms organized around non-rivalrous mutual service and love according to the “law of Christ.”88 Thus, for Paul divine benefaction has immediate and strong social implications for the Galatian assemblies. With respect to the other five perfections, Barclay suggests that superabundance, singularity, and efficacy do not feature in any significant way in Gala82 Barclay also compares Pauline notions of (divine) gift in Galatians and Romans with some key theologians of the Western Christian tradition. 83 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 66–78, esp. 70–75. 84 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 350. 85 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 394, 400; broadly 389–400. 86 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 394. 87 Barclay states with respect to Torah, “The Christ-gift was not a Torah-event: it was not enacted, distributed, or experienced within the criteria of value established by the Torah” (Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 390; Gal 3:1–5). As a result, for the Galatians to submit to circumcision would go against the entire logic of the Christ-gift, which was given not on the basis of pre-constituted norms like circumcision or Torah in general (Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 391–393; Gal 5:2–6). Neither does male non-circumcision possess any significance, since Paul “subverts any form of symbolic capital [i.e., circumcision or non-circumcision] that operates independently of Christ” (Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 393). 88 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 430–442.

1.3 Survey of Post-1980 Research

21

tians.89 Further, Paul presupposes rather than explicates divine priority of the Christ-gift in terms of how God “calls” believers.90 Whereas incongruity stands out in Galatians, Paul’s language strongly resists notions of non-circularity; rather, “practice arising from and aligned to the truth of the good news is integral to what Paul means by ‘faith.’”91 In other words, the Christ-gift imposes an obligation for recipients to respond appropriately to God, and Paul insists as much throughout his letter. Barclay’s categories offer nuance where many New Testament scholars have simply inherited a Western Christian discourse about “grace” that theologically pre-determines what the essence of “grace” is and what Paul must be saying about divine gift giving. Thus, one key point in Paul and the Gift is an antiessentialist one: “Grace is everywhere in Second Temple Judaism but not everywhere the same.”92 That is, people in antiquity portray divine generosity and gifting in a variety of ways, similarly and differently to varying degrees, with no two portrayals being exactly alike or entirely different. What Barclay says about “grace” in Second Temple Judaism can be modified to apply more broadly: “benefaction is everywhere but not everywhere the same.” This antiessentialist conceptual point has been made fruitfully in other fields of knowledge like the philosophy of language and biology. So, Ludwig Wittgenstein’s famous example of the varied usages of the word “game” and his notion of “family resemblance” reflect this anti-essentialist insight. 93 Likewise, Charles Darwin critically relied on “population thinking” as opposed to Platonic essentialism as a way to understand populations of organisms as groups of unique individuals with no essence common to all to which the individuals could be reduced.94 As with the many uses of the word “game” and with individuals within populations of organisms, which admit family resemblances but no essence, so too with understanding descriptions of benefaction or gift relationships: there is no essence of benefaction or divine benefaction; rather, each individual portrayal of divine benefaction is unique, as is each historical instance of a benefaction event. And as a result, comparison of individual instances or portrayals of benefaction with the wider group of instances or portrayals as a whole will result in family resemblances in different respects rather than an identity of essence. Although in Paul and the Gift Barclay explores the domain of gift in Galatians with more nuance than many previous interpreters by disambiguating Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 446. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 446. 91 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 446. 92 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 6. See also Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 565. 93 See especially, Wittgenstein, PI, §66–77. 94 On population thinking versus essentialism, see Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1982), 45– 47. 89

90

22

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

“grace” with a suite of potential characteristics to describe a gift relationship with God, more attention to the particular benefaction examples, themes, and language in the epigraphical and literary sources would provide a different, more ground-level angle from which to approach the domain of benefaction.95 The categories of superabundance, singularity, priority, incongruity, efficacy, and non-circularity are high level conceptual framework that can analyze, in principle, any conception of or occurrence of gift giving. But these categories in themselves are largely unmoored from Paul’s Hellenistic benefaction context, with its complex network of vocabulary, institutions, social scripts, and motifs. Close attention to the array of benefaction events attested in epigraphical and literary sources affords a more bottom-up approach to understanding the most salient cultural categories for Paul and his urban contacts and networks. To take one example, Barclay’s contention that Paul perfects incongruity in Galatians could be better situated in the context of other instances of mercy or clemency to unworthy recipients. Further, Paul’s kinship arguments in Galatians 3–4, comparable to the wider phenomenon of Hellenistic kinship diplomacy, might reframe or nuance the notion of “incongruity” so that God does at some level consider the “worthiness” (however defined) of the gentile recipients of the Christ-gift (see §9.2 and §9.6). 1.3.5 David A. deSilva David deSilva places Galatians in its benefaction context and also mentions the endangered benefactor motif in his studies on benefaction and patronage in the New Testament. 96 With respect to the endangered benefactor theme he closely follows the prior work of Danker.97 For deSilva, because Paul portrays Christ in like manner to benefactors who jeopardize themselves for their constituents, it enables him to invert Christ’s shameful death by crucifixion into an honorable death that brought abundant benefits and that merits gratitude 95 See also Margaret Mitchell’s related criticism of Barclay’s Paul and the Gift that seeks to understand gifts as more dynamic and complex than Barclay’s perfections seem to allow. Margaret M. Mitchell, “Gift Histories,” JSNT 39, no. 3 (2017): 304–323. 96 For some of deSilva’s work on benefaction and patronage in the New Testament in general, see David A. deSilva, “Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament,” Ashland Theological Journal 31 (1999): 32–84; Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 95–156. On Galatians, see deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians. 97 deSilva Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 136–137. Elsewhere deSilva remarks that “Paul presented Christ’s crucifixion in terms of a benefactor who poured himself out completely in order to bring benefit to his clients” and that as a result “the shameful death of the cross was thus transformed into a noble act of supreme generosity and beneficence.” deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, 5; cf. 248, 250–252. Other virtuous death traditions receive brief mention in deSilva’s commentary as well, e.g., military leaders, soldiers, Jewish martyrs (2 Macc 7:1–8:5; 4 Macc 6:28–30; 17:21–22), characters from Greek tragedies. deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, 118–119.

1.3 Survey of Post-1980 Research

23

from those who have reaped those benefits.98 Moreover, deSilva analyzes Galatians with sensitivity to a variety of aspects of benefaction. For example, he draws attention to the χάρις of God and Christ (Gal 1:3–4) from which the Galatians are, according to Paul, on the verge of severing themselves and thus losing the relationship of favor (Gal 5:2–4).99 Thus, the theme of returning proper gratitude to one’s benefactor plays an important role in Paul’s rhetoric (e.g., Gal 2:19–20; 5:1–6).100 Furthermore, recipients of God’s benefaction in Christ are obligated to pattern their own behavior in imitation of the model of Christ’s self-giving love for them (Gal 5:13–6:10).101 As a result, along with Danker, Harrison, and Barclay, deSilva also highlights Paul’s concern for the Galatians to avoid ingratitude and instead return gratitude to God and Christ in response to their beneficence. Nevertheless, a similar lacuna exists in deSilva’s work on endangered benefaction as with other scholars. That is, the study of Galatians would benefit from a larger evidential basis from the epigraphical and literary sources for endangered benefaction as well as certain other themes of benefaction that find expression in Galatians (e.g., freedom, promise, fidelity). Likewise, an attempt to correlate the span of benefaction language and dynamics in Galatians in a concentrated way could help contribute to the study of Galatians. 1.3.6 Ferdinand Okorie Ferdinand Okorie has also noticed the need to situate Galatians more comprehensively in its benefaction context. In Gratitude and Favor, Okorie has attempted to do just that. To avoid modern theological discourses and to focus on the Greco-Roman context of χάρις he understandably prefers the term “favor” when talking about χάρις.102 Based on some of James Harrison’s statements about how Paul portrays divine benefaction as non-reciprocal (see §1.3.3), Okorie distinguishes himself from Harrison by insisting that Paul re-

deSilva Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 136–137. deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, 117–119, 124–125, 133, 293, 414–420. 100 deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, 247–248, 254–262, 412, 416. 101 deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, 443–499, esp. 466 (Gal 5:22), 476–477 (Gal 4:19; 2:19–20; 5:13–26), 484–485 (Gal 6:2); cf. 448 (Gal 5:13). So, deSilva comments on the term ἀγάπη in Galatians 5:22 (ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἀγάπη . . . ), saying that the word in early Christian usage takes on the significance “of other-centered self-giving love that Christ demonstrated and disciples are called to imitate.” Similarly, in Galatians 6:2 (ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη βαστάζετε καὶ οὕτως ἀναπληρώσετε τὸν νόμον τοῦ χριστοῦ), he says, “Christ’s other-centered, self-giving love is their law, and mutual burden-bearing is a dayto-day expression of living by the norm of Christ.” deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, 466, 485. 102 Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 5. 98

99

24

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

quires recipients of divine favor to reciprocate the gift.103 But, as noted above (§1.3.3), Harrison affirms that Paul requires recipients of God’s beneficence to respond appropriately to their benefactor God by living in a morally worthy manner. So, Okorie’s criticism appears to be more of a difference in how one defines “reciprocity.” Harrison is mainly concerned with contrasting Paul with what he sees as a prevailing ethos of reciprocity in civic benefaction and in the relationship between humans and the gods. With respect to civic benefaction, Harrison sees reciprocity play out in the expectation that the recipients of a benefactor’s generosity are supposed to remunerate the favor with commensurate, albeit lesser, favor(s).104 Regarding the divine-human relationship he observes a circular ritual system, which he describes as do ut des (“I give that you may give”) and “a mere business transaction,” whereby (1) humans offer sacrifices and various offerings to the gods in order to manipulate and obligate the gods to show favor, (2) the deity, dutifully obliged, bestows benefactions, (3) the recipients respond Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 53–56. Okorie also argues that Paul insists on reciprocating favors among the Galatian assemblies (Gal 4:12–20; 5:13, 14, 15, 19–21, 26; 6:1, 2, 6, 9–10) and between the larger family of God, as evidenced in the Jerusalem collection (Gal 2:10; 1 Cor 16:1–4). Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 61–88. Okorie’s comments on Harrison’s view of reciprocity is more extensive in Okorie, “Benefaction in Galatians,” 68–70. For Harrison’s comments on the differences he sees between the wider reciprocity systems and Paul, see Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 211–352, esp. 283–288, 348–352. Other scholars criticize Harrison for his account of the non-reciprocal nature of the Christ-gift. In this regard, see McFarland’s criticism of Harrison on the grounds that (1) Harrison does not give close enough attention to Paul’s own concerns, (2) Harrison uses the term “unilateral” and wrongly purges Paul’s understanding of divine and human χάρις of any reciprocity, and (3) he limits what Paul is allowed to say by a pre-conceived background (though this final critique is more directed at Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion). McFarland, God and Grace in Philo and Paul, 16–19. Similarly, Barclay criticizes Harrison for a lack of clarity in some of his concepts and language, especially around the terminology of “unilateral,” “unconditional,” and reciprocity. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 180–182. 104 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 40–43. Harrison makes a distinction between gratitude and reciprocity, saying, “the dynamic behind the manifesto clause [of honorific inscriptions] is more than the gratitude of the beneficiary (although that is present): it also involves the ethos of reciprocity – the return of favors for favors done.” Harrison refers to the rewards that benefactors received for their services as a counter-gift or return favor. An example of a manifesto clause can be seen from when Athens honored Kallias of Sphettos (270/269 BC): “Thus, so that all who seek to act with love of honor for the city would know that the demos remembers forever those who benefit it and return favor to each of them” (ὅπως ἂν οὖν εἰδῶσι πάντες [οἱ βο]|υλόμενοι φιλοτιμεῖσθαι πρὸς τὴν πόλιν διότι ὁ δῆμος [ἀε-]|ὶ μέμνηται τῶν εὐεργετησάντων ἑαυτὸν καὶ χάριν ἑκάστοις ἀποδίδωσιν; SEG 28.60.83–86). Translation my own. On this inscription, see T. Leslie Shear, Jr., Hesperia Supplements 17: Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 B.C. (Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1978). 103

1.3 Survey of Post-1980 Research

25

with gratitude through service to the god, and (4) the deity in return shows gratitude.105 With this understanding of what reciprocity means Harrison then contrasts the relational dynamic he sees in Paul’s letters regarding the Christ-gift and the response that Paul expects. As noted earlier, he affirms that Paul expects and requires recipients of the God’s Christ-benefaction to respond appropriately to their benefactor-God, but at the same time he argues Paul differs from the Greco-Roman religious system by rejecting any attempt to manipulate divine favor with gift-inducements and to constrain God to show generosity; rather, the relationship is “unilateral” in the sense that Paul directs no attention to reciprocating God for the Christ-gift with favors or services that will in turn constrain him to show gratitude to his human devotees. Paul so exclusively zeroes in on the abundance and sufficiency of the Christ-gift that he drops all pretensions of reciprocity and human effort and instead conceives of a life of total devotion and commitment to live worthily of his benefactor God as the only appropriate response.106 In this sense, Paul expects his recipients to show a non-reciprocal gratitude to God and Christ. Whereas Harrison acknowledges that Paul expects the Galatians to show gratitude to God but directs them to express their gratitude not with gift-inducements to put the deity in their debt (i.e., “reciprocity”) but with a life of moral uprightness according to the deity’s stipulations, Okorie throughout his own work tends to equate “gratitude” with “reciprocity.” For Okorie, the obligation to show gratitude to God and Christ, to maintain πίστις to them, and to live a life of grateful obedience renders the divine-human relationship reci105 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 50–57, 284 (quote from 284). Harrison draws a fine line between reciprocating favors to gods in response to divine benefaction on the one hand, which he argues Paul strongly rejects in favor of highlighting divine abundance and “divine love” or “unconditional love” in a “non-cultic” or non-mechanistic relationship between humans and God, and on the other hand one’s moral obligation to behave worthily of their benefactor God (Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 348–351). The seeming contradictions Harrison vacillates between – a non-reciprocal human-divine relationship out of step with his cultural environment and the obligation of proper response to one’s benefactor God – might be eliminated in part by understanding the divine-human relationship in the wider Greek-speaking world as not one of do ut des (I give so that you might give) in a mechanical favor for favor operation. Instead, both deities and humans had a choice in the exchange of favors in an ongoing relationship. The relationship was not a financial or gift contract in which human devotees purchase the favor of the gods; rather, the ritual system is concerned with “creating goodwill from which humans might hope to benefit in the future.” Simon Price, Religions of the Ancient Greeks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 38–39. In this understanding of the divine-human gift relationship in the Greek world Paul’s portrayal of divine benefaction and human response is less (or not at all) at odds in the basic dynamic (e.g., Rom 12:1– 2; 15:15–16; Phil 2:25–30; 4:18; see also 1 Tim 4:6–8). 106 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 285.

26

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

procal.107 So, both Harrison and Okorie acknowledge that Paul expects the recipient of divine favor to return gratitude and to live an obedient life, but they seem to operate with different understandings of the term “reciprocity” and what makes a relationship reciprocal. As a result, Okorie’s criticism and correction of Harrison regarding whether Paul construes the divine-human relationship in terms of reciprocity seem to be more semantic than substantive. That is, Harrison affirms reciprocity according to Okorie’s definition (gratitude, worthy response), but Okorie fails to adequately address reciprocity according to Harrison’s definition (mechanistic, ongoing do ut des ritual exchange of favors). For Okorie, Galatians has other differences and similarities to Greco-Roman reciprocity systems. He suggests that Paul engages in a relationship with the Galatian assemblies contrary to the prevailing asymmetrical model of benefaction/patronage between a superior patron and inferior, obligated client.108 For him Paul speaks of the Galatians as friends who, in contrast to patronage, operate in relationship with him on the basis of reciprocity, love, equality, and concern for mutual benefit.109 Okorie draws attention to God’s impartiality in distinguishing between Jews and non-Jews in the Christ-gift as similar to Seneca’s understanding of the gods as impartial in certain of their benefits to humanity.110 But for Paul the gods of the nations are incapable of delivering benefactions; instead, they are enslaving powers.111 Still, Okorie leaves a variety of benefaction themes underdeveloped by neglecting to provide a thick evidentiary basis for prominent and interrelated Galatian motifs like freedom and enslavement, promise, time, fidelity and defection, and kinship language. 107 Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 39–60, esp. 39–40, 53. See also Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 33. Okorie equates reciprocity and gratitude, for instance, when he states that “just as the relationships of benefaction in the Greco-Roman world demand reciprocation, so too Paul expects the Galatians to practice reciprocity in their relationship with God. In other words, Paul expects them to show gratitude for the gratuitous gift of God’s favor that they have received.” Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 40. Elsewhere he connects πίστις with gratitude and reciprocity, saying, “as a client, the believer’s faith is the proof of gratitude and reciprocity.” Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 55. Further, Okorie explicitly equates gratitude with reciprocity, stating that “Paul’s language of friendship in Galatians includes the demand that believers show gratitude, namely, reciprocity.” Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 83. Thus, for Okorie, obligated gratitude is sufficient to deem a relationship reciprocal. 108 Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 82. Okorie states that “their [Paul and the Galatians’] experience of giving and receiving favor is based on friendship, it is not based on the superior/patron, and inferior/client relationship that characterizes most of the benefaction relationships in antiquity.” Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 82. 109 Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 63–85. 110 Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 16–17, 34n16, 35n17. Okorie cites Seneca’s On Benefits, 4.28.1–3 and 7.31.4. For God’s impartiality in Paul, he cites several verses (Gal 2:6; 6:7; Rom 2:11; 3:22). 111 Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 99–103.

1.4 Course of the Argument

27

With respect to endangered benefaction, Okorie follows Danker by citing two of his examples, Akornion (OGIS 339) and Menas (IGBulg I2 13), to which he adds passing mention of the sons of Mattathias from 1 Maccabees (1 Macc 14:29).112 Here he discerns the similarity of Paul’s Christ with figures who risk their lives to benefit their constituents.113 He states that the phrase παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν (Gal 2:20) is drawn from the common stock of benefaction terms.114 On the contrary, although linguistically close to the normal benefaction terminology of ἐπιδοῦναι ἑαυτόν and δοῦναι ἑαυτόν, the phrase παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν has a different nuance and is, as far as the present author is aware, never used in honorific inscriptions for benefactors.115 Such a discontinuity from the normal lexical stock of benefaction suggests that Paul’s choice of expression constitutes a distinctively Pauline variation on the endangered benefactor theme. His treatment of endangered benefaction reflects the wider need of the postDanker, post-Harrison scholarship to build on their significant and pioneering studies rather than just rely on them.

1.4 The Course of the Argument 1.4 Course of the Argument

Broadly, the study proceeds in as follows. First, chapters 2 through 4 introduce the basics of benefaction and explore select dynamics and motifs that will resurface in chapters 7 through 9 on Galatians. From chapter 2 through 4 emerge culturally appropriate categories from a wide array of benefaction and giftevents from the epigraphical and literary sources.116 Chapter 2 overviews the 112 Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 22–23, 35n34. In the unpublished dissertation, Okorie includes Herakles in his examples of endangered benefactors but omits the sons of Mattathias. Further, he acknowledges Danker as the source for Akornion and Menas in the unpublished version but omits citation of Danker in the published version. Okorie, “Benefaction in Galatians,” 126–129. 113 Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 22–23. 114 Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 22–23. It is notable that Okorie does not give any examples with the actual phrase παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν; instead, his examples include the terms ἐπιδοῦναι and δοῦναι. 115 A search of the Packhard Humanities Institute epigraphical database at epigraphy.packhum.org with the entries παραδο, παρεδωκε ἑαυτον, ἑαυτον παρεδωκε, and παραδι yielded no relevant instances of παραδοῦναι with self-reference as the object. The only example was a fifth to sixth century AD inscription that requires reconstruction (SEG 36.1179). One reconstruction reads ἑ[αυτὸν ὅλον]| παραδούς (PH267762) and another reads ἑ[αυτὸν)]| παραδούς (PH267761). See chapter 7 (§7.2.2) for further discussion of παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν. 116 Inscriptions are a direct source of linguistic, historical, and cultural knowledge that provides evidence that literary sources such as historians, poets, philosophers do not and cannot provide. The main source of primary evidence for benefaction in Greek-speaking cities comes in the form of honorific inscriptions (often in decree form), which record a

28

Chapter 1: Benefaction and the Study of Galatians

basic operation and social scripts of benefaction. Fundamental to consider is the importance of gratitude, what considerations people took when deciding to give a benefaction (or not), what motivated people to reject a benefaction, and considerations of how to return proper gratitude. Also relevant is how cultural misunderstanding might occur in a gift-event and how people might take advantage of others by means of a benefaction through a “gift as bait” scheme. Next, chapter 3 delves into several themes, relational dynamics, and practices associated with benefaction that are especially relevant to Galatians. So, in the first section this chapter examines topics under the heading of benefits and patterns of benefaction. These include the supreme benefit of civic freedom, expectations for people who made promises, and the motif of starting and completing a benefaction. Also salient are the themes of word-deed congruence on the part of a benefactor, how benefits were expected to be dispensed to worthy recipients but also how clemency and pardon were highly valued, and how people represented prototypical and abundant generosity. Finally, this section examines certain temporal themes of benefaction. Next, chapter 3 looks at relational dynamics like ingratitude, fidelity and disloyalty, and benefaction within kinship diplomacy. The final section of this chapter discusses the themes of memory, imitation, and community survival as they relate to benefaction. Chapter 4 then shows how many of these previously examined motifs of benefaction cohere together and find expression in a single historical episode, the First Mithridatic War (89–85 BC). Next, chapters 5 and 6 describe and analyze in detail the phenomenon of endangered benefaction as attested in epigraphical and literary sources. These chapters provide lexical and conceptual resources with which to understand benefaction event with varying degrees of detail. In this study, literary sources provide complementary and additional evidence for benefaction and gift-norms. No doubt one must take care when using inscriptions as evidence, since they are not “neutral” or unbiased. Nevertheless, their value is especially felt in (1) their public and widespread dissemination across the Greek-speaking cityscape, and (2) for New Testament studies they are largely neglected. One might object that inscriptions are not that valuable of a source because literacy rates were low, and people would not care to read them anyways. In response are at least three points: (1) that objection applies to the literary record as well, (2) all honorific inscriptions were read aloud in draft form before the city assembly and subject to the approval of the city council (the boule) and the citizens (the demos); (3) if a passerby wanted to read the inscription, he or she could ask a literate person to read it or summarize it for them. Presumably it would not be unusual for an illiterate person (i.e., most people) to know how the citizen body returned gratitude to the local benefactor who fought off the “barbarians” threatening their existence, provided affordable grain for the populace during a shortage, or relieved the city’s massive outstanding debt from his own pockets. In any case, honorific inscriptions also attest to the contemporary linguistic repertoire for civic virtue and the ever-changing cultural expressions of gift and gratitude. On the value of using inscriptions to understand aspects of the New Testament, see, e.g., D. Clint Burnett, Studying the New Testament through Inscriptions: An Introduction (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Academic, 2020).

1.4 Course of the Argument

29

and compare how Paul portrays Christ’s beneficence in Galatians (esp. Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13). Chapter 5 focuses on how people represented the gods with respect to dangerous situations, the martial virtue of self-endangerment for the sake of others, and endangered benefaction. Chapter 6 examines how 1 Maccabees and Josephus in his Life adapted the endangered benefactor motif. Together chapters 5 and 6 address the need in New Testament studies for post-Danker research on endangered benefaction by exploring the varied patterns of civic virtue through self-endangerment in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. Chapters 7 through 9 analyze Paul’s language of benefaction in Galatians. These chapters seek to address the lack of comprehensive treatment of benefaction in Galatians by using the material in the previous chapters to contextualize Paul’s use of various themes and social scripts of benefaction. Chapter 7 discusses the role of Christ as a benefactor who hazards his own life to liberate his constituents. Then, chapter 8 examines possible analogs for how Paul speaks about freedom (ἐλευθερία) in Galatians. Relatedly, the relationship between freedom and ethics has a bearing on Paul’s view of the Mosaic law and the “the law of Christ” (ὁ νόμος τοῦ χριστοῦ; Gal 6:2). Finally, chapter 9 relates several other benefaction themes and social scripts to Paul’s language in Galatians. So, Paul’s invocation of God’s promise and his use of kinship language is contextualized by a wider understanding of promise and intercity kinship diplomacy. Moreover, Paul’s representation of the Antioch incident (Gal 2:11– 14), God’s role as ongoing benefactor (Gal 3:1–5), and the possibility of the Galatians displaying ingratitude are discussed. Likewise, benefaction helps contextualize the incongruity of God’s generosity, Paul’s recounting of his past (Gal 1:13–14, 23), and the themes of fidelity and imitation. In all these ways, Paul’s language of benefaction is informed by the wider culture of benefaction within which he is situated.

Chapter 2

Benefaction – Gratitude and Decisions 2.1 Gratitude 2.1 Gratitude

The previous chapter delineated the basic character of civic benefaction. That is, an individual or group renders a service or provides something beneficial to a civic body and in return the city confers honor and rewards in gratitude.1 As a result of the benefactor’s deeds and the city’s conferral of honors, the benefactor gains prestige for themself and their descendants. Requitting proper gratitude to one’s benefactor forms a vital part of any benefaction relationship. Indeed, the benefaction-gratitude dynamic in the “culture of gratitude” of civic benefaction also operates in relationships between individuals.2 Xenophon’s Socrates asks, “Is it not everywhere a custom to return those who do good a favor?” 3 Moreover, neither is the benefaction-gratitude custom limited to Greeks and Romans. Diodoros of Sicily remarks how even Spartacus, a Thra-

Malcolm Errington describes this widespread “culture of gratitude” in the Hellenistic period as “in effect the oil that kept the local political machine running.” R. Malcolm Errington, A History of the Hellenistic World 323–30 BC (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008), 312. For some of the major treatments of euergetism, patronage, and gifting in antiquity, see Philippe Gauthier, Les cites grecques et leur bienfaiteurs (IVe-ler s. av. J.-C.). Contribution à l’histoire des institutions (Paris: École Française d’Athènes, 1985); Christopher Gill, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford, eds., Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); Claude Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Arjan Zuiderhoek, The Politics of Munificence in the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Michael Satlow, ed., The Gift in Antiquity (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013); John Nicols, Civic Patronage in the Roman Empire (Leiden: Brill, 2014); Marc Domingo Gygax, Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016); Mark Beck, Der politische Euergetismus und dessen vor allem nichtbürgerliche Rezipienten im hellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien sowie dem ägäischen Raum (Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2015); Marc Domingo Gygax and Arjan Zuiderhoek, eds., Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021). 2 Also note the well-known position of Seneca, who considers giving and receiving benefits “the chief bond of human society” (Ben., 1.4 [Basore, LCL]). 3 τοὺς εὖ ποιοῦντας ἀντευεργετεῖν οὐ πανταχοῦ νόμιμόν ἐστι (Xenophon, Memorabilia, 4.4.24). 1

2.1 Gratitude

31

cian, knew to return gratitude to someone who conferred a favor on him.4 Cities too can confer benefits and express gratitude to other cities, not just to individuals. In this vein Polybios, after describing how the city of Byzantion facilitates mutually advantageous trade networks between Greek cities and the Black Sea region, conceptualizes the Byzantines as “common benefactors of all” (εὐεργέται) whom the Greeks owe gratitude (χάρις) and support during perilous circumstances (περιστάσεις) brought on by “barbarians.”5 A similar dynamic involves the city of Rhodes when an earthquake levelled the city (including the Kolossos) around 227 BC. Rhodian envoys persuaded numerous cities and dynasts of the gravity of the situation, which induced them to give Rhodes gifts and promises in money, in kind, and in labor for the relief and rebuilding effort.6 The benefaction-gratitude dynamic also characterized the relationship between the gods and humans.7 In this ongoing relationship of reciprocal benefits between the god(s) and the individual worshipper or civic population, people performed sacrifices, gave offerings (in the form of dedications), built buildings and statues, sang hymns, and voiced prayers to the deity. In response, the deity provided (if the god so chose) various services that afforded well-being,

4 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 38/39.21. He writes, “The barbarian Spartacus, on receiving a certain favor from someone, showed him his gratitude. Indeed, nature is self-schooled, even among barbarians, to repay kindness for kindness to those who give assistance” (ὅτι ὁ Σπάρτακος ὁ βάρβαρος εὐεργετηθεὶς παρά τινος εὐχάριστος ἐφάνη πρὸς αὐτόν· αὐτοδίδακτος γὰρ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς βαρβάροις ἡ φύσις πρὸς ἀμοιβὴν χάριτος τοῖς εὐεργέταις; 38/39.21 [Walton, LCL]). The fact that an individual not schooled in the discrete Greek institution of benefaction is familiar with the cultural custom of returning gratitude/favor in return for a favor should not be surprising. The ritual of exchange of favors is a custom with deep biocultural evolutionary roots that, coupled with sanction against individuals who exhibit “noncooperative behavior,” help a population with such cooperation-favoring norms survive and flourish more than populations who lack such norms. See Aafke Komter, “The Evolutionary Origins of Human Generosity,” International Sociology 25, no. 3 (2010): 443–464. 5 Polyb., Hist., 4.38.1–10. Polybios remarks, “…yet, as I said, they are of great service to other peoples. Therefore, as being the common benefactors of all, they naturally not only should meet with gratitude from the Greeks, but with general support when they are exposed to peril from the barbarians” (πολλά γε μὴν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις εὔχρηστα δι᾽ ἐκείνους, ὡς εἰρήκαμεν, ἅπαντᾷ. διὸ καὶ κοινοί τινες ὡς εὐεργέται πάντων ὑπάρχοντες εἰκότως ἂν οὐ μόνον χάριτος ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπικουρίας κοινῆς τυγχάνοιεν ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων κατὰ τὰς ὑπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων περιστάσεις; Polyb., Hist., 4.38.10 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 6 Polyb., Hist., 5.88–90.4. 7 See Robert Parker, “Pleasing Thighs: Reciprocity in Greek Religion,” in Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, ed. Christopher Gill, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 105–126; Jan-Maarten Bremer, “The Reciprocity and Thanksgiving in Greek Worship,” in Gill, Postlethwaite, and Seaford, Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, 127–137; Simon Price, Religions of the Ancient Greeks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 38–39.

32

Chapter 2: Benefaction – Gratitude and Decisions

health, and success (e.g., healing, prosperous marriage, business success, deliverance or protection from enemies or harsh weather, military victory).8 The significance of gratitude pervades the variety of social realms in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. At the civic and international levels populations broadcast their awareness of the importance of public gratitude to those who acted to their advantage.9 A typical feature of honorific inscriptions includes some variety of the “hortatory intention” of the decree. The hortatory intention highlights that one of the reasons a city publicly rewards benefactors is to motivate other would-be benefactors to likewise benefit the population.10 8 Note also that people did not always perceive the relationship between gods and humans as mutually beneficial or successfully reciprocal. For instance, Diodoros of Sicily narrates the imprisonment of a certain Carthaginian Hamilcar by the wife of the Roman commander Regulus. Her cruelty towards him prompts Hamilcar to supplicate Zeus Xenios (Protector of Foreigners) for pity (ἔλεος), and he asks why he is receiving such unendurable torture rather than a fitting return of χάρις (Diod., Sic., Bib. hist., 24.12.2). See also the complaints against the gods for being suspected ingrates and the “thankless thanks” or “an unreciprocated χάρις” (ἄχαρις χάρις) of individuals to the gods for their lack of care towards their human counterparts. See Parker, “Pleasing Thighs,” 114–118, citing, among others, Homer, Odyssey, 19.363–369 and Herodotus, Histories, 1.90.4 and 3.38; James R. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 249, citing a mid-third century AD inscription in Stephen Mitchell, Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor. The Ankara District: The Inscriptions of North Galatia II (Oxford: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1982), §392. Further, an interesting fable (Babrius 119) illustrates a situation in which a pious man serves his wooden image of Hermes faithfully but fares badly in life. Angry at his destitution, he smashes the image, and it pours out gold for him. The man castigates Hermes for his strange inversion of the reciprocity system, saying, “Hermes, who is mischievous and ungrateful to friends, who when worshipped you benefit us nothing, yet many blessings you reciprocate when insulted. This new piety was not known to me” (Ἑρμεία, σκαιός τίς ἐσσι καὶ φίλοισιν ἀγνώμων, ὃς προσκυνοῦντας οὐδὲν ὠφέλεις ἥμας, ἀγαθοῖς δὲ πολλοῖς ὑβρίσαντας ἠμείψω. τὴν εἰς σὲ καινὴν εὐσέβειαν οὐκ ᾔδειν; Babrius 119.6–10). 9 On the interconnectedness and shared ways of getting along in Hellenistic cities, see John Ma’s important article, “Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Age,” Past & Present 180 (2003): 9–39. 10 A variety of examples of hortatory intentions across the Hellenistic period include: IG II3 1.313.29–34 (340/339 BC, Athens; English translation in Harding §97); IG3 1.378.17–20 (323/322 BC, Athens; English translation in Austin2 §32); IG II2 505.41–43 (301 BC, Athens; English translation in Harding §139); I.Eph 1455.9–10 (ca. 300 BC, Ephesus; English translation in Austin2 §130); I.Eph 1453.17–19 (300/299 BC, Ephesus; English translation in Burstein §1); OGIS 213.27–30 (300/299 BC, Miletos; English translation in Burstein §2); IG II3 1.844.23–25 (299/298 BC, Athens); Syll.3 368.14–17 (289/288 BC, Miletos; English translation in Burstein §8; cf. Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 20.107.4); IG II3 1.877.50–52 (283–282 BC, Athens; English translation in Austin2 §54, Burstein §11); SEG 33.1183. (260/259 BC, Xanthos [Lycia]); PH256418.40–44 (ca. 204/203 BC, Teos; English translations in Austin §191, Burstein §33); IG XII.1 761.46–47 (3rd c., Lindos [Rhodes]); IG II3 1.1323.22–27 (shortly after 175 BC, Pergamon; orig., Athens; English translation in Burstein §38); SEG

2.1 Gratitude

33

In this way, gratitude in the form of awards and prestige serves as a reputational signal that gives salient information to prospective benefactors. Thus, publicly visible gratitude acts as part of an imperfect and rough information feedback system that facilitates an adaptive learning process which prospective benefactors can consider when making decisions about whether or whom to benefit. That is, prospective benefactors can learn about what types of services certain cities have awarded with thanks (so they might roughly imitate them) and whether cities award benefactors with appropriately prestigious favors. In this way, public gratitude tends to be mutually advantageous to a civic body and individual benefactors alike by affording prestige (in different ways to each) and communicating other valuable information like the specific strategies that result in success and/or prosperity.11 Roman philosophers of the late Republic and Julio-Claudian imperial periods also highlight the significance of gratitude in the proper maintenance of relationships. Cicero remarks that “no duty is more imperative than that of proving one’s gratitude.”12 Indeed, failing to return a kindness violates the canons of generosity. Cicero states, “Whether we do the kindness or not is optional; but to fail to requite one is not allowable to a good man, provided he can make the requital without violating the rights of others.”13 He likens returning gratitude for an unsolicited benefit to “fruitful fields” that ought to “return more than they receive.”14 Cicero’s insistence on the moral obligation of gratitude is reflected in the multitude of examples that Valerius Maximus includes in his Memorable Doings and Sayings (ca. AD 14–27). Valerius highlights conspicuous examples of appropriate gratitude for benefactions in Roman history as models for emulation.15 For instance, Valerius draws attention to the exceptional gratitude M. Minucius displayed towards Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus.16 Minucius’s gratitude came in the form of deference by referring to his rescuer Fabius as “father” and “patron” and subordinating his own command of Master of Horse to Fabius’s status of dictator.17 36.1046.8–13 (167–160 BC, Miletos; English translation in Burstein §40); IG XII.3 167.3– 5 (ca. 2nd c. BC, Astypalaia); IG XIV 952.20–22 (late 2nd/early 1st c. BC, Rome); IG V.1 1146.51–52 (71 BC, Gytheion [Laconia]; English translation in Sherk [1984] §74). 11 Reputation signals and competition among benefactors function together to help cities and benefactors communicate and coordinate to adapt to ever-changing circumstances. One can also think of the system as a cultural evolutionary adaptive institution of Greek-style cities. 12 Cicero, On Duties, 1.47 [Miller, LCL]. 13 Cicero, On Duties, 1.48 [Miller, LCL]. 14 Cicero, On Duties, 1.48 [Miller, LCL]. 15 Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings 5.2. 16 Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings 5.2.4; cf. Livy, History of Rome, 22.25–30. 17 Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, 5.2.4.

34

Chapter 2: Benefaction – Gratitude and Decisions

Memory plays an important role in gratitude because the relative value of a benefaction to the recipient(s) correlates on the one hand to the gravity of the gift and on the other hand to the degree of gratitude a recipient might return to a benefactor. That is, a weightier benefaction tends to be more memorable and tends to be met with requisite gratitude (whether more frequent, longer lasting, or proportionally weighty). For instance, Valerius Maximus says that Numidian king Massinissa (d. 149 BC), who lived an unusually long ninety years, displayed lifelong gratitude for the immense benefaction of Scipio and Rome that enlarged his territorial sovereignty in North Africa.18 Valerius Maximus remarks that for Massinissa the memory of benefaction translated into undying loyalty even such that he placed “regard for a former benefaction above present jeopardy.”19 Thus, memory of a benefaction can motivate one’s behavior and influence one’s choices in the present. Especially large benefactions can form especially strong memories and elicit a deep sense of gratitude. Seneca (ca. 4 BC–AD 65) has rightly received much attention in New Testament studies for his contribution to understanding reciprocity and gifting practices in the mid-first century Roman world with his treatise On Benefits and his Letter 81.20 His primary maxim with respect to reciprocity invokes a responsibility for memory on both sides of the relationship: the giver of the benefit should immediately forget that he gave it, and the recipient should never forget it.21 Memory enables the recipient to recall a benefaction and stoke sentiments of gratitude toward the giver.22 In Seneca’s understanding of reciprocity, it is more important that the recipient receive a benefit with gratitude than that the recipient makes a return. Indeed, showing gratitude upon receipt of a benefit is a sort of first return payment.23 Such a grateful reception, even though Seneca does insist ultimately that a recipient reciprocate the favor in a

18 Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, 5.2.ext. 4. On Massinissa, see, e.g., Polyb., Hist., 15.12.6; 21.21.2; 31.21; 36.16. 19 Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, 5.2.ext. 4 [Shackleton Bailey, LCL]. 20 E.g., David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000), 95–156; James R. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 200–202, 205– 208, 218; Zeba A. Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004), 69–72; Thomas R. Blanton IV, “The Benefactor’s Account-book: The Rhetoric of Gift Reciprocation according to Seneca and Paul,” NTS 59 (2013): 396–414; John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 45–51. 21 Seneca, Ben., 2.10.4; cf. 1.4.3. 22 Seneca, Ben., 2.24.1. 23 Seneca, Ben., 2.22.

2.1 Gratitude

35

concrete way, is in a sense already a return for the benefit.24 For Seneca gratitude is a good in itself and constitutes its own reward.25 Greek authors also stress the propriety and benefits of gratitude. Xenophon (ca. 430–354 BC), in his biographical work Agesilaos, praises Agesilaos for his δικαιοσύνη.26 For Xenophon Agesilaos displayed his δικαιοσύνη in giving and receiving benefits because, among other things, he benefitted many people, showed generosity in his benefactions, avoided ill-repute, and judged it unjust not to repay favors (τὸ μὴ ἀποδιδόναι χάριτας ἄδικον ἔκρινεν).27 Elsewhere, Xenophon recognizes the role that displaying gratitude plays in acting as a signal to would-be benefactors that helps in the selection process, that is, a benefactor is more likely to render aid to those who are known for repaying due gratitude.28 Beyond civic etiquette, benefaction and gratitude are expected in the relationship between parents and children. Aelius Aristides opens his Panathenaic Oration reminding his audience that “it is a time-honored custom among the Greeks – and I think among most foreign peoples too – to repay as completely as possible the debt of gratitude owed to those who have raised us.”29 In publicly broadcasting itself as the quintessential harmonious family, one in which the children show proper gratitude to their parents, the family of Attalos I (269– 197 BC) and Apollonis (ca. 240–175/4–159 BC) shows how the Attalids broadcasted themselves in contrast to more longstanding but filicidal and fratricidal regimes like the Ptolemies and Seleukids.30 Apollonis had a favorable reputaSeneca, Ben., 2.31.1; 2.35.5. Seneca, Ep. 81.19. 26 Xenophon, Agesilaos, 4.1–6. 27 Xenophon, Agesilaos, 4.1–6. Instructive is Xenophon’s defensive strategy to clear Agesilaos from blame: “For had he been in the habit of selling his favors or taking payment for his benefactions, no one would have felt that he owed him anything. It is the recipient of unbought, gratuitous benefits who is always glad to oblige his benefactor in return for the kindness he has received and in acknowledgment of the trust reposed in him as a worthy and faithful guardian of a favor” (εἰ γὰρ ἐπώλει τὰς χάριτας ἢ μισθοῦ εὐεργέτει, οὐδεὶς ἂν οὐδὲν ὀφείλειν αὐτῷ ἐνόμισεν· ἀλλ᾽ οἱ προῖκα εὖ πεπονθότες, οὗτοι ἀεὶ ἡδέως ὑπηρετοῦσι τῷ εὐεργέτῃ καὶ διότι εὖ ἔπαθον καὶ διότι προεπιστεύθησαν ἄξιοι εἶναι παρακαταθήκην χάριτος φυλάττειν; Xenophon, Agesilaos, 4.4 [Marchant and Bowersock, LCL]; cf. Xenophon, Symposium, 8.36). 28 Xenophon, Memorabilia, 4.4.17. 29 Aelius Aristides, Panathenaic Oration, 1 [Trapp, LCL]; Νόμος ἐστὶ τοῖς Ἕλλησι παλαιός, οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων τοῖς πλείστοις, τροφεῦσι χάριν ἐκτίνειν ἅπασαν, ὅση δυνατή). 30 E.g., Polyb., Hist., 18.41.8; 22.20.1–8; 23.11. The Attalid family getting along in harmony is in stark contrast to the interfamilial strife of the Seleukid and Ptolemaic families. Seleukid kinship conflict can be seen in the bloody struggle between Seleukos II and Antiochos Hierax (see Strabo, Geography, 16.2.4 = Austin2 §176) and the post-Antiochos IV Seleukid dynasty that was marred by infighting. See especially Justin’s account (following 24

25

36

Chapter 2: Benefaction – Gratitude and Decisions

tion for her role as queen-mother. Polybios’s laudatory account of Apollonis describes her as “worthy of memory and honorable mention” (ἀξία μνήμης καὶ παρασημασίας).31 An Athenian inscription (IG II3 1 1323 = OGIS 248) praises the Attalid family for helping Antiochos IV maintain the Seleukid throne and commends Attalos I and Apollonis for the education they provided for their children.32 After Apollonis’s death the city of Teos established a cult for her as a god (θεά) (OGIS 309). Polybios commends two of her sons for showing appropriate gratitude to their virtuous and affectionate mother.33 A decree from Hierapolis expresses similar sentiments (OGIS 308).34 The decree highlights the Attalid ruling family’s filial virtues, among which is concord (ὁμόνοια). The Hieropolitan decree states that Apollonis “interacted with her children with total concord” (προσενενηνέχθαι δὲ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις μετὰ πάσης ὁμονοίας), and she “received distinguished tokens of gratitude from her children” (τὰς παρὰ τῶν τέκνων ἐπιφανεῖς {ἐ}κομισαμένη χάριτ[ας]).35 Her piety to the gods and virtuous conduct within her family earns her “immortal honor” (τιμῆς ἀθανάτου).36 Whether or not such ideal harmony existed between Apollonis and her children, their filial affection was real enough to merit the attention and praise from historians and populations alike. Based on this brief survey of sources, the notion that gratitude is the appropriate and even obliged response to a benefaction or gift should be considered a deeply intrenched norm across all levels of society and all types of relationPompeius Trogus) in his Epitome (40.1–2). His explanation for the disintegration of the Seleukid dynasty highlights internecine conflict. He opens his account saying, “the mutual hatred of the brothers, and then of sons who inherited their parents’ antagonisms, left the kings and the kingdom of Syria exhausted by implacable conflict” (Justin, Epitome, 40.1.1). He closes by saying, “Accordingly, Pompey reduced Syria to a province and, little by little, the East, through the quarrels of its kings, who were all of the same blood, became the territory of Rome” (40.2.5). Translations of Justin are from Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, trans. J. C. Yardley (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994). Conflict within the Ptolemaic dynasty can be seen in the struggle between Ptolemy VIII and Ptolemy VI (e.g., Polyb., Hist., 31.10) after their earlier concord (Diod., Bib. hist., 31.15a). Subsequent dynastic infighting was common (e.g., Ptolemy VIII, Cleopatra II, Cleopatra III, Ptolemy IX, Ptolemy X; see Justin, Epitome, 38.8.2–9.1; 39.4–5; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 34/35.14). The Antigonids did not end well either, with their final decades marred by inter-familial strife. Philip V killed his younger son Demetrios on suspicion that he was colluding with the Romans and seeking to seize the throne, accusations brought to him by his eldest son Perseus (Justin, Epitome, 32.2.3–10; Polyb., Hist., 23.1–3, 7; cf. Livy, History of Rome, 39.46.6– 48.1; 39.53). Likewise, Lysimachos, in the first generation of Alexander’s successors, killed his son Agathokles and ruined any hope of dynastic succession (Justin, Epitome, 17.1). 31 Polyb., Hist., 22.20.1. 32 IG II3 1 1323.43–48. 33 Polyb., Hist., 22.20.2–8. 34 For an English translation of OGIS 308, see Austin2 §240a. 35 OGIS 308.7–8 (cf. 16–18), 11. 36 OGIS 308.22.

2.2 Calculus of Giving, Receiving, and Thanking

37

ships across Greek and Roman cultures (individual–city, individual–individual, city–city, gods–humans, parents–children). Indeed, it is likely that such a norm is a human cultural universal due to its ability to scale up cooperation between individuals and facilitate the formation of extended societies. In the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, the hyper-networked Greek cities inherited and modified certain cultural institutions and ways of performing the benefaction-gratitude ritual like civic benefaction (euergetism). Furthermore, memory plays an important role in a benefactor-recipient relationship, since it has the power to recall the benefit (or forget it) and motivate one to either give more or to return with gratitude/favor commensurate with the benefaction (on memory, see more below). Seneca’s injunction that benefactors should forget they gave a benefit and that recipients should never forget they received one is a Stoic stance that, although it does seem to reflect good face to face etiquette (see Polyb., Hist., 16.26.2), was not always followed – whether by ingrates forgetting a benefaction or by benefactors calling attention to their prior benefactions (e.g., Polyb., Hist., 16.26.5; 18.6.5; 29.24.4, 13–16; Babrius 50). Moreover, the proper performance of reciprocity – whether in the form of benefitting many, being generous, always returning gratitude/favor – could constitute a particular form of δικαιοσύνη. Finally, and importantly, the performance of gratitude served as a signal to others, whatever the cultural realm (euergetism, inter-city, individual, and close kin), that would-be benefactors could rely on that person to return appropriate thanks to those who give benefits.

2.2 The Calculus of Giving, Receiving, and Thanking 2.2 Calculus of Giving, Receiving, and Thanking

The mere presence of the cultural norm of benefaction/gratitude does not address the complex choices individual persons must make in deciding which relationships to enter and how to act in a world in which individuals possess different and contradictory bits of knowledge in an ever-changing social landscape. Knowing who to benefit, what to give (and how much), whether to receive or not, and how to thank are all calculations that enter any benefaction or gift event. Reputation plays a crucial role in distributing relevant knowledge to those who seek it. In civic benefaction, publicizing the benefaction-event, usually on stone and in at least one prominent location, plays a part in signaling relevant information. This section will look at instances that highlight some aspects of the calculations that go on in making decisions about giving, receiving, and thanking as well as the crucial role communication (or failure thereof) plays in the process.

38

Chapter 2: Benefaction – Gratitude and Decisions

2.2.1 Calculus of Giving The expectation of gratitude in the form of heightened prestige and commensurate rewards comes into consideration for a benefactor in his or her decision to render a benefaction. A benefactor would consider not just a random city or person but a city or person with which the benefactor has perceived prior connections or a strategic future. As noted above (§2.1), a benefaction is more forthcoming when the person anticipates that the recipient will make a good return.37 In some instances, one might initiate a reciprocity relationship by giving a benefaction to somebody in the hopes that one might receive a return. So, one might first invite that person to dinner in the hopes that they will invite you to dinner in return.38 One might avoid giving a benefit if giving it would harm another person or group that is tied to the giver. In 167 BC, shortly after Rome defeated the Antigonid king Perseus at Pydna (168 BC), the Bithynian king Prusias II travelled to Rome to offer congratulations to the gods, senators, and people of Rome on their victory.39 During his address to the senate he also recounted his wartime services in support of Rome and asked for the senate to renew their alliance with him and that they gift him land that they had seized from the Seleukids and that was currently under Galatian control.40 The senate, while happy to renew the alliance and offer Prusias and his son various gifts, did not grant the land request.41 Instead they offered to send a fact-finding mission to inquire about the ownership of the land so that they would avoid wronging the Galatians by giving Prusias land that is rightfully theirs.42 For, “a gift, said the senate, could not be pleasing even to the recipient, if he knew that the giver would take it away again whenever he pleased.”43 2.2.2 Calculus of Receiving or Rejecting For every offer of a benefaction or gift, the would-be recipient had the option to reject it. A rejection of a gift almost invariably revolved around the issue of reputation. That is, the would-be recipient must ask how (relevant) others will view the act of reception or rejection. One might reject the offer of gifts out of fidelity to the would-be giver’s rivals, like when Andronikos, the Antigonid garrison commander of Tyre in 312 BC, rejected Ptolemy I’s promise of gifts and honors in exchange for handing over the city and defecting from Antigonos

Xenophon, Memorabilia, 4.4.17; cf. Sir 12:1–7. Xenophon, Memorabilia, 2.3.11–12. 39 Livy, History of Rome, 45.44.4–5. 40 Livy, History of Rome, 45.44.8–9. 41 Livy, History of Rome, 45.44.10–17. 42 Livy, History of Rome, 45.44.10–11. 43 Livy, History of Rome, 45.44.12 [Schlesinger, LCL].

37

38

2.2 Calculus of Giving, Receiving, and Thanking

39

and Demetrios.44 Andronikos rejected Ptolemy’s offer out of commitment to “the trust [or trusteeship] given by Antigonos and Demetrios” (τὴν δεδομένην ὑπ᾽ Ἀντιγόνου καὶ Δημητρίου πίστιν).45 Yet Andronikos’s rejection earned him a good repute with Ptolemy. When Ptolemy captured Andronikos he gave him gifts and advanced him in honor.46 Diodoros attributes Andronikos’s favorable reception to Ptolemy’s personal moral character, citing his abundant reasonableness (ἐπιεικής), inclination to pardon (συγγνωμονικός), and beneficence (εὐεργετικός), but Andronikos’s faithfulness to his superiors was probably an attractive quality that Ptolemy might find useful if he brought Andronikos into his own court.47 The Roman envoy and later consul Fabricius famously rejected the gifts of Pyrrhos of Epiros several times. Perhaps the most notable of his rejections is when he rejected the offer from Pyhrros’s physician to poison Pyhrros in exchange for a χάρις (to ostensibly end the war with no further bloodshed).48 Instead, Fabricius warned Pyhrros of the plot so that he would not be seen as ending the war through trickery (δόλος) rather than virtue (ἀρετή).49 When Pyhrros sent prisoners of war back to the Romans without ransom to reciprocate the favor, Fabricius also sent prisoners of war back to Pyhrros so that he would not get the reputation of having refrained from injustice for a wage (μισθός).50 Shortly after Scipio Africanus wrested control of New Carthage from the Carthaginians in 210 BC, he rejected the “gift” of a captured girl whom his soldiers tried to give to him.51 In Polybios’s version Scipio politely (with gratitude) declined their gift, explaining that he could not accept it because he was acting in his official capacity as general rather than as a private person (in which case such a gift would be most welcome to him).52 In Livy’s “elaborated and romanticized” version Scipio rejected the gift as a favor to the captive female’s betrothed, a young Celtiberian chieftain named Allucius.53 Livy frames Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.86. Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.86.2. 46 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.86.2. 47 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.86.3. 48 Plutarch, Pyrrhos, 21.1–4. The rejections by Fabricius get recounted frequently as moral examples. See Plutarch, Moralia, 195B = Sayings of the Romans, Fabricius, 4–5; Cicero, On Duties, 1.13 (40); Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, 6.5.1d; Gellius, Attic Nights, 3.8; Frontinus, Strategems, 4.4.2. 49 Plutarch, Pyrrhos, 21.3. 50 Plutarch, Pyrrhos, 21.4. 51 Polyb., Hist., 10.19.3–7; cf. Livy, History of Rome, 26.50.1–13. Gellius preserves, alongside the tradition that Scipio returned the girl to her father (per Polybios), a tradition that Scipio in fact kept the captive woman for his own pleasure (Gellius, Attic Nights, 7.8.3– 6). 52 Polyb., Hist., 10.19.4–6. 53 Frank W. Walbank, Historical Commentary Polybius, Volume II, Commentary on Books VII–XVIII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), 219. 44

45

40

Chapter 2: Benefaction – Gratitude and Decisions

Scipio’s return of the captive girl to her fiancée as an act of goodwill (in the form of a gift) toward forging a friendly relationship between the Roman state and Allucius.54 Further, when the girl’s parents vehemently insisted on giving Scipio a large sum of gold as a ransom payment in exchange for their undefiled daughter, he accepted the gold but immediately gave it to Allucius as a wedding gift.55 Allucius went home singing Scipio’s praises and comparing him to the gods for his generosity as much as his ability to wage war.56 A fascinating episode involving the Achaian League and Hellenistic kings highlights the deliberative process of whether to accept a benefaction or not (ca. 188–185 BC).57 King Eumenes of Pergamon sent envoys to the Achaian League to promise the League 120 talents so that the League could lend the money at interest and pay the members of the League’s council with the money made from the interest.58 A certain Apollonidas of Sikyon arose and vociferously opposed accepting Eumenes’s gift offer on the grounds that (1) it is illegal for private citizens to accept gifts from kings, (2) it is a disgrace to accept such a blatant bribe, (3) the gift is an obvious piece of bait to entrap the Achaian League into acting in the interests of Eumenes and thus opens up the entire League to act according to the interests of whichever potentate pays them rather than in the League’s own interest, and (4) if the Achaians do not act in the interests of their paymasters then they will be regarded as ingrates. 59 After Apollonidas spoke, a certain Kassander of Aigina gave a speech also advocating that the League reject the gift.60 His argument appealed to the sentiments of the Achaians toward the people of Aigina, who were members of the League at the time of their suffering and enslavement at the hand of the Romans and Aitolians (210 BC), who in turn sold control of Aigina to the Attalids.61 By accepting the gift from Eumenes, they would be “removing the hopes for the deliverance of the Aigenitans in the future” (τὰς εἰς τὸ μέλλον ἐλπίδας ἀφαιρούμενοι τῆς Αἰγινητῶν σωτηρίας).62 Polybios remarks that the members of the League were so moved by the speeches of Apollinidas and Kassander that, although Euemenes offered them such a hefty and nearly irresistible sum, they loudly rejected the gift.63 As a result, a combination of law, shame, precedent, and positive affectation towards an in-group population swayed the Achaian League to decline an apparently sizeable gift. Livy, History of Rome, 26.50.7–8. Livy, History of Rome, 26.50.10–12. 56 Livy, History of Rome, 26.50.13. 57 Polyb., Hist., 22.7–8. 58 Polyb., Hist., 22.7.3. 59 Polyb., Hist., 22.8.1–8. 60 Polyb., Hist., 22.8.9–12. 61 Polyb., Hist., 22.8.9–11. 62 Polyb., Hist., 22.8.12. 63 Polyb., Hist., 22.8.13.

54

55

2.2 Calculus of Giving, Receiving, and Thanking

41

2.2.3 Calculus of Gratitude For the recipient of a benefaction, the proper calculation of gratitude is a crucial aspect of one’s response. If a recipient accepts a benefaction but is unable to repay commensurate gratitude, one could invoke the gods on one’s behalf to repay it. In Livy’s extended version of the episode between Scipio and the gift of the captive girl (see above §2.2.2), the fiancée of the girl “called on all the gods to show him gratitude on his behalf, since he himself had nothing like the means to express his thanks as he might wish or as Scipio’s kindness to him deserved.”64 One can see a similar dynamic in a Jewish author like Ben Sira who advises that one should give to the pious and humble but that if they cannot repay, God will do so on their behalf (Sir 12:1–7, esp. 12:2).65 A display of shameless deference could successfully gratify the other party, but outsiders might look in disgust at such behavior. Two of the “characters” of Theophrastos, “the Toady” (ὁ κόλαξ) and “the Obsequious Man” (ὁ ἄρεσκος), exhibit characteristic people-pleasing.66 One of the most prominent examples of shameless deference in the Hellenistic period involves King Prusias II of Bithynia (r. 182–149 BC). Prusias’s behavior disgusted the historian Polybios (who is echoed by Diodoros) with his obsequiousness toward the Roman senate. 67 On one occasion when Roman envoys visited him, Prusias donned the garb of a freed slave (libertus) in an attempt to ingratiate himself to them by showing his servility and their superiority.68 Later, when he visited Rome to congratulate the senate and Roman generals on their victory over the Antigonid king Perseus (167 BC), Prusias prostrated himself to the ground (προεσκύνησε) and hailed the senators as θεοὶ σωτῆρες.69 Polybios, repulsed at Prusias’s conduct, comments that Prusias’s genuflection makes “it impossible for anyone after him to surpass him in unmanliness, womanlishness, and

Livy, History of Rome, 26.50.9 [Yardley, LCL]. Ben Sira 12:2 reads: “Do good to the pious person, and you will find a return, and if not from him then from the Most High” (εὖ ποίησον εὐσεβεῖ, καὶ εὑρήσεις ἀνταπόδομα, καὶ εἰ μὴ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τοῦ ὐψίστου). 66 Theophrastos, Characters, 2, 5, respectively. On these two of Theophrastos’s Characters, see James Diggle, Theophrastus: Characters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 69–71 and 181–198 (“the Toady”), 79–82 and 222–249 (“the Obsequious Man”). Diggle explains that the “toady” (κόλαξ) “panders and toadies for his own advantage, and not only with words.” The “Obsequious Man” (ἄρεσκος) “tries to please all, for no other motive than desire for popularity.” Diggle explains that the two figures are related but the κόλαξ fixes his attentions on try to gain favor from a single patron but the ἄρεσκος widens his efforts and seeks popularity among many. Diggle, Theophrastus, 181–182, 222. 67 Polyb., Hist., 30.18; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 31.15; cf. Livy, History of Rome, 45.44.19– 20. 68 Polyb., Hist., 30.18.3–4; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 31.15.2. 69 Polyb., Hist., 30.18.5; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 31.15.3. 64

65

42

Chapter 2: Benefaction – Gratitude and Decisions

servility.”70 But Polybios’s harsh judgment was not shared by the Roman envoys, since they apparently gave Prusias a favorable response despite (or because) of his self-abnegation.71 Thus, obsequiousness might cause non-participants to regard the display as disgraceful, but it might also be an effective enough show of deference to the superior party. 2.2.4 Cultural Misunderstanding Cultural misunderstanding can occur that results in relational tension between two parties with clashing benefaction cultural scripts. For example, after Flamininus defeated Philip V of Macedon in battle at Kynoskephalai in 197 BC, Polybios relays the account of how the Aitolians suspected the Romans of accepting Macedonian bribes.72 The Aitolians, who had supported Rome against the Macedonians, became incensed because Flamininus had grown cold to them and had begun to treat Philip (their recent shared enemy) with courtesy.73 Such unexpected reversal of conduct on the part of Flamininus provoked suspicions among the Aitolians that he had been receiving bribes from Philip. Polybios explains how Flamininus conducted his meeting with Philip’s envoys in a “humane” (φιλάνθρωπος) manner confirmed in the minds of the Aitolians their suspicions, “For since by this time bribery and the notion that no one should do anything gratis were very prevalent in Greece, and so to speak quite current coin among the Aitolians, they could not believe that Flamininus’ complete change of attitude toward Philip could have been brought about without a bribe.”74 Not only did their own cultural script regarding gifts blind them from understanding Flamininus’s conduct, their own ignorance of Roman customs (i.e., a commander does not act in personal capacity on behalf of the Senate) further prevented them from understanding why Flamininus treated Philip 70 Polyb., Hist., 30.18.5 [Olson, Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL] (ὑπερβολὴν οὐ καταλιπὼν ἀνανδρίας, ἅμα δὲ καὶ γυναικισμοῦ καὶ κολακείας οὐδενὶ τῶν ἐπιγινομένων). Cf. Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 31.15.3. 71 Polyb., Hist., 30.18.7 (φανεὶς δὲ τελέως εὐκαταφρόνητος ἀπόκρισιν ἔλαβε δι᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο φιλάνθρωπον). 72 Polyb., Hist., 18.34.1–8. 73 Flamininus did not approve of the post-war conduct of the Aitolians. Polybios mentions their conduct regarding the war booty and their boastfulness (ἀλαζονεία). See Polyb., Hist., 18.34.1–2. Some epigrams evidence Aitolians boasting (AP 7.247; AP 16.5). Epigram references thanks to W. R. Paton, Frank W. Walbank, Christian Habicht, The Histories, Volume V: Books 16–27, LCL 160 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), 182– 183n93, citing A. S. F Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology, Hellenistic Epigrams, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1965), 1.4, nos. 4–5 and 2.11–12. 74 Polyb., Hist., 18.34.7 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL] (ἤδη γὰρ κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα τῆς δωροδοκίας ἐπιπολαζούσης καὶ τοῦ μηδένα μηδὲν δωρεὰν πράττειν, καὶ τοῦ χαρακτῆρος τούτου νομιστευομένου παρὰ τοῖς Αἰτωλοῖς, οὐκ ἐδύναντο πιστεύειν διότι χωρὶς δώρων ἡ τηλικαύτη μεταβολὴ γέγονε τοῦ Τίτου πρὸς τὸν Φίλιππον.

2.3 Gift as Bait

43

favorably.75 Thus a sort of bind and blind phenomenon can occur when trying to understand another culture’s reciprocity customs that results in one party interpreting the events according to the wrong cultural script.

2.3 Gift as Bait 2.3 Gift as Bait

If the calculus of benefaction relies on the participants or would-be participants having access to certain bits of relevant knowledge, knowledge which is “given” to no one single person but dispersed, contingent, imperfect, and contradictory, then participants can take advantage of the process by hiding their relevant knowledge and using their own knowledge against (rather than in cooperation with) the other participant(s). In Polybios’s Histories a recurring motif is the notion of “gift as bait.” That is, an individual offers another person a gift as a trick to bait the other party into a gift-arrangement that advantages the giver and disadvantages the recipient. One can see how the above story of Eumenes and the Achaians (Polyb., Hist., 22.7–8) highlights this theme, yet other instances also pepper Polybios’s historical narrative and his personal commentary. For instance, Polybios describes the city of Kios as falling prey to a χάριςbait of certain politicians advocating for a particular confiscation-redistribution scheme.76 Furthermore, the gift as bait motif finds expression in the fable tradition in Babrius 130. In this fable a fox, unsure what to do with the trapped meal he found, yields his find to a wolf by performing a deceitful display of friendship. After getting caught in the trap, the wolf realizes the fox’s duplicity, saying, “if you will give such gifts to your friends, how will anyone embrace you as a friend?”77 This fable puts the tactic in rather concrete terms of a physical trap with bait and nicely shows the potential dangers of accepting gifts without due caution. The following examples – Philopoimen and the Spartans, Kritolaos and the Achaians, and Perseus and Eumenes – illustrate different aspects of the gift as bait motif. Philopoimen (ca. 253–182 BC), the famed strategos of the Achaian League, invaded Sparta and through a combination of compulsion and persuasion brought the city into the Achaian League.78 The Spartans decided to offer him 75 Polybios, continuing his remark on the Aitolians, says that the Aitolians “were ignorant of the Roman principles and practice in this matter, but judged from their own, and calculated that it was probable that Philip would offer a very large sum owing to his actual situation and Flamininus would not be able to resist the temptation” (Hist., 18.34.8). 76 Polyb., Hist., 15.21–22. 77 Babrius 130.10–11 (ἀλλ᾽ εἰ τοιαῦτα . . . τοῖς φίλοις δώσεις τὰ δῶρα, πῶς σοί τις φίλος συναντήσει). 78 Plutarch, Philopoimen, 15.2; cf. Pausanias, Description of Greece, 8.51.1. On this episode from 192 or 191 BC between Philopoimen and the Spartans, see Polyb., Hist., 20.12; Plutarch, Philopoimen, 15; Pausanias, Description of Greece, 8.51.1–2.

44

Chapter 2: Benefaction – Gratitude and Decisions

a gift (χάρις, δωρεά), since, according to Polybios, they thought it advantageous to get in Philopoimen’s favor.79 But Philopoimen, receiving the proposal of a gift in a cordial manner (φιλανθρώπως), went before the Spartan Council and advised them that one should refrain from giving gifts to friends lest they lose their ability to speak freely to one another (παρρησία) and as result lose the ability to trust (πιστεύειν).80 Instead, they should offer gifts and honors to enemies (ἐχθροί), so that, having swallowed “the bait” (τὸ δέλεαρ), their enemies would be obligated to support their proposals or stay silent.81 This episode illustrates how people could be aware of the power of a gift or favor (δωρεά, χάρις) to set the terms of a relationship by imposing obligations that nullify potential disagreement and dissent. In this way gifts could not only create a positive, mutually beneficial relationship but could also be leveraged to disadvantage one party to the benefit of the other. In 146 BC, the Roman general Mummius levelled Corinth, and subsequently Rome seized for itself hegemony over Greece.82 Polybios partly lays blame on Kritolaos, the Achaian strategos of 147/146, saying that he used the “gift as bait” trick to rile up the populace to go to war with Rome (war with Sparta only being the nominal target). According to Polybios, Kritolaos deceived the Achaian populace into war with Rome by lying about his conversations with Roman and Spartan negotiators (accusing them of wrongdoing) and ordering temporary debt-relief measures.83 Polybios criticizes him harshly, saying, “As a result of such appeals to the rabble everything he said was accepted as true, and the people were ready to do anything he ordered, incapable as they were of taking thought for the future, and enticed by the bait of present favor and ease” (τῇ δὲ παρ᾽ αὐτὰ χάριτι καὶ ῥᾳστώνῃ δελεαζόμενον).84 Even if Kritolaos did not actually use the “gift as bait” tactic to lure the Achaians into war with Rome, Polybios’s own recourse to the motif to explain events illustrates its apparent usefulness as an explanatory category for himself and his audience.85 In another episode, the Antigonid king Perseus and the Attalid king Eumenes II negotiated a potential deal during Perseus’s war with Rome (Polyb., Polyb., Hist., 20.12.1–2. Plutarch reports that prominent Spartans saw an opportunity to use a gift to create a stronger attachment between Philopoimen and Sparta, since “they hoped to have him as a guard of their freedom” (φύλακα τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἐκεῖνον ἐλπίσαντας ἕξειν). Plutarch, Philopoimen, 15.3. 80 Polyb., Hist., 20.12.7. 81 Polyb., Hist., 20.12.7. 82 On the origins of the Achaian War, which disagrees with Polybios’s analysis at many points and argues for a less intentional and more haphazard course of events, see Erich S. Gruen, “The Origins of the Achaean War,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 96 (1976): 46–69. 83 Polyb., Hist., 38.11.7–10. 84 Polyb., Hist., 38.11.11 [Olson, Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. 85 For a non-Polybian explanation for Kritolaos’s actions as reasonable but miscalculated rather than deliberately and maliciously anti-Roman, see Gruen, “The Origins of the Achaean War,” 62–65. 79

2.3 Gift as Bait

45

Hist., 29.5–9). Eumenes was trying to position himself in the role of arbiter in the conflict between Perseus and Rome (Polyb., Hist., 29.7).86 Whether or not Polybios correctly discerns the motives of Perseus and Eumenes, his account of the interaction illustrates the complexity of gifting and how two parties of an exchange can recognize and negotiate in full recognition that gifts can serve as “bait” under certain conditions. At the outset of the interaction Eumenes attempts to get Perseus to latch onto some promises to bait him into giving him money, proposing that Perseus either (1) give him 500 talents to stay neutral and not support Rome militarily, or (2) give him 1500 talents to put an end to the war itself.87 Perseus, recognizing the baiting tactic, “pretended to rush at these offers and to be coming to an agreement, but could never persuade himself to swallow any of the baits to the extent of making a sacrifice of money.”88 He questioned the exchange, saying that “it was disgraceful for the giver and still more so for the receiver to be thought to be hired to keep neutral.”89 Although Perseus made partial gestures toward accepting the deal, Eumenes ultimately backed out of the arrangement.90 Polybios admonishes Eumenes for thinking that Perseus would trust him and that Rome would not find out about the deal and thus relieve him of his kingdom.91 Likewise, he faults Perseus for not following through with the payment that, in Polybios’s eyes, would benefit him by either ending the war or entrapping his enemy Eumenes in the ire of Rome.92 This episode shows (1) how participants, being aware of how gifts can be used to entrap, may exercise caution in gift-exchange negotiations, and (2) that Polybios does not outright condemn the tactic of using a gift as bait; rather, he judges people’s use of the tactic based on whether the strategy fits his own moral values (i.e., he critiques Eumenes for attempting it but faults Perseus for not using it). From these examples one can conclude that the “gift as bait” tactic would have been part of the cultural encyclopedia of Greeks and recognizable. The strategy could be used to create a power asymmetry by dampening παρρησία in favor of one party. Furthermore, participants’ awareness of the tactic could put pressure on parties to exercise caution especially when negotiating with

It should be noted that Polybios describes the relationship of Perseus and Eumenes as one of strong distrust (ἀπιστία), jealousy (ζηλοτυπία), and hostility (ἀλλότριος), so Eumenes’s offer to be a mediator would be a hard sell (Polyb., Hist., 29.7.2). 87 Polyb., Hist., 29.8.5–6. Eumenes also promised to send hostages as pledge of good faith to Perseus. 88 Polyb., Hist., 29.8.4 [Olson, Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. 89 Polyb., Hist., 29.8.7 [Olson, Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL] (αἰχρὸν ἔφησεν εἶναι καὶ τῷ διδόντι καὶ μᾶλλον ἔτι τῷ λαμβάνοντι τὸ δοκεῖν μισθοῦ τὴν ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν). 90 Polyb., Hist., 29.8.5–10. 91 Polyb., Hist., 29.9.1–6. 92 Polyb., Hist., 29.9.7–11. 86

46

Chapter 2: Benefaction – Gratitude and Decisions

someone whom one distrusts. And finally, its moral appropriateness could depend on one’s perspective and the specific circumstances.

Chapter 3

Benefaction – Select Motifs In order to calibrate legitimate cultural expectations and discern cultural scripts related to benefaction, this section explores discrete dynamics and motifs of benefaction that are especially relevant to Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Several aspects of benefaction fall under the rubric of benefits and patterns of benefaction, an especially prominent topic of which is civic freedom. After that, relational dynamics like ingratitude, fidelity, and the use of kinship language employed in benefaction are explored. Finally, this chapter looks at the roles of memory, imitation, and community survival.

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction 3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

Across the array of Greek cities in the Mediterranean and beyond, the deeds of benefactors afforded their recipients with a panoply of benefits. The meaningful deeds of personal service and the results of their services would feature in the landscape of public places in the form of inscriptions (e.g., temple, agora), be commemorated at festivals, and be awarded with praise and tokens of gratitude. This section explores salient benefits and services that benefactors provided for cities that contextualize Paul’s language at several points in Galatians with respect to specific motifs: civic freedom, promise, starting and completing a benefaction, the congruity of one’s words and deeds, expressions of generosity and abundance, the varied dynamics of giving benefits to worthy or unworthy people, and the language of time. 3.1.1 Civic Freedom For Greek poleis in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods civic freedom (ἐλευθερία) generally entailed a certain level of political independence of the polis with an emphasis on internal democratic governance according to its native laws, constitution, and ancestral customs as well as a lack of external constraints on that governance and on the city’s population (e.g., compulsory payments, occupying garrisons, foreign governor, or a native or foreign-propped

48

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

tyrant).1 That is, civic freedom was generally conceived of in terms of freedom from external forceful constraint and freedom to operate with internal selfgovernance. 2 Yet each freedom-event or usage of the term ἐλευθερία (or ἐλεύθερος) could highlight different motifs and specific elements relevant to its own local context. The importance of freedom is revealed in how ἐλευθερία is described in inscriptions and in the vehemence with which some cities fought to maintain it. Freedom is called “the first and [greatest] benefaction” (RC 71.11–12) and one of “the greatest goods” (I.Stratonikeia 512.9–10).3 Augustus called it “the greatest privilege of all” and one of “the most highly prized privileges” that

A brief but useful description of a Hellenistic polis is that it was “a corporate body of citizens, organized in a decision-making community, structured by norms and essentially democratic institutions whose authority regulated the common life” (i.e., a state), but it was also “a monumental urban center and a territory; a descent group with its myths; a system of participatory rituals; a sense of place and of past, and hence an identity; a locus of human interaction, and hence a society.” John Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 150–151. For a long view of the history of the Greek polis, see now John Ma, Polis: A New History of the Ancient Greek City-State from the Early Iron Age to the End of Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2024). 2 It is useful to distinguish between primary and secondary freedom as outlined by Shane Wallace, who highlights the malleability of the meaning of civic freedom in the relationship between kings and Greek cities. He argues that ἐλευθερία “operated either as a point of unity or discord depending on the politics of its application: kings employed it to bind the city to the empire under royal patronage (Secondary freedom), while cities outwith the empire asserted it as a point of discord against royal control (Primary freedom).” Phrased differently, the distinction is “freedom as granted by one power and conditional upon its goodwill (Secondary freedom) and freedom as a self-guaranteed right often asserted against another’s control (Primary freedom).” Shane Wallace, “The Freedom of the Greek in the Early Hellenistic Period (337–262 BC). A Study in Ruler-City Relations” (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2011), 14, 44. On complexity and variability of civic freedom in the late Classical and early Hellenistic world in general, see Wallace, “The Freedom of the Greek in the Early Hellenistic Period (337–262 BC).” 3 “Now, being anxious to reward them fittingly with the first [and greatest] benefaction, [we have decided that they be] for all time free” (καὶ νυνὶ δὲ τῆς πρώ-|[της καὶ μεγίστης εὐεργ]εσίας καταξιῶσαι σπουδάζοντες| [αὐτούς, ἐκρίναμεν εἰ]ς τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ἐλευθέρους| [εἶναι]; RC 71.11–14; translation from RC). “Since through everything the demos, making known its piety to the deity as well as its thankfulness and on account of these things, to its advantage, obtained the notice of the gods, was itself delivered from the dangers and from the critical moment, and became free and autonomous and was appointed possessor of the greatest goods” (ἐπειδὴ διὰ παντὸς ὁ δῆμος ἀποδεικνύμενος|| τὴν εἰς τὸ θεῖον εὐσέβιάν τε καὶ εὐχαριστίαν| καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῶι συμφέροντι τυγχάνων| τῆς παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἐπισημασίας διεσώθη ἐ|κ τῶν κινδύνων καὶ ἐκ τοῦ περιστάντος αὐτὸν καιροῦ| καὶ ἐλεύθερος καὶ αὐτόνομος ἐγένετο καὶ τῶν με||γίστων ἀγαθῶν κύριος κατεστάθη; I.Stratonikeia 512.4– 10). 1

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

49

should not be given out in vain or without good cause (Reynolds §13.4, 7).4 It is no wonder, then, that the cities of Isauria and Abydos on separate occasions over a hundred years apart, in attempts to preserve their freedom, collectively fought to the point of committing themselves to death in a mass murder-suicide rather than submitting to the yoke of foreign dominion.5 Each situation that involves freedom has its own local circumstances, particular shape, and accompanying motifs. A survey of some of the more significant instances that involve freedom of populations from the death of Alexander to the reign of Nero illustrates its enduring importance and highlights its significance(s) to more accurately contextualize the notion of freedom in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. One of the most significant elements frequently attesting to a city’s freedom is its ability to conduct its affairs without an occupying garrison.6 In the wars of Alexander’s successors, Antigonos I Monophthalmos and his son Demetrios I Poliorketes took it upon themselves to campaign for the freedom of Greek cities so that they might gain the favor of the poleis.7 In 315 BC Antigonos publicized his campaign by sending decrees to Greek cities, saying “all the Greeks are free, ungarrisoned, and autonomous.”8 In the same year, Alexander son of Polyperchon, in the employ of Antigonos I, set about campaigning in the Peloponnesos to cast out Kassander’s garrisons and “to reestablish for the

4 “Imperator Caesar Augustus, son of divus Julius, wrote to the Samians underneath their petition: You yourselves can see that I have given the privilege of freedom to no people except the Aphrodisians, who took my side in the war and were captured by storm because of their devotion to us. For it is not right to give the favor of the greatest privilege of all at random and without cause. I am well-disposed to you and should like to do a favor to my wife who is active in your behalf, but not to the point of breaking my custom. For I am not concerned for the money which you pay towards the tribute, but I am not willing to give the most highly prized privileges to anyone without good cause” (ἔξεστιν ὑμεῖν αὐτοῖς ὁρᾶν ὅτι τὸ φιλάνθρωπον τῆς ἐλευθερίας οὐδένι δέδωκα δήμῳ πλὴν τῷ τῶν| Ἀφροδεισιέων ὃς ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τὰ ἐμὰ φρονήσας δοριάλωτος διὰ τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς εὔνοιαν ἐγένετο·| οὐ γάρ ἐστιν δίκαιον τὸ πάντων μέγιστον φιλάνθρωπον εἰκῇ καὶ χωρὶς αἰτίας χαρίζεσθαι. Ἐγὼ δὲ|| ὑμεῖν εὐνοῶ καὶ βουλοίμην ἂν τῇ γυναικί μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν σπουδαζούσῃ χαρίζεσθαι ἀλλὰ| οὐχ ὥστε καταλῦσαι τὴν συνήθειάν μου· οὐδε γὰρ τῶν χρημάτων μοι μέλει ἃ εἰς τὸν φόρον τελεῖτε| vac. star ἀλλὰ τὰ τειμιώτατα φιλάνθρωπα χωρὶς αἰτίας εὐλόγου δεδωκένα v. ι οὐδένι βούλομαι star; Reynolds §13.2–7; translation from Reynolds §13). 5 For Isauria, see Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.22. For Abydos, see Polyb., Hist., 16.30–34; cf. I.Priene 19.7–20. 6 On the variety of ways garrisons and occupied populations interacted in Hellenistic cities, see Angelos Chaniotis, War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 88–93. 7 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.61.3–4. 8 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.61.3 (εἶναι δὲ καὶ τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἅπαντας ἐλευθέρους, ἀφρουρητούς, αὐτονόμους).

50

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

cities their freedom.” 9 In 313/312 BC Ptolemaios, strategos of Antigonos, freed the strategically significant city of Chalkis and left it ungarrisoned, a deliberate move by Antigonos to show that he was genuinely seeking the freedom of the Greek cities in contrast to the rival Kassander.10 Apparently, though, Chalkis was not entirely freed at this time. Some years later (304 BC), after the death of the Antigonid strategos Ptolemaios (or Polemaios), the unknown honorand of an Athenian inscription completed the process of freeing Chalkis by removing the garrison guarding the Euripos (the channel between Boiotia and Euboia, of which Chalkis was the chief port).11 The inscription reads: “Since . . . when he was appointed over the guard of the Euripos by Polemaios, when he (Polemaios) died he returned the Euripos to the Chalkidians and was responsible for the freedom of their city according to the purpose of the kings Antigonos and Demetrios.”12 From 315 to 311 BC Antigonos freed many other cities from their occupying Macedonian garrisons and in the peace of 311 he was able to get the concession (however poorly observed) that the Greeks would be autonomous.13 The city 9 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.64.2 (τούτου δὲ χωρισθέντος Ἀλέξανδρος ἐπιὼν τὰς ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ πόλεις μετ᾽ Ἀριστοδήμου τὰς μὲν ὑπὸ Κασάνδρου καθεσταμένας φρουρὰς ἐκβαλεῖν ἐπειρᾶτο, ταῖς δὲ πόλεσιν ἀποκαθιστᾶν τὴν ἐλευθερίαν). 10 “When Kassander had departed, the strategos of Antigonos, Ptolemaios, terrified those holding under garrison Chalkis and took the city and left the Chalkidians ungarrisoned, so that it would be evident that Antigonos genuinely had chosen to free the Greeks” (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.78.2; ὁ δ᾽ Ἀντιγόνου στρατηγὸς Πτολεμαῖος χωρισθέντος εἰς Μακεδονίαν Κασάνδρου καταπληξάμενος τοὺς φρουροῦντας τὴν Χαλκίδα παρέλαβε τὴν πόλιν καὶ τοὺς Χαλκιδεῖς ἀφῆκεν ἀφρουρήτους, ὥστε γενέσθαι φανερὸν ὡς πρὸς ἀλήθειαν Ἀντίγονος ἐλευθεροῦν προῄρηται τοὺς Ἕλληνας· ἐπίκαιρος γὰρ ἡ πόλις ἐστὶ τοῖς βουλομένοις ἔχειν ὁρμητήριον πρὸς τὸ διαπολεμεῖν περὶ τῶν ὅλων). Cassander had maintained a garrison at Chalkis with a certain Pleistarchos in command (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.77.5–6). On Chalkis as one of the three “fetters of Greece,” important control points for occupying powers, see Polyb, Hist., 18.11; Livy, History of Rome, 32.37.3. 11 IG II2 469. 12 ἐ[πειδὴ…]|…κατασταθεὶ[ς ἐπὶ τὴν| τ]οῦ Εὐρίπου φυλακὴν ὑπὸ Πολεμα[ίου, τελευ|τ]ήσαντος ἐκείνου ἀπέδωκε Χα[λκιδεῦσιν τ||ὸν Ε]ὔριπον κα[ὶ] α[ἴ]τιος ἐγένετο [τοῦ τὴν πόλ|ιν] αὐτῶν ἐλευθέραν γενέσθαι κα[τὰ τὴν προ|α]ίρεσιν τῶν βασιλέων Ἀντιγόνο[υ καὶ Δημη|τρ]ίου (IG II2 469.1–8). 13 On Antigonos’s campaign freeing Greek cities in 314–313, see Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.66, 73–75, 77–78. In 313/312 Antigonos freed Miletos. An inscription attests that in that year “the city became free and autonomous by (the agency of) Antigonos and the democracy was returned” (ἡ πόλις| ἐλευθέρα καὶ αὐτόνομος ἐγένετο ὑπὸ| Ἀντιγόνου καὶ ἡ δημοκρατία ἀπεδόθη; I.Milet I 3.123.2–4). On the peace of 311 between Kassander, Lysimachos, Ptolemy, and Antigonos that agreed about territorial sovereignty, see Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.105.1; OGIS 5 and 6 (for English translations and comments, see BD2 §6; Austin2 §38– 39; RC 1). See also an inscription from Kolophon in which the city’s demos decided to construct new walls and mentions its freedom secured by Alexander and Antigonos. Benjamin D. Meritt, “Inscriptions of Colophon,” The American Journal of Philology 56, no. 4

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

51

of Skepsis replied to Antigonos with gratitude, awarding divine honors and instituting a “glad tidings” (εὐαγγελία) offering for the news that Antigonos secured that “being free and autonomous, in good order/peace they will continue into the future.”14 In 307 BC, Athens famously awarded divine honors to Antigonos and Demetrios for liberating the city from Kassander’s garrison and from his hand-picked governor Demetrios of Phaleron.15 After Demetrios had left Athens, Kassander ventured to retake Attika and besieged Athens, but once again found himself repelled by Demetrios, who had returned to the Greek mainland after his failed siege of Rhodes.16 Demetrios expelled several of Kassander’s garrisons and restored freedom to several Greek polities.17 An inscription set up by volunteers from Athens who were serving in Demetrios’s army lauds him for his self-endangerment for the sake of their liberation and awards him with public praise, an equestrian statue in the agora next to the statue of Democracy, and sacrifices to Demetrios Soter.18 Demetrios’s campaign of 303 BC in mainland Greece also afforded liberation to cities in the Peloponnesos.19 He released from Macedonian control the cities of Argos, Sikyon, and Corinth by paying their occupying garrisons 100 talents to leave.20 An inscription from Halikarnassos honors one of its own citizens, Zenodotos Baukideos, for his participation in the liberation of Troizen in the

(1935): 359–372, no. 1, lines 6–7. The inscription from Kolophon reads in part: “Since Alexander the king and Antigonos returned its freedom to it” (ἐπειδὴ παρέδωκεν αὐτῶι Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ βασιλεὺς| τὴν ἐλευθερίαν καὶ Ἀντίγονος; ll. 6–7). For a brief discussion contextualizing this inscription in its historical context, see Getzel M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements of Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 183–187. 14 ἐλεύθ-||[ρ]οι καὶ αὐτόνομοι ὄντες ἐν εἰρήνηι| [εἰς] τὸ λοιπὸν διάξουσιν (OGIS 6.15– 17). For an English translation of OGIS 6, see BD2 §6. On the relationship between Antigonos and Skepsis in relation to divine honors, see Christian Habicht, Divine Honors for Mortal Men in Greek Cities: The Early Cases, trans. John Noël Dillon (Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Classical Press, 2017), 30–31. On the term εἰρήνη as referring to “good order”, see Michael Dormandy, “How to Understand What Passes All Understanding: Using the Documentary Papyri to Understand εἰρήνη in Paul,” NTS 67 (2021): 220–240, who argues that “εἰρήνη is a public, political concept” that “describes a well-ordered, well-governed, socially and commercially well-functioning society, in which everything happens as it should, or at least as rulers decree it should” (235–236). 15 On Demetrios’s first liberation and stay in Athens, see Plutarch, Demetrios, 8.1–15.1. On the liberation of Athens, see especially Plutarch, Demetrios, 10.1. 16 Plutarch, Demetrios, 23.1–2. 17 Plutarch, Demetrios, 23.1–2. 18 SEG 25.149. For an English translation and background, see Jon D. Mikalson, Religion in Hellenistic Athens (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 84–85. 19 Plutarch, Demetrios, 25. 20 Plutarch, Demetrios, 25.1.

52

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

Peloponnesos from its Macedonian garrison during Demetrios’s campaign.21 It states, “having arrived at the right time he helped and struggled together with them for the freedom of the city and the expulsion of the garrison in a manner worthy of the fatherland and kinship and goodwill that the city (of Halikarnassos) has towards the Trozenians.”22 Ties of kinship between cities in this case facilitated cooperation toward the goal of freedom. Other of Alexander’s successors took note of the Antigonid strategy of Greek freedom.23 Around 309–305 BC, Ptolemy I agreed to a treaty with the city of Iasos with the agreement that it be “free and autonomous and ungarrisoned and not subject to tribute.”24 Demetrios himself lost favor in Athens as his power in Macedonia crumbled, and in 287 BC the Athenians ousted his garrison at the Mouseion hill with the help of one of his own garrison commanders named Strombichos.25 The honorific decree in his honor, with which the people and council awarded him praise, citizenship, and a gold crown, recounts his role in the events: Since Strombichos, who formerly served on campaign with Demetrios, when he had been left behind in the town with Spintharos, and the People had taken up arms for freedom and appealed that he place his soldiers in the service of the city, he put himself at the service of the People for their freedom and placed his armory on the side of the city, thinking that he should not stand in the way of what was in the interests of the city but share responsibility for its preservation, and he joined the People in the siege of the Mouseion, and after affairs

21 PH258005. On this inscription and its circumstances, see E. L. Hicks, “On an Inscription at Cambridge: Boechkh, C. I. G. 106,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 2 (1881): 98–101; Richard A. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 440. 22 καὶ κατὰ καιρὸν ἀφικόμενος| ἐβοήθησε καὶ συνηγωνίσατο αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς πόλεως καὶ τὴν ἐξαγωγὴν| τῆς φρουρᾶς ἀξίως τῆς τε πατρίδος καὶ τῆς|| οἰκειότητος καὶ εὐνοίσας τῆς ὑπαρχούσης| τῆι πόλει πρὸς Τροζηνίους (PH258005.6–11). 23 Diodoros notes that Antigonos’s campaign for the freedom of Greek cities ignited a benefaction competition between Antigonos and other Diadochi like Ptolemy. He states, “While these things were going on, Ptolemy, who had heard what had been decreed by the Macedonians with Antigonos in regard to the freedom of the Greeks, published a similar decree himself, since he wished the Greeks to know that he was no less interested in their autonomy than was Antigonos. Each of them, indeed, perceiving that it was a matter of no little moment to gain the goodwill of the Greeks, rivalled the other in conferring favors upon this people” (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.62.1–2 [Geer, LCL]). 24 ἐλεύθερος καὶ αὐτόνομος καὶ ἀφρούρητος καὶ ἀφορολόγητος (I.Iasos 2.6–7, 30–31, 50–51, 54–55). 25 IG II3 1 918–919 (the two surviving inscriptions from 266/265 BC combine to reconstruct part of the single decree that relays events from 287 BC). Demetrios maintained garrisons in Athens (including the Peiraios) after peace negotiations but officially conceded Athenian freedom. On the whole episode between Athens and Demetrios in 287 BC, see Christian Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. Deborah Lucas Schneider (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 95–97.

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

53

had been concluded in favor of the city he has continued to provide unstintingly its remaining needs and has remained steadfast in his good will for the People.26

The inscription highlights Strombichos’s role by crafting a narrative of service to the “interests of the city” (τὰ συμφέροντα), its preservation/deliverance (σωτηρία), and his continuous committed concern and provision for the Athenian people even after the liberation event. A fascinating instance of liberation from a foreign garrison comes from the city of Eretria (ca. 285 BC) in which the city attributes their freedom to an act of the god Dionysos due to the garrison’s sudden departure without a fight during the festival of Dionysos.27 The text reads: Since during the procession of Dionysos the garrison departed, and the People were liberated, and the ancestral laws and the democracy were recovered. So that it would be a memorial on this day, it was decided by the Council and the People: to crown every Eretrian and the inhabitants [with] an ivy crown at the procession of Dionysos.28

Interestingly, the inscription portrays Dionysos liberating each of the inhabitants of Eretria individually rather than the entire city as a collective political unit.29 After the first generation of the Diadochi, freedom continued to be realized by the removal of garrisons even to the time of Augustus. So, a certain Kleonymos “expelled the garrison and cast out the pirates and returned freedom to

26 ἐπειδὴ Στρόμβιχος στρατευόμενος πρότερο[ν]| παρὰ Δημητρίωι καὶ καταλειφθεὶς ἐν . τῶι ἄστει μετὰ Σ[πι-]|νθάρου, λαβόντος τοῦ δήμου τὰ ὅπλα ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλευθ[ερ-||ί]ας καὶ παρακαλοῦ[ν]τος καὶ τοὺς στρατιώτας τίθεσθα[ι π-]|ρὸς τὴμ πόλιν ὑπέκουσεν τῶι δήμωι εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν [κ|α]ὶ ἔθετο τὰ ὅπλα μετὰ τῆς πόλεως οἰόμενος δεῖν μὴ ἐνίσ[τ-]|ασθαι τῶι τῆς πόλεως συμφέροντι ἀλλὰ συναίτιος γενέσ[θ|α]ι τεῖ σωτηρίαι, συνεπολιόρκει δὲ καὶ τὸ Μουσ[εῖ]ον μετὰ [το-]||ῦ δήμου καὶ συντ[ε]λεσθέ[ντ]ων τεῖ πόει τῶν πρ[α]γμάτω[ν κ-]|αὶ τὰς λοιπὰς χρείας ἀπροφασίστως παρασχόμενο[ς διατ]|ετέλεκεν καὶ διαμεμένηκεν ἐν τεῖ τοῦ δήμου εὐ[νοίαι] (IG II3 1 918.7–17). Translation by Sean Byrne, “Citizenship for Strombichos,” Attic Inscriptions Online, last updated June 16, 2019, https://www.atticinscriptions. com/inscription/IGII31/918. For Strombichos’s awards, see IG II3 1 919.17–26. 27 SEG 64.778. See Anne-Françoise Jaccottet, “Le Lierre de la Liberté,” ZPE 80 (1990): 150–156; Denis Knoepfler, “ΕΧΘΟΝΔΕ ΤΑΣ ΒΟΙΩΤΙΑΣ. The Expansion of the Boeotian Koinon towards Central Euboia in the Early Third Century BC,” in The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia: New Finds, New Prospects, ed. Nikolaos Papzarkadas (Leiden: Brill, 2014): 68–94. For the longstanding association of Dionysos with liberation, see Jaccottet, “Le Lierre de la Liberté,” 151–153. 28ἐπειδὴ τῆι πομπῆι τῆι Διονύσου ἤ τε|| φρου⟨ρ⟩ὰ ἀπῆλθεν ὅ τε δῆμος ἠλευθερώθη κ[αὶ]| [τοὺς π]ατ⟨ρί⟩ους ⟨νόμ⟩ους καὶ τὴν δημοκρατίαν| ἐκομίσατο· ὅπως ὑπόμνημα τῆς| ἡμέρας ταύτης| ἦι, ἔδοξεν τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι· στεφανη|φορεῖν Ἐρετριεῖς πάντας καὶ τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας|| κιττοῦ στέφανον τῆι πομπῆι τοῦ Διονύσου (SEG 64.778.4–10). 29 Jaccottet, “Le Lierre de la Liberté,” 156.

54

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

the city” of Alipheira in the Peloponnesos.30 In 243/242 BC the strategos of the Achaian League, Aratos of Sikyon, expelled the Macedonian garrison from the Akrocorinthos.31 Around 235 BC Olympichos, a local dynast, wrote to the city of Mylasa: Olympichos to the boule and demos, greetings. Since we have aimed at every opportunity to bestow the greatest benefits on your fatherland, we have never shrunk from anything that might lead to (your) repute and honor and have undergone great dangers on your behalf. For when we took over your city, we removed the garrison from the citadel and restored (the city) to you to be free and democratically governed. Since we have chosen to be in no respect second to the previous benefactors of your city, we wish to favor you by improving (the status) of the temples in your fatherland.32

In Athens around 215 BC, the people honored a certain Eurykleides for his long career of service and benefaction to the city in previous decades, in which, among many other deeds, “he restored the freedom of the city with his brother Mikion” by helping pay the occupying royal Macedonian garrisons to leave.33 With the coming of Roman involvement and eventual hegemony over the Mediterranean, ἐλευθερία continued to be expressed in part as being ungarrisoned. When Rome defeated Philip V, Flamininus announced at the Isthmian [ἐπεὶ] Κλεώνυμος ἐξάγαγε τὰν πρωρὰν καὶ τὸς πειρατὰς ἐξέ-|[βαλ]ε καὶ ἐλευθέραν τὰν πόλιν ἀπέδωκε (SEG 25.447.3–4). On various proposals of the date and occasion of this inscription, see W. Kendrick Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography: Part VI (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 45–46. 31 Later in the mid-220’s BC Aratos would turn to Antigonos Doson (r. 229–221 BC) to save the Achaian League from the Spartan Kleomenes. Polybios’s account is apologetic towards Aratos’s seemingly contradictory actions two decades apart (Hist., 2.46–55), but Plutarch’s account finds fault with him (Kleomenes, 16). 32 Ὀλύππιχος τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι χ[αίρειν· προαιρούμενοι| ε]ὐεργετεῖν ἐν παντὶ καιρῶι τὰ μέγιστα τῆν πα[τρίδα οὐθενὸς εὐδέποτε]| ἀπέστημεν τῶν εἰς δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν ἀνηκόν[των μεγάλους ὑποστάντες ὑ]|πὲρ ὑμῶν κινδύνους· παραλαβόντες γὰρ τὴν [ὑμετέραν πόλιν τὴν φρου]|ρὰν ἐκ τῆς ἄρκας ἐξαγαγόντες ἐλ. εύθεραν. [καὶ] δη.μ. οκρτουμένην ἀπο||κ. ατεστήσαμεν ὑμῖν· α.ἱρού.[μ]ε.ν.[οι δ᾽ ἐν οὐθε]ν.ὶ δ[ε]ύτεροι εἶναι τῶν εὐεργετη.|σά.ντω.ν. π.ο.[τὲ τὴν πό]λιν, τ.ά.δ. ε βουλόμενοι ὑμῖν τε χαρίζεσθαι καὶ τὰ ἱε|[ρὰ τὰ ἐν τ]ῆ.ι. πατρίδι αὔξειν (I.Labraunda 8.10–17); translation modified from “Letter of Olympichos to Mylasa, Concerning Dedicated Land,” Translations of Hellenistic Inscriptions: 33, accessed July 10, 2021, http://www.attalus.org/docs/other/inscr_33.html). On the sacred land leasing scheme mentioned in I.Labraunda 8b, see Beate Dignas, “The Leases of Sacred Property at Mylasa: An Alimentary Scheme for the Gods,” Kernos 13 (2000): 117–126. 33 τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἀποκατέστησ[εν τῆι πόλει με]|τὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Μικίωνος (IG II3 1 1160.10–12). When Demetrios II (r. 239–229) died, the Athenians “started to vie for their freedom” (ὥρμησαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν; Plutarch, Aratos, 34.4). A sickly Aratos helped convince Diogenes the garrison commander “to return the Peiraios, Mounychia, Salamis, and Sounion to the Athenians for a hundred and fifty talents, of which Aratos himself contributed twenty to the city” (Plutarch, Aratos, 34.4). After the garrisons left, the Athenians strengthened their fortifications in an effort to ensure their newly free status (IG II3 1 1160.14–16). On this episode, see Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, 173–174. 30

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

55

games in 196 BC that a large number of Greek cities would now be “free, ungarrisoned, without tribute, subject to their ancestral laws.”34 Plutarch reasons that Flamininus convinced the ten Roman envoys to free the whole of Greece by removing all the garrisons rather than keeping Corinth, Chalkis, and Demetrias under garrisons “so that the benefaction (ἡ χάρις) would be whole (rather than partial) from him to the Greeks.”35 For this act of deliverance, Flamininus received voluminous gratitude, being hailed as σωτήρ and given divine honors by several cities.36 Later, during the mid-first century BC, the city of PlarasaAphrodisias (soon to be simply known as Aphrodisias) enjoyed free status, which included being ungarrisoned and without a Roman commander.37 In addition to freedom from garrisons, freedom could be realized when a city was free from control of a foreign governor or from tyrants.38 One can note how Kolophon honored a certain benefactor Menippos, since, among other things, “he freed those inhabiting the city from the taking of pledges and the governing control.” 39 Elsewhere, the city of Priene celebrated its liberation from a certain Hieron, a tyrant who had controlled the city for some three years, and instituted a festival to commemorate the occasion.40 Polybios remarks that 34 ἐλευθέρους, ἀφρουρήτους, ἀφορολογήτους, νόμοις χρωμένους τοῖς πατρίοις (Polyb., Hist., 18.46.5). On the whole episode, see Polyb., Hist., 18.44–46. 35 ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἀχθόμενος ὁ Τίτος καὶ βαρέως φέρων, καὶ δεόμενος τοῦ συνεδρίου, τέλος ἐξέπεισε καὶ ταύτας τὰς πόλεις ἀνεῖναι τῆς φρουρᾶς, ὅπως ὁλόκληρος ἡ χάρις ὑπάρξῃ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν. Plutarch, Flamininus, 10.2. 36 Polyb., Hist., 18.46.10–12. Polybios remarks that “however excessive their gratitude may seem to have been, one may confidently say that it was far inferior to the greatness of the event,” which “by a single proclamation all the Greeks inhabiting Asia and Europe became free, ungarrisoned, subject to no tribute and governed by their own laws” (Polyb., Hist., 18.46.13, 15 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). For various responses of gratitude, see Plutarch, Flamininus, 10–12. For Flamininus’s liberation of Gytheion from Sparta, the demos of Gytheion erected a statue (195 BC) that hails Flamininus as its σωτήρ (Τίτον Τίτου Κοΐγκτιον στραταγὸν ὕπατον Ῥωμαίων ὁ δᾶμος ὁ Γυθεατᾶν τὸν αὑτοῦ σωτῆρα; Syll.3 592; English translation in BD2 §37 and Sherk [1984] §6B; cf. Livy, History of Rome, 34.29.13 in which Flamininus makes a deal to remove the garrison from Gytheion). Cities and individuals thanked Flamininus: Corinth (SEG 22.214), Eretria (IG XII 9.233), Delphi (Syll.3 616), Scotussa in Thessaly (SEG 23.412), Gytheion (SEG 11.923), Argos (SEG 22.266.13– 14), and Chalkis (Plutarch, Flamininus, 16.3–4; IG XII 9.931). For English translations of some of the documents, see Sherk [1984] §6. On SEG 22.266 and the novel honor of a Roman having a competition named after him, see Georges Daux, “Concours des Titeia dans un décret d’Argos,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 88, no. 2 (1964): 569–576. 37 Reynolds §9. 38 Polybios constructs a speech for the Aitolian envoy to Sparta named Chlaineas in which the speaker considers foreign garrisons and foreign-propped tyrants as a form of enslavement (δουλεία; Polyb., Hist., 9.29.6). 39 τοὺς δὲ κατοι|κοῦντας τὴν πόλιν ἠλευθέρωσε κατεγγυήσεων| καὶ στρατηγικῆς ἐξουσίας (SEG 39.1244, Col. I.37–39; after 120/119 BC). 40 I.Priene 11 (297 BC); cf. I.Priene 37.65–83.

56

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

Antigonos II Gonatas (r. 283–239 BC) imposed tyrannical governance upon certain Greek cities.41 During the formation of the Achaian League in the midthird century BC, some Achaian cities expelled occupying garrisons or killed (or forced to abdicate) Macedonian-propped tyrants in order to join the federation.42 According to Polybios’s idealistic description of the Achaian League’s goals, they sought to live in a state of mutual aid, liberty (ἐλευθερία), and common harmony of the Peloponnesians (ἡ κοινή ὁμόνοια Πελοποννησίων).43 In this way, civic freedom of independent but cooperatively interconnected democratically governed cities stands together over against a monarchic, centralized power structure subject to a single human mind and will.44 Not being subject to tribute or taxes also constituted a form of freedom. So, a treaty between Iasos, Ptolemy I, and certain others stipulates that the city of Iasos be “free and autonomous and ungarrisoned and not subject to tribute (ἀφορολόγητος).”45 A decree from the League of Islanders (ca. 280 BC) recognizes Ptolemy I Soter’s benefactions to it, since he “has been responsible for many great blessings to the Islanders and the other Greeks, having liberated the cities [310–308 BC], restored their laws, re-established to all their ancestral constitution and remitted their taxes.”46 The Seleukid king Antiochos II confirmed that he would maintain the autonomy of Erythrai by maintaining it as “free from tribute” (ἀφορολόγητος).47 As noted above, when Flamininus announced freedom in 196 BC to the Greeks, he included the stipulation of tribute exemption (ἀφορολόγητος).48 In 189 BC the Roman Spurius Postumius (conPolyb., Hist., 2.41.10. Polyb., Hist., 2.41.13–15; 2.43.3, 8–9; 2.43.3–6. 43 Polyb., Hist., 2.42.5–6. 44 See also Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 16.65–70, 72–73, 77–83, 90. 45 ἐλεύθερος καὶ αὐτόνομος καὶ ἀφρούρητος καὶ ἀφορολόγητος (I.Iasos 2.6–7, 30–31, 50–51, 54–55; 309–305 BC). Cf. I.Iasos 3 (ca. 305–295 BC). 46 ἐπειδὴ ὁ| [β]ασιλεὺς καὶ σωτὴρ Πτολεμαῖος πολλῶν| καὶ μεγάλων ἀγαθῶν αἴτιος ἐγένετο τοῖς| [τ]ε νησιώταις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλλησιν, τάς τε π[ό|λ]εις ἐλευθερώσας καὶ τοὺς νόμους ἀποδοὺς|| [κ]αὶ τὴμ πάτριομ πολιτείαμ πᾶσιγ καταστήσα[ς| κ]αὶ τῶν εἰσφορῶγ κουφίσας (IG XII 7 506.10–16). 47 “And since Tharsynon and Pythes and Bottas have shown that under Alexander and Antigonus your city was autonomous and free from tribute, while our ancestors were always zealous on its behalf; since we see that their judgement was just, and since we ourselves wish not to lag behind in conferring benefits, we shall help you to maintain your autonomy and we grant you exemption not only from other tribute but even from [the] contributions [to] the Gallic fund” (καὶ ἐπειδὴ οἱ Θαρσύνοντα καὶ Πυθῆν καὶ Βοτ|τᾶν ἀπέφαινον διότι ἐπί τε Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ἀντιγόνου αὐτό|[ν]ομος ἦν καὶ ἀφορολόγητος ἡ πόλις ὑμῶν, καὶ οἱ ἡμέτεροι πρόγο|[νοι] ἔσπευδον ἀεί ποτε περὶ αὐτῆς, θεωροῦτες τούτους τε κρί||[ναν]τας δικαίως καὶ αὐτοὶ βουλόμενοι μὴ λείπεσθαι ταῖς εὐερ|[γεσ]ίαις, τήν τε αὐτονομίαν ὑμῖν συνδιατηρήσομεν καὶ ἀφορο|[λογ]ήτους εἶναι συγχωροῦμεν τῶν τε ἄλλων ἁπάντων καὶ| [τῶν εἰς] τὰ Γαλατικὰ συναγομένων; I.Erythr. 31.21–28 [ = RC 15; OGIS 223]; translation from BD2 §22; see also English translations in Austin2 §170 and Burstein §23). 48 Polyb., Hist., 18.46.5. 41

42

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

57

sul 186 BC) wrote to Delphi twice to confirm the inviolability of the city and the temple of Apollo as well as the city’s freedom and exemption from tribute. He wrote to the Delphians that they “shall be autonomous and free and exempt from tribute, dwelling and conducting governance according to their own (laws) and ruling the sacred land and the sacred harbor as was their ancestral custom from of old.”49 In 55 BC the city of Mytilene, which had joined Mithradates in 88 BC and participated in the mass slaughter of the Romans in Asia, and subsequently subject to Rome as a civitas stipendiaria and opened to the publicani, received pardon and freedom from Pompey that included exemption from taxes.50 In 39 BC the Roman senate granted Plarasa-Aphrodisias freedom that included tax exemption and the ability to be governed by their own ancestral laws.51 Finally, in AD 67 Nero personally announced “freedom” (ἐλευθερία) and “tax exemption” (ἀνεισφορία) for Greek cities.52 Thus, tax- and tributeexemption, which release a city from the coercive subjection of tax and tribute, were additional occasions for celebrating freedom. The freedom of non-inference, that is, freedom from all manner of forced subjection like garrisons, foreign governors, tyrants, and tribute or taxes, was complemented by the positive aspects of freedom, which entailed freedom to conduct affairs according to the city’s own laws and ancestral (often democratic) constitution. Hence, when Demetrios Poliorketes liberated Athens in 49 [καὶ]| τὴν πόλιν τῶν Δελφῶν καὶ τὴν χώραν καὶ Δ[ελφοὺ]ς αὐτονόμους καὶ ἐλευθέρους κ.[αὶ ἀνεισφόρους, οἰκοῦν]|τας καὶ πολιτεύοντας αὐτοὺς καθ᾽ αὑ[τοὺς καὶ] κυριεύοντας τῆς τε ἱερᾶς χώρ[ας καὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ λι-]|μένος καθὼς πάτριον αὐτοῖς ἐξ ἀρχῆς [ἦν] (FD III 4.353.11–14; cf. ll. 4–7; translation my own; one can find a full English translation in Sherk [1984] §15; Cf. Syll.3 609 [190 BC]). 50 RDGE §25 and commentary (pp. 144–145). 51 Reynolds §8.58–62. It reads, “…and (it is agreed) that the community, and the citizens of Plarasa and Aphrodisias are to have, hold, use and enjoy all those lands, places, buildings, villages, estates, strongpoints, pastures, revenues which they had when they entered the friendship of the Roman People, and are to be free, and immune from taxation and the presence of tax-contractors. Neither are any of them obliged on any account to give or contribute (anything) but they are to be free in all respects and immune from taxation and are to enjoy their own traditional laws and those which they pass among themselves hereafter” (ὅπως τε ἡ πολειτήα, οἱ πολεῖται οἱ Πλαρασέων καὶ Ἀφροδεισιέων μεθ᾽ ὧν ἀγρῶν, τόπων,| οἰκοδομιῶν, κωμῶν, χωρίων, ὀχυρωμάτων, ὀρῶν, προσόδων πρὸς τὴν φιλίαν το[ῦ] δήμου τοῦ Ῥωμαίων προσῆλθον ταῦτα|| πάντας ἔχω[σ]ιν, κρατῶσιν, χρῶνται, καρπίζωνται τε, πάντων τῶν πραγμάτων ⟦Ν⟧ ἐ[λ]εύθεροι ἀτελεῖς τε καὶ ἀδημοσιώνητοι ὦσιν| Μήτε μην τιν.[ες δ]ιά τινα αἰτίαν ἐκείνων δδόναι (?τι) μηδὲ υνεισφέρειν ὀφείλωσιν, [ἀ]λλὰ ἐλεύθεροι καὶ ἀτελεῖς ὦσιν, νόμοις| τε ἰδίοις π[ατρί]οις καὶ οὓς ἃν μετὰ ταῦτα ἐν ἑαυτοῖς κυρσσιν χρῶν[ται]; translation from Reynolds §8). Cf. Reynolds §9, §13. For a similar grant of freedom see CIL I2 589 (English translation in Sherk [1984] §72). 52 πάντες οἱ τὴν Ἀχαΐαν καὶ τὴν ἕως| νῦν Πελοπόννησον κατοικοῦντες Ἕλληνες| λάβετ᾽ ἐλευθερίαν ἀνισφορίαν, ἣν οὐδ᾽ ἐν τοῖς εὐτυ-||χεστάτοις ὑμῶν πάντες χρόνοις ἔσχετε (IG VII 2713.13–15; English translations in Danker §44 and Braund §261; cf. Suetonius, Nero, 24; RPC I.1203–1206).

58

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

307 BC his program involved both expelling the Macedonian garrison and restoring the laws and ancestral (democratic) constitution. 53 Examples previously mentioned feature similar expressions of freedom: Miletos (democratic governance; 313/312 BC), Eretria (ancestral laws, democratic governance; ca. 285 BC), League of Islanders (restored laws, ancestral constitution; ca. 280 BC), Mylasa (democratic governance; ca. 235 BC), various Greek cities (ancestral laws; 196 BC), Delphi (govern selves with own laws, control of ancestral land and harbor possessions; 189 BC), Plarasa-Aphrodisias (ancestral laws; 39 BC).54 Examples could be multiplied across time and space.55 A brief mention of a few additional instances can be illustrative. Around 255/254 BC, Athens honored as their benefactor Phaidros of Sphettos. Phaidros served as strategos (296/295 BC), as envoy to Ptolemy, as strategos for hoplites (288/287 BC), as agonothetes twice (282/281 BC and another time), he protected the countryside, provided corn and other produce to Athens from the countryside, and overall acted in word and deed to benefit the city throughout his life. 56 The honorific decree for Phaidros also notes that “he handed over the city free, democratic and autonomous, and under the rule of law to those after him.”57 Similarly, some two hundred years later in 36 BC the γενομένου δὲ τούτου κήρυκα παραστησάμενος ἀνεῖπεν ὅτι πέμψειεν αὐτὸν ὁ πατὴρ ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐλευθερώσοντα καὶ τὴν φρουρὰν ἐκβαλοῦντα καὶ τοὺς νόμους αὐτοῖς καὶ τὴν πάτριον ἀποδώσοντα πολιτείαν. Plutarch, Demetrios, 8.5. See also Plutarch, Demetrios, 10.1. 54 References: Miletos (I.Milet I 3.123.2–4), Eretria (SEG 64.778.4–10), League of Islanders (IG XII 7 506.10–16), Mylasa (I.Labraunda 8.10–17), various Greek cities freed by Flamininus (Polyb., Hist., 18.46.5), Delphi (FD III 4.353.11–14; cf. ll. 4–7), Plarasa-Aphrodisias (Reynolds §8.58–62). 55 Freedom expressed as the ability to conduct affairs according to their own/ancestral laws and/or ancestral constitution, and/or democratic governance being facilitated, maintained, or restored includes the following additional instances: IG XII 4 132.37–39 (306– 301 BC); IOSPE I2 401 (2nd half of 4th–early 3rd c. BC); I.Priene 11.7–15 (297 BC), cf. I.Priene 37.65–83; probably SEG 59.1406A (281 BC); IG II3 1 912.7–18 (265/264 BC); I.Erythr. 504.14–20 (268–262 BC); SEG 58.1220 (150–100 BC copy of inscription from 240–200 BC); I.Iasos 4.1–32 = Ma §26A (ca. 196/195 BC); Syll.3 591.32–35, 70–75 (196/195 BC); IC 4 176 (195–168 BC), cf. IC 1 8.9; Syll.3 618.10–17 (190 BC); SEG 39.1244 (after 120/119 BC); OGIS 449 (46–44 BC); I.Knidos 51.3–8 (ca. 45 BC); I.Knidos 52.7–11 (ca. 45 BC and later); I.Knidos 54.9–11 (ca. 45 BC and later); I.Knidos 55.6–11 (ca. 45 BC and later), cf. I.Knidos 53 (ca. 45 BC and later). 56 IG II3 1 985. On the career of Phaidros, see T. Leslie Shear, Jr., Hesperia Supplements 17: Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 B.C. (Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1978), 9–11; Phillip E. Harding, Athens Transformed, 404– 262 BC: From Popular Sovereignty to Dominion of Wealth (New York: Routledge, 2014), 96–97. 57 καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἐλευθερίαν καὶ δημοκρατουμένην αὐ|τόνομον παρέδωκεν καὶ τοὺς νόμους κυρίους τοῖς μεθ᾽|| ἑαυτὸν (IG II3 1 985.38–40). Translation from Sean Byrne, 53

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

59

demos of Stratonikeia set up an honorific decree for Marcus Cocceius Nerva for his role in the city’s freedom.58 The demos of Stratonikeia awarded Cocceius Nerva various honors because “he restored to us both our ancestral freedom and constitution.”59 Each expression of freedom over the long time period the spans the Hellenistic and early Roman periods showed its own complex of concepts in light of their particular situations, but the two most prevalent and significant elements were consistent: (1) freedom from external compulsion and (2) freedom to internal governance according to the city’s own ancestral laws and constitution. A few discrete motifs present in freedom events deserve mention as a part of the repertoire of cultural scripts that could be invoked during a textual expression of a freedom event. One important adjunctive script alongside freedom was to explicitly contrast freedom with enslavement. When Chremonides proposed a decree to the Athenian people to ally Athens with Sparta and with the aid of Ptolemy II to fight Antigonas II Gonatas (who had gained the Macedonian throne in 277/276 BC), he invoked the script of freedom in contrast to enslavement. 60 Chremonides invokes the past analogically to persuade the Athenians in the present. He mentions the past alliances of Athens and Sparta and how “in former times” they “together fought many noble struggles alongside one another against those who were trying to enslave (καταδουλοῦσθαι) the cities, from which deeds they both won for themselves fair reputation and brought about freedom for the rest of the Greeks.”61 The decree continues, “and (whereas) now, when similar circumstances have overtaken all Greece on account of those who are trying to overthrow the laws and the ancestral institutions of each (of the cities), King Ptolemy, in accordance with the policy of his “Honours for Phaidros of Sphettos,” Attic Inscriptions Online, last updated March 6, 2018, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGII31/985. 58 I.Stratonikeia 509 (found at Lagina). The inscription in full reads: ὁ δῆμος ἐτείμησεν ταῖς δευτέραις| τιμαῖς Μᾶρκον Κοκκήϊον Νέρουαν| τὸν αὐτοκράτορα ὕπατόν τε ἀποδε δει|γμένον, εὐεργέτην καὶ πάτρωνα καὶ σω-||τῆρα γεγονότα τῆς πόλεως, ἀποκαθεστα|κότα δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τὴν πάτριον ἐλευθερί|αν τε καὶ πολειτείαν, ἐπαίνωι, χρυσῶι| στεφάνωι ἀριστείωι, εἰκόκνι χαλκῆι ἐφίπ|πωι, προεδρίαι ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσιν, ἀρετῆς|| ἕνεκα καὶ εὐνοίας καὶ εὐεργεσίας τῆς| εἰς ἑαυτόν; The demos honored for a second time with honors Marcus Cocceius Nerva, imperator, appointed consul, who became benefactor and patron and preserver of the city, he restored to us both our ancestral freedom and constitution, with praise, a gold crown of valor, a bronze equestrian statue, front seat at the games, on account of the excellence and goodwill and beneficence that is in himself. 59 I.Stratonikeia 509.5–7. 60 IG II3 1 912 (265/264 BC). For English translation see BD 2 §19 and Austin2 §61. 61 Χρεμωνίδης Ἐτεοκλέους Αὐθαλίδης εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ| πρότερομ μὲν Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ οἱ σύμμαχ|οι οἱ ἑκατέρων φιλίαν καὶ συμμαχίαν κοινὴν ποιησάμενο-||ι πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς πολλοὺς καὶ καλοὺς ἀγῶνας ἠγωνίσαντο με|τ᾽ ἀλλήλων πρὸς τοὺς καταδουλοῦσθαι τὰς πόλεις ἐπιχειρ|οῦντας, ἐξ ὧν ἑαυτοῖς τε δόξαν ἐκτήσαντο καὶ τοῖς ἄλλ[ο]ις| Ἕλλησιν παρασκεύασαν τὴν ἐλευθερίαν (IG II3 1 912.7–13). Translation from BD2 §19.

60

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

ancestors and his sister, shows clearly his concern for the common freedom of the Greeks.”62 By comparing the past alliances and threat of enslavement of the shared (constructed) past Chremonides brings that shared cultural memory to conceptualize the present and persuade his community to action. According to Polybios, when Philopoimen led the Achaians into battle against the Spartan tyrant Machanidas (208/207 BC) he motivated his soldiers with a speech to the effect of, “the present battle has been engaged by those [who fight] on behalf of dishonorable and shameful slavery and by those [who fight] on behalf of eternally memorable and radiant freedom.”63 At the prospects of Roman garrisons replacing the Macedonian ones in Greece after Flamininus defeated Philip V (196 BC), the Aitolians objected that such a state of affairs would be simply a “change of masters” (μεθάρμοσις δεσποτῶν) rather than freedom. 64 A few decades later (171–170 BC) the Roman senate wrote to the Delphic Amphyktyony and accused Perseus of attempting to destroy the freedom its commanders brought the Greek cities and of trying to enslave them.65 The early imperial period also exhibits the freedom-enslavement contrast. Thus, the beginning of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti (AD 14) opens with the dramatic deliverance that Augustus enacted for Rome and frames his defeat of his opponents in terms of liberation from enslavement, saying, “When I was nineteen years old, I got ready on my own initiative and at my own expense the 62 καὶ νῦν δὲ κ[α]ρῶν| καθειληφότων ὁμοίων τὴν Ἑλλάδα πᾶσαν διὰ το[ὺς κ]αταλύε||ιν ἐπιχειροῦντας τούς τε νόμους καὶ τὰς πατρίους ἑκάστ|οις πολιτείας ὅ τε βασιελεὺς Πτολεμαῖος ἀκολούθως τεῖ τ|ῶν προγόνων καὶ τεῖ τῆς ἀδελφῆς προ[α]ιρέσει φανερός ἐστ|ιν σπουδάζων ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς τ[ῶν] Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας (IG II3 1 912.13–18). Translation from BD2 §19. 63 Polyb., Hist., 11.12.3. ὅτι τοῖς μὲν ὑπὲρ αἰσχρᾶς καὶ ἐπονειδίστου δουλείας, τοῖς δ᾿ ὑπὲρ ἀειμνήστου καὶ λαμπρᾶς ἐλευθερίας συνέστηκεν ὁ παρὼν κίνδυνος. Translation mine, consulting Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL. 64 Polyb., Hist., 18.45.6. On the whole episode, see Polyb., Hist., 18.44–46. See also Plutarch’s description of the Aitolian complaint, which elaborates on the “change of masters” metaphor. Plutarch describes how the Aitolians called upon the Greek cities to push back and demanded Titus remove “the fetters of Greece” (Chalkis, Corinth, and Demetrias), and asked “the Greeks whether they were glad to have a fetter now which was smoother than the one they had worn before, but heavier; and whether they admired Titus as a benefactor because he had unshackled the foot of Greece and put a collar round her neck” (Plutarch, Flamininus, 10.1–2 [Perrin, LCL]). 65 RDGE 40B. Part of the inscription reads, “And, desiring [a great] war, so that, [finding you] unaided, he (Perseus) might quickly enslave [all the Greek cities” ([τάχα τὰς ἑλλη|νίδας πό]λεις καταδουλώσηται π[άσης] (RDGE 40B.27–28). Cf. RDGE 40B.11, which reads “but instead for the enslavement [of Greece]” (ἐπὶ καταδουλώσει δὲ [τῆς Ἑλλάδος]), speaking of how Perseus brought Gallic soldiers to Delphi, like the ones who previously attempted to enslave Greece but whom the gods rebuked at Delphi. Translation from BD2 §44. For other English translations, see Sherk [1984] §19 and Austin2 §93. Cf. Livy, History of Rome, 42.13 (Eumenes’s accusations against Perseus).

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

61

army by means of which I set the state free from the slavery (ἐκ τῆς…δουλήας [ἠλευ]θέ[ρωσα]) imposed by the conspirators.”66 Decades later Nero embedded his own proclamation of Greece’s tax-exemption and liberation in the context of Greece’s history of subjection to others and to one another, saying that their present reception of freedom by his hand is “something that none of you experienced even in your finest days, for you were either slaves to others or to one another.”67 Nero’s comparison of past and present highlights his own comparative generosity (χάρις) by heightening the long-enduring subjection and precarity of the Greeks.68 The rhetorical positioning of civic freedom in contrast to civic enslavement strengthens the emotional weight of the freedom, could bolster the liberator’s reputation, or could help provide a persuasive emotional buttress for or against a certain course of action. On certain occasions the discourse of freedom is embedded in a peristatic narration. That is, the freedom was achieved amid dangerous circumstances with existential implications for a city or at the cost of great personal risk on the part of a benefactor. Here the motifs of endangered benefaction and freedom coalesce. So, in an honorific inscription Athens highlights the self-endangerment of the benefactor-king Demetrios I Poliorketes who “himself enduring [every] danger and labor” liberated the city.69 When the city of Priene expelled its tyrant Hieron they honored their citizens who “hazarded danger” (κινδυνεύσαι) to restore its ancestral constitution and freedom.70 After Olympichos restored Mylasa’s freedom and democratic governance he wrote to them describing his service to them by highlighting that he had undertaken dangers (κίνδυνοι) in a manner that never neglected their “repute and honor” (δόξα καὶ

66 Res Gestae Divi Augusti 1.1. Translation from Alison E. Cooley, Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 59. 67 πάντες οἱ τὴν Ἀχαΐαν καὶ τὴν ἕως| νῦν Πελοπόννησον κατοικοῦντες Ἕλληνες| λάβετ᾽ ἐλευθερίαν ἀνισφορίαν, ἣν οὐδ᾽ ἐν τοῖς εὐτυ-||χεστάτοις ὑμῶν πάντες χρόνοις ἔσχετε·| ἢ γὰρ ἀλλοτρίοις ἢ ἀλλήλοις ἐδουλεύσατε (IG VII 2713.12–16; AD 67). Translation from Danker §44. Cf. Plutarch, Flamininus, 12.8; Suetonius, Nero, 24.2. 68 “If only I had been able to grant this gift while Hellas was in its prime. How many more could then have benefited from my generosity (χάρις)! As it is, I can only blame the passage of time that has exhausted before me such magnitude of generosity (χάρις)…. Other commanders have liberated cities, [but Nero] an entire province” (πόλεις μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἄλλοι ἠλευθέρωσαν ἡγεμόνες| [Νέρων δὲ ὅλη]ν. ἐπαρχείαν; IG VII 2713.17–26). Translation from Danker §44, slightly modified. 69 κίνδυνον καὶ πόν[ον αὐτὸς μὲν πάντα ὑπομένων] (SEG 25.149.7; ca. 303/302 BC). Translation from Jon D. Mikalson, Religion in Hellenistic Athens (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 84. 70 I.Priene 11.7–15 (297 BC); cf. I.Priene 37.65–83.

62

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

τιμή).71 Polybios explains that the excessive praise and gratitude of the freed Greek cities in 196 BC was because of the amazing (θαυμαστόν) undertaking of Rome and Flamininus “to endure every expense and every danger for the freedom of the Greeks.”72 At some point in the late second or early first century BC the people of Stratonikeia attributed their newfound “free and autonomous” status to the agency of the gods, for they “were delivered from the dangers and from the critical moment.”73 Finally, Plutarch lauds Brutus, who opposed his benefactor Caesar at great personal risk, for his principled self-endangerment on behalf of Roman freedom.74 These liberation narratives that include risk and danger heighten the emotional weight of a liberative event and focus attention on the depths to which a benefactor went to secure freedom. By mentioning

71 I.Labraunda 8.10–15 (ca. 235 BC): Olympichos to the Council and the People, greetings. We, having purposed to benefit your fatherland with great things at every moment, [never] avoided [anything] that leads toward repute and honor, [having endured] on your behalf great dangers. We, having taken your city and ejected the garrison from the citadel, restored freedom and democratic governance to you. (Ὀλύππιχος τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι χ[αίρειν· προαιρούμενοι| ε]ὐεργετεῖν ἐν παντὶ καιρῶι τὰ μέγιστα τὴν πα[τρίδα οὐθενὸς οὐδέποτε]| ἀπέστημεν τῶν εἰς δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν ἀνηκόν[των μεγάλους ὑποστάντες ὑ-]|πὲρ ὑμῶν κινδύνους· παραλαβόντες γὰρ τὴν [ὑμερτέραν πόλιν τὴν φρου-]|ρὰν ἐκ τῆς ἄκρας ἐξαγαγόντες ἐλ.ευθέραν. [καὶ] δη.μ.οκρατουμένην ἀπο-||κ.ατεστήσαμεν ὑμῖν). See also SEG 50.1116; SEG 58.1220. For commentary on the various documents related to Olympichos found in the temple at Labraunda, see Signe Isager and Lars Karlsson, “A New Inscription from Labraunda. Honorary Decree for Olympichos: I.Labraunda No. 134 (and No. 49),” Epigraphica Anatolica 41 (2008): 39–52; Damien Aubriet, “Olympichos et le Sanctuaire de Zeus à Labraunda (Caire): Autour de Quelques Documents Épigraphiques,” in Communautés Locales et Pouvoir Central dans l’Orient Hellénistique et Romain, ed. Christophe Feyel, Julien Fournier, Laëtitia Graslin-Thomé, François Kirbilher (Paris: Nancy, 2012), 185–209. 72 θαυμαστὸν γὰρ ἦν καὶ τὸ Ῥωμαίους ἐπὶ ταύτης γενέσθαι τῆς προαιρέσεως καὶ τὸν ἡγούμενον αὐτῶν Τίτον, ὥστε πᾶσαν ὑπομεῖναι δαπάνην καὶ πάντα κίνδυνον χάριν τῆς τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας (Polyb., Hist., 18.46.14). 73 “Since through everything the demos, making known its piety to the deity as well as its thankfulness and on account of these things, to its advantage, obtained the notice of the gods, was itself delivered from the dangers and from the critical moment, and became free and autonomous and was appointed possessor of the greatest goods” (ἐπειδὴ διὰ παντὸς ὁ δῆμος ἀποδεικνύμενος|| τὴν εἰς τὸ θεῖον εὐσεβείαν τε καὶ εὐχαριστίαν| καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῶι συμφέροντι τυγχάννω| τῆς παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἐπισημασίας διεσώθη ἐ|κ τῶν κινδύνων καὶ ἐκ τοῦ περιστάντος αὐτὸν καιροῦ| καὶ ἐλεύθερος καὶ αὐτόνομος ἐγένετο καὶ τῶν με-||γίστων ἀγαθῶν κύριος κατεστάθη; I.Stratonikeia 512.4–10; 133–129 BC or 88–85 BC). For text and commentary, see Riet van Bremen, “The Inscribed Documents on the Temple of Hekate at Lagina and the Date and Meaning of the Temple Frieze,” in Hellenistic Karia: Proceedings of the International Conference on Hellenistic Karia, Oxford, 29 June–2 July 2006, ed. Riet van Bremen and Jan-Mathieu Carbon (Pessac: Ausonius Éditions, 2010), 483–503. 74 Plutarch, Comp. Dion. Brut., 3.6–9 (in contrast to Dion, who according to Plutarch, was motivated by personal grievance rather than the principle of freedom); cf. Plutarch, Brutus, 10.

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

63

risk and danger peristatic narrations increase the prestige of a benefactor and the significance of a benefaction. As in the aforementioned inscription from Stratonikeia (I.Stratonikeia 512), some achievements of freedom were attributed to divine agency. When the people of Priene ousted Hieron the tyrant, they praised their brave citizens who accomplished the freedom “with the foresight of the gods” ([μετὰ| τῆ]ς τῶν θεῶμ προνοίας).75 Since the occupying garrison left the city of Eretria without a fight during the festival of Dionysos, the city attributed their freedom to the agency of Dionysos himself.76 Some cities awarded divine honors to a benefactor who was instrumental in enacting a city’s freedom. An inscription from Aigai attests to how the city granted Seleukos I and Antiochos I divine honors for their role in liberating the city, calling them “gods who have manifested themselves” (θεο..ὶ οἱ ἐ[πι]φα[ν|έν]τες).77 The Athenians greeted their liberator Demetrios I Poliorketes in 291 or 290 with a hymn highlighting the realness and proximity of Demetrios’s deliverance and power compared to the unliving and distant power of the gods: “For other gods are either far away, or they do not have ears, or they do not exist, or do not take any notice of us, but you we can see present here, not made of wood or stone, but real.”78 Finally, The Knidians honored Iulius Theopompos’s son Artimedorus with significant honors, which, among many other things, included divine honors (τιμαὶ ἰσοθέοι) like a temple-sharing (σύνναος) gold statue alongside Artemis Hiakynthtrophos and Epiphanes.79 On other occasions freedom is paired with the notion of community concord. For instance, the demos of Telos honored arbitrators from Kos that it requested to settle an internal dispute “in order that they might conduct their political life

I.Priene 11.10–11. SEG 64.778 (see above). 77 SEG 59.1406A.4–5 (281 BC). Text and translation from Hasan Malay and Marijana Ricl, “Two New Hellenistic Decrees from Aigai in Aiolis,” Epigraphica Anatolica 42 (2009): 39–60. See also CGRN 137. 78 ἄλλοι μὲν ἢ μακρὰν γὰρ ἀπέχουσιν θεοί, ἢ οὐκ ἔχουσιν ὦτα, ἢ οὐκ εἰσίν, ἢ οὐ προσέχουσιν ἡμῖν οὐδὲ ἕν, σὲ δὲ παρόνθ᾽ ὁρῶμεν, οὐ ξύλινον οὐδὲ λίθινον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθινόν; lines 15–19. For text, translation, and commentary, see Angelos Chaniotis, “The Ithyphallic Hymn for Demetrios Poliorketes and Hellenistic Religious Mentality,” in More than Men, Less than Gods: Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship, ed. Panagiotis P. Iossif, Andrzej S. Chankowski, and Catharine C. Lorber (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 157–195. The translation is from Chaniotis, “The Ithyphallic Hymn for Demetrios Poliorketes and Hellenistic Religious Mentality,” 160. 79 I.Knidos 59 (ca. 45 BC or later). On temple sharing (“the erection of a cultic statue of a god or human into another deity’s temple near their cultic statue”), see D. Clint Burnett, Christ’s Enthronement at God’s Right Hand and Its Greco-Roman Cultural Context (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021), 45. 75

76

64

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

in a democracy, being of one mind, free, and autonomous.”80 Once the Koans decided the dispute, the Telians (18 years or older), in order to ensure civic concord, were required to swear an oath to “abide by the established constitution” (πολίτευμα) and “guard the democracy.”81 In another instance, the citizens of Chersonesos took a similar oath that exhibits a collective commitment to “preservation and freedom” (σωτηρία καὶ ἐλευθερία), against betrayal within the community, to preserve democracy and to act against those who seek to dissolve it, and to act and judge justly and according to the laws when serving as magistrate.82 Elsewhere, the city of Melanippion (Lycia) honored Apollonios of Phaselis for his exemplary conduct that ensured their acceptance into “the friendship and alliance of the demos of the Rhodians.”83 As a result, the city praised him for securing “that we are free, in peace and with concord conducting civic affairs, controlling our own property.”84 In these instances, community concord was seen to be conditional upon maintaining freedom and the practices and rules that supported such freedom. A not uncommon practice in Hellenistic cities was to embed liberative events into the cultural memory and practices of the city. When Demetrios Poliorketes expelled the Macedonian garrisons and returned to Athens its ancestral democratic constitution, the city responded in gratitude by hailing Antigonos and Demetrios as kings and preserver-gods, changed their system for accounting years from annual archons to annual priests of the preserver-gods, 80 IG XII 4 132. 38–39; cf. ll. 4–5 (306–301 BC). On this document, see Matthew Simonton, “The Telos Reconciliation Dossier (IG XII.4.132): Democracy, Demagogues and Stasis in an Early Hellenistic Polis,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 139 (2019): 187–209. Text and translations from Simonton, “The Telos Reconciliation Dossier.” 81 ὅπως δὲ Τήλιοι καὶ εἰς τὸν ἐπίλοι-|[π]ον χρόνον ὁμονοεῦντες διατελῶντι, ὀμοσάντω τοὶ γεγενημέ-|[ν]οι ἀπό τε ὀκτωκαίδεκα ἐτέων πάντες θεὸς τὸς ὁρκίος [κ]ατὰ ἱερῶν νε[ο|κ]αύτων τὸν ὅρκον τόνδε· ἐμμενέω ἐν τῶι πολιτεύματι τῶι καθεστακό|τι καὶ διαφυλαξέω τὰν δαμοκρατίαν…( IG XII 4 132.125–129). 82 IOSPE I2 401. On this document, see Vladimir F. Stolba, “The Oath of Chersonesos and the Chersonesean Economy in the Early Hellenistic Period,” in Making, Moving, and Managing the New World of Ancient Economies, 323–31 BC, ed. Zofia H. Archibald, John K. Davies, and Vincent Gabrielsen (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2005): 298–321; Igor A. Makarov, “Towards an Interpretation of the Civic Oath of the Chersonesites (IOSPE I2 401),” Ancient Civilization from Scythia to Siberia 20 (2014): 1–38; Christina G. Williamson, “As God is my witness. Civic oaths in ritual space as a means towards rational cooperation in the Hellenistic polis,” in Cults, Creeds and Identities in the Greek City after the Classical Age, ed. Richard Alston, Onno M. van Nijf, and Christina G. Williamson (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 119–174. 83 SEG 57.1663 (shortly after 188 BC). For Greek text, German translation, and commentary, see Mustafa Adak, “Die rhodische Herrschaft in Lykien und die rechtliche Stellung der Städte Xanthos, Phaselis un Melanippion,” Historia 56, no. 3 (2007): 251–279. 84 δι᾽ ἃ κα[ὶ συνβέ-]|βηκεν ἐλευθέρους ἡμᾶς ὄντας ἐν ε[ἰρήνηι]| μεθ᾽ ὁμονοίας πολιτεύεσθαι κυριεύ[οντας]| τῶν ἰδίων (SEG 57.1663.5–8). Translation my own, consulting Adak, “Die rhodische Herrschaft.”

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

65

and embroidered the names of Demetrios and Antigonos into the sacred robe with the names of the gods. Additionally, they constructed an altar of Demetrios, added two eponymous tribes Demetrias and Antigonis and thus increased council membership, and changed the name of the month of Mounychion to Demetrion and the final day of the month to Demetria. 85 Shortly after the Seleukid victory at Koroupedion (281 BC) the city of Aigai re-organized its civic structure, calendar, transformed the space of the city, and instituted a cultic ritual around their newfound freedom and the agents of deliverance.86 They integrated the memory of the gift of freedom by adding two eponymous tribes (Seleukis and Antiochis) and instituting a cult for Seleukos and Antiochos with two monthly sacrifices on the day they became free. They also added a new eponymous month (Seleukeon), constructed a temple and statues, renamed buildings after the benefactors, and sang a hymn. With these changes Aigai invested significant resources to establish an enduring cultural memory in gratitude for benefactions.87 As a final example, a city (probably Mylasa) honored Olympichos with similarly extensive honors, including a bronze statue in the sacred agora, a bronze statue of the demos crowning his statue, an altar, and an annual procession and a sacrifice for him (2 bulls) on the anniversary of the city recovering its “freedom and democracy” (ἐλευθερία καὶ δημοκρατία). Further honors included a banquet, praise with a hymn, Taureia (quadrennial) like the city founders, proclamation of his deeds in the “gymnic games,” a gold crown and equestrian statue, and stone stele inscription placed in temple of Zeus Labraundos.88 As a result, one can see how a city could respond in public gratitude to events of liberation in a way that transforms its civic life and embeds the event and the agents of liberation into its civic cultural practices and memory. This survey of civic freedom in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods highlights the core concept of freedom as well as several occasional motifs that accompanied realizations of freedom. Generally, civic freedom for Greek cities Plutarch, Demetrios, 10.3–11.1. SEG 59.1406A. For commentary, see Malay and Ricl, “Two New Hellenistic Decrees from Aigai in Aiolis,” and CGRN 137. 87 The people of Aigai themselves state their desire that Seleukos know “that we will pass on to posterity his never-forgotten beneficence and we will proclaim his beautiful crown of glory to all humankind” (ὅτι ἀΐμνηστον τὴν ἐκείνου εὐεργε-|[σ]ίαν τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις παραδώσομεν καὶ π-||ᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἀναγγελοῦμεν, καλὸν στέφαν[ο|ν] τῆς εὐκλείας περιτιθέντες αὐτοῖς; SEG 59.1406A.58–61); translation from Stefano Caneva and Jan-Mathieu Carbon, “CGRN §137,” accessed April 21, 2021, http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/file/137/). 88 SEG 58.1220 (150–100 BC copy of inscription from 240–200 BC). Regarding the annual celebration of liberation and democracy the inscription reads: “In his honor a procession and an offering shall be arranged every year at the 14th of the month of Apellaios, the day on which the people regained its freedom and democracy” (ll. 11–14; [μην]ὸς ἐν ἧι ἡμέραι ὁ δῆμος ἐκομίσατο τήν| [τε ἐλευθερία]ν. καὶ τὴν δημοκρατίαν; ll. 13–14; text and translation from Isager and Karlsson, “A New Inscription from Labraunda,” 39–52). 85

86

66

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

involved independent governance according to democratic ancestral customs and laws as well as a lack of constraints upon that governance structure and process, whether that be from foreign garrisons or governors, or from foreign or homegrown tyrants whose presence and rule restricted autarkic governance. Local circumstances and the specific occasions allowed different textual expressions of freedom to draw from an open-ended repertoire of motifs to highlight certain features of a benefaction or benefactor, create emotional resonance, and shape the city’s cultural memory through texts, rituals, images, and edifices. 3.1.2 Promise The notion of promise has several cultural scripts associated with it. The normal expectation was that a person should, of course, fulfill their promise by doing what the individual promiser vowed to do.89 Persons were duly praised for following through on a promise. But one could also use a promise to gain or maintain power. Alternatively, one might make a promise to rouse the bravery of soldiers. A promiser might purposely manipulate somebody to act a certain way. Moreover, a promise could go awry if an individual over-promised or broke a promise. Monarchs and elites were accustomed to making promises to benefit cities, other groups, or individuals, but whether they would fulfill their promise was not a guarantee.90 Those who made good on their promise(s) were accorded grateful honors from the recipients in acknowledgement of their good repute. For example, Athens awarded their benefactor Eudamos with praise, a leaf crown, and other honors because he made good on his promise to help fund certain construction projects.91 When Eumenes of Kardia paid his soldiers as promised, it earned him their affection.92 The city of Teos, in an honorific decree for Antiochos III (probably 203 BC), notes how during his stay in the city he “promised that we would be freed through his agency” from the compulsory payments the Teians had been paying to King Attalos.93 Antiochos followed 89 Cicero makes fidelity to promises a default for just conduct (On Duties, 1.23), but he admits exceptions in the case that fulfilling one’s promise brought more harm than benefit (On Duties, 1.32). Diodoros of Sicily praises M. Livius Drusus (tribune 91 BC) for, among other things, being “highly trustworthy, and most faithful to his promises” (μεγάλην δὲ ἀξιοπιστίαν ἔχων καὶ κατὰ τὰς ὑποσχέσεις ὢν βεβαιότατος; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 37.10.1 [Walton, LCL]). 90 An extensive catalog and analysis of royal gifts to cities can be found in Klaus Bringmann, Walter Ameling, and Barbara Schmidt-Dounas, Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer, 2 vols (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995). 91 IG II3 1 352 (330/329 BC). 92 ὁ Εὐμένης ἠγαπᾶτο (Plutarch, Eumenes, 8.5–7). 93 κ[αὶ] τῶν ἄλλων ὧν ἐφέρομεν συντάξεων βασιλεῖ Ἀττά|λωι ὑπεδέξατο ἀπολυθήσεσθαι ἡμᾶς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ; Ma §17.19–20. Translation from Ma §17.

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

67

through on his promise and in response the Teians generously returned gratitude for his benefactions.94 A benefactor might even surpass what he or she promised. Thus, a certain Menippos, a benefactor honored by Kolophon, exceeded his own promise to build a doorway to a pronaos for one silver talent and received due recognition that drew attention to his above-and-beyond provision. 95 Trust was an important element to a relationship built on a promise, since each party lacks knowledge and familiarity with the other to varying degrees. When two parties were not especially familiar with one another, a show of good faith might be necessary for successful cooperation. For instance, when herders promised to aid Titus Flamininus against Philip V by showing him an unguarded passage, they brought an Epirot nobleman “in whom Titus put his trust” (ᾧ πιστεύσας ὁ Τίτος).96 Plutarch explains their offer of the Epirot “as surety and voucher for their good faith” (πίστις).97 A royal promise could engender goodwill in the recipient, like when Eumenes II gained the goodwill (εὔνοια) of his mercenary soldiers by paying them, honoring some with gifts, and making promises (ἐπαγγελίαι) to all.98 An appropriate promise could also help maintain the fidelity of another party and hedge against defection. Thus, when Syracusan mercenaries had secured promises from Rome in exchange for defecting from the Carthaginian general Himilco, Himilco himself proclaimed his own counter-promises so that Syracusans would keep faith with him.99 In other cases, promises of reward by a commander could serve to rouse the bravery of the soldiery in hazardous situations like when Himilco “roused [his soldiers] to great enthusiasm by his lavish promises of reward to those who distinguished themselves personally” and assured them that all the soldiers would receive favors (χάριτες) and gifts (δωρεά) from the Carthaginian government.100 Sometimes a purported benefactor would use a gift or promise to manipulate another or to convince someone to act a certain way. In 285 BC Lysimachos promised to give Seleukos I 2,000 talents in an attempt to convince him to kill Ma §17.40–55. “Then when he was also appointed Agonothetes, he promised a silver talent to construct the doorway of the pronaos to the leader of the city, Apollo; then he surpassed himself, he built more than the promise with more, not less, money” (χειροτονηθεὶς δὲ καὶ ἀγωνοθέτης|| ἐπηγγείλατο μὲν ἀπὸ ἀργυρίου ταλάντου τὰ θύ|ρετρα τοῦ προνάου τῶι καθηγεμόνι τῆς πόλεως| Ἀπόλλωνι κατασευάσειν· ὑπερθέμενος δὲ ἐ|αυτὸν μείζονα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας κατεσκεύακεν| ἀπὸ πλείονος οὐ ὀλίωι χρήματος; SEG 39.1244.ii.24–29). 96 Plutarch, Flamininus, 4.2–3. 97 γνώστην τῆς πίστεως καὶ βεβαιωτὴν (Plutarch, Flamininus, 4.3 [Perrin, LCL]). 98 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 30.14. 99 Polyb., Hist., 1.43.1–8. 100 παραστήσας ὁρμὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν διά τε τὸ μέγεθος τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν τοῖς κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἀνδραγαθήσασι καὶ τὰς κατὰ κοινὸν ἐσομένας χάριτας αὐτοῖς καὶ δωρεὰς παρὰ Καρχηδονίων (Polyb., Hist., 1.45.3–4 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 94

95

68

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

Demetrios I, who was in Seleukid captivity.101 The first Attalid monarch Philetairos deftly used promises to powerful people in order to secure for himself greater power.102 Eumenes II, during his siege of the city of Abdera (170 BC), used promises to successfully persuade a certain native Abderite named Python to defect and give Eumenes’s soldiers access to the city.103 Cicero recognizes the power of promise when he lists “the hope of gifts of money and by liberal promises” as a reason for why some people submit to another’s authority.104 On the opposite end of the spectrum from benefactors who surpass their own promise is when individuals fail to live up to their lofty promises, whether it is because they promised more than they could give, or they simply broke the promise outright. A person who did not follow through on their promise was typical enough that Theosphrastos portrayed the περίεργος (“busybody”) in his Characters as a person who “stands up to promise things he is not able [to do].”105 The Macedonian king Perseus failed to fulfill his promises by refusing a promised reward to someone (for helping him), which Diodoros says points to Perseus’s avarice (φιλαργυρία).106 If a king failed to live up to his promise, a wealthy local might step up to make up for the royal failure as in the case of Moschion who, when the promise of certain kings to contribute to the construction of a gymnasion failed to materialize, helped his city (Priene) with the expenditure.107 Failure to adhere to a promise could provoke violent conflict. In 241 BC, Libyan and other mercenaries expected their promised pay, but the Carthaginian commander refused to fulfill his promises.108 The Carthaginian 101 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 21.20; cf. Plutarch, Demetrios, 51.3. Seleukos refused the offer, since his son Antiochos had just married the daughter of Demetrios, Stratonike. 102 Strabo, Geography, 13.4.1. Strabo writes that Philetairos “continued to be in charge of the fortress and to manage things through promises and courtesies in general, always catering to any man who was powerful or near at hand” (διεγένετο μένων ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐρύματος ὁ εὐνοῦχος καὶ πολιτευόμενος δι᾽ ὑποσχέσεων καὶ τῆς ἄλλης θεραπείας ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸν ἰσχύοντα καὶ ἐγγὺς παρόντα; Strabo, Geography, 13.4.1 [Jones, LCL]). 103 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 30.6 (ψυχαγωγήσαντες οὖν αὐτὸν ἐπαγγελίαις διὰ τούτου παρεισήχθησαν ἐντὸς τοῦ τείχους καὶ τῆς πόλεως ἐκυρίευσαν). Python lived out his days in shame. 104 Cicero, On Duties, 2.22 [Miller, LCL]. 105 Theophrastos, Characters, 13.2. 106 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 30.21.1–2. Cf. Plutarch, Aemilius Paulus, 23.7–11, who says that Perseus was “playing the Cretan against the Cretans” because the objects of his deception were Cretans (κρητίζων πρὸς Κρῆτας; 23.10 [Perrin, LCL]). 107 I.Priene 108.111–116 (plus lacuna). Reference thanks to Klaus Bringmann, “The King as Benefactor: Some Remarks on Ideal Kingship in the Age of Hellenism,” in Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World, ed. Anthony W. Bulloch, Erich S. Gruen, A. A. Long, and Andrew Stewart (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 12. 108 Polyb., Hist., 1.66–68. Polybios remarks, “The whole force remembered the promises (τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν) the general had made to them in critical situations, and had great hopes

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

69

refusal to uphold its promise angered the mercenaries and provoked the subsequent Libyan-Carthaginian War. 3.1.3 Starting and Completing In Greek cities it was important that once somebody started a benefaction, they completed it. Honorific inscriptions could call attention to the theme of starting and completing, which highlighted how the populace valued how the individual benefactor continued their service until completion. An inscription from Miletos (ca. AD 50) posthumously honors Gaius Julius Epikrates, who was a high priest for life, agonothetes for life, and gymnasiarch.109 According to the inscription, Epikrates “completed (ἐπιτελέσαντα) all the liturgies and through word and deed and dedications and gifts he adorned and provided (for) the fatherland.”110 In another instance, the Delphians honored a certain Nikostratos in part because as an envoy to Rome on behalf of the Amphiktyonians “he completed all things advantageous in common to the Amphiktyonians and the other Greeks who chose freedom and democratic governance.”111 If a wouldbe benefactor failed to complete a task they had already begun, he or she would lose prestige. For Plutarch one of the faults displayed by the Spartan king Agis IV was that he broke his promise to the citizens of Sparta for land redistribution and failed to complete his publicly proclaimed reform program.112 3.1.4 Word-Deed Congruence Significant to the proper conduct of a benefactor is that one’s words would be congruent with one’s deeds. In other words, a good person is expected to match their words with actions that conform to them. Proverbially, they not only “talk the talk” but also “walk the walk.” Cities made sure to note a benefactor’s and indeed great expectations concerning the gain that was due to come to them” (πάντες δ᾽ ἀναμιμνησκόμενοι τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν, ὧν οἱ στρατηγοὶ κατὰ τοὺς ἐπισφαλεῖς τῶν καιρῶν παρακαλοῦντες σφᾶς ἐπεποίηντο, μεγάλας εἶχον ἐλπίδας καὶ μεγάλην προσδοκίαν τῆς ἐσομένης περὶ αὐτοὺς ἐπανορθώσεως; Polyb., Hist., 1.66.12 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 109 SEG 44.938. Cf. e.g., OGIS 339.10–12; SEG 4.425.6–8 (χορηγήσαντα πάσας| καὶ τὰς ἄλλας λῃτουργί|α̣ς ἐπιτελέσαντα θεοῖς πᾶσι); PH315261.2–3 (τὰς ἀρχὰς πάσας ἐπιτελέσαντα καλῶς,| καὶ ἄρξαντα ἴσως καὶ δικαίως); IG IV 714.8–9 (λιτουργίας ἐπιτε|λέσαντα ἐπιφανῶς). 110 πάσας τὰς λειτουργίας ἐπιτελέσαν|τα καὶ διά τε λόγων καὶ ἔργων καὶ ἀναθη|μάτων καὶ δωρεῶν κοσμήσαντα τὴν πατρίδα καὶ ἐποχ[ορηγή]σαντα; SEG 44.938.11–14 (mid-1st c. AD). Thanks to Ross Wagner for advice on the translation. 111 ἐπετέλεσεν πάντα τὰ κοινῇ συμφέρον[τα]| τοῖς τε Ἀμφικτίοσιν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλλησιν τοῖς αἱρου|μένοις τὴν ἐλευθερίαν καὶ δημοκρατίαν (Syll.3 613.17–19 = PH303291.17–19). 112 Plutarch, Comparison of Agis and Cleomenes with Tiberius and Gaius Grachus, 4.1. Plutarch attributes Agis’s failure to youthful cowardice (ἀτολμία).

70

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

word-deed congruency in honorific inscriptions by including phrases like “saying and doing” (λέγειν καὶ πράσσειν) and “in word and deed” (λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ) in the common laudatory lexicon of Greek cities. For example, Epikrates (above §3.1.3) “completed all the liturgies and through word and deed” (διά τε λόγων καὶ ἔργων).113 Ktesiphon proposed honors for Demosthenes for acting always in word and deed for the good of the city.114 An Athenian honorific decree brings attention to how the poet Phillipides “continued saying and doing (λέγων καὶ πράττων) what is advantageous to the preservation of the city” and he “never did anything contrary to democratic governance either in word or deed” ([ο]ὔτ[ε λόγωι οὔτ᾽] ἔργωι). 115 Polybios explains the significance (to him) of word-deed congruence in his praise of Philopoimen: “and when the speaker can reinforce his advice by the example of a life which follows it, it is impossible not to give the fullest credit to his words.”116 That is, if a person’s deeds show that they follow their own words, it lends credibility to the speaker as a trustworthy person for having skin in the game with their own advice. One can see an example of a word-deed mismatch with the example of the Roman politician Marius, at least according to Plutarch’s evaluation. Plutarch contrasts Marius with virtuous Metellus. He casts Marius as a man who regards deception as a part of virtue but Metellus as a person who considers truth as virtue’s foundation.117 According to Plutarch, Marius publicly and vociferously opposed a requirement in an agrarian law proposed by Saturninus that required senators to vow with an oath not to violate the stipulations that the people vote for, but when it came time to take the oath he complied. 118 Marius merely baited Metellus, a principled man of his word (as opposed to Marius), into having to reject the oath and suffer exile as a punishment.119 Plutarch judges that Marius’s actions resulted in his shame (αἰσχύνη/αἰσχρός), but the exiled

SEG 44.938.12 (mid-1st c. AD). Demosthenes, On the Crown, 57 (πράττοντα καὶ λέγοντα τὰ βέλτιστά με τῷ δήμῳ διατελεῖν). 115 IG II2 657.31–33, 48–50 (283/282 BC): διατ|ετέλεκε λέγων καὶ πράττων τὰ συμφέροντα τεῖ τῆς| πόλεως σωτηρίαι…κα[ὶ οὐ]θὲν ὑπεναντίον πρὸ[ς δ-]|ημοκρατίαν οὐδεπώποτε [ἐποίησ]ε[ν ο]ὔτ[ε λόγωι οὔτ᾽] ἔργωι. On Phillipides’s career, see the full inscription (IG II2 657) and Hardin, Athens Transformed, 93–94. For a similar praise of a benefactor (Phaidros of Sphettos), see, e.g., IG II3 1 985.41–42; SEG 57.1082.15. 116 ὅταν δὲ καὶ τὸν ἴδιον βίον ἀκόλουθον εἰσφέρηται τοῖς εἰρημένοις ὁ παρακαλῶν, ἀνάγκη λαμβάνειν τὴν πρώτην πίστιν τὴν παραίνεσιν (Polyb., Hist., 11.10.2 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). For Polybios, the words of Philopoimen garnered so much trust from his fellows because he spoke truth (ἀληθεύειν) and lived his own life as a paradigm (παράδειγμα) that reflected his words. Polyb., Hist., 11.10.1–6. 117 Plutarch, Marius, 29. 118 Plutarch, Marius, 29.1–4. 119 Plutarch, Marius, 29.4. 113

114

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

71

Metellus earned for himself goodwill (εὔνοια) and honor (τιμή).120 Thus, for Plutarch a life whose deeds do not supplement one’s words is shameful. The Greek fable tradition preserves a story relating to word-deed mismatch. In Babrius 50, when a hunter asks a woodcutter for the whereabouts of a certain fox, the woodcutter tries to betray the fox by pointing at its hiding place but at the same time saying, “I did not see.”121 Fortunately for the hiding fox, the hunter does not recognize the woodcutter’s hint, and as a result the fox escapes. In an attempt to reap some return of gratitude from the fox (thinking the fox did not witness his failed deception), the woodcutter demands a requital for his ostensive favor.122 The fox, who witnessed the deception, refuses to return with favors, saying, “you delivered me in voice but killed me with a finger.”123 As a result, one can see a general admiration for the harmony between an individual’s words and actions and a general disdain for people who speak in one way but act out of step with their words. 3.1.5 Benefits to the Worthy and Unworthy In normal operation, benefactors give to worthy people and those from whom they expect commensurate reward or gratitude. So, Theophrastos castigates those who befriend and patronize scoundrels, Cicero advises his audience to give to the upright rather than the fortunate, and Seneca advises that benefactors should have a policy of refusing to give to known ingrates.124 Moreover, friends should have precedence over enemies as recipients of benefits. In a speech crafted by the historian Polybios, Eumenes II beseeches Rome to give the Greek cities of Asia Minor to himself rather than giving them to Rhodes or setting them free to govern themselves.125 The reasoning that buttresses his request includes two related themes (among others): (1) if Rome gives the cities to Rhodes, they would risk benefiting (εὐεργετεῖν) enemies (the cities) and neglecting “true friends” (Eumenes), and (2) “it is far finer to give your true friends a fitting token of you gratitude than to confer favors on those who were your enemies.”126 Thus, two criteria that a benefactor might take into account Plutarch, Marius, 29.4, 7–8. Babrius, 50.1–10. 122 “He said, ‘You owe me favors of gratitude for saving (your) life’” (ζωαγρίους μοι χάριτας, εἶπεν ὀφλήσεις; Babrius, 50.15). 123 φωνῇ με σώσας, δακτύλῳ δ᾽ ἀποκτείνας (Babrius, 50.18). 124 Theophrastos, Characters, 29; Cicero, On Duties, 2.69–71; Seneca, Ben., 4.34. Elsewhere Seneca advises that giving to ingrates might win their gratitude (Ben., 1.2.4; 1.2.4– 1.3.1; 1.10.4–5). 125 Polyb., Hist., 21.19–21. 126 “Therefore, I beg you, sirs, to be suspicious on this point, in case unawares you strengthen some of your friends more than is meet and unwisely weaken others, at the same time conferring favors on your enemies and neglecting and making light of those who are 120

121

72

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

for dispensing favors and benefits are the good reputation of the recipient and the historic relationship of the benefactor and recipient (friends favored over foes). Furthermore, benefactors were apt to give for discernable reasons rather than on a whim or for self-indulgent generosity. Writing to the people of Samos, Augustus explains that he granted freedom to Aphrodisias because they supported him in the war and suffered for it. He is at pains to make clear to the Samians that he benefits cities not arbitrarily but for explicable and proper reasons. He explains that he granted them freedom because “it is not right to give the favor of the greatest privilege of all [i.e., freedom] at random and without cause.”127 He elaborates that he is doing a favor for his wife who has advocated on their behalf, reiterating that “I am not concerned for the money which you pay towards the tribute, but I am not willing to give the most highly prized privileges to anyone without good cause.”128 Moreover, a benefactor could regard recipients as worthy of favor (χάρις) on the basis of unjust or tragic suffering and plight undergone by the recipients. Mylasa had suffered grievously when Quintus Labienus, partisan of Brutus and Cassius, invaded Karia and devastated several cities, including Mylasa.129 Upon his reception of Mylasan envoys who sought support, Octavian recognized their grave misfortune and as a result deemed them “[men worthy] of every honor and favor.”130 Benefits, in the normal operation of benefaction and gratitude, were given to people or cities of known good repute, for friends and allies more so than adversaries, and for explicable reasons. A group of similar stories from the Greek fable tradition also illustrate the impropriety and lack of forethought in benefitting scoundrels (κακοί) or those who are apt to do you harm. Fables like those in corpus of Babrius and Phaedrus should be considered expressions of “popular morality,” moral knowledge truly your friends” (…ἅμα δὲ τούτοις τοὺς μὲν πολεμίους γεγονότας εὐεργετοῦντες, τοὺς δ᾽ ἀληθινοὺς φίλους παρορῶντες καὶ κατολιγωροῦντες τούτων; Polyb., Hist., 21.19.11 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]); πολλῷ κάλλιον τὸ τοῖς ἀληθινοῖς φίλοις τὰς ἁρμοζούσας χάριτας ἀποδιδόναι μᾶλλον ἢ τοὺς πολεμίους γεγονότας εὐεργετεῖν (Polyb., Hist., 21.21.11 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 127 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν δίκαιον τὸ πάντων μέγιστον φιλάνθρωπον εἰκῇ καὶ χωρὶς αἰτίας χαρίζεσθαι; Reynolds §13.4; translation from Reynolds §13. 128 Reynolds §13.4–7; translation from Reynolds §13. 129 Dio Cassius, Hist., 26.3–5. Dio writes that Mylasa revolted from Labienus’s occupying garrison to which he responded by razing the city, imposing levies, and looting the temples. A letter from Octavian recounts further details of Mylasa’s war plight, which details how Mylasans were taken captive as war prisoners, others were killed, some burned to death with the city itself, shrines and temples were looted, the countryside pillaged, and buildings burned (I.Myl. 602.11–19). 130 ἐφ᾽ οἷς πᾶσιν συνε|[–]Α [τ]αῦτα πάσης τειμῆς καὶ χάρι-|[τος ἀξίους ἄνδρας γενομέν]ους ὑμᾶς (I.Myl. 602.20–22; 31 BC). See also RDGE §60 for commentary. Translation from Sherk [1984] §91. For another English translation, see Braund §535.

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

73

that is promoted or used in across a spectrum of social classes or statuses in Greco-Roman societies in the early Roman empire.131 These short stories were not confined to one social class but known more broadly, from their probably social origins among lower classes to the political and cultural elites who learned them in schools and referenced them in their literature.132 As such, they are not limited to the sphere of high-status political maneuvering and strategy. Consequently, they provide evidence of widely prevalent social attitudes towards the logics of dispensing benefits. In Babrius 94 (cf. Phaedrus 1.8) a heron helps a wolf get a bone out of its throat for an appropriate fee (μισθὸν ἄξιον) as promised by the wolf. When the heron completes the procedure it asks for the fee, but the wolf responds with bared teeth, saying that it should suffice as a fee if he refrains from eating the heron.133 The lesson in this fable is that “you’ll get no good in return for giving aid to scoundrels, and you’ll do well not to suffer some injury yourself in the process.”134 In Babrius 115 a turtle yearns to be able to fly like the birds. An eagle asks the turtle how much he would give as a fee (μισθός) to make the turtle fly.135 Excited at the prospects of having his wish fulfilled, the turtle enthusiastically proclaims that “I will give you all the gifts of the Red Sea.”136 So, the eagle picks him up, flies him into the sky, and drops the turtle to the ground, breaking its shell. Reeling and having realized his folly, the dying turtle laments, “I am

Teresa Morgan, Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 4–5. Morgan notes “Fables, too, were regarded as the special form of speech of slaves and the oppressed, but that did not stop authors of higher social status collecting and retelling them and inventing more of their own in the same style.” She continues, “Both fables and proverbs are widely described in literary texts as popular, vulgar, primitive or suitable for children as well as useful, moral and educational; evidently contemporaries regarded them as what we should call ‘popular’ morality.” Morgan, Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire, 4. On the variety of fables and their ethical significance more generally, see Morgan, Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire, 57–83. On fable traditions as representative of nonelite interests, see L. L. Welborn, “The Polis and the Poor: Reconstructing Social Relations from Different Genres of Evidence,” in James R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn, eds., First Urban Churches 1: Methodological Foundations (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 223–226. 132 Morgan, Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire, 4–5, 6, 50, 57–62. Morgan offers a helpful reminder about how “We should not underestimate, therefore, the degree to which groups up and down the social scale shared and exchanged aspects of their culture” (50). 133 Babrius 94.6–8. 134 κακοῖς βοηθῶν μισθὸν ἀγαθὸν οὐ λήψῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀρκέσει σοι μή τι κακὸν πάσχειν (Babrius 94.9–10 [Perry, LCL]). 135 Babrius 115.1–6. 136 τὰ τῆς Ἐρυθρῆς πάντα δῶρά σοι δώσω (Babrius 115.7). 131

74

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

dying with a justifiable cause.”137 Similarly, Babrius 143 (cf. Phaedrus 4.20) cautions against helping the wicked person (ὁ πονηρός). It is short enough to quote in full: A farmer picked up a viper that was almost dead from the cold, and warmed it. But the viper, after stretching himself out, clung to the man’s hand and bit him incurably, thus killing (the very one who wanted to save him). Dying, the man uttered these words, worthy to be remembered: “I suffer what I deserve, for showing pity to the wicked” (δίκαια πάσχω τὸν πονηρὸν οἰκτείρας).138

Finally, in Babrius 122 a donkey is afflicted by a thorn and, seeing a wolf approaching, knows the end of its life is near. The donkey remarks that he is glad the wolf is the one to eat him (as opposed to a carrion bird), but requests that the wolf do him a favor (χάρις) by removing the thorn from his foot so that he can die without pain.139 The wolf obliges but the donkey, free of the thorn in his flesh, kicks the wolf in the face and flees.140 As a result, the wolf acknowledges that he deserves to suffer for acting like a doctor rather than a butcher as he normally does.141 Therefore, as with the elite gift-giving protocols reflected in Theophrastos, Cicero, Seneca, Polybios’s Eumenes, and Octavian, the more popular-level morality of the fables reflects a concern for careful and discriminating benefaction to appropriate recipients. Cities or individuals that received benefits normally gave appropriate returns to their benefactors, which in turn built a good reputation that signaled to prospective benefactors that their benefactions would not be lost on them. If a benefactor strayed from benefitting reputable cities or people, they could come into censure from others. So, Polybios criticizes the Egyptian regent Tlepolemos’s maladministration (202–201 BC) by focusing on his excessive and inappropriate giving.142 According to Polybios, Tlepolemos’s gifting ran afoul for indiscriminately “scattering” (διαρρίπτειν) royal funds, not being able to refuse a request, and being easily swayed by expressions of gratitude like eulogies, toasts, inscriptions, and music in his honor.143 Polybios also comments on the allegedly eccentric generosity of Antiochos IV Epiphanes, saying, “to some people he used to give gazelles’ knucklebones, to others dates, and to 137 σὺν δίκῃ θνῄσκω (Babrius 115.11). Although the main point of this fable is to not aim above one’s social station, it is still useful for discerning an ethic of gift-giving. On Babrius 115 and other cautioning against aspirations to move up the social hierarchy, see Morgan, Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire, 65–66. 138 Babrius 143.1–6 [Perry, LCL]. 139 Babrius 122.5–8. 140 Babrius 122.9–13. 141 Babrius 122.14–16. Note the identical phraseology to Babrius 115.11 (σὺν δίκῃ θνῄσκω) with which the wolf uses to acknowledge how he deserves his pain (σὺν δίκῃ πάσχω; Babrius 122.14). 142 Polyb., Hist., 16.21–22. 143 Polyb., Hist., 16.21.8–12.

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

75

others money,” and “occasionally he used to address people he had never seen before when he met them, and make them the most unexpected kind of presents.”144 Whether or not Antiochos actually acted as transgressively with his benefactions to individuals as Polybios reports is less important than the existence of these stories of unusual gifting that could harm Antiochos’s reputation.145 If the general benefaction protocol involved doing good to those who are worthy and refraining from giving to unfit or undeserving recipients, people nevertheless recognized and utilized the power of a benefaction to produce a positive relationship where one was lacking. Thus, Diodoros of Sicily reasons that because fortune (τύχη) is unpredictable and ever-changing, benefaction (εὐεργεσία), clemency (ἐπιείκεια), and mercy (ἔλεος) to a defeated foe are more appropriate than cruelty or destruction.146 For, mercy (ἔλεος) can transform an enemy into a friend and considerateness towards the weaker party affords goodwill (εὔνοια).147 For Diodoros the examples of Philip, Alexander, and Rome illustrate how successful clemency and moderation is as a strategy for conquerors to extend their hegemony (ἡγεμονία), with the Romans most of all acting “like benefactors and friends” toward the conquered.148 Furthermore, Diodoros endorses the principle of “being judged by the standard with which one judges others.” He states the principle in this way: “to apply to each the law that he has set for others is no more than just.”149 So, if one sows brutality, one should not expect any pity or mercy when fortune turns the other way, since that person has put themself beyond the pale of human sentiment by treating others as such.150 144 ἐδίδου γὰρ τοῖς μὲν ἀστραγάλους δορκαδείους, τοῖς δὲ φοινικοβαλάνους, ἄλλοις δὲ χρυσίον. Καὶ ἐξ ἀπαντήσεως δέ τισιν ἐντυγχάνων, οὓς μὴ ἑωράκει ποτέ, ἐδίδου δωρεὰς ἀπροσδοκήτους (Polyb., Hist. 26.1.8–9 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]; at this point the text of Polybios is derived from Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, 5.193d). 145 It should be noted that Polybios also calls attention to Antiochos IV’s notable generosity to cities and temples that surpassed other Seleukid kings (Polyb., Hist., 26.1.10–11). 146 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 27.15. 147 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 27.15.3; 27.16.2. Diodoros here is talking particularly about clemency and mercy toward “those who give themselves over voluntarily” (οἱ ἑαυτοὺς ἑκουσίως παραδίδοντες; 27.16.2). 148 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 32.4. Diodoros’s three-step theory of hegemony is that “those whose object is to gain dominion (ἡγεμονία) over others use courage and intelligence to get it, moderation and consideration (ἐπειίκεια καὶ φιλανθρωπία) for others to extend it widely, and paralyzing terror to secure it against attack” (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 32.2 [Walton, LCL]). 149 δίκαιον γάρ ἐστιν, ὃν καθ᾽ ἑτέρων τις νόμον ἐθηκε, τούτῳ κεχρῆσθαι (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 27.18.1 [Walton, LCL]). 150 “It is impossible that one who has proved cruel towards others should meet with compassion when he in turn blunders and falls, or that one who has done all in his power to abolish pity among men should find refuge in the moderation of others” (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 27.18.1 [Walton, LCL]).

76

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

An offense against a superior could potentially be overlooked if it was small enough. For example, after Pydna and the defeat of Perseus, Rome was considering war with Rhodes for its conduct in the war.151 The Rhodian envoys, Philophron and Astymedes, begged for clemency and were narrowly able to avoid harsh treatment.152 According to Polybios, Astymedes’s rhetorical strategy involved comparing the helpful aspects of the conduct of the Rhodians over against other states in order to paint Rhodes in a good light and the other states in a negative light. He tried to portray Rhodes’s “offenses” (τὰ ἁμαρτήματα) in a way that when the two groups were compared “the offenses of Rhodes might seem to be small and deserving of pardon” (τὰ μὴν οἰκεῖα μικρὰ καὶ συγγνώμης ἄξια).153 To whatever degree Rhodes actually violated Roman or international standards of proper conduct, the point to note in this passage is that Astymedes (or Polybios’s recounting of him) pursued a strategy of gaining clemency on the basis of the modesty of the offense. Similar sentiments to Diodoros on the propriety of clemency toward enemies are expressed by others. According to Plutarch, the tyrant Dion of Syracuse believed that mercy toward those who wrong you to be the true mark of virtue, saying that “it was no manifestation of such self-mastery . . . when one was kind to friends and benefactors, but when one who had been wronged was merciful and mild towards the erring.”154 Flamininus, in response to Aitolian calls to depose Philip V after his defeat at Kynoskephalai, refused their proposal and countered that good men should be harsh in battle but humane in victory. 155 On another occasion, to ensure future loyalty the Roman senate showed their “mildness and magnanimity” (πραότης καὶ μεγαλοψυχία) to the 151 Polyb., Hist., 30.4.1–5. For Rhodian conduct Rome found suspicious, see, e.g., Polyb., Hist., 29.19 (cf. Livy., History of Rome, 45.3.3). 152 Polyb., Hist., 30.4.5–9. 153 Polyb., Hist., 30.4.13; Polyb., Hist., 30.4.14. 154 ὧν ἐπίδειξίς ἐστιν οὐχ ἡ πρὸς φίλους καὶ χρηστοὺς μετριότης ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τις ἀδικούμενος εὐπαραίτητος εἴη καὶ πρᾷος τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι (Plutarch, Dion, 47.5 [Perrin, LCL]). Dion released Heracleides and Theodotes, his personal enemies (Plutarch, Dion, 48.1). Diodoros also mentions Dion’s acts of mercy to his personal enemies, saying that after the Syracusan assembly expressed their gratitude to Dion by electing him as general, ceding to him control, and awarding him heroic honors, “Dion in harmony with his former conduct generously absolved all his personal enemies of the charges outstanding against them and having reassured the populace brought them to a state of general harmony. The Syracusans with universal praises and with elaborate testimonials of approval honored their benefactor as the one and only savior of their native land” (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 16.20.6 [Sherman, LCL]). 155 Polybios has Flamininus say, “Brave men should be hard on their foes and wroth with them in battle, when conquered they should be courageous and high-minded, but when they conquer, moderate, gentle and humane” (πολεμοῦντας γὰρ δεῖ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας βαρεῖς εἶναι καὶ θυμικούς, ἡττωμένους δὲ γενναίους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας, νικῶντάς γε μὴν μετρίους καὶ πραεῖς καὶ φιλανθρώπους; Polyb., Hist., 18.37.7 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). For the Aitolian envoy’s speech as represented by Polybios, see Polyb., Hist., 18.36.5–9.

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

77

Thracian King Kotys, who fought alongside Perseus against Rome in the Third Macedonian War.156 Moreover, the Macedonian king Perseus began his reign with series of pardons to people who were out of favor with the royal house: he enacted large-scale pardon for fugitive Macedonian debtors, a general relief of debt for Macedonians who owed money to the crown, and a release of people imprisoned for “offenses against the crown.”157 His actions fostered hopeful sentiments among Greeks for his reign, according to Polybios.158 Finally, Ptolemy VI Philometer (d. 145 BC), instead of enacting vengeance upon his brother Ptolemy VIII who was responsible for his brief dethronement and his loss of Cyprus, showered him with gifts and offered (though ultimately failed) to give his daughter to him in marriage.159 These examples above show how leniency, humaneness, and pardon could all be pursued as a virtuous (and no doubt tactical) alternative strategy to a strict policy of benefit according to worth and harshness toward enemies. Nevertheless, offers of leniency may not always be trusted without question. After a victory in battle (240–239 BC) during the Mercenary War the victorious Carthaginian general Hamilcar gave pardon (συγγνώμη) to the prisoners of war who were unwilling to accept his call to join his army.160 The leaders of the mercenaries – Mathos, Spendius, and Autaritus the Gaul – grew worried that such humane treatment (φιλανθρωπία) might sway their forces to trust Carthaginian leniency and give up, so they devised a plot to foster distrust toward Carthage’s offers of pardon.161 Spendius and Autaritus used the pretext of falsified letters to accuse Hamilcar of using their release as bait to gain power over the entirety of their forces.162 Their plan worked and the mercenary army tortured and executed several Carthaginian prisoners, destroying any goodwill they might have had by inciting the fury of the Carthaginians.163 In this case, the offer of pardon for wrongdoing initiated a strategic struggle between the warring generals for control of the soldiers. Although people of small means would have been less able to repay favors, they were not entirely neglected as recipients of benefits. Diodoros relates how Kratesipolis, the wife of Alexander the son of Polyperchon, was beloved (ἀγαπωμένη) by the Macedonian soldiers because she would help the less for-

156 Polyb., Hist., 30.17; cf. Livy, History of Rome, 45.42.6; Syll.3 656 = SEG 32.1206 = PH256424 (English translation in Sherk [1984] §26). 157 Polyb., Hist., 25.3.1–3 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. 158 Polyb., Hist., 25.3.4–5. 159 Polyb., Hist., 39.7. 160 Polyb., Hist., 1.78.13–14. 161 Polyb., Hist., 1.79.8–9. 162 Polyb., Hist., 1.79.10–1.80.3. 163 Polyb., Hist., 1.80.4–1.81.2.

78

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

tunate and those who lacked resources.164 One fable of the Babrius tradition highlights how benefiting the poor can sometimes result in unexpected returns. In this story a lion catches a mouse, but the mouse begs to be let free, promising that he will surely repay the favor (χάρις).165 The lion acquiesces to the request.166 Then one day the lion gets caught in the net of some hunters and, as a return of life for life, the mouse gnawed the ropes and set the lion free.167 These examples show that the principle of giving to “worthy” recipients did not necessarily exclude people of small means. 3.1.6 Generosity and Abundance Prototypical generosity for a benefactor entailed giving from one’s own resources for the good of the recipient(s) and doing so despite the hardship, risk, toil, or cost. A text that highlights several of the types of deeds and virtues for which cities praised a generous benefactor can be seen in an honorary decree for a certain Kleandros, “a man complete in virtue” (ἀνὴρ τετεληωμένος εἰς ἀρετὴν).168 It is unclear what were the apparently numerous specific benefits Kleandros rendered to his city, but he was responsible for at least one benefaction (χάρις) having to do with a joint sacrifice in Athens.169 The council and people displayed their gratitude to Kleandros for surpassing his own laudatory ancestors in benefactions, for the frequency (καθ᾽ ἡμέραν) and constancy (ἀεί) of his earnestness (σπουδή), for outdoing officials in his personal capacity and then outdoing his private contributions in his official capacity, and doing it all in spite of the toil (πόνος) accompanying his services: Kleandros, son of Mogetes, a man having attained perfection in virtue, has surpassed, by his high-minded soul, his ancestors’ first-rate position in conferring all kind of benefits. Even though nobody can be compared to their especial virtue, nevertheless even their achievements seem incapable of being compared with this. Outdoing himself each day in his enthusiasm for his native city, he is eager to over-fulfil all requirements of welfare, being a private person in a more ambitious way than an official, being an official in a more zealous way than himself. And he always puts forward the most excellent proposals in the interest of his native city, in such a way that it does not appear that his proposition could (be thwarted, reduced?) by the trouble involved. But, in fact, he joins in carrying out his proposals so that his trouble achieves more than intended by him.170

164 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.67.1. Kratesipolis’s penchant for helping the less fortunate did not prevent her from also committing acts of brutality. See Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.67.2. 165 Babrius 107.1–8. 166 Babrius 107.9. 167 Babrius 107.10–15. 168 SEG 57.1198.11 (17/16 BC). 169 SEG 57.1198.33–34. 170 SEG 57.1198.10–25. Translation from New Docs Lydia §58.

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

79

The text then highlights how Kleandros embodies the civic virtues of trustworthiness (πίστις), uprightness (δικαιοσύνη), humaneness (φιλανθρωπία), and gentleness (πραΰτης) that render benefits to all: His brilliant achievements for the community are complemented by the virtues of his soul directed with respect to individuals. For he is endowed with honesty and righteousness and benevolence and decency of gentleness and -to sum it all up- with all qualities by which the soul in its ambition contributes to welfare (?). And if we wished to testify by him more than this, words would soon fail us in view of the very highest quality of his achievements.171

The honorific inscription for Kleandros points to some of the aspects of generosity that got the attention of the populations of Greek cities, such as frequency, enthusiasm, commitment, and a suite of civic virtues. Other aspects of generosity could merit attention in the ancient sources. Various texts bring attention to the power of generosity, whether to attract others into a positive relationship, to draw friends, to turn an enemy into a friend, or to garner good repute. Some texts emphasize the scale of generosity, whether it is beyond one’s means, godlike, or even beyond the gifts of the gods. Other texts focus on how competitive generosity emerges from the system of euergetism. Sometimes a more skeptical approach towards generosity is present, and at other times attention is brought to when someone displays a conspicuous lack of generosity. A story related by Diodoros illustrates the power of generosity to bind the recipients with affection beyond the grave.172 The young male Pisidians of the city of Termessos showed incredible loyalty to their benefactor Alketas. Alketas, looking for trustworthy allies in Asia for the battle against Antigonos I, chose to give generous benefactions to the Pisidians. When war eventually came, the younger Pisidian men strongly supported Alketas, but the older Pisidians favored surrender to the stronger Antingonos so that they could avoid war. Secretly, the elder Pisidians betrayed their forces during the battle and attacked Alketas (who committed suicide to avoid capture) and thus won the battle for Antigonos. But the younger Pisidians, after devoting themselves to plunder and brigandage, maintained their goodwill to their deceased benefactor by honoring the body of Alketas. Diodoros explains their devotion to their benefaction in this manner: “Thus kindness in its very nature possesses the peculiar power of a love charm in behalf of benefactors, preserving unchanged men’s goodwill toward them.”173 Other examples show the power of a benefaction to attract others to ally themselves with a benefactor or to gain a good international reputation and bind others to oneself. Ptolemy I’s generosity even to those enemies who inSEG 57.1198.25–32. Translation from New Docs Lydia §58. Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.46–47. 173 οὕτως ἡ τῆς εὐεργεσίας φύσις, ἴδιόν τι φίλτρον ἔχουσα πρὸς τοὺς εὖ πεποιηκότας, ἀμετάθετον διαφυλἀττει τὴν εἰς αὐτοὺς εὔνοιαν (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.47.3 [Geer, LCL]. 171

172

80

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

sulted him helped him draw “friends” from around the world.174 Rome did a favor (χάρις) for Kotys, the Thracian ally of Perseus, by allowing him to take back his hostage son after the Third Macedonian War (171–168 BC), so that they could gain prestige (a reputation for generosity/kindness) and attach Kotys to themselves.175 Certain people were honored because they were reputed to have given beyond their resources. So, Plutarch describes Dion of Syracuse as someone whose magnanimity surpassed his ability.176 An honorific inscription from Cyrenaica attests to how the Cyrenians praised Phaos of Cyrene because “he carried out his duties towards the gods with energy and piety and his duties towards men with generosity and lavishness beyond his means.”177 Certain individuals were especially renowned for their generosity in the historical tradition. For example, Eumenes II, according to Polybios, “was most eager to win reputations, and not only conferred more benefits than any king of his time on Greek cities, but established the fortunes of more individual men.”178 Another figure with a reputation for liberality was Scipio Aemillianus (185–129 BC).179 Polybios refers to his reputation for “magnanimity and cleanhandedness in money matters” and produces five examples of his noteworthy generosity. 180 First, he helped his mother so she would not fall below his own social station. Second, he gave his adoptive sisters their twenty-five talents due to them years earlier than required. Third, when his father Aemilius died he gave his entire inheritance to his comparatively less-off brother Fabius. Fourth, he helped pay for gladiatorial games in honor of his late father that Fabius could not afford. Finally, after his mother’s death, Scipio Aemillianus gave her property to his sisters despite their lack of legal claim to it. The quest for good repute through generosity sometimes led to competitive euergetism in which one or more benefactors found themselves in competition with another. After Rhodes withstood the siege of Demetrios Poliorketes in 304 BC with the help of several foreign powers, they desired to return favor to their most supportive ally Ptolemy but in a manner that surpassed what he did for

Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.86. Polyb., Hist., 30.17; cf. Livy, History of Rome, 45.42.6. 176 τῇ μεγαλοψυχίᾳ τὴν δύναμιν ὑπερβαλλόμενος (Plutarch, Dion, 52.1). 177 καὶ τὰ πρὸς θεὸς ἐκτε|νῶς καὶ εὐσεβῶς ἐτέλ[ε]σεν κ(αὶ)| τὰ ποτὶ τὸς ἀνθρώπος μεγαλ[ο]ψύ(χ)ως καὶ πλουσίως ὑπὲρ δ(ύ)|ναμιν (OGIS 767.15–17; translation from Braund §51). 178 δεύτερον φιλοδοξότατος ἐγενήθη καὶ πλείστας μὲν τῶν καθ᾽ αὑτὸν βασιλέων πόλεις Ἑλληνίδας εὐεργέτησε, πλείστους δὲ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἀνθρώπους ἐσωματοποίησε (Polyb., Hist., 32.8.5 [Olson, Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 179 Polyb., Hist., 31.25–29. 180 Examples from Polyb., Hist., 31.26–28; quote from Polyb., Hist., 31.25.9 [Olson, Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. 174

175

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

81

them.181 Antiochos IV tried to outdo Aemilius Paullus in magnificence by hosting games that rivaled those put on by the Roman general (167/166 BC).182 Much to the chagrin of Seleukos III, Rome, not he, became reputed for setting the cities of Greece free from Macedonian rule. Incensed, Seleukos III told the Roman embassy that “regarding the autonomous cities of Asia it was not proper for them to receive their liberty by order of the Romans, but by his own act of beneficence.”183 Furthermore, Flamininus – who declared liberty to the Greeks at the Isthmian Games – displayed jealousy that the Achaian strategos Philopoimen received similar repute and gratitude as himself for what he considered a lesser benefaction.184 Later, Nero boasted to the Greeks that his benefaction of freedom exceeded all those before him, since his gift was whole rather than partial.185 Rulers and citizens could be described as having rendered godlike benefactions. After an earthquake devastated certain cities in western Asia Minor in 26 BC, the city of Chios honored Augustus for his aid to help the city recovery in an honorific decree (SEG 65.300).186 The decree begins with a declaration that “Imperator Caesar, son of the God, the God Augustus, by his benefactions to all mankind having surpassed even the Olympian gods.”187 Augustus, accorDiod. Sic., Bib. hist., 20.100.3–4. Polyb., Hist., 30.25–26 (from Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, 5.194; 10.439). 183 τὰς δ᾽ αὐτονόμους τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν πόλεως οὐ διὰ τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐπιταγῆς δέον εἶναι τυγχάνειν τῆς ἐλευθερίας, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς αὑτοῦ χάριτος (Polyb., Hist., 18.51.9 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL, slightly modified]). 184 “In consequence of this exploit Philopoimen was beloved by the Greeks and conspicuously honoured by them in their theatres, thus giving secret umbrage to Titus Flamininus, who was an ambitious man. For as Roman consul he thought himself more worthy of the Achaians’ admiration than a man of Arcadia, and he considered that his benefactions far exceeded those of Philopoimen, since by a single proclamation he had set free all those parts of Greece which had been subject to Philip and the Macedonians” (Ἐπὶ τούτοις ἀγαπώμενος καὶ τιμώμενος ἐκπρεπῶς ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις φιλότιμον ὄντα τὸν Τίτον ἡσυχῇ παρελύπει. καὶ γὰρ ὡς Ῥωμαίων ὕπατος ἀνδρὸς Ἀρκάδος ἠξίου θαυμάζεσθαι μᾶλλον ὑπὸ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν, καὶ ταῖς εὐεργεσίαις ὑπερβάλλειν οὐ παρὰ μικρὸν ἡγεῖτο, δι᾿ ἑνὸς κηρύγματος ἐλευθερώσας τὴν Ἑλλάδα, ὅση Φιλίππῳ καὶ Μακεδόσιν ἐδούλευσεν; Plutarch, Philopoimen, 15.1 [Perrin, LCL]). 185 IG VII 2713.17–26. 186 On this inscription, see Christopher P. Jones, “The Earthquake of 26 BC in Decrees of Mytilene and Chios,” Chiron 45 (2015): 101–122. Note also that the decree likely honors another, non-imperial, benefactor. Jones, “The Earthquake of 26 BC in Decrees of Mytilene and Chios,” 120. 187 ἐπὶ Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ, θεοῦ υἱός, θεὸς [Σεβαστός, ταῖς]| εἰς ἁπάντας ἀ[νθρ]ώ.. .. πους εὐεργεσίαις ὑπερτεθεικὼς καὶ τοὺς Ὀλυμπίους| θεούς (SEG 65.300.a.2–4). Translation from Jones, “The Earthquake of 26 BC in Decrees of Mytilene and Chios,” 111. The praise of Augustus as surpassing the gods in his benefactions resembles in some ways the hymn to Demetrios I Polioketes that highlights the tangible presence, power, and benefits of the 181

182

82

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

ding to the decree, was responsible for “a new beginning (παλιγγενεσία) to those who were destroyed” after the “the crisis of the earthquakes [ended?].”188 One finds other expressions of praise to Augustus likening his services to those of the gods in the Calendar Decree of 9 BC and in an inscription from Halikarnassos.189 At Bousiris (Egypt), the people praised Nero “the good deity of the inhabited world” (ὁ ἀγαθὸς δαίμων τῆς οἰκουμένης) and the governor Tiberius Claudius Babillus for “his godlike benefactions” (αἱ ἰσοθέοι αὐτοῦ χάριτες) that resulted in the sacred Nile river giving copious gifts for the populace.190 Citizens could be recipients of “godlike honors” too, like when Pergamon honored Diodoros Pasparos with “godlike honors” (ἰσόθεοι τιμαί) for his extensive services to the city.191 Finally, the Hellenistic poet Kallimachos lauded Berenike, wife of Ptolemy III, as among the three Graces, saying, “four are the Graces; for beside those three another has been fashioned lately and is yet wet with perfume. Happy Berenike and resplendent among all – without whom even the Graces themselves are not Graces.”192 Thus, the significance of a benefaction could result in a person or population praising a benefactor by declaring him or her to be among the gods and even being a condition upon which the reality of the gods themselves depends, by speaking of them as having rendered benefits like or surpassing the gods, or saying that they are worthy of honors like the gods. Generosity was usually valued and received warmly but could also raise suspicions about the giver in certain circumstances. Or generosity could be nohuman benefactor as opposed to the distant gods. See Chaniotis, “The Ithyphallic Hymn for Demetrios Poliorketes and Hellenistic Religious Mentality,” 157–195. 188 SEG 65.300.a.7–8. τῆς δὲ τῶν σεισμῶν περιστάσε[ως πεπαυμένης - - - - -]…παλινγε . . . νεσίαν τοῖς ἀπολ{λ}λόσι κα[τέταξε]. 189 SEG 56.1233.41–42 (Providence brought Augustus to humanity “as if a god in place of herself” [ὥσπερ…ἀνθ᾽ ἑα(υ)τῆς [θ]εόν]; translation from Jones, “The Earthquake of 26 BC in Decrees of Mytilene and Chios,” 113); PH257992.6–7 (calling Augustus “Zeus patron and preserver of the common race of humanity” [Δία πατρῷον καὶ σωτῆρα τοὺ κοινοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπων γένους]). References from Jones, “The Earthquake of 26 BC in Decrees of Mytilene and Chios,” 112–113. 190 OGIS 666.3–4, 21 (AD 55–59). One can find an English translation in Sherk [1988] §63. On this inscription, see Christina Kokkinia, “The God-emperor. Fragments of a Discourse between Greek Cities and Provincial Governors,” in Communautés locales et pouvoir central dans l’Orient hellénistique et romain, ed. Christophe Feyel, Julien Fournier, Laëtitia Graslin-Thomé, and François Kirbihler (Nancy: Association pour la diffusion de la recherche sur l’Antiquité, 2012), 499–516. 191 “And now, having been found worthy of godlike honors, he might be more eager in his willingness, having acquired worthy recompenses of his benefactions” (καὶ νῦν ἰσοθέων ἠξιώμενος τιμῶν ἐκτενέστερος γίνη-||ται τῇ προθυμίᾳ κομιζόμενος τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν ἀξίας τὰς ἀμοιβάς; IGRR 4.293.Col. II.39–40). 192 Τέσσαρες αἱ Χάριτες· ποτὶ γὰρ μία ταῖς τρισὶ τήναις ἄρτι ποτεπλάσθη κἤτι μύροισι νοτεῖ. εὐαίων ἐν πᾶσιν ἀρίζαλος Βερενίκα, ἇς ἄτερ οὐδ᾽ αὐταὶ ταὶ Χάριτες Χάριτες (Callimachus, Epigram 52 [Mair and Mair, LCL]).

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

83

ticeably absent. Excessive kindness might signal weakness like when the kindness (φιλανθρωπία) of the Romans leads the Rhodians to think that Rome was weak and in danger.193 Conspicuous lack of generosity would garner negative attention. Theophrastos describes the person who lacks liberality.194 The ungenerous or “illiberal” person (ὁ ἀνελεύθερος) is the type of person to dedicate a tiny plaque to Dionysos upon winning the tragedy competition, to stay silent or leave during a city’s call for funds in an emergency, or to pretend his children are sick so he can keep them home from school on a day they are required to bring gifts.195 The illiberal person is one who awkwardly carries his meat and produce home himself rather than cheaply hiring a carrier, changes his route home to avoid a friend who wants a loan, and rents an enslaved girl as-needed for his wife rather than buy one.196 Furthermore, paltry gifts did not go unnoticed when comparisons from the past were readily available. Around 227 BC Rhodes experienced an earthquake that devastated the city.197 In response to the event many cities and dynasts offered abundant aid to Rhodes to help rebuild it, whether it was 75 or 300 talents of silver, provision of oil for the gymnasion, corn, timber, other goods, quinqueremes, or exemption from customs duties.198 Polybios points out the comparative lack of abundance in the gifts of the dynasts of his own time (mid-second century BC). He suggests that kings should not consider their four or five-talent gifts as significant and that cities should remember those ample gifts of the past and refrain from giving the same distinctions and honors to the meager present-day gifts as they did for the more generous benefactions of prior generations.199 3.1.7 Time The notion of time is an important part of the process of rendering a benefaction. Themes that feature regularly in the epigraphical record include a welltimed benefaction and continuous and prolonged service. Halikarnassos honored its citizen Zenodotos Baukideos, “a good man” (ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός) concerning the city of Troizen, for his participation in the struggle for the freedom of Tro-

Polyb., Hist., 28.16–17. Theophrastos, Characters, 22. 195 Theophrastos, Characters, 22.2, 3, 6. 196 Theophrastos, Characters, 22.7, 9, 10. 197 Polyb., Hist., 5.88.1. 198 Polyb., Hist., 5.88.1–90.8. 199 Polyb., Hist., 5.90.5–8. Bringmann, based on his catalog of royal donations in the Hellenistic period, contends that Polybios was correct in his assessment that dynasts were more generous in the past than during his own time of the mid-second century BC. Bringmann, “King as Benefactor,” 11. 193

194

84

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

izen for which he arrived “at the right moment” (κατὰ καιρόν).200 In the early first century AD Cyrene honored a certain Phaos son of Klearchos for “having acted as envoy during the Marmaric War, in winter, putting himself in danger and bringing military aid which was most timely and sufficient for the safety of the city.”201 Dangerous situations that threatened the well-being, autonomy and liberty, or even existence of a city provided the dire circumstances into which a benefactor could render timely services for the city. Yet proper timing was not the only temporal aspect of a benefaction that cities appreciated. Duration of service received due attention in honorific decrees. Various expressions like ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ, διατελεῖν, ἀεί, and καθ᾽ ἡμέραν communicated a benefactor’s continuous service. Athen’s honorific decree for Phaidros of Sphettos repeatedly invokes the theme of constancy of service with the verb διατελεῖν: “Phaidros himself has continued (διατετελέκεν) to have the same preference as his ancestors, presenting himself as worthy of the good will of the People,” as strategos “he continued (διετέλεσεν) to strive for the common preservation,” “he continued (διετέλεσε) to speak and do what good he could for the People,” and “he continued (διετέλεσε) to do everything in accordance with the laws and the decrees of the Council and People.”202 The Athenenians resolved to praise Phaidros and award him a gold crown “for the excellence and good will he continues (διατελεῖ) to have for the Athenian People.”203 The phrase ἐν παντὶ καιρῶι frequents the honorific inscriptions to highlight how a benefactor “at every opportunity” maintained a disposition of service and took each opportunity to render benefits to the city and to individuals. So, 200 PH258005.5–11 (ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς γέγονε περὶ τὸν δῆμον| τὸν Τροζηνίων καὶ κατὰ καιρὸν ἀφικόμενος| ἐβοήθησε καὶ συνηγωνίσατο αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν| ἐλευθερίαν τῆς πόλεως καὶ τὴν ἐξαγωγὴν| τῆς φρουρᾶς ἀξίως τῆς τε πατρίδος καὶ τῆς|| εἰκειότητος καὶ εὐνοίας τῆς ὑπαρχούσης| τῆι πόλει πρὸς Τροζηνίους). 201 [καὶ] πρεσβεύσας ἐν τῷ Μαρμα|ρικῷ πολέμῳ ἐν χειμῶσι ἑαυ|τὸν ἐς τὸς κινδύνος ἐπιδὸς|| καὶ τὰν ἐπικαιροτάταν συμμα-|[χ]ίαν καὶ πρὸς σωτηρίαν τ[ὰ]ς πό-|[λ]εος ἀνηκοίσαν ἀγαγὼν (I.RCyr2020 C.416.a.7–12; other editions include OGIS 767; IGRR 1.1041; SEG 9.6. Translation from Braund §51. 202 καὶ αὐ|τῶς δὲ Φαῖδρος τὴν αὐτὴν αἵρεσιν ἔχων τοῖς προγό|⟦γο⟧νοις διατετελέκεν ἑαυτὸν ἄξιον παρασκευάζω|ν τῆς πρὸς τὸν δῆμον εὐνοίας…χεροτονηθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἐπὶ τὰ| ὅπλα στρατηγὸς τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν τὸν ἐπὶ Κίμωνος ἄρχοντ|ος διετέλεσεν ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας, καὶ περιστάντων τεῖ χώραι ἀποφαινόμενος ἀεὶ τὰ κράτ-|| ιστα…διετέλεσε καὶ λέγων καὶ πράττων ἀγαθ|ὸν ὅτι ἠδύνατο ὑπὲρ τοὺ δήμου…διετἐλεσε πάντα πράττων ἀκολούθως τοῖς τε νόμοις κα|ὶ τοῖς τῆς βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου ψηφίσμασιν… (IG II3 1 985.18–21, 30–35, 41–42, 46–47). Translation from Sean Byre, “Honours for Phaidros of Sphettos,” (Last updated 6 March 2018). 203 ἐπαινέσαι Φαῖδρο|ν Θυμοχάρου Σφήττιον καὶ στεφανῶσαι αὐτὸν| χρυσῶι στεφάνωι κατὰ τὸν νόμον ἀρετῆς ἕνεκ-|[α] καὶ εὐνοίας ἣν ἔχων διατελεῖ περὶ τὸν δῆμον τ-||ὸν Ἀθηναίων (IG II3 1 985. 71–75). Translation from Sean Byre, “Honours for Phaidros of Sphettos,” (Last updated 6 March 2018).

3.1 Benefits and Patterns of Benefaction

85

Athens honored Philippides because “he has continued at every opportunity to display his goodwill for the demos.”204 In Kallatis (Scythia), a Dionysian Thiasos honored a certain benefactor Ariston who, conforming to (στοιχεῖν) his father’s love of good repute (φιλοδοξία), engaged in “preserving the city at every opportunity (ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ) from the events that happened to it.”205 The people of Lykosoura (Arkadia) made known their desire for Nikosippos’s continued benefits, and having honored him for his services they encouraged him and his wife to keep “the same stance in future, always (ἀεί) to be responsible for some benefit to the gods and to the city of the Lykosourans, in the knowledge that the city is grateful and has never lapsed in the bestowal of gratitude.” 206 The Antigoneans (later “Mantineans”) and a group of Roman businessmen honored Euphrosynus son of Titus because, among other things, he was “every day (καθ᾽ ἡμέραν) contriving to furnish something more for the city.”207 These phrases sometimes come together in a single honorific inscription to draw close attention to a benefactor’s constancy of service. For instance, the city of Abdera honored a certain Philon for “eagerly seeking always (ἀεί) to be a cause of some good and in public to the city and to those of the citizens who meet (him) in private, he continues (διατελεῖ) to display at every opportunity (ἐν παντὶ καιρῶι) his own goodwill he has for our people.”208 The effect of this terminology is to draw attention to the prolonged service with the implication that the benefactor did not offer a one-off or momentary benefit to the group of recipients but consistent care. A past-present discourse construction like πρότερον-νῦν could also communicate continuity of a benefactor’s past performance and current care for the city. Kos honored the doctor Xenotimos with a gold crown for his past and present medical services: 204 διετετέλεκεν ἐν παντὶ καιρῶ[ι]| ἀποδεικνύμενος τὴν πρὸς τὸν δῆμον εὔνοιαν (IG II3 1 877.8–9; 283/282 BC). 205 ἐπειδὴ Ἀρίσ||τον Ἀρίστωνος, πατρὸς ἐὼν εὐεργέτα| καὶ δέυτερον γενομένου μὲν κτί|στα τᾶς πόλιος, φιλοτείμου δὲ τοὺ| θιάσου ἁμῶν, καὶ αὐτὸς φαίν|εται τὰν αὐτὰν ἔχων αἵρεσιν,| στοιχῶν τᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς φιλοδο|ξίᾳ, τάν τε πόλιν σῴζων ἐν παντὶ| καιρῷ ἐκ τῶν συνβαινόντων αὐ|τᾷ πραγμάτων (SEG 27.384.3–12 = PH173613.4–13; shortly after AD 15). 206 παρακαλεῖν δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ εἰς τὰ μετὰ τοῦα μέντας ἐπὶ τὰς| αὐτας ὑποστάσιος ἀεί τινος ἀγαθοῦ παραιτίους γείνεσθαι| τοῖς τε θεοῖς καὶ τᾶι πόλει τῶν Λυκουρασίων, γεινώσκον|τας ὅτι καὶ ἁ πόλις εὐχάριστος οὖσα οὐδέποτε μὴ λειφθῇ ἐν χάρι-||τος ἀποδόσει (IG V.2 576.26–30). Translation from Braund §677. 207 καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἐπινοῶν τῇ πόλει πλεῖόν τι παρέχεσθαι (IG V.2 268.10; 10 BC–AD 10). On this inscription, which delineates the various benefactions of Euphrosynus and his wife Epigone, see A. J. S. Spawforth, Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 224–228. 208 [ἐπειδὴ Φίλων Πύθωνος Ἀκάνθιος| σ]πεύδων ἀεί τινος ἀγ[αθοῦ παραίτιος γίνεται]| καὶ κοινῇ τῆι πόλει καὶ τοῖς κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἐντυγχά[νου-]|σι τῶν πολιτῶν, ἀποδικνύμενος ἐν παντὶ καιρῶι|| τὴν καθ᾽ αὑτὸν εὔνοιαν ἣν ἔχων διατελεῖ πρὸς| τὸν δῆμον ἡμῶν (PH295274.1– 6; 2nd c. BC).

86

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

Since Xenotimos, son of Timoxenos, in previous times (ἔν τε τοῖς πρότερον χρόνοις) took care of the citizens according to his medical skill, showing himself eager to save the sick and now ([κ]αὶ [νῦ]ν), in the face of the onset of many virulent diseases and the illness of the public doctors in the city resulting from the ill effects of their attendance upon their patients, he of his own volition has been unfailing in his provision of help for those in need, taking it upon himself to provide a remedy for every illness, and allowing to no one undue favor but saving men’s lives by his ready service of all equally.209

The reason the city of Myous honored Apollodoros son of Metrophanos has similar phraseology: “in previous times (ἔν τε τοῖς πρότερον χρόνοις) he inclined [himself] favorably, he continues to furnish in public and in private to those of the Myesians who meet with him and now having the same inclination dedicates to Apollo Terminthos four bowls each carrying a weight of a hundred Milesian drachmas.”210 In this instance the benefactor Apollodoros receives praise for his past care for the people of Myous and for his current piety to the god Apollo Terminthos. The πρότερον-νῦν construction in honorific decrees backgrounds the past event(s) (πρότερον) and foregrounds the current event for which the benefactor is receiving praise. In normal practice the past and present are presented as consistent and coherent such that the benefactor shows continuity in his or her disposition and performance to aid the recipient(s).

3.2 Relational Dynamics of Benefactors and Recipients 3.2 Relational Dynamics

In a benefaction relationship, the recipient(s) are normally expected to display their gratitude (χάρις, εὐχαριστία) to their benefactor(s). Nevertheless, in various times and ways recipients did not necessarily abide by proper conventions of gratitude. Moreover, a benefactor and his or her recipients tended to expect each other to maintain a certain level of fidelity (πίστις) and goodwill (εὔνοια) to one another. A city did not always need to choose one benefactor over another, since they would happily receive benefits from many different local and foreign people and repay gratitude to them all as they saw fit. But sometimes a zero-sum rivalry between benefactors could arise and test the fidelity of a city. For various reasons the recipients might find themselves in a situation in which their fidelity to a benefactor requires reconsideration or a decisive choice between rival alternatives. Additionally, benefactors and recipients might find themselves bound to each other through real or imagined ancestral ties. Cities related to one another through the mythical past, through coloniPH349601.1–15 (3rd c. BC). Translation from Hands §63. [ἐπειδὴ]| Ἀπολλόδωρος Μητροφάνου προαιρ[ούμενος - - ca. 15 - - τῶι δή-]|μωι ἔν τε τοῖς πρότερον χρόνοις εὔνου[ν ἑαυτὸν διε]τέ[λ]ει παρεχό[μ]ε|νος κοινῆι τε καὶ ἰδίαι τοῖς ἀπαντῶσιν αὐτῶι Μυησίων καὶ νῦν τὴν αὐ|τῆν αἵρεσιν ἔχων ἀνατίθησι τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι τῶι Τερμινθεῖ φιάλας τέσ|σερας ὁλκὴν ἄγουσαν ἑκάστην δραχμὰς Μιλησίας ἑκατόν (SEG 36.1047.1–6; end of 3rd c. BC). 209

210

3.2 Relational Dynamics

87

zation, or other historical ties. Strong historical and cultural ties could draw on that shared identity for decision-making and cooperation in the present, including rendering aid to one another in times of trouble. The following section explores the three relational dynamics of ingratitude, fidelity/defection, and kinship within the framework of benefaction. 3.2.1 Ingratitude Ingratitude – failure to show proper thanks to one’s benefactor – manifests itself in several ways in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. As a rule, ingratitude was supposed to be avoided. Failing to show adequate thanks for a benefit in a civic or individual benefaction relationship was a basic social transgression. Gratitude is such a significant aspect of benefaction relationships that Seneca famously calls ingrates worse than murderers.211 To engage in behavior that demonstrated ingratitude (as commonly understood) would result in a degradation of one’s reputation and thus limit one’s chances of being a recipient of benefits in the future from the pool of potential benefactors. Social disdain for ingrates makes sense, since such a signal was able to sanction people who did not play by the evolved rules of just conduct in the game of giving and receiving benefits. In the selection process for dispensing a benefit a benefactor would tend to avoid giving to ingrates as a general principle.212 A partial survey of Greek and Roman literature shows the deeply enculturated sanction and contempt for ingratitude.213 Since the topic of ingratitude has been so widely discussed in the scholarly literature, the present section focuses on some discrete themes that occur within the wider category of ingratitude, namely, the topics of avoiding ingratitude, responding to ingratitude, and killing one’s benefactor.214 Seneca, Ben., 1.10.3–4. Xenophon, Memorabilia, 2.6.4–5; Seneca, Ben., 4.34. The practice of avoiding giving to a person with a reputation for ingratitude also makes sense in terms of the emergence of the cultural institutions of benefaction with its repute mechanisms that signal to others that a recipient is thankful. 213 E.g., Xenophon, Memorabilia, 2.2; 2.6.4–5; 2.6.19; 4.4.24; Theophrastos, Characters, 17; Sir 29:15–17; Polyb., Hist., 2.6; 3.16.2–4; 4.49.1; 22.11.1–12.10; 23.17.5–18.5; 27.9– 10; Cicero, On Duties, 2.63; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 33.7.1; 33.17; Valerius Maximus, Memorable Sayings and Doings, 5.2–3; Seneca, Ben., 1.1.1–2; 2.26.1–2; 2.29.1–6; 2.30.1; 3.1.1; 3.14.3; 4.18, 24, 34; 5.17; 7.26, 31; Letter 81; Justin, Epitome, 21.6; 32.2.3–10; 35.1.2–3; Plutarch, Gaius Gracchus, 16.5; Phokion, 30.4–6; Dion, 42.1; Brutus, 11.2; Comparison of Dion and Brutus, 3.4; Marius, 10.1; 28.4; 39; Alexander, 41.1; 71.4. 214 On ingratitude, see, e.g., Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982), 436, 440–441, David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000), 105, 109–113, 149–151; James R. Harrison Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 53, 70–72, 77, 111, 126, 143, 176–177, 182, 193, 201–202, 217, 335; David A. deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 257–258, 260–261. 211

212

88

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

The prospects of shame for acting with ingratitude could affect how people conducted themselves. In 229 BC, the Aitolian League avoided initiating outright warfare against the Achaian League. Polybios explains that the Aitolians were ashamed to aggress against the Achaians because the Achaians had recently benefited them in the war against the Antigonid king Demetrios II.215 To take a Roman example, a certain man who was about to kill Caius Marius refrained from the deed because he did not want to show ingratitude to Marius for all he had done for Italy.216 Thus, the anticipation of shame could prevent transgression of the normal gift-gratitude social script. One could press the scripts of ingratitude and gratitude into service to persuade others to act a certain way. For instance, Lucius Aemilius Paullus during the Second Punic War, in a speech to his soldiers who were about to fight Hannibal’s army, used the rhetoric of gratitude to induce them to fight with more enthusiasm and courage than any ordinary battle.217 The implication of Aemilius’s rhetoric was that, if his soldiers do not fight as if Rome’s existence were at stake, then they would be ingrates to their benefactor (Rome). A benefactor knew that when the thankfulness of the recipients might be in question, and he or she could call attention to past benefactions or to the lack of honors the recipients have bestowed to prick the sense of shame that accompanies ungrateful behavior. Such was the case with Philip V at the conference at Lokris when he called attention to the numerous benefits that he and his ancestors rendered toward the Achaians and how their defection to Rome was out of step with proper gratitude.218 Polyb., Hist. 2.46.1–2; cf. 2.6.1. Plutarch, Marius, 39. Plutarch writes, “At once, then, the Barbarian fled from the room, threw his sword down on the ground, and dashed out of doors, with this one cry: ‘I cannot kill Caius Marius’” (οὐ δύναμαι Γάϊον Μάριον ἀποκτεῖναι). Plutarch continues, “Consternation reigned, of course, and then came pity, a change of heart, and self-reproach for having come to so unlawful and ungrateful a decision against a man who had been the savior [or preserver] of Italy, and who ought in all decency to be helped” ([Perrin, LCL]; πάντας οὖν ἔκπληξις ἔσχεν, εἶτα οἶκτος καὶ μετάνοια τῆς γνώμης καὶ κατάμεμψις ἑαυτῶν ὡς βούλευμα βεβουλευκότων ἄνομον καὶ ἀχάριστον ἐπ᾽ ἀνδρὶ σωτῆρι τῆς Ἰταλίας, ᾧ μὴ βοηθῆσαι δεινὸν ἦν). 217 Polyb., Hist., 3.109.10–12. Polybios’s Aemilius Paullus says to his soldiers, “…and enter on this battle as if not your country’s legions but her existence were at stake. For if the issue of the day be adverse, she has no further resources to overcome her foes; but she [Rome] has centered all her power and spirit in you, and in you lies her sole hope of safety.” He continues, “Do not cheat her, then, of this hope, but now pay the debt of gratitude you owe to her (ἀλλ᾽ ἀπόδοτε μὲν τῇ πατρίδι τὰς ἁρμούσας χάριτας), and make it clear to all men that our former defeats were not due to the Romans being less brave than the Carthaginians, but to the inexperience of those who fought for us then and to the force of circumstances” (Polyb., Hist., 3.109.10–12 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 218 Polyb., Hist., 18.6.5–8. On other instances of calling attention to past benefactions, see Bringmann, “King as Benefactor,” 17–18, who also cites Polyb., Hist., 29.24.11–16 and Polyb., Hist., 16.26.1–6 (Livy, History of Rome, 31.15.1–4). 215

216

3.2 Relational Dynamics

89

In addition to calling attention to one’s past benefactions, outright ingratitude could be met with several other responses. According to Polybios, the Spartans showed ingratitude to the Antigonid dynasty and the Achaians by trying to make a secret alliance with the Aitolians, since “though they had been so recently set free (ἠλευθερωμένοι) through Antigonos and through the spirited action of the Achaians, and should not have in any way acted against the Macedonians and Philip, they sent privately to the Aitolians and made a secret alliance with them.”219 Thus, even spurning those whose ancestors liberated and faithfully aided them is still considered, at least to some observers, ingratitude. When Sparta debated whether to maintain their alliance to the Macedonians or join the Aitolians, a crucial factor in their decision to maintain allegiance to the Antigonids was that the Macedonian dynasty had benefited Sparta in the past and that the Aitolians had recently (roughly two decades prior in 240 BC) used force to attack Laconia in an attempt to control Sparta.220 The argument persuaded enough Spartans for them to decide to side with Macedon, but the pro-Aitolian faction violently and forcibly took control to impose their own viewpoint.221 Polybios described the pro-Aitolian faction’s move as motivated by, among other things, ingratitude (ἀχαριστία) to the Macedonians.222 Ingratitude of a superior to the services an inferior might inspire a change of loyalties. The Aitolian governor of Coele-Syria, Theodotos, rendered important services to Ptolemy IV when Antiochos III attempted to take possession of the region, but Polybios states that “he not only received no thanks (χάρις) for this but on the contrary had been recalled to Alexandria and had barely escaped with his life.”223 In response to such flagrant ingratitude, Theodotos decided to make overtures to defect to the Seleukid king.224 Eventually, Theodotos did switch loyalties to Antiochos and he seized and handed over the cities of Tyre and Ptolemais to him.225 Ill-will could be fomented on account of ingratitude. Thus, when Opimius and the opponents of Gaius Gracchus had killed Marcus Fulvius Flaccus and his son and were hunting down Gaius, he prayed to the gods that the Roman people would be in perpetual servitude (μηδέποτε παύσασθαι δουλεύοντα) on account of their ingratitude (ἀχαριστία) and treachery (προδοσία).226 An incensed benefactor could respond to ingrates in a drastic manner by killing someone for their ingratitude. When Antipater was regent of Macedon after the death of Alexander III, the people of Athens requested the prominent man PhoPolyb., Hist., 4.16.5 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. Polyb., Hist., 4.34.9–10. 221 Polyb., Hist., 4.34.10–35.5. 222 Polyb., Hist., 4.35.6. 223 Polyb., Hist., 5.40.1–2 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]; cf. 5.61.4. 224 Polyb., Hist., 5.40.3. 225 Polyb., Hist., 5.61.5–62.6. 226 Plutarch, Gaius Gracchus, 16.5.

219

220

90

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

kion to serve as envoy to Antipater so that they might convince him to remove the occupying Macedonian garrison. He refused the request, but a certain Demades accepted the call in his stead. Demades was received by Antipater’s son Kassander, since Antipater had fallen ill, but Kassander had come across a letter from Demades who had written it to Antigonos asking him to invade Greece and Macedonia. When Demades arrived, Kassander arrested him and his son, killed his son in front of him, and then killed him for his ingratitude (ἀχαριστία).227 Killing one’s benefactor was considered the height of ingratitude. Both Plutarch and Dio Cassius cast the assassination of Julius Caesar as a case of benefactor-killing. Plutarch remarks that the worst charge one could make against Brutus is that despite the fact that Caesar’s generosity (χάρις) had preserved his life, still Brutus with his own hand participated in the killing of his preserver (σωτήρ).228 Dio Cassius invokes the script of ingratitude in his comments on the death of Brutus and Cassius, saying, “For justice and the Divine Will seem to have led to suffer death themselves men who had killed their benefactor, one who had attained such eminence in both virtue and good fortune.”229 The historian Memnon describes Ptolemy Keraunos’s killing of Seleukos I in terms of killing one’s benefactor: But while he [Ptolemy Keraunos] was treated with such care [i.e., “enjoying the honor and esteem of a king’s son”], the benefactions he enjoyed did not make his wickedness any better: he plotted against Seleukos, attacked his benefactor and killed him. He mounted a horse and fled to Lysimachea, where he put on a diadem and presented himself before the army with a splendid guard: they were forced to accept him and proclaimed him king, after previously obeying Seleukos.230

Memnon notes that the benefits Ptolemy Keraunos received from Seleukos did not improve his character or instill a sense of gratitude; rather, those benefits Plutarch, Phokion, 30.4–6. Plutarch, Comp. Dion. Brut., 3.4. 229 ὥς που τό τε δίκαιον ἔφερε καὶ τὸ δαιμόνιον ἦγεν ἄνδρα αὐτοὺς εὐεργέτην σφῶν, ἐς τοσοῦτον καὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς καὶ τῆς τύχης προχωρήσαντα, ἀποκτείναντας παθεῖν (Dio Cassius, Roman History, 48.1.1 [Cary and Foster, LCL]). 230 Πτολεμαῖος δὲ ὁ Κεραυνός, τῶν Λυσιμάχου πραγμάτων ὑπὸ Σελεύκῳ γεγενημένων, καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐτέλει, οὐχ ὡς αἰχμάλωτος παρορώμενος, ἀλλ᾽ οἷα δὴ παῖς βασιλέως τιμῆς τε καὶ προνοίας ἀξιούμενος, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑποσχέσεσι λαμπρυνόμενος, ἃς αὐτῷ Σέλευκος προὔτεινεν, εἰ τελευτήσειεν ὁ γεινάμενος, [αὐτὸνς εἰς] τὴν Αὔγυπτον, πατρῴαν οὖσαν ἀρχὴν, καταγαγεῖν. (3) Ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν τοιαύτης κηδεμονιάς ἠξίωτο· κακὸν δὲ ἄρα αἱ εὐεργεσίαι οὐκ ἐβελτίουν. Ἐπιβουλήν γὰρ συστήσας, προσπεσὼν τὸν εὐεργέτην ἀναιρεῖ, καὶ ἵππου ἐπιβὰς πρὸς Λυσιμαχίαν φεύγει, ἐν ᾗ διάδημα περιθέμενος μετὰ λαμπρᾶς δορυφορίας κατέβαινεν εἰς τὸ στράτευμα, δεχομένων αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῆς ἀνάγκης, καὶ βασιλέα καλούντων, οἲ πρότερον Σελεύκῳ ὑπήκουον (Memnon of Heraclea, DFHG XII.2–3; translation from Austin2 §159 [FGrH 434 F 11 §8.2–3]; cf. Burstein §16). 227

228

3.2 Relational Dynamics

91

heighten the treachery of his regicide. Perhaps the most striking and detailed example benefactor-killing happened to a certain Carthaginian named Gesco. Perhaps the most striking contrast to the normal and consistent pattern of rewarding benefactors with praise and gratitude and committing their person and deeds to public memory is the example of Gesco. In this instance former beneficiaries arrested, mutilated, and executed their benefactor. During the Mercenary War between Carthage and their mercenaries (ca. 240–237 BC), the Carthaginian commander at Lilybaeum, Gesco, acted as a mediator in the attempt to broker a deal between the two opposing parties.231 Before the war broke out, Gesco had tried to ensure that Carthage would pay the mercenaries by sending them in detachments to provide Carthage enough time to hand over their arrears.232 His plan did not work, and after the agitation had begun and the mercenaries had camped out at Tunis near the capital to demand their arrears, the mercenaries, who were “very favorably (φιλανθρώπως) inclined to Gesco” because of his past attention towards them, referred their disputed points to him. 233 He brought the money to dole out to each nation accordingly.234 During Gesco’s stay in Tunis, the Libyan contingent, led by Spendius and Mathos, grew frightened of Carthage’s potential anger at them and so they “began to traduce and accuse Gesco and the Carthaginians.” 235 Even after Gesco had realized the gravity of the growing threat to himself and the Carthaginians with him, “valuing more than anything the interest of his country” and observing that Carthage might “be in the gravest danger, he persisted, at great personal risk, in his conciliatory efforts.”236 Nevertheless, because Gesco told off the Libyan representatives who came to ask for their overdue pay, the mercenaries arrested him, plundered the Carthaginians present with him, and initiated the military conflict.237

231 Gesco as strategos of Lilybaeum, see Polyb., Hist., 1.66.1. The war had started over a dispute about withheld payment of arrears. On the war generally, see Polyb., Hist., 1.65– 88; Diod. Sic, Bib. hist., 25; Frank W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume I, Commentary on Books I–VI (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), 130–150. Gesco is mentioned by Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 24.13. Reference thanks to Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume I, 132. 232 Polyb., Hist., 1.66.2–3. Unfortunately, Polybios states that Carthage was neither monetarily well-off (having just come off the two-decades long war with Rome) nor inclined to pay the mercenaries the amount that they had promised (presuming the mercenaries would not demand the full portion). Polyb., Hist., 1.66.5–6. 233 Polyb., Hist., 1.68.13. 234 Polyb., Hist., 1.69.1–3. 235 Polyb., Hist., 1.69.4–14. 236 Polyb., Hist., 1.70.1 (ὁ δὲ Γέσκον…περὶ πλείστου δὲ ποιούμενος τὸ τῇ πατρίδι συμφέρον, καὶ θεωρῶν ὅτι τούτων ἀποθηριωθέντων κινδυνεύουσι προφανῶς οἱ Καρχηδόνιοι τοῖς ὅλοις πράγμασι, παρεβάλλετο καὶ προσεκαρτέρι…). 237 Polyb., Hist., 1.70.3–9.

92

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

Later in the war, Hamilcar Barca successfully prosecuted battles, gained the friendship of the Numidian Navaras, and strategically rewarded mercenaries who defected to Carthage and pardoned those who wished to go free.238 The mercenaries were now in dire straits and the leaders of the mercenaries worried about Hamilcar’s leniency toward mercenary prisoners. 239 As a result, they convinced their soldiers that they could not trust Carthage to be clement to them.240 Autaritus the Gaul further added that those who hoped for their clemency were traitors.241 He suggested that they should torture and kill Gesco and all Carthaginian prisoners. 242 Yet other speakers countered that they should spare the prisoners or at least spare them torture, because Gesco had previously benefited them.243 Their voices were drowned out and the mercenaries stoned the pro-Gesco speakers to death and cut off the hands of Gesco and the Carthaginian prisoners, “beginning with Gesco, that very Gesco whom a short time previously they had selected from all the Carthaginians, proclaiming him their benefactor (εὐεργέτην αὐτῶν) and referring the points in dispute to him.”244 After that, they cut off other bodily extremities, broke their legs, and “threw them still alive into a trench.”245 To a Greek like Polybios, how the mercenaries treated Gesco amounts to mutilating and executing one’s benefactor – an act contrary to all justice that demonstrates two of his four core aims in recounting the Mercenary War: the folly of relying on mercenary soldiers and the savagery of barbarians in contrast to civilized peoples.246 What the events surrounding Gesco’s death also show is the contingency and constantly changing nature of relationships, even those formerly characterized by goodwill and mutual benefit.

238 Polyb., Hist., 1.75–78. After a victory, “Hamilcar gave permission to those of the prisoners who chose to join his own army, arming them with the spoils of the fallen enemies; those who were unwilling to do so he collected and addressed saying that up to now he pardoned their offenses (συγγνώμην αὐτοῖς ἔχειν τῶν ἡμαρτημένων), and therefore they were free to go their several ways, wherever each man chose” but that they should not expect any leniency if they took up arms against Carthage again. Polyb., Hist., 1.78.13–15. 239 Polyb., Hist., 1.79.8. 240 Polyb., Hist., 1.79.9–14. 241 Polyb., Hist., 1.80.1–3. 242 Polyb., Hist., 1.80.4. 243 Polyb., Hist., 1.80.8 (διὰ τὰς γεγενημένας ἐκ τοῦ Γέσκωνος εἰς αὐτοὺς εὐεργεσίας). 244 Polyb., Hist., 1.80.12. 245 Polyb., Hist., 1.80.13. 246 Polyb., Hist., 1.65.7–8. His other aims involve describing “the nature and character” of a “truceless war” and how the war is instructive regarding the causes of the Second Punic War. Polyb., Hist., 1.65.6–8. See also, Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume I, 131–132.

3.2 Relational Dynamics

93

3.2.2 Fidelity and Disloyalty Certain situations arose that put a strain on a benefactor-recipient relationship. In a benefactor-recipient relationship the normal expectation between parties was that each would hold goodwill and fidelity toward one another. Trustworthy and reliable people were sought for advice, entrusted with important missions or positions of power, and expected to keep their promises and reject bribes.247 Fear of garnering a reputation for being untrustworthy could motivate a person to keep their word, even if being faithless would be arguably more advantageous in the short term.248 In times of trouble and public crisis fidelity would be put to the test and individuals would be provided with the opportunity to prove themselves true or false. A striking example that shows this connection of fidelity and dangerous and critical situations occurs in a letter from the Kappadocian king Orophernes to the city of Priene.249 The King praised and commended his envoys to Priene, mentioning “[the] valor of those who have with us incurred danger, for they have given clear proofs of their reliability (πίστις) and good-will (εὔνοια) on the most urgent occasions.”250 The envoys demonstrated their πίστις and εὔνοια by sharing in danger alongside the king and providing services in difficult times. Trust was a strongly valued attribute, especially when a person was so reliable that they would endure pain and risk themselves even to the point of death to maintain their fidelity.251 The historian Polybios remarks that people who endure suffering for the sake of maintaining fidelity to those who trust them are more well-regarded and praiseworthy than those who betray that trust out of fear or suffering.252 Among Alexander III’s successors, Eumenes was the most loyal to the Argead dynasty and “he believed that it was incumbent upon himself to run every risk for the safety of the kings” (Alexander IV and Philip

247 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.29.2 (position of power); Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.46.7 (important mission); Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.54.2 (consulted); Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.58.2 (only reliable person left); Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.36.6 (reject bribes); Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.65.1–2 (expected to keep promise but failed); Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 20.19.2 (position of power; but see betrayal in 20.107.5), Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 37.10.1 (kept promises). 248 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.66.2. 249 RC 63 = SEG 1.438 = I.Priene 25. 250 [τῆς ἀν]δρ αγαθίας τ ῶν συ γκεκινδυνευ κότω ν ἡ [μῖν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀναγ|καιο]τ άτοι ς .. . . . .. . . . καιροῖς πίστεως καὶ εὐνοίας ἀπ.οδε.[ίξεις φαν]ε.ρ.ὰ[ς| ἀπ]οδείξ[α]ν.τας (RC 64.7–9). 251 With respect to πίστις in general, Arrian reports that Epictetus said that “man is born to fidelity” (ὁ ἄνθρωπος πρὸς πίστιν γέγονεν) and “the man who overthrows this is overthrowing the characteristic quality of man” (Epictetus, Disc., 2.4.1 [Oldfather, LCL]). 252 “We do not praise those who either from fear or suffering turn informers and betray confidences, but we applaud and regard as brave men those who endure the extremity of torture and punishment without being the cause of suffering to their accomplices” (Polyb., Hist., 30.4.16; [Olson, Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]).

94

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

Arrhidaios).253 Betraying or keeping one’s trust was potentially a life and death decision for either party, so those who risked their own lives and endured suffering in order to maintain their trust were highly valued. Another reason trust was valued is because it was not uncommon for somebody give up their loyalty and switch sides. A variety of reasons might induce somebody to change loyalties. Some individuals defected to a rival due to promises, an offer of money, gifts, a position of authority and power, or immunity.254 Others changed sides to fight for the cause of liberty and still others simply to survive.255 A reversal of fortune or a realization about which side had the upper hand might prompt people to switch loyalties, too.256 Moreover, defection of one person or city could have a cascade effect in which others followed.257 Sometimes the prospects of gifts and promises failed to prevent defection, like when Macedonian soldiers left the employ of Eurydike despite her gifts and promises to them.258 On other occasions one’s loyalty to someone was so strong that any overtures to defect proved unpersuasive.259 Each situation in which fidelity and defection were in question had its own local factors that swayed an individual or city to maintain its faith or to abandon it for a new allegiance. 3.2.3 Kinship Language In 205 BC, the city of Kytenion was in a state of disrepair and vulnerability.260 Their walls and fortifications had been destroyed through war and an earth253 διέλαβεν ἅρμόζειν ἑαυτῷ πάντα κίνδυνον ἀναδέχεσθαι τῆς τῶν βασιλέων σωτηρίας ἕνεκα (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.58.4). See the connection ancient authors made between willingness to endure suffering or danger as indicative of somebody’s trustworthiness elsewhere in, e.g., Justin, Epitome, 1.1.20; Plutarch, Brutus, 50; Plutarch, Antony, 68.3; Plutarch, Comparison of Demetrios and Antony, 6.1. 254 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.40.5 (“great promises”); 19.64.3–4 (position as strategos, honors); 20.113 (gifts and matching pay); 36.2, 2a (immunity); Plutarch, Antony, 74.3 (prestige goods). Relatedly, the Silver Shields betrayed Eumenes and joined Antiochos to get their stolen baggage returned (Plutarch, Eumenes, 17–18). 255 Xenophon, Agesilaos, 1.35 (liberty); Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.12.3 (liberty); Plutarch, Dion, 57.3 (survival). 256 Justin, Epitome, 22.6.11–12; 39.2.4. 257 Justin, Epitome, 41.4.5. 258 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.11.1–9. The soldiers left Eurydike for Alexander the III’s mother Olympias in part to honor the memory of Alexander’s benefactions to them. See also how many Greek cities kept faith with Rome when Antiochos III arrived on Greek shores in 192 BC (Plutarch, Flamininus, 15). 259 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 38/39.14. 260 On this incident, see John Ma, “Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Age,” Past and Present 180 (2003): 9–12; Jean Bousquet, “La Stèle des Kyténiens au Létôon de Xanthos,” Revue des Études Grecques 101 (1988): 12–53; Lee E. Patterson, Kinship Myth in

3.2 Relational Dynamics

95

quake. As a result, the citizens sought donations to rebuild its dilapidated defensive structures by sending out envoys who would appeal to the kinship (συγγένεια) the Kytenians shared with other Dorian-related polities (SEG 38.1476).261 The people of Xanthos recognized their mythological kinship with the Kytenians through the gods and distant heroic past, and they recognized that they owed a debt of gratitude to Kytenion because a legendary ancestor of theirs received help from a Xanthian ancestor: The ambassadors (of Kytenion) most zealously and eagerly exhort us to remember our kinship-relations (συγγένεια) with them, that originate from the gods and heroes, and hence to refuse to tolerate that the walls of their homeland lie destroyed – since, they said, Leto, our city’s founding deity, gave birth to Artemis and Apollo in our land and Asklepios was born in Doris to Apollo and Koronis daughter of Phlegyos son of Doros, and therefore, having established through this genealogy that they possess such divinely originated kinship-relations with us, they enjoy an interwoven kinship and relationship with us that derived from the heroes, as they showed by establishing the genealogy from Ailos and Doros; and since, they also demonstrated, when colonists led by Chrysaor son of Glaukos son of Hippolochos left our land, Aletes, one of the Herakleidai, took care of them, because, they said, Aletes set out from Doris to help the settlers when they were being reduced by war, drove away the danger, and married the daughter of Aor son of Chrysaor.262

Due to financial constraints upon the city funds, Xanthos only donated a modest sum of 500 silver drachmas.263 The Xanthians not unjustifiably framed the donation in terms of being generous out of their own poverty and paltry resources: Since the public monies have been spent, since a great mass of debts has arisen, since a levy cannot be imposed on the citizens because of voting of the nine-year budget, and since the richest of the citizens have recently made great contributions – in these current circumstances…the city, for all these reasons, has no resources; but nevertheless thinks it terrible to tolerate that kinsmen should have fallen into such misfortune.264

Ancient Greece (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2010), 118–123, 207–208. Patterson contends that the Kytenians were “shamelessly putting a spin on Xanthus’ local myth” to persuade them to contribute funds to their city’s rebuilding project. Patterson, Kinship Myth in Ancient Greece, 123. 261 For text and commentary, see Bousquet, “La Stèle des Kyténiens au Létôon de Xanthos,” Revue des Études Grecques 101 (1988): 12–53. Though, see different interpretations in Patterson, Kinship Myth in Ancient Greece, 118–123, 207–208. 262 SEG 38.1476.13–30. Translation from Ma, “Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Age,” 10. 263 SEG 38.1476.62–64. 264 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ οὐ μόνον τὰ κοινὰ κατανήλωτα καὶ δανείων| δὲ πλῆθος ὑπογέγονεν, ἐπιβαλεῖν τε τοῖς πολίταις| οὐδεμίαν ἔξεστιν ἐπιβολὴν διὰ τὴν γεγενημένην οἰ-||κονομίαν μετὰ ψηφίσματος εἰς ἔτη ἐννέα, οἵ τε δυ|νατώτατοι τῶν πολιτῶν μεγάλας εἰσὶν εἰσφορὰς πε|ποιημένοι προσφάτως διὰ τοὺς περιστάντας καιρ[ούς],| ὑπὲρ ὧν ἀπελογισάμεθα καὶ τοῖς πρεσβευταῖς· διὰ| ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας τῆς πόλεως πόρομ μὲν οὐθένα|| ἐχούσης, δεινὸν δ᾽

96

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

In a different situation about a decade later, the Xanthians hosted and generously honored a certain Ilian rhetor named Themistokles “for his performance and his behavior which proved ‘worthy of the kinship between us and the Ilians’” (ἡμῖν πρὸς Ἰλιεῖς συγγενείας ἄξιος; SEG 33.1184.15).265 These incidents illustrate the strong ties between the networked poleis throughout the Greek world. Across the wide stretch of the Hellenistic world, the array of autonomous cities, “densely interconnected by a civic culture which sustained and depended on connections,” would regularly invoke, request, help, and operate based on their kinship ties.266 The relationship between Teos and Abdera illustrates how kinship bonds can affect intercity relations in an even more successful manner than the Kytenians’ appeal to Xanthos. The two cities exhibited strong ties, since they were not only linked by the distant mythological past but had historic and regular interaction.267 In 170 BC the Roman praeter Hortensius destroyed the (free) city of Abdera, murdered their leading male citizens, and enslaved its population after they refused to immediately comply with his demand for money and food supplies.268 The Roman Senate did not approve of Hortensius’s actions and they restored Abdera to its freedom, but much work was left to be done to locate ἡγουμένης εἶναι τοὺς συγγε|νεῖς ἐπταικότας περιιδεῖν ἐν τηλικούτοις ἀκληρή|μασιν (SEG 38.1476.52–62). Translation from Ma, “Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Age,” 12. 265 Ma, “Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Age,” 18. As his reward for his services Themistokles received from the Xanthians 400 drachmai, an inscribed decree, and a copy of the decree (on stone) to take to Ilion. Note how Xanthos’s monetary gift to this individual for his performance and conduct nearly equals that given to the entire city of Kytenion to relieve their distress. 266 Quote from Ma, “Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Age,” 13–14. For further reading on kinship language in Hellenistic diplomacy and inter-city relations, see Olivier Curty, Les Parentés Légendaires entre Cites Grecques: Catalogue Raisonné des Inscriptions Contenant le Terme συγγένεια et Analyse Critique (Geneva: Droz, 1995); Christopher P. Jones, Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999); Patterson, Kinship Myth in Ancient Greece. 267 On the history of Teos and Abdera, see A. J. Graham, “Abdera and Teos,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 112 (1992): 44–73. Teos was the mother city of Abdera, but sometime shortly after Teos was evacuated (at the onset of Persian invaders) Teian residents of Abdera repopulated and refounded the city of Teos. So, in a sense both cities acted as mother cities to each other at different points in their histories. A mid-third century Teian inscription (SEG 26.1306 [+ SEG 30.1376]; Burstein §28) attests to the close relationship of Teos and Abdera. The texts contain a provision that should a person illegitimately commandeer the fortress of Kyrbissos and fail to hand it over to the garrison commander, that person would be accursed and exiled not only from Teos but also from Abdera (SEG 26.1306.21–26). Graham writes, “We have seen that in the case of Abdera and Teos this relationship was so close as to bring the separate political existence of the two cities into question” and “the relationship between the colony and mother city is not only very close, it persisted over centuries” (at minimum from the 6th c. to 2nd c. BC). Graham, “Abdera and Teos,” 68–69. 268 Livy, History of Rome, 43.4.8–13.

3.2 Relational Dynamics

97

and return enslaved inhabitants and rebuild the city from complete ruin. It is here that Teos came to the aid of Adbera time and again in unparalleled fashion. A recently discovered inscription details the Teian generosity toward its kin city Abdera.269 The Teians, described by the Abderite inscription as “fathers of our city” (πατέρες τῆς πόλεως ἡμῶν), dedicated themselves to aid Abdera. They sought out the enslaved Abderites and returned them to their freedom, homes, and citizenship, donated a large amount of money (without the need to repay) for the reconstruction of the city walls and the temples of the gods, and funded without interest the Abderites purchase of oxen to help remedy their lack of agricultural productivity after their destruction. Moreover, they provided a judge (i.e., lawyer) of their own and funded a judge from Miletos to help in a (ultimately successful) lawsuit against the city of Maroneia because the nearby city had seized Abderite territory after its destruction.270 The remarkable generosity of the Teians at some points finds resemblance with the apostle Paul’s description of the Macedonian assemblies in 2 Corinthians 8:1– 5 who gave to the collection out of their poverty: When time had passed, and our city was now returning to a better condition because of the fact that a moderately large body of citizens had now been gathered together, but great expense was being incurred for the cultivation of the territory, and for this reason the people were being oppressed in their livelihoods and had no revenues, the dēmos sent once again to the Teians and called on them to advance us a sum of money for the purchase of oxen, the Teians, although lacking in wealth (Τήϊοι τ.ῶι μὲν πλουτεῖν λειπόμενοι), but outstripping all other men in goodwill, advanced us five talents without interest over five years, wishing that in no respect our dēmos should be lacking in what is beneficial. 271

In response, the awards of gratitude from Abdera to Teos were extraordinary: praise, a colossal bronze statue of the demos of the Teians in the agora (with Nike crowning the Teian demos with an ivy wreath), an altar in front of the statue and newly instituted annual sacrifice to the demos of the Teians, a newly instituted contest (torch-race), front seat privileges to the contest, a gold crown For the full text, see Mustafa Adak and Peter Thonemann, Teos and Abdera: Two Greek Cities in Peace and War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022), §1. For a previous edition of the first fragment of the inscription, discovered in 1966 at Teos, see SEG 49.1536. 270 Adak and Thonemann, Teos and Abdera, §1. The inscription also describes the two peoples of Abdera and Teos as sharing kinship (ll. προγονικός [A.1]; συγγένεια [B.9], συγγενείς [B.50]). 271 τοῦ χρόνου δὲπροκόψαντος καὶ τῆ̣[ς]| πόλεως ἡμῶν ἤδη πρὸς βελτίονα κατάστασιν ἐρχομένης διὰ τὸ κα[ὶ]| πλῆθος ἤδη μέτριον ἠθροῖσθαι πολιτῶν, πολλῆς τε δαπάνης γινομέ||νη̣ς εἰς τὴν τῆς χώρας ἐξεργασίαν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο θλιβομένων τοῖς| β̣ί̣ο̣ι̣ς̣ τ̣ῶ̣ν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀπροσόδων γινομένων, πέμψαντος πά|λιν πρὸς Τηΐους τοῦ δήμου καὶ παρακαλοῦντος εἰς βοῶν καταγορασ|μ̣ὸ.ν. ἑ.α̣υ.τῶι προχορηγῆσαι διάφορα, Τήϊοι τ.ῶι μὲν πλουτεῖν λειπόμε|νοι, τῶι δὲ εὐνοεῖν πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὑπεράγοντες, προέχρησαν ἄτο-||κα τάλαντα πέντε εἰς ἔτη πέντε, βουλόμενοι κατὰ μηθὲν ἐλλιπῆ τῶν| συμφερόντων τὸν δῆμον ἡμῶν γενέσθαι. Text and translation from Adak and Thonemann, Teos and Abdera, §1.B.22–31. 269

98

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

and a public announcement of the awards, and 1000 medimnoi of wheat.272 Where the people of Xanthos donated a modest sum to help rebuild the marginally kin city of Kytenion, Teos went above and beyond repeatedly to help their closely related kin-city Abdera during its greatest point of misery and in its profound suffering. Despite the disparity in their services, both Xanthos and Teos are praised for giving out of their poverty. These two examples, Kytenion-Xanthos and Abdera-Teos, shows the spectrum of goodwill and assistance that kinship between groups could produce, different motivations for asserting kinship (appeal to the heroic past, or rely on longstanding historical relations), and an aspect of the rhetoric of benefaction that highlights a benefactor city’s generosity despite its own lack of resources.

3.3 Memory, Imitation, and Survival 3.3 Memory, Imitation, and Survival

3.3.1 Memory A benefactor’s deeds and accomplishments not only merited prestige goods and awards like free meals and front seats at the games, but one of the most prominent themes in civic benefaction is the concern for a benefactor’s memory to be honored and perpetuated.273 Indeed, the thousands and thousands of stone stele that survive from Greek and Roman antiquity attests to the durability of the medium and the suitability of inscribing the generous deeds of a well-reputed person. An inscription from Teos illustrates the close connection between benefaction, gratitude, and memory. In response to benefactions rendered and promised from Antiochos III and his wife Laodike, the Teians instituted a new festival (the Antiocheia and Laodikeia) and erected a cult site consisting of “the bouleuterion adorned with a sacred statue (ἄγαλμα) of Antiochos, as a memorial of his benefactions.”274 On the first day of the month of Leukatheon, “the principal magistrates (strategoi, timouchoi, tamiai) sacrificed on the common hearth of the city, to the king, the Charites, and Mneme, the euergetical values of reciprocal gratitude and memory.”275 Likewise, the graduating ephebes offered a sacrifice, which functioned to reinforce to the young men the city’s

Adak and Thonemann, Teos and Abdera, §1.B.54–79. On how certain cities integrated the memory of events of liberation into their civic culture see the Freedom section above. 274 Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, 220–221. 275 Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, 221. 272

273

3.3 Memory, Imitation, and Survival

99

commitment to the practice of giving an appropriate return of gratitude to its benefactors.276 No less in smaller scale institutions like associations than in the broader civic scale of the polis did groups construct identity through public acts of remembrance. The Artists of Dionysos praised their former leader Dionysios with posthumous honors for his services.277 At two points in the inscription the Dionysiasts invoke the notion of memory: On account of these things, the Dionysiasts, recognizing them [i.e., Dionysios’s services], have honored him as being worthy and have crowned him in accordance with the law, so that the members who bring the synod together for the god might be seen to remember him, both while he was alive and after he died, remembering his beneficence and his goodwill toward them. Because of these things, they have publicly honored his children, since it happened that he has left behind successors to the things he possessed with glory and honor.278 Furthermore, the sacrificing associates resolved to recognize that Dionysios has been canonized as a hero and to set up a statue of him in the temple beside the statue of the gods, where there is also a statue of his father, so that he may have the most beautiful memory for all time.279

Not only do the Dionysiasts praise the man Dionysios for his life of service to them, but by erecting this honorific inscription and statue and canonizing Dionyios as a hero they also publicly position themselves as a group that pays due respect to the memory of worthy people. The importance of being seen by others to be the type of people who remember benefactors is a manifestation of the culture of gratitude that especially puts a premium on visible forms of gratitude. Furthermore, this practice of visible memorialization reinforces the selection mechanism of the polis or other groups that praise conduct advantageMa, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, 221. The inscription Ma §18.38–44 reads, “so that they [the ephebes] do not start to undertake anything concerning the community before returning gratitude to the benefactors and so that we should accustom our progeny to value everything less than the returning of gratitude” (ἵνα μηθὲν πρότερον ἄρξωνται πράσσειν τῶν κοινῶν πρὶν ἢ χάρ[ιτα]ς ἀποδ[ο]ῦναι τοῖς εὐεργέταις καὶ ἐθίζωμεν τοὺς ἐξ ἡαυτῶν πά[ντα] ὕστερα καὶ ἐν ἐλλάσσοντι τίθεσθαι πρὸς ἀποκατάστασιν χάριτος). 277 IG II2 1326; English translation in AGRW §21. For some other examples of posthumous honors for benefactors, see MAMA 8.407–410, 412, 414, 417; SEG 45.1502; SEG 54.1020. References thanks to Angelos Chaniotis, “New Inscriptions from Aphrodisias (1995–2001),” American Journal of Archaeology 108, no. 3 (2004): 379. 278 ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἐπιγνόντες οἱ Διονυσιασταὶ ἐτίμησαν| αὐτὸν ἄξιον ὄντα καὶ ἐστεφάνωσαν κατὰ τὸν| νόμον· ἵνα ο[ὖ]ν φαίνωντα οἱ τὴν σύνοδον φέρον|τες μεμνη[μ]έμοι αὐτοῦ καὶ ζῶντος καὶ μετηλλα-||χότος τὸν β[ίο]ν τῆς πρὸς αὐτοὺς μεγαλοψυχίας| καὶ εὐ[νοίας κ]αὶ ἀντὶ τούτων φανεροὶ ὦσιν τιμῶν|τες τοὺς ἐξ [ἐκ]είνου γεγονότας, ἐπειδὴ συμβαί|νει διαδόχους αὐτὸν κ[α]ταλελοιπέναι πάντων τῶν ἐν δόξ[ε]ι καὶ τιμεῖ αὐτῶι ὑπ[α]ρχόντων (IG II2 1326.21–29; translation from AGRW §21, underline added). 279 Φροντίσαι δὲ τοὺς ὀργεῶνας ὅπως ἀφηρωϊσθεῖ Δι[ο-]|νύσιος καὶ ἀ[ν]ατεθεῖ ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι παρὰ τὸν θεόν, ὅπου κα[ὶ]| ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα ὑπάρχει κάλλιστον ὑπόμνημα αὐτοῦ| εἰς τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον (IG II2 1326.45–48; translation from AGRW §21). 276

100

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

eous to the group, which over time creates a repository of exemplars whom other individuals might pattern themselves after. Exceptional performances were worth remembering. So, Polybios regards the valiant effort of the Abydians against Philip V’s siege as “worthy of remembrance and handing down” (μνήμης ἀξία καὶ παραδόσεως).280 Cities were sometimes motivated to award benefactors with praise and gratitude so that their reputation or memory would be “immortal” (ἀθάνατος) or “eternal” (αἰώνιος). After Antigonos Doson briefly occupied Sparta, the Achaian League and other cities praised him at the Nemean games, which Polybios says was “for immortal fame and honor” (πρὸς ἀθάνατον δόξαν καὶ τιμήν).281 On another occasion the Achaian League posthumously honored their long-time strategos Aratos with fitting honors because of the frequency (τὸ πλῆθος) and magnitude (τὸ μέγεθος) of his benefactions to the Achaians.282 The Achaians voted him heroic honors and “what is fitting for an eternal memory.”283 Populations did not exclusively engage the constructive aspects of memory formation by building monuments and instituting festivals to the worthy, but also concerned themselves with censuring the unworthy. Present circumstances could cause a population to erase the public memory of past benefactions. A notable example is when the Athenians decided to erase from memory the Antigonid dynasty. Previously, Athens had heaped unprecedented honors upon the Antigonid kings, especially Antigonos I and Demetrios I, for their role in expelling the garrison of Kassander and his puppet Demetrios of Phaleron from the city. Divine honors were awarded, and the Athenians integrated the names of Antigonos and Demetrios into the civic calendar, sacred robes, tribal structure, and worship life of the city.284 But at the outset of the Polyb., Hist., 16.29.3–4. In a letter, king Eumenes II wrote to the Ionian League (167/166 BC) that the Myletians “performed many famous and memorable actions (ἔνδοξα δὲ πολλὰ καὶ ἄξια μνήμης) on behalf of the Ionians,” which helps qualify them as a suitable location for a statue of him (OGIS 763.66–67; translation from Austin2 §239; for other English translations, see also RC 52; Burstein §88; BD2 §47) 281 Polyb., Hist., 2.70.1, 4–5. ἐν ᾗ τυχὼν πάντων τῶν πρὸς ἀθάνατον δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν ἀνηκόντων ὑπὸ τε τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν καὶ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἑκάστης τῶν πόλεμων, ὥρμησε κατὰ σπουδὴν εἰς Μακεδονίαν (Polyb., Hist., 2.70.5). Polybios states that the Spartans proclaimed Antigonos Doson as σωτήρ and εὐεργέτης (Polyb., Hist., 9.36.5). Geronthrai honored him as σωτήρ: IG V.1 1122 (βασιλέος| Ἀντιγόνου| Σωτῆρος). On Antigonos Doson’s defeat of Sparta, see also Justin, Epitome, 29.4; Polyb., Hist., 9.29, 36. For further on the honors awarded to Antigonos Doson by Greeks, see Sylvie Le Bohec, Antigone Dôsôn roi de Macédoine (Nancy: Nancy University Press, 1993): 454–465. 282 Polyb., Hist., 8.12.7. On Aratos’s death and the honors paid to him, see also Plutarch, Aratos, 53, which details how the Sikyonians gave him the titles of σωτήρ (deliverer/preserver) and οἰκιστής (founder), instituted a festival on his birth month in his honor with songs and a procession, and made annual sacrifices to Aratos. 283 Polyb., Hist., 8.12.8. 284 Plutarch, Demetrios, 10.3–11.1. 280

3.3 Memory, Imitation, and Survival

101

Second Macedonian War in 200 BC the Athenians, allied with the Romans against the Antigonid dynasty, had a change of heart strong enough to override the previous exalted honors they bestowed. As a part of a comprehensive program to erase the Antigonid name from their civic culture, they scratched out the names of Antigonos and Demetrios from inscriptions that honored them and removed their names from the calendar and tribes.285 One can see the erasure of favorable references to the Antigonids, for instance, in the honorific inscription to Phaidros of Sphettos.286 Romans too used the practice of memory erasure to blot out any good reputation that a now censured individual might have had.287 The power to blot out the memory of somebody by removing statues from public display, defacing paintings, scratching out the offender’s name from honorific inscriptions or coins, or revoking other honors was an important mechanism that could be wielded to signal to other would-be power-brokers that they should be careful not to transgress certain rules or to reverse their liberal disposition. 3.3.2 Imitation Imitation is a deeply embedded tendency in human cognition that facilitates social learning.288 People tend to do what they see other people doing, which powers human learning and rule-following. Thus, the practice of imitation facilitates the functioning of the suite of ways of getting along together such as shared language and rules of morality like negative rules of just conduct (e.g., “do not kill,” “do not steal,” “do not harm,” “do not defraud”). In human social hierarchies, lower status people tend to pay attention to the words and actions of high-prestige individuals and display “preferential, automatic, and unconscious imitation” of them.289 One can consider imitation an embodied form of memory in which one person translates, however imperfectly, into their own bodily movements the conduct or procedures he or she sees another model for them. In the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, in both the Latin West and Greek East, social institutions like civic benefaction and the cursus honorum that had emerged over the prior centuries were the cultural vehicles for populations to signal prestige and provide publicly accessible repositories of beneLivy, History of Rome, 31.44.2–9. IG II3 985.1–2, 37, 38, 40–43, 47–52. 287 See Eric R. Varner, “Portraits, Plots, and Politics: Damnatio Memoriae and the Images of Women,” MAAR 46 (2001): 41–93. 288 Joseph Henrich, The Secret of Our Success: How Culture is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016), 20. 289 Henrich, The Secret of Our Success, 123–126 (quote from 123). Henrich notes, in contrast, that people do not show a bias to imitate people who display dominance except to the degree that imitation satiates the dominant person’s will. Similarly, they only pay attention to dominant individuals to avoid their gaze or outbursts of violence. 285

286

102

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

ficial deeds so that others could attend to the example of prestigious individuals and emulate them.290 In short, the institution of civic benefaction in Greek cities was geared toward producing emulators of advantageous deeds. The historian Polybios himself recognizes the practice of imitation as a sort of selection mechanism for preserving honorable conduct and eliminating dishonorable conduct within a population, saying, “From this again some idea of what is base (αἰσχροῦ) and what is noble (καλοῦ) and of what constitutes the difference is likely to arise among the people; and noble conduct will be admired and imitated because it is advantageous, while base conduct will be avoided.”291 Polybios’s comment expresses a common truth in the domain of Greek civic virtues: those who do good for the city and its people are worthy of imitation because they prove advantageous for the survival and flourishing of the population. For instance, Attalos II praises a teacher in a letter to the city of Ephesus for his quality instruction, saying that “it is clear to all that young men endowed with a natural excellence of character imitate (ζηλοῦσι) the manners of those in charge of them.”292 In this case, quality teachers are models for their students to imitate. Elsewhere, the city of Sestos praised its benefactor Menas for his service as envoy (many times), gymnasiarch (twice), and his consistent integrity and generosity towards the people of Sestos throughout his services.293 In the motivation clause, Sestos spells out that they are honoring Menas “so that others seeing the honors which are paid by the people to excellent men, should emulate the finest deeds and be encouraged towards excellence, and public interests should be furthered when all are striving to achieve glory and are always securing some benefit to their native city.”294 The city lays out the mechanism of On the “imitation of the great man” motif in the Greco-Roman period exhibited by a wide variety of sources from the Latin West and Greek East, which shows how the use of high-status elites as exemplars for civic virtue was widespread and deeply embedded in Greek and Roman cultures, see James R. Harrison, “The Imitation of the ‘Great Man’ in Antiquity: Paul’s Inversion of a Cultural Icon,” in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 213–254. 291 ἐξ οὗ πάλιν εὔλογον ὑπογίνεστθαί τινα θεωρίαν παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς αἰσχροῦ καὶ καλοῦ καὶ τῆς καὶ τῆς τούτων πρὸς ἄλληλα διαφορᾶς, καὶ τὸ μὲν ζήλου καὶ μιμήσεως τυγχάνειν διὰ τὸ συμφέρον, τὸ δὲ φυγῆς (Polyb., Hist., 6.6.9 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 292 ὅτι γὰρ ζηλοῦσι τὰς ἀγωγὰς |[τῶν ἐ]πιστάτων οἱ ἐκ φύσεως καλοκἀγαθκοὶ τῶν νέων, παντὶ πρόδηλόν ἐστιν (SEG 26.1239.6–7; I.Eph 202; see also comments in SEG 47.1625; ca. 150–140 BC; translation from Austin2 §246). 293 OGIS 339 (ca. 133–120 BC; translation in Austin2 §252). 294 θεωροῦντες τε καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ τὰς περιγινομενας τιμὰς ἐκ τοῦ δήμου|| τοῖς καλοῖς καὶ ἀγαθοῖς, ζηλωταὶ μὲν τῶν καλλίστων γίνωνται, προτρέπωνται δὲ πρὸς ἀρετήν.,| ἐ.παύξηται δὲ τὰ κοινὰ παραρμωμένων πάντων πρὸς τὸ φιλοδοξεῖν καὶ περιποιούντων ἀεί τι τῆι. Παρτρίδι τῶν καλῶν (OGIS 339.89–92; translation from Austin2 §252). Cf. Syll.3 675.25–29 (translation in Austin2 §157); I.Cret. I xix 1.44–49 (ὁ[μοίως]|| δὲ καὶ ἐξ ἁμίων γινομένα 290

3.3 Memory, Imitation, and Survival

103

the repute system which fosters imitation to those who gain good repute for their deeds, which in turn serves as a mechanism to produce quality people who perform benefits for the fatherland. The epitaphs of prominent Roman families illustrate the practice of imitating virtuous ancestors in republican Rome. One of the Scipionic epitaphs spells out the theme of ancestral imitation especially well. In the epitaph honoring Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Hispanus, who achieved several ranks in the cursus honorum, the inscription remarks that he contributed to the family’s prestige, followed the pattern of his father, and lived up to his ancestor’s repute: “By my good conduct I heaped virtues on the virtues of my clan; I begat a family and sought to equal the exploits of my father. I upheld the praise of my ancestors, so that they are glad that I was created of their line. My honors have ennobled my stock.”295 If local benefactors who served as priests, gymnasiarchs, or other civic capacities, and the Roman elites of the Republic and early Empire were held in honor and served as models of virtue for imitation, in the Res Gestae Divi Augusti Augustus presents himself as paragon of civic virtue and unsurpassable worldwide beneficence.296 His own monumental and epigraphic celebration of his accomplishments relativized any previous benefactors in terms of the number and scale of the benefits.297 As such, Augustus created for himself the role of the ultimate human moral exemplar after which everyone else (particularly high-prestige individuals) should pattern their conduct. 3.3.3 Community Survival The institution of benefaction facilitated the very survival of the polis. When a crisis rocked the city – whether earthquake, invasion, plague, or famine – civic φιλά[νθρω-]|πος ἀποδοχὰ ἐς τὸς ἁμὸς εὐε[ργέ-]|τας, καὶ πολλοὶ τούτων μιμηταὶ κ[αὶ ἐς]| τὸν ὕστερον χρόνον τᾶς καλοκἀγα[θίας]| ὑπάρχωσιν). 295 E. H. Warmington, trans., Remains of Old Latin, Volume IV: Archaic Inscriptions. (LCL 359; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940), 9 (§10). 296 The Res Gestae Divi Augusti (RGDA) records his benefactions: freed the world from enslavement (RGDA 1), defeated his father’s (Caesar’s) murderers (RGDA 2), conducted wars of expansion and acted magnanimously toward submissive foreign groups (RGDA 3), (humbly) refused perpetual consulship (RGDA 5), became high priest (RGDA 7), increased patrician numbers and conducted censuses (RGDA 8), gave money to plebs and soldiers who settled in colonies, as well as other relief ventures at his own expense (RGDA 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24), built temples, buildings, and aqueducts for the good of Rome (RGDA 19, 20, 21), put on public games of gladiators and naval battles (RGDA 22, 23), defeated pirates and received allegiance from across the Mediterranean (RGDA 24), extended Roman borders and increased its territorial control (RGDA 25, 26, 29, 30), founded colonies (RGDA 27), and received emissaries from foreign peoples for “friendship” (RGDA 31, 32, 33). The senate duly rewarded him with the title Augustus and other honors (e.g., crowns), including the title pater patriae (“father of the fatherland”) (RGDA 34–35). 297 On Augustus’s monumental and epigraphical propaganda, see Harrison, “Imitation of the “Great Man” in Antiquity,” 228–233.

104

Chapter 3: Benefaction – Select Motifs

benefaction acted as one of the institutions that afforded the city a fighting chance. Its development was not the result of the deliberation or plan of any single conscious mind with the end goal of survival; rather, the spontaneous interaction of individual persons in local contingent circumstances and incremental changes to existing informal social institutions moved toward a more formalized institution. The reputation system selected for people who garnered good repute by serving the people and benefiting the population. By publicizing their beneficial deeds, the benefactors became publicly accessible models for imitation as long as the stone on which they were inscribed remained open to view. Moreover, honorific inscriptions enabled corporate memory of adaptive patterns of behavior for the survival and flourishing of the polis by inscribing the deeds of benefactors in public places to serve as a repository of advantageous deeds.

Chapter 4

Endangered Benefaction “Everything that is good and admired among men is gained through toil and danger.”1

4.1 Introduction 4.1 Introduction

When individuals or cities faced the prospects of death, destruction, or harm, the occasion provided the opportunity for certain people to show their virtue by rising to the moment so that they could render aid. In some instances, an individual helped their fellows even to the point of risking their own life and resources. Broadly considered, the motif of self-endangerment for the sake of others features strongly in military contexts in the literature of the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman worlds. The divine realm also shows up in the textual documentation of critical times. Moreover, a rather underexplored source of documentation of crises in New Testament scholarship, Greek inscriptions provide a rich body of sources for understanding how civic benefactors would risk their lives and resources to serve a city in desperate need. Whether they conducted embassies, ousted foreign garrisons, rendered military aid to fend off threats, or helped during times of plague, famine, or financial straits, these benefactors received praise and gratitude for their services in times of danger. This chapter explores various aspects of endangered benefaction based on a large pool of examples from approximately 350 BC to AD 150 to further situate Paul’s language of benefaction in Galatians within its historical and cultural contexts.

4.2 Danger and the Gods 4.2 Danger and the Gods

When circumstances and survival seemed out of human control, people understood that the gods had a role in ensuring protection during times of acute vulnerability. Xenophon emphasizes the need for cavalry commanders to serve the gods and consult them for advice, since through sacrifices, omens, voices, and 1 Seleukos I, according to Diodoros of Sicily. Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.90.5 (πάντα γίνεται τὰ καλὰ καὶ παρ᾽ ἀνθρώποις θαυμαζόμενα διὰ πόνων καὶ κινδύνων; Geer, LCL).

106

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

dreams, they can warn someone of dangerous plots.2 The people of Kos erected an inscription on the occasion of the repulsion of the Gallic invaders of 280– 278 BC at Delphi, saying that “the aggressors of the sanctuary have been punished by the god (Apollo),” and that the demos “is repaying thank-offerings to the god for manifesting himself during the perils (τοῖς κινδύνοις) which confronted the sanctuary and for the safety of the Greeks.”3 Elsewhere, the people of Lete inscribed that Marcus Annius achieved victory over the Gallic armies “with the providence of the gods” (μετὰ τῆς τῶν θεῶν προνοίας).4 The people of Kyme attributed the deliverance (σωτηρία) of their benefactress Archippe from illness to divine agency, and they offered “the proper thanksgivings” (τὰ πρέποντα χαριστήρια) to the gods for seeing her through to restored health.5 Around 39 BC, the people of Stratonikeia praised Zeus Panamaros for protecting his temple and warding off Parthian invaders with lightning bolts and confusion-inducing fog.6 Finally, some individuals showed their gratitude to “the most high God” (θεός ὕψιστος) for seeing them through various kinds of dangers. For instance, Gaius Julius Proclus thanked the high God for protection

Xenophon, Cavalry Commander, 9.8–9. ἐπειδὴ τῶν βαρ|βάρων στρατείαν ποιησαμένων ἐπὶ| τοὺς Ἕλλανας καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τὸ ἐν| Δελφοῖς, ἀναγγέλλεται τὸς μὲν ἐλ-||θόντας ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τιμωρίας τετεύ|χεν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν| τῶν ἐπιβοαθησάντων τῶι ἱερῶι ἐν τᾶι| τῶν βαρβάρων ἐφόδωι, τὸ δὲ ἱερὸν διαπ|φυλάχθαι τε καὶ ἐπικεκοσμῆσθαι τοῖς|| ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιστρατευσάντων ὅπλοις,|| τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν τῶν στρατευσάντων τοὺς πλείστους ἀπολώλεν ἐν τοῖς γε|νομένοις ἀγῶσι ποτὶ τοὺς Ἕλλανας| αὐτοῖς· vvvv ὅπως οὗν ὁ δᾶμος φαν-||ρὸς ἦι συναδόμενος ἐπὶ τᾶι γεγενημέ|ναι νίκαι τοῖς Ἕλλασι καὶ τῶι θεῶι χαρισ|τήρια ἀποδιδοὺς τᾶς τε ἐπιφανείας τᾶς γεγενημένας ἕνεκεν ἐν τοῖς περὶ| τὸ ἱερὸν κινδύνοις καὶ τᾶς τῶν Ἑλλά-||νων σωτηρίας (Syll.3 398.1– 20; 278 BC; translation from Austin2 §60; see also BD2 §17). On the attack and repulsion of the Gauls at Delphi, see also, Diod. Sic., Bib. hist, 22.9.5; Justin, Epitome, 24.8. See also, Craige Champion, “The Soteria at Delphi: Aetolian Propaganda in the Epigraphical Record,” The American Journal of Philology 116, no. 2 (1995): 213–220. 4 Syll.3 700.29 (119 BC, Lete). 5 ἐπειδὴ Ἀρχίππης τῆς Δι|καιογένου εἰς ἐπισφαλῆ καὶ ἐπικίνδυνον ἐνπε|σούσης ἀσθένειαν ἠγωνίασεν ὁ δῆμος διὰ τὸ ἐ-||κτενῶς διακεῖσθαι πρὸς αὐτήν, ὑπάρχουσαν| εὔτακτον καὶ σώφρονα καὶ ἀξίαν τῆς τε ἰδίας| καὶ τῆς τῶν προγόνων καλοκἀγαθίας, καὶ πολ|λας καὶ μεγάλας ἀποδείξεις πεποιῆσθαι τῆς| πρὸς τὴν πατρίδα εὔνοίας τε καὶ φιλαγαθίας, νῦν|| δὲ σὺν τῇ τῶν θεῶν προνοίᾳ ἐν βελτίονι ὑπαρ|χούση διαθέσει ἡδόμενος μεγάλως ὁ δῆμος ἐπὶ| τῇ σωτηρίᾳ αὐτῆς καλῶς ἔχον ἡγεῖται καὶ οἰκεῖ|ον τῆς οὔσης αὐτῷ πρὸς Ἀρχίππην εὐνοίας ἐπιτε|λέσαι τοῖς θεοῖς ἐπὶ τούτοις τὰ πρέποντα χαρισ-||τήρια (I.Kyme 13.82–95; cf. 100–109; 170–150 BC, Kyme). 6 I.Stratonikeia 10. For the wider phenomenon of divine epiphanies during a crisis, see Georgia Petridou, Divine Epiphanies in Greek Literature and Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 107–170. On the episode at Panamara, see Petridou, Divine Epiphanies in Greek Literature and Culture, 99–100, 138–141. 2

3

4.2 Danger and the Gods

107

from the dangers of war and Gaius Julius Orius thanked the high God for protection from dangers at sea.7 In their textual traditions Jewish scribes incorporated the role of Israel’s God in events of deliverance from danger. To cite a few of the most obvious examples, the Joseph cycle in Genesis (Gen 37–50), the exodus from enslavement in Egypt through Moses (Exod 1–15), God’s deliverer-judges in pre-monarchic Israel (Judges), and the stories in Daniel (Dan 3, 6) all highlight the role of divine agency in acts of deliverance from perilous situations.8 Likewise, the Psalms frequently attest to God’s deliverance from pressing situations and danger. So, LXX Psalm 17, attributed to David writing “in the day which the Lord rescued him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul,” repeatedly mentions God as deliverer.9 Other psalms also reflect this motif. For instance, “if I walk in the midst of affliction, you will enliven me. Against the anger of my enemies you reached out your hand, and your right hand delivered me” (LXX Ps 137:7).10 And, “the deliverance of the righteous is from the Lord, and he is their protector in a moment of affliction, and the Lord will render aid to them and rescue them and deliver them from sinners and preserve them, because they put their hope upon him” (LXX Ps 36:39–40).11 Examples from the Psalms could be multiplied, but other Jewish texts similarly attest to the motif of God as deliverer from danger.12 In 2 Maccabees the God of Israel is the benefactor of Israel and ally of Judas and his army. The book narrates a series of crises that befall Israel using common Hellenistic vocabulary for critical times that befall cities. The crises of Judea are described as “affliction” (θλῖψις), “great dangers” (μεγάλοι κινδύνοι), and a “grave crisis” (χαλεπὴ περίστασις) (2 Macc 1:7–8, 11–12; 4:16). God de-

7 θεῶι ἁγίωι ὑψίστωι| ὑπὲρ τῆς Ῥοιμη|τάκλου καὶ Πυθο|δωρίδος ἐκ τοῦ κα-||τὰ τὸν Κοιλα[λ]ητικὸν| πόλεμον κινδύνου| σωτηρίας εὐξάμενος| καὶ ἐπιτυχὼν Γάϊος| Ἰούλιος Πρόκος χαρι-||στ[ήρι]ον (PH166341; AD 21). Θεῶι ὑψίστωι| μεγίστῳ σωτῆρι| Γ(άϊος) Ἰούλιος Ὤριος| κατ᾽ ὄνεριον χρη-||ματισθεὶς καὶ σω|θεὶς ἐκ μεγάλου κιν|δύνου τοῦ κατὰ θα|λασσαν εὐχαριστήριον.| ἐπὶ ἱερέως|| Μ(άρκου) Οὐητίου Πρόκλου| ἔτους βκσ (IG X.2 1 67; AD 74/75). 8 God’s liberation of Israel from Egyptian enslavement is also recounted in nuce elsewhere (e.g., LXX Deut 26:6–9). 9 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ, ᾗ ἐρρύσατο αὐτὸν κύριος ἐκ χειρὸς πάντων τῶν ἐχθρῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ χειρὸς Σαουλ (LXX Ps 17:1). 10 ἐὰν πορευθῶ ἐν μέσῳ θλίψεως, ζήσεις με· ἐπ᾽ ὀργὴν ἐχθρῶν μου ἐξέτεινας χεῖρά σου, καὶ ἔσωσέν με ἡ δεξιά σου. 11 σωτηρία δὲ τῶν δικαίων παρὰ κυρίου, καὶ ὑπερασπιστὴς αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως, καὶ βοηθήσει αὐτοῖς κύριος καὶ ῥύσεται αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐξελεῖται αὐτοὺς ἐξ ἁμαρτωλῶν καὶ σώσει αὐτούς, ὅτι ἤλπισαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν. 12 Other psalms that describe God as a deliverer from afflictions or dangers include, e.g., LXX Pss. 21:5–22; 24:15–22; 114:1–9.

108

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

livers them from these dangers, and they show their gratitude in response.13 The preface to the main narrative summarizes the plot, noting that divine epiphanies (ἐπιφανείαι) aided those fighting for ἰουδαϊσμός, which resulted in the liberation of the city and re-establishment of their ancestral laws (2 Macc 2:21–22).14 In one instance, like Zeus Panamaros at Stratonikeia, the God of Israel showered lightning bolts on the enemy army and threw them into disorder to afford his people victory in battle (2 Macc 10:29–31). In response to God’s deliverance and a successful mop-up operation, Judas and his army “with hymns and thanksgivings were praising the Lord who abundantly benefits Israel and gives them victory” (2 Macc 10:38).15 Additionally, the book of 3 Maccabees features divine deliverance from peril. When Ptolemy IV decides to enter the holy of holies in the Jerusalem temple, Simon the high priest petitions God to intervene to prevent the sacrilege, recalling God’s past deliverances of his people during times of distress (3 Macc 2:1–20). Simon recalls the past to urge similar action in the present, saying, “and whereas many times when our ancestors were being afflicted (θλιβέντων), you [God] helped them in their lowliness and rescued them from

13 ἐκ μεγάλων κινδύνων ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ σεσῳμένοι μεγάλως εὐχαριστοῦμεν αὐτῷ ὡς ἂν πρὸς βασιλέα παρατασσόμενοι· αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐξέβρασεν τοὺς παραταξαμένους ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ πόλει (2 Macc 1:11–12); ὁ δὲ θεὸς ὁ σώσας τὸν πάντα λαὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀποδοὺς τὴν κληρονομίαν πᾶσιν καὶ τὸ βασίλειον καὶ τὸ ἱεράτευμα καὶ τὸν ἁγιασμόν καθὼς ἐπηγγείλατο διὰ τοῦ νόμου…ἐξείλατο γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἐκ μεγάλων κακῶν καὶ τὸν τόπον ἐκαθάρισεν (2 Macc 2:17–18). Also note Jonathan’s prayer, which lauds the God of Israel as the supreme benefactor of Israel who delivers his people and which petitions God to set free enslaved Israelites abroad (2 Macc 1:24–29). When Judas and his army defeated Nikanor’s army, they were “praising and making grateful acknowledgements beyond measure to the Lord who delivered for that day” (περισσῶς εὐλογοῦντες καὶ ἐξομολογούμενοι τῷ κυρίῳ τῷ διασώσαντι εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην; 2 Macc 8:27). Cf. 2 Macc 10:7. 14 Note how freedom in 2 Maccabees is construed similar to other Hellenistic accounts of freedom as freedom from external compulsion/control as well as freedom to live under one’s ancestral laws and customs (καὶ τὰς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γενομένας ἐπιφανείας τοῖς ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ιουδαϊσμοῦ φιλοτίμως ἀνδραγαθήσασιν, ὥστε τὴν ὅλην χώραν ὀλίγους ὄντας λεηλατεῖν καὶ τὰ βάρβαρα πλήθη διώκειν, καὶ τὸ περιβόητον καθ᾽ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην ἱερὸν ἀνακομίσασθαι καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἐλευθερῶσαι καὶ τοὺς μέλλοντας καταλύεσθαι νόμους ἐπανορθῶσαι, τοῦ κυρίου μετὰ πάσης ἐπιεικείας ἵλεω γενομένου αὐτοῖς; 2 Macc 2:21–22). For the various epiphanies in the book, see 2 Macc 3:24–28, 33–34; 8:20, 23–24; 10:29–31; 12:22; 15:20– 36. For other attributions of divine agency and relationality, see, e.g., 2 Macc 4:38; 7:6, 9, 14, 16–17, 18–19, 20, 22–23, 28–29, 31–38; 8:2–4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 18, 29, 35, 36; 9:5, 8–12, 13, 17, 18; 10:1, 4, 7, 16, 28; 11:4, 6, 9–10, 13; 12:6, 11, 15–16, 28, 36–37, 41–45; 13:4, 10–17; 14:34–36, 46; 15:2–5, 7–8, 14, 16, 20–36. 15 μεθ᾽ ὕμνων καὶ ἐξομολογήσεων εὐλόγουν τῷ κυρίῳ τῷ μεγάλως εὐεργετοῦντι τὸν Ισραηλ καὶ τὸ νῖκος αὐτοῖς διδόντι.

4.3 Self-Endangerment in the Greco-Roman World

109

great evils (ἐρρύσω αὐτοὺς ἐκ μεγάλων κακῶν).”16 God responds to the people of Israel by striking Ptolemy with paralysis to prevent him from entering the sacred grounds (3 Macc 2:21–22). As the king’s hubris and wickedness continues, Israel’s God with his ἐναργείαι flummoxes and thwarts his designs time and again: causing paper and writing instruments to run out during the census (3 Macc 4:17–21), causing the king to oversleep so that he missed the scheduled time of the mass-slaughter (via elephants) of the Jewish population (3 Macc 5:11–13), changing the king’s disposition and mind about the slaughter (3 Macc 5:28–35), and sending heavenly messengers to fight the enemy army in the culminating battle (3 Macc 6:17–21).17 In these variety of documents, Jewish and non-Jewish sources alike express through the medium of text the agency of the gods or God in effecting deliverance from a momentous crisis (historical or fictional) or from dangers outside individual human control like the sea, bad weather, sickness, war, and death.

4.3 Self-Endangerment in the Greco-Roman World 4.3 Self-Endangerment in the Greco-Roman World

In battle, sometimes the courage of commanders to imperil themselves spurred on the courage of others in the army.18 During Perdikkas’s Egyptian campaign (321 BC), Ptolemy (I) led by example by personally initiating the attack when the Perdikkan forces were scaling the walls and the mounted elephants were attacking the palisades of his fortifications.19 He “put out the eyes of the leading elephant…and wounded its Indian mahout.”20 After that, “with utter contempt of the danger” (καταπεφρονηκότως), he repelled the ascending enemies.21 On another occasion, Ptolemy and Seleukos jointly invaded Antigonid16 ἐπεὶ δὲ πλεονάκις θλιβέντων τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἐβοήθησας αὐτοῖς ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει καὶ ἐρρύσω αὐτοὺς ἐκ μεγάλων κακῶν (3 Macc 2:12). See also how the prayer of Eleazar likewise recounts God’s past deliverances to prompt God to act in the affliction of the present (3 Macc 6:1–15). 17 Cf. the divine ἐναργείαι in I.Stratonikeia 517.27 and I.Stratonikeia 1101.4. 18 See also the contrasting and humorous take on cowards by Theophrastos (writing ca. 325–315 BC). Theophrastos, Characters, 25. One example describes someone who pretends to have saved a friend in a perilous situation to gain the prestige of noble self-endangerment without the attendant risks of actually doing so. Theophrastos writes, “drenched in blood from another man’s wound, he [the coward] meets the men returning from battle and tells the story as if he’d been in danger (ὡς κινδυνεύσας): ‘I saved one of our friends.’ Then he leads the members of his tribe inside to view him lying there, while he tells each one that he personally brought him into the tent with his own hands” (Theophrastos, Characters, 25.6 [Rustein and Cunningham, LCL]). Yet sometimes it may be deemed appropriate to avoid danger (e.g., IOSPE I2 352.35–36, escaping assassination). 19 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.34.2. 20 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.34.2 [Geer, LCL]. 21 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.34.2 [Geer, LCL].

110

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

controlled Syria (312 BC), and they squared off with Demetrios Poliorketes (The Besieger) at Gaza.22 In the initial melee the combatting sides fought relatively evenly and had similar casualty rates. 23 The commanders (ἡγεμόνες) themselves risked their own lives, “endangering themselves (κινδυνεύοντες) in front of all.”24 The act of risking their own lives “encouraged those under their command to withstand the danger stoutly” (ὑπομένειν τὸ δεινόν).25 The opposing cavalries, who had all been selected for their excellence (ἀρετή), were motivated to act with valor (ἀνδρεία) by the presence of their “commanders who were sharing the struggle” (τοὺς συναγωνιζομένους στρατηγούς).26 On another occasion, Seleukos left Egypt with a small contingent of infantry and cavalry. He departed with the eager expectation that he would easily regain control of Babylon because of his former good relations with the Babylonians. His soldiers did not share his confidence.27 To persuade them to enter their campaign with a more enthusiastic attitude, he recounted his own skill during his campaigns with Alexander, his favorable oracle from the gods, and a dream he had in which Alexander confirmed his future leadership.28 Next, he motivated them with the prospects of moral approval of humanity, because their dangerous undertaking constituted honorable and admirable conduct.29 Finally, he conducted himself in a way that “put himself on an equality” with his soldiers with the result that “each man respected him and willingly accepted the risk of the daring venture.”30 Similar to the in-battle example of the commanders who “were sharing the struggle” with the other soldiers during the battle of Gaza, Seleukos puts himself on equal footing with his soldiers in a pre-battle context. In both cases, the sight of or expectation that one’s commander will share the perilous situation spurs on the rest of the soldiers to participate in the Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.80.3–84.8. Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.83.5. 24 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.83.5 [Geer, LCL]. 25 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.83.5 [Geer, LCL]. 26 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.83.5 [Geer, LCL]. 27 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.90.1–2. Diodoros gives the number of soldiers as 800 or less infantry and around 200 in the cavalry, but Appian records 1000 infantry and 300 cavalry troops. Either way, the size of the army is significantly smaller than average during the Diadochi wars. Diod. Sic., Bib. hist. 19.90.1; Appian, Syrian Wars, 9.54. Appian reference thanks to Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Volume X: Books 19.66–20, trans. Russel M. Geer (LCL 390; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954), 77n4. 28 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.90.3–4. 29 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.90.5. As quoted above, Seleukos states that “everything that is good and admired among men is gained through toil and danger” (πάντα γίνεται τὰ καλὰ καὶ παρ᾽ ἀνθρώποις θαυμαζόμενα διὰ πόνων καὶ κινδύνων; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.90.5 [Geer, LCL]). 30 ἐπολιτεύετο δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς συστρατεύοντας καὶ κατεσκεύαζεν αὑτὸν ἴσον ἅπασιν, ὥσθ᾽ ἕκαστον αἰδεῖσθαι καὶ τὸ παράβολον τῆς τόλμης ἑκουσίως ὑπομένειν (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.90.5 [Geer, LCL]). 22

23

4.3 Self-Endangerment in the Greco-Roman World

111

danger. In the examples of the Perdikkan invasion and the battle of Gaza especially, the mechanism of imitation operates to stimulate the subordinate persons into participating in the self-endangering deed that the commander initiates. Polybios recounts with moral approval two choice examples of Carthaginians who endanger themselves and die nobly. After Carthage dealt with the mercenary crisis that followed the First Punic War, the Carthaginians dispatched Hamilcar Barca (father of Hannibal) to regain lost territory in Spain.31 Polybios characterizes his death in laudatory terms. After successfully campaigning by force or by diplomacy for nine years (238–229 BC), Hamilcar “finally met with an end worthy of his high achievements, dying bravely in a battle against one of the most warlike and powerful tribes, after freely exposing his person to danger on the field.”32 Hamilcar’s enemy does not even merit specification. What matters is their description as dangerous and formidable opponents, so that the readers would see Hamilcar’s self-endangerment in its rightful nobility and appropriate timing. What constitutes fitting moment to endanger oneself, according to Polybios, is reflected in the next example. On another occasion, Polybios reflects on the death of a different Carthaginian general, Hasdrubal (d. 207 BC), to comment upon the appropriate occasion to fully endanger oneself during battle.33 His moral tone is one of both exhortation and warning. Polybios praises Hasdrubal as an ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός from first to last, for facing defeat well (καλῶς) and courageously (γενναίως) and acting worthily with respect to his father Barca (ἀξίως τοῦ πατρὸς Βάρκα).34 Other generals tend to neglect thinking about how they can attain a noble death when all hope is lost; rather, they solely focus on prospects of victory. In this way they ruin an otherwise upstanding life with a disgraceful death.35 On the contrary, Hasdrubal, although careful to look out for his own safety (σωτηρία), had considered the contingency of failure and how to act nobly in accord with his whole life even when hope of safety was lost.36 To Polybios, such deeds merit him as “worthy of our respect and emulation.”37 Polybios explains his purpose in commenting upon Hasdrubal’s manner of death, saying, “What I have said here may serve to warn all who direct public affairs neither by rashly Polyb., Hist., 2.1. κατέστρεψε τὸν βίον ἀξίως τῶν προγεγενημένων πράξεων. πρὸς γὰρ τοὺς ἀνδρωδεστάτους καὶ μεγίστην δύναμιν ἔχοντας παραταττόμενος, καὶ χρώμενος τολμηρῶς καὶ παραβόλως ἑαυτῷ κατὰ τὸν κινδύνον καιρόν, ἐρρωμένως τὸν βίον μετήλλαξε (Polyb., Hist., 2.1.7–8 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 33 Polyb., Hist., 11.2.1–11. 34 Polyb., Hist., 11.1–3. 35 Polyb., Hist., 11.5–8. 36 Polyb., Hist., 11.9–10. 37 ἡμῖν ἄξιος ἐπιστάσεως εἰναι καὶ ζήλου (Polyb., Hist., 11.5 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 31

32

112

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

exposing themselves to cheat the hopes of those who trust in them nor by clinging to life when duty forbids it to add to their own disasters disgrace and reproach.”38 In other words, a general should not jump into unnecessary danger too quickly for the sake of those who rely on him, but also one should not, when clearly defeated, vainly and shamefully cling to one’s life. These two Carthaginian examples exhibit the concern of an elite, mid-second century BC Greek statesman for the congruence between one’s (noble) life and one’s manner of death. Diodoros of Sicily and Polybios also recount instances of Roman self-endangerment and noble death. For example, Quintus Aulius, elected master of horse for the dictator Quintus Fabius, demonstrated his bravery at a time of crisis during the prolonged struggle against the Samnites (314 BC).39 Instead of participating in the shameful flight, he “stood alone (μόνον ὑπέστη) against the mass of the enemy” in an effort, not to win, but to maintain “his fatherland undefeated.”40 Diodoros concludes that “thus he, by not sharing with his fellow citizens in the disgrace of flight, gained a glorious death for himself alone” (ἰδίᾳ περιεποιήσατο θάνατον ἔνδοξον).41 Thus, in contrast to the shame of the other soldiers, Aulius’s solitary stand against the Samnites for the reputation of his πατρίς accrued good repute, or honor, for himself. Polybios offers a number of comments about his perception of certain Roman military ranks and practices.42 For example, he states that the Romans did not want centurions to be “venturesome and daredevil” (θρασεῖς καὶ φιλοκινδύνους) or to “initiate attacks and open the battle;” rather, they should be “natural leaders” and “men who will hold their ground when worsted and hard-pressed and be ready to die at their posts” (ὑπομένειν καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν

38 ἵνα μήτε προπετῶς κινδυνεύοντες σφάλλωσι τὰς τῶν πιστευσάντων ἐλπίδας μήτε φιλοζωοῦντες παρὰ τὸ δέον αἰσχρὰς καὶ ἐπονειδίστους ποιῶσι τὰς αὑτῶν περιπετείας (Polyb., Hist., 11.2.11 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). An example of not rashly exposing oneself and keeping proper protection in battle can be seen in Scipio (Africanus) during his assault of New Carthage (Polyb., Hist., 10.13.1). It reads, “Scipio took part in the battle, but consulted for his safety as far as possible; for he had with him three men carrying large shields, who holding these close covered the surface exposed to the wall and thus afforded him protection” (Ὁ δὲ Πόπλιος ἐδἰδου μὲν αὑτὸν εἰς τὸν κίνδυνον, ἐποίει δὲ τοῦτο κατὰ δύναμιν ἀσφαλῶς. εἶχε γὰρ μεθ᾽ αὑτοῦ τρεῖς ἄνδρας θυρεοφοροῦντας, οἳ παρατιθέντες τοὺς θυρεοὺς καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχους ἐπιφάνειαν σκεπάζοντες ἀσφάλειαν αὐτῷ παρεσκεύαζον [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). One might alternatively translate the initial clause to bring out the Greek phraseology more clearly, “Publius (Scipio) was thrusting/giving himself into the danger.” Cf. 1 Macc 2:50; 6:44; 11:23; 14:29. 39 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.72.6–8. 40 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.72.7–8 [Geer, LCL]. The flight (φυγή) is characterized in Diodoros with the terms of shame καταισχύνειν and αἰσχύνη. 41 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 19.72.8. 42 Polybios had been a hostage in Rome for seventeen years.

4.3 Self-Endangerment in the Greco-Roman World

113

ὑπὲρ τῆς χώρας).43 Polybios also comments on how, admirably (καλῶς) in his view, the Roman army encourages “young soldiers to face danger” (πρὸς τὸ κινδυνεύειν).44 For a variety of acts of voluntary self-endangerment above and beyond the call of duty, as it were, Rome offers a series of ranked rewards and distinguished honors commensurate with the deeds.45 One of the more prestigious rewards, for example, consists of a gold crown (the corona muralis) for being the first to mount the wall during a siege assault.46 Likewise, “those who have shielded and saved any of the citizens or allies receive honorary gifts (δώροις) from the consul, and the men they saved crown their preservers” (τοὺς σωθέντας...τὸν σώσαντα στεφανοῦν).47 Moreover, the rescued person “reverences his preserver as a father all through his life, and must treat him in every way like a parent.”48 These inducements for valor “excite to emulation and rivalry” for soldiers on the field and at home, since the prestige of self-endangering individuals is on display in both domains.49 As a result, the Roman military structure stimulated self-endangerment in at least three realms: (1) standing one’s ground and enduring severe peril (esp. centurions), (2) initiating military operations during a siege, (3) rescuing from danger a fellow citizen-soldier (and possibly allied troops). Polyb., Hist., 6.24.9 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. Polyb., Hist., 6.39.1 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. 45 Polyb., Hist., 6.39.1–11. Polybios specifically mentions that the higher reward-gifts “are not made to men who have wounded or stripped an enemy in regular battle or at the storming of a city, but to those who during skirmishes or in similar circumstances, where there is no necessity for engaging in single combat, have voluntarily and deliberately thrown themselves into the danger” (ἐν οἷς μηδεμιᾶς ἀνάγκης οὔσης κατ᾽ ἄνδρα κινδυνεύειν αὐτοί τινες ἑκουσίως καὶ κατὰ προαίρεσιν αὑτοὺς εἰς τοῦτο διδόασι). 46 Polyb., Hist., 6.39.5. Cf. e.g., Gellius, Attic Nights, 5.6.16–17. See Frank W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume I, Commentary on Books I–VI (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), 721. For an example in battle of using the prospect of rewards to motivate self-endangering valor, Polybios relates the events of the Roman siege of Epipolae in Sicily (212 BC). Roman commander Marcellus takes Epipolae (Sicily) and puts the “fittest” soldiers in position to take on “the brunt of the danger, with promises of great rewards” (Polyb., Hist., 8.37.1–13). He “reminded the scaling party of the rewards that awaited them if they behaved with gallantry…” (καὶ προσαναμνήσας τῶν ἐσομένων δωρεῶν τοῖς ἀνδραγαθήσασι; Polyb., Hist., 8.37.5). 47 Polyb., Hist., 6.39.6 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL] (σέβεται δὲ τοῦτον καὶ παρ᾽ ὅλον τὸν βίον ὁ σωθεὶς ὡς πατέρα καὶ πάντα δεῖ τούτῳ ποιεῖν αὐτὸν ὡς τῷ γονεῖ). On the “civic crown,” see also, e.g., Gellius, Attic Nights, 5.6.12–15. See Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume I, 721–722. Walbank notes that Polybios is the only author to include allies in addition to citizens as those whom a soldier could rescue and qualify for “the corona ciuica [civic crown] of oak-leaves.” Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume I, 721. 48 Polyb., Hist., 6.39.7 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL] (σέβεται δὲ τοῦτον καὶ παρ᾽ ὅλον τὸν βίον ὁ σωθεὶς ὡς πατέρα καὶ πάντα δεῖ τούτῳ ποιεῖν αὐτὸν ὡς τῷ γονεῖ). 49 Polyb., Hist., 6.39.8–10 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. 43

44

114

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

Polybios further praises Roman military institutions for the way in which they stimulate bravery to protect the homeland. For Polybios, it is disadvantageous for Carthage to rely largely upon a mercenary army. Rome on the contrary and to Polybios’s approval uses primarily Italian soldiers. As a result, the Romans fight with an indominable wholeheartedness concerned for the survival of “fatherland” (πατρίς) and children (τέκνα) that is lacking in the Carthaginian mercenary forces.50 Polybios points to the institutions of Rome that generate and foster the spirit of endurance in times of peril.51 He details the process by which individuals accrue prestige and receive praise through their ritual enshrinement in the public memory.52 The lexicon of benefaction provides Polybios with the terminology to describe this distinctively Roman mechanism of benefit (heroic deed for the general good) and reward (public memorialization). He writes that, “by this constant renewal of the good report of brave men, the celebrity of those who performed noble deeds is rendered immortal, while at the same time the fame of those who did good service to their country becomes known to the people and a heritage for future generations.”53 The practices that publicly valorize the heroic person, most importantly for Polybios, inspire the young men “to endure every suffering for the public welfare in the hope of winning the glory that attends on brave men.”54 A long chain of historical examples of Romans braving single combat and facing death and loss for the general benefit of Romans buttress Polybios’s argument that Rome’s institutional practices successfully promote such beneficial self-hazarding behavior.55 One example in particular impresses Polybios the most. Polybios marshals “a single instance” that encapsulates the Roman effort to produce “men who will be ready to endure everything in order to gain a reputa-

Polyb., Hist., 6.52.1–7. Polyb., Hist., 6.52.10–11. 52 Polyb., Hist., 6.53.1–54.1 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. 53 Polyb., Hist., 6.54.2 (ἐξ ὧν καινοποιουμένης ἀεὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν τῆς ἐπ᾽ ἀρετῇ φήμης ἀθανατίζεται μὲν ἡ τῶν καλόν τι διαπραξαμένων εὔκλεια, γνώριμος δὲ τοῖς πολλοῖς καὶ παραδόσιμος τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις ἡ τῶν εὐεργετησάντων τὴν παρίδα γίνεται δόξα). 54 Polyb., Hist., 6.54.3 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL] (τὸ δὲ μέγιστον, οἱ νέοι παρορμῶνται πρὸς τὸ πᾶν ὑπομένειν ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινῶν πραγμάτων χάριν τοῦ τυχεῖν τῆς συνακολουθούσης τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς τῶν ἀνδρῶν εὐκλείας). See also Scipio’s speech before Zama (Polyb., Hist., 15.10). 55 Polyb., Hist., 6.54.4–5. At least some of the instances to which Polybios alludes are legendary examples, e.g., Livy, History of Rome, 2.5 (L. Iunius Brutus), 4.29 (A. Postumius), and 8.7 (T. Manlius Torquatus). Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume I, 740. 50

51

4.3 Self-Endangerment in the Greco-Roman World

115

tion in their country for valor:” the noble death of Horatius Cocles (“OneEyed”).56 In full, it reads: It is narrated that when Horatius Cocles was engaged in combat with two of the enemy at the far end of the bridge over the Tiber that lies in the front of the town, he saw large reinforcements coming up to help the enemy, and fearing lest they should force the passage and get into the town, he turned round and called to those behind him to retire and cut the bridge with all speed. His order was obeyed, and while they were cutting the bridge, he stood to his ground receiving many wounds, and arrested the attack of the enemy who were less astonished at his physical strength than at his endurance and courage (ὡς τὴν ὑπόστασιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τόλμαν). The bridge once cut, the enemy were prevented from attacking; and Cocles, plunging into the river in full amour as he was, deliberately sacrificed his life, regarding the safety of his country and the glory which in future would attach to his name as of more importance than his present existence and the years of life which remained to him (ὁ δὲ Κόκλης ῥίψας ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις κατὰ προαίρεσιν μετήλλαξε τὸν βίον, περὶ πλείονος ποιησάμενος τὴν τῆς πατρίδος ἀσφάλειαν καὶ τὴν ἐσομένην μετὰ ταῦτα περὶ αὐτὸν εὔκλειαν τῆς παρούσης ζωῆς καὶ τοὺ καταλειπομένου βίου). Such, if I am not wrong, is the eager emulation of achieving noble deeds (ὁρμὴ καὶ φιλοτιμία πρὸς τὰ καλὰ τῶν ἔργων) engendered in the Roman youth by their institutions.57

Horatius’s heroic deed exemplifies the success of the Roman deed-reward mechanism Polybios touts so fervently. Horatius engages in combat against a formidable enemy military force, exhibits the utmost endurance at severe personal risk out of concern for the communal safety of his πόλις/πατρίς (Rome), and is motivated by the prospects of post-mortem prestige rather than a desire to prolong his own remaining life. Ultimately, he gives his life so that by his death his city might live. His final act of casting himself (ῥίψας ἑαυτόν) into the river demonstrates his full-fledged enthusiasm and commitment for the deed, which simultaneously robs the enemy of the glory they would accrue by killing him and stripping him of his arms.58 Scipio (Africanus), when a young man, also exhibited virtue when he risked his own life to rescue his father from assured death in the battle of Ticinus against Hannibal (218 BC).59 Polybios devotes a lengthy section to the exemplary character and skill of Scipio in part as a counterpoint to the widespread 56 Polyb., Hist., 6.52.11 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL] (ἓν δὲ ῥηθὲν ἱκανὸν ἔσται σημεῖον τῆς τοῦ πολιτεύματος σπουδῆς, ἣν ποιεῖ περὶ τὸ τοιούτους ἀποτελεῖν ἄνδρας ὥστε πᾶν ὑπομένειν χάριν τοῦ τυχεῖν ἐν τῇ πατρίδι τῆς ἐπ᾽ ἀρετῇ φήμης). Polybios’s versions of the story of Horatius Cocles occurs in Polyb., Hist., 6.55.1–4; cf. Livy, History of Rome, 2.10. In Livy’s version, Horatius swims to safety and receives ample gratitude from the state and from private citizens for his valorous deed. Livy, History of Rome, 2.10.11–13. For details on the legendary story of Horatius Cocles, see Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume I, 740–741. 57 Polyb., Hist., 6.55.1–4 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. 58 Polyb., Hist., 6.55.3. Thanks to Ross Wagner for the insight about robbing the enemy of glory. 59 Polyb., Hist., 10.3.3–7; cf. 3.65.1–11.

116

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

notion that divine intervention or Fortune rather than Scipio’s own ingenuity and skill had caused his success (especially at New Carthage).60 The first example Polybios provides as initial attestation of Scipio’s upright character is the story of Scipio saving his father, Publius Scipio.61 The account goes that during battle Scipio was with a contingent of troops his father had ordered for his protection, “but when he caught sight of his father in the battle (ἐν τῷ κινδύνῳ), surrounded by the enemy and escorted only by two or three horsemen and dangerously wounded,” he urged his protective contingent to go help.62 They hesitated because of the size of the opposing force, so Scipio decided to enter the fray himself.63 Polybios reports, “he is said with reckless daring to have charged the encircling force alone. Upon the rest being now forced to attack, the enemy were terror-struck and broke up.”64 As a result, his father, “thus unexpectedly delivered, was the first to salute his son in the hearing of all as his preserver.” 65 Scipio’s deed was so enshrined in the public memory that Seneca, some two hundred and fifty years or so later, uses it (in combination with other of Scipio’s deeds) as the example par excellence to argue that a son can indeed benefit a father in a way that outweighs the father’s benefit to his son.66 Thus, the mechanism of stimulation and memorialization to encourage and reward acts of self-endangerment for the good of Rome seems to have been reasonably functional. Having now proffered examples from Carthaginians and Romans, the last example of military self-endangerment comes from a Greek.

60 Polyb., Hist., 10.2.1–13; more broadly 10.2–20. On Polybios’s purpose, sources, and accuracy about Scipio’s assault on New Carthage, see Frank W. Walbank, Volume II, Commentary on Books VII–XVIII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), 191–220. 61 Polyb., Hist., 10.3.3–7; cf. 3.65.1–11. Polybios’s source is Scipio’s close friend, Gaius Laelius (Polyb., Hist., 10.3.2). For an argument that Scipio’s rescue of his father is a genuine historical event rather than a legend or fabrication on the part of Polybios’s source, see Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume II, 198–199. 62 Polyb., Hist., 10.3.4 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. 63 Polyb., Hist., 10.3.5–6. 64 Polyb., Hist., 10.3.6 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. 65 Polyb., Hist., 10.3.5–6 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. Recall 6.39.6–7 (on the “civic crown”). Walbank notes that “Pliny [the Elder] records that Africanus refused the corona ciuica from his father apud Trebiam” (Pliny, Nat. hist. 16.14). Pliny reads, “Scipio Africanus refused to accept a wreath for rescuing his father at the Trebbia.” Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume II, 199. 66 Seneca, Ben., 3.33. Seneca states, “Is there any doubt that the commonplace benefit of his birth was surpassed by his rare filial devotion and his valor, which brought to the city itself, I might almost say, greater glory than protection?” (Ben., 3.33.3 [Basore, LCL]). Reference to Seneca, Ben., 3.33 thanks to Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume II, 198. For other references to Scipio’s saving act in Roman literature, see Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume II, 198.

4.3 Self-Endangerment in the Greco-Roman World

117

Finally, the Rhodian commander Theophiliskos suffered a noteworthy death at the naval battle of Chios (201 BC).67 The enemy combatants consisted of Philip V on the one side and Attalos I Soter and Rhodes on the other. Theophiliskos was wounded but fought with bravery worthy of memory. A contingent of Philip’s ships had overtaken a Rhodian ship and killed the pilot Autolykos after a valiant fight.68 Suddenly Theophiliskos came to aid the sinking Rhodian vessel and gained control of the battle, but enemy ships quickly surrounded him.69 In the ensuing struggle Theophiliskos “receiving himself three wounds and displaying extraordinary courage, just managed to save his own ship (αὐτὸς δὲ τρία τραύματα λαβὼν καὶ παραβόλως τῇ τόλμῃ κινδυνεύσας μόλις ἐξέσωσε τὴν ἰδίαν ναῦν), Philostratos coming up to his succor and taking a gallant part in the struggle” (τὸν ἐνεστῶτα κίνδυνον εὐψύχως).70 Having thus been rescued, he rejoined his main body of ships. Polybios, with an eye toward the commander’s virtue of endurance despite his wounds, writes, “Theophiliskos now joined his other ships and again fell upon the enemy, weak in body from his wounds, but more magnificent and desperate than ever in bravery of spirit” (τῇ δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς γενναιότητι λαμπρότερος ὢν καὶ παραστατικώτερος ἢ πρόσθεν).71 After he completes his narrative of the battle, Polybios summarizes the character and significance of Theophiliskos’s performance: “He had proved himself a man of great bravery in the fight and a man worthy of remembrance for his resolution.”72 Polybios approves the posthumous honors that the Rhodians gave to Theophiliskos because, as much the same with his praise of the Romans, Rhodes promotes the behavior of (prudent) self-endangerment for the benefit of the πατρίς. He comments, “Therefore very justly the Rhodians paid such honors (τιμαῖς) to him after his death as served to arouse not only in those then alive but in their posterity a spirit of devotion to their country’s interests” (πρὸς τοὺς ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος καιρούς).73 Like Rome, Rhodes (and Greek cities generally) praised, committed to public memory, and encouraged emulation of those who endanger themselves for the community. Nevertheless, Rhodes’s honors for the heroic behavior of Theophiliskos is but one instance of the wider

67 Polyb., Hist., 16.5.4–7; 16.9.1–5. For comment on the battle of Chios, see Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume II, 503–511. 68 Polyb., Hist., 16.5.1–2. 69 Polyb., Hist., 16.5.3–5. 70 Polyb., Hist., 16.5.6 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. 71 Polyb., Hist., Hist. 16.5.7 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. 72 ἀνὴρ καὶ κατὰ τὸν κίνδυνον ἀγαθὸς γενόμενος καὶ κατὰ τὴν προαύρεσιν μνήμης ἄξιος (Polyb., Hist., Hist. 16.9.2 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 73 Polyb., Hist., 16.9.5 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]; see all of Polyb., Hist., 16.9.1–5.

118

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

phenomenon of Greek cities repaying praise, prestige, and privileges to citizens or foreigners who risked their own lives to benefit their community.74

4.4 Benefactors Facing Dangers and Serving in Crises 4.4 Benefactors Facing Dangers

Benefactors took on several different roles to address the varied critical situations that cities faced. An inscription could express a crisis or “détresse publique” with several terms.75 The lexicon of crisis in the Hellenistic period included the following words and phrases: (1) περίστασις (crisis), ἡ τῶν καιρῶν περίστασις (the crisis of the times), (2) καιροὶ ἀναγκαῖοι (needful times), (3) καιροὶ ἀναγκαιότατοι (most needful times), (4) δυσχερεῖς καιροί (hard times), ἀπεγνωσμένοι καιροί (desperate times), ἐπιγινομένοι καιροί (critical times that have arisen), (5) καιροί (critical situations), (6) κίνδυνοι (dangers), (7) θλίβεσθαι (being afflicted, under pressure, overwhelmed), (8) ἀπόγνωσις (despair).76 Each contingent, local circumstance called for an adaptive response to meet the crisis to ensure the safety and well-being of the populace. 4.4.1 Diplomacy Envoys who embarked on diplomatic missions faced dangers from various sources and received praise for their laudable service in times of crisis.77 For Other relevant examples that deal with issues of danger, risk, and memory in Polybios’s Histories include Epaminondas (Polyb., Hist., 9.9.9–10), Hannibal (9.9.9–10), and in the speech Polybios creates for Lykiskos (9.38.4). 75 On “public distress” in Hellenistic Asia Minor, see Thibaut Boulay, Arès dans la Cité: Les Poleis et la Guerre dans L’Asie Mineure Hellénistique (Pisa: Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2014), 335–384. 76 Boulay, Arès dans la Cité, 337–350. 77 I.ScM I 8 (3rd or 2nd c. BC, Istros); I.ScM I 12 (3rd c. BC, Istros); IG XII 7.386 (ca. 250–200 BC, Amorgos); AIO 837 = SEG 51.110 = I.Rhamnous 17 (235/234 BC, Rhamnous); IG II3 1 1147 (225/224 BC, Athens); IG II3 1 1137 = IG II2 844 (228/227, 221/210, 193/192 BC, Athens); SEG 43.41 (after 216/215 BC); IOSPE I2 32 = Syll.3 495 (3rd c. BC; ca. 200 BC, Olbia); I.ScM I 15 = SEG 24.1095 (ca. 200 BC, Istros); SEG 52.724 (ca. 200 BC, Istros); IG II3 1 1292 (200/199 or 184/183 BC, Athens); CID 4.106 (184/183 BC, Delphi); 1 Macc 11:22–24; SEG 18.570 (180–120 BC, Araxa); OGIS 339 (133–120 BC, Sestos); PH289481 (shortly after 131 BC, Kyzikos); SEG 39.1243 (ca. 130–110 BC, Kolophon); FD III 4.43 (119 BC, Delphi); I.Aph2007 2.503 (1st c. BC, Aphrodisias); I.Aph2007 12.103 (1st c. BC, Aphrodisias); I.Priene 121 (ca. 90 BC, Priene); PH256676 (probably ca. 85–80 BC, Alabanda); PH316597, PH316953, PH301900 ( = IvP II 256), PH316574 ( = OGIS 764), and PH316601 (ca. 69 BC, Pergamon); I.ScM I 54 (ca. 50 BC, Istros); IGBulg I2 13 = Syll.3 762 (49/48 BC, Dionysopolis); OGIS 767 = I.RCyr2020 C.416 (ca. 2 AD, Cyrene). See also Josephus’s account of Arabs killing a Jewish envoy “against the custom (νόμος) of all peoples” (B.J., 1.371, 378). 74

4.4 Benefactors Facing Dangers

119

instance, sometime in the third century BC the city of Istros honored Dioskourides son of Strouthion, “a good man concerning the city and the citizens,” because “he showed himself eager for the demos and during the dangers of the city he conducted many Hellenic and barbarian embassies for peace, taking account of no danger.”78 In return for his self-imperiling embassies to benefit the city in times of trouble, Istros awarded him praise, a gold crown to be presented regularly at the games, and a bronze statue.79 In 225/224 BC, Prytanis, a notable Peripatetic philosopher, undertook a dangerous and costly mission as an envoy on behalf of the city of Athens and used his rhetorical skills for its benefit.80 The demos of Athens commended him for “giving himself without hesitation to the common need of the city” and for performing his embassy while “taking into account no pain or danger of what might happen, taking thought of no expense.”81 In the motivation clause, the decree reiterates that the boule and demos of the Athenians appreciate benefactors who display full commitment to their services, “so, therefore, that the People may be seen at every opportunity to have been mindful of those who exert themselves to meet its needs.”82 Among the numerous benefactions of Polemaios of Kolophon was his stint as envoy.83 Not only did he provide funds from his personal finances, but he was able to procure friendship with Rome and patronage for the city from Roman notables.84 The decree brings out the protective nature of his conduct by highlighting the relative safety of the population of Kolophon who remained at home because of Polemaios’s self-endangering ambassadorial services a78 ἐπειδὴ Διοσκου|ρίδης Στρουθίωνος ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς|| ὢν περὶ τὴν πόλιν καὶ τοὺς πολί|τας πρόθυμον ἑαυτὸν παρείσχη|ται τῶι δήμωι ἔν τε τοῖς κινδύνοις| τῆς πόλεως πρεσβείας Ἑλληνικὰς| καὶ βαρβαρικὰς πολλὰς ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰ-||ρήνης πεπρέσβευκεν οὐδένα κίνδυ|νον ὑπολογισάμενος (I.ScM I 12.3–11). 79 I.ScM I 12.14–22. 80 IG II3 1 1147 (225/224 BC, Athens). On the mission of Prytanis, see Polyb., Hist., 5.93.8–10; Christian Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. Deborah Lucas Schneider (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 177–178; Matthias Haake, Der Philosoph in der Stadt: Untersuchungen zur öffentlichen Rede über Philosophen und Philosophie in den hellenistichen Poleis (Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 2007), 89–99. 81 δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀπροφ[α-]||σίστως εἰς τὴν κοινὴν χρείαν τῆς πόλεως ἀπ[ε]|δήμησεν…οὔτε πό|νον οὔτε κίνδυνον ὑπολογισάμενος οὐθένα v | τῶν ἐσομένων οὔτε δαπάνης οὐδεμιᾶς φ. ροντί|σας (IG II3 1 1147.14–19). 82 ὅπως ἂν οὖν ὁ δῆμος ἐμ παν|τὶ καιρῶι μεμνημένοις φαίνηται τῶν ἐκτενῶς| τὰς χρείας . αὐτωι παρεσχημένων (IG II3 1 1147.25–27). Translation from Stephen Lambert, “Honours for Prytanis of Karystos,” Attic Inscriptions Online, last updated February 8, 2017, https:// www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/MorettiISE/i-28. Prytanis was awarded praise, a gold crown announced at City Dionysia (tragedies) and Panathenaia (games), other benefits as seen fit, a free dinner, and stone stele in the agora (IG II3 1 1147.27–50). 83 SEG 39.1243 (ca. 130–110 BC, Kolophon). 84 SEG 39.1243.

120

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

cross land and sea: “he permitted the other citizens to remain untroubled in their own (homes), while he himself undertook the danger on behalf of all (the others), and by land and by sea hazarding (the danger) in his body and his soul and in his entire life concerning the demos.”85 Polemaios was able to successfully curb the armed brigandage and raiding in territory owned by Kolophon by securing an edict from Rome.86 Likewise, he was able to get the charges dropped against a citizen who had been convicted in the Roman court system.87 The decree also draws attention to Polemaios’s self-endangerment during his services, saying that, “considering it noble to endure dangers on behalf of the land that reared him, in the duties that were assigned to him by his fatherland he nobly continued saying and doing what is most excellent.”88 Furthermore, he was generous to certain people who had experienced pressing times and forgave numerous debtors of their debt.89 For these and other benefactions Polemaios received various rewards, including a gold crown and a gold statue on a pillar in the temple of Apollo of Klarios near the altar of the Graces.90 Another benefactor from western Asia Minor during the late second century BC, Menippos, adopted son of Apollonides, received commendation from the city of Klaros for his considerable services as envoy to Rome some five times, to the Attalids, and to various other cities.91 Menippos, among other things, persuaded Rome to maintain the city’s ancestral laws and judicial autonomy and secure Romans as patrons of Klaros.92 Two different honorific inscriptions contain the same exact wording explaining in brief the reason Kolophon honored Menippos: because he was “a benefactor and concerning the city, earnest

85 τοὺς μὲν λοιποὺς| τῶν πολιτῶν ἀπαρενοχλήτους| ἐῶν μένειν ἐπὶ τῶν ἰδίων,| αὐτὸς δὲ τὸν ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων|| κίνδυνον ἀναδεχόμενος| καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλασ|σαν σώματι κῆι ψυχ.ῆι καὶ| τῶι παντὶ βίωι περὶ τοῦ δήμου| παραβαλλόμενος (SEG 39.1243.ii.16–24). Translation modified from “Kolophon Honours Polemaios,” http://www.attalus.org/docs/ seg/s39_1243.html, accessed August 21, 2021. 86 SEG 39.1243.ii.33–51. 87 SEG 39.1243.ii.51–62. 88 καλὸν δὲ κρίνων καὶ αὐ|θαιρέτως ὑπομένειν| τοὺς ὑπὲρ τοῦ θρέψαντος| ἐδάφους κινδύνους, ἐν|| ταῖς ἐπιτρεπομέναις| ἑαυτῶι χρείαις τῆς πα|ρίδος γνησίως καὶ λέ|γων καὶ πράσσων τὰ κρά|τιστα διατετέλεκεν (SEG 39.1243.iii.16–24). Translation modified from “Kolophon Honours Polemaios,” http://www.attalus.org/docs/seg/s39_1243.html, accessed August 22, 2021. 89 SEG 39.1243.iii.25–58. Note the mention of “crises” to describe the circumstances of those whom Polemaios helped (τὰς τυχικὰς περιστάσεις; SEG 39.1243.iii.27–28; οὐδένα κατὰ| περίστασιν ἐπαικότα πε|ριορῶν; iii.50–52). 90 SEG 39.1243.v.25–57. On the gold statue, the text specifies the location: στῆσαι δὲ εἰκόνα| χρυσῆν ἐπὶ στυλίδος ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος|| τοῦ Κλαρίου παρὰ τὸν βωμὸν τῶν Χαρίτων (SEG 39.1243.v.43–45). 91 SEG 39.1244 (ca. 120–110 BC, Klaros); SEG 37.957 (ca. 133–100 BC, Klaros). 92 SEG 39.1244.i.10–ii.7, iii.5–13.

4.4 Benefactors Facing Dangers

121

and loving the good and leading the fatherland in times of necessity.”93 The larger of the inscriptions, a formal honorific decree, adds that Menippos offered to finance the cost of erecting the statue that the city awarded him because the city was hard-pressed (θλίβεσθαι) at the time.94 One of the most lauded benefactor-envoys in Hellenistic history was Diodoros Pasparos of Pergamon, who operated in post-Mithridatic War circumstances.95 Of the many services of Diodoros Pasparos to Pergamon, his successful embassy to the Romans stands out in terms of endangered benefaction – not necessarily from undergoing notable personal risk himself (though as an envoy risk is inherent) but for relieving the pressing situation of Pergamon. After the First Mithridatic War, Pergamon was in dire economic straits.96 The war itself had taken its toll on the city. Mithradates had executed eighty conspirators from Pergamon.97 Likewise, no doubt otherwise productive human and monetary capital was diverted to finance and prosecute war. Because Pergamon had supported Mithradates against Rome, they were on the losing side of the conflict and subject to a massive indemnity as well as the Roman moneylenders and publicani.98 Thus, the diversion of productive economic resour93 εὐεργέτην ὄντα καὶ περὶ τὴν πολιτείαν ἐκτενῆ καὶ φιλάγαθον καὶ προστάντα τῆς πατρίδος ἐν καιροῖς ἀναγκαίοις (SEG 39.1244.iii.32–34; SEG 37.957.5–11 [see NewDocs 9 §4]). 94 ἐπαινέσαι δὲ αὐτὸν διότι θλιβομένης τῆς|| πόλεως τὴν τιμὴν αὐτὴν ἀποδεχόμενον| παρὰ τοῦ δήμου καὶ τοῖς προγεγραμένοις ἀκόλου|θον γινόμενον ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι τελέσειν παρ᾽ ἑ[αυ-]|τοῦ τὴν ἐσομένην δαπάνην εἰς τὴν εἰκόν[ος]| ἀνάθεσιν καίτοι γε τοῦ δήμου καὶ τὴν δαπάνην ἡ-||δέως ἀναδεχομένου διὰ τὴν πρὸς Μένιππον ἑ|κτένειαν (SEG 39.1244.iii.34–41). 95 The documents related to Diodoros Pasparos include PH316597, PH316953, PH301900 ( = IvP II 256), PH316574 ( = OGIS 764), and PH316601 (ca. 69 BC, Pergamon). On various aspects of his date, historical situation, and his exploits and rewards, see Christopher P. Jones, “Diodoros Pasparos and the Nikephoria of Pergamon,” Chiron 4 (1974): 183–205; Regan L. Barr, “Honors for Late Hellenistic Civic Benefactors in Western Asia Minor,” (MA thesis, University of Cincinnati, 1995), 7–31; T. Corey Brennan, “Embassies Gone Wrong: Roman Diplomacy in the Constatinian Excerpta de Legationibus,” in Diplomats and Diplomacy in the Roman World, ed. Claude Eilers (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 171–174; Andrzej S. Chankowski, “La procedure legislative à Pergame au ler siècle au J.-C : à propos de la chronologie relative des décrets en l’honneur de Diodoros Pasparos,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 122, no. 1 (1998): 159–199; Christopher P. Jones, “Diodoros Pasparos Revisited,” Chiron 30 (2000): 1–14; Cristina Genovese, “‘Per Eterna Memoria e Immortalità di un Benefattore’. L’ ‘Heroon’ di Diodoro Pasparo a Pergamo,” Mediterraneo Antico 14, nos. 1–2 (2011): 57–74; Biagio Virgilio, “La Città Ellenistica e I suoi ‘Benefattori’: Pergamo e Diodoro Pasparos,” in Studi sull’Asia Minore (Pisa: Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2014), 117–130. 96 This paragraph draws on Barr, “Honors for Late Hellenistic Civic Benefactors in Western Asia Minor,” 12–13. See also Biagio Virgilio, “La Città Ellenistica e I suoi ‘Benefattori’: Pergamo e Diodoro Pasparos,” 120–123. 97 Appian, Mithridatic War, 192. 98 On the Roman moneylenders and publicani, see Plutarch, Lucullus, 7.6.

122

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

ces to destructive ends (war), the heavy burden of tribute from Mithradates and then Rome, and the presence of Roman tax farmers all contributed to the dismal economic situation. Pergamenes incurred heavy debts at high interest rates in their attempt to recover. Diodoros Pasparos’s embassy to Rome was able to obtain relief from several of these burdensome impositions and as a result facilitate economic recovery. In the mid-first century BC the benefactor Akornion served as priest and envoy. As envoy, Akornion got into the good graces of King Burebista and subsequently served successfully as an envoy on behalf of both Burebista and Dionysopolis to the Romans.99 In the honorific decree for Akornion, the city recognized his exemplary conduct despite the dangers and highlighted his wholehearted devotion to his services in times of crisis during which he poured out expenses from his own private funds to complete them: And the goodwill of the king with respect to the safety of his city he urged, and in all other ways of himself unsparingly did he give (ἔν τε τοῖς λοιποῖς ἅπασιν ἀφειδῶς ἑαυτὸ ν. || [ἐν]διδοὺς); the city’s embassies with their dangers he undertook without hesitation to win in all respects the advantage for his native city.100 And in general throughout every situation of crisis he applied himself body and soul, expenses being paid from his own means of livelihood; and, some of the material things of the city subsidizing by himself, he has exhibited the greatest zeal for the safety of his native city.101

The honorific decree highlights that Akornion endured dangers and aided his city during critical times for the advantage (τὸ σύμφερον) and safety (σωτηρία) of his home city. His enthusiasm to act on their behalf in difficult times was so ardent that he risked his own life. For his self-hazarding behavior Dionysopolis returned gratitude by awarding him praise, a gold crown presented at the Dionysiac games (annually), and a bronze statue at the most conspicuous place in the agora.102

IGBulg I2 13.22–42. [κα]ὶ συνβουλεύων τὰ κράτιστα καὶ τὴν εὔνοιαν τοῦ β.[α|σιλέ]ω.ς πρὸς τῆς πόλεως σωτηρ.[ί]αν προσπαραμ.[υ|θού]μενος ἔν τε τοῖς λοιποῖς ἅπασιν ἀφειδῶς ἑαυτὸν.|| [ἐν]διδοὺς καὶ τὰς τῆς πόλεως πρεσβήας καὶ κινδύνους ἐπ[ι-]|δ.οχόμενος [ἀ]ό.κνως πρὸς τὸ πάντας τι κατεργάζεσθα.[ι]| τῇ παρτίδι συμφέρον (IGBulg I2 13.27–32; ca. 48 BC; translation from Sherk [1984] §78). 101 καθόλου δὲ κατὰ πᾶσν περίστασιν κ[αι|ρ]ῶν ψυχῇ καὶ σώματι παραβαλλόμενος καὶ δαπάναις χρώμ[ε-]||νος ταὶς ἐκ τοὺ βίου, τινὰ δὲ καὶ τὼν πολιτικῶν χορηγίων σωματ[ο]|ποιῶν παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὴν μεγίστην ἐνδείκνυτα[ι] σπουδὴν εἰς τὴν ὑ|πὲρ τῆς πατρίδος σωτηρίαν (IGBulg I2 13.38–42; translation from Sherk [1984] §78). One can also note the occurrence of ἐπιδοῦναι ἑαυτόν for his priestly services: “[he was called upon] by the citizens and he devoted himself (to the priesthood)” ([παρακληθεὶς ὐ]π.ὸ τῶν πολιτῶν ἐπέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν; IGBulg I2 13.15; translation from Sherk [1984] §78). 102 IGBulg I2 13.43–49. 99

100

4.4 Benefactors Facing Dangers

123

As priest and envoy Phaos son of Klearchos served the people of Cyrene to combat the raids (ca. 5/4 BC–AD 3) of the Marmaridae, a Libyan tribe.103 The honorific decree (OGIS 767 = I.RCyr2020 C.416; AD 2) for Phaos recounts his wartime services, saying that he had “acted as envoy during the Marmaric War, in winter, putting himself in danger (ἑαυτὸν ἐς τὸς κινδύνος ἐπιδός) and bringing military aid which was most timely and sufficient for the safety of the city.”104 With Cyrenaica in trouble from the Libyan incursions, Phaos hazarded harsh winter conditions in a crucial diplomatic mission to Rome to bring military aid to ensure the safety of Cyrene. One of the critical services an envoy could provide was to negotiate the return of hostages and captives and to rescue the imprisoned. The city of Istros honored the envoys Diodoros, Prokritos, and Klearchos for bringing back over sixty hostages and persuading the perpetrator Zalmodegikos, king of the Getae, to return the money he had extracted.105 Their mission entailed considerable risk, since they “travelled through hostile territory, endured every danger, and displayed every enthusiasm” in their efforts. 106 After pirates captured over thirty people at Amorgos, the brothers Hegesippos and Antipappos, themselves captives, offered themselves as hostages and persuaded the pirate captain to release all the captive citizens and some of the freedmen and enslaved and to spare the citizens from being sold, tortured, and from enduring hardship.107 In 235/234, the city of Rhamnous praised Dikaiarchos of Thria because (among other things) “when the general Philokedes was present at Eretria he supported this man in advocating and securing the release and saving from prison (ἐξί(λ)ετο ἐκ τοῦ [δε]σμωτηρί[ου]) of one of the citizens who had been 103 On the Marmaric War, see Joyce Reynolds and J. A. Lloyd, “Cyrene,” in The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume X: The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C.–A.D. 69, ed. Alan K. Bowman, Edward Champlin, and Andrew Lintott, 2nd ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 635–636; Eireann Marshall, “Cyrenaican Civilisation and Health: Constructing an Identity in a Frontier,” Pegasus 39 (1996): 10–11. The ancient sources that attest to the Marmaric War are sparse (mainly SEG 9.63; OGIS 676; Dio Cassius, Roman History, 55.10a.1). Also concerning the Marmaric War is I.RCyr2020 C.737, an honorific decree for a certain Alexis, who also faced dangers and risked his life. But the decree for Alexis a little more fragmentary than the Phaos decree. 104 [καὶ] πρεσβεύσας ἐν τῷ Μαρμα|ρικῷ πολέμῳ ἐν χειμῶσι ἑαυ|τὸν ἐς τὸς κινδύνος ἐπιδὸς|| καὶ τὰν ἐπικαιροτάταν συμμα-|[χ]ίαν καὶ πρὸς σωτηρίαν τ[ᾶ]ς πό-|[λ]εος ἀνηκοίσαν ἀγαγὼν (I.RCyr2020 C.416.a.7–12). Translation from Braund §51. 105 I.ScM I 8 (3rd–2nd c. BC). 106 ἀπεδήμησάν τε διὰ τῆς πολε|μίας πάντα κίνδυνον ὑπομείναν|τες καὶ πᾶσαν προθυμίαν παρασχό[με-]||νοι (I.ScM I 8.8–10). 107 IG XII 7.386 (ca. 250–200 BC). See Angelos Chaniotis, “Mobility of Persons During the Hellenistic Wars: State Control and Personal Relations,” in La mobilité des personnes en Méditerranée de l’Antiquité à l’époque modern: procedures de contrôle et documents d’indentifications, ed. Claudia Moatti (Rome: École française de Rome, 2004), 296; Austin2 §105.

124

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

condemned to death.”108 In 228/227 BC, a certain Eumaridas was voted honors for his role in securing the release of Athenian captives from the pirate Boukris, who had raided the countryside of Attica.109 He generously contributed to the ransom fund and also loaned the captives travelling expenses. Later, he negotiated on behalf of the Athenians with certain Cretan cities to ensure Athenian negative rights from pillaging.110 Around 85–80 BC, the Karian city of Alabanda praised Pyrrha[kos] because not only did he rescue enslaved citizens abroad (“some of the citizens who were enslaved in foreign lands he delivered”), but during his diplomatic trip as envoy to renew kinship and friendship with Rome he “took into consideration no danger to his own self” and completed the mission successfully.111 Finally, sometime in the mid-1st century BC when citizens of Istros had been taken captive by barbarians and held as ransom, the benefactor Aristagoras paid their ransom and rescued them with his diplomacy with the barbarians.112 Whether their city faced tribulations by piκαὶ παραγενομένου τοῦ στρατηγοῦ Φιλοκή-|[δ]ου εἰς Ἐρέτριαν συνηγόρησέν τε τούτωι καὶ τῶν πολιτῶν| [ἕ]να ἀπηγμένον ἐπὶ θανάτωι ἐξί(λ)ετο ἐκ τοῦ [δε]σμωτηρί[ου]| καὶ ἀνέσωισεν ἀποδεικνύμενος τὴν εὔνοιαν ἣν ἔχει πρὸς|| τοὺς πολίτας (AIO 837.14–25; quote from ll. 21–25; translation from Sean Byrne and Chris de Lisle, “Rhamnous honours Dikaiarchos of Thria,” Attic Inscriptions Online, last updated June 4, 2021, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IRhamn/17). 109 IG II3 1 1137 = IG II2 844. See also the second decree (211/210 BC) on the inscription (IG II3 1 1137) for Eumaridas that specifies that the bronze statue for him be placed “in the precinct of the People and the Graces,” which refers to the cult to the Graces that began in 229 when Athens was liberated from Antigonid control. Cf. IG II3 4 8. Stephen Lambert, “Decrees honouring Eumaridas of Kydonia and His Son Charmion,” Attic Inscriptions Online, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGII2/844, last updated May 26, 2018. 110 Philip de Souza comments that “these negotiations seem to have been aimed at reducing attacks on the Attic coast by pirates emanating from Crete. It would appear that certain cities had been allowing their citizens to take booty from Attica, and the people of Athens were making a concerted effort to prevent further occurrences.” Philip de Souza, Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 67. 111 τινὰς δὲ καὶ τῶν πολιτῶν ἐ[πὶ ξέ-]|νης δουλεύοντας ἀπέσωισεν (PH256676.10–11); παρακληθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ δή[μου]|| προθύμως ὑπ[ή]κουσεν οὐθένα κίνδυνον ὑφιδόμεν[ος]| καθ᾽ αὑτόν, ἀποδημήσας τε κατώρθωσεν τὰ κατὰ τὴ[ν πρεσ-]|βείαν συμφερόντως τῆι πατρίδι (PH256676.19–22). On Pyrrha[kos], see Federico Santangelo, Sulla, the Elites and the Empire: A Study of Roman Policies in Italy and the Greek East (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 54–55. 112 τῆς τε πατρίδος ὀχυρωθείσης καὶ κατὰ μέρος τῶν πολειτῶν ἀ|πὸ τῆς βαρβάρου καταπορευομένων εἰς τὴν πόλιν τισὶν μὲν δεξιῶς ἀπ[αν-]|τῶν τῶν κρατούντων τῆς χώρας βαρβάρων, τισὶν δὲ τῶν πολειτῶν ἐ[ις]|| λύτρα προτιθεὶς ἔδειξεν ἑαυτὸν πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀπάντησιν τῶν σωζο[μέ-]νων εὐομείλητον, πλεῖστά τε συναλλάγματα πολείταις ἅμα κ[αὶ]| ξένοις ποιησάμενος πρὸς πάντας ἀφιλαργύρς ὑπεστήσατο (I.ScM I 54.12–17). On Aristagoras, see Alexandru Avram, “Wohltäter des Volkes (εὐεργέται τοῦ δήμου) in den pontischen Städten der späthellenistischen Zeit,” in Bürgesinn und Staatliche Macht in Antike und Gegenwart, ed. Martin Dreher (Konstanz: University of Konstanz Press, 2000), 154–156. 108

4.4 Benefactors Facing Dangers

125

rates from the seas, barbarians from the hinterland, or another polity during war, benefactor-envoys performed rescue operations by risking their own bodies and resources by braving dangerous weather, crossing through hostile territory, offering themselves as hostages, paying from their own funds, and otherwise persuading the captors to release the imprisoned and enslaved. Envoys had to be prepared to risk their lives and their financial resources without knowing what setbacks might arise. As a result, cities honored them as benefactors and highlighted the peril the city faced and the dangers these benefactor-envoys voluntarily hazarded. All these envoys were recognized for their willingness to avoid no danger – whether dangers from travel, climate, or hostile foreign actors – and to serve their cities in perilous circumstances like oppressive indemnity, war, debt, economic hardship, or when pirates or barbarians had kidnapped some of the population. Failure was a real risk for these envoys, but they were able to successfully overcome the obstacles and secure tangible benefits for their cities in times of trouble. 4.4.2 Ousting Garrisons If a foreign garrison held a city under the rule of a king, a benefactor might aid the local effort to oust the occupying forces.113 After Kallias of Sphettos had helped Athens drive out an Antigonid garrison from Athens, the countryside was still in a state of war and the Macedonian king Demetrios I still had control of a garrison at the Peiraios and was making his way to Athens from the Peloponnesos. 114 But “when Kallias learned of the danger facing the city” (τὸν κίνδυνον τὸν περὶ τὴν πόλιν) he paid and supplied a thousand soldiers that he was commanding in Andros and took them to the countryside to protect the grain harvest.115 Kallias’s commitment to help Athens in its struggle for freedom from Antigonid control resulted in him being wounded. The decree for him recounts his heroic self-hazarding despite the dangers, saying, “when Demetrios arrived, and surrounded the town with his army and laid siege to it, Kallias, fighting on behalf of the People and going on the attack with the soldiers with him, despite being wounded shirked no danger whatsoever at any

For the mid-1st century date of I.ScM I 54, see Petre Alexandrescu, “La fin de la Zone Sacrée d’époque grecque d’Istros,” Dacia 51 (2007): 211–219. 113 Aside from Kallias of Sphettos, see also Zenodotos Baukideos (PH258005; probably 303/302 BC). 114 IG II3 1 911.11–18 (270/269 BC, Athens) = SEG 28.60. On Kallias, see T. Leslie Sheer Jr., “Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BC,” Hesperia Supplement 17 (Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1978); Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, 96–97, 127–129. 115 IG II3 1 911.18–27. Translation from Sean Byrne, “Honours for Kallias of Sphettos,” Attic Inscriptions Online, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGII31/911, last updated July 25, 2019.

126

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

time for the sake of the preservation of the People.”116 Along with his other services to Athens, Kallias’s self-hazarding conduct in the struggle against Demetrios Poliorketes garnered praise and honors from the demos of Athens, including a gold crown, a bronze statue in the agora, choice seating at the games, and an inscription inscribed in stone and placed next to his statue.117 4.4.3 Defending City and Country War, invasion, attack, and the threat of force or tyranny were crises that provided the conditions for a benefactor to address with service and self-endangerment. 118 At various points in the Hellenistic period the Gauls/Galatians posed a threat to populations of certain Greek cities. Those who rose to the occasion and performed laudably in the crisis received due recognition. In the initial incursions of the Gauls/Galatians into Greece and Asia Minor in 279/278 BC, a certain Sotas resisted the Galatians who were “lawlessly wishing to attack” (παρανόμως προσπεσέσ[θ]αι βουλόμενοι).119 As a part of the Prienian resistance effort, Sotas recruited quality citizens and people who lived in the countryside and they together risked their lives (κινδυνεύειν) “for the common safety of the demos” ([ὑπὲρ τ]ῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας τοῦ [δήμου]).120 He and his soldiers were able to successfully defend the countryside and ensure the survival of many people and their property by bringing them into the city.121 In Erythrai the demos honored Simos son of Apollonios and eight other strategoi for protecting the city, providing weapons, and giving financial aid out of their own pockets during “many fears and dangerous crises” (πο[λλῶν φό-]|βων καὶ κινδύνων περιστάντων) prompted by the Galatian invasions.122 Sporadic Galatian invasions still occurred in the second century BC. From 168–166 BC the Attalid king Eumenes II fought against a Galatian invasion. He commended the city of Tabai for the courageous conduct and self-endangerment of its citizen Koteies. 123 Koteies, a local Karian magnate, distin116 καὶ ἐπειδὴ παραγενόμενος Δημήτιος καὶ πε|ριστρατοπεδεύσας ἐπολιόρκει τὸ ἄστυ, ἀγωνιζόμενο|ς ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου Καλλίας καὶ ἐπεξιὼν μετὰ τῶν στρατι-||ωτῶν τῶν μεθ᾽ αὑτοῦ καὶ τραυματίας γενόμενος κίνδυ|νου οὐθένα ὑποστελλόμενος οὐδὲ ἐν ἑνὶ καιρῶι ἕνεκα| τῆς τοῦ δήμου σωτηρίας (IG II3 1 911.27–32). Translation from Sean Byrne, “Honours for Kallias of Sphettos,” Attic Inscriptions Online, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/ IGII31/911, last updated July 25, 2019. 117 IG II3 1 911.86–109. 118 On various aspects of the role of benefactors in Hellenistic warfare, see Angelos Chaniotis, War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 18–43. 119 OGIS 765 = I.Priene 17. Quote from OGIS 765.7. 120 OGIS 765.30–31. 121 OGIS 765.19–38. 122 I.Erythr. 24.10–11. 123 SEG 57.1109.

4.4 Benefactors Facing Dangers

127

guished himself in the eyes of Eumenes II by successfully and in a timely fashion rendering military aid to the important Attalid city of Apameia-Kelainai against fast-approaching Galatian invaders. Column II of the inscription mentions how, in contrast to others who were terrified (πτοηθέντες) and fled the city, Koteies risked personal hazard, saying, “he gave himself more readily to the danger.” 124 In 119 BC, the city of Lete in Macedonia honored Roman quaester Marcus Annius for replacing the command of the slain Sextus Pompeius and leading the Macedonian soldiers to victory against the Gauls/Galatians.125 The inscription in Annius’s honor stresses the formidability of the Gallic armies, noting the “huge army” in the first battle and the “even more Gallic horsemen” and “a horde even larger” in the subsequent battle.126 Such a grave threat sets the conditions for Annius’s own bravery: “he went on the attack with the soldiers he had in the encampment, and avoiding no danger or suffering (οὐθένα κίνδυνον οὐδὲ κακ[ο-]|παθίαν ὑποστειλάμενος; ll. 27–28), deployed his troops and defeated the enemy in combat.”127 When others might flee out of terror or shrink back from a substantial foe, Koteies and Annius risked their lives to protect cities in crisis. Other barbarian groups posed a threat to Greek cities near the Black Sea. When the barbarian king Saitaphernes came to the city of Olbia to demand gifts, the city lacked the funds but Protogenes, at the bequest of the demos, gave him 400 gold pieces to satiate him.128 Saitaphernes came again and once ἕτεροι πτοηθέντες [ἐξ]-εχώρουν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως…ἑτοιμότερον ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ κίνδυνον ἔδωκεν (SEG 57.1109.Col. II.15–20). Note other terminology of danger and crisis: κίνδυνος (SEG 57.1109.Col. III.21) and περίστασις (SEG 57.1109.Col. II.22). Eumenes II also describes Koteies as displaying upright conduct with respect to the people of Apameia by showing goodwill (εὔνοια; SEG 57.1109.Col. I.5; Col. II.14), readiness (προθυμία; SEG 57.1109.Col. I.5), enthusiasm (σπουδή; SEG 57.1109.Col. I.9–10), word-deed congruency (SEG 57.1109.Col. II.10–13), and being diligent/lacking hesitation (ἄοκνος; SEG 57.1109.Col. I.6), dedicated (ἐκτενής; SEG 57.1109.Col. I.7), and constant (ἀεί; SEG 57.1109.Col. I.8). 125 Syll.3 700. 126 Syll.3 700.12, 20–23. Translation from Sherk (1984) §48. 127 Syll.3 700.26–29. Translation from Sherk (1984) §48. For his conduct, Annius received praise, leaf crown, annual equestrian games in his honor (month of Daisios), congratulations via envoys, stele in most conspicuous place in the agora (Syll.3 700.36–50). 128 IOSPE I2 32.5–13 (Syll.3 495; late 3rd c. BC, Olbia). On the Protogenes inscription, see Cristel Müller, “Autopsy of a Crisis: Wealth, Protogenes, and the City of Olbia in c. 200 BC,” in The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Third to First Centuries BC, ed. Zosia H. Archibald, John K. Davies, and Vincent Gabrielsen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 324–344; Peter Thonemann, The Hellenistic World: Using Coins as Sources (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 33–34; Angelos Chaniotis, “Paradoxon, Enargeia, Empathy: Hellenistic Decrees and Hellenistic Oratory,” in Hellenistic Oratory: Continuity and Change, ed. Christos Kremmydas and Kathryn Tempest (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 209–212; Angelos Chaniotis, “Emotional Language in Hellenistic Decrees 124

128

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

again demanded favors from Olbia when the city was, like before, depleted in funds and forced to rely on Protogenes to offer a substantial gift (900 gold pieces).129 On this occasion the king “took the presents but flew into a rage (εἰς ὀργὴν δὲ καταστάντος) . . . [and so] the people met together and [were] terrified (περίφ[οβος]).”130 Olbia’s woes did not stop there. The city was largely unwalled and several barbarian groups (Galatians, Skiroi, Thisarnatai, Scythians, and Saudaratai) “were eager to seize the fort,” which caused many people fighting for the Olbian cause to desert or prepare to desert the city out of fear.131 At this point “the people met in an assembly in deep despair” because they saw “before them the danger that lay ahead and the terrors in store.”132 Into this bleak picture of a city desperate for deliverance, the situation was reversed once again by the noble conduct of Protogenes: “when no one would volunteer (οὐδενὸς δ᾽ ἐπιδιδόντος ἑαυτόν) for all or part of the demands of the people, he [Protogenes] promised he would himself build both the walls and would advance the whole cost of the construction.”133 In addition to his diplomatic and military services, at other moments in his career as benefactor, Protogenes alleviated debts (outright or remitted interest), bought grain and corn multiple times for the community stock during shortages and offered favorable lending terms, helped finance tribute to Saitaphernes (again), fixed numerous public buildings and structures (e.g., towers, granary, walls), financed transportation costs for stones, and managed city finances with honesty.134 One gets the impression that the only thing Protogenes did not do was heal the sick with his touch. During times of war benefactors sometimes rendered help to individuals in precarious conditions. In the 140s BC, Sotas son of Patrokles, who was at the time of his services simply a land magnate with no official governing position and a neighbor to the small town of Olbasa, offered hospitality by way of reand Hellenistic Histories,” in Parole in Movimento Linguaggio Politico e Lessico Storiografico nel Mondo Ellenistico: Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma, 21–23 Frebbraio 2011, ed. Manuela Mari and John Thornton (Pisa: Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2013), 340–342. 129 IOSPE I2 32.87–90. 130 IOSPE I2 32.A.95. Translation from Chaniotis, “Paradoxon, Enargeia, Empathy,” 209–210. Note how the narrative is replete with emotions – anger, fear, hope, back to fear – and the emotional narration moves back and forth between negative and positive emotions. Chaniotis, “Paradoxon, Enargeia, Empathy,” 210. 131 IOSPE I2 32.B.1–21. Translation from Chaniotis, “Paradoxon, Enargeia, Empathy,” 210. 132 IOSPE I2 32.B.22–27. Translation from Chaniotis, “Paradoxon, Enargeia, Empathy,” 211. 133 οὐδενὸς δ᾽ ἐπιδιδόντος ἑαυτὸν οὔτ᾽ εἰς ἅπαντα οὔτ᾽ εἴς μέρη ὧν ἠξίου ὁ δῆμος, ἐπαγγείλατο αὐτὸς κατασκευᾶν ἀμφότερα τὰ τείχη καὶ προθήσειμ πᾶσαν τὴν εἰς αὐτὰ δαπάνην (IOSPE I2 32.B.27–31). Text and translation from Chaniotis, “Paradoxon, Enargeia, Empathy,” 212. 134 IOSPE I2 32.

4.4 Benefactors Facing Dangers

129

fuge and provisions for Olbasan citizens displaced by war.135 The people of Olbasa honored him because he “was of great help to the citizens in the difficult circumstances (ἐν τοῖς περιστᾶσι καιροῖς) during the Pisidian war, always taking in refugees from those citizens who had been saved from the enemy and providing distributions for those who had been driven from their homes.”136 The struggle for the freedom of a city or the fight against tyranny gave benefactors their repute in some cases. The city of Erythrai praised nine strategoi for their conduct that preserved their democratic governance (δημοκρατία) and freedom (ἐλευθερία) when it was threatened by war.137 The inscription in their honor recounts how “shrinking from no fear or danger, they gave themselves eagerly to saying and doing what is beneficial to the city.”138 In the second century BC, the city of Araxa honored Orthagoras son of Demetrios first for his role as ἡγεμών in the war against Moagetes because he “endured every danger and every distress” (πάντα κίνδυνον καὶ πᾶσαν κακοπαθίαν ὑπομίνας).139 During his embassy to the city of Kibyra, “looking the tyrants in the face, he lost no opportunity to oppose them and in consequence often found himself in many dangers and exposed to plots on account of his struggles on behalf of his fatherland.”140 Later he helped quell tyrannies in the Lycian cities of Xanthos and Tlos and sought Orloanda’s freedom and to admit it into the Lycian League.141 Not uncommonly benefactors guarded fortresses and/or the countryside of a city.142 For example, Diokles son of Leodamas, conforming to his ancestral 135 SEG 44.1108 (138/137 BC, Olbasa, Pisidia). For translation and commentary see Peter Thonemann, “The Attalid State, 188–133 BC,” in Attalid Asia Minor: Money, International Relations, and the State, ed. Peter Thonemann (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 13– 14. 136 Translation from Thonemann, “The Attalid State, 188–133 BC,” 113. 137 I.Erythr. 29 (270–260 or 261–248 BC, Erythrai). Cf. Syll.3 410. 138 [οὐδένα οὔ-]||τε φόβον οὔτε κίνδυνον ὑποστελλόμενοι, προθύμως δὲ ἑα[υ-]|τοὺς ἐπιδιδόντς εἰς τὸ καὶ λέγειν καὶ πράττειν τὰ τῆι πόλ[ει]| συμφέροντα (I.Erythr. 29.9–12). 139 SEG 18.570.8–11 (180–120 BC, Araxa). Note also the almost identical phraseology to describe his role as envoy to Kibyra to report the crimes of Moagetes and the city of Boubon: “he endured every danger and distress and acted as envoy worthily of our demos and the nation who dispatched (him)” (πάντα κίνδυνον καὶ κακοπαθίαν ὑπομένων ἐπρέσβευσεν ἀξίως τοῦ τε ἡμετέρου δήμου καὶ τοῦ ἀποστείλαντος ἔθνους; SEG 18.570.23–25). 140 καθόλου| τε τοῖς τυράννοις ἀντιβέπων οὐδένα καιρὸν| παραλέλοιπον, καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἐμ πολλοῖς κινδύνο[ις]| καὶ ἐπιβουλαῖς γέγονεν διὰ τοὺς ὐπὲρ τῆς πα̣[τρί-]|δος ἀγῶνας (SEG 18.570.25–29). Translation from Kweku A. Garbrah, “On the Enumerative Use of τε,” ZPE (1993): 195. 141 SEG 18.570.36–46, 55–56. On Orthagoras’s activity, see Christina Kokkinia, ed., Boubon: The Inscriptions and Archaeological Remains, A Survey 2004–2006 (Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation, 2008) 20–23. 142 E.g., Dikaiarchos (AIO 837 = SEG 51.110 = I.Rhamnous 17; 235/234 BC, Rhamnous); Demainetos (I.Eleus 211; 209 BC, Eleusis [Attica]); Agathokles son of Antiphilos (I.ScM I

130

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

virtues, displayed “every zeal and care for the district of the Halasarnitai” because “during the wars, he aimed at safeguarding the fort and those who inhabit the territory, showing the greatest consideration and engaging himself in every danger for its sake.”143 Moreover, a benefactor also could endure dangers to protect unwalled cities from brigands, pirates, and/or barbarians like in the cases of Apollodoros son of Pankrates and Aristagoras of Istros.144 Finally, to address a city’s lack of defensive capacities in times of imminent threat and the perils of war, a benefactor could fund the construction or maintenance of defensive structures (e.g., walls) and provide critical and urgent military leadership.145 Several benefactors were lauded for their conspicuously commendable personal self-hazarding conduct during times of crisis. Apollonia (Pontos) honored the admiral and autokrator Hegesagoras of Istros for his military services on their behalf when Mesembrians invaded the countryside of Apollonia and desecrated the temple of Apollo.146 The language of the inscription elucidates the grave situation, saying that the Mesembrians “opened against us undeclared hostilities” and “perpetrated serious acts of sacrilege on Apollo’s shrine and exposed our city to extreme risk” (εἰς τοὺς ἐσχάτους κινδύνους ἀγαγόντων τὴν πόλιν).147 Hegesagoras stepped into this critical moment and risked his life to serve Apollonia: During landing operations, he put his life at risk with more boldness than ever, and in all other actions he threw himself (ἑαυτὸν διδούς) into the fight with no thought given to personal risk. He always met with success, and in these operations never failed to instill in his soldiers a high-spirited conduct that secured the desired result.148

15 = SEG 24.1095; ca. 200 BC, Istros); an unknown benefactor of Aphrodisias (I.Aph2007 12.701). On the guarding of the countryside, reasons the countryside needed protection, and solutions to the threats, see Angelos Chaniotis, “Policing the Hellenistic Countryside: Realities and Ideologies,” in Sécurité Collective et Ordre Public dans les Sociétés Anciennes, ed. Cédric Brélaz and Pierre Ducrey (Geneva: Foundation Hardt, 2008), 103–145. 143 SEG 48.1104. (ca. 201/200, Halasarna). Translation from Chaniotis, “Policing the Hellenistic Countryside,” 128. 144 Apollodoros son of Pankrates (I.RCyr2020 B.1 = SEG 38.1869; either erected in 62/61 BC or 3/4 AD; events occurred around 90–60 BC [?]); Aristagoras (I.ScM I 54; ca. 50 BC, Istros); Claudius (SEG 51.1832 + 57.1670). 145 E.g., Theukles of Halasarna (Syll.3 569 ca. 201/200 BC, Halasarna; Cf. IG XII.4.1.75; SEG 54.746); Aleximachos of Taucheira (I.GCyr 66900 = TM 738351 = SEG 26.1817; 2nd– 1st c. BC, Libya, Cyrenaica); Apollous son of Nikeratos and Poseidonios son of Geron (I.ScM II 2; ca. 100–50 BC, Tomis). 146 I.ScM I 64.3–6 (200–150 BC, Istros). 147 Translation from François Chamoux, Hellenistic Civilization, trans. Michel Roussel and Margaret Roussel (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002), 169. 148 ἐν ταῖς ἀποβάσεσιν παραβολώ|τερον ἑαυτὸν διδοὺς εἰς τοὺς ἀγῶνας καὶ ἐν τοῖς|| λοιποῖς ἅπασιν φιλοκινδύνως ἀγωνιζόμενος ἐπὶ| προτερημάτων διὰ παντὸς ἐγείνετο καὶ τοὺς

4.4 Benefactors Facing Dangers

131

For Hegesagoras’s successful and virtuous self-hazarding services that “saved the city, its territories and harbors, with our assistance and that of our allies” and regained the territory of Anchialos for the Apollonians, the city awarded Hegesagoras praise, a gold crown awarded at Dionysia, a bronze statue of him “fully armed on a ship’s ram” in the temple of Apollo the Healer, a decree inscribed on stele, and a proclamation of the honors for him (and the Istrians) at the city’s games.149 In the Black Sea region, the Istrians honored Agathokles for his series of exploits to protect it from pillage and invasion from neighboring Thracian people groups.150 To solve the crises he used various means. He led military forces to protect the crops in the countryside from attackers (twice), and he undertook dangerous diplomatic missions through enemy territory. Where others fled due to fear (διὰ τὸμ φόβον), Agathokles faced the danger and risked his life to protect the city.151 An honorific decree from Keramos is rich in crisis and danger terminology and perhaps for that reason equally rich in honorific accolades.152 This honorific decree recounts the long career of an unknown (to us) benefactor for his services to the people of Keramos in Karia. He provided useful services during several crises for the city despite personal risk and even threats on his life:

στρα|τιώτας ἑαυτοῦ προθύμους καὶ χρησίμους ἐν τῶ[ι]| πολέμωι διὰ παντὸς παρείχετο (I.ScM I 64.23–28). Translation from Chamoux, Hellenistic Civilization, 169. 149 I.ScM I 64. Translation from Chamoux, Hellenistic Civilization, 169. 150 I.ScM I 15 = SEG 24.1095 (ca. 200 BC, Istros). For English translations, see Burstein §68 and Austin2 §116. On Agathokles and the crisis at Istros, see Smaranda Andrews, “Greek Cities on the Western Coast of the Black Sea: Orgame, Histria, Tomis, and Kallatis (7th to 1st century BCE),” (PhD diss., Iowa State University, 2010), 80–81. 151 For another instance of a benefactor providing military services against barbarians in the Black Sea region, see Diophantos of Sinope (IOSPE3 III.8 = IOSPE I2 352; ca. 110 BC). For a benefactor-general during the Chremonidean War, see Epichares of Ikarion (AIO 823; ca. 267 BC, Rhamnous). 152 I.Keramos 6 = SEG 36.992 (probably 167–133 BC, Keramos). On this inscription see Boulay, Arès dans la Cité, 337–338; Gary Reger, “Sympoliteiai in Hellenistic Asia Minor,” in The Greco-Roman East: Politics, Culture, Society, ed. Stephen Colvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 169–170; Gary Reger, “The Relations between Rhodes and Caria from 246 to 167 BC,” in, Hellenistic Rhodes: Politics, Culture, and Society, ed. Vincent Gabrielsen, Per Bilde, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Lise Hannestad, and Jan Zahle (Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1999), 84–85; D. M. Lewis, “Inscriptions from Asia Minor,” The Classical Review (1988): 124–125; Jonas Crampa, Review of Die Inschriften von Keramos, by Ender Varinlioǧlu, Gnomon 60, no. 7 (1988): 603–609; E. L. Hicks, “Ceramus (Κέραμος) and Its Inscriptions,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 11 (1890): 113–119.

132

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

Ιn much earnest and ready for the guarding he showed himself in the needful times, looking askance at neither danger nor distress, beyond measure considering the good repute for the most noble things.153 In the time of the sympoliteia he continued to say and do everything on behalf of what was advantageous, making the most powerful displays of his own good disposition to the whole people, and he behaved lovingly (φιλοστόργως) to the citizens who met him individually about matters about which they cared; and after these things, when the state fell into a difficult situation (ἐν δυσχερεῖ καταστάσει), he, undeterred by the quite-certain threatening of some, tried to increase his good disposition toward the people by saying and doing everything nobly and truthfully (γνησίως καὶ ἀληθινῶς).154 A critical situation ([π]εριστάσεως) happened to befall the demos, and he was called by the citizens to withstand nobly what occurred, he put all his own matters second to the common advantage (τὰ ἀπαντηθέντα, πάντα δεύτερα τὰ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν θέμενος τοῦ κοινῇ συνφέροντος), he avoided nothing related to honor and good repute (τῶν πρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν διατεινόντων) to the citizens, and when the demos judged the alliance with the Rhodians to be critical (ἀναγκαιοτάτην εἶναι), having been chosen as envoy he gave himself eagerly (ἐπέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν προθύμως), and having applied himself with care for a long time he, with his fellow envoys, disposed the Rhodians to make the alliance, through which occurred not only to exist inviolability (asphaleia) for the citizens forever, but also to those who inhabit the city and the countryside.155

In three different crises that faced Keramos (ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαιοτάτοις καιροῖς, ἐν δυσχερεῖ καταστάσει, περίστασις), this individual rose to the occasion and preferred to endure “danger” and “distress” and credible threats to his life (κίνδυνος, κακοπαθία, ἀνάτασις) so that he could render the Keramians critical services. Fittingly in such frequent dire circumstances, the honorific decree draws attention to his honorable conduct in sundry ways, characterizing the benefactor as acting “beyond measure considering the good repute for the most noble things,” “lovingly,” “nobly and truthfully,” putting “all his own matters second to the common advantage,” “avoiding nothing related to honor and good repute to the citizens,” “giving himself eagerly,” and “caringly.” In short, this benefactor’s dedication to his urgently needed services were second to none. Sometime after 42 BC Seleukos of Rhosos and his relatives received Roman citizenship (πολιτεία) with its attendant privileges and tax exemption (ἀνεισφορία) on his property because of his self-endangering conduct as naval captain on the side of the Triumvirate during the wars following Julius Caesar’s assassination.156 The epigraphical account draws attention to the hardship, risk, 153 τῶ ι πλθει ἐκτενῆ καὶ πρόθυμον [εἰς φυλακ]ὴν ἑαυτὸν παρεῖχε[ν ἐν τοῖς ἀν|αγ... . καιο]τάτοις καιροῖς οὔτε κίνδυνον οὔτε κακοπαθίαν ὑφορώμενος, περὶ πλείστου δὲ ποιούμ[εν|ος τ]ὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς καλλίστοις δόξαν (I.Keramos 6.2–4). Translation my own. 154 I.Keramos 6.4–9. Translation from Reger, “Sympoliteiai in Hellenistic Asia Minor,” 169. 155 I.Keramos 6.9–18. Translation my own. 156 IGLSyria 3.1.718 (36–30 BC).

4.4 Benefactors Facing Dangers

133

and danger Seleukos underwent as well as to his endurance and commitment to risk his life for the Roman Republic and its people: [Since Sele]ukos of Rhosos, son of Theodotos, has fought alongside us in [Italy (or Sicily?)] under our supreme command, has suf[fered] a great deal of hardship and [run] many great risks on our behalf, without shrinking from any danger in his steadfastness, [and] has displayed [complete] devotion and loyalty (πίστιν) to the Republic, has linked [his own fortu]nes to our sa[fety], and has endured every suffering on behalf of [the Re]public of the Roman people, and in our presence as well as in our absence has been of ser[vice to us].157

In a letter from 31 BC, Octavian promised to ensure the city of Rhosos its status of “sacred, inviolable, and autonomous,” acknowledging his own willingness to guard their privileges because of Seleukos’s striving in war alongside him and proven goodwill (εὔνοια) and fidelity (πίστις).158 In 30 BC, Octavian commended Seleukos once again to Rhosos for his services in which he displayed “goodwill, loyalty (πίστις), and bravery” during times of war.159 This inscription illustrates how times of crisis provide the opportunities for a person to demonstrate one’s fidelity by means of self-endangering conduct on behalf of others. Risking one’s life for others was a sure sign of credible reliability and loyalty.

157 [ἐπεὶ Σέλε]υ̣κος Θεοδότου Ῥωσεὺς συνεστρατεύσατο ἡμεῖν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν| [Ἰταλίαν (vel Σικελίαν?) τό]ποις, ὄντων αὐτοκρατόρων ἡμῶν, πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα περὶ ἡμῶν ἐκακοπά|[θησεν ἐκιν]δύνευσέν τε, οὐδενὸς φεισάμενος τῶν πρὸς ὑπομονὴν δεινῶν,|| [καὶ πᾶσαν] προαίρεσιν πίστιν τε παρέσχετο τοῖς δημοσίοις πράγμασιν, τούς τε| [ἰδίους καιρ]οὺς τῆι ἡμετέραι σωτη[ρίαι] συνέζευξεν πᾶσάν τε βάβην περὶ τῶν| [δημοσίων π]ραγμάτων τοῦ δήμο[υ] το[ῦ] Ῥωμαίων ὑπέμεινε, παροῦσιν καὶ ἀποῦσίν| [τε ἡμεῖν χρη]στὸς ἐγένετο (IGLSyria 3.1.718.12–18). Text and translation from Andrea Raggi, “The Epigraphic Dossier of Seleucus of Rhosus: A Revised Edition,” ZPE 147 (2004): 123–138, slightly modified. For the enumeration of the benefits of citizenship, see Doc. II. §3–12 in Raggi, “The Epigraphic Dossier of Seleucus of Rhosus,” 123–138. 158 καὶ ταῦτα ἥδειον διὰ Σέλευκον τὸν ναύαρχόν μου ποιήσω{ι} συνεστρ`ατ´ευμέ-|[νον μοι π]άντα τὸν τοῦ πολέμου χρόνον καὶ διὰ παντὸς ἠριστευκότα καὶ πᾶσαν ἀπόδειξιν εὐνοίας| [τε καὶ πίσ]τεως παρεσχημένον, ὃς οὐδένα καιρὸν παραλέλοιπεν ἐντυγχάνων ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ πᾶ-|[σαν εἰσφ]ερόμενος σπουδὴν καὶ προθυμίαν ὑπὲρ τῶν ὑμεῖν συμφερόντων (IGLSyria 3.1.718.81–84). Text and translation from Raggi, “The Epigraphic Dossier of Seleucus of Rhosus,” 123–138. For evidence of Rhosos as “sacred, inviolable, and autonomous” into the second century AD, see RPC IV.3.6300. 159 [καὶ] αὐτὸς δὲ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος ὑγίαινον. Σέλευκος ὁ καὶ ὑμέτερος πολεί-[της καὶ ἐμ]ὸς ναύαρχος ἐμ πᾶσι τοῖς πολέμοις συνεστρατευμένος μοι καὶ π[ολλ]ὰς ἀπο-[δείξεις κ]αὶ τῆς εὐνοίας καὶ τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς ἀνδρείας δεδωκώς, ὡς καθῆκο[ν ἦ]ν τοὺς|| [συστρατευ]σαμένους ἡμεῖν καὶ κατὰ πόλεμον ἀρεστεύσαντας, κεκόσμηται φιλανθρώποις| [καὶ ἀνεισφ]ορίαι καὶ πολειται. Τοῦτον οὖν ὑμεῖν συνίστημι· οἱ γὰρ τοιοῦτοι ἄνδρες καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὰς| [πατρίδας] εὔνοιαν προθυμοτέραν ποιοῦσιν· ὡς οὖν ἐμοῦ πάντα δυνατὰ ποιήσοντος ὑμεῖν ἥδει-[ον διὰ Σέ]λευκον, θαρροῦντες περὶ ὧν ἂν βούλησθε προς με ἀποστέλλετε (IGLSyria 3.1.718.87–93). Text and translation from Raggi, “The Epigraphic Dossier of Seleucus of Rhosus,” 123–138, slightly modified.

134

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

4.4.4 Disease When a natural disaster struck, war came, or an epidemic swept through the city, doctors became even more crucial for the health of the population. Cities frequently chose to publicly praise physicians who rendered exceptional services to their people. For instance, the doctor Diodoros son of Dioskourides, public doctor of Samos, received praise because he cared for and cured many sick, provided care equally to all when an unexpected earthquake shocked the city and harmed many people, and when the city was under siege and “many were wounded,” “he considered no hardship or expense to be of greater importance than the safety of all.”160 In the early second century BC plague swept through the city of Olous (Crete) and was severely affecting the population.161 Because of the crisis, the people of Olous persuaded a doctor from Kasos to remain in the city even though he had been called back to Kasos. The doctor “gave himself (ἐπιδόντος αὑτὸν) even more to his craft and saved those who were sick as many as he was able with his care.”162 On display in the honorific inscriptions for these doctors is commitment to benefit a population with their medical practice when their services were urgently needed. 4.4.5 Famine and Food Supply Famine and lack of food caused stress for the populations of cities. When a crisis in the food supply struck a city, benefactors often addressed the issue by one of several means. On some occasions a benefactor provided for the population out of their own resources. So, Polykritos during his stint as agoranomos provided financial aid to Erythrai for the purchase of corn.163 The longest honorific decree from the Hellenistic period to date (383 lines) catalogs the extensive decades-long career of the benefactor Moschion of Priene.164 In one instance, Moschion and his brother’s financial contributions ensured a sufficient supply of grain for the city, and thus saved it from complete disaster.165 In Cyrenaica, Aleximachos of Taucheira helped fund the defense of the city during war and bought grain in bulk to sell at a lower price to the populace during a

Austin2 §145 (201–197 BC, Samos). Translation from Austin2 §145. IC 1 22.4C. 162 ἐμπε|πτωκότος ἁμῖν| καιροῦ σκληροῦ καὶ| χρειᾶν πολλᾶν καὶ|| ἀναγκαιᾶν διὰ| τὰς φθορὰς τὰς| τῶν ἀνθρώπων| καὶ τὸν ἐμπεπτω|κότα λοιμὸν, ἐ-||πείσαμες αὐτὸν| ἀξιώσαντες πα|ραμεῖναι καὶ μὴ κα|ταλιπὲν ἁμὲ ἐν| τῶι ἀναγκαιοτάτω[ι]|| καιρῶι, πεισθέντο[ς]| δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ πολ[ὺ ἔ-]|τι μᾶλλον ἐπιδόν|τος αὑτὸν κατὰ| τὰν τέχναν καὶ σώ-||ζοντος τὸς ἐνο|χλουμένους ὅς ἧς| δυνατὸν κατὰ τὰν αὐτοῦ ἐπιμέλειαν (IC 1 22.4C.6–28). 163 I.Erythr. 28.19–29 (ca. 270 BC, Erythrai). 164 I.Priene 108 (after 129 BC, Priene). 165 I.Priene 108.68–75. Cf. Sopatros son of Eubolos (IG IX 2 1104; Demetrias, Magnesia, 1st c. BC or later?). 160

161

4.4 Benefactors Facing Dangers

135

shortage occasioned by the wartime conditions.166 During his time as agoranomos for Epidauria, Euanthes relieved the city of famine by buying grain in bulk and selling it at a lower price at a cost to himself.167 In perhaps the most effusive description of a benefactor who helped a city by maintaining a sufficient food supply, the city of Thebes (Egypt) praised Kallimachos the strategos for his services in times of crisis. The most relevant portion is long but useful to see how the city characterizes his services in terms of danger and deliverance: And further, now . . . [the] severe famine caused by a crop-failure like none hitherto recorded, and when the city had been almost crushed by [need], he, having devoted himself wholeheartedly, voluntarily contributed to the salvation of each of the local inhabitants ([ἐπι]δοὺς μεγαλοψύχως ἑαυ[τ]ὸν αὑτόκλητο[ς] ἐπὶ τῆι ἑκάστου τῶν ἐντοπίων σωτηρίαι ἐσέφερε; l. 11). Having labored [as a father on behalf] of his own fatherland and his legitimate children, with the good will of the gods, in continuous abundance of [food] he maintained nearly everyone; and [he kept them] unaware of the circumstance (περιστάσεως) from which he furnished the abundance. The famine, however, continued in the present year and became even worse and . . . a failure of the flood and misery far worse than ever before reigning throughout the whole [land] and the condition of the city being wholly critical and…and all having become weak from want and virtually everyone seeking everything, but [no one] obtaining it, he, having called upon the greatest god, who then stood at his side, [Amonrasonth]er, and having nobly shouldered by himself the burden again (καὶ εὐγενῶς μόνος ὑποστὰς τὸ βάρος πάλιν; l. 19), just as a bright star and a good daimon, he shone upon [everyone]. For he dedicated his life wholly…for the inhabitants of the district of Thebes, and, having nourished and saved everyone together with the wives and children, just as from [a gale and] contending winds, he brought them into a safe harbor. 168

This inscription to honor Kallimachos employs a stark contrast. The palpable destitution and existential danger imposed by the famine is met by a matching abundance of generosity from Kallimachos. The use of metaphors – unnecessary in the strict sense of an account of deeds and comparatively unusual in honorific decrees – likening the benefactor Kallimachos to a father providing for his children or likening his deliverance from famine to saving people from a storm on the sea enhances the prestige of the honorand. At other times a benefactor went on a diplomatic mission to acquire shipments of food. Phaidros of Sphettos secured grain and money for Athens from Ptolemy I.169 Furthermore, a benefactor sometimes secured the produce of the I.GCyr 66900 = SEG 26.1817; cf. Syll.3 354 (ca. 300 BC, Ephesos). IG IV2 1 66.20–37 (74 BC, Epidauria). Cf. Diodoros son of Herkleidas (IG IV 2; 84/83 BC, Aigina, but originally from Megara). See Kent J. Rigsby, “Aegina and Megara (IG IV.22 750),” Classical Philology 105, no. 3 (2010): 308–313, who explains that “the grain-purchase fund was exhausted by war requisitions, pirates had entered and overrun the territory, there was famine, but he saw to it that grain was sufficient” (308). 168 OGIS 194.9–22 (ca. 39 BC; Thebes, Egypt). English translation from Burstein §111 (slightly modified). 169 IG II3 1.985.28–30. 166

167

136

Chapter 4: Endangered Benefaction

countryside by leading military forces to protect the land. Phaidros of Sphettos protected the Athenian countryside during crisis and saw to it that the crops made it to the city.170 Likewise, when the city of Sestos was experiencing a crisis (περίστασις) because of the repeated attacks of Thracians and surrounding wars that resulted in the crops of the countryside being depleted, Menas son of Menes served his second term as gymnasiarch in exemplary manner above and beyond what was required of him in his provisions for the ephebes.171 4.4.6 Financial Trouble or Debt Debt could be an especially crushing burden on the finances of a city. Earlier it was shown how Orthagoras helped unburden the people of Olbasa of their debt.172 Elsewhere, the people of Istros praised Hephaistion of Kallatis because he recognized “the difficulties facing the city and remitted [the] interest” (of 400 gold pieces) that the city owed him and agreed to accept return payment for the original loan (300 gold pieces) “without interest [over] a period of two [years].”173 Benefactors who offered favorable conditions of repayment, alleviated collective debt with their own resources, restructured the terms of debt in a way favorable to the debtors or outright forgave the debt were found worthy of praise and honors from their cities.

4.5 Summary 4.5 Summary

When trials and tribulations came to Greek-speaking populations in the Hellenistic and early Roman eras, they provided the opportunity for local benefactors to show their quality. To respond to times of distress and crisis these benefactors offered their services and committed themselves to alleviating the troubles. As envoys they braved hazardous travel and hostile foreign powers, negotiated to bring back hostages (even offering themselves as hostages), and freed prisoners. They also secured grain shipments from abroad during famine, acquired the friendship of Rome and patronage from its elites, obtained relief from war indemnity. Envoys did all these things and more. As military leaders, benefactors campaigned by land or by sea, protected the countryside, and fought off the incursions of brigands, pirates, and barbarians. In the same vein, they built walls, funded other defensive structures, paid for armaments, quelled tyrannies, ousted garrisons, and defeated formidable foes. As doctors they healed the sick during plagues, war, and natural disasters. As financiers they IG II3 1.985.35–36. OGIS 339.53–86 (133–120 BC, Sestos). 172 SEG 18.570. 173 Translation from Austin2 §120.

170

171

4.5 Summary

137

bought grain during shortages and offered it at lower prices, provided debt relief, and forgave debts. In all these times of distress, the benefactors endured threats and plots against their lives, wounds, pain, and dangers from humans and nature alike. Yet when others fled out of fear and terror, they “gave themselves” to face the danger and to serve their people in their time of need.

Chapter 5

Endangered Benefaction in 1 Maccabees and Josephus’s Life 5.1 1 Maccabees and the Family of Endangered Benefactors 5.1 1 Maccabees

The sons of Mattathias in 1 Maccabees exhibit characteristics of endangered benefactors. In fact, the endangered benefactor emerges as a distinct motif or thematic thread throughout the narrative of 1 Maccabees. First Maccabees portrays the sons of Mattathias as endangered benefactors who resolutely expose themselves to hazard to set Israel free from foreign dominion. The crisis that grips Israel in 1 Maccabees provides the circumstances for the services of the sons of Mattathias. The author portrays Israel’s crisis in terms of a covenant breach (ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ διαθήκης; 1 Macc 1:15). A twofold threat confronts Israel. Trouble from without emerges from the “sinful root” (ῥίζα ἁμαρτωλός) Antiochos IV Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:10). Trouble from within proceeds from “lawless sons” (υἱοὶ παράνομοι), Israelites who exhort Israel to “make a covenant with the nations surrounding us” (διαθώμεθα διαθήκην μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν τῶν κύκλῷ ἡμῶν; 1 Macc 1:11). Antiochos’s temple-plundering results in “shame” (αἰσχύνην; 1 Macc 1:28), and his military agent’s attack on Jerusalem leads to “disgrace” (ὀνειδισμόν; 1 Macc 1:39), “contempt” (ἐξουδένωσιν; 1 Macc 1:39), and “dishonor” (ἀτιμία; 1 Macc 1:40) for Israel. By the end of the first major movement of the narrative (1 Macc 1:1–64), the forces of lawlessness have overtaken Israel. The enemy from the margin has ruptured Israel’s borders and disrupted the very center of Israel, the temple. Aggressive, compelled covenantal abandonment (according to the author) provides the calamitous situation within which Judean benefactors can emerge to show their quality. Mattathias and his sons recognize the utter shame that the situation has brought to Israel according to covenantal standards (1 Macc 2:6–14). Antiochos’s officials offer Mattathias and his sons royal friendship and honor according to common Hellenistic standards (1 Macc 2:18). Such a compact would create a hierarchical reciprocal relationship in which the higher status party (Antiochos) bestows gifts and which the lower status party (Mattathias

5.1 1 Maccabees

139

and his sons) would in turn return honor, allegiance, and obedience.1 Mattathias understands subordination to Antiochos to entail covenant dereliction, so he situates himself and his family in opposition to the king in the name of fidelity to God’s covenant, “the covenant of our ancestors” (διαθήκη πατέρων ἡμῶν; 1 Macc 2:19–22). When another Jewish man offers to sacrifice and subordinate himself to Antiochos, Mattathias manifests the spirit of the warriorpriest Levitical order and becomes “Phinehas redivivus” (Num 25:1–15).2 He slays the apostate and the royal official because of his zeal for the Torah.3 In the subsequent narrative, the Maccabean brothers emulate the pattern of their father and their ancestors by recapitulating their “ancestors’ faith and zeal for the covenant.”4 Soon after the outbreak of hostilities, Mattathias makes his death-bed speech (1 Macc 2:49–51): Now, disdain and reproach have become established, and it is a time of destruction and fierce anger. (50) Now, children zealously strive after the law and give your lives for the covenant of our ancestors (δότε τὰς ψύχὰς ὑμῶν ὑπὲρ διαθήκης πατέρων ἡμῶν). (51) And remember the deeds (τὰ ἔργα) of the ancestors, what they did in their generations, and you will receive great repute and an eternal name (δέξασθε δόξαν μεγάλην καὶ ὄνομα αἰώνιον).

His opening statement first describes the perilous situation, the second offers the programmatic moral exhortation for his sons that drives the rest the of narrative, and the third offers exemplars and motivation in the forms of rewards (for benefits rendered) to enable Mattathias’s sons to fulfill his exhortation. Because the current circumstances have descended into such dire straits, the required pattern of conduct entails imitation of virtuous ancestors who faced analogous situations (especially Phinehas), and voluntarily exposing oneself to 1 The officials propose that the king will bestow “silver and gold and many parting gifts” (ἀργυρίᾳ καὶ χρυσίῳ καὶ ἀποστολαῖς πολλαῖς) and that Mattathias and his sons shall be “friends of the King” (ἔσῃ σὺ καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ σου τῶν φίλων τοῦ βασιλέως; 1 Macc 2:18). 2 David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 279. 3 Note the use of the term ζηλῶσαι in 1 Macc 2:24 (ἐζήλωσεν) and 26 (ἐζήλωσεν τῷ νόμῳ). The ζηλ- word-group finds expression fairly frequently in Hellenistic honorific inscriptions, with benefactors being praised for exhibiting the conduct of “an emulator”/“zealot” (ζηλωτής) or for “emulating”/“showing zeal” (ζηλῶσαι). E.g., OGIS 339.90 (“they became zealots/emulators of the best things”; ζηλωταὶ τῶν καλλίστων γίνωνται; 133– 120 BC; cf. I.Perge 14.A.20–21), ID 1508.9–11 (“through this way many became zealots/emulators, seeing the thanksgiving of the demos”; διὰ τοῦ τρόπου τούτου πολλοὶ γένωνται ζηλωταὶ θεωροῦντες τὴν εὐχαριστίαν τοῦ δήμου; ca. 150 BC), IG XII.9 236.5–6 (“having been zealous for/emulous of the life of virtue and good repute from his prime”; τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀρετῇ καὶ δόξῃ βίον ἐζηλωκὼς ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡλικίας; ca. 100 BC). Ben Sira too makes note of the good reputation (δόξα) of Phinehas for “his emulation/zealotry in the fear of the Lord”(Sir 45:23; καὶ Φινεες υἱὸς Ελεαζαρ τρίτος εἰς δόξαν ἐν τῷ ζηλῶσαι αὐτὸν ἐν φόβῳ κυρίου καὶ στῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τροπῇ λαοῦ ἐν ἀγαθότητι προθυμίας ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἐξιλάσατο περὶ τοῦ Ισραηλ). Thanks to Ross Wagner for the Ben Sira reference. 4 deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 279.

140

Chapter 5: Endangered Benefaction in 1 Maccabees and Josephus’s Life

peril, even to the point of death. Mattathias’s exhortation to “give your lives for the covenant of our ancestors” resembles the language of honorific inscription for endangered benefactors. Conceptually, the parallel is straightforward: a crisis arises and constitutes the current situation, and despite the hazards, the individual benefactor willingly risks his life to mitigate or relieve the crisis for the sake of others. Lexically, the portrayal of such a pattern of behavior in 1 Maccabees 2:50 matches how honorific decrees often portray endangered benefactors and their voluntary commitment with the phraseology of (ἐπι)δοῦναι plus self-reference (ἑαυτός, ψυχή, σῶμα), plus an additional explanatory clause to clarify the purpose or beneficiaries of the self-endangerment.5 Another relevant aspect of Mattathias’s death-bed speech is his contrast between present shame and future honor (1 Macc 2:62–64). If his sons follow his instructions the future will vindicate them, and they will receive honor (δοξασθήσαθε; 1 Macc 2:64). It appears then, the author of 1 Maccabees found the model of the endangered benefactor a useful paradigm and compatible with Jewish patriarchal heroes. In this reading, the author portrays Mattathias exhorting his sons to act as Israel’s endangered benefactors. If the author uses similar endangered benefactor terminology for Mattathias’s sons, then the plausibility of this reading increases and opens the possibility that he develops the concept as a distinct theme in the narrative. 5.1.1 Judas After the death of Mattathias, Judas is the first of his sons to take initiative in leading the military operations of the Judeans to gain freedom from the Seleukids (1 Macc 3:1). The goal of freedom is underscored in the diplomatic mission Judas sends to the Romans to secure an alliance with them “to lift the yoke from them, because they saw the kingdom of the Greeks enslaving Israel with enslavement” (1 Macc 8:18). His conduct is much like other Hellenistic benefactors who devoted themselves to aiding their cities with military means.6 He conducts his campaign against both sources of threat to the covenant, covenant members who violate the law and foreign kings (1 Macc 3:5–7). In a 5 E.g., IG II3 1 1147.14–16 (“giving himself unhesitatingly to the common need of the city, he departed”; δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀπροφ[α]σίστως εἰς τὴν κοινὴν χρείαν τῆς πόλεως ἀπ[ε]δήμησεν; 225/224 BC); SEG 43.41.4–6 (“giving himself unhesitatingly to the embassies and the rest of the liturgies to whatever the demos assigned him”; διδοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀπροφασίστως εἰς τὰς πρεσβεί[α]ς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς λειτουργίας εἰς ὅσας αὐτὸν ὁ δῆμος προχειρί[ζε]ται; after 216/215 BC); SEG 57.1109.Col. II.18–20 (“most daringly he gave himself to the danger”; ἑτοιμότερον ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ κίνδυνον ἔδωκεν; ca. 166 BC); OGIS 339.19–20 (“giving himself unhesitatingly to all things advantageous to the city”; διδοὺς ἀπροφασίστως ἑαυτὸν εἰς πάντα τὰ συνφέροντα τῆι πόλει). See chapter 7 (§7.2.1) for further discussion of (ἐπι)δοῦναι + self-reference. 6 The book of 2 Maccabees also portrays Judas as an endangered benefactor. See especially 2 Macc 11:7.

5.1 1 Maccabees

141

series of battles, Judas defeats several Seleukid generals all the way up the ranks to Lysias (1 Macc 3:10–12 [Apollonios], 13–24 [Seron]; 4:1–25 [Gorgias], 28–35 [Lysias]). After besting Lysias, Judas and his brothers restore the temple and sacrifices, initiate the festival of lights, build walls for Jerusalem, station a garrison, and fortify Beth-zur (1 Macc 4:36–61). Then, once Judas attacks some surrounding peoples (1 Macc 5:3 [sons of Esau/Idumeans], 4–5 [sons of Baean], 6–8 [Ammonites]), a new threat from τὰ ἔθνη in Gilead and Galilee causes the Jewish populations to be in distress (ἐν θλίψει; 1 Macc 5:16) from war (1 Macc 5:9–16). Judas and Simon lead the Judean armies to victory in battle after battle and return to Jerusalem in triumph (1 Macc 5:17–54). Further, having already restored the temple, Judas and his brothers destroy altars and idols of other deities (1 Macc 5:68). In a stark reversal of fortune, Antiochos IV Epiphanes is now suffering affliction (θλῖψις; 6:11) at the hands of Judas (1 Macc 6:8–16). Judas then besieges the Seleukid garrison in the Jerusalem citadel (1 Macc 6:18–27), defeats Alkimos the leader of “all the lawless and impious men from Israel” (πάντες ἄνδρες ἄνομοι καὶ ἀσεβεῖς ἐξ Ισραηλ; 1 Macc 7:5) and “all those who trouble their people” (πάντες οἱ ταράσσοντες τὸν λαὸν αὐτῶν; 1 Macc 7:22, 23–24), avoids the kidnapping plot of Nikanor (1 Macc 7:26–30), and routs and decapitates Nikanor (1 Macc 6:31–32, 39–50). In his military operations for Israel’s freedom, Judas must contend with enemy within and without the covenant. Like an honorable military general, Judas’s death conforms to and exemplifies his pattern of distinguished self-endangerment to aid his distressed people conducted during his life.7 When Demetrios I Soter sends Bacchides and Alkimos to Judah with twenty thousand infantry and two thousand cavalry (1 Macc 9:1–4), at the sight of the much larger forces, most of Judas’s three-thousand-man army deserts out of fear (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα; 1 Macc 9:6). Nevertheless, Judas and the eight hundred remaining soldiers faced the danger and rather than preserving their own lives in the present (σῴζομεν τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχὰς τὸ νῦν) to live to fight another day, they heed Judas’s call to die honorably: “if our time has come near, then let us die with bravery on behalf our brothers and let us not leave, for our good repute” (1 Macc 9:10).8 Outnumbered and outmatched, Judas and his army lose the battle, and Judas is killed (1 Macc 9:11–17). Israel’s eulogy for Judas illustrates the narrator’s perspective on his death, “how a mighty one fell, who delivers Israel” (1 Macc 9:21; cf. 2 Sam 1:19).9 7 Compare (see above §4.3), e.g., Polybios’s description of the deaths of Hamilcar Barca (Polyb., Hist., 2.1.7–8) and Hasdrubal (Polyb., Hist., 11.2.1–11) as being in conformity with their virtuous lives. 8 εἰ ἤγγικεν ὁ καιρὸς ἡμῶν, καὶ ἀποθάνωμεν ἐν ἀνδρείᾳ χάριν τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν καὶ μὴ καταλίπωμεν αἰτίαν τῇ δόξῃ ἡμῶν. 9 πῶς ἔπεσεν δυνατὸς σῴζων τὸν Ισραηλ, evoking Saul and Jonathan, perhaps presaging Simon as a Davidic figure.

142

Chapter 5: Endangered Benefaction in 1 Maccabees and Josephus’s Life

5.1.2 Eleazar Eleazar, the fourth son of Mattathias, receives one main narrative block dedicated to his heroic conduct (1 Macc 6:43–46). After the author introduces Eleazar in 1 Macc 2:5, he does not re-introduce him by name until 6:43. Nevertheless, prior to 1 Macc 6:43–46 the author signals that all of Mattathias’s sons have been fighting in the resistance efforts.10 Eleazar’s narrative reads: Now Eleazar, called Avaran, saw that one of the animals [elephants] was equipped with royal armor. It was taller than all the others, and he supposed that the king was on it. (44) So he gave his life to save his people and to win for himself and everlasting name (καὶ ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν τοῦ σῶσαι τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ περιποιῆσαι ἑαυτῷ ὄνομα αἰώνιον). (45) He courageously ran into the midst of the phalanx to reach it; he killed men right and left, and they parted before him on both sides. (46) He got under the elephant, stabbed it from beneath, and killed it; but it fell to the ground upon him and he died. (1 Macc 6:43–46 NRSV)

Eleazar faces the most formidable enemy army yet (1 Macc 6:30; cf. 3:39; 4:28), which includes fear-inducing, battle-aroused war elephants (1 Macc 6:30, 34–37).11 The author thus heightens the threat to Israel and gives special attention to the formidability of the elephants.12 So, when Eleazar perceives that the enemy king is riding upon the most formidable elephant in the enemy army, he is hazarding his own life against a hitherto unrivaled threat. He exposes himself to death to defeat the king with the purpose that he delivers his people and secures himself perpetual good repute (“perpetual name”).13 Despite his efforts, his deed to benefit his people does not end the battle or set Israel free from foreign dominion. Instead, the Judeans flee, and the two armies continue the fight at Jerusalem (1 Macc 6:47–54). Although Eleazar’s bravery and strenuous commitment for Israel’s freedom was limited in its immediate efficaciousness, the author portrays his conduct in terms of an endangered benefactor as a part of the overall effort of the benefactor-sons of Mattathias.

10 Judas receives individual mention, but in the early narrative the other four brothers typically appear as “his brothers” (e.g., 1 Macc 3:2, 42; 4:36; 5:10, 60, 63, 65). Simon and Jonathan received a brief individual mention (Simon in 1 Macc 5:17, 20, 21; Jonathan in 5:17). 11 For the ability of war elephants to induce fear, see, e.g., Plutarch, Pyrrhos, 17; Polyb., Hist., 5.84 (in which Indian elephants of Antiochos also terrify the African elephants of Ptolemy). For general cavalry employment, including elephants, in the Hellenistic period, see Robert E. Gaebel, Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002), 230–262. 12 According to the author’s count, the Seleukid army size increases from forty thousand infantry and seven thousand cavalry units (1 Macc 3:38), to sixty thousand infantry and five thousand cavalry units (1 Macc 4:28), to now the astonishing number of one hundred thousand infantry, twenty thousand cavalry units, and thirty-two war elephants. 13 Had Eleazar succeeded in killing the king, the battle likely would have ended in Judean favor. When Nikanor dies his army falls into disarray and loses the battle (1 Macc 7:43–44).

5.1 1 Maccabees

143

The language in 1 Maccabees 6:44 directly draws from Mattathias’s exhortation in 1 Maccabees 2:50–51. Mattathias instructs his sons to give their lives (δότε τὰς ψυχάς; 1 Macc 2:50), which Eleazar embraces by wholeheartedly giving himself to face the threat (ἔδωκεν ἑαυτόν; 1 Macc 6:44). If his sons obey, Mattathias promises that they will receive honor and an “eternal name” (ὄνομα αἰώνιον; 1 Macc 2:51). The author notes part of Eleazar’s express purpose is “to secure for himself an eternal name” (περιποιῆσαι ἑαυτῷ ὄνομα αἰώνιον; 1 Macc 6:44). The conceptual and lexical connection between Eleazar’s deed and Mattathias’s exhortation indicate that the author is consciously developing the endangered benefactor motif at this point in the narrative. 5.1.3 Jonathan After Judas – the main protagonist from 1 Maccabees 3:1–9:22 – dies, the youngest son of Mattathias, Jonathan, replaces him as “ruler and leader” (ἄρχων καὶ ἡγούμενος; 1 Macc 9:30). Jonathan has been fighting alongside his brothers since the revolt began. He remains close to Judas during hostilities while Judas leads the revolt (1 Macc 5:17, 24, 55). According to the author, the situation when Jonathan succeeds his brother is at the lowest point in Israelite history since the end of the prophetic period (1 Macc 9:27). A litany of crises plague Israel just like those that beleaguered Hellenistic cities. The author portrays the “dire affliction” (θλῖψις μεγάλη) in Israel despairingly (1 Macc 9:23– 27): the traitorous Israelites (οἱ ἄνομοι, οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀδικίαν) scour Israel and gain support, severe famine strikes (λιμὸς μέγας), the “ungodly” (οἱ ἀσεβεῖς) rule the country, and shame befalls “the friends of Judas” (τοὺς φίλους Ἰουδου). Yet, in the ensuing narrative, Jonathan faces the perilous situation and carries out a series of military and diplomatic ventures to secure Israel from hostile incursions (1 Macc 9:28–12:53). His actions achieve some intermittent periods of peace (e.g., 1 Macc 9:57, 73). As seen with several of the benefactor-envoys in the honorific decrees, diplomatic missions were often depicted as posing a potential threat to the individual envoy. Indeed, treacherous treatment by foreign actors occurs several times in Judean relations with the Seleukids before Jonathan’s mission in 1 Maccabees 11:23–29 (1 Macc 1:29–50; 7:10, 27, 30; cf. 13:17, 31; 16:11–17). Thus, Jonathan knows the dangers associated with his diplomatic foray, but nonetheless risks his life to secure peace with Demetrios II by meeting with the king at Ptolemais (1 Macc 11:24). The text says that in so doing, “he gave himself to danger” (ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν τῷ κινδύνῳ; 1 Macc 11:23). Like the description of Eleazar in 1 Maccabees 6:44, the author draws explicitly on endangered benefaction language. Jonathan fulfills his father’s dying exhortation (δότε τὰς ψυχάς; 1 Macc 2:50) and acts like his brother Eleazar. The benefits of his self-endangerment are evident in his meeting with Demetrios II, who treats Jonathan with honor and agrees to terms (1 Macc 11:24–29). He will

144

Chapter 5: Endangered Benefaction in 1 Maccabees and Josephus’s Life

remove the tribute obligation for Judea and Samaria (1 Macc 11:28, 34–35). But Demetrios and Jonathan do not maintain their reciprocal relationship for long, because Demetrios proves ungrateful for Jonathan’s military assistance and reneges on their treaty by resuming hostilities (1 Macc 11:53; 12:24). Thus, the results of Jonathan’s self-endangering diplomatic mission at Ptolemais only end in momentary peace. 5.1.4 Simon and All the Sons of Mattathias The author presents Simon as the culminating benefactor of the Maccabean brothers, the one that completes their collective benefacting activity. The main text that summarizes Simon and his brothers’ deeds in endangered benefactor terminology comes from the honorific decree in 1 Maccabees 14:27–29, which, as scholars have recognized, characterizes Simon in general terms drawn from Greek euergetism.14 Gardner summarizes how the honorific decree for Simon is a Jewish adaptation of the Hellenistic civic decree form in which Simon provided services (benefactions) and receives various positions of status and power as his rewards.15 At the beginning of the decree, it refers to all of the sons of Mattathias in endangered benefactor terminology (1 Macc 14:29): ἐπεὶ πολλάκις ἐγενήθησαν πόλεμοι ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ, Σιμων δὲ υἱὸς Ματταθίου ἱερεὺς τῶν υἱῶν Ιωαριβ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἔδωκαν αὑτοὺς τῷ κινδύνῳ καὶ ἀντέστησαν τοῖς ὑπεναντίοις τοῦ ἔθνους αὐτῶν, ὅπως σταθῇ τὰ ἅγια αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νόμος, καὶ δόξῃ μεγάλῃ ἐδόξασαν τὸ ἔθνος αὐτῶν. Since wars often occurred in the countryside, Simon son of Mattathias, priest of the sons of Joarib, and his brothers gave themselves to danger, and they opposed the enemies of their nation, so that their holies [i.e., the sanctuary] and the law would stand, and with great glory glorified their nation.

Simon is the prominent figure, but the decree credits both Simon and his brothers for their voluntary self-hazarding services. The instigation for the decree acknowledges that both Simon and his brothers (i.e., “the house of his [Simon’s] father”) fought Israel’s enemies and “established freedom for [Israel]” (ἔστησαν αὐτῷ ἐλευθερίαν; 1 Macc 14:26). This conception of freedom should be considered a part of the wider array of expressions of freedom in Greek cities in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods in which freedom entails the population’s ability to abide by its ancestral laws and customs and be free from 14 Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982), 80–83; deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 283–284; Gregg Gardner, “Jewish Leadership and Hellenistic Civic Benefaction in the Second Century B.C.E.,” JBL 126, no. 2 (2007): 332–337; Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 22–23. Josephus even calls Simon “benefactor” (εὐεργέτης; Josephus, A.J. 13.214). Josephus reference thanks to Gardner, “Jewish Leadership,” 335. 15 Gardner, “Jewish Leadership,” 337.

5.1 1 Maccabees

145

foreign control and arbitrary power (“lawlessness”). In the narrative of 1 Maccabees, the sons of Mattathias fight the internal and external threats to the civic rule of ancestral laws and imposition of foreign dominion and customs to replace the native customs and rituals (as construed from a Hasmonean perspective). In addition to freedom, the benefits conferred by the sons of Mattathias include the temple and law (τὰ ἅγια αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νόμος) being maintained as well as honor being given to Israel (δόξα μεγάλη; cf. 1 Macc 2:51). The brothers faithfully obey their father’s exhortation and reap the reward. Mattathias says, “have zeal for the law!” (ζηλώσατε τῷ νόμῷ; 1 Macc 2:50), and the author states that they conducted themselves “so that their sanctuary and the law would stand” (ὅπως σταθῇ τὰ ἅγια αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νόμος; 1 Macc 14:29). Further, Mattathias instructs his sons, “give your lives” (δότε τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν; 1 Macc 2:50) for the ancestral covenant, and the author writes that “they gave their lives to danger” (ἔδωκαν αὑτοὺς τῷ κινδύνῳ; 1 Macc 14:29). Additionally, he tells them that “you will receive great repute and a perpetual name” (δέξασθε δόξαν μεγάλην καὶ ὄνομα αἰώνιον; 1 Macc 2:51), and the author confirms that “they glorified their people with great repute” (δόξῃ μεγάλῃ ἐδόξασαν τὸ ἔθνος αὐτῶν; 1 Macc 14:29). But because Simon is the final living brother, he receives special attention for his benefactions. He receives the honor because of the benefits he and his family bestowed upon Israel. Therefore, it will be illuminating to briefly recount his deeds and the benefits he conferred. In 1 Maccabees 13:1–6, Simon takes the mantle of leadership from Jonathan and vows to emulate his brothers, who risked their lives for the sake of Israel, against the growing threat of Trypho. Trypho holds Jonathan captive, and he demands from Simon one hundred thousand silver talents and two of his sons (to be hostages) in exchange for Jonathan (1 Macc 13:12–16). Despite knowing that Trypho’s diplomatic outreach is deceitful, Simon forwards the money and his sons (1 Macc 13:17). Thus, he forgoes his own interests and incurs personal loss for the sake of the people (1 Macc 13:17–18). Trypho, as Simon expected, acts treacherously. He reneges on the exchange, and instead of sending Jonathan, he keeps him and soon after kills him (1 Macc 13:19, 23). As a result of this encounter with Trypho, Simon loses his brother, a hundred thousand silver talents, and two of his sons are now enemy hostages so that “the people” (ὁ λαός) would not think that he puts his own interests before those of the people of Judea (1 Macc 13:17). In response to Trypho’s renewed threat against Israel (1 Macc 13:31), Simon completes several benefactions, including liberating Israel from foreign control. He fortifies Judea with numerous building projects (1 Macc 13:33) and initiates diplomatic relations to provide food to the pillaged country (1 Macc 13:34). As a result of his embassy to secure friendship with Demetrios, “the yoke of the nations was lifted from Israel” (ἤρθη ὁ ζυγὸς τῶν ἐθνῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰσραηλ; 1 Macc 13:41). Many benefits accrued to the population of Israel.

146

Chapter 5: Endangered Benefaction in 1 Maccabees and Josephus’s Life

These include “the land” being at rest (1 Macc 14:4), fertile agricultural endeavors (1 Macc 14:8), and abundant food (1 Macc 14:10). Moreover, military defense (1 Macc 14:10), peace (εἰρήνη ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; 1 Macc 14:11; cf. 14:8), and security from external and internal enemies (1 Macc 14:12–14) was achieved. Simon’s removal of the “yoke of the nations” also results in care for the lowly (τοὺς ταπεινούς), respect for the law (1 Macc 14:14), and a properly restored temple (1 Macc 14:15). Simon, much like Protogenes of Olbia, was a comprehensive benefactor, providing services across the board in several significant ways.

5.2 Josephus and His Life 5.2 Josephus and His Life

In his Life, Josephus is at pains to portray himself as a much falsely maligned and frequently endangered benefactor.16 His self-portrait consists of numerous incidents of heroic conduct in dangerous situations. The fact that he depicts himself in such terms is instructive because it shows how a first century Judean Jew seems perfectly at home in speaking about himself with the language and motifs of benefaction.17 A few examples will suffice. At the beginning of his public life when several of his “close associates” had been sent bound to Rome on overblown charges, Josephus says that he hazarded a sea journey to affect their preservation/deliverance (σωτηρία).18 Only after he “faced many dangers at sea” (πολλὰ κινδυνεύσας κατὰ θάλλασαν) did he reach Rome.19 After he faced the mortal peril of shipwreck, he was able to meet the requisite people to set his priestly associates free from their bondage.20 Later, on the eve of war, Josephus depicts himself offering salient precautionary advice to those who wished to revolt and risk the lives of their families and homelands (πατρείς) against the much more formidable military might of Rome, showing that he knows the difference between recklessness and admirable self-endangerment.21 Elsewhere Josephus shows his virtue in military contexts.

16 The Greek text follows, Josephus, The Life. Against Apion, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray (LCL 186; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926). The translation of Josephus’s Life, unless otherwise noted, comes from Steve Mason, ed. and trans., Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2001). 17 For the argument that Josephus’s audience consists of “non-Judeans living in Rome who are fascinated by Judean culture, and interested enough in Josephus” to read his autobiographical account, see Steve Mason, Life of Josephus, xix–xxi, quote from xxi. 18 Josephus, Life, 14. 19 Josephus, Life, 14. 20 Josephus, Life, 15–16. 21 Josephus, Life, 17–19.

5.2 Josephus and His Life

147

On one occasion, Josephus, rather than taking care of his own safety, decided to endure peril for the sake of the Galileans to whom he had been entrusted as general.22 At the instigation of John of Gischala, certain Jerusalem authorities ventured to deprive Josephus of his command in Galilee.23 Their orders were that the delegation should send Josephus to Jerusalem alive if he submitted to their orders, but to kill him if he resisted.24 When Josephus got wind of the plot, he first decided to abandon his command and journey to Jerusalem.25 Despite the Galilean pleas for him to stay for fear of their vulnerability to bandits if he left, he “was concerned for [his] own safety” (σωτηρία) and determined to depart for his home city Jerusalem.26 It was then that direct divine prompting by means of a dream convinced him to remain in Galilee.27 So, when the Galileans again fervently supplicated him to stay, he recounts, “Listening to these things from them and seeing the despondency of the mob, I was inclined towards pity, considering it to be worthwhile to endure even the obvious danger for the sake of such a mob as this.”28 By recounting the fervent pleas of the Galileans for his aid, Josephus shows his moral character as one who is willing to disregard his own safety (σωτηρία) in order to endure a situation that will put his life at risk for the sake of others. In Josephus’s retelling, the Galileans’ attitude toward him is one of beneficiaries to a benefactor. He records that during his fight to remain in command, a crowd of Galileans called him “benefactor and preserver (εὐεργέτης καὶ σωτήρ) of their country.”29 Likewise, when his opponents attempted to persuade the Galileans to abandon Josephus and defect to them, the Galileans expressed their goodwill (εὔνοια) toward their guardian (προστάτης).30 When Josephus arrived during this event, the crowd exhibited praise and gratitude to him as is appropriate for a well-regarded benefactor.31 Having confined those who had tried to convince the Galileans to defection, the Galileans once again proclaimed him their “benefactor and preserver” (εὐεργέτης καὶ σωτήρ) and bore witness in defense of the virtue (ἀρετή) of their unjustly maligned beneJosephus, Life, 202–212. Josephus, Life, 189–203. 24 Josephus, Life, 202. 25 Josephus, Life, 204–205. 26 Josephus, Life, 205–207. 27 Josephus, Life, 208–209. 28 Ταῦτα δὴ καὶ ἐπακούων αὐτῶν καὶ βλέπων τοῦ πλήθους τὴν κατήφειαν ἐκλάσθην πρὸς ἔλεον, ἄξιον εἶναι νομίζων ὑπὲρ τοσούτου πλήθους καὶ προδήλους κινδύνους ὑπομένειν (Josephus, Life, 212). 29 Josephus, Life, 244. Translation my own. 30 Josephus, Life, 250. 31 Josephus, Life, 251–252 (προελθόντος δε μου κρότος παρὰ παντὸς τοῦ πλήθους εὐθὺς ἦν καὶ μετ᾽ εὐφημιῶν ἐπιβοήσεις χάριν ἔχειν ὁμολογούντων τῇ ἐμῇ στρατηγίᾳ; Josephus, Life, 251). 22

23

148

Chapter 5: Endangered Benefaction in 1 Maccabees and Josephus’s Life

factor.32 This brief foray into Josephus’s Life shows that the motif of the endangered benefactor was known to Josephus and that he found it morally praiseworthy enough to portray himself in such terms.

5.3 Conclusion 5.3 Conclusion

Individual self-endangerment during a crisis for the benefit of others constitutes a cross-cultural, cross-temporal, widely geographically distributed, phenomenon in the Mediterranean world. Greek historians laud Carthaginians, Romans, and Greeks alike for their noteworthy acts of self-hazard. Greek cities across the eastern Mediterranean praise their benefactors for similar deeds of self-imperiling for the benefit of the community. Populations, individual worshippers, and scribes portray their gods as the agents of acts of deliverance. The book of 1 Maccabees adapts the endangered benefactor motif and uses it to give a good reputation to the Hasmonean family by highlighting the sons of Mattathias as benefactors who risked their lives for imperiled Israel and afforded it freedom. A Judean Jew like Josephus makes use of the motif of the endangered benefactor for his own self-portrayal in his Life. Each event of selfendangerment has its own motivations, contingent causes, and social and historical contexts. Nevertheless, the phenomenon is commonly connected to issues of virtuous conduct, repute and prestige, community survival and maintenance, emulation, and public memory in each of the cultures in which it occurs. Gaining greater clarity of the individual events and circumstances, as well as the various cultural practices and attitudes regarding self-endangerment in the Greco-Roman world provides a context for understanding how Paul uses similar terminology, cultural scripts, and themes in his letters.

32

Josephus, Life, 259.

Chapter 6

Convergence of Motifs 6.1 Introduction 6.1 Introduction

The events of the First Mithridatic War (89–85 BC) can help illustrate the confluence of benefaction, freedom, time, promise, fidelity and defection, endangered benefaction, word-deed congruency, memory, and community risk and preservation – issues which also converge in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Sometime between 87 and 85 BC during Rome’s first war with Mithradates VI Eupator of Pontus the people of the city of Daulis (in Phokis) issued an honorific decree to express their gratitude toward a certain Hermias from Stratonikeia for his services to their city during the crisis that the war brought upon the city.1 Greek cities in Greece and Asia Minor had to navigate allegiances in the hazardous war between the two powerful military forces of Rome and Pontus. Each city had to adjust its loyalties based on the constantly changing information available to it, and they had to weigh the potential costs and benefits of maintaining existing loyalties or forsaking their prior allegiances to forge new, possibly more advantageous bonds of trust with another party. Any individual city might face severe reprisal if they maintained fidelity to or defected to the wrong side at the wrong moment during the shifting tides of war. At the same time, fidelity to the ultimate victor could result in significant benefits for the city. A few examples will illustrate the precarious situation these cities faced, after which we will return to the crisis at Daulis.2

6.2 Infidelity and Risk 6.2 Infidelity and Risk

Just prior to the outbreak of war the city of Ephesus had shown a decidedly more congenial relationship with Rome and its magistrates, even registering as an official friend of Rome, but they changed course and sided with MithraFD III 4.69. For a narrative of the events of the First Mithridatic War, see, e.g., Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 30–240; Plutarch, Sulla, 11–26; Memnon (FGrHist 434 F 22.1–10). 2 Individuals could also be targeted on account of their fidelity to one of the warring parties. For example, Mithradates specifically targeted Chaeremon of Nysa for supporting the Romans. Mithradates put a price on his head and the heads of his sons (forty talents if alive, twenty if dead). See RC 73/74. 1

150

Chapter 6: Convergence of Motifs

dates.3 In the early phases of the conflict, Ephesus welcomed Mithradates into their city with enthusiasm and toppled the statues of Romans.4 Upon Mithradates’s order to massacre Italian-born residents throughout Asia Minor, the Ephesians participated in the slaughter and even killed the Italians who fled for sacred asylum at the temple of Artemis.5 But subsequent developments in the course of the war prompted Ephesus to adjust its loyalties once again. After Sulla’s victory against the Pontic forces at the Battle of Chaironeia (86 BC), Mithradates and his general Zenobius, incensed at the presence of Roman sympathizers in the city of Chios, seized and disarmed the city, took hostages from its prominent families, imposed a massive fine of two thousand talents, and forcibly deported the population.6 The fate of Chios cooled Ephesus’s support for Mithradates. Accordingly, when Zenobius came to Ephesus, the now wary Ephesians required that he enter the city unarmed and only with a small contingent of soldiers.7 They then kill him and prepared the city for defense against the Pontic forces.8 Having thus broken from its short-lived allegiance to Mithradates, Ephesus returned to support Rome in 86 or early 85 BC with a public decree.9 The decree conspicuously omits any mention of its recent participation in the mass slaughter of Romans. In it the Ephesians issued a declaration of war against Mithradates in which the Ephesian demos states how they are keeping their longstanding goodwill and obedience to the Romans and have decided to join Rome and declare war with Mithradates “on behalf of Roman hegemony and the common freedom.”10 Moreover, Ephesus states that they acceded to Mithradates only because of his deceit, unexpected arrival, and superior numbers.11 Furthermore, the decree attempts to surreptitiously cover over their grave transgressions against Rome by saying that the demos had in fact “guarded their goodwill toward the Romans from the beginning,” and they had simply

3 On Ephesus as having φιλία with Rome, see OGIS 437 (98/97 or 94/95 BC). For an English translation, see Sherk [1984] §57. 4 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 81. 5 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 85–88. 6 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 181–186; cf. Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, 6.266e–f (citing Nikolaos and Posidonius). 7 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 187. 8 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 188. 9 I.Eph 8. An English translation of lines 1–19 of I.Eph. 8 can be found in Sherk [1984] §61. For a translation of the entire inscription, see Ilias Arnaoutoglou, Ancient Greek Laws: A Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1998), §90. 10 I.Eph 8.1–19 (86–85 BC). Lines 9–12: [ὁ] δὲ δῆμος ἡμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς συνφυλάσσων τὴν πρὸς Ῥωμαί|ους εὔνοιαν, ἐσχηκὼς καιρὸν πρὸς τὸ βοηθεῖν τοῖς κοινοῖς πράγμα|σιν, κέκρικεν ἀναδεῖξαι τὸν πρὸς Μιθραδάτην πόλεμον ὑπέρ| τε τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίας καὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἐλευθερίας. 11 I.Eph 8.7–8.

6.2 Infidelity and Risk

151

waited for the right moment to help Rome.12 Despite their best efforts, though, their decision to join Rome late in the war did not help Ephesus avoid Sulla’s twenty thousand talent indemnity upon Asia for their ingratitude toward Rome’s historical benefits to them.13 Elsewhere, Roman military leaders exacted retribution against cities whose fidelity lacked constancy, like when Sulla let his army pillage the region of Boiotia and destroy its cities of Anthedon, Larymna, and Halae.14 More extensively documented are the events in Athens, which exemplify the reasons why some cities opted to defect to Mithradates but also the serious consequences for doing so. Athens initially joined Mithradates and revolted against Rome, thinking that Roman hegemony had lost its force and that attaching to Mithradates held good prospects for the city’s political recovery and financial prosperity.15 The city sent an envoy to Mithradates, Athenion, who persuaded the Athenians by letter that he himself had exceptional influence with Mithradates and the people of Athens would be able to escape their onerous debts (τῶν ἐπιφερονένων ὀφλημάτων ἀπολυθέντας), “live in harmony” (ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ ζῆν), and receive large private and public gifts (δωρεῶν μεγάλων τυχεῖν ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ) if they sided with Mithradates.16 The Athenians, in turn, already convinced that Rome’s power had waned, concurred when Athenion returned and reported the conquests of Mithradates, his support from Armenia and Persia, the subjugation and humiliation of Roman commanders like Quintus Oppius and Munius Aquilius, people hailing king Mithradates as θεός, the oracles predicting his success, and the Italians and Carthaginians positioning themselves to defect to Mithradates.17 Aside from a number of Athenians who still supported Rome, Athens officially broke faith with Rome and joined Mithradates and received Pontic forces led by the general Archelaus. I.Eph 8.9–11. Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 251–261; Plutarch, Sulla, 25.2; Plutarch, Lucullus, 4.1; cf. Cicero, Pro Flacco, 32. The surviving fragments of the Roman historian Granius Licinianus attests that Sulla also executed the leaders of the anti-Roman revolt in Ephesus. Granius Licinianus, Annales 35.28. In his reconstruction of Sulla’s speech at Ephesus to the Asian envoys, Appian has Sulla invoke the script of ingratitude against the Asian defectors based on the aid Rome rendered them against Antiochos III, how Rome freed Lycia from Rhodian control, and the peace brought by Rome that enabled Asia to achieve flourishing and wealthy societies. Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 253–255. 14 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 203; Plutarch, Sulla, 26.4. 15 Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, 5.212a–515e; cf. Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 108– 111. For Athens during the First Mithridatic War, see Christian Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. Deborah Lucas Schneider (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 297–314. 16 Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, 5.212a–b. 17 Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, 5.213a–c. Plutarch downplays the willingness of the Athenians in their defection to Mithradates by highlighting the role of Aristion the tyrant. Plutarch, Sulla, 12.1. 12

13

152

Chapter 6: Convergence of Motifs

Athens’s choice to display infidelity to Rome, with whom they had had a generally mutually beneficial relationship ever since Athens joined Rome against Philip V of Macedon in 200 BC, proved ill-advised. Sulla defeated the Athenian and Pontic forces in the city and in the Peiraios, and as a result Athens suffered significant structural, financial, cultural, and human losses.18 Enticed by the prospects of the benefits of defection from Rome in favor Mithradates and the potential costs of remaining loyal, Athens’s choice, which indeed could have ended in rich reward from the Pontic king had he been victorious, led them to receive the ruinous lot of an unfaithful ally. These cities – Ephesus, those of Boiotia, and Athens – each adjusting their loyalties based on their varied local knowledge during situations of crisis, defected from Rome to Mithradates but ultimately found their calculations illtimed and ill-informed. As a result, Sulla remunerated their disloyalty with the punishment he thought appropriate. On the other hand, Rome could also reward cities for fidelity in the face of dangers.

6.3 Fidelity and Risk 6.3 Fidelity and Risk

Early in the war (88 BC), the city of Plarasa-Aphrodisias decided to aid Rome in the struggle against Mithradates. An inscription attests to their official vote to support the Roman proconsul Quintus Oppius in his siege of Laodicea on the Lycus river by sending him troops.19 The Aphrodisians selected honorable and trusted (ἄνδρας τῶν τειμ|ωμένων καὶ πίστιν ἐχόντων; I.Aph2007 8.3.b.i.5– 6) envoys who were “well-disposed to the Romans” (εὐνοϊκῶς πρὸς Ῥωμαίους; I.Aph2007 8.3.b.i.6) to send to Oppius so that “they will explain to him that our entire People, with our wives and children and our entire means of livelihood, are ready to take our chances on behalf of Quintus and the Roman cause, and that without the Roman leadership we do not even choose to live.”20 Oppius successfully gained control of Laodicea, but when Mithradates came to the city the Laodiceans handed him over into the custody of the king in exchange for immunity.21 After the war, Oppius wrote to Plarasa-Aphrodisias to commend their envoys and the city for its enthusiastic support of him during a

18 Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, 304–314. For Sulla and Athens, see, e.g., Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 116–155. 19 I.Aph2007 8.3 (88 BC) = Reynolds §2. An English translation can also be found in Sherk [1984] §59a. 20 I.Aph2007 8.3.b.ii.11–14. ἐνφανιοῦσιν δὲ αὐτῷ ὅτι πᾶς ὁ δῆμος ἡμῶν σὺν γυναιξὶ| καὶ τέκνοις καὶ τῷ παντὶ βίῳ ΕΤΥΜΟΣ παραβάλλεσθαι ὑπὲρ| Κοϊντου καὶ τῶν Ῥωμαίων πραγμάτων καὶ ὅτι χωρὶς τῆς| Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίας οὐδὲ ζῆν προαιρούμεθα. Translation from Sherk [1984] §59a. 21 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 78–79.

6.3 Fidelity and Risk

153

critical time.22 As a return for the service the city rendered to him, Oppius says that he will keep his “fidelity” (πίστις) with them as he aids them in their public affairs in his official and private capacity, and that he has accepted their request for him to be their patron (πάτρων).23 So, because Plarasa-Aphrodisias maintained their trust with Rome by providing services in a time of necessity, they strengthened their relational bond with Rome and forged a new sort of (patronal) relationship with Oppius that emerged during the trust-keeping process. The sort of positive reciprocity exhibited in this incident – service for service, gratitude for benefit, fidelity for goodwill – illustrates the value of maintaining trust with constancy in word and deed when an opportunity arises. As noted above, the population of Chios suffered grievously at the hands of Mithradates during the war for their fidelity towards Rome.24 To explain their strong pro-Roman stance, one must understand the recent history of the relationship between Chios and Rome. Before the war with Mithradates, the Chians had a mutually beneficial relationship with Rome. During Rome’s conflict with Antiochos III in the early second century BC (192–188 BC), Chios rendered aid to Rome by acting as a granary and naval base for them.25 In consequence, in the Treaty of Apamea (189/188 BC) Rome included benefits for Chios. Polybios reveals that Rome “advanced in many ways Chios, Smyrna, and Erythrae, and assigned to them the districts which they desired to acquire at the time and considered to belong to them by rights, out of regard for the goodwill and activity they had displayed during the war.”26 A Chian inscription from shortly after the Treaty of Apamea reveals that Chios honored Rome in a variety of ways in gratitude for the benefits they received.27 Among the honors 22 I.Aph2007 8.2 = Reynolds §3. An English translation can also be found in Sherk [1984] §59b. 23 I.Aph2007 8.2.b.i.28–ii.24. 24 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 181–186; cf. Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, 6.266e– f (citing Nicolaus and Posidonius). 25 Livy, History of Rome, 37.27.1. 26 Polyb., Hist., 21.46.6 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]. Χίους δὲ καὶ Σμυρναίους, ἔτι δ᾽ Ἐρυθραίους, ἔν τε τοῖς ἄλλοις προῆγον καὶ χώραν προσένειμαν, ἧς ἕκαστοι κατὰ τὸ παρὸν ἐπεθύμουν καὶ σφίσι καθήκειν ὑπελάμβανον, ἐντρεπόμενοι τὴν εὔνοιαν καὶ σπουδὴν, ἣν παρέσχηντο κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον αὐτοῖς. Cf. Livy, History of Rome, 38.39.11. For the events of the Treaty of Apamea, see Polyb., Hist., 21.41–46; Livy, History of Rome, 38.37–39; Appian, Syrian Wars, 193–205 [7.37–39]. On the passage (Polyb., Hist., 21.46.6), see Frank W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume III, Commentary on Books XIX–XL (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 170. 27 SEG 30.1073 = PH246394; see also the edition and further bibliography in Irene Salvo, “Romulus and Remus at Chios Revisited: A Re-examination of SEG XXX 1073,” in Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-Classical Polis: Fourth Century BC to Second Century AD, ed. Paraskevi Martzavou and Nikolaos Papazarkadas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 125–137. English translations can be found in BD2 §42; Salvo, “Romulus and Remus at Chios Revisited,” 127. The Chians spell out their motivation for the honors they gave to

154

Chapter 6: Convergence of Motifs

given to Rome were a festival to the goddess Roma, hospitality and a banquet for Romans who attended the festival, and an offering to the goddess Roma herself along with a narration of Rome’s founding myth of Romulus and Remus.28 Establishing the cult of Roma at Chios created a durable cultural space within which Chios and Rome could engage in mutually advantageous reciprocity to one another.29 This mutual relationship becomes evident during the First Mithridatic War. The prior hundred years of cooperation and mutual support helps explain the ardent fidelity the Chians displayed to Rome even when their city was under Mithradates’s control. This fidelity in turn prompted Mithradates to cause Chios significant suffering by means of confiscations, seizure of the city walls and fortifications, armed occupation, a stay-at-home order for xenoi, disarmament of the populace, seizure of hostages from notable families, an indemnity, and forced deportation.30 But their faithful suffering paid off with respect to their relationship with Rome. After the defeated Mithradates agreed to terms with Rome, Sulla set Chios free (ἐλευθέρους ἠφίει) and registered them as a friend (φίλος) of Rome as recompense for their eager support (προθυμία) amid suffering.31 The Roman senate issued a senatus consultum, approved by Sulla, that gave Chios freedom (ἐλευθερία) that entailed living by their own laws, customs, and rights (νόμοις τε καὶ ἔθεσιν καὶ δικαίοις), that they would not be

Rome as one of gratitude (SEG 30.1073.7–8). The Chians note also that the motivation of the honorand of the inscription, an unnamed agonothetes who was chiefly responsible for the sacred festival and the hospitality, as making the Chians’ gratitude and goodwill visible (SEG 30.1073.22–24). On the worship of Dea Roma see Salvo, “Romulus and Remus at Chios Revisited,” 136; Erich S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 177–179, 187; Simon Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 40–43; Mary Beard, John North, and Simon Price, Religions of Rome: Volume 1: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 156–160. 28 SEG 30.1073. For a recent discussion on what exactly Chios offered as a votive offering to goddess Roma, see Salvo, “Romulus and Remus at Chios Revisited,” in which she reasonably conjectures that it was “a votive relief representing Romulus and Remus as newborn babies (with Rea Silvia or with the she-wolf) on an upper register, and on a lower register a text summing up the relief above and what happened after the represented scene, narrating the foundation of Rome” (Salvo, “Romulus and Remus at Chios Revisited,” 132). 29 Salvo, “Romulus and Remus at Chios Revisited,” 136. 30 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 180–186; cf. Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, 6.266e– f (citing Nicolaus and Posidonius). 31 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 250. Αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν Ἀσίαν καθιστάμενος, Ἰλιέας μὲν καὶ Χίους καὶ Λυκίους καὶ Ῥοδίους καὶ Μαγνησίαν και τινας ἄλλους, ἢ συμμαχίας ἀμειβόμενος, ἢ ὧν διὰ προθυμίαν ἐπεπόνθεσαν οὗ ἕνεκα, ἐλευθέρους ἠφίει καὶ Ῥωμαίων ἀνέγραφε φίλους, ἐς δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ πάντα στρατιὰν περιέπεμπεν.

6.3 Fidelity and Risk

155

under the jurisdiction of a Roman magistrate, and that even Roman residents were subject to Chian laws.32 A final example will suffice before returning to the inscription at Daulis. When Mithradates swept across Asia Minor, the city of Stratonikeia (in Karia) resisted him. Their defiance could not hold out, though, and he overcame them and subjected them to a garrison and a fine.33 During its occupation some Stratonikeians apparently continued to aid the Roman cause, which provoked Mithradates to put on trial those in Stratonikeia accused of plotting to kill him, promoting revolt, or aiding Romans.34 Some years after the war in 81 BC, Sulla wrote to Stratonikeia to confirm to them that the Senate had granted numerous benefits to the city for its support in the crisis. The inscription that bears Sulla’s communications with the city was written on a section of the wall of the temple of Hekate in the nearby town of Lagina.35 In it, Sulla recognizes how the Stratonikeians “at every moment with sincerity kept fidelity (πίστις) toward us [i.e., the Romans]” and that they were the first to oppose Mithradates, which precipitated the “many dangers” that accompanied the war.36 For their loyalty to Rome in times of danger, the Roman Senate issued a series of decrees that delineated a package of benefits in gratitude to the city, which included the restoration of property and captives of war (OGIS 441.63–64, 114–119), reaffirmation of “favor, friendship, and alliance” (χάριτα φιλίαν συμμαχίαν) between Rome and Stratonikeia (l. 69), and recognition of their envoys as “honorable and good men, our friends and allies from an honorable and good people, our friend and ally” (ll. 70–72). Furthermore, they were afforded the ability to live according to their own laws (OGIS 441.91–92), additional territory and its attendant revenue (ll. 97–112), and inviolability of the temple of Hekate (ll. 59, 113). Like Plarasa-Aphrodisias, the course of the war proved that Stratonikeia had made an advantageous choice to maintain fidelity to Rome despite the severe pressure put upon it from Mithradates.

32 SEG 22.507, esp. 10–18, 20; see also RDGE §70. For English translation, see Sherk [1984] §108. This document is from the beginning of the first century AD during the time of Augustus, but it refers to the prior (80 BC) senatus consultum that outlined Chios’s freedom. 33 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 82. 34 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 107. 35 PH260252 = OGIS 441. An English translation can be found in Sherk [1984] §63. 36 OGIS 441.5, 7. Lines 3–14 read: [οὐκ ἀγνοοῦμεν ὑμᾶς] διὰ προ[γ]όνων πάντα τὰ δίκαια| [πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέρα]ν ἡγεμ[ον]ίαν πεποιηκότας καὶ ἐν|| [παντὶ καιρῶι τὴν πρὸς ἡ]μᾶς πί[σ]τιν εἰλικρινῶς τετηρηκότας| [ἔν τε τῶι πρὸς Μιθραδά]την π[ο]λέμωι πρώτους τῶι εν τῆι| [Ἀσίαι αντιτεταγμένους κα]ὶ διὰ ταῦτα κινδύνους πολλούς| [τε καὶ παντοδαποὺς] ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων δημοσίων| [πραγμάτων προθυμό]τατα ἀ[ν]αδεδεγμένους|| [–] καὶ τ[οὺς κοινοὺς] καὶ τοὺς ἰδιωτικοὺς| [φιλίας ἕ]νε[κεν π]ρὸς ἡμᾶς εὔνοῖάς τε| [χάριτος, καὶ ἐν τῶι τοῦ πολέ]μου καιρῶι προς τε| [τὰς ἄλλας τῆς Ἀσίας πόλεις πεπρ]εσβευκότας καὶ πρ[ὸ]ς [τὰς τῆς Ἑλλάδος –].

156

Chapter 6: Convergence of Motifs

6.4 Endangered Benefaction at Daulis 6.4 Endangered Benefaction at Daulis

It is in this situation of warfare and divided loyalties that the relatively small community of Daulis in Phokis found itself. The role of Daulis in the conflict is not fully known, but the information on one of their public inscriptions regarding the events of the First Mithridatic War is instructive.37 At some point between 87–85 BC, Daulis felt its territory threatened and feared for its safety.38 Sulla had arrived in Greece in 87 BC, requisitioned funds, soldiers, and supplies from cities in Aitolia and Thessaly, besieged Athens and the Peiraios in 87–86 BC, fought the battles of Chaeronea (86 BC) and Orchomenus (85 BC), and then ravaged some Boiotian cities. Any of these events could have occasioned the legitimate fears of the Daulians for their survival. During one of these critical moments in which “great dangers” (κίνδυνοι μεγάλοι) surrounded Daulis, the city appealed to Hermias, a citizen of Stratonikeia, a city much in the favor of Sulla for its fidelity.39 Hermias, in response to their appeal, “devoted himself and with alacrity did all things advantageous to the city.”40 That is, he successfully advocated to Sulla to ensure the safety of the Daulians from the Roman military.41 For Hermias’s benefaction, Daulis, as a display of gratitude, decided to praise (ἐπαινέσαι) him, make him a proxenos (public friend), award him ateleia (immunity from duties) and asylia (inviolability), to publicly crown him with a gold crown at the agora during the Pythian games, and to set up portraits on gold shields at the temple of Apollo in Delphi and the temple of Hekate in Stratonikeia bearing an inscription commemorating Hermias as a “noble and good man” (ἄνδρα καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν) and “its preserver and benefactor” (τὸν αὑτᾶς σωτῆρα καὶ εὐ[εργέταν]).42 Hermias received this package of rewards for his service that ensured the safety and preservation of Daulis. Moreover, the corporate memory of his service occurred in a public crowning ceremony and became enshrined in stone to broadcast his good repute for future generations. Such gratitude for personal service that benefits a city during a time of crisis, as exemplified by Hermias, appeared in various forms throughout the Greek-speaking cities of the eastern Mediterranean. FD III 4.69 (87–85 BC). περιστ[άντων τ]ὰν| [χώραν ἁμῶν φό]βων κα κινδύνων μεγάλων (FD III 4.69.1–2). 39 FD III 4.69.1–6. The nature of pre-existing relationship between Daulis and Hermias the Stratonikeian is unknown. 40 ἐπέδωκε αὐτοσαυτόν καὶ πάντα τὰ συμ|φέροντα τᾶι πόλει ἔπρασσε προθύμως (FD III 4.69.6–7). 41 FD III 4.69.4–6, 18–19. 42 FD III 4.69.7–21. The privilege of asylia refers to “immunity from reprisal and seizure” to a foreigner, so that “when a foreign city had some claim against his own [i.e., the foreigner who is granted asylia], or when the two states were at war, he was nonetheless immune from seizure by the foreign city.” Kent J. Rigsby, Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 31–32. 37

38

6.5 Conclusion

157

6.5 Conclusion 6.5 Conclusion

The situation in Daulis simultaneously illustrates the “culture of gratitude” broadly characteristic of the Hellenistic period – benefits and rewards, gifts and gratitude, services and public praise – and the regard cities had for a benefactor whose personal exemplary conduct ensured the safety of their city in emergencies. At the same time, the events of the First Mithridatic War in Greek-speaking cities more broadly show how ever-changing information about power, risks and benefits, the proximity of danger, and community survival motivated fidelity or defection. Almost a century and a half after the crisis at Daulis, Paul and those with him sent a letter to several assemblies of Galatians in Asia Minor. In his letter Paul invokes the scripts of benefaction and gratitude, defection and fidelity, compulsion/danger, and service through selfendangerment. By understanding these and related cultural scripts in the Greco-Roman world, Paul’s own engagement with them can illuminate his letter to the Galatians.

Chapter 7

Endangered Benefaction in Galatians Some previous scholarship has sought to contextualize Galatians in the context of civic benefaction, but despite some fruitful studies there is room for further exploration. What is lacking in these benefaction studies is a coupling of both (1) a thorough examination of ancient benefaction categories relevant to Galatians tied strongly to the ancient literary and documentary sources and (2) a focused study of Galatians itself. The previous chapters have sought to take a more ancient source-driven approach to benefaction cultural practices, scripts, motifs, and language. This study seeks to incorporate the larger cultural encyclopedia that accompanies the institution of civic benefaction in Greek cities. Paul makes use of several of these aspects of the cultural encyclopedia of benefaction in Galatians. In the opening and closing of the Galatians, Paul and his associates draw attention to the χάρις – generosity or benefaction – of “(our) Lord Jesus Christ.”1 Consequently, the notion of the benefaction and generosity of God’s Messiah frames the entire letter. In several places in the body of the letter Paul uses χάρις or χαρίζεσθαι to describe God or Christ’s beneficence or beneficial deeds (Gal 1:6, 15; 2:9, 21; 3:18) and to warn them that Christ will cease dispensing benefits to them should they submit to mandatory male circumcision (Gal 5:2, 4). These various occurrences of direct benefaction terminology throughout Galatians and at key points in the letter invite one to examine Galatians in relation to other aspects within the varied network of motifs and practices of civic benefaction. This chapter focuses on how Paul portrays a situation of endangered benefaction.

7.1 The Galatians as Endangered Recipients 7.1 Galatians as Endangered Recipients

Like several other expressions of ἐλευθερία in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods (see §3.1.1), Paul contrasts freedom with enslavement at several points in Galatians (Gal 2:4; 4:21–31; 5:1; cf. Gal 1:4; 3:13).2 A brief review of the freedom-enslavement discourses from the wider Mediterranean will be helpful. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Gal 1:3); ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί· ἀμήν (Gal 6:18). 2 On understanding freedom in Galatians as civic freedom, see chap. 8 (esp. §8.2). 1

7.1 Galatians as Endangered Recipients

159

For example, Chremonides invoked the shared memory of the Athenian-Spartan alliance against enslavement (καταδουλοῦσθαι) from the Persian-led offensive to motivate and persuade the two cities in his present to unite against a contemporary threat of enslavement to Macedonian hegemony.3 The Achaians fought against enslavement (δουλεία) to the Spartans, the Aitolians (as constructed by Polybios) worried that when Rome defeated Philip V it would merely be a “change of masters” (μεθάρμοσις δεσποτῶν) rather than freedom, and the Roman Senate charged king Perseus with attempting to enslave Greek cities that it had freed from Macedonian control.4 Further, to draw attention to their own generosity, Augustus and Nero both framed some of their own actions in terms of freeing a population from enslavement. Augustus proclaimed that “I set the state free from the slavery (ἐκ τῆς…δουλήας [ἠλευ]θέ[ρωσα) imposed by the conspirators.”5 Nero announced that in contrast to longstanding history of foreign or mutual enslavement of Greeks to Greeks and the comparably meager generosity of other Roman commanders who gave freedom to cities, he liberated the entire province of Greece.6 It is within this discourse of civic freedom and enslavement to foreign powers that one can situate Paul’s rhetoric of freedom and enslavement in Galatians.7 7.1.1 “The present age of evil” (Gal 1:4) In the opening of Galatians, Paul remarks that the Lord Jesus Christ “gave himself concerning our sins so that he might deliver us from the present age of evil” (τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ; Gal 1:4). The ἐξελέσθαι ἐκ construction occurs in numerous places in Greek documentary and literary sources.8 For example, in Polybios’s narration of treaty talks between parties of the Aitolian 3 IG II3 1 912 (265/264 BC). For English translation see BD 2 §19, Austin2 §61, or Attic Inscriptions Online. 4 Polyb., Hist., 11.12.3; 18.45.6; Plutarch, Flamininus, 10.1–2; RDGE 40B.27–28. 5 Res Gestae Divi Augusti 1.1 (AD 14). Translation from Alison E. Cooley, Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 59. 6 IG VII 2713.12–26 (AD 67). 7 See also how Josephus calls God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt “freedom” (ἐλευθερία) and contrasts it with enslavement and destruction (δουλεύειν, ἀπολέσθαι; Josephus, A.J., 2.327, 329–330). Elsewhere, Josephus remarks that Judean “enslavement” (δουλεία) to the Romans when Pompey conquered in 63 BC was deserved because of the στάσις in Israel, which prompted God to subject the Judeans, “not worthy of freedom,” to the Romans (καὶ Ῥωμαίοις ὑπέταξεν ὁ θεὸς τοὺς οὐκ ἀξίους ἐλευθερίας; Josephus, B.J., 5.396). On the dominant significance of freedom and enslavement in Paul’s commonly accepted letters with respect to “justification” rhetoric, see Chris Tilling, “Paul, Evil, and Justification Debates,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Chris Keith and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016): 190–223. 8 For some examples of the ἐξελέσθαι ἐκ construction, see DGE, “ἐξαιρέω,” A.II.1.II.

160

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

War, Amynandros, the king of Athamania, arrived at the negotiations “to attempt to deliver the Ambraciots from their dangerous situation.”9 Further, the Roman consul Gaius Valerius Laevinus felt compelled “to act as protector of the Aetolians,” so “he exerted himself in every way, laboring to rescue that nation from the dangers that beset them.”10 Additionally, the city of Rhamnous praised Dikaiarchos of Thria because (among other things) “when the general Philokedes was present at Eretria he supported this man in advocating and securing the release and saving from prison (ἐξί(λ)ετο ἐκ τοῦ [δε]σμωτηρί[ου]) of one of the citizens who had been condemned to death.”11 In another instance, a certain Poseidonios, apparently suffering from want in prison and the prospects of death, petitions the epimeletes Ptolemaios, saying, “thus, I ask you, remove me from [my] needful situation” (ἀξιῶ οὖν σε, ἐξελοῦ με ἐκ τῆς ἀνάγκης).12 Moreover, the Greek translations of Jewish scriptures are replete with examples of the ἐξελέσθαι ἐκ construction. For example, after the affliction brought upon Israel by the Midianites, the people cried out to the Lord, who in turn sends them a prophet, saying, “the Lord the God of Israel says this, ‘I am the one who brought you out from Egypt and led you out from the house of enslavement and delivered (ἐξειλάμην) you from the hand of Egypt and from the hand of all those who were afflicting you and cast them out from your face, and I gave to you their land’” (LXX Judg 6:8–9).13 Other instances from Jewish 9 ὅ τε βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἀθαμάνων Ἀμύνανδρος παρεγένετο σπουδάζων ἐξελέσθαι τοὺς Ἀμβρακιώτας ἐκ τῶν περιεστώτων κακῶν (Polyb., Hist., 21.29.2 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 10 ὃς παρακληθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν περὶ τὸν Δαμοτέλη καὶ νομίσας ἴδιον εἶναι τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ καθήκαιν αὑτῷ τὸ προστατῆσαι τῶν Αἰτωλῶν, πᾶσαν εἰσεφέρετο σπουδὴν καὶ φιλοτιμίαν, ἐξελέσθαι σπουδάζων τὸ ἔθνος ἐκ τῶν περιεστώτων κακῶν (Polyb., Hist., 21.29.12 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 11 καὶ παραγενομένου τοῦ στρατηγοῦ Φιλοκή-|[δ]ου εἰς Ἐρέτριαν συνηγόρησέν τε τούτωι καὶ τῶν πολιτῶν| [ἕ]να ἀπηγμένον ἐπὶ θανάτωι ἐξί(λ)ετο ἐκ τοῦ [δε]σμωτηρί[ου]| καὶ ἀνέσωισεν ἀποδεικνύμενος τὴν εὔνοιαν ἣν ἔχει πρὸς|| τοὺς πολίτας (AIO 837.14–25; quote from ll. 21–25; translation from Sean Byrne and Chris de Lisle, “Rhamnous honours Dikaiarchos of Thria,” Attic Inscriptions Online, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IRhamn/17, last updated June 4, 2021). 12 ἀξιῶ οὖν σε, ἐξέλου με ἐκ τῆς ἀνάγκης. δυνατὸς γὰρ εἶ καὶ ἔσει με σεσωικώς (P.Petr. 3.36a R.20–23 = TM 7701; 218–217 BC). 13 Τάδε λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ ᾿Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ἀναβιβάσας ὑμᾶς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου καὶ ἐξήγαγον ὑμᾶς ἐξ οἴκου δουλείας καὶ ἐξειλάμην ὑμᾶς ἐκ χειρὸς Αἰγύπτου καὶ ἐκ χειρὸς πάντων τῶν θλιβόντων ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐξέβαλον αὐτοὺς ἐκ προσώπου ὑμῶν καὶ ἔδωκα ὑμῖν τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν. The phrase ἐξελέσθαι ἐκ χειρός + an individual, group, or state is a common phrase in the Greek translation of Jewish texts to refer to deliverance from a threat of violence, subjection, or death (e.g., LXX Gen 32:12; 37:21, 32; LXX Exod 3:8; 18:4, 8, 9, 10; LXX Deut 32:39; LXX Judges 9:17; LXX 1 Sam 4:8; LXX 1 Sam 7:3; 10:18; 12:10–11; 14:48; 17:37; LXX 2 Kings 18:29–30, 34–35; LXX 2 Chron 25:15; 32:17; LXX Jer 38:11; 1 Macc 5.12).

7.1 Galatians as Endangered Recipients

161

and non-Jewish sources speak of deliverance from various threats or dangerous situations: war, siege, violence, subjection, affliction, transgression, predatory animals, enemies, foreign armies, pursuers, disasters, torrents of water, dangers, sinners, wicked people, evildoers, needful times, evil times, internal disturbances of a city, poverty, fire, fear, brigands, enslavers and enslavement, and death.14 As a result, the ἐξελέσθαι ἐκ construction overwhelmingly occurs with the sense of deliverance from a situation of threat, jeopardy, or force. One implication from this survey of the ἐξελέσθαι ἐκ construction is that “the present age of evil” should be considered a threat and danger from which Paul, his

14 E.g., war (Ep. Jer. 13, ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἐκ πολέμου καὶ λῃστῶν οὐκ ἐξελεῖται), siege (Polyb., Hist., 21.35.5, τοὺς Ἰσινδεῖς ἐξελόμενος ἐκ τῆς πολιορκίας; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 14.116.2, ἐκ τῆς πολιορκίας ἐξελέσθαι), violence (LXX Gen 32:12), subjection (Baruch 4:21), affliction (LXX 1 Sam 26:24, ἐξελεῖταί με ἐκ πάσης θλίψεως; cf. LXX Nahum 2:2; Acts 7:10), transgression (Wisd. Sol. 10:1, ἐξείλατο αὐτὸν παραπτώματος ἰδίου), predatory animals (LXX 1 Sam 17:37), enemies (LXX Ps 58:2, ἐξελοῦ με ἐκ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου, ὁ θεός; 2 Kings 17:39, αὐτὸς ἐξελεῖται ὑμᾶς ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν; cf. LXX 1 Chron 16:35; LXX Ps 142:9), foreign armies or kings (LXX Jer 49:11; OG Dan 3:17), pursuers (Judith 16:2, ἐξείλατό με ἐκ χειρὸς καταδιωκόντων με), disasters (2 Macc 2:18; ἐξείλατο γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἐκ μεγάλων κακῶν; Sir 29:12, αὕτη ἐξελεῖταί σε ἐκ πάσης κακώσεως), torrents of water (LXX Ps 143:7, ἐξελοῦ με καὶ ῥῦσαί με ἐξ ὑδάτων πολλῶν, ἐκ χειρὸς υἱῶν ἀλλοτρίων), dangers (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 90, ὁπλίταις ἐξείλετο ἁμὲ ἐκ τῶν μεγάλων κινδύνων; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.47.1, διὰ δὲ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπινοίας ἐκ τῶν κινδύνων ἐξελόμενοι τὴν πατρίδα), sinners (LXX Ps 36:40, βοηθήσει αὐτοῖς κύριος καὶ ῥύσεται αὐτούς, καὶ ἐξελεῖται αὐτοὺς ἐξ ἁμαρτωλῶν καὶ σώσει αὐτούς), wicked people (LXX Ps 139:2; ἐξελοῦ με, κύριε, ἐξ ἀνθρώπου πονηροῦ, ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς ἀδίκου ῥῦσαί με), evildoers (LXX Jer 15:20–21; διότι μετὰ σοῦ εἰμι τοῦ σῴζειν σε καὶ ἐξαιρεῖσθαί σε ἐκ χειρὸς πονηρῶν; cf. LXX Jer 20:13; LXX Jer 22:3), needful times (LXX Job 5:18, ἑξάκις ἐξ ἀναγκῶν σε ἐξελεῖται), evil times (Sir 51:11; ἔσωσας γάρ με ἐξ ἀπωλείας καὶ ἐξείλου με ἐκ καιροῦ πονηροῦ), internal disturbances of a city (Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 5.69.3; 6.35.2; 6.83.4; 8.12.3; 8.90.3), poverty (LXX Isa 48:10, ἐξειλάμην δέ σε ἐκ καμίνου πτωχείας), fire (LXX Isa 47:14; καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐξέλωνται τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν ἐκ φλογός; OG Dan 3:17), fear (Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 6.6.1, ἐξελέσθαι τὸ δέος αὐτῶν ἐκ τῆς διανοίας βουλόμενος), brigands (Ep. Jer. 14, ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἐκ πολέμου καὶ λῃστῶν οὐκ ἐξελεῖται), God/gods (LXX Job 10:7; Odes 2:39; LXX Hosea 2:12; LXX Isa 43:13), enslavers and enslavement (Diod. Sic., Bib., hist., 34/35.23, ἐκ τῆς δουλείας ἐξελέσθαι; LXX Jer 41:13, ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ ἐξειλάμην αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ἐξ οἴκου δουλείας; LXX Ezek 34:27, καὶ ἐξελοῦμαι αὐτοὺς ἐκ χειρὸς τῶν καταδουλωσαμένων αὐτούς), and death (LXX Joshua 2:13, ἐξελεῖσθε τὴν ψυχήν μου ἐκ θανάτου; LXX Ps 114:8, ἐξείλατο τὴν ψυχήν μου ἐκ θανάτου; OG Dan 3:88; ἐξείλετο ἡμᾶς ἐξ ᾅδου καὶ ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐκ χειρὸς θανάτου). More rarely, the phrase occurs in non-dangerous situations, e.g., removing supplies from cargo boats (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 11.20.4; τὴν μὲν ἀγορὰν ἅπασαν ἐκ τῶν φορτίδων νεῶν ἐξείλετο), removing a spear from one’s chest (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 15.87. 5; ἐκ τοῦ θώρακος ἐξαιρεθῇ τὸ δόρυ), unloading suits of armor from merchants (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 16.9.5; ὁ δὲ Δίων ἐξελόμενος ἐκ τῶν φορτηγῶν πανοπλίας πεντακισχιλίας), expenditures removed from the public treasury (Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 7.24.2; τὰς ἐξαιρεθείσας ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου δαπάνας). See also unloading merchandise from an import (GEI035.3; [ἐ]ξέληται τ̣ὰ̣ ἐμπόρια).

162

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

associates, and the Galatians find deliverance and liberation through the agency of Christ (Gal 1:4). 7.1.2 “The elements of the world” (Gal 4:3, 8–9) For Paul, τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου play a role in enslaving people past and present. Paul likens his own and the Galatians’ existence as akin to being enslaved prior to the Christ-event, saying, “when we were children, we were enslaved under the elements of the cosmos” (ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι; Gal 4:3). Furthermore, Paul recalls the Galatians’ former enslavement to τὰ στοιχεῖα, which entails relational ignorance between them and God, to persuade them not to “return to the weak and impoverished elements to which you want to be enslaved again” (Gal 4:8–9).15 Most plausibly, the phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in Galatians 4:3 refers generally to component parts of the created cosmos, and then in Galatians 4:9 Paul specifies the στοιχεῖα as the heavenly bodies, which the Galatians are serving through calendrical observances (Gal 4:10). 16 Paul’s enslavement rhetoric overlaps with his arguments about intermediaries as temporary confiners or controllers. So, the Torah, “because of transgressions,” was added to God’s promise-based relationship with Abraham through the mediation of angels (Gal 3:19), scripture/Torah “confined” people “under sin” until ἡ πίστις (Gal 3:22, 23), acting as a παιδαγωγός until Christ (Gal 3:24), and Paul and his audience (“we”) alike were like an heir waiting to become lord of all but temporarily subject to the control of intermediary agents (ἐπιτρόποι καὶ οἰκονόμοι) of a father (Gal 4:1– 2). For Paul, to be enslaved to τὰ στοιχεῖα is to return to the wrong sequence of the timeline of God’s plan. That is, the temporary time of subjection is over and returning to the previous states of confinement and enslavement result in an epistemological dead end under subordinate intermediaries to the God of Israel. The way of life for the Galatians does not lie under full Torah observance (Gal 3:21) or returning to service to heavenly bodies (Gal 4:8–10). 7.1.3 Mandatory Gentile Circumcision Paul regards mandating certain Jewish customs on non-Jews as an affront to the shared freedom that Jews and non-Jews enjoy together. Thus, in Galatians 5:1 he urges the Galatians, “do not submit again to a yoke of enslavement” by accepting compelled circumcision (μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε). Dionysios of Halikarnassos, commenting on the swapping back and forth of a 15 ἀλλὰ τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς· νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε; 16 Emma Wasserman, Apocalypse as Holy War: Divine Politics and Polemics in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), 152–154.

7.1 Galatians as Endangered Recipients

163

“yoke” (ζυγόν) of subjection between the Romans and the Samnites, remarks that the “yoke” “is a sign of those coming under hands” (of control).17 Moreover, literary and iconographic evidence suggests that male circumcision itself had a strongly negative stigma attached to it within Greek and Roman cultures.18 Earlier in the letter Paul contrasts how Titus, a Greek, “was not compelled to be circumcised” (ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι) in Jerusalem (Gal 2:3) with the enslaving actions of infiltration and espionage of the “false brothers” (Gal 2:4; διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν). Paul’s rhetoric regarding the Jerusalem and Antioch incidents paints a picture of military conquest seeking to enslave (παρεισέρχεσθαι, κατασκοπεῖν, καταδουλοῦν; Gal 2:4) and his own opposition to compulsion (ἀνθιστάναι κατὰ πρόσωπον; Gal 2:11) as a defense against invasion.19 In Galatia, the exact situation on the ground is difficult to decipher, and there are some hints that suggest at least some Galatians may have wanted to voluntarily undergo circumcision (Gal 1:6; 4:9–10, 21).20 On the other hand, it would also make sense if the influencers were levying some level of pressure on the Galatian males that an observer might reasonably interpret as “coercion,” even if only in the barest sense of the term. It does not seem unreasonable to interpret as “coercion” a requirement that Galatian males get circumcised in order to be in full fellowship with the rest of the people of God. Paul’s attribution of motives to the influences in Galatians 6:12a (“those who want to make a good showing in the flesh”) and 6:12c (“only that…they would not be persecuted”) would be much more rhetorically effective if his accompanying statement that they are compelling the Galatians to circumcise was shared knowledge rather τοῦτο δὲ σημεῖον τῶν ὑπὸ χεῖρας ἐλθόντων ἐστί (Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 16.1.4). Isaac T. Soon, “The Bestial Glans: Gentile Christ Followers and the Monstruous Nudity of Ancient Circumcision,” JJMJS 8 (2021): 116–130. Soon summarizes, that “from a non-Jewish perspective, the visual correspondence with circumcised centaurs infused circumcision with hypersexual and bestial qualities.” Further, “circumcision connoted the subhuman, the hybrid, the uncivilized, and the deformed. It is from this Graeco-Roman default that scholars should understand the relationship between Paul’s non-Jewish audience and circumcision.” Soon, “The Bestial Glans,” 130. 19 Ciampa, “Abraham and Empire in Galatians,” 161–162. Ciampa concludes, “In this way Paul represents his conflict with Peter as one in which Peter was implicated in an act associated with a militarily enforced compulsion of gentiles to be circumcised, while he himself served as the defending power, preserving the freedom of those who would otherwise have experienced the equivalent of slavery under a dominating foreign power” (162). 20 On the question of why some Galatians males may have desired to be circumcised, see Martin Sanfridson, “Circumcision in Galatia: Why Did Some Gentile Christ Followers Seek Circumcision in the Early Jesus Movement?” JJMJS 10 (2023): 67–88. He argues that because Paul constructs their genealogy as children of Abraham and requires participation in certain Jewish customs (e.g., worshipping Israel’s God alone), he primed them to seek further Jewish enculturation, including circumcision. 17

18

164

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

than an exaggeration readily falsifiable by the recipients of the letter (Gal 6:12b). But whatever the actual circumstances were in Galatia, the relevant point here is Paul’s rhetoric connects the conduct of the influencers with the wider network of enslaving and coercing human, suprahuman, and intrahuman forces that Paul constructs in the letter.21 Paul bluntly states that the influencers are putting pressure on the Galatians in a way that amounts to compulsion: “they are forcing you to be circumcised” (Gal 6:12; οὗτοι ἀναγκάζουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσθαι). The term ἀναγκάσαι is rhetorically significant in the letter because Paul uses it to link the conduct of the influencers in Galatia (Gal 6:12) with events in Jerusalem (Gal 2:3) and Antioch (Gal 2:14).22 Two inscriptions shed light on Paul’s use of ἀναγκάσαι. The question regarding to what extent Paul’s rhetoric of “compulsion” is reflective of the reality of the situation on the ground in Galatia is difficult to answer, since the only evidence is a letter from a partisan of one side of the multifaceted conflict. Were the influencers really exerting pressure tantamount to coercion? How could one even know? In Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, E. P. Sanders remarks that “in some instances it is hard to know if actual persecution were taking place or if Paul simply had the habit of depicting himself and the Christian churches as subject to persecution by the outside world.” E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 190. Elsewhere Sanders proposes that “saying Peter ‘compelled’ the gentiles of Antioch to live like Jews is an exaggeration,” since “Paul was looking at the issue through the lens of his problem in Galatia.” E. P. Sanders, Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 496. But with respect to the situation in Galatia, Sanders does not dispute that some people were attempting to compel the Galatians to circumcise. Sanders, Paul, 491 (see also 552). In his monograph on persecution in Galatians, John Anthony Dunne demurs at trying to explain the precise historical situation on the ground in Galatia, but instead focuses on “Paul’s depictions, interpretations, and evaluations of the situation and his opponents.” Nevertheless, Dunne still contends that Paul’s depiction of events is probably close enough to what is happening, since otherwise Paul’s arguments would lack persuasiveness with the Galatian assemblies. John Anthony Dunne, Persecution and Participation in Galatians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 50–51 (see also 69). It does seem unlikely that Paul would knowingly employ readily falsifiable claims of compulsion to a situation that would not admit such an interpretation. Whatever the reasons were for the influencers in Galatia to insist on circumcision as a requirement for the Galatians to become full participants in the network of Christ-followers, Paul understood this requirement as tantamount to a threat of force (with the consequence of exclusion). In any case, Paul’s insistence that the influencers were employing coercion, combined with the hint that some Galatians may have wanted to undergo circumcision suggests that the assemblies in Galatia were probably divided on the issue of circumcision. 22 Others note how Paul uses ἀναγκάσαι to link the situations in Jerusalem (Gal 2:3), Antioch (Gal 2:14), and Galatia (Gal 6:12). For instance, Andrew Boakye says “the compulsion to be circumcised in 2:3 is equivalent to the compulsion to Judaize in 2:14” and “the lexical correlation of ἀναγκάζω in 2:14 and 6:12 suggests Peter’s actions at the Antiochene fellowship dinner mirrored the same gross misjudgment as the troublemakers pressurizing Gentiles in Galatia to Judaize.” Andrew K. Boakye, Death and Life: Resurrection, Restor21

7.1 Galatians as Endangered Recipients

165

First, in one inscription the civic government of Tomis (ca. 100–50 BC) appointed two emergency leaders to enroll an additional fighting force of forty men to aid the city defenses in a time of dire need for the population (I.ScM II 2). To complete this task, the leaders were given the power to compel (ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἀ̣ναγκάζειν) obedience of any unwilling participants by granting them the power to fine (ζημιοῦν) resistors and to extract the payment however they can (τρόπον ὃν δύνανται) and free from legal liability.23 In another inscription, priests of Isis at Philai appealed to the Ptolemaic royal family because various administrators, functionaries, and officials were extracting money from the priests at Philai, which had already resulted in a significant loss of revenue (and thus loss of functionality) for the temple (I.Philai 19; ca. 145–116 BC). The priests complained that “they are compelling us to make financial contributions to them, not willingly” (ἀναγκά|ζουσι ἡμᾶς παρουσίας αὐτοῖς ποιεῖσθαι οὐχ ἑκόντας; I.Philai 19.26–27).24 To heighten the gravity of the offense and to make it clear that the compelling (ἀναγκάζειν) was unwelcomed, the priests add the clause “not willingly” (οὐχ ἑκόντας). In consequence, these two inscriptions suggest that the objects of the verb ἀναγκάσαι are obligated to do what they are impressed into, lest they receive a negative consequence or punishment of some kind.25 As previously noted, in Galatians Paul uses ἀναγκάσαι to describe – and in so doing rhetorically link – the situations in Jerusalem (οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοὶ Ἕλλην ὤν ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι; Gal 2:3), Antioch (πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν; Gal 2:14), and Galatia (οὗτοι ἀναγκάζουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσθαι; Gal 6:12). In each of these situations, Paul frames the issue in terms of compelling non-Jews to adopt Jewish customs (ἰουδαΐζειν; Gal ation, and Rectification in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2017), 101. See also Keener, Galatians, 114, 164, 564–565. Dunne notes how Paul depicts the agitators in Galatia in parallel to Kephas in Antioch, both being motivated to pressure others due to pressure on themselves from another group. Dunne, Persecution and Participation in Galatians, 60–61. 23 I.ScM II 2.19–22. 24 I.Philai 19.22–27. A similar contrast of ἀναγκάσαι (to compel/force) with ἑκών (being willing) can be found in a first century AD Athenian curse inscription bemoaning how thieves have forced the subscriber’s hand into commissioning the curse against the thieves and any associated parties (ὅτι οὐκ ἕ|κων ἀλλὰ ἀνανκάζ[όμεν]ος διὰ τ̣οὺς̣ | κλέπτας τοῦτο ποιεῖ; SEG 30.326.2–4). On this curse inscription, see John G. Gager, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), §84. 25 Further epigraphical examples of ἀναγκάσαι, among others, describe people forced to submit pledges (τῶν ἐνκαλουμένων πολιτῶν ἐγγύας | ἀνανκαζομένων ὑπομένειν; SEG 39.1244.i.26–27; ca. 120–110 BC, Klaros), avoiding compelling the Ephesians to erect statues from their own resources (ὡς μὴ ἀνανκάζεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἐγείρειν ἀνδριάντων; SEG 56.1359.41–42; 133–134 AD, Alexandria Troas), and the desire to avoid forcing free cities into service (οὐδένα βούλομαι ἐκ τῶν ἐλευθέρων πόλεων ἀνανκάζεσθαι εἰς ὑμετέραν λειτουργίαν; Reynolds §14.2 [AD 100/102]).

166

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

2:14).26 Like in Jerusalem, the situation in Galatia is about whether or not nonJews must undergo circumcision (Gal 2:3; 6:12). Whereas in Tomis the consequence for not obeying the compelled services was a fine to be extracted by any means necessary (and in Philai the putative consequences of disobedience were not even spelled out – the consequences of obedience were bad enough), but in Paul’s characterization of events the tool of the influencers in Galatia, like Kephas in Antioch (Gal 2:12), is primarily the power to exclude. Thus, Paul attributes motive to the influencers, specifically suggesting their intentions are to exclude (ἐκκλεῖσαι) the Galatians from full participation among Christ-following groups, saying, “they seek you not nobly but want to exclude you so that you would seek them” (Gal 4:17; ζηλοῦσιν ὑμᾶς οὐ καλῶς, ἀλλ’ ἐκκλεῖσαι ὑμᾶς θέλουσιν, ἵνα αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε).27 Naturally, exclusion could then result in Galatians experiencing shame and embarrassment, as well as exacerbate a loss of a sense of belonging. If Galatians have turned away from their ancestral gods to worship the God of Israel alone (e.g., 1 Thess 1:9; 1 Cor 8:5–6), and then are excluded from their newly formed networks, cut off from participation unless they submit to an additional and unexpected requirement for membership (circumcision) among Christ-assemblies, they would be left without a god, a people, and a place to belong. 7.1.4 Conclusion Thus, Paul uses a series of rhetorically charged terms to describe the conduct of the influencers and the duress they are causing for the Galatian assemblies: they spy (κατασκοπῆσαι; Gal 2:4), attempt to enslave (καταδουλῶσαι, ζυγόν δουλείας; contra ἐλευθερία, ἐλυεθερῶσαι; Gal 2:4; 5:1), coerce (ἀναγκάσαι; Gal 6:12; cf. 2:3), exclude (ἐκκλεῖσαι; Gal 4:17), and persecute/pursue (διώκειν; Gal 4:29). Paul’s language about the group compelling circumcision relates to other parts of his letter. The charge that the circumcision-enforcers “exclude” (Gal 4:17; ἐκκλεῖσαι) resonates with Paul’s characterization of Kephas and others’ sudden reversal of conduct to exclude non-Jews from table fellowship in the incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11–14). Likewise, the charge that they “persecute”/ Collman remarks how Paul’s rhetoric regarding the Antioch incident uses hyperbole, saying, “The result of Cephas’ withdrawal was that it placed pressure on the gentile Christfollowers in Antioch to judaize – or in Paul’s hyperbolic phraseology – Cephas’ withdrawal effectively compelled them to judaize if they wanted to be treated as equals.” Collman, Apostle to the Foreskin, 55 (italics original). 27 The suggestion by Mussner that in Gal 4:17 Paul means that his opponents are trying to exclude (ἐκκλεῖσαι) the Galatians from Paul himself makes less sense, especially because Paul connects the events in Galatia and the conduct of the influencers with Kephas’s conduct at Antioch (Gal 2:14; 6:12), which involves separation of foreskinned males from full fellowship with circumcised (Jewish) Christ adherents. Franz Mussner, Der Galaterbrief (Freiburg: Herder, 1974), 311. 26

7.1 Galatians as Endangered Recipients

167

“pursue” (Gal 4:29; διώκειν) recalls Paul’s description of his own violent conduct as a participant in Ioudaïsmos (Gal 1:13; διώκειν). Importantly, the term ἰουδαϊσμός here does not refer to “Judaism” broadly speaking as all those who worship and follow the God of Israel but a specific Hasmonean-like social vision and its implementation as exemplified in the pattern of conduct of Judas, son of Mattathias, and his brothers, which uses coercion and force to fight for a particular vision of Judean/Jewish social order.28 Thus, Paul is associating the circumcision-enforcers with Kephas’s lapse and with his own former violent pattern of conduct as an enforcer of a specific social vision for Judeans that Paul now regards as false. When linked together these forces of confinement, compulsion, and enslavement – the present age of evil (Gal 1:4), sin (Gal 3:21), τὰ στοιχεῖα (Gal 4:2, 8–10; cf. 3:21; 4:21), human attempts to exclude non-Jews from fellow28 On ἰουδαϊσμός as the legitimate social order as conceived and implemented by Judas and the Hasmonean dynasty as opposed to their Jewish rivals’ vision for social order (ἑλληνισμός), see Sylvie Honigman, Tales of High Priests and Taxes: The Books of the Maccabees and the Judean Rebellion against Antiochos IV (Oakland: University of California Press, 2014), 119–146. Honigman highlights how ἰουδαϊσμός refers to a comprehensive social-political order with respect to law(s), the temple, the territory, political structure, and practices of piety (e.g., diet, idolatry and iconoclasm, war, and punishment of violators). See Honigman, Tales of High Priests and Taxes, 141–142. The term ἰουδαϊσμός originates with the pro-Hasmonean 2 Maccabees where it occurs in 2 Macc 2:21; 8:1; 14:38. In 2 Macc 2:19–23, the author summarizes the narrative as the story of Judas and his brothers re-dedicating the temple, waging war against Antiochos IV Epiphanes for ἰουδαϊσμός, pursuing/persecuting (διώκειν) “the barbarians,” and liberating the city to abide by its own laws. The beginning of the main section about Judas and his campaigns (2 Macc 8:1–7) describes how Judas and those with him “summoned their kinsmen and those who were remaining in the ἰουδαϊσμός” (προσεκαλοῦντο τοὺς συγγενεῖς καὶ τοὺς μεμενηκότας ἐν τῷ Ιουδαϊσμῷ; 2 Macc 8:1) and then proceeded to wage war, with Israel’s God, against the nations (τὰ ἔθνη; 2 Macc 8:5). In the final instance of ἰουδαϊσμός in 2 Maccabees, Razis is described as a supporter of ἰουδαϊσμός in the manner of an endangered benefactor, because he “hazarded his life and soul on behalf of ἰουδαϊσμός with all eagerness” (καὶ σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ιουδαϊσμοῦ παραβεβλημένος μετὰ πάσης ἐκτενίας; 2 Macc 4:38). Paul’s rhetoric of violence and coercion in Galatians 1:13–14 (διώκειν, πορθεῖν, ζηλωτής) that characterizes his commitment to an ἀναστροφή in ἰουδαϊσμός supports the idea that ἰουδαϊσμός in Galatians 1:13– 14 is not “Judaism” in general but a specific view (among many) of legitimate social order for Judeans/Jews, especially as it relates to the nations and Torah observance. Like Judas and the Hasmonean ἰουδαϊσμός, Paul’s ἰουδαϊσμός seems to have entailed a certain level of coercion against non-compliant people (whether against Jews/Judeans or gentiles). Similarly, Novenson understands Ἰουδαϊσμός as “what Paul calls own exceptional activist program for the defense and promotion” of his “ancestral traditions” (Gal 1:14). See Matthew V. Novenson, “Did Paul Abandon either Judaism or Monotheism?,” in The New Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 242. For another view on how ἰουδαϊσμός does not refer to “Judaism” in general, see Carlos Gil Arbiol, “Ioudaismos and ioudaizō in Paul and the Galatian Controversy: An Examination of Supposed Positions,” JSNT 44, no. 2 (2021): 218–239.

168

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

ship (Gal 2:11–14; 4:17) and to compel circumcision for non-Jews (Gal 2:3; 5:1–3) – form network of power that subjugates humanity and that disrupts social cooperation and flourishing. This network forms a complex of coercion from which the Galatian assemblies need deliverance and liberation. It is from this network of interrelated coercive and enslaving forces that situates the Galatians in a dire situation that a benefactor can address through services of liberation.

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah: Christ the Endangered Benefactor 7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

In chapter 4 and chapter 5 this study examined the motif of endangered benefaction by looking at epigraphical documents and a selection of literary sources. The domains of endangered benefaction, following Danker’s interrelated twofold division, are divided into two basic categories: (1) a population (or person) under duress receiving relief from a benefactor and (2) a benefactor endangering himself or herself to accomplish a service for a group or individual. Both (1) and (2) can occur simultaneously in the same event, that is, a benefactor risks their life to provide a service that rescues the population or individual who is facing a hazard or mortal peril. As envoys, individual benefactors risked the dangers of travel (elements/weather, transportation, brigandage, hostile territory, cost, uncertainties), secured favorable political relationships, halted raids and thieves, rescued citizens imprisoned or enslaved abroad, and secured freedom or release from burdensome indemnities. In times of war, benefactors risked their lived and endured wounds in their effects to oust foreign garrisons, protect the countryside, arm the soldiery, and help nearby cities fend off common foes. They also satiated local dynasts with gifts and tribute, saved individuals from harm with hospitality, and quelled tyrannies. When needed, they guarded fortresses, funded defensive structures, protected unwalled cities from attacks, and conducted themselves with conspicuous bravery in the face of danger. As doctors, benefactors hazarded the danger and served populations during natural disasters, war, or epidemics to care for the wounded and infirm. During famines and shortages, benefactors secured adequate grain for the city, often selling it at a lower than market rate. As financiers, benefactors relieved or forgave debt and took public costs upon themselves. For their services, benefactors received due public recognition and gratitude. Furthermore, chapter 5 found that Jews had no problem incorporating the endangered benefactor motif into their literary sources. So, the author of 1 Maccabees portrays the sons of Mattathias as benefactors who, in various times and ways, risked their own lives to enact freedom for the Judean population from Seleukid control. Likewise, Josephus depicts himself as an endangered benefactor who risks his life

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

169

to benefit his friends and the Judean population. The present section focuses on how Paul’s portrayal of Christ fits within this broader corpus of instances of endangered benefaction. 7.2.1 Christ the Endangered Benefactor, Text 1 (Gal 1:4) For Paul, Christ frees his followers from the network of coercive, enslaving powers that subjugate humanity: “for freedom Christ liberated us” (τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν; Gal 5:1; cf. 1:4; 2:4). In Galatians 1:4, Paul remarks on the liberating conduct of Christ, saying he “gave himself concerning our sins, so that he might deliver us from the present age of evil” (τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ; Gal 1:4).29 Normal usage of the phrase δοῦναι ἑαυτόν has a sense that conveys voluntary commitment to something or someone.30 Someone may commit themselves to a course of action or a task, for example, what is advantageous, reading, a matter, a peaceful life, the tenets of philosophy, cooperation, personal enmity, war, to deliver someone from distress, strong drink or drunkenness, demagoguery, the administration of justice, em-

29 A difficult textual problem occurs in Galatians 1:4. A decision must be made on whether to adopt ὑπέρ or περί as the original or earliest attainable reading. The difficulty of the choice is reflected in the different decisions of the NA28, which favors ὑπέρ, and the THGNT, which favors περί. Manuscript support for both readings is strong, and the internal probabilities are not decisive, but both considerations slightly favor περί. See Stephen C. Carlson, The Text of Galatians and Its History, WUNT 2.285 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 143–145. The divergence of readings very well could have occurred due to the shared περ sequence in υπερ and περι as well as the overlapping semantic domains of both prepositions with respect to the phrase δοῦναι ἑαυτόν + preposition + τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. As such, either reading could explain the rise of the other due to a simple error in the copying process, whether visual, auditory, or memory related. Nevertheless, with both readings the sense of the preposition is similar, conveying that “our sins” are the reason or relevant topic for Christ “giving himself.” 30 The similar construction ἐπιδοῦναι ἑαυτόν may bring out the voluntary aspect of the action even more than the bare δοῦναι ἑαυτόν, but the phrases could possibly be considered interchangeable. They at least have substantial overlap. E.g., Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 30.7.2– 3; 34/35.38.1 (ἑτοίμως δ᾽ ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὰς τοιαύτας λειτουργίας ἐπιδιδούς); 34/35.38; Plutarch, Cicero, 5.2 (ἐπέδωκεν εἰς τὸ συνηγορεῖν ἑαυτόν); Plutarch, Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero, 4.2 (ἑαυτὸν ἐπέδωκεν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν ταύτην πολιτείαν); Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, 6.263c (ἐπιδοῦναι ἑαυτοὺς εἰς τὴν τῶν συνετωτέρων ὑπηρεσίαν); IG II2 483.17–18 (ἐπιδέδω[κε]ν ἑαυτὸν δηνοσιεύειν [read: δημοσιεύειν]; 304–303 BC); SEG 36.992.15 ([αἱρε]θεὶς πρεσβευτὴς ἐπέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν προθύμως; probably 167–133 BC); UPZ 1.62.8–9 (εἰς πᾶν τό σοι χρήσιμον ἐμαυτὸν ἐπιδιδόναι; ca. 160 BC); IOSPE III 5.7–8 (διὰ παντὸς γνη̣|σίως ἑατὸν ἐπιδιδοὺς; 2nd quarter of 2nd c. BC); SEG 18.343.3–4 (εἰς μὲν τὰς νεωκορείας ἑκοῦσα ἑαυτὴν πάσας ἐπέδωκεν; 1 c. BC–1 c. AD); I.ScM 54.28–29 (ἐπέδωκεν ἑαυτόν; ca. 50 BC).

170

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

bassies, pleasures, or any number of other activities.31 The phrase can be used to describe commitment to a person, group, or thing.32 Additionally, one can 31 Voluntarily commit oneself to a course of action or a task: matters (τίς δ᾿ ὁ τῇ πόλει λέγων καὶ γράφων καὶ πράττων καὶ ἁπλῶς ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὰ πράγματ᾿ ἀφειδῶς δούς; Demosthenes, On the Crown, 89), what everyone regards to be advantageous (εἰς τὰ πᾶσι δοκοῦντα συμφέρειν ἑαυτὸν δούς), an arrangement/duty (τίς ἔστιν ὅστις εἰς ταύτην τὴν τάξιν ἑαυτὸν γνησίως ὑμῖν ἐθελήσει δοῦναι; Demosthenes, Letters, 3.32), to work together with certain people (ἐπολιτεύοντο γὰρ οὐχὶ τοῖς πονηροτάτοις καὶ συκοφάνταις συνεργεῖν διδόντες ἑαυτούς; Demosthenes, Against Aristogeiton 1, 97), to deliver one’s people (ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν τοῦ σῶσαι τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ; 1 Macc 6:44), merriment and celebration (δόντας ἑαυτοὺς τὸ παρὸν τῆς συμποσίας ἐπὶ πολὺ γεραιροένους εἰς εὐφροσύνην καταθέσθαι), reading (ὁ πάππος μου Ἰησοῦς ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἑαυτὸν δοὺς εἴς τε τὴν τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων ἀνάγνωσι; Sir, Intro 7), a meeting with envoys (δοὺς αὑτὸν εἰς ἔντευξιν; Polyb., Hist., 3.15.4); (παραβόλως διδοὺς αὑτὸν εἰς τοὺς κινδύνους), negotiations and treaty (ἔδωκεν αὑτὸν ὁ Νικαγόρας εἰς τὰς διαποστολὰς καὶ τὰς ὑπὲρ τῶν πίστεων συνθήκας; Polyb., Hist., 5.37.3), extraordinary danger in battle (κινδυνεύειν αὐτοί τινες ἑκουσίως καὶ κατὰ προαίρεσιν αὑτοὺς εἰς τοῦτο διδόασι; Polyb., Hist., 6.39.4), a matter (οὕτως ἔφη δώσειν ὁ Βῶλις αὑτὸν εἰς τὴν χρείαν καὶ συμμίξειν τῷ Καμβύλῳ; Polyb., Hist., 8.16.11), dangers (λοιπὸν ἤδη σπανίως αὑτὸν ἐδίδου κατὰ τοὺς ὕστερον καιροὺς εἰς τοὺς κατ᾿ ἰδίαν κινδύνους; Polyb., Hist., 10.3.7), matters (ἐπὶ πράξεις αὑτὸν ἔδωκε; Polyb., Hist., 10.6.10), things open to view (δοὺς αὑτὸν τὰ μὲν κοινὰ καὶ προφαινόμενα πᾶσι; Polyb., Hist., 10.6.11), mistrust/disbelief and contempt (διόπερ οὐδεὶς ἂν ἑκὼν εἰς πρόδηλον ἀπιστίαν καὶ καταφρόνησιν ἔδωκεν αὑτόν; Polyb., Hist., 31.22.10), paideia (Ἰαμβοῦλος ἦν ἐκ παίδων παιδείαν ἐζηλωκώς, μετὰ δὲ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς τελευτὴν ὄντος ἐμπόρου καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμπορίαν; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 2.55.2), strong drink or drunkenness (φιλοτιμότερον τῇ μέθῃ δοὺς ἑαυτόν; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 15.74.2), peaceful life (δοὺς ἑαυτὸν εἰς βίον εἰρηνικὸν; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 16.5.4), “comfortable living” (δοὺς δ᾽ ἑαυτὸν εἰς τρυγήν; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 17.108.4; translation from [Welles, LCL]), brigandage and raiding (δόντες δ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς εἰς λῃστείας καὶ καταδρομὰς πολλὴν τῆς πολεμίας χώραν κατέφθειραν; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.47.2), being sacrificed (ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἐν διαβολαῖς ὄντες ἑκουσίως ἑαυτοὺς ἔδοσαν, οὐκ ἐλάττους ὄντες τριακοσίων; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 20.14.5), demagoguery and obsequiousness to the masses (ἔτι δὲ αὑτὸν ὁρῶν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐξανόμενον καὶ δοὺς εἰς δημοκοπίαν καὶ πλήθους ἀρέσκειαν; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 25.8), philosophy (ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν πρὸς τοὺς ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ λόγους; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 31.26.5), the administration of justice (ὁ Πομπήιος δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν δικαιοδοσίαν; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 38/39.20.1), sleep (ἔδωκεν αὑτὸν ὕπνῳ; Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 1.39.2), joining a crowd (ὅτι καταλιποῦσα τὴν μετὰ μητρὸς οἰκουρίαν παρθένος ἐπίγαμος εἰς ὄχλον αὑτὴν ἔδωκεν ἀγνῶτα; Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 3.21.2), knit picks and nonsense (εἰς τοσαύτην σκευωρίαν καὶ φλυαρίαν ὁ τηλικοῦτος ἀνὴρ ἑαυτὸν διδούς; Dion. Hal., Comp., 25 [line 193]), everything to do with cooperation (ἑαυτοὺς εἰς ἅπαντα προθύμους ἐδώκατε; Josephus, A.J., 5.94), waging war (δίδωσιν ἑαυτὸν στρατεύειν ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς; Josephus, A.J., 6.271), an alliance (ἔδωκεν αὑτὸν εἰς συμμαχίαν; Plutarch, Timoleon, 13.3), the political candidacy (δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς στρατείας εὐθὺς ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ δήμου πράξιν, ἐπὶ στρατηγίαν πολιτικὴν; Plutarch, Sulla, 5.1), rest (ἄρτι Λουκούλλου πρὸς ἀνάπαυσιν ἐκ μακρᾶς ἀγρυπνίας καὶ πόνων τοσούτων δεδωκότος ἑαυτόν; Plutarch, Lucullus, 16.4), personal enmity (δεδωκότος ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἔχθραν ἀφειδῶς; Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 13.3); pleasure and exertion (ἐκεῖνος δὲ τὰ μὲν ἡδονῇ διδοὺς ἁπλῶς ἑαυτόν, τὰ δὲ σπουδῇ; Plutarch, Demetrios, 19.6), drinking and drunkenness (ταχὺ

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

171

use the phrase to show how someone commits to enter a specific place or location, for example, the midst of enemies, solitary areas, rugged places, a town, or a theater.33 Sometimes the phrase is used with an accusative complement to convey that someone is committing themselves to being something, for ex-

μὲν εἰς τὸ πίνεν καὶ μεθύσκεσθαι διδοὺς ἑαυτόν; Plutarch, Antony, 51.1), an experiment (καὶ τοῦ παιδαρίου διδόντος ἑαυτὸν πρὸς τὴν πεῖραν; Plutarch, Alexander, 35.4); affairs (ἑαυτὸν οἰόμενος διδόναι τοῖς πράγμασιν; Plutarch, Galba, 29.3), pleasures (τῷ γὰρ ὄντι πλησίστιος μὲν ἐπὶ τὰς ἡδονὰς ὁ ἀκόλαστος ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν φέρεται καὶ δίδωσιν ἑαυτὸν καὶ συγκατευθύνει; Plutarch, Moralia [On Moral Virtue] 446B), the common need of the city (δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀπροφ[α]σίστως εἰς τὴν κοινὴν χρείαν τῆς πόλεως; IG II3 1 1147.14–15), embassies and other liturgies (διδοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀπροφασίστως εἰς τὰς πρεσβεί[α]ς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς λειτουργίας εἰς ὅσας αὐτὸν ὁ δῆμος προχειρί[ζε]ται; SEG 43.41.4–6), everything that is advantageous to the city (διδοὺς ἀπροφασίστως ἑαυτὸν εἰς πάντα τὰ συνφέροντα τῆι πόλει; OGIS 339.19–20). 32 Voluntarily commit oneself to another person or group of people or a thing: to Akarnanians (οἱ δ᾽ Ἀμφίλοχοι γενομένου τούτου διδόασιν ἑαυτοὺς Ἀκαρνᾶσι; Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 2.68.7), to a certain Tyrranos (ἐγκύμων οὖσα δίδωσιν ἑαυτὴν Τυρρηνῷ τινι; Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 1.70.2); “to the Lord and to us” (ἀλλ᾽ ἐαυτοὺς ἔδωκαν πρῶτον τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ ἡμῖν διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ; 2 Cor 8:5); to a husband (δίδωσιν ἑαυτὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἑαυτῆς τὴν οὐσίαν; recipient is implied; Achilles Tatius, The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon, 5.11.6); to a storm (δοὺς δὲ ἑαυτὸν ὅλως τῷ τοῦ δρόμου πνεύματι, τῆς τύχης ἦν; Achilles Tatius, The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon, 1.12.5), to Cicero and the others who hated Antony (ἐπεὶ μέντοι Κικέρωνι δοὺς ἑαυτόν ὁ νεανίας καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὅσοι τὸν Ἀντώνιον ἐμίσουν; Plutarch, Antony, 16.3). 33 Voluntarily commit oneself to a location: the midst of the enemies (εἰς μέσους δὲ τοὺς πολεμίους ἑαυτὸν δεδωκώς; Polyb., Hist., 1.56.9), an implied location (Αἰωλοὶ τολμῆσαι τὸν Φίλιππον οὕτω προχείρως αὑτὸν δοῦναι διὰ τὰς ὀχυρότητας τῶν τόπων; Polyb., Hist., 5.7.2), such a dangerous place (εἰς τόπους αὑτὸν δεδωκέναι παραβόλους καὶ τοιούτους; Polyb., Hist., 5.14.9), solitary places (διδοὺς δ᾽ ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὰς ἐρημίας ἠλᾶτο μόνος; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 5.59.4; καὶ τέλος εἰς τὰς ἐρημίας αὑτὸν διδούς; Josephus, A.J., 15.244), rugged places (τῶν δὲ Θηβαίων ὡς διακόσιοι προχειρότερον εἰς τόπους τραχεῖς ἑαυτοὺς δόντες ἀνῃρέθησαν; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 14.81.2), a theater (παρεκάλουν μὴ δοῦναι ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ θέατρον; Acts 19:31), a certain town (εἰς κώμην τινὰ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων οὐκ ἄπωθεν αὑτοὺς ἔδωκαν; Josephus, A.J., 7.225), the middle of the Greek soldiers-at-arms (δοὺς ἑαυτὸν εἰς μέσα τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὅπλα; Plutarch, Agesilaos, 39.4). Note also Polybios’s unique translational phrase δοῦναι ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν τῶν Ῥωμαίων πίστιν or the like for the Latin phrase deditio in fidem, which denotes total submission to Rome: Polyb., Hist., 2.11.5 (αὐτοί τε σφᾶς ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἔδωκαν παρακληθέντες εἰς τὴν τῶν Ῥωμαίων πίστιν); Polyb., Hist., 2.12.3 (καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς δεδωκόσιν ἑαυτοῖς εἰς τὴν πίστιν); Polyb., Hist., 2.12.3 (καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς δεδωκόσιν ἑαυτοῖς εἰς τὴν πίστιν); Polyb., Hist., 10.34.6 (αὐτὸς δὲ παραγεγονέναι διδοὺς οὐ μόνον αὑτόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς φίλους καὶ συγγενεῖς εἰς τὴν Ῥωμαίων πίστιν); Polyb., Hist., 20.9.11 (δόντες αὑτοὺς εἰς τὴν Ῥωμαίων πίστιν); Polyb., Hist., 20.10.7 (δεδωκότες ἑαυτοὺς εἰς τὴν πίστιν); Polyb., Hist., 21.36.2 (διδόντες αὑτοὺς εἰς τὴν πίστιν); Polyb., Hist., 27.2.6 (διδόντας αὑτοὺς εἰς τὴν πίστιν κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἑκάστους). Cf. “into the guardianship of Rome” (καὶ δόντων ἑαυτοὺς εἰς τὴν ἐπιτροπήν; Polyb., Hist., 2.11.5; 36.4.2).

172

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

ample, responsible, an example, ransom, or friends.34 Occasionally, a goal or beneficiary is given for which or whom someone “gives themselves,” for example, for good repute and honor, for what is advantageous to the population, for another person or group.35 Further, the phrase δοῦναι ἑαυτόν occurs often to describe how someone commits themselves to a dangerous situation or to personal risk.36 Thus, Hannibal “gave himself recklessly to the dangers,” Poly34 “Giving oneself” as something: as responsible (δίδωσιν ἑαυτὸν ὑπεύθυνον τοῖς πεισθεῖσι, τῇ τύχῃ, τῷ καιρῷ, τῷ βουλομένῳ; Demosthenes, On the Crown, 189; διδοὺς ἑαυτὸν ὑπεύθυνον τῷ πάντα βασανίζοντι φθόνῳ καὶ χρόνῳ; Dion. Hal., Comp., 25 [line 200]), as an example (ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ἑαυτοὺς τύπον δῶμεν ὑμῖν εἰς τὸ μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς; 2 Thess 3:9), as ransom (ἄνθρωπος χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων; Titus 2:14), as trustworthy friends (ἑαυτοὺς δίδομέν σοι φίλους πιστούς; Chariton, Callirhoe, 7.2.4), as “underhand”/subject (ἔδωκεν αὑτὸν ὑποχείριον τῷ Γναίῳ; Plutarch, Aemilius Paullus, 26.7; ὑποχείριον εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀσφαλῶς; Plutarch, Sulla, 10.1); as an appendage (προσθήκην ἑαυτὸν Ὀκταβίῳ δέδωκε; Plutarch, Brutus, 29.10). 35 For good repute and honor (ἀλλ᾿ ὑπὲρ εὐδοξίας καὶ τιμῆς ἤθελον τοῖς δεινοῖς αὑτοὺς διδόναι, ὀρθῶς καὶ καλῶς βουλευόμενοι; Demosthenes, On the Crown, 97), good repute (εὐχερῶς ἑαυτοὺς ἐδίδοσαν ὡς μεγάλης τινὸς κοινωνήσοντες εὐκλείας ἀπὸ τῆς ἐσομένης τῷ βασιλεῖ συναναστροφῆς; 3 Macc 2:31), for what is advantageous to the public (ἡλικίας πολεμικῶν ἀγώνων ἀπολυόμενος εἰς κίνδυνον ἑκούσιον ἔδωκεν αὑτὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινῇ συμφέροντος; Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 11.27.2), “for you” instead of “you for him” (ὅστις οὐχ ὑμᾶς ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν δἐδωκε; Cassius Dio, Rom. Hist., 64.13.3), for the city (θέλοντας αὑτοὺς ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως διδόναι; Achilles Tatius, The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon, 4.13.4). 36 Voluntarily commit oneself to a dangerous or risky circumstance: to danger (ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν τῷ κινδύνῳ; 1 Macc 11:23), the midst of the enemies (εἰς μέσους δὲ τοὺς πολεμίους ἑαυτὸν δεδωκώς; Polyb., Hist., 1.56.9), dangers (παραβόλως διδοὺς αὑτὸν εἰς τοὺς κινδύνους; Polyb., Hist., 3.17.9), into the hands of a foreign potentate (τολμηρῶς δοὺς αὑτὸν εἰς τὰς χεῖρας; Polyb., Hist., 4.29.2; δόντων ἑαυτοὺς εἰς χεῖρας; Polyb., Hist., 23.13.2), such a dangerous place (εἰς τόπους αὑτὸν δεδωκέναι παραβόλους καὶ τοιούτους; Polyb., Hist., 5.14.9), extraordinary danger in battle (κινδυνεύειν αὐτοί τινες ἑκουσίως καὶ κατὰ προαίρεσιν αὑτοὺς εἰς τοῦτο διδόασι; Polyb., Hist., 6.39.4), dangers (λοιπὸν ἤδη σπανίως αὑτὸν ἐδίδου κατὰ τοὺς ὕστερον καιροὺς εἰς τοὺς κατ᾿ ἰδίαν κινδύνους; Polyb., Hist., 10.3.7), danger (ὁ δὲ Πόπλιος ἐδίδου μὲν αὑτὸν εἰς τὸν κίνδυνον; Polyb., Hist., 10.13.1), “a long marching order” (μακρὰν αὑτὸν ἐν πορείᾳ διδόναι μέλλει; Polyb., Hist., 11.16.6; μακρὰν ἑαυτοὺς δόντες ἐν πορείᾳ Polyb., Hist., 11.16.8 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]), all the dangers (εἰς πάντας δὲ τοὺς κινδύνους δεδώκαμεν αὑτοὺς ἀπροφασίστως μετά γε τῶν ὑμετέρων ἡγεμόνων; Polyb., Hist., 21.20.9), peril (οὐ καλὸν δὲ τὴν τύχην εὐροοῦσαν ἔχοντας αὑτοὺς εἰς τὸ παράβολον διδόναι; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 27.17.4), danger (ἡλικίας πολεμικῶν ἀγώνων ἀπολυόμενος εἰς κίνδυνον ἑκούσιον ἔδωκεν αὑτὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινῇ συμφέροντος; Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 11.27.2); death (ἐγὼ δ᾿ αὐτὸς ἐμαυτὸν ἐλευθερώσω, ὅπως καὶ τῷ ἔργῳ ἅπαντες ἄνθρωποι μάθωσιν ὅτι τοιοῦτον αὐτοκράτορα εἵλεσθε ὅστις οὐχ ὑμᾶς ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν δἐδωκε; Cassius Dio, Rom. Hist., 64.13.3), toil, danger, expense (δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀπροφ[α]σίστως εἰς τὴν κοινὴν χρείαν τῆς πόλεως ἀπ[ε]δήμησεν…οὔτε πόνον οὔτε κίνδυνον ὑπολογισάμενος οὐθένα v τῶν ἐσομένων οὔτε δαπάνης οὐδεμιᾶς φ. ροντίσας; IG II3 1 1147.14–19), danger (ἑτοιμότερον ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ κίνδυνον ἔδωκεν; SEG

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

173

bios’s Eumenes II says “we gave ourselves to all the dangers without hesitation with your generals,” Siccius “voluntarily gave himself to the danger for what is advantageous to the public,” and Jonathan son of Mattathias “gave himself to the danger” of a risky embassy.37 Benefactors received praise for their commitment to benefitting cities. So, Prytanis of Karystos “gave himself without hesitation to the common need of the city . . . not taking account for toil or danger of what will occur or considering any expense.”38 Antisthenes “gave himself without hesitation to the embassies and the other liturgies for which the demos chose him.”39 Koteies “daringly gave himself to the danger.”40 Apollonia honored Hegesagoras because “during the landing operations he gave himself to the struggles.”41 And Menas son of Menes “gave himself without hesitation to everything advantageous to the city” when Sestos faced critical danger from Thracian invaders.42 To conclude, the phrase δοῦναι ἑαυτόν carries the sense of voluntary commitment to something or someone, whether it is a circumstance (especially a hazardous one), a course of action, a location, a person, or a thing. Paul’s formulation of δοῦναι ἑαυτόν in Galatians 1:4 should be understood with the normal sense of the phrase: commitment to something. Further, Paul activates a civic benefaction context with the opening χάρις in Galatians 1:3, which makes sense given that honorific decrees for benefactors sometimes lauded them by highlighting the benefactor’s voluntary commitment of themselves to benefit the city with the phrase δοῦναι ἑαυτόν (or the near synonym 57.1109.Col. II.18–20), the struggles of battle (ἐν ταῖς ἀποβάσεσιν παραβολώτερον ἑαυτὸν διδοὺς εἰς τοὺς ἀγῶνας; I.ScM I.64.23–24), danger/crisis (τῆς π. όλεω[ς| ἐ]ν ἐπικινδύνωι καιρῶι γενομένης διά τε τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν γειτνιώντων Θρᾳκῶν φόβον.| καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἐκ τῆς αἰφνιδίου περιστάσεως ἐποστάντων χαλεπῶν, Μηνᾶ[ς]| καὶ λέγων καὶ πράσσων διετέλει τὰ ἄριστα καὶ κάλλιστα, διδοὺς ἀπροφασίστως ἑ-||αυτὸν εἰς πάντα τὰ συνφέροντα τῆι πόλει; OGIS 339.16–20). 37 Polyb., Hist., 3.17.9 (παραβόλως διδοὺς αὑτὸν εἰς τοὺς κινδύνους); Polyb., Hist., 21.20.9 (εἰς πάντας δὲ τοὺς κινδύνους δεδώκαμεν αὑτοὺς ἀπροφασίστως μετά γε τῶν ὑμετέρων ἡγεμόνων); Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 11.27.2 (εἰς κίνδυνον ἑκούσιον ἔδωκεν αὑτὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινῇ συμφέροντος); 1 Macc 11:23 (ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν τῷ κινδύνῳ). 38 δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀπροφ[α]σίστως εἰς τὴν κοινὴν χρείαν τῆς πόλεως ἀπ[ε]δήμησεν…οὔτε πόνον οὔτε κίνδυνον ὑπολογισάμενος οὐθένα v τῶν ἐσομένων οὔτε δαπάνης οὐδεμιᾶς φ. ροντίσας (IG II3 1 1147.14–19; 225/224 BC, Athens). 39 διδοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀπροφασίστως εἰς τὰς πρεσβεί[α]ς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς λειτουργίας εἰς ὅσας αὐτὸν ὁ δῆμος προχειρί[ζε]ται (SEG 43.41.4–6; after 216/215 BC, Rhamnous). 40 ἑτοιμότερον ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ κίνδυνον ἔδωκεν (SEG 57.1109.Col. II.18–20; ca. 166 BC, Tabai, Karia). 41 ἐν ταῖς ἀποβάσεσιν παραβολώτερον ἑαυτὸν διδοὺς εἰς τοὺς ἀγῶνας (I.ScM I.64.23–24; 200–150 BC, Istros; translation modified from Chamoux, Hellenistic Civilization, 169). 42 τῆς π όλεω[ς ἐ]ν ἐπικινδύνωι καιρῶι γενομένης διά τε τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν γειτνιώντων . Θρᾳκῶν φόβον. καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἐκ τῆς αἰφνιδίου περιστάσεως ἐποστάντων χαλεπῶν, Μηνᾶ[ς] καὶ λέγων καὶ πράσσων διετέλει τὰ ἄριστα καὶ κάλλιστα, διδοὺς ἀπροφασίστως ἑαυτὸν εἰς πάντα τὰ συνφέροντα τῆι πόλει (OGIS 339.16–20; 133–120 BC, Sestos).

174

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

ἐπιδοῦναι ἑαυτόν). For Paul, the relevant focus for Jesus’s commitment is not a specific course of action (e.g., going on an embassy) or personal goal (e.g., good repute), but instead the topic that his commitment addressed, that is, the plight of others: “our sins” (περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν; Gal 1:4). Further, Paul does not use a modifier after δοῦναι ἑαυτόν like εἰς, ἐπί, πρός, or a dative noun, but a purpose clause (ὅπως) to specify that Christ committed himself to delivering his constituents from a dire situation – “the present age of evil” (ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ; Gal 1:4). While others “gave themselves” “for good repute and honor” (ὑπὲρ εὐδοξίας καὶ τιμῆς), “for what is advantageous to the public” (ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινῇ συμφέροντος), “for you” (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν), or “for the city” (ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως), Paul says Jesus committed himself “concerning our sins” (περὶ [or ὑπὲρ] τῶν ἁρμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν) “so that he would deliver us from the present age of evil” (ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ; Gal 1:4).43 That is, in Galatians 1:4 the topic Christ addressed with his commitment was the sins of people, and his purpose was liberation from a precarious situation. 7.2.2 Christ the Endangered Benefactor, Text 2 (Gal 2:20) Unlike δοῦναι ἑαυτόν, the phrase παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν in Galatians 2:20 is entirely absent from the benefaction epigraphical corpus. In fact, παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν has a different sense than δοῦναι ἑαυτόν so that the two cannot be interchanged for one another.44 Specifically, παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν carries the sense 43 Demosthenes, On the Crown, 97; Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 11.27.2; Cassius Dio, Rom. Hist., 64.13.3); Achilles Tatius, The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon, 4.13.4. 44 Contra Harmon, who says that the difference between παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν and δοῦναι ἑαυτόν “is not inherently significant, since the two [terms παραδοῦναι and δοῦναι] can be used somewhat interchangeably,” citing Deuteronomy 1:8; 1 Samuel 28:19 and possibly Luke 4:6. See Matthew S. Harmon, She Must and She Shall Go Free: Paul’s Isaianic Gospel in Galatians (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 59. The three examples Harmon gives to support the interchangeability of παραδοῦναι and δοῦναι are in the context of the transfer of land (different than the current Gal 2:20 context) and none contain the specific phrases παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν or δοῦναι ἑαυτόν. One would need to argue the whole phrases are interchangeable rather than the individual isolated words παραδοῦναι and δοῦναι in a marginally related (land transfer) context. Further, the texts he does cite do not support the contention that παραδοῦναι and δοῦναι “can be used somewhat interchangeably,” since the terms in the examples arguably convey different nuances, with δοῦναι conveying the simple act of giving and the παραδοῦναι more focused on the transfer of ownership and control of the territory. Other commentators uncritically equate Gal 1:4 (δοῦναι ἑαυτόν) and Gal 2:20 (παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν). See, e.g., Mussner, Galaterbrief, 51; Longenecker, Galatians, 7, 94; Betz, Galatians, 41. Martyn’s suggestion that the phrase δοῦναι ἑαυτόν is a translation of Hebrew is unnecessary, since the phrase is perfectly normal and common in Greek (see above §7.2.1). Martyn, Galatians, 89n21. By employing cognitive linguistics to understand δοῦναι ἑαυτόν and παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν, Logan Williams is right to see how the two phrases display

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

175

of self-surrender, or giving oneself over into the control of another person or thing – whether it be an individual, a group, an institution, or an event or circumstance. The focus of the phrase is on the transfer of control. Most frequently the phrase crops up during battle, where people surrender (“give themselves over”) to enemies.45 It can also indicate self-surrender into the control of another in other domains of life, like surrendering oneself as a student to a teacher, soldiers putting themselves under the command of a general, submitting to religious rites, handing oneself over to a public office, submitting to a course of action or situation out of one’s control (e.g., death, dangers, an uncertain future). 46 Moreover, sometimes the phrase is used in the context of conceptual similarities in the sense of “self-giving.” Williams, “Love, Self-Gift, and the Incarnation,” 53–92. Still, the varying usages of the phrases in literary and epigraphical sources show that the phrases are not interchangeable in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, even if they can be profitably understood as contributing to an overall understanding of Christ’s gift of self in Galatians. 45 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 4.38; 7.68.1; 7.85.1; 7.86.4; Demosthenes, False Embassy, 56; Manetho, The History of Egypt, Fragment 11.1; Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, 6.264b; Polyb., Hist., 1.21.7; 1.23.6; 1.87.10; 2.25.11; 2.54.7; 3.84.14; 4.75.6; 5.22.7; 5.50.9; 5.71.11; 7.1.3 [= Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, 12.538a]; 8.21.9; 9.5.2; 9.9.10; 9.42.4; 16.22a.5; 18.26.10; 36.3.1; Fragment 153; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 5.79.1; 9.35.3; 11.22.4; 12.56.4; 13.19.3; 13.21.6; 13.23.5; 13.26.2; 14.105.2; 16.59.4; 17.76.1; 17.76.2; 17.78.4; 17.83.6; 17.86.6; 17.91.7; 17.103.8; 27.16.2; 36.10.2; Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 3.50.2; 3.53.4; 3.59.3; 4.51.4; 4.52.2; 5.60.3; 11.17.4; 12.13.2; 16.1.4; Josephus, A.J., 2.326; 6.72; 7.129; 8.261; 9.75; 9.285; 10.viii; 10.ix; 10.9; 12.376; 12.390; 13.142; 13.330; 17.284; 17.297; 18.52; Josephus, Against Apion, 2.231; Josephus, B.J., 4.553; 5.397; 6.366; 6.433; Plutarch, Timoleon, 13.3; 24.2; 34.5; Plutarch, Pyrrhos, 26.3; Plutarch, Comparison of Nicias and Crassus, 5.2; Plutarch, Sertorius, 3.5; 17.7; 27.1; Plutarch, Pompey, 28.1; 33.3; Plutarch, Caesar, 16.2; 27.5; 45.9; Plutarch, Kleomenes, 31.2; Plutarch, Demetrios, 39.2; Plutarch, Dion, 47.1; Plutarch, Brutus 26.5. 46 Give oneself over as a student (Isocrates, Ep. 4.10; παραδόνθ᾽ ὑμῖν αὑτὸν ὥσπερ μαθητὴν), gives selves over to command of the general Eumenes (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.58.1; ἵνα παραδῶσιν αὑτοὺς Εὐμενεῖ καὶ τἄλλα συμπράττωσι προθύμως), submit to religious rites (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 20.110.1; παραδοὺς οὖν αὑτὸν ἄνοπλον τοῖς ἱερεῦσαι), give selves over to destruction (Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 233; παραδίδομεν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς ἀπώλειαν), give self over to the office of agoranomos (Strabo, Geography, 14.2.24; τῷ ἀγορανομίῳ παρέδωκεν αὐτόν), surrender to a proposed course of action (Josephus, A.J., 4.139; παραδόντες αὑτοὺς εἰς ἃ προεκαλοῦντο), give selves over to fleeing (Josephus, A.J., 6.191; ἀλλ᾿ αἰσχρᾷ καὶ ἀκόσμῳ φυγῇ παραδόντες ἑαυτοὺς ἐξαρπάζειν τῶν κινδύνων ἐπειρῶντο), give self over to dangers (Josephus, A.J., 6.345; παραδοὺς αὑτὸν πανοικὶ μετὰ τῶν τέκνων τοῖς κινδύνοις; 1 Clem 55.5; παραδοῦσα οὖν ἑαυτὴν τῷ κινδύνῳ), give self over to an uncertain future (ἀδήλῳ τῷ μέλλοντι παραδόντας αὑτοὺς), give self over (i.e., surrender) to the command of king David (καὶ παρέδοσαν αὑτοὺς; Josephus, A.J., 7.53), give self over (i.e., surrender) to leadership or control of another (Josephus, A.J., 13.185; παραδώσειν μὲν αὑτοὺς; Plutarch, Flaminius, 5.4; ἐκείνῳ διεπίστευσαν ἑαυτοὺς καὶ παρέδωκαν; Plutarch, Pyrrhos, 4.1; Νεοπτολέμῳ παρέδωκαν ἑαυτούς; Plutarch, Pompey, 47.5; παντάπασιν ἑαυτὸν τῷ Καίσαρι χρήσασθαι παραδεδωκώς; Plutarch, Pompey, 55.3; οἱ δὲ κομψότεροι τὸ τῆς πόλεως

176

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

vicariously giving oneself over to someone on behalf of another person or in an exchange. So, Alkestis “gave herself over” (ἑαυτὴν παρέδωκε) to die instead of her husband Admetos.47 Cimon, son of Miltiades, “handed himself over to prison” and assumed his late father’s debts so that he could receive his father’s body for burial.48 Themistokles “gave himself over and those on embassy with him as a guarantee of these things [that he said]” to the Spartans until the truth of what he said was verified.49 People who Marcius Coriolanus had rescued offered to exchange themselves for him when he was on trial.50 Josephus, on retelling the story of Joseph and his brothers, says that the brothers “were giving themselves over to punishment to preserve Benjamin” and “they were giving themselves over to die in the interest of Benjamin’s life” (ὑπὲρ τῆς Βενιαμὶν ψυχῆς).51 Consequently, “giving oneself over” (παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν) to ἡγοῦντο παρεωρακέναι τὸν Πομπήϊον ἐν τύχαις οὔσης, ὧν ἐκεῖνον ἰατρὸν ᾕρηται καὶ μόνῳ παραδέδωκεν αὑτήν; Plutarch, Alexander, 71.4; μετὰ βοῆς καὶ κλαυθμοῦ παραδιδόντες ἑαυτούς καὶ χρήσασθαι κελεύοντες ὡς κακοῖς καὶ ἀχαρίστοις; Plutarch, Caesar, 64.6; παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν τῇ Καλπουρνίᾳ; Plutarch, Demosthenes, 25.2; καὶ μετὰ τῶν χρημάτων καὶ τῶν νεῶν αὑτὸν παραδιδόντος; Plutarch, Moralia [Lives of the Ten Orators] 845B; παραδοῦναι αὑτὸν τῷ Ἀνδρονίκῳ; Josephus, A.J., 1.326; μετὰ τῶν τιμιωτάτων ἑαυτὸν ἐκείνῳ παραδιδούς), give self over to household slaves (Plutarch, Cicero, 47.4; παρέδωκε τοῖς οἰκέταις ἑαυτὸν εἰς Καιήτήν κατὰ πλοῦν κομίζειν), give self over to hot springs (Josephus, A.J., 17.171; ποταμόν τε περάσας Ἰορδάνην θερμοῖς τοῖς κατὰ Καλλιρρόην αὑτὸν παρεδίδου), give selves over to war (Josephus, B.J., 7.145; αὑτοὺς τῷ πολέμῳ παρέδοσαν), hand self over to death (1 Clem 55.1; παρέδωκεν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς θάνατον), give self over to the envy of citizens (Plutarch, Timoleon, 36.8; ἑαυτὸν οὐδὲ τῷ πολιτικῷ φθόνῳ παρέδωκεν), give self over (i.e., surrender) self to trial (Plutarch, Gaius Gracchus, 16.2; ὡς ὑπευθύνους πολίτας ἐπὶ κρίσιν καὶ παραδόντας αὑτούς). 47 “Then Alkestis, because Admetos was going to be killed on her account, came out and gave herself over” (οὖν Ἄλκηστις ὅτι μέλλει ἀναιρεῖσθαι Ἄδμητος δι᾽ αὐτήν, ἐξελθοῦσα ἑαυτὴν παρέδωκε). Palaiphatos, On Unbelievable Tales, 40; cf. Hyginus, Fabulae, §51; Euripides, Alcestis. 48 “Cimon, the son of Miltiades, when his father had died in the state prison because he was unable to pay in full the fine, in order that he might receive his father’s body for burial, delivered himself up to prison and assumed the debt” (ἵνα λάβῃ τὸ σῶμα τοὺ πατρὸς εἰς ταφήν, ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν παρέδωκε καὶ διεδέξατο τὸ ὄφλημα; Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 10.30.1 [Oldfather, LCL]). 49 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 11.40.2 (καὶ τούτων ἐγγυητὴν ἑαυτὸν παρεδίδου καὶ τοὺς μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ συμπρεσβεύοντας). 50 “These came forward with lamentations and entreated their fellow-citizens not to destroy as an enemy the man to whom they owed their preservation, begging one life in return for many and offering themselves in his stead to be treated by them as they thought fit” (μίαν τ᾽ ἀντὶ πολλῶν ψυχὴν αἰτούμενοι καὶ παραδόντες ἑαυτοὺς ἀντ᾽ ἐκείνου χρῆσθαι, ὅ τι βούλονται; Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 7.62.2 [Cary, LCL]). 51 Josephus, A.J., 2.137 (τῶν δὲ παραδιδόντων αὑτοὺς εἰς κόλασιν ἐπὶ σώζεσθαι Βενιαμὶν); 2.159 (οἱ ἀδελφοὶ πάντες δακρύοντες καὶ παραδιδόντες ἑαυτοὺς ὑπὲρ τῆς Βενιαμὶν ψυχῆς ἀπολουμένους). Some scholars have argued that Paul in Galatians 2:20 is alluding to

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

177

benefit another was represented as laudable conduct in mythical, legendary, and historical writings. In Galatians 2:20, then, Paul is probably referring to Jesus giving himself over to the Roman authorities and crucifixion, which is supported by the two references to Jesus’s crucifixion that sandwich Galatians 2:20, saying “I was crucified with Christ” (συνεσταύρωμαι; Gal 2:19) and “Jesus Christ who was publicly portrayed as crucified” (ἐσταυρωμένος; Gal 3:1). That is, in Galatians 2:20 Paul is referring to how Jesus voluntarily “gave himself over” (or “surrendered himself”) to the Roman political apparatus that ended in his crucifixion. Furthermore, Paul portrays Jesus’s self-surrender as something done “for” (ὑπέρ) Paul, which, based on the other instances of self-surrender for another, means that Christ did this for Paul’s benefit or in his interest.52 Despite conceptual similarity at an abstract level of “self-giving,” Galatians 2:20 (παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν) should thus not be seen as an equivalent phrase to Galatians 1:4 (δοῦναι ἑαυτόν) but an elaboration on it. That is, Christ’s wholehearted commitment to delivering his constituents (Gal 1:4) entailed him giving himself over to the Roman authorities (Gal 2:20), which resulted in his execution by crucifixion (Gal 2:19; 3:1). Like παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν, the term ἀγαπῆσαι (Gal 2:20) is largely absent from the epigraphical benefaction corpus.53 Generally, the term ἀγαπῆσαι conveys the sense “to have/treat with affection” or “to love.” It can be used to describe a royal or high-status person’s favorable disposition toward people of lower power and status and the affection/love a deity has for his or her devotees or favored individuals.54 On the other hand, ἀγαπῆσαι can also be used for either a specific phrase within Isaiah 53 (e.g., Isa 53:6, which can be read as κύριος παρέδωκεν αὑτὸν ταῖς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν [instead of with αὐτόν]) or to Isaiah 53 as a whole. See, e.g., Roy E. Ciampa, The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998): 51–65, 212, and Harmon, She Must and She Shall Go Free, 101–102, 115–117; cf. 55–66. It is possible that Paul is alluding to Isaiah 53:6 or to the whole passage of Isaiah 53 but the case is not decisive. 52 The idea of “substitution” is possible but not necessarily present in Gal 2:20. The context is not specific enough to include the idea here. But substitution is improbable here, since that would imply Christ substituting himself for Paul’s own sentence of execution by crucifixion, for which there is no evidentiary support. 53 For an exception, see OGIS 90.4, 8, 9, 37, 49. 54 DGE, “ἀγαπάω.” On royal or high-status affection/favor, see Demosthenes, Olynthiac 2, 2.19 (τούτους ἀγαπᾷ καὶ περὶ αὑτὸν ἔχει; “he loves these [various low-status types of people] and has [them] around himself”) and Polyb., Hist., 5.56.1 (Ἀπολλοφάνης ὁ ἰατρός, ἀγαπώμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως διαφερόντως; “Apollophanes the doctor, especially beloved by the king [Antiochos III]”). On ἀγαπῆσαι to describe a deity acting with affection/love to humans, see, for example, P.Münch. 3.45.12 ([Πτολεμαῖ]ος αἰωνόβιος ἠγαπ.[ημένος ὑπὸ τῆς Ἴσιδος]; 221– 205 BC), OGIS 90.4 (ἠγαπημένου ὑπὸ τοῦ Φθᾶ), 8 (ἠγαπημένου ὑπὸ τοῦ Φθᾶ), 9 (ἠγαπημένος ὑπὸ τοῦ Φθᾶ), 37 (ἠγαπημένωι ὑπὸ τοῦ Φθᾶ), 49 (ἠγαπημένωι ὑπὸ τοῦ Φθᾶ; 196 BC), LXX Deut 23:6 (μετέστρεψεν κύριος ὁ θεός σου τὰς κατάρας εἰς εὐλογίαν, ὅτι

178

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

people’s affection for high-status or powerful people in response to their generosity and benefaction.55 In an inscription from Alexandria in Arachosia (mid3rd c. BC), Mauryan king Ashoka contrasts ἀγαπῆσαι with διαψεύδεσθαι. He instructs people in the way of piety (εὐσέβεια; “dharma”) “to have affection for friends and companions and not to deceive (them)” (φίλους καὶ ἑταίρους ἀγαπᾶν καὶ μὴ διαψεύδεσθαι).56 Polybios contrasts ἀγαπῆσαι with “to consider enemies” (νομίζειν ἐχθρούς) and “to hate” (μισεῖν).57 Jesus’s own teaching had a focus on love, upending this love-enemy contrast by teaching a counter-script that his followers should “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute/pursue you” in imitation of their father God so that they would be “whole” (τέλειος; Matt 5:43–48).58 Further, Jesus taught that the whole law could be summarized with the instructions to love God wholeheartedly (Deut 6:4–5) and to love one’s neighbor (Lev 19:18), which summarizes the so-called First Table (εὐσέβεια; Exod 20:1–12; Deut 5:6–16) and Second Table (δικαιοσύνη; Exod 20:13–17; Deut 5:17–21) of the Law, respectively (Mark 12:29–30). 59 Paul ἠγάπησέν σε κύριος ὁ θεός σου). On ἀγαπῆσαι from humans to a deity, see LXX Deuteronomy 6:5 (καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς δυνάμεώς σου) and Mark 12:29–30. 55 “It is indeed the part of a tyrant to do evil that he may make himself the master of men by fear against their will, hated himself and hating his subjects, but it is that of a king to do good to all and thus rule and preside over a willing people, earning their love by his beneficence and humanity” (τυράννου μὲν γὰρ ἔργον ἐστὶ τὸ κακῶς ποιοῦντα τῷ φόβῳ δεσπόζειν ἀκουσίων, μισούμενον καὶ μισοῦντα τοὺς ὑποταττομένους· βασιλέως δὲ τὸ πάντας εὖ ποιοῦντα, διὰ τὴν εὐεργεσίαν καὶ φιλανθρωπίαν ἀγαπώμενον, ἑκόντων ἡγεῖσθαι καὶ προστατεῖν; Polyb., Hist., 5.11.6 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 56 PH314720.9. 57 “So instead of feeling affection for the Macedonians because they did not plunder your city when masters of it, you should consider them your enemies and hate them for preventing you more than once when you had the power of attaining supremacy in Greece” (διόπερ οὐκ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἀγαπᾶν ὀφείλετε Μακεδόνας, κυριεύσαντες τῆς πόλεως οὐ διήρπασαν, ἐφ᾿ ὅσον ἐχθροὺς νομίζειν καὶ μισεῖν, ὅτι δυναμένους ὑμᾶς ἡγεῖσθαι τῆς Ἑλλάδος πλεονάκις ἤδη κεκωλύκασι; Polyb., Hist., 9.29.12 [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]). 58 On love in Jesus’s teaching, see, e.g., David Flusser and R. Steven Notley, The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007): 55–65. If Paul was familiar was the teaching of Jesus on love, which seems likely, it seems not too much a stretch here to make the connection in Galatians between Paul who “was persecuting/pursuing the assembly of God and destroying it” (Gal 1:13) and Christ who loved his enemy, the persecutor Paul (Gal 2:20) as indicating that Paul is seeing Christ as a paradigmatic example of someone who loves an enemy and persecutor (Matt 5:44). On τέλειος as wholeness and integrity in Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 5–7, see Jonathan T. Pennington, The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing: A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 69–85. 59 On the Ten Commandments being understood by some Jewish people to be split into piety (εὐσέβεια, commandments 1–5) and justice/righteousness (δικαιοσύνη, commandments 6–10), see Paula Fredriksen, “Paul’s Letter to the Romans, the Ten Commandments, and Pagan ‘Justification by Faith,’” JBL 133, no. 4 (2014): 802–804.

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

179

inherits the ethical counter-script of enemy-love and the double love-command as law-in-summary from Jesus and his earliest followers. Paul, following the teachings of Jesus, considers love/affection (ἀγαπῆσαι, ἀγάπη) a vital part of the reciprocal relation between God and his people. God loves his pagans-turned-Christ-followers, whom Paul calls “beloved by God” (1 Thess 1:4, ἀγαπημένοι ὑπὸ θεοῦ; cf. Rom 1:7, ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ), “my [i.e., God’s] people” (λαόν μου) and “beloved” (ἀγαπημένην; Rom 9:25). And it is proper for God’s people to love God in response to his own love for them (Rom 8:28; 1 Cor 2:9; 8:3). Moreover, Paul views love for one another as the superordinate principle for interpersonal ethics (Rom 13:8–9; Gal 5:13–14; 1 Thess 4:9; 1 Cor 13).60 In Galatians 2:20, then, Paul – probably influenced by Jesus’s own teachings on love and LXX Leviticus 19:18 (see esp. Rom 13:8–9 and Gal 5:13–14) – uses the term ἀγαπῆσαι to describe Jesus’s paradigmatic loving act of self-surrender and self-endangerment to benefit another – Paul himself. In this reading, Christ’s “giving himself over for” (παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπέρ) Paul is the concrete expression of his affection and, combined with Galatians 1:4, functions as a pattern of behavior that serves as a model of proper virtuous conduct throughout the letter. 7.2.3 Christ the Endangered Benefactor, Text 3 (Gal 3:13) Galatians 3:13–14 is another significant text regarding Christ’s actions to benefit his constituents: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming for us a curse, because it is written, ‘cursed is everyone hanging upon wood,’ so that to the nations the blessing of Abraham would occur in/by Christ Jesus, so that we would receive through fidelity the promise of the spirit.”61 The term ἐξαγοράσαι is not especially common in the ancient sources and the phrase ἐξαγοράσαι + ἐκ is entirely absent until its usage in Galatians 3:13.62 Normally ἐξαγοράσαι carries the sense of buying something, for example,

60 Note also how Paul calls several of his coworkers “so-and-so my beloved” (Rom 16:5, 8, 9, 12; δεῖνος ὁ ἀγαπητός μου;) or “my beloved son” (μου τέκνον ἀγαπητόν; 1 Cor 4:17; cf. 1 Cor 4:14), and calls his recipients “beloved” (Rom 12:19; 2 Cor 7:1; 12:19; 1 Thess 2:8; ἀγαπητοί; cf. Philem 1), “my beloved” (1 Cor 10:14; Phil 2:12; ἀγαπητοί μου), and “my beloved brothers/siblings” (Phil 4:1; ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί; cf. Philem 16). 61 χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα, ὅτι γέγραπται· ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου, ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γένηται ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως. 62 According to a TLG proximity lemma search for ἐξαγοράζω + ἐκ, the first occurrence of the phrase ἐξαγοράσαι + ἐκ in Greek literature occurs in Galatians 3:13. A search of ἐξαγορ and ἐξηγορ in the PHI epigraphical database and in the Papyrological Navigator (papyri.info) yields no instances of ἐξαγοράσαι + ἐκ either.

180

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

boats, a city, a house, or time.63 The term is also used to describe redeeming (“buying out”) a slave.64 An honorific decree of Istros honoring the benefactor Agathokles son of Antiphilos notes how he was called upon to serve as an envoy while the countryside was under siege “to redeem the countryside and the harvest by whatever means” (κ.[α]τὰ τρόπον ἐξαγοράζειν τὴν χώραν καὶ τὰ θέρη).65 Agathokles paid 600 pieces of gold to Zoltes and the Thracians, who had invaded the countryside, and convinced them not to attack, which resulted in a safe gathering of the harvest.66 What holds these usages together is the notion of securing something for oneself and releasing it from the control of another (typically through a payment), whether for one’s own use (houses, boats, enslaved person) or for the protection of something (enslaved person, countryside/harvest) from some danger or threat. The usage of ἐξαγοράσαι in Galatians 3:13 conforms to the notion of securing and releasing something – in this case a population of people, i.e., Paul, his companions, and their Galatian audiences – from danger, in this case “from the curse of the law” (ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου).

63 E.g., Polyb., Hist., 3.42.2 (ἐξηγόρασε παρ᾿ αὐτῶν τά τε μονόξυλα πλοῖα πάντα καὶ τοὺς λέμβους; “he bought up all their canoes and boats” [Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL]); Polyb., Hist., 30.31.6 (ἀλλὰ Καῦνον δήπου διακοσίων ταλάντων ἐξηγοράσαμεν παρὰ τῶν Πτολεμαίου στρατηγῶν καὶ Στρατονίκειαν ἐλάβομεν ἐν μεγάλῃ χάριτι παρ᾿ Ἀντιόχου καὶ Σελεύκου; “But as for Kaunos, you will confess that we bought it from Ptolemy’s generals for two hundred talents, and that Stratonikeia was given us as a great favor by Antiochos and Seleukos” [Olson, Paton, Walbank, and Habicht, LCL, slightly modified]); Plutarch, Crassus, 2.4 (ἐξηγόραζε τὰ καιόμενα καὶ γειτνιῶντα τοῖς καιομένοις; “he would buy houses that were afire, and houses which adjoined those that were afire” [Perrin, LCL]); SB 14.11645.17–19 (2nd c. AD; παρήκουσα περὶ [τῆς οἰκίας] ὅπου οἰκῶ ὅτει ἐξηγόρασε[ν αὐτὴν] ὁ Σαβῖνος; “I heard about the house where I live, that Sabinos has bought [it]”; translation modified from George M. Parassoglou, “Four Papyri from the Yale Collection,” The American Journal of Philology 92, no. 4 [1971], 657); OG Dan 2:8 (καιρὸν ὑμεῖς ἐξαγοράζετε; “you are buying time”); cf. Eph 5:16 (ἐξαγοραζόμενοι τὸν καιρόν); Col 4:5 (τὸν καιρόν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι). 64 Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 15.7.1 (τοῦτον μὲν οἱ φιλόσοφοι συνελθόντες ἐξηγόρασαν; “Those who were philosophers, however, joined together, purchased his freedom” [Oldfather, LCL]); Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 36.2.2 (ἐξηγόρασεν αὐτήν [i.e., τὴν θεραπαινίδα]…ταλάντων Ἀττικῶν ἑπτά; “he purchased her freedom for seven Attic talents” [Walton, LCL]); Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 36.2a.1 (διὰ γὰρ τὴν φιλοστοργίαν ἐπιβαλόμενος ἐξαγοράσαι τὴν παιδίσκην τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἔσχε τὸν δεσπότην αὐτῆς ἀντιπράττοντα, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τῷ μεγέθει τῆς τιμῆς προτρεψάμενος ἐξηγόρασεν αὐτὴν ταλάντων Ἀττικῶν ἑπτά καὶ τὴν ἀπόδοσιν τῆς τιμῆς εἰς τακτὸν χρόνον συνέθετο; “Wishing because of his affection for her to purchase the girl’s freedom, he at first encountered her enslaver’s opposition, but later, having won his consent by the magnitude of the offer, he purchased her for seven Attic talents, and agreed to pay the purchase price at a stipulated time” [Walton, LCL, slightly modified]). 65 I.ScM I 15.29–30. For the full context, see I.ScM I 15.25–33. For English translations, see Burstein §68 and Austin2 §116. 66 I.ScM I 15.

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

181

Several scholars argue for a “substitution” reading of Galatians 3:13.67 In this line of thinking, Paul understands Christ as receiving God’s covenantal curses instead of his constituents (Jews and gentiles alike). As a result, God’s people do not undergo covenant curses. Instead, Christ experiences the curses as their singular representative and substitute in their place.68 To support the idea of substitution, some point to the preposition of ὑπέρ as conveying substitutionary meaning (X instead of Y). So, A. T. Robertson argues that contextual considerations require ὑπέρ in Galatians 3:13 to be read as “instead,” even going as far as saying “only violence to the text can get rid of” the idea of substitution.69 Similarly, R. E. Davies includes Galatians 3:13 in his list of instances of ὑπέρ that convey two senses simultaneously, both “for the sake of” and “instead of.”70 Davies argues that Paul and other New Testament writers prefer ὑπέρ because the use of ἀντί was declining, and ὑπέρ was able to convey

Although he does not directly address Galatians 3:13, Simon Gathercole has argued for the appropriateness of “substitution” for understanding the death of Christ in Paul’s letters, especially Romans 5:6–8. Simon Gathercole, Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015). But see the criticisms in the reviews of Tilling and Duke. Chris Tilling, review of Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul, by Simon Gathercole, JTS 67, no. 1 (2016): 251–254; Rodney K. Duke, “Simon Gathercole’s, Defending Substitution: Why I Am Unconvinced and Concerned,” The Expository Times 129, no. 10 (2018): 458–465. See also the criticism and alternative understanding of Rom 5:6–8 of Andrew Remington Rillera, Lamb of the Free: Recovering the Varied Sacrificial Understandings of Jesus’s Death (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2024), 279–282. 68 A. T. Robertson summarizes this reading as follows: “The curse of the law, like a Damascus blade, hangs over the head of every one who lives not up to every requirement of the law. But Christ became a curse for us or over us (γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα), that is the Damascus blade fell on Christ instead of upon us, Christ standing over (ὑπέρ) us and between us and the curse of the law under (ὑπό) which we lived. Thus Christ bought us out from under the curse of the law (Χριστός ἡμᾶς ἐξαγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου). The curse had no longer power over us and we were set free.” Robertson adds, “There is no fair way to get around Paul’s meaning in Galatians 3:13. There is no grammatical reason for trying to do so.” A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament (New York: George H. Doran, 1923), 39–40. 69 A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the New Testament Greek in the Light of Historical Research (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914), 631. See similarly, Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, 39–40. 70 So, Davies states, “there are about twenty passages in the New Testament which speak of Christ suffering of dying for us using the preposition ὑπέρ where the meaning included ‘in the place of’ as well as ‘for the sake of.’” R. E. Davies, “Christ in Our Place – The Contribution of the Prepositions,” Tyndale Bulletin 21, no. 1 (1970): 85. It should be noted to Davies quotes Robertson at length to support his case for substitution in Gal 3:13. Davies, “Christ in Our Place,” 89n67. Robin Thompson also follows the conclusion of Davies. See Thompson, Paul’s Declaration of Freedom from a Freed Slave’s Perspective, 162. 67

182

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

the ideas of “for the sake of” and “instead of” simultaneously.71 Daniel Wallace follows Robertson and Davies and suggests numerous other instances of ὑπέρ in Greek papyri support substitution, insisting that “it is difficult to deny a substitutionary sense to ὑπέρ” in Galatians 3:13.72 Some commentators also see Galatians 3:13 conveying the idea of substitution.73 A recent adherent to this viewpoint is Craig Keener, who says that “the words on our behalf (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) imply ‘for our sake’ and, sometimes more specifically, ‘in our stead,’ which the context here and probably the similar usage in 1:4; 2:20 implies.”74 Furthermore, Jarvis Williams sees Paul modifying Jewish martyrological traditions (as expressed in OG Dan 3, 2 Macc, and 4 Macc) in Galatians 3:13 to express the idea of substitution.75 Williams describes the “essence of substitution” in these terms: Similar to the way the Jewish martyrs took the Deuteronomic curses of Torah upon themselves because of the nation’s sin of disobedience to save and purify it from Torah’s curse, Paul suggests Jesus took the Deuteronomic curses upon himself for the “us” under Torah’s curse to redeem them from the law’s curse.76

71 Davies remarks, “In other words, while ἀντί could express the fact that Christ died in our place, it could not of itself state that this death was for our benefit and for our good, and therefore ὑπέρ, which can express both these ideas, is used.” Davies, “Christ in Our Place,” 90. 72 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 383–389 (quote from 387). Wallace leaves open the possibility that substitution is not present in Galatians 3:13 (among other texts), but he asserts that the “well-established usage of substitution in Hellenistic Greek” puts the “burden of proof” on those who argue against a substitutionary sense. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 388. As with all claims about who has the “burden of proof” in academic, non-legal contexts, every interlocutor must provide arguments to support their explanation for the phenomenon in question. Claims that one side has the burden of proof and not the other make the claimant susceptible to special pleading. 73 E.g., Moo, Galatians, 213; Schreiner, Galatians, 217, 218, Keener, Galatians, 257. Those commentators who disagree that substitution is present in Galatians 3:13 include, e.g., Ernest de Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921), 172; de Boer, Galatians, 211–212. 74 Keener, Galatians, 257 (emphasis original, transliteration removed). See also Keener, Galatians, 255. 75 Jarvis J. Williams, Christ Redeemed ‘Us’ From the Curse of the Law: A Jewish Martyrological Reading of Galatians 3:13 (London: T&T Clark, 2019). 76 Williams, Christ Redeemed ‘Us’ From the Curse of the Law, 165. But the phraseology of Williams here is consonant with a non-substitutionary reading of Galatians. Paul can say that “Jesus took the Deuteronomic curses upon himself for the ‘us’ under Torah’s curse” but understand it as participatory and not as substitutionary. The key point of contention is whether Jesus did so “instead of” (i.e., the covenant curses are experienced by him and not them for whom they are intended) or “for the benefit of” by joining with those already under the covenant curses (participation).

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

183

Based on this understanding of ὑπέρ as either only substitutionary or conveying a dual sense of benefit/interest and substitution, a translation of the relevant portion of Galatians 3:13 would read either “becoming a curse instead of us” or “becoming a curse for (our benefit) and instead of us.” Several problems plague this substitution reading.77 First, the argument that ὑπέρ is commonly or increasingly used with the sense of “instead of” in Greek misevaluates the usage of ὑπέρ in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods.78 In documentary sources, the word ὑπέρ followed by a genitive is used most commonly with three different senses: ὑπέρ + beneficiary/person(s) in whose interest or advantage something is done (beneficiary use of ὑπέρ), ὑπέρ + goal/end (telic use of ὑπέρ), and ὑπέρ + topic (topical use of ὑπέρ, akin to περί + GEN).79 In ritual contexts, the beneficiary sense of ὑπέρ is the most common 77 For criticism of a substitutionary reading of Gal 3:13 within a ritual/sacrificial context, see Rillera, Lamb of the Free, 254–257. 78 BDAG perpetuates this view by including the glosses “in place of, instead of, in the name of” – the third of which seems out of place within the group of glosses. BDAG, “ὑπέρ,” 1030–1031. The instances offered by BDAG do not necessitate a gloss of “in place of” or “instead of.” Instead, the normal sense of ὑπέρ with a genitive – whether ὑπέρ + beneficiary, ὑπέρ + goal/end, or ὑπέρ + topic – fit perfectly naturally without the extra step of rendering ὑπέρ as “instead of.” Especially curious is BDAG’s inclusion of Polyb., Hist. 3.67.7 (ὑπὲρ τῆς φιλίας καὶ συμμαχίας), which is not even ὑπέρ + beneficiary, let alone a substitutionary use. Likewise, the usage in Josephus, Against Apion, 2.142 fits as ὑπέρ + beneficiary (ὑπὲρ Αἰγυπτίων) and does not make sense with much less require a substitutionary reading. The substitutionary sense is also not necessary for Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 95.2. The best example given by BDAG that could possibly count as a truly substitutionary use of ὑπέρ is Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1:11 (ἐμὲ κρῖνον ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν· συμφέρει γὰρ μίαν ψυχὴν κολάσασθαι, καὶ μὴ ὅλον τὸν κόσμον εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγειν; Greek text from Constantine von Tischendorf, Apocalyses Apocryphae [Leipzig: 1866], 25). But this text is late, being a Christian composition from anywhere between the second to ninth centuries AD. 79 The topical sense of ὑπέρ is not an interpretive option for Gal 3:13. For examples, see IG II3 1.921.15–16 (ἔθυσεν δ̣[ὲ] κ̣αὶ τῶν ἰδίων καὶ π̣εφιλοτίμητ̣αι εἰς τὴν βουλὴν| καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων; 265/264, Athens). The topical sense is frequently found in documentary papyri in standard formulas in commercial, tax, and other legal contexts specifying the topic of the document. For instance, ὑπὲρ λαογραφίας (e.g., O.Berl. 23; AD 30), ὑπὲρ χωματικοῦ (O.Bodl. 2.661.3; AD 40), ὑπὲρ γεωγραφίας (e.g., O.Bodl. 2.875.2; AD 73), ὑπὲρ βαλανευτικοῦ (e.g., O.Bodl. 2.661.3; AD 40), ὑπὲρ ἀμπελῶνος (e.g., O.Bodl. 2.950.1; AD 49), ὑπὲρ φοινικώνων (e.g., O.Bodl. 2.953.1; AD 36), ὑπὲρ τιμῆς πυροῦ/κιθῶνος/κτλ (e.g., O.Bodl. 2.969.2 [AD 12]; O.Cair 69.5 [AD 97/98]). One can see the lexical overlap between this topical sense of ὑπέρ + GEN and περί + GEN reflected in the textual variant at Gal 1:4. Either preposition makes sense, so a scribe seeing and remembering -περ- but mistaking whether it was ὑπέρ or περί would make little difference in the sense of the phrase. Fourth is the economic use, which is used in explicitly commercial formulations with prices paid for goods and services. Despite the use of ἐξαγοράσαι in Gal 3:13, the passage lacks a price or a recipient of the payment. The ἐξαγοράσαι is better understood as broadly dealing with

184

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

usage.80 So, a first century BC inscription from Kos reads, “The monarchos and the hieropoios should make sacrifices on behalf of the city” (ὑπὲρ τᾶς πόλιος). 81 Likewise, a curse inscription states, “For me and for mine (ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ κα[ὶ] ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐμῶν), to those (dwelling) in Hades I give, I give over

securing and releasing rather than a typical economic transaction, as the broader context suggests. 80 CGRN 76.25–27 (ὅταν δὲ ἡ πόλις τὴν θυσίην τῶι Ἀσκληιῶι ποιῆι, τὰ τῆς πόλεως| προτεθύσθαι ὑπὲρ πάντων; ca. 380–360 BC, Erythrai); CGRN 79.18–20 (ὅπως δ᾽ ἂν γί⟦γι̣-⟧|γνηται ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Χολαργέω-||ν; 334/333 BC, Cholargos); CGRN 85.B.67 (ὑπὲρ τᾶς πόλιος; ca. 350 BC, Kos); CGRN 86.A.25–26 (ὑπὲρ κήνου; ca. 350 BC, Kos); CGRN 92.5–6 (ὑπὲρ τοὺ δήμου τοῦ Ἀ|[θηναίων]; ca. 335–330, Athens); CGRN 96.133–135 (ἀδικῶν τὰ ἱερὰ | [κα]ὶ τοὺς προγόνους ὑπὲρ ὧ[ν]|| [γέ]γραπται; beg. of 3rd c. BC, Kos); CGRN 106.1–5 (ἐπὶ τοῖσδε ἀνέθηκε Ἀγ̣ασίγρατις| [Τε]ι̣σία {ι} τῶι Ποσειδᾶνι ἀργυρίου δραχμὰς τριακοσίας ὑ|πέρ τε α̣ὐσαυτᾶς καὶ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς Σωφάνεος καὶ τοῦ υἱ|οῦ Σωσιφάνεος [κ]αὶ τᾶν θυγατέρων Νικαγόρας καὶ Ἀρισ-||το[κ]λείας; 3rd c. BC, Kalaureia); CGRN 118.23–25 (ποιείσθω δὲ ἡ ἱέρεια καθ᾽ ἑκάστην νου|μηνίαν ἐπικουρίαν ὑπὲρ πόλεως λαμβάνουσα|| δρακμὴν παρὰ τῆς πόλεως; ca. 250–200 BC, Halikarnassos); CGRN 138.1–2 (ὅταν δὲ ἡ ἱέρεια ἐπι[τελέσ]ηι τὰ ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλ[εω]ς| [πάσης]; 275/274 BC, Miletos); CGRN 152.119–22 (ὧι α᾽τὰ|| κατεσκεύωκε ὑπέρ τε τοῦ [ἀνδρὸς] αὐτᾶς Φοί|νικος καὶ αὑτᾶς καὶ τῶν υ[ἱῶν] Κρατησιλόχου; ca. 225–175 BC, Thera); I.Labraunda 6.7–9 (καὶ θυσίαν προσαγαγε[ῖν ὑπ]έρ τε τοῦ βα[σι-]|λέως Φιλίππου καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡ̣μ[ῶν Δ]ιὶ Ὀσογωι καὶ Διὶ [Λα-]|βραύνδωι καὶ Διὶ Ἐλευθερί[ωι]; ca. 220 BC, Labraunda); CGRN 156.16, 24–25 (ὑπὲρ καρποῦ [l. 16]; ὑπ[ὲρ]|| καρῶν [ll. 24–25]; ca. 230–200 BC, Mykonos); I.Iasos 161.7–8 (ὑπὲρ τοῦ δῆμου τὴν πομπὴν καὶ τὰς θυσίας | καὶ τὰ νομιζόμενα τῶι Διονύσωι συνετέλεσεν̣; 196/193 BC, Iasos); Syll.3 611.6–7 (ἐνεφάνιζον δὲ καὶ δ[ι]ότι τόν τε ἀγῶνα τὸγ γυμνικὸν| καὶ τὴν θυσίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν συνετελέσατε; 189–188 BC, Delphi); CGRN 172.4–5 (ὑπὲρ Λευκίου Γρανίου|| τοῦ Ποπλίου Ῥωμαίου; 2nd c. BC, Delos); CGRN 174.6–8 (ὑπὲρ ἑ|αυτῶν καὶ ἀδελ|φῶν καὶ συνγε[ν-]|ῶν καὶ τῶν συ[ν-]|όντων πολι[τῶν]; 2nd c. BC, Delos); SEG 59.1376B.15–17 (ὅπως ὑπάρχωσιν αἱ ἐξ αὐτῆς | πρόσοδοι εἴς τε τὰς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Στρατίου καὶ ὑπὲρ |μῶν συντελουμένας θυσίας καὶ διαμένῃ ἡμῖν ἱερὰ καὶ ἀτελής; 165/164 BC, Daldis); CGRN 176.18–19 (καὶ τὰς εὐχὰς εὔξεται ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως| τῆς Πριηνέων; 2nd c. BC, or perhaps ca. 130 BC, Priene); SEG 34.1037.1 (Αρις Ἀρισταίῳ εὐχὴν ὑπὲρ πάντων; 2nd/1st c. BC, Olbia); Syll.3 675.17–18 (ἔθυσέν τε τῶι Δ[ιὶ]| τῶι Σωτῆρι ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; ca. 154– 149 BC, Oropos); CGRN 208.22–24 (τᾶι δὲ θεᾶι [τ]εισ̣[ά]ντω̣ ἐπιτίμιον δραχμὰς πεντήκοντα, [ἁ] δὲ πρᾶξις ἔστω ὑ̣π̣ὲρ̣ τᾶς θεοῦ τῶι τε ἱερεῖ καὶ ἄλλωι τῶι χρῄζοντι| καὶ ἔστω ἐς κατασ̣κ̣ευὰν ἀργυρωμάτων; ca. 150–101 BC, Kos); New Docs Lydia §29. (Μητροδώρα ὑπὲρ| Μητροβίου τοῦ ἀν|δρὸς καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ Ἀρτ[έ-]||μιδι Βοριτηνῇ | εὐχήν; Late Hellenistic period?, Regio Montana); PH215958.15–16, 18–19 ([τὰ] νομιζόμενα τοῖς ἐπιτελοῦντες| [ὑπ]έρ τε σοῦ καὶ τῶν προγόνων [ll. 15–16]; [ἵ]να τούτου πρὸς αὔξησιν ἀγομένου πολλῷ | μ̣ᾶλλον τὰ νομιζόμενα τοῖς θεοῖς ὑπέρ σου [ll. 18–19]; 57 BC, Theadelphia); New Docs Lydia §45.4–6 (ὑπὲρ τῆς γυ-||[ν]αικὸς καὶ τῶν τεί|κνων εὐχήν; AD 98/99, Saittai); Malay – Petzel §6 (ὑπὲρ αὑτῆς καὶ| [ἀν]δρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ τέ|κνων καὶ βίου εὐχαρισ-||τήριον ἀνέθηκεν; 1st–2nd c. AD, Karaoglani). 81 CGRN 167.24–25 (θυόντωι δὲ ὅ τε μόναρ-||χος καὶ τοὶ ἱεροποιοὶ ὑπὲρ τᾶς πόλιος; 1st c. BC, Kos; translation from CGRN).

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

185

Neikias and Teimas and the others to whom I justly call down curses upon.”82 The telic sense is also well attested in ritual contexts by expressing aims for health (ὑγεία), preservation (σωτηρία), peace (εἰρήνη), or other advantageous causes.83 Thus, a first century AD inscription says, “let also the paidonomoi offer sacrifice for the health of the children” (ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑγίας τῶν παίδων).84 In civic benefaction contexts the beneficiary sense of ὑπέρ is used overwhelmingly, often with the common phrases “for the city” (ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως) or “for the demos” (ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου).85 Relatedly, honorific decrees that praise a benefactor’s self-endangerment for others use the beneficiary sense of ὑπέρ. For instance, the people of Sardis honored Iollas for, among other things, “being a good man and a lover of the fatherland and completing many embassies successfully, and [he] undertook many dangers and struggles and decisions for the demos (ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου) and accomplished success.”86 Even when benefactors offer themselves as a surety to release hostages, the normal beneficiary sense

82 SEG 49.1405.A.1–5 (ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ κα[ὶ] ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐμῶν τοῖς κατὰ Ἅδην δίδω|μι, παραδίδωμι Νεικίαν καὶ Τειμὴν | καὶ τοὺς ἄ[λ]λ̣ους οἷς δικ|αίως κα̣τηρασά||μην̣; 1st c. BC– 1st c. AD, Hispania). On this inscription, see Jaime B. Curbera, Marta Sierra Delage, and Isabel Velázquez, “A Bilingual Curse Tablet from Barchín del Hoyo (Cuenca, Spain),” ZPE 125 (1999): 279–283. 83 CGRN 132.17–18 (τὸν δὲ θύειν τῆι Ἀθηνᾶ ὑπὲρ ὑγιείας| [κ]αὶ σωτηρία[ς] τῶν συμφυλετῶν; 3rd or 2nd c. BC); IG XI.4.1055.15–16 (καὶ πλείους ἀγωνισταὶ γίνωνται ὑπὲρ τῶν συμφερόντων | τῆι πόλει; ca. 230–220, Delos); CGRN 194.26–30 (ὑπέρ τε σωτηρί|ας τῆς τε πόλεως καὶ τῆς χώρας καὶ τῶμ πολιτῶν| καὶ γυναικῶν καὶ τέκνων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατοικοὔν|των ἔν τε τῆι πόλει καὶ τῆι χώραι ὑπέρ τε εἰρήνης καὶ|| πλούτου καὶ σίτου φορᾶς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων καρπῶν πάν|των̣ καὶ τῶν κτηνῶν; ca. 197/96 or 180s BC, Magnesia); CGRN 221.10–12 (θυσάντω ἑκατέρωι τῶν θεῶν ἱερεῖ|ον ἀπὸ δραχμᾶν ἑκατὸν ὑπὲρ ὑγιείας τῶν τε πολ[ιτᾶ]ν̣ κ̣αὶ| πο-|⟨λ⟩ιτίδων καὶ τῶν κατοικεύντων ἐν τᾶι πόλει; ca. 125–100 BC); PH263138.13–16 (καὶ γενό|μενον ἱερέα τῆς Ῥώμης καὶ καλλίστας ποιήσαντα θυ-||ας τοῖς θεοῖς πολλάκις ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ δήμου σωτη|ρίας; ca. 75–50 BC, Sardis). The telic sense is related to the beneficiary sense if one considers that both convey doing something in the interest of either a person/group (beneficiary sense) or a cause (telic use). 84 CGRN 249.C.2–3 (θυέτωσα⟨ν⟩ δὲ καὶ οἱ παιδονόμοι | ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑγίας τῶν παίδων; AD 15–100, Miletos). 85 E.g., IG II3 1 911.29 (ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου), 36 (ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως), 38 (ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου), 48 (ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως), 52 (ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως), 58 (ὑπὲρ τ[ο]ῦ δήμου), 63 (ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως); Syll.3 656.19–20 ([π]ρεσβεύσαντες ὑπὲρ τοῦ|| δήμου; 166–160 BC, Teos); I.Priene 117.45, 59 (τοὺς πρεσβευτὰς ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ ἑτέρω[ν] [l. 45]; καὶ λέγων καὶ πράσσων ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἄριστα [l. 59]; 1st c. BC, Priene). 86 PH263138.6–9 (ἄνδρα ἀγαθὸν καὶ φιλόπατριν ὄντα| καὶ πολλὰς πρεσβείας τελέσαντα ἐπιτυχῶς, καὶ πολ|λοὺς κινδύνους καὶ ἀγῶνας καὶ ἐγδικασίας ὑπὲρ τοῦ| δήμου ἀναδεξάμενον καὶ κατορθώσαντα; ca. 75–50 BC, Sardis). On rare occasions it can be difficult to assess whether a use of ὑπέρ is beneficiary or topical. For instance, Diodoros, Prokritos, and Klearchos “were appointed envoys for the hostages” (πρέσβεις| ὑπὲρ τῶν ὁμήρων; I.ScM I 8.5– 6). Both “in the interest of” (beneficiary sense) and “concerning” (topical sense) would make sense in context.

186

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

of ὑπέρ is perfectly at home.87 Suggesting an additional “substitutionary” sense in the term ὑπέρ itself is simply unnecessary. The examples of ὑπέρ offered by Robertson, Davies, and Wallace that purportedly convey “substitutionary” meaning are generally better understood to be uses of the normal beneficiary sense.88 In this understanding, the beneficiary use of ὑπέρ is sufficient for explaining uses of ὑπέρ even when the surrounding context or situation would also indicate that person X is doing something instead of person Y (“substitution”). That is, ὑπέρ does not convey a substitutionary sense, but one can use ὑπέρ in an X for Y “substitutionary” situation, which is only evident from the surrounding context. One of their prime examples is the illiteracy formula commonly used by scribal proxies in various forms of contract: “I wrote for him because he does not know letters” (ἔγραψα

87 So, Hegesippos and Antipappos, prisoners alongside the others, having convinced their captors to “to release (ἀπολῦσαι) the free bodies and some of the freedmen and enslaved, they themselves chose to serve as hostages for them ([α]ὐτοὶ δὲ ὑπὲρ τούτων προήιρηνται || [ὁμ]ηρεύειν; IG XII 7.386.16–20; 3rd c., Amorgos).” Understanding ὑπέρ here as “for the benefit of” or “in the interest of” (beneficiary sense) sufficient to account for the usage. Hegesippos and Antipappos, already co-prisoners, offer to serve as hostages to benefit the other prisoners, whose release they secured. Similarly, Plutarch writes that Antigonos Gonatas, son of Demetrios Poliorketes, offered to hand himself over as hostage to Seleukos to secure his father’s release (Plutarch, Demetrios, 51.2; καὶ πρὸ παντὸς ὁμηρεύειν ἔτοιμος ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὲρ τοῦ πατρός). 88 The examples Wallace sees as especially important are those that are “very early” (pre150 AD) and that are not used in the stock illiteracy formula ἔγραψα ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ μὴ εἰδότος γράμματα (“I wrote for him since he does not know letters”) that is found in legal documents like contracts and leases. He identifies three uses across two papyri that meet these two criteria: P. Lond. 1.23.28–29 = UPZ 1.14.28–29 (157 BC) and P. Lond. 3.1177.39, 55 (AD 131–132). Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 386n82. Note that Wallace mislabels P.Lond 1.23 as SP 2.244. It is in fact SP 2.272. Likewise, he lists P.Lond. 3.1177 (= TM 29258) as SP 2.536 and 2.538, but the volume only lists nos. 201–434 (i.e., there are no nos. 536 or 538). He means SP 2.406. Also, Wallace lists the date of P.Lond. 3.1177 as AD 113, but the document is now dated to AD 131–132. Contrary to Wallace’s categorization, the occurrence of ὑπέρ in UPZ 1.14.27–29 is used to indicate the beneficiary of sacrifices rather than the notion of substitution (“so that being thus decently circumstanced I might be able to complete the sacrifices for [ὑπέρ] you and your children”; ὅπως διευσχημονῶν δύνωμαι| ἐπιτελεῖν τὰς θυσίας ὑπέρ τε ὑμῶν| καὶ ὑμῶν). Translation modified from BD2 §172. Further, Wallace contends that the two examples of ὑπέρ in P. Lond. 3.1177 are best understood as conveying the idea of “exchange,” which in turn supports a substitutionary sense. But the use of ὑπέρ to indicate an exchange in an explicit economic/trade context is rather removed from someone doing something “instead of” another, which substitution requires. P. Lond. 3.1177.39 reads, “for 5 intercalary days, 45 obols” (ὑπὲρ ἐπαγομένων ε ὀβ(ολοὶ) με), and P. Lond. 3.1177. 54–55 reads, “for 5 intercalary days, 9 drachmas” (ἐπαγομ(ένων)| ὑπὲρ ἡμερῶν ε (δραχμαὶ) θ).

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

187

ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ μὴ εἰδότος γράμματα and its variations).89 The scribe is signing the document in the interest of the signatory, but also happens to be writing instead of the signatory due to their inability to write. The main point is that the surrounding context, not recourse to a special substitutionary sense of ὑπέρ, determines if an event, action, or relation is “substitutionary” (X instead of Y). In other words, ὑπέρ does not itself convey the idea of substitution, but it does not necessarily contradict it, either. To risk belaboring the point, ὑπέρ is compatible with but not indicative of the notion of substitution. In the commonly accepted letters of Paul, the use of ὑπέρ + GEN can be categorized into beneficiary, telic, and topical senses. 90 Broadly speaking, Paul’s language about Christ’s death “for so-and-so” (ὑπέρ δεῖνων) fits a pattern of language about Christ’s death that maps well onto language used of benefactors describing the lengths to which a benefactor goes to benefit a populace or act in their interest despite personal risk (ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως, ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου, κτλ).91 For example, the Athenians honored Kallias of Sphettos for, 89 This formula is a normal part of contracts in late antiquity, but also has precedents in earlier centuries. Two examples should suffice to show first century usage. BGU 1.189 = TM 8949 (AD 7, Arsinoite): “Panephrymis Stothetios wrote for him because he does not know letters” (ἔγραψεν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ | Πανεφρύμις Στοθήτιος διὰ τὸ μ[ὴ] είδέ-|[να]ι αὐτὸν γράμ(μ)ατα; ll. 12–14). BGU 1.183 = TM 8944 (AD 85, Soknopaiu Nesos): “Horos Stotohtios wrote for him because he does not know letters” (ἔγραψεν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ Ὧρος Στοτοήτιος διὰ τὸ μὴ εἰδέναι αὐτὸν| γράμματα; ll. 30–31), “Leonides (son of) Zoilos wrote for them because they does not know letters” (ἔγραψεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν Λεο|ν[ίδης Ζω]ίλου διὰ τὸ μὴ εἰδέναι αὐτοὺς γράμματα; ll. 33–34). Another stock phrase that might support the idea of substitution with ὑπέρ is found in loan repayments and other forms of contract: “NN nor another on her/his behalf” (NN μηδ᾽ ἄλλον ὑπὲρ ἀυτῆς/αὐτοῦ). But again, the normal beneficiary sense is sufficient to explain the usage, even if the person acting in the interest of another is doing something instead of them. E.g., P.Mich. 5.262 = TM 12095 (AD 34–36, Arsinoite): “Hero nor another on her behalf” (τὴν Ἡρὼ μηδ᾽ ἄλλον ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς; l. 17); P.Mich 3.194 = TM 21339 (AD 61, Oxyrhynchos): “Thermouthion nor another on her behalf” (Θερμούθ[ι]ον μηδ᾽ ἄλλον ὑπὲρ| αὐτῆς; ll. 21–22). 90 Beneficiary/interest (ὑπέρ + beneficiary/person of interest): Rom 1:5; 5:6, 7, 8; 8:27, 31, 32, 34; 9:3; 10:1; 14:15; 15:30; 16:4; 1 Cor 1:13; 4:6; 11:24; 12:25; 15:3, 29 (2x); 2 Cor 1:11 (2x); 5:14, 20 (2x), 21; 7:7, 12; 8:16; 9:14; 12:10, 15; Gal 2:20; 3:13; Phil 1:4, 29 (2x); 1 Thess 5:10; Philem 13; telic (ὑπέρ + goal/end): Rom 15:8; 2 Cor 1:6 (2x); 12:19; 13:8; Phil 2:1; topical (ὑπέρ + topic): Rom 9:27; 15:9; 1 Cor 10:30; 2 Cor 1:7, 8; 5:12, 15 (2x); 7:4, 14; 8:23, 24; 9:2, 3; 12:5 (2x), 8; Gal 1:4; Phil 1:7; 4:10; 1 Thess 3:2. Gathercole argues that Rom 5:6–8 be understood in a substitutionary sense, but see the review of Duke, who notes that “the language of Rom. 5:6–8 is not specific enough to support an allusion to any case that was substitutionary, but is general enough to support allusions to ‘dying for’ someone that are not substitutionary.” Duke, “Simon Gathercole’s, Defending Substitution,” 462. 91 Rom 5:6 (ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν), 7 (ὑπὲρ δικαίου τις ἀποθανεῖται· ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ . . . ἀποθανεῖν), 8 (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν); 8:32 (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων παρέδωκεν αὐτόν); 14:15 (ὑπὲρ οὗ χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν); 1 Cor 1:13 (ἐσταυρώθη ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν); 11:24 (τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν); 2 Cor 5:14–15 (εἷς ὑπὲρ ἀπέθανεν, ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον· καὶ ὑπὲρ

188

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

among other things, “fighting on behalf of the demos” (ἀγωνιζόμενο|ς ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου Καλλίας; ll. 28–29), “serving as envoy on behalf of the demos” (π|ρεσβεύων ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου; ll. 36–37), and “leading on behalf of the demos the sacred delegation” (ἀγαγεῖν ὑπὲρ τ[ο]ῦ δήμου [τὴν θεωρίαν]; l. 58).92 In the course of his services in the interest of the Athenians, Kallias, “despite becoming wounded (γενόμενος τραυματίας), shirked no danger whatsoever at any time for the sake of the preservation (σωτηρίας) of the demos.”93 In Galatians 3:13, Christ achieved benefits – the “blessing of Abraham” and “the promise of the pneuma” (Gal 3:14) – by “becoming for us a curse” (γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα).94 In comparison to the common beneficiary usage of ὑπέρ + GEN in the context of a benefactor performing services for a constituency, Paul’s use of ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν in Galatians 3:13 is explained coherently, succinctly, and sufficiently with its normal beneficiary sense without recourse to the idea of substitution. The phrase γενόμενος κατάρα also deserves comment in relation to benefaction. Honorific inscriptions often feature a benefactor “becoming” (γενόμενος/γενόμενον) something, often in reference to an office: “becoming priest” (ἱερεὺς γενόμενος), “becoming epimeletes” (ἐπιμελητὴς γενόμενος), “becoming gymnasiarch” (γυμνασίαρχος γενόμενος), etc.95 But many other inπάντων ἀπέθανεν, ἵνα οἱ ζῶντες μηκέτι ἑαυτοῖς ζῶσιν ἀλλὰ τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανόντι καὶ ἐγερθέντι); 1 Thess 5:9–10 (διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀποθανόντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν). See also Rom 16:4 where Paul expresses his gratitude to Priska and Aquila, “who risked their own neck on behalf of my life” (οἵτινες ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς μου τὸν ἑαυτῶν τράχηλον ὑπέθηκαν). The use of τράχηλον in Rom 16:4 has an interesting connection with P.Herc. 1044, fr. 22, ll.1–11, which also employs a similar metaphor to talk about undergoing substantial risk in the interest of others (. . . ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἂν δέη καὶ | πάσχειν τι δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν | . . . τοῦ μάλιστ᾽ ἀ|γαπωμένου τῶν ἀναγ-||καίων ἢ τῶν φίλων παρα|βάλοι ἂν ἑτοίμως τὸν τρά|χηλον. Εἰ γὰρ τὸ ὑπὲρ τῆς| πατρίδος ἀποθανεῖν| ἦν ἐμοὶ καθῆκον, πῶς οὐ|| καὶ τὸ ὑπὲ[ρ ἀ]ν̣αγ[κ]α̣[ίου]| μέλλ̣[ω;]; 1st c. BC; Herculaneum). The uses of ὑπέρ in P.Herc. 1044, fr. 22 are emblematic of a benefactor risking one’s life to benefit others. As a result, there is no need for a substitutionary reading of either P.Herc 1044, fr. 22 or Rom 16:4. 92 IG II3 1 911 (270/269 BC). Translations modified from Sean Byrne, “Honours for Kallias of Sphettos,” Attic Inscriptions Online, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/ IGII31/911, last updated Jan 6, 2024. 93 IG II3 1 911.30–32 (τραυματίας γενόμενος κίνδυ|νου οὐθένα ὑποστελλόμενος οὐδὲ ἐν ἑνὶ καιρῶι ἕνεκα| τῆς τοῦ δήμου σωτηρίας). Translation modified from Sean Byrne, “Honours for Kallias of Sphettos,” Attic Inscriptions Online, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/ inscription/IGII31/911, last updated Jan 6, 2024. 94 On the distinction (rather than conflation) between “blessing of Abraham” and the spirit, see Esau McCaulley, Sharing in the Son’s Inheritance: Davidic Messianism and Paul’s Worldwide Interpretation of the Abrahamic Land Promise in Galatians (LNTS 608; London: T&T Clark, 2019), 136–141. 95 E.g., PH75475.5 (γυμνασίαρχος γενόμενος; 209–204 BC, Eresos); SEG 52.724.10 ([ἱ]ππάρχης τε γενόμενος ἐπὶ τῆς χ[ώρας]; ca. 200 BC, Istros?); PH75478.5 (ἀγοράνομος

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

189

scriptions use a variety of descriptions to highlight benefactors “becoming” (γενόμενος/γενόμενον) something for their constituents. A diverse selection of such “becoming” phrases include becoming “a noble and good man,” “an emulator of the most noble aims,” “the cause of many and great benefits,” “wounded,” and many other things.96 Paul, writing in his own peculiar circumstances and within an Israelite restorationist framework, says that Christ, γενόμενος; 2nd c. BC, Eresos); SEG 39.869.7 (ἄρχων τῆς πόλεως γενόμε̣[νος]; 2nd c. BC, Keos); IG IX.2 1100a.7 (γενόμενος κοινὸς στρατηγὸς; 2nd c. BC, Demetrias); SEG 29.1087.5 (γενόμενος στεφανηφόρος; 2nd c. BC, Telmissos); IG VII 412.10 (ἱερεὺς γενόμενος; ca. 150–100 BC, Oropos); PH64248.1 (ἐπιμελητὴς γενόμενος; 120/119 BC, Delos). 96 Noble and good man: I.ScM I 9.10–11 (ἀνὴρ καλὸς καὶ ἀγα[θὸς γε-]|νόμενος; 3rd c. BC, Istros); SEG 44.419.9–10 ([ἀγα-]||θὸς ἀνὴρ γενόμεν[ος]; 1st c. BC/1st c. AD, Thespiai); PH352553.2–3 ([ἄν]δρα ἀγαθὸν γε[νόμενον εἰς τὰ| κ]οινῇ συμφέρον[τα]; 1st c. BC, Priene). Benefactor: SEG 49.1529.II.2 (εὐεργέτην τῆς πόλεως; ca. 320–300 BC, Miletos); SEG 62.925.3.3–4, 4.3 ([γε]νόμενον| εὐεργέταν [ll. 3.3–4]; γενόμενον εὐεργ[έταν] [l. 4.3]; ca. 150–100 BC, Aigai); PH214132.7 (σωτῆρα καὶ [εὐεργέτην γε]νόμενον ἑαυτῶν; ca. 98 BC, Olympia). Well-disposed: SEG 44.1108.10–11 (τοῖς τε τοῦ βασι|λέως πράγμασιν εὔνους γενόμενος; 159 BC, Olbasa). Useful: PH345067.3 (γενόμενος εὔχρησ[τος ἡμῖν]; Hellenistic period, Kaunos). Well-disposed and useful (also self-giving): IG IX.2 5b.5–8 ([ἐπειδὴ Στρ]άτιος Γναθίου Κορκυραῖος εὔνους καὶ εὔχρη-|[στος γενόμ]ενος τοῖς Αἰνιάνοις διατελεῖ ἐμ πᾶν τὸ παρακα-|[λέομεν]ον ἐπιδιοὺς αὐτοσαυτὸν προθύμως σπουδᾶς καὶ φ[ι]|λοτιμί]ας οὐθὲν ἐνλείπων; ca. 130 BC, Hypata). Worthy of every honor: PH289357.15–16 (πάσης γενόμενον ἄξιον τιμῆς τῆι| παρτίδι; 1st c. BC, Kyzikos?); SEG 35.744.7–9 (γενόμε|νος ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ πάσης| τειμῆς ἄξιος; AD 1, Kalindoia). Emulator of virtuous and reputable conduct: IG VII 3059.7–12 (ἀνὴρ| ἀγαθὸς ὑπάρχων ἀπὸ τῆς| [πρ]ώτης ἡλικίας ζηλω-||[τ]ὴς γενόμενος τῶν πρὸς| [ἀρ]ετὴν καὶ δόξαν ἀνηκόν-|[τω]ν; after 146 BC, Lebadeia); PH78552.5–8 (ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς|| ὑπάρχων ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡλικίας ζη|λωτής τε γενόμενος τῶν καλλίστων| ἐπέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν ἰατρικὴν τέ|χνην; 2 BC, Andros); SEG 3.584.6–7 (2nd c. AD, Olbia); see also I.Mylasa 109.5 (ca. 76 BC, Mylasa); PH284795.Col V.17.19– 21(AD 152/153, Rhodiapolis). Founder: IGR 4.293.62–63 (γενόμενος καθάπερ εἴ τις δεύτερος| κτίστης; 75–50 BC, Pergamon); IG VII 2712.58–59 (τῶν μεγάλων Πτωΐων καὶ Καισαρήων κτίστης ἄνωθε| γενόμενος; after AD 37, Akraiphia). Cause of benefit(s): I.Stratonikeia 1206.5–6 (πολλῶν ἀγαθῶν αἴτιον γενόμεν[ον]| τῆι πατρίδι; 2nd or 1st c. BC, Stratonikeia); IG VII 223.8–11 (χρείας παρέ[χεται]| κοινᾶι καὶ καθ᾽ ἱδίαν τοῖς δε[ομέ-]||νοις τῶν πολιτᾶν ἀεί τινος ἀ[γαθοῦ]| π̣αρ̣[αίτι]ος γενόμενος; 192–146 BC, Aigosthena); FD III 1.480.6–7 (πα|ραίτιος ἀεί τινος ἀγα[θοῦ γινόμενος τοῖς ἡ]μετέροις δήμοις; 48/47 BC, Delphi); IG XII.5 860.44–45 (γενόμενος τῶν μεγίστων ἡμεῖ[ν]|| παραίτος ἀγαθῶν; 1st c. BC, Tenos); SEG 58.1243A.1–5 ([ὁ δῆμ]ος ἐτίμασεν Χρυσάορα| [Θεα]ιτήτου Λοβολδῆ ἄνδρα| ἀγαθὸν γενόμενον καὶ πολλῶν| καὶ μεγάλων ἀγαθῶν αἴτιον γεγο-||νότα τῆι πατρίδι; ca. 25– 1 BC, Stratonikeia). Wounded: IG II3 1 911.28–32 (ἀγωνιζόμενο|ς ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου Καλλίας καὶ ἐπεξιὼν μετὰ τῶν στρατι-||ωτῶν τῶν μεθ᾽ αὑτοῦ καὶ τραυματίας γενόμενος κίνδυ|νου οὐθένα ὑποστελλόμενος οὐδὲ ἐν ἑνὶ καιρῶι ἕνεκα| τῆς τοῦ δήμου σωτηρίας; 270/269 BC, Athens). Note also the inscription in which the benefited party is the one “becoming wounded” in OGIS 220.2–3 (τραυματίας γενόμενος| ἐν τῆι μάχηι εἰς τὸν τράχηλον; 275– 268/7 BC, Ilion?). Initiator: FD III 2.54.5.5 (εἰηγητὴς γενόμενος; ca. 98–97 BC, Delphi). Advocate: IGRR 4.1756.51 (γενόμενον ἔκδικον τῶν Ἑλλήνων; 5–1 BC, Sardis).

190

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

“becoming for us a curse” (γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα), secured from danger those “under a curse” (ὑπὸ κατάραν; Gal 3:10) and became the cause of benefits for them.97 In Galatians 3:10–14, Paul quotes with modification two passages with curse terminology: Deuteronomy 27:26 (Gal 3:10) and Deuteronomy 21:23 (Gal 3:13). The term ἐπικατάρατος in Deuteronomy 27:26 serves as a capstone to a barrage of occurrences of the term in Deuteronomy 27 (LXX Deut 27:15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 [x2], 24, 25; see also LXX Deuteronomy 28:15– 68, esp. 15–19) that designate an individual as “cursed” (ἐπικατάρατος) if that person violates various norms and negative rules enshrined in the covenant.98 That is, the violator is liable to the sanctions of the covenant, the curses, which include death, suffering, defeat, and shame in the domains of personal health and bodily functioning, agricultural productivity, progeny, social relations, disease, and war and international relations (LXX Deut 28:15–68). Paul also mentions “the curse of the law” (ἡ κατάρα τοῦ νόμου; Gal 3:13) in the singular. In Deuteronomy (LXX), “the curse” (ἡ κατάρα) in the singular refers to the totality of the consequences of abandoning the covenant, which is evident in the simple collocation “the blessing and the curse” (ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ κατάρα; Deut 11:26, 29; 30:1, 19).99 “The blessing” refers to the consequences 97 On Israelite restorationism and Paul, see Jason A. Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024). 98 In wider usage beyond Greek Jewish texts of the Second Temple Period the term ἐπικατάρατος occurs in a few epitaphs warding off those who would violate a tomb or in legal contexts to describe a consequence (i.e., being considered ἐπικατάρατος) for those who would violate legally binding stipulations. E.g., SEG 57.1107.1–9 (ἐνθάδε κεῖται ἱερεὺς Δήμητρος· ὅς ἂν ἀδικήσει, ἐπικατάρατος ἔστω ἀπὸ τῆς Δήμητρος καὶ θεῶν; ca. 425–400, Stratonikeia); PH262400.13–15 ([ἐὰν δ]ὲ τις ταῦτα παραβαίνῃ ἢ ἄκυρα π[οιῃ ἐπικα]τάρατος ἔστω αὐτός τε καὶ τὰ τού[του πάν]τα ἀπὸ θεοῦ τούτου; mid-4th c. BC, Sinuri); I.Labraunda 8.2–8 ([ἐὰν δὲ ἢ] π.α. ραλάβηι τις τὴν εὔθυναν ἢ εἰσαγάγηι ἢ δικα. [στὴς δικάσηι ἢ δῶι παρὰ] τ. ὰ δεδογμένα παραευρέσι ἡιτινοῦν, ἐξώλης. [ἔστω αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ ἐξ αὐ]τοῦ καὶ ἐπικατάρατος καὶ ἄτιμος καὶ προσαπο[τεισάτω δραχμὰς…]ας καὶ ἔστω τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ ἱερὰ Διὸς Ὀσ[ογω καὶ ἐξέστω τῶι βου]λομένωι εὐθύνειν τὸν μὴ ἐμμείναντα ἄνευ π.[ροθεσμίας παρευρέσει μη]δεμιᾶι ἐκκλειομένωι; after 240 BC [?]; “[But if] anybody undertakes the examination or brings a suit into court or [as a judge makes or proposes a judgement contrary to] what has been voted, under whatsoever pretext, he [himself and his descendants shall be] ruined, accursed and deprived of civic rights and he [shall pay] besides […drachmae] and his resources shall be consecrated to Zeus [Osogoa]”; translation from Jonas Crampa, Swedish Excavations and Researches, vol. III, part 1, The Greek Inscriptions, Part I:1–12 (Period of Olympichus) [Lund: CWK Gleerup 1969], 54). See also, CIG 2664.5–8; IG XII 9.1179.14–19; IG XII 9.955. 99 In Deuteronomy (πᾶσαι) αἱ κατάραι and ἡ κατάρα summarize the same thing, the totality of the consequences of abandoning the covenant to serve other gods, formulated as either a whole collection of multiple “curses” or as a singular “the curse.” See the formulations in Deut 11:26 (singular), 28 (plural), 29 (singular); 23:5 (plural); 28:45 (plural); 29:27 (plural); 30:1 (singular), 19 (singular).

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

191

of obedience and “the curse” refers to the consequences of disobedience, both understood as pertaining to Israel as a whole. The book of Daniel picks up on this singular use of κατάρα: “And all Israel abandoned your law to not obey your voice, and the curse (ἡ κατάρα) came upon us and the oath written in the law of Moses, servant of God, because we sinned against him” (OG Dan 9:11).100 Further, a collective covenant violation results in enslavement to other gods (Deut 28:64).101 Release from the “curse of the law,” then, can be understood at least in part as liberation from the power of and subjection to other gods and a turning back to serve Israel’s God alone (e.g., Deut 30:1–14; Rom 12:1–2; 1 Cor 8:4–6; 1 Thess 1:9).102 This enslavement to other gods maps on to the language of Galatians 4:8–9. Paul depicts the Galatians as liberated from ignorance and enslavement to become people who know God and worship him alone. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy the curse of the law is equated with death (Deut 30:19). And ultimately, the curse of the law results in the death of “the 100 καὶ πᾶς Ισραηλ ἐγκατέλιπε τὸν νόμον σου καὶ ἀπέστησαν τοῦ μὴ ἀκοῦσαι τῆς φωνῆς σου, καὶ ἐπῆλθεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἡ κατάρα καὶ ὁ ὅρκος ὁ γεγραμμένος ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωσῆ παιδὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι ἡμάρτομεν αὐτῷ. See also LXX Zech 8:13: “And it will be, what way you were in a curse among the nations, house of Judah and house of Israel, in this way I will preserve you and you will be in a blessing. Be courageous and be strong in your hands” (καὶ ἔσται ὃν τρόπον ἦτε ἐν κατάρᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, οἶκος Ιουδα καὶ οἶκος Ισραηλ, οὕτως διασώσω ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔσεσθε ἐν εὐλογίᾳ· θαρσεῖτε καὶ κατισχύετε ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν ὑμῶν). 101 “And the Lord your God will disperse you into all the nations from (one) extremity of the earth to (another) extremity of the earth, and you will serve as a slave there to other gods, of wood and stone, whom you and your ancestors did not know” (καὶ διασπερεῖ σε κύριος ὁ θεός σου εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου τῆς γῆς ἕως ἄκρου τῆς γῆς, καὶ δουλεύσεις ἐκεῖ θεοῖς ἑτέροις, ξύλοις καὶ λίθοις, οὓς οὐκ ἠπίστω σὺ καὶ οἱ πατέρες σου; LXX Deut 28:64). See the parallel statement in LXX Deut 11:28, which speaks of the curses (αἱ κατάραι) resulting in service, or perhaps better, servitude, to other gods: “and the curses if you do not heed the commandments of the Lord your God which I am commanding you today, and do not stray from the path which I commanded you, going to serve other gods whom you do not know” (καὶ τὰς κατάρας, ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσητε τὰς ἐντολὰς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν ὅσα ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαι ὑμῖν σήμερον, καὶ πλανηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἧς ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν, πορευθέντες λατρεύειν θεοῖς ἑτέροις οὓς οὐκ οἴδατε). Likewise, LXX Deut 28:36 says, “you will serve there other gods, of wood and stone” (λατρεύσεις ἐκεῖ θεοῖς ἑτέροις ξύλοις καὶ λίθοις). On enslavement to other nations, see also LXX Deut 28:48–49. Further, the theme of enslavement among the nations is taken up by other Jewish literature, e.g., LXX Jer 25:11, “and all the land will be unto extermination, and they will serve as slaves among the nations seventy years” (καὶ ἔσται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ εἰς ἀφανισμόν, καὶ δουλεύσουσιν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτη); Ps. Sol. 2:1–7, 19–21, 22–23; Jubilees 1:8–14; 23:15–25; LXX Gen 15:13–14. For the importance of the theme of enslavement to the gentiles and foreign gods in Second Temple Jewish literature, especially among the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Devorah Dimant, “Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature,” Revue de Qumrân 22, no. 3 (2006): 373–388. 102 On gentiles Christ-devotees as restored Israelites, see Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 326–337.

192

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

people of Israel as a whole.”103 So, when Paul talks about “death” as a problem to overcome (e.g., Rom 5:12, 14, 17, 21; 1 Cor 15:26, 54–57), it is not merely for individuals but also for population-level death, the death of Israel as God’s people.104 The solution, then, for both individual and corporate death, is resurrection. For, as God says, “I will kill and I will make live, I will strike and I will heal” (LXX Deut 32:39).105 For Paul, because Israel as a group died in its dispersal and integration among the nations as a result of the covenant curse, the resurrection of Israel entails the resurrection of all of humanity.106 So, in Galatians 3:10–14 and 4:3–5, for those “under law” (ὑπὸ νόμον; Gal 3:10; 4:5) and “under the elements of the kosmos” (ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου; Gal 4:3) the solution to “the curse of the law” (ἡ κατάρα τοῦ νόμου; Gal 3:13) – death and enslavement – is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of God’s messiah. Jesus participates in the enslaved and morally frail condition of humanity (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός; Gal 4:4), experiencing along with and as a part of Israel (not “instead of”) its covenantal condition under the curse (γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον; Gal 4:4), which is ultimately embodied and displayed in the shameful manner of his death for the benefit of his constituents (γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα; Gal 3:13–14; see also Phil 2:7–8).107 Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 97–101. Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 101. 105 ἐγὼ ἀποκτενῶ καὶ ζῆν ποιήσω, πατάξω κἀγὼ ἰάσομαι. See also OG 1 Sam 2:6: “the Lord kills and enlivens, he bring down into Hades and brings up” (κύριος θανατοῖ καὶ ζωογονεῖ, κατάγει εἰς ᾅδου καὶ ἀνάγει). 106 Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 315–317. 107 Phil 2:7–8: ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν, μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἄνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. Note the use of γενόμενος like in Gal 3:13 and Gal 4:4, including Christ participating in the enslaved condition of humanity. The phrase “becoming from a woman” is a normal Greek phrase for being generated from a woman. See, e.g., Herodotus, Histories, 1.61.1 (οὐ βουλόμενος οἱ γενέσθαι ἐκ τῆς νεογάμου γυναικὸς τέκνα); 5.92b.2 (ἐκ δί οἱ ταύτης τῆς γυναικὸς οὐδ᾽ ἐξ ἄλλης παῖδες ἐγίνοντο); 5.94.1 (γεγονότα ἐξ Ἀργείης γυναικός); 7.2.2 (ἦσαν γὰρ Δαρείῳ καὶ πρότερον ἢ βασιλεῦσαι γεγονότες τρεῖς παῖδες ἐκ τῆς προτέρης γυναικός). It is also possible that in Gal 4:4 Paul is drawing attention to the theme of fleeting human mortality that associates being human with physical and moral weakness and helplessness. Although the phraseology is not exact, the “born of woman” phrases in Hebrew (‫ )ילוד אשה‬and Greek (γεννητὸς γυναικός) might be relevant (e.g., Job 14:1 (‫שּׁה‬ ָ ‫ ;ְילוּד א‬γεννητὸς γυναικός); 15:14 (‫ ;ְילוּד אָשּׁה‬γεννητὸς γυναικός); 25:4 ( ‫שּׁה‬ ָ ‫ ;ְילוּד א‬γεννητὸς γυναικός); 1QHa 23.13–14 (‫ ;)ילוד אשה‬1QHa 5.31 (‫ ;)ילוד אשה‬1QS 11.20–22 (“son of a human/Adam” [‫ ]בן אדם‬is paralleled with “born of woman” [ ‫וילוד‬ ‫)]אשה‬. Note that in the LXX, the Joban phrase is rendered γεννητὸς γυναικός and not γίνεσθαι ἐκ γυναικός. See also LXX Job 11:2, 12; Sirach 10:18 (οὐκ ἔκτισται ἀνθρώποις ὑπερηφανία οὐδὲ ὀργὴ θυμοῦ γεννήμασιν γυναικῶν; ‫לא נאוה לאנוש זדון ועזות אף לילוד‬ ‫)אשה‬. Despite the different phraseology, the normal Greek γίνεσθαι ἐκ γυναικός could be seen as tapping into this Joban theme also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Support for 103

104

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

193

But Christ’s death is insufficient as a soteriological mechanism in and of itself (1 Cor 15:14, 17). The death of Christ is only beneficial because God subsequently raised him from the dead.108 Because God raised Jesus from the dead, death no longer holds him under its power, and the pneuma of Christ, or the pneumatic Christ, himself now has the power to create life out of death (ζῳοποιῆσαι; Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 2 Cor 3:6; see also the law’s inability to create life in Gal 3:21).109 In other words, the way out of death is through it: God’s son shared in humanity with its mortality and moral frailty so that by dying and being raised in a pneumatic body he can now share his new kind of life with others through his life-creating pneuma/spirit, thereby releasing Israel and humanity from their subjection to other gods and revivifying them from their individual and corporate death to share in his one body.110 The soteriological mechanism here does not necessitate a substitutionary atonement, nor does the language of Gal 3:10–14 or Gal 4:4–5 require such a scheme.111 Indeed, this understanding could also come from Rom 8:3, which likewise says God sent his son but uses the phrase “likeness of sinful flesh” (NRSVue) to highlight the morally compromised situation of humans in which God’s son participated (ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέμψας ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας). 108 On the soteriological importance of God resurrecting Jesus, see, e.g., Rom 4:24–25; 6:3–14; 7:4–6; 8:10–11; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:4; 15:12–57; 2 Cor 4:14; 5:14–15; Gal 1:1; 1 Thess 1:10. 109 Rom 8:11 (εἰ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὁ ἐγείρας χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῳοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα διὰ τοὺ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ὑμῖν); 1 Cor 15:22 (ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται), 45 (οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται· ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν); 2 Cor 3:6 (ὅς καὶ ἱκάνωσεν ἡμᾶς διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης, οὐ γράμματος ἀλλὰ πνεύματος· τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ); Gal 3:21b (εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἐκ νόμου ἂν ἦν ἡ δικαιοσύνη). 110 On the prominence of the theme of revivification from death to life in Galatians, emblematic of the restoration of Israel from exile (see esp. Ezek 36–37; Jer 31:31–37), see Andrew K. Boakye, Death and Life: Resurrection, Restoration, and Rectification in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2017). Boakye highlights key texts in Galatians (Gal 1:1; 2:19–21; 3:19–21; 5:24–25; 6:8, 14–15) and the complex of life and death terminology in Galatians (ζωή, ζῆν, ζῳοποιῆσαι, ἀποθανεῖν, νεκρός, σταυροῦν, σταυρός, καινή κτίσις; Boakye also considers δικαιοσύνη and cognates part of the “lexicon of life”). 111 Jarvis Williams argues that “Paul modifies Jewish martyrological ideas” (Williams, Christ Redeemed ‘Us’ From the Curse of the Law, 1, 48) and, like martyrs in Jewish Martyrological traditions, “presents Jesus’s death (a Torah-observant Jew) as a substitution for others in Gal 3:13 with Deuteronomic language” (Williams, Christ Redeemed ‘Us’ From the Curse of the Law, 167; see also 138, 160, 162). He argues that a martyrological reading is also necessary to account for Paul’s language in Galatians 3:10–14, since Deuteronomy alone cannot account for Paul description of Jesus as a Torah-observant Jew who vicariously suffers for those under the covenant curse (Williams, Christ Redeemed ‘Us’ From the Curse of the Law, 164–165). While Williams is right that a simple Deuteronomic reading does not

194

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

Christ’s beneficiaries are already in a precarious state, variously stated as “under a curse” (Gal 3:10), “under law” (Gal 4:5), and enslaved (Gal 4:2, 8–9; see also Gal 1:4; 4:24; 5:1).112 It is into their endangered condition that Christ enters and shares together with them (not instead of them). Now, regarding the modified citation of Deuteronomy 21:23 in Galatians 3:13, Jewish sources generally do not regard crucified people as automatically cursed by God.113 But 11QTemple 64.6–13 shows that some Jews did connect completely account for Paul’s view of Christ’s death in Galatians 3:10–14, a few points speak against Williams’s thesis. First, vicarious suffering is not necessary to reading Gal 3:13 (see above against a substitutionary reading of ὑπέρ). Second, while comparing Galatians to Jewish martyrological traditions is a worthy and fruitful exercise, it seems less likely that Paul is modifying them than he is basing his view of Christ’s death in light of the seed promises given to Abraham (LXX Gen 12:7; 15:5; 17:8; 22:17–18), which are developed in Deuteronomy (LXX Deut 1:8; 4:37; 10:15; 11:9; 30:6, 19–20; 34:4) as well as other texts (e.g., LXX 2 Sam 7:12–13; 22:51 [see also LXX Ps 17:51]; LXX Isa 54:3). On the theme of the chosen “seed” and the royal lineage in Genesis, see T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 134–145. Deuteronomy does not need to spell out in detail that an individual will suffer in an effort to effect deliverance from the Torah’s curse for Paul to connect Deuteronomy to that idea. Through catchword-linkage Paul can read the “seed” (σπέρμα) in Deuteronomy alongside other “seed” texts like those in Genesis and LXX 2 Sam 7:12–13 in which God says he will “raise up” the Davidic (Judahite) seed, prepare his kingdom, and establish his reign forever (ἀναστήσω τὸ σπέρμα σου μετὰ σέ ὃς ἔσται ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας σου καὶ ἑτοιμάσω τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ. αὐτὸς οἰκοδομήσει μοι οἶκον τῷ ὀνόματί μου καὶ ἀνορθώσω τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ ἕως εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). And because death/curse precedes life/blessing in the covenantal sequence in Deuteronomy, it is not a stretch for Paul to understand Jesus’s death as a precondition for the deliverance effected by his resurrection. Modifying Jewish martyrological traditions is not strictly necessary. 112 de Boer also draws attention to this problem for the substitutionary reading. He says, “The phrase ‘having become a curse [i.e., accursed] for us’ is evidently meant to call attention to the depth of Christ’s love (2:20): He went so far as to share ‘our’ predicament of being under the law and its curse.” Further, “the idea is not that Christ became the curse from which ‘we’ are then granted an exemption, but that Christ shared ‘our’ predicament in order to liberate ‘us’ from that predicament, along with himself (cf. Rom 6:9; 1 Cor 15:21).” de Boer, Galatians, 211–212. 113 On Jewish sources generally not regarding crucified people as cursed by God, see deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, 293–294; Paula Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of the Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” JTS 42 (1991): 552; Kelli S. O’Brien, “The Curse of the Law (Galatians 3:13): Crucifixion, Persecution, and Deuteronomy 21.22–23,” JSNT 29, no. 1 (2006): 55–76; Daniel R. Streett, “Cursed by God? Galatians 3:13, Social Status, and Atonement Theory in the Context of Early Jewish Readings of Deuteronomy 21:23,” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 5, no. 2 (2015): 195. After surveying the occurrences of crucifixion in Philo and Josephus and noting the lack of mention of a curse upon the crucified, O’Brien summarizes that “in Philo and Josephus, crucifixion is frequently portrayed as barbaric. Those who suffer it are not automatically condemned, but often innocent and almost always to be pitied.” See O’Brien, “The

7.2 The Generosity of God’s Messiah

195

crucifixion with being “cursed by God and men.”114 Paul’s specific choice of words, “becoming for us a curse” (γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα; Gal 3:13), though, is not found anywhere else in Greek literary or documentary sources prior to Paul. The uses of the similar phrases “being a curse” (εἶναι κατάρα) or “becoming a curse (γενηθῆναι κατάρα) indicate that the person (or group) considered “a curse” is viewed as an object of “reproach, mockery, and ostracism,” i.e., they are thought to be under a curse (whether or not they actually were).115 The citation draws attention to Christ’s manner of death (“hanging upon wood”; κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου; Gal 3:13) in relation to the Deuteronomic covenantal context Paul is operating within. So, with the phrase “becoming for us a curse” Paul is elaborating on Christ’s full and evident participation with his constituents’ endangered condition “under law” (Gal 4:4, 5). Put differently, Christ identified with his constituents to such an extent that he died a preeminently shameful death, and in so doing he made it clear that he was dying in solidarity with them in their own covenantal station – death and enslavement (see also Phil 2:7–8).116 Paul’s language about the conduct and accomplishments of Christ can be compared to the prototypical generosity of civic benefactors. In chapter 3 (§3.1.6) this study explained how in civic benefaction prototypical generosity consisted of committing oneself and one’s resources to benefit others despite any difficulty, risk, or cost that may accompany the service(s). In this respect, Paul’s language about Christ’s conduct to benefit his constituency conforms to the cultural norm. Christ’s services demonstrate total commitment to liberate his constituents from their situations of subjection and enslavement: he exhibited full commitment to his liberatory mission (Gal 1:4), exhibited wholehearted love by handing himself over to the Roman authorities to be crucified (Gal 2:20), and experienced suffering, a loss of reputation, and death by being crucified so that he could benefit others (Gal 3:13). Christ shows a full-fledged Curse of the Law (Galatians 3:13),” 69. See also Streett’s study that confirms the notion that crucified Jews in the Second Temple period were not considered cursed by God simply on account of their manner of death (citing Philo, Flacc. 72, 83–88; Josephus, A.J., 12.256; 13.380; 17.295; cf. B.J., 2.75. Streett, “Cursed by God?,” 195. 114 Translation of 11QTemple 64.12 from Johann Maier, The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary, JSOTSS 34 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 55. 115 Daniel R. Streett, “Cursed by God? Galatians 3:13, Social Status, and Atonement Theory in the Context of Early Jewish Readings of Deuteronomy 21:23,” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 5, no. 2 (2015): 203. Protevangelium of James, 3:1; Acts of Thomas 104:8; LXX Jer 24:9; 36:22; 51:8; LXX Isa 64:9; 65:23; Sirach 23:26. On the citation of Deut 21:23, then, Streett contends that “Paul cites the passage in order to explain how Jesus ‘became a curse,’ that is, how he came to be considered abominable and cursed by his countrymen, but not by God.” Streett, “Cursed by God?,” 204. 116 “It does not seem, therefore, that Paul here describes the mechanism by which Christ atoned for sins. Rather, Paul is making a point about the lengths to which Christ went to redeem his people from the curse.” Streett, “Cursed by God?,” 204.

196

Chapter 7: Endangered Benefaction in Galatians

commitment of his own life to provide benefits that mirrors the dedication of civic benefactors and no doubt in the estimation of early Christ-followers exceeded them. Such generosity, like that of Alketas for the Pisidians (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.46–47), produces a bond of affection between Christ and his constituents that lasts beyond the grave. Further, in Galatians and the wider Pauline corpus, Jesus’s conduct garners good repute (δόξα) for God (e.g., Gal 1:5; Phil 2:11) even if non-adherents do not recognize it (e.g., 1 Cor 1:23; 2:8). Paul even calls Jesus himself “the Lord of good repute” (ὁ κύριος τῆς δόξης; 1 Cor 2:8), reflecting Jesus’s prestige among his followers even post-mortem. Finally, there is some indication in Galatians that Paul considers Jesus’s benefactions to be godlike because Jesus’s cruciform pattern of conduct and resultant “new creation” (καινὴ κτίσις) configure standards for boasting and obtaining good repute (Gal 6:13–16).117 This godlike deliverance mirrors that of Augustus in Chios after an earthquake destroyed the city. Augustus is said to have given benefactions to all humanity that “surpassed even the Olympian gods” and to have ushered in “a new beginning” (παλιγγενεσία) for those affected by the crisis.118 But for Paul, Jesus does not surpass the God of Israel; rather, he works together with him (e.g., Gal 1:1–5, 15–16; 2:19–21; 4:4–7).

117 On Christ’s divine mode of being as expressed in Phil 2:6–8, see Crispin FletcherLouis, “‘The Being That Is in a Manner Equal with God’ (Phil. 2:6C): A Self-Transforming, Incarnational, Divine Ontology,” Journal of Theological Studies 71, no. 2 (2020): 581–627. 118 SEG 65.300.a.2–4, 7–8. Translations from Christopher P. Jones, “The Earthquake of 26 BC in Decrees of Mytilene and Chios,” Chiron 45 (2015): 111.

Chapter 8

Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ” In Galatians, Paul uses the language of liberation from enslavement to describe the conduct and services of the messiah. Key statements come in Galatians 1:4, 2:4, and 5:1. Paul speaks of “the freedom which we have in Christ Jesus” (τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; Gal 2:4), how the Lord Jesus Christ “gave himself concerning our sins so that he would deliver us from the present age of evil” (τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ), and that “for freedom Christ liberated us” (τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν; cf. Gal 5:13 [ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε]). In Galatians, then, Christ’s liberative conduct is a significant motif. As such, the language of freedom merits detailed explanation.

8.1 Freedom as Manumission? 8.1 Freedom as Manumission?

Several scholars have seen sacral manumission inscriptions as relevant to understanding Paul’s language about freedom in Galatians. The foundational figure in this regard is Adolf Deissmann.1 He observes that Paul’s language in Gal 5:13 (ἐπ᾽ ἐπλευθερίᾳ) is also a standard formula in Greek sacral manumission documents.2 Further, he sees the manumission phrase specifying that the freedperson can “do what they want” (ποιῶν/ποιοῦσα ὄ κα θέλῃ) reflected in Paul’s statement that the antipathy between flesh and pneuma/spirit could result “that you do not do these things that you want” (ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε; Gal 5:17). 3 Finally, Deissmann connects the clause stipulating that freedAdolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, transl. Lionel R. M. Strachan (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910), 326–331. Deissmann presses the connection between manumission inscriptions and Paul too far, going so far as saying, “All that St. Paul and St. John have to say about freedom has this [manumission] background” (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 331 [italics original]). Deissmann has not been universally followed in seeing sacred manumission as a model that Paul uses in Galatians. See, e.g., the discussion in Franz Mussner, Der Galaterbrief (Freiburg: Herder, 1974), 344–345. 2 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 328. 3 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 328–329. Note that such clauses recognizing the freedperson’s power to do what one wants also include the stipulation of freedom of 1

198

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

persons not be re-enslaved to Paul’s warnings to the Galatians about others attempting to enslave them and his exhortations to them to avoid re-enslaving themselves (Gal 2:4; 5:1).4 Using a single inscription as illustrative (PH241623; 200/199 BC, Delphi), Ferdinand Okorie sees several similarities and differences between Galatians and manumission.5 Mainly, Okorie contrasts how in manumission inscriptions the enslaved initiates the movement from enslaved to free, but in Galatians God initiates the liberation of the enslaved as a “gift of divine favor.”6 More recently, Robin Thompson has sought to understand how manumitted enslaved persons in Paul’s original audience might understand Galatians.7 Instead of basing her comparison strictly on linguistic similarities, she compares the concepts of freedom in a cross-section of sources, including historians, playwrights, philosophers, and manumission inscriptions.8 Thompson points to how Paul’s Galatian auditors would notice a stark contrast between the several, typically self-interested, reasons and motivations that led enslavers to set their enslaved free and how he portrays Christ’s motivations for freeing the Galatians, which was entirely to benefit them rather than himself.9 Furthermore, movement. See, e.g., FD III 2.212.10 (ποιῶν ὅ κα θέλῃ καὶ ἀποτρέχων οἷς κα θέλῃ; 138 BC, Delphi); FD III 2.121.6 (ποιοῦσα ὅ κα θέλῃ καὶ ἀποτρέχουσα οἷς κα θέλῃ; Delphi, 130 BC); FD III 1.310.6–7 (ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἐχέτω Ἑλλὰς ποιοῦσα ὅ θέλει καὶ| ἀποτρέχουσα οἷς θέλει; ca. 90 BC, Delphi). 4 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 329. The manumission clause stipulating that nobody else can enslave the freedperson is phrased “and if someone may lay hold of NN for the purpose of enslavement, let the one who sold and the guarantor ensure the sale to the God is valid.” (εἰ δέ τις ἐφάπτοιτο ΝΝ ἐπὶ καταδουλισμῷ, βέβαιον παρεχέτω τῷ θεῷ τὰν ὠνὰν ὅ τε ἀποδόμενος καὶ ὁ βεβαιωτήρ). English translation modified from Thomas Wiedemann, Greek and Roman Slavery (London: Routledge, 1981), 47. See, e.g., FD III 2.121 (130 BC, Delphi); SEG 12.247.6–8 (1st c. BC, Delphi); FD III 6.36.8–9 (AD 20–46, Delphi). One should note that such a clause is not always present in manumission documents. 5 Ferdinand Okorie, Favor and Gratitude: Reading Galatians in Its Greco-Roman Context (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2021), 97–98. Okorie argues that “the similarity between Galatians 2:4; 5:1a and the inscriptions from Delphi is that the deity plays a key role for the freedom of a suppliant from an experience of slavery” (Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 97). Deissmann references the same inscription Okorie uses as illustrative of sacral manumission, too. See Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 327. 6 Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 97. 7 Robin G. Thompson, Paul’s Declaration of Freedom from a Freed Slave’s Perspective (Leiden: Brill, 2023). 8 Thompson does acknowledge linguistic similarities, when appropriate. So, in Gal 5:13 she finds that “it is notable that ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ is found in many Greek manumission inscriptions,” citing several from diverse locations. Thompson, Paul’s Declaration of Freedom from a Freed Slave’s Perspective, 159. Notably missing from Thompson’s survey of ideas of freedom are honorific, royal, and other public inscriptions that are not manumission inscriptions (though, she includes a couple of funerary inscriptions). 9 Thompson, Paul’s Declaration of Freedom from a Freed Slave’s Perspective, 160–161.

8.1 Freedom as Manumission?

199

instead of a high cost paid by the enslaved to obtain (often circumscribed) freedom, Christ himself paid for their freedom out of love and at the cost of his own life.10 Lastly, testimonies from enslaved people in the 18th and 19th centuries lend credence to the idea that the enslaved who heard Paul’s letter to the Galatians would have interpreted it similarly, that is, as calling for freedom for the enslaved.11 Even though these scholars have pointed to several similarities and differences between freedom in Galatians and manumission, none of them observe how the phrase καθὼς ἐπίστευσε τῷ θεῷ (Gal 3:6) matches nearly exactly the Greek manumission documents. In the majority of cases, the manumitted person “entrusts the contract to the god” (καθὼς ἐπίστευσε NN τῷ θεῷ τὰν ὠνάν). But in a few instances the manumitted person “entrusts himself to the god” (καθὼς ἐπίστευσε αὐτοσαυτὸν NN τῶι θεῶι). Paul incorporates a quotation from LXX Genesis 15:6, but the way he introduces it with καθώς transforms the passage to look even more like the language of a Greek manumission account. Compare the following: just as Onasiphoron entrusted to the God the contract/sale12 καθὼς ἐπίστευσε Ὀνασίφορον τῷ θεῷ τὰν ὠνάν just as Paralos entrusted himself to the God13 καθὼς ἐπίστευσε αὐτοσαυτὸν Πάραλος τῶι θεῶι just as Abraham (en)trusted to/in the God (Gal 3:6) καθὼς Ἀβρααμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ

With a simple καθώς Paul transforms his source text that simply states ἐπίστευσεν Ἀβραμ τῷ θεῷ (LXX Gen 15:6) into a phrase even more closely resembling manumissions. Although the near identical phraseology could be coincidental, Paul’s use of Genesis in combination with the strong theme of liberation in Galatians suggests that Paul might be depicting the fidelity of Abraham as exemplary of one whom God liberates from bondage. The possibility is at least worth exploring.

10

Thompson, Paul’s Declaration of Freedom from a Freed Slave’s Perspective, 163–

165. 11

Thompson, Paul’s Declaration of Freedom from a Freed Slave’s Perspective, 179–

183. 12 FD III 6.36.4–5 (AD 20–46, Delphi). “Nikomachos son of Kallos sold to Apollo among the Delphians a male body, whose name is Paralos, of the genos Orthosia, on condition of freedom just as/in accordance as Paralos entrusted himself to the god, for the price of five mna of silver” (ἀπέδοτο Νικόμαχος Καλλὼ τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι τῶι ἐν Δελφοῖς σῶμα ἀνδρεῖον, ὧι ὄνομα Πάραλος, τὸ γένος Ὀρθωσιῆ, ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίαι καθὼς ἐπίστευσε αὐτοσαυτὸν Πάραλος τῶι θεῶι, τιμᾶς ἀργυρίου μνᾶν πέντε). 13 FD III 2.214.5 (130 BC, Delphi). See also FD III 3.49.5 (mid-2nd c. BC, Delphi): καθὼς ἐπίστευσε Πρῶτος αὐτοσαυτὸ[ν] τῶι θεῶι.

200

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

For Paul to connect Abraham to freedom in Galatians makes sense, given Abraham’s association with the theme of freedom in the narratives within Genesis.14 Abraham is characterized as an ancestor of a royal lineage (Gen 12:2; 17:6, 16; cf. Gen 35:11–12; 2 Sam 7:9, 12–13), a person who experiences oppression from imperial powers but who also challenges powerful rulers (e.g., Gen 12:10–20; 14; 20), and someone whose descendants would experience liberation from enslavement (Gen 15:13–14).15 Other biblical texts link Abraham “with expressions of hope of redemption.”16 Moreover, the book of Jubilees picks up on the Deuteronomic connection of idolatry and immorality by expanding on the account in Genesis. Young Abram questions his family’s ancestral practice of service to idols, who lack a spirit (Jubilees 11:16–17; 12:1–8).17 Exhibiting a mind to liberate his family from the trappings of idolatry, he freed his community from the ravens and birds sent by Mastema that caused agricultural ruin and famine for the population (Jubilees 11:11–13, 18–24; cf. Deut 28:16, 18, 20–24, 30, 38–39, 51). In turn, he burned down the temple of the idols (Jubilees 12:12), which, given the Deuteronomic account of idolatry as serving other gods earlier in the narrative (Jubilees 1:8–14), can be seen as an effort to free the population from service and enslavement to idols. These associations connecting Abraham to liberation from enslavement to idols makes Abraham’s example in Galatians 3:6 even more relevant, strengthening his conduct of fidelity with the idea of freedom. It is possible, then, that Abraham’s trust in God (or perhaps entrusting of himself to God as in some manumission documents), made Abraham a fitting illustration of an act of fidelity that is indicative of a person freed from enslavement to other gods. Despite certain verbal and conceptual similarities at points (Gal 3:6; 5:13, 17), a few reasons suggest that manumission is probably not the governing analog for freedom that Paul is using in Galatians.18 First, manumission does not account for Paul’s concern for group-level ethics in Galatians 5:13–6:10. That is, following his exhortation that “you were called to/on condition of freedom” (ὑμεῖς ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε; Gal 5:13a), instead of using the language 14 Roy E. Ciampa, “Abraham and Empire in Galatians,” in Perspectives on Our Father Abraham: Essays in Honor of Marvin R. Wilson, ed. Steven Hunt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 153–168. 15 Ciampa, “Abraham and Empire,” 155–156. 16 Ciampa, “Abraham and Empire,” 156, citing Pss. 47:9; 105:6–9; Isa 29:22; 41:8; 51:2; 63:16; Jer 33:26; Ezek 22:24; Micah 7:20. 17 The response of Abram’s father Terah to Abram’s exhortations to forsake idolatry to worship God heightens the association of oppression or subjugation with idolatry. Terah is afraid that others will kill him if he forsakes the idols (Jubilees 12:7). Further, Abram provokes the anger of his brothers for suggesting the idea (Jubilees 12:8). 18 It should be noted that the phrase ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ occurs outside of Greek manumission inscriptions, too. E.g., Thucydides, Hist., 6.83.2; 7.82.6; Isocrates, Orations 5.139; Plutarch, Sulla, 9.7.

8.1 Freedom as Manumission?

201

resembling manumission inscriptions, whether the permanent prohibition of re-enslavement or a paramonē clause stipulating continued enslavement to one’s enslaver (usually until the enslaver’s death), he instructs his audience to enslave themselves to one another through love (διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις; Gal 5:13c).19 He then follows with an extended discussion of ethics within Christ-assemblies (Gal 5:13–6:10). Moreover, manumission takes a very specific shape in which an enslaved person purchases their freedom by paying their enslaver the purchase price via the intermediary of the sale to the god, who then frees them immediately after the sale or in the more distant future (after the term of the paramonē).20 This mechanism is not reflected in Galatians, since recipients of freedom are not depicted as buying it and then being set free by the God but being gifted freedom as a benefaction granted directly by divine favor.21 So, with respect to Greek manumission documents, at the very least they offer a useful corpus of comparative material to see how freedpersons might receive Paul’s letter to the Galatians (see Thompson). Further, the similar phrases in Galatians and Greek manumission records (ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ [5:13]; ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε [5:17]) are probably coincidental. Still, Paul may have taken advantage of Abraham’s association with freedom, along with the similarity of the language of Gen 15:6 to manumission records (καθὼς NN ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ / καθὼς ἐπίστευσεν αὐτοσαυτὸν NN τῷ θεῷ / καθὼς ἐπίστευσεν NN τῷ θεῷ τὰν ὠνάν), to depict Abraham as a person who exemplifies model trust for those whom God freed from enslavement to other gods.

For full freedom with the clause prohibiting re-enslavement, see, e.g., PH241695 (140– 100 BC, Delphi). For conditional freedom with the paramonē, see, e.g., FD III 2.239 (ca. 133 BC, Delphi). On the paramonē, see Rachel Zelnick-Abramovitz, “The Status of Slaves Manumitted Under Paramonē: A Reappraisal,” in Symposion 2017, ed. Eva Cantarella, Michael Gagarin, Gerhard Thür, and Julie Velissaropoulos, Akten der Gesellschaft für Griechische und Hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 27 (Tel Aviv: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenchaften, 2017), 377–401; Joshua D. Sosin, “Manumission with Paramone: Conditional Freedom?,” TAPA 145 (2015): 325–381. 20 On Greek manumission, see Keith Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 133–171; Rachel Zelnick-Abramovitz, Not Wholly Free: The Concept of Manumission and the Status of Manumitted Slaves in the Ancient Greek World (Leiden: Brill, 2005); Sosin, “Manumission with Paramone: Conditional Freedom?,” 325– 381. 21 Okorie also makes a similar point in Okorie, Favor and Gratitude, 97. Note the concentration of χάρις-language alongside καλῆσαι in Gal 1:6 (ὁ καλέσας ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι) and Gal 1:15 (ὁ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ). In Gal 5:13, Paul remarks how freedom is a condition upon which the Galatians were called (ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε). On differences between ancient manumission and freedom in Galatians, see generally Thompson, Paul’s Declaration of Freedom from a Freed Slave’s Perspective. 19

202

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

8.2 Freedom as Civic Freedom 8.2 Freedom as Civic Freedom

A few scholars have suggested that civic freedom of Greek cities is the analog Paul is drawing from in his language of freedom in Galatians, especially to frame his ethics.22 Michael Wolter cites several literary texts to support the notion that freedom for Greek cities “always means freedom from foreign laws and the possibility to be allowed to live according to one’s own law” (Demosthenes, Oration 10.4; 2 Macc 2:22; Plutarch, Timoleon, 23.2; Plutarch, Demetrios, 8.7).23 In this view, the Galatians “are in danger of losing their freedom because they are about to submit to a foreign law” and should instead abide by their own law, “the law of Christ” (ὁ νόμος τοῦ χριστοῦ; Gal 6:2).24 With a more extensive evidentiary basis (see §3.1.1), though, one must modify Wolter’s view to say that civic freedom could entail freedom from a range of impositions upon a population, one aspect of which could be foreign law. That is, the documentary evidence demonstrates that the negative element of freedom could entail a population’s lack of external subjection from different controlling influences, whether compulsory payments, occupying garrisons, a foreign governor, or a native or foreign-propped tyrant. This negative freedom is combined with the positive element of freedom, which is the ability of the population to abide by its own ancestral customs, law(s), and (often democratic) governance. Thus, a population’s lack of external constraint and the positive ability to operate in a state of self-governance constituted civic freedom. The civic freedom view has several advantages that can help explain Paul’s usage of the concept of freedom in Galatians. Notably, like other ancient associations in the Mediterranean world during the Hellenistic era and into the Roman imperial period, Paul’s Christ-groups imitate several democratic processes and practices of Greek cities.25 So, conceptualizing freedom in terms of a city’s civic freedom is in line with this tendency to imitate city structures and practices by seeing the association as in some ways a miniature version of a polis. Michael Wolter, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, transl. Robert L. Brawley (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015), 364–365; Matthias Konradt, “Die Christonomie der Freiheit: Zu Paulus’ Entfaltung seines ethischen Ansatzes in Gal 5, 13–6, 10,” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 60–81. John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 429n19, cites Konradt and Wolter. Keener cites Wolter via Barclay, saying, “freedom from external constraint of the law allows obedience to the law of Christ without interference (Gal 6:2).” See Keener, Galatians, 482. 23 Wolter, Paul, 364–365, emphasis original. 24 Wolter, Paul, 365. 25 John S. Kloppenborg, “Intimations of Democracy in Early Christ Groups,” in Peter G. Bolt and Sehyun Kim, God’s Grace Inscribed on the Human Heart: Essays in Honour of James R. Harrison (New South Wales, SCD Press, 2022), 227–237; John S. Kloppenborg, Christ’s Associations: Connecting and Belonging in the Ancient City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), 279–297. 22

8.2 Freedom as Civic Freedom

203

Conceptually, it would only be fitting that the civic freedom would be appropriate to talk about group-level freedom for Christ-groups. Indeed, Paul uses the language of civic freedom and enslavement to contrast two cities. He differentiates the enslaved “present Jerusalem” (ἡ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ) and its “children” (τέκνα) with the common mother of Christ-groups, “the above Jerusalem,” which “is free” (ἡ δὲ ἄνα Ἰερσουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν; Gal 4:26). 26 Additionally, understanding freedom as civic freedom makes more sense than manumission, since in Galatians and throughout the Pauline corpus freedom (esp. Romans 5–8) is seen as an act of divine benefaction rather than something Christ-adherents purchase from someone. Further, a civic freedom view accounts for the negative and positive aspects of freedom in Galatians. That is, freedom in Galatians maps on to freedom at a population level in which the population is free from subjection to external powers of force, compulsion, control (Gal 1:4; 2:4, 14; 3:13; 4:3–5, 8–9, 21–31; 5:1; 6:12) and free to conduct its affairs by its own standards of conduct and shared ways of getting along together (Gal 5:13–6:10).27 A few other considerations support a civic freedom understanding of freedom in Galatians. In Gal 5:1, Paul’s exhortation to “not be subject/submit to a yoke of slavery” (μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε) reflects a wider discourse that uses a yoke to represent the enslavement of a population.28 In this vein, 1 Maccabees portrays the sons of Mattathias realizing “freedom” (ἐλευθερία; 1 Macc 14:26) for Israel, which was enslaved under “the yoke” (ὁ ζυγός) to the Seleukids (1 Macc 8:18), so that the law would be established (ὅπως σταθῇ . . . ὁ νόμος; 1 Macc 14:29). In Galatians, Paul speaks of the threat of group-level enslavement to the “false brothers” (Gal 2:4), to τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (Gal 4:8–9), and to compelled circumcision (Gal 5:1–4). Further, Roy Ciampa notes how Paul’s rhetoric about the Jerusalem (Gal 2:4–5) and Antioch (Gal 2:11– 14) incidents resembles other instances that talk about conquest and defense against invasion, indicative of a group-level understanding of freedom. 29 See also on this point Konradt, “Die Christonomie der Freiheit,” 66–67. Logan Williams also recognizes the negative-positive dynamic of freedom in Galatians. See Logan A. Williams, “Love, Self-Gift, and the Incarnation: Christology and Ethics in Galatians, in the Context of Pauline Theology and Greco-Roman Philosophy” (PhD diss., University of Durham, 2019), 141–142. 28 Wolter writes, “Especially in the Septuagint again and again the yoke applies to the description of foreign political domination,” citing Deut 28:48; 1 Kings 12:4; Jer 28:2; 1 Macc 8:18. Wolter, Paul, 364n83. One could also add Dion. Hal., Ant. rom., 16.1.4. Notably, 2 Maccabees also reflects the freedom from enslavement to the nations motif (2 Macc 1:27; 2:22; 9:14). 29 “That is, the slavery he [Paul] has in mind would be analogous to the oppression felt by a people that had been conquered by some foreign political power.” Roy E. Ciampa, “Abraham and Empire in Galatians,” in Perspectives on Our Father Abraham: Essays in Honor of Marvin R. Wilson, ed. Steven Hunt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 161–162. See also Konradt, “Die Christonomie der Freiheit,” 66. 26

27

204

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

Moreover, Paul’s use of first person plural pronouns (“we” and “us”) in Galatians to qualify freedom suggests that the freedom in question is a shared freedom with which Paul and his audience operate as a group. So, Paul speaks of “our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2:4), how “Christ liberated us” (Gal 5:1), and how he “gave himself…so that he would deliver us” (Gal 1:4). Paul can include himself as participating in the same freedom as Galatians (non-Jews) because he is speaking of a shared civic sort of freedom of noninterference (negative freedom) on the one hand as well as practices and protocols of group cooperation on the other (positive freedom). As a result, civic freedom provides Paul with the basic concept for understanding freedom for Christ associations. As mentioned previously, if freedom in Galatians is understood as analogous to civic freedom, it is no surprise that a substantial portion of the letter is dedicated to instructing the Galatians in proper conduct (esp. Gal 5:13–6:10). Paul spends time talking about negative freedom (i.e., freedom from subjection/enslavement) and positive freedom (i.e., freedom to act according to shared standards of conduct and law). These two elements of civic-style freedom are complements to each other. It would be much more surprising if Paul mentioned how Christ has liberated the Galatians from various forms of enslavement and then failed to instruct them on what exactly are their standards of conduct under their new-found freedom. Indeed, if Paul failed to provide some sort of standard of conduct or shared ways of getting along together for his Galatian audience, he would have failed to adequately address possible arguments of his rivals who promoted the written Torah as the standard of conduct.30 Thus, the civic freedom understanding of freedom in Galatians brings additional coherence to the letter as a whole communication.31

8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ” 8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

The civic freedom view of freedom in Galatians also helps explain Paul’s use of the phrase “the law of Christ” (ὁ νόμος τοῦ χριστοῦ; Gal 6:2). The phrase itself has drawn significant scholarly attention regarding how to explain why 30 To understand Torah as being the written collection of Israelite “laws” (νόμοι) and Israel’s “constitution” (πολιτεία) for getting along together as a group and for cultivating virtue upon being liberated by God from Egypt, see, e.g., Josephus, A.J., 4.184, 194, 195, 196, 198 (note how Moses addresses his audience as “children of Israel” in A.J., 4.180), 292. If the early Jesus movement understood the resurrection of Jesus as the inauguration of the restoration of Israel (see Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel), then it would make sense that some in the movement promoted Torah observance for not just Jews (Judahites), but all of Israel, including the gentiles-turned-Israelites. 31 On the coherence of Gal 5–6 with Gal 1–4, see the classic study of John M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988).

8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

205

Paul uses such an expression and what it means.32 Before adjudicating between these numerous proposals, many of which are compatible with one another in various ways and incompatible in other ways, it will be useful to set “the law of Christ” in its wider context both in terms of Galatians itself and Paul’s view of the law in general. 8.3.1 Torah, Pneuma, and Freedom At different points in his letters, Paul instructs his addressees to follow devotional and ethical practices advocated within the written Torah and to avoid practices that the Torah instructs to avoid, but he also exhorts them to avoid practices that the Torah seems to advocate. So, he exhorts his audiences to serve the God of Israel alone and to avoid serving idols and other gods (1 Thess 1:9; 1 Cor 8:5–6; 10:1–33, esp. 10:7, 14, 21–22; Gal 4:8–9; see, e.g., Exod 20:2–6/Deut 5:6–10; 11:13–17; 30:16–18).33 Genealogically, Christ-devotees 32 For a selection of the “law of Christ” literature, see E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983), 92–122, esp. 97–100; Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 77–82; Richard B. Hays, “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ,” CBQ 49 (1987): 268–290; Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 125–142; Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 131–135; Martyn, Galatians, 547–549, 554–558; Todd A. Wilson, “The Law of Christ and the Law of Moses: Reflections on a Recent Trend in Interpretation,” Currents in Biblical Research, 5.1 (2006): 123–144; Andrew Chester, Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology, WUNT 207 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 537–601; Matthias Konradt, “Die Christonomie der Freiheit: Zu Paulus’ Entfaltung seines ethischen Ansatzes in Gal 5, 13–6, 10,” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 60–81; David J. Rudolph, A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 206–208; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Unwritten Law of Christ (Gal 6:2),” Revue Biblique 119 (2012): 213–231; John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 430–432; Joshua W. Jipp, Christ is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 45, 61–70; David G. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics, 2nd ed. (London: T & T Clark, 2016), 244–254; Keener, Galatians, 269–278; John Anthony Dunne, Persecution and Participation in Galatians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 103; Arland J. Hultgren, “The Ethical Reorientation of Paul: From the Law of Moses to the Law of Christ,” Currents in Theology and Mission 46.2 (April 2019): 30–33; Logan A. Williams, “Love, Self-Gift, and the Incarnation: Christology and Ethics in Galatians, in the Context of Pauline Theology and Greco-Roman Philosophy,” (PhD diss., University of Durham, 2019), 169–173, 180–184; Paula Fredriksen, “What Does It Mean to See Paul ‘within Judaism’?” JBL 141, no. 2 (2022): 371; Annalisa Phillips Wilson, “The Craftsman: Paul’s Law of Christ and the Stoic Law of Nature,” JBL 141.2 (2022): 381–401. 33 As Fredriksen notes, “gentiles-in-Christ absolutely had to commit to the exclusive worship of Israel’s god, and they must cease to make offerings before images of their own gods.” Fredriksen, “What Does It Mean to See Paul ‘within Judaism’?”, 370. As a result, Fredriksen

206

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

of gentile origin are former gentiles (1 Cor 12:2; ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε), “sons of Abraham” (Gal 3:7; υἱοὶ Ἀβρααμ) who is their “founding ancestor” (Rom 4:11; προπάτωρ) through the promise-line of Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca, and Jacob (Rom 4:19; 9:7–13; Gal 4:21–31), and have Israelites as their shared ancestors with Jews like Paul (1 Cor 10:1; οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν).34 Paul aligns his pre-eminent ethical virtue for Christ-devotees, love (ἀγάπη), with several injunctions from the written Torah – indeed, “the whole law” (Rom 13:8–10; Gal 5:13–14; see Exod 20:13–15, 17/Deut 5:17–19, 21; Lev 19:18).35 The genealogical attachments Paul constructs for gentiles-in-Christ are indicative of ethnic change. In other words, Paul sees Christ-devotees of gentile origin as gentiles-turned-Israelites (or “Gentile-Israelites” to use Denys McDonald’s term). 36 Such reconcludes that “Paul taught his ex-pagan gentiles a radical form of Judaizing.” Fredriksen, “What Does It Mean to See Paul ‘within Judaism’?”, 370. But, instead of seeing Paul’s requirements for gentiles-in-Christ as “Judaizing,” which would be true if Paul equated Jews and Israel as co-extensive groups, it is better to see Paul requiring “Israelizing.” The term “Israelizing” maintains the ethnic distinction between Jews and the other ethnicities within Israel while also cohering with Paul’s own language that prohibits “Judaizing” for gentilesin-Christ (Gal 2:14). Christ-devotees of gentile origin are now ethnically Israelite but not Jewish. On gentiles-in-Christ as restored and resurrected Israelites, see Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel. 34 On προπάτωρ in Rom 4:1 as signifying that Abraham is the founding ancestor of a kin network not based on physical descent per se but through πίστις, see Lukas Bormann, “Abraham as ‘Forefather’ and His Family in Paul,” in Abraham’s Family: A Network of Meaning in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. Lukas Bormann (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 207–233. See the other Israelite ethnic identifiers used for gentiles-in-Christ like “children of God” (Rom 8:16, 17, 21; 9:8), “God’s elect” (Rom 8:33), “God’s beloved” (Rom 1:7; 9:25), “holy ones” (Rom 1:7; 16:15; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:2), among others. Denys N. McDonald, “‘Ex-Pagan Pagans’? Paul, Philo, and Gentile Ethnic Reconfiguration,” JSNT 45, no. 1 (2022): 23. McDonald understandably remarks, “this extensive attribution of Israelite identity criteria to Gentiles-in-Christ makes it difficult to see how Paul can continue to regard them as strictly Gentiles (‘ex-pagan pagans’ [as in Paula Fredriksen’s view]) and not as members of the people of Israel in some sense.” McDonald, “‘Ex-Pagan Pagans’?,” 23. 35 These three elements – adopting Israel’s God (and abandoning one’s own ancestral gods), becoming a part of Israelite genealogy, and participating in keeping the ethical demands of the deity – should be seen to constitute ethnic transformation of gentiles. McDonald, “‘Ex-Pagan Pagans’?,” 1–28. To preserve the distinction between Jews and gentiles in Christ while also considering them part of a wider shared ethnic identity, McDonald proposes “Gentile-Israelites” as a possible moniker for gentiles-in-Christ. McDonald, “‘Ex-Pagan Pagans’?,” 25. 36 McDonald, “‘Ex-Pagan Pagans’?,” 25. The view that Paul understands Christ-devotees of gentile origin as gentiles-turned-Israelites is evident (in part) by his reference to Israelites of the distant past as the shared ancestors of himself and Christ-devotees of gentile origin (οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν; 1 Cor 10:1). Likewise, Paul calls his Corinthian audience former gentiles (1 Cor 12:2; ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε). Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 8–9, 330–331, 344. Also telling is how in Romans Paul “cast[s] Gentiles in a role originally written for Israel”

8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

207

worked kinship ties makes Paul’s spirited repudiation of circumcision (among other practices) as a requirement for gentiles-turned-Israelites all the more striking.37 Circumcision is a stipulation of both the Abrahamic and Mosaic cov(Hos 2:23/1:10 in Rom 9:25–26; Isa 28:16 in Rom 10:11; Joel 2:32 in Rom 10:13; Isa 65:1 in Rom 10:20). J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 357. It is important to note the Israelite restoration contexts in these passages, so it is not to say gentiles replace Jews as Israelites, but that Paul is portraying gentiles as restored Israelites from among the nations along with Jews. Fredriksen, noting how Paul also refers to part of his Roman audience as gentiles (Rom 11:13; see also Rom 15:9–12, 16, 18, 27; 16:4, 26), prefers to see gentiles-in-Christ as “expagan pagans,” “ex-gentile gentiles,” or “eschatological gentiles.” She states, “the nations who in Christ turn from their own gods are to worship Israel’s god in Jewish ways (no other gods; no images); but they are nonetheless still not-Israel.” Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), 117. Fredriksen equates “Israel” with “Jews” as co-extensive referents. She straightforwardly comments that “‘Israel’ is ‘the Jews,’ and they will remain such, ethnically distinct from the ἔθνη-in-Christ even at and after the End (when the nations will rejoice μετά – ‘with’ – God’s people, [Rom] 15:10).” Fredriksen, “What Does It Mean to See Paul ‘within Judaism’?”, 376. For criticism of Fredriksen on Paul’s ethnic reasoning at this point and for an argument that Paul understands gentile Christ-adherents as being incorporated into ethnic Israel, see McDonald, “‘Ex-Pagan Pagans’? Paul, Philo, and Gentile Ethnic Reconfiguration.” See also her response to McDonald in Paula Fredriksen, “Paul, Pagans and Eschatological Ethnicities: A Response to Denys McDonald,” JSNT 45, no. 1 (2022): 51–65. She reiterates that, for her, “Paul’s gentiles remain, ethnically, just what he calls them: τὰ ἔθνη, and ‘Israel’ is the Jews.” Fredriksen, “Paul, Pagans and Eschatological Ethnicities,” 54 (see also 60). 37 On circumcision in Paul’s letters, see Ryan D. Collman, The Apostle to the Foreskin: Circumcision in the Letters of Paul (Berlin De Gruyter, 2023), who argues that “Paul’s rejection of circumcision for non-Jews does not indicate any repudiation of the practice for his fellow Jews” (6). Matthew Thiessen argues that the fact that Torah stipulates circumcision is supposed to be on the eighth day is an important qualifier for Paul. In Galatians, he sees in Paul objecting to gentiles adopting circumcision because proselyte conversion via circumcision fails to conform to the eighth-day circumcision of the law, so it is impossible for them to keep Torah’s circumcision command in its entirety. He argues, “Paul believes that the circumcision of the Galatians models the circumcision of Ishmael, not that of Isaac, since if they undergo circumcision it will not be done at the age of eight days. And, as the law makes clear, one not circumcised on the eighth day after birth cannot be part of the covenant of Genesis 17.” See Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 74–101 (quote from 91–92). See also Matthew Thiessen, A Jewish Paul: The Messiah’s Herald to the Nations (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023), 83–100, esp. 94–99. For criticisms of Thiessen’s view that the invalidity of non-eighth-day circumcision is a major issue for Paul in Galatians, see Dunne, Persecution and Participation in Galatians, 48n17; Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 10; Paul T. Sloan, “Paul’s Jewish Addressee in Romans 2–4: Revisiting Recent Conversations,” JTS 74, no. 2 (2023): 549–553. For Staples, the reason Paul opposes circumcision for gentiles-turned-Israelites is not that the procedure is not done on the eighth day of birth and therefore lacks validity; instead, it is that Christ devotees of gentile origin have already been restored to Israel through the spirit/pneuma of God/the messiah as a part of the messiah’s circumcised body.

208

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

enants (Gen 17:10–14; Lev 12:3), yet Paul calls the adoption of required circumcision for gentiles-in-Christ “a yoke of enslavement” (ζυγόν δουλείας; Gal 5:1–4). For Paul, the temporal priority of Abraham’s πίστις before circumcision in the Abrahamic covenantal sequence (Rom 4:9–12; Gal 3:6–9; Gen 15:6) explains, at least in part, why gentiles must not adopt circumcision as a rite. But it is also necessary to pay careful attention to Paul’s eschatological understanding of the post-covenantal-curse, end-time restoration of Israel from among the nations that Paul sees God enacting through the resurrection of Jesus and the distribution of his pneuma (see especially Deut 27–30, esp. 30:1– 10; Jer 31:31–34 [LXX 38:31–34]; Ezek 36:24–29).38 In conjunction with his eschatological restorationist view, Paul makes distinctions within Torah by distinguishing the written, mediated Torah from the unwritten, unmediated Torah that is now available for Christ-devotees.39 This distinction comes to the fore especially in 2 Corinthians 3, where he distinguishes between the “letter” (i.e., written Torah mediated through Moses), and the “new covenant” (καινή διαθήκη), the unmediated Torah implanted in God’s people, which is “not of letter but of pneuma” (2 Cor 3:6; οὐ γράμματος ἀλλὰ πνεύματος; see also LXX Jer 38:31).40 For Paul, the “letter” is “the service of death chiseled in letters in stones” (2 Cor 3:7; ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου ἐν γράμμασιν ἐντετυπωμένη λίθοις) and “the service of condemnation” (2 Cor 3:9; ἡ διακονία τῆς κατακρίσεως). That is, the written law of Moses, which the covenant people disobeyed, resulted in the covenant curses of exile and (thereThus, “requiring spirit-filled gentiles to go through the rite of circumcision to become full members of Israel therefore not only denies the legitimacy what they have already received by the spirit but also attempts to incorporate them through a process inadequate for the task. Circumcision had never brought about Israel’s justification, so why would it do so for gentiles?” Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 338–339 (quote from 339). 38 Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 68–106. In addition to Jer 31 and Ezek 36–37, the restoration of Israel is a theme in other prophetic texts, too (e.g., Isa 44; 60; Jer 11:14–15; 23:3–8; Ezek 11:14–21; 20:33–44; Hos 14:4–5; Amos 9:11–15; Obadiah 20–21; Micah 2:12–13; 4:6–5:9; 7:18–20; Zech 8:1–13; 10:6–12). 39 Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 92–97. For a different understanding of Paul’s distinctions within Torah, see Yael Fisch, “The Origins of Oral Torah: A New Pauline Perspective,” JSJ 51 (2020): 43–66. On Paul’s consonance with other ancient authors who found limitations with written, conventional law (for, e.g., its inflexibility, need for equitable exceptions, opposition to nature, inability to securely create virtuous people), see Christine Hayes, What’s Divine about Divine Law? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 150–164; G. Anthony Keddie, “Paul’s Freedom and Moses’ Veil: Moral Freedom and the Mosaic Law in 2 Corinthians 3.1–4.6 in Light of Philo,” JSNT 37, no. 3 (2015): 267–289. The distinction between written and unwritten law in some ways mirrors Dio Chrysostom’s discourse On Customs (Περὶ Ἔθους; Disc. 76), in which he criticizes written laws in favor of unwritten customs. 40 Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 91–97. For similarities between 2 Cor 3 and Gal 3:21–25, 4:1–5, see Sigurd Grindheim, “The Law Kills but the Gospel Gives Life: The Letter-Spirit Dualism in 2 Corinthians 3:5–18,” JSNT 84 (2001): 112.

8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

209

by) death for the people of Israel as a whole.41 In the covenantal sequence, the death of Israel is followed by God’s restoration of his people by means of the divine spirit (Ezek 36–37, esp. 36:26–27).42 As Paul reasons, “the letter kills, and the pneuma creates life” (2 Cor 3:6; τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ).43 By contrast, the “new covenant,” the unwritten Torah, is “the service of the pneuma” (2 Cor 3:8; ἡ διακονία τοῦ πνεύματος) and “the service of justness” (ἡ διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης; 2 Cor 3:9). 44 With the pneuma, God’s people have the heavenly Torah internalized, which enables and empowers them to be virtuous and just people naturally.45 Importantly, Paul associates the spirit/pneuma with life and creating life. The spirit is “the pneuma of the living God” (2 Cor 3:3; πνεῦμα θεοῦ ζῶντος) and the pneuma that “creates life” (2 Cor 3:6; τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ). In a passage with several thematic similarities to 2 Cor 3, Paul speaks of this divine pneuma with the ability to create life out of death as “the pneuma of the one who raised Jesus from among the dead” (Rom 8:11; τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 97–101. καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν καρδίαν καινὴν καὶ πνεῦμα καινὸν δώσω ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ ἀφελῶ τὴν καρδίαν (LXX Ezek 36:26–27) 43 Paul could also be alluding to the statement in Deut 32:39 that describes God as one who kills and creates life (understood in sequence). God says, “I will kill and I will make live, I will strike and I will heal” (LXX Deut 32:39; ἐγὼ ἀποκτενῶ καὶ ζῆν ποιήσω, πατάξω κἀγὼ ἰάσομαι). Especially in the light of Deut 27–30 and the sequence in store for Israel (curse and then blessing, death and then life), Paul may see God’s covenantal agency at work in that he brings the curse (exile and death) and the blessing (restoration and life). 44 Ryan D. Collman, “For Who Has Known the Mind of the Apostle? Paul, the Law, and His Syngeneis in the Messiah,” in Paul within Judaism: Perspectives on Paul and Jewish Identity, ed. Michael Bird, Ruben A. Bühner, Jörg Frey, and Brian Rosner (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023), 147–160. “The laws concerning ritual impurity (or food, or procreation, or death, etc.) are not done away with in the here and now because they are misguided, an undue burden, or a “bad kind of religion,” but in the future world of immortal, incorruptible, pneumatic existence they simply do not apply. The Torah continues to exist in the age to come – it is pneumatic, and therefore fit for this incorruptible age – but it just looks different.” Collman, “For Who Has Known the Mind of the Apostle?,” 160. 45 Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 96–97, 177. Christine Hayes dubs this eschatological natural righteousness “robo-righteouesness.” See Hayes, What’s Divine about Divine Law?, 47–48 (see also 149, 160–161). Danker aptly summarizes how a gentile auditor would likely understand Paul in 2 Cor 3: “To a Gentile, Paul would be heard to say that people are truly free when they are not governed primarily by the sanctions of culture and custom, that which Greeks called nomos, but by the promptings of a spirit within that intuitively grasps the intentions of God and fulfills them through divine empowerment” (citing Plato, Republic, 425d–e). Danker, 2 Corinthians, 54. Frank Thielman, commenting on Rom 8:4, writes, “those who have the eschatological spirit are empowered to do the holy, righteous, and good law ([Rom] 7:12) which, before the dawning of the eschaton, could only arouse sin ([Rom] 5:10).” Frank Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 89. 41

42

210

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν). And, according to Paul, if this resurrecting pneuma “dwells among” Christ-adherents (οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν), “the one who raised Christ from the dead will also create life for (or ‘enliven’) your mortal bodies through his indwelling pneuma among you” (Rom 8:11; ὁ ἐγείρας χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῳοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ὑμῖν). When elaborating on the nature of the resurrected pneumatic body, Paul describes Jesus as “the last Adam” who became “a life-creating pneuma” (1 Cor 15:45; ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν), perhaps explaining to some extent Paul’s vacillation between “the pneuma of God” and “the pneuma of Christ” (Rom 8:9; πνεῦμα θεοῦ, πνεῦμα χριστοῦ). Indeed, Paul so closely associates the pneuma of God with Jesus that he can say that “God sent out the pneuma of his son into our heart” (Gal 4:6 τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν κάρδίαν). In turn, the pneumatic body of the resurrected Jesus is shared among all Christ-devotees, thereby restoring them to God in one unified body: “there is not Jew or Greek, there is not enslaved person or free person, there is not male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).46 And elsewhere: For, just as the body is one and has many parts, so all the parts of the body, being many, are one body, in this manner also (is) Christ. For also in one pneuma we all were baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether enslaved persons or free persons, and all were given to drink one pneuma (1 Cor 12:12–13).47

Consequently, the virtue the pneuma affords to those participating in the body of Christ is a Christ-shaped virtue that can be followed by imitation of the example of Jesus (e.g., Rom 15:1–6, 7; 1 Cor 10:32–11:1; Phil 2:1–11; 1 Thess 1:6). The eschatological pneuma bestows freedom, for “the Lord is the pneuma, so where the pneuma of the Lord is, is freedom” (2 Cor 3:17; ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν· οὗ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου, ἐλευθερία).48 Employing a similar con46 οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 47 καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα ἕν ἐστιν καὶ μέλη πολλὰ ἔχει, πάντα δὲ τὰ μέλη τοῦ σώματος πολλὰ ὄντα ἕν ἐστιν σῶμα, οὕτως καὶ ὁ χριστός· καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι, καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν. 48 On the limitations of the (good) written, mediated Mosaic law and the freedom afforded to gentiles through the divine spirit, see Keddie, “Paul’s Freedom and Moses’ Veil,” 267–289. For Paul’s use of the end of the narrative of Deuteronomy to present Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) as Moses’ successor, see Jane Heath, “Moses’ End and the Succession: Deuteronomy 31 and 2 Corinthians 3,” NTS 60, no. 1 (2014): 37–60. She argues that Paul, plausibly, reads Deuteronomy in a way that depicts “Jesus as Moses’ successor, who could protect the people from idolatry and grant them the restoration of glory, the gift of the spirit and of freedom, which were associated with the inheritance of the promised land.” Heath, “Moses’ End and the Succession,” 58.

8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

211

junction of themes in Romans 8:1–11, Paul can explain why “there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1; cf. 2 Cor 3:9), “for the law of the pneuma of life in Christ Jesus freed you from the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:2; cf. 2 Cor 3:17).49 That is, with the death and resurrection of Jesus by means of God’s life-creating pneuma, the post-covenantal-curse eschatological situation envisioned by Deuteronomy (Deut 30:1–10) and the prophets (e.g., Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 36:24–28) has arrived. This eschatological development entails the restoration/resurrection of Israel from among the nations, which in turn affords freedom (from enslavement to gods and their associated vices) for Christ-devotees who, by participation in the body of the resurrected Christ (through the pneuma) now have an inbuilt propensity (or at least the capability and impulse) to act justly and virtuously after the pattern of his messiah Jesus. 8.3.2 Civic Virtue Among Christ-Devotees Now, with Paul’s eschatological restorationist perspective and Torah distinctions in mind, Galatians 6:2 becomes more intelligible in its own discursive context.50 Paul has already mentioned limitations of the Mosaic law: Mosaic law is temporally posterior to the promises of God to Abraham (Gal 3:6, 17), results in “the curse of the law” (Gal 3:10), is mediated (Gal 3:19–20), unable to create life and justness (Gal 3:21), and affords constraint more than freedom (Gal 3:23–24; 4:1–3). Broadly speaking, Galatians 5:1–6:10 can be divided into two main discourse units. First, Galatians 5:1–12 instructs on the specific crisis in Galatia, especially insisting that Galatian males not undergo circumcision as a required rite of entrance into the people of God (cf. Gal 3:2–5). Next, Galatians 5:13– 49 Similarities between the 2 Cor 3 and Rom 8:1–11 are several. For instance, both speak of the condemning role of the Mosaic law (κατάκριμα [Rom 8:1]; ἡ διακονία τῆς κατακρίσεως [2 Cor 3:8]) and its concomitant association with killing (τὸ γράμμα ἀποτέννει; 2 Cor 3:6) as well as the death and mortality of the humans its governs (ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου [2 Cor 3:7]; see also Jesus being raised ἐκ νεκρῶν [Rom 8:10, 11]; τὸ σῶμα νεκρόν [Rom 8:10]; τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν [Rom 8:11]) as opposed to the life-creating role of the spirit (πνεῦμα θεοῦ ζῶντος [2 Cor 3:3]; τὸ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ [2 Cor 3:6]; ζωή [Rom 8:2, 6, 10]; ζῳοποιῆσαι [Rom 8:11]). Life and pneuma are also indicative of freedom (ἐλευθερία [2 Cor 3:17]; ἐλευθερῶσαι [Rom 8:1]) and just conduct (τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου [Rom 8:4]; δικαιοσύνη [Rom 8:10]; δικαιοσύνη [2 Cor 2:9]), which in Roman 8:1–11 is contrasted with σάρξ (Rom 8:3–9) and ἁμαρτία (Rom 8:2, 3, 10). Finally, both refer to distinctions with respect to νόμος, whether the written and unwritten/new covenant contrast (2 Cor 3) or between “the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus” and “the law of sin and death” (ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζῆς ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου; Rom 8:2), which seem likely to correspond to each other, respectively. 50 Note also how Chester considers Paul’s “eschatological perspective” supremely important for understanding the phrases “the law of the spirit” (Rom 8:2) and “the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 594.

212

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

6:10 elaborates on shared group norms for getting along within their shared group-level freedom, the civic life of the people of God.51 The Jewish and nonJewish populations of God’s polity must figure out shared ways of getting along together, general negative rules of just conduct, procedures for resolving disputes, guidance on ritual practices and protocols, and models/exemplars for virtuous ethical conduct. Paul addresses some of these topics in his explanation of what rights and responsibilities are entailed in their new-found group freedom. In Galatians 5:1–6:10, Paul gives ethical instruction with a complex network of positive and negative associations. So, he contrasts freedom and slavery, virtues and vices, pneuma and flesh, mutual service and hostile rivalry, inheritance of the kingdom of God and not, love/fidelity and being subject to Torah/compelled circumcision. On the positive side are freedom (Gal 5:1, 13), Christ’s favor/benefaction (Gal 5:2, 4, 6), pneuma (Gal 5:16–18, 22–23, 25), righteousness/justness (Gal 5:4–5), life/living (Gal 5:16, 25: 6:8), pro-social virtues (Gal 5:22–23; 6:1, 6, 9–10), mutual service/enslavement (Gal 5:13; 6:2), love (Gal 5:6, 13–14, 22), and fidelity (Gal 5:6). On the negative side are enslavement (Gal 5:1), mandatory gentile male circumcision (Gal 5:2–3, 6, 11), being “under law” (Gal 5:18), flesh (Gal 5:16–17, 19–21; 6:8), anti-social vices (Gal 5:19–21; 6:3), and hostile rivalry (Gal 5:15, 26). With these positive and negative associations, Paul elucidates how and why his audience should act according to certain standards of just conduct conducive to the good of the whole. Importantly for Paul freedom is not an individual privilege to be able to do whatever one wants regardless of how one’s conduct affects others (Gal 5:17); instead, individual freedom must be consistent with and conducive towards the good of others.52 Crucial to realizing freedom then, in the first place, is abiding by the negative rules (“do nots”) of just conduct exemplified in the dictum of “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8–10). Note especially how in Romans Paul elucidates love as “not working evil to one’s neighbor” (ἡ ἀγάπη τῷ πλησίον κακὸν οὐκ ἐργάζεται; Rom 13:10), citing four 51 In conceptualizing Christ-groups as a political entity, it should be noted that Paul understands that Christ reigns as the now-enthroned Messianic (Davidic) king over the nations (e.g., Rom 1:2–5; 15:12). On the kingship of Jesus in Paul, see, e.g., Joshua Jipp, Christ Is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015). On a philological argument for understanding the title κύριος as royal, see D. Clint Burnett, Studying the New Testament through Inscriptions: An Introduction (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Academic, 2020), 58–76. 52 So, with respect to Gal 5:17, Barclay argues, “The Galatians have indeed been called to freedom (5.13) but the Spirit ensures that this is not a carte blanche for ‘doing whatever you want’ [Gal 5:17]. . . . The flesh would certainly exploit this absolute freedom (5.13) but the Spirit provides a counteracting force which motivates and directs them to exclude the flesh.” Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 115.

8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

213

negative rules of just conduct as illustrative: “you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not desire” (Rom 13:9; οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις). These four negative rules of just conduct, “and any other command” (καὶ εἴ τις ἑτέρα ἐντολή), Paul says, are “summed up” (ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται) by the love command (Lev 19:18). Paul concludes, “love, then, is the fullness of law” (πλήρωμα οὖν νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη; Rom 13:10).53 In Galatians, Paul makes a similar remark to Rom 13:9, stating, “For the entire law is fulfilled in one maxim, in the ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται, ἐν τῷ ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν; 5:14).54 He sandwiches this comment about the love command fulfilling the law between two contrasting ways of getting along as a group, connected by the use of ἀλλήλων (Gal 5:13, 15). On the positive side, the Galatians must serve one another as slaves “through love” (διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης; Gal 5:13).55 In other words, they should dedicate themselves to prosocial conduct among one another so consistently that it appears they are mutually enslaved to one another.56 For Paul, “love builds up” (ἡ ἀγάπη οἰκοδομεῖ; 1 Cor 8:1). On the negative side is a self-destructing (anti-social) group dynamic through rivalry and its attendant vices (Gal 5:13, 19–21), Paul describes this self-destructing dynamic as “an opportunity in/for the flesh” (Gal 5:13 [ἀφορμή τῇ σαρκί]; cf. Gal 5:16 [ἐπιθυμία σαρκός]), warning that “if you bite and devour one another, look out that you are not consumed by one another” (Gal 5:15; εἰ δὲ ἀλλήλους δάκνετε καὶ κατεσθίετε, βλέπετε μὴ ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἀναλωθῆτε). In this way, a group’s freedom does not stop with a group’s “free53 For Paul, love is “die grundsätzliche Wirklichkeit des Lebens der Jesusbekenner.” Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, Kapitel 6–16 (Giessen: SCM R. Brockhaus Brunnen, 2016). 54 The linguistic construction of fronting an article before a well-known ethical maxim is common. Citing the Delphic maxim “know yourself” (Γνῶθι σαυτόν), which Plutarch calls a “divine command” (πρόσταγμα θεῖον; Plutarch, Demosthenes, 3.2), is frequently cited in this manner. See, e.g., Xenophon, Memorabilia, 4.2.24 (Κατέμαθες οὖν πρὸς τῷ ναῷ που γεγραμμένον τὸ Γνῶθι σαυτόν;); Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 1.40 (Τούτου ἐστὶν τὸ Γνῶθι σαυτόν); 6:83 (τῷ Γνῶθι σαυτόν); Diod. Sic., Bib., hist., 9.10.2 (τὸ γὰρ Γνῶθι σαυτὸν παραγγέλλει παιδευθῆναι καὶ φρόνιμον γενέσθαι); Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 69 (τὸ Γνῶθι σαυτὸν); Plutarch, Demosthenes, 3.2 (τὸ Γνῶθι σαυτὸν). 55 “For you were called to/on condition of freedom (ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ), brothers, only not freedom for an opportunity in the flesh; rather, through love, act as slaves to one another” (διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις; 5:13). Williams notes how Paul’s instruction to engage in mutual enslavement “insinuates that each member of the community must both serve and be served, and without the willingness for everyone to engage in both realities, the exhortation could never come to fruition.” Williams, “Love, Self-Gift, and the Incarnation,” 161. 56 On ἀγάπη in Paul as pro-social behavior (e.g., “helping, cooperation, financial support, emotional care, conflict reduction, etc),” see Williams, “Love, Self-Gift, and the Incarnation,” 12.

214

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

dom from” enslaving or confining entities; rather, the Galatians must realize the other side of their shared freedom by adhering to the positive obligations and protocols of individual conduct (“freedom to”), most saliently expressed in the self-enslavement exhortation and divine maxim to love one’s neighbor in Leviticus 19:18.57 Consequently, Paul is presenting two mutually opposing positive feedback loops that cascade in opposite directions: mutual service through love, which builds up solidarity and well-being, or mutual animosity and rivalry, which consumes unto group annihilation. Not only does Paul offer general principles and ethical maxims for realizing freedom in Christ-groups, but he also specifies certain virtues to cultivate. He specially names nine virtues, which he calls “the fruit of the spirit” (ὁ καρπός τοῦ πνεύματος; Gal 5:22). This singular “fruit” can be considered civic goals and virtues for the people of God: ἀγάπη (love/affection/pro-social conduct), χαρά (joy), εἰρήνη, (peace/good working order), μακροθυμία (forbearance/endurance), χρηστότης (kindness), ἀγαθωσύνη (goodness), πίστις (fidelity), πραΰτης (mildness), ἐγκράτεια (self-control).58 Paul arranges this list of civic goals and virtues for positively orienting the Galatians’ moral compass. Each term deserves brief explanation, especially, when possible, in relation to civic benefaction. χαρά. At the accession of Gaius Caligula in AD 37, the council and demos of Assos (and some Roman businesspeople resident there) expressed how the world’s joy was without limit (οὐδὲν δὲ μέτρον χαρᾶς εὕρηκε ὁ κόσμος).59 Rhetorical flattery notwithstanding, the inscription attests to the felicitous resolution to the anxieties and prospects of a society-wide crisis in the form of the breakdown of the rule of law (should succession fail for some reason), which was the realization of the hope and prayer of all peoples (κατ᾽ εὐχὴν πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐλπισθεῖσα). 60 The honorific decree for Apollonios son of Lysimachos, honored for his services to Perge, mentions the joyous (μετὰ πάσης 57 Williams also recognizes the two-sided nature of freedom here, saying, “The liberation bestowed by Christ is, rather, the very basis of obligation. In this regard, when believers express their freedom in acts of mutual love, they participate in the coincidence between freedom and obligation.” See Williams, “Love, Self-Gift, and the Incarnation,” 143. 58 On the mimicry of the language of civic virtue among associations, see Kloppenborg, Christ’s Associations, 280. 59 I.Assos 26.7. 60 I.Assos 26.5–6. On the emotionally tumultuous circumstances of the accession of Gaius after the death of Tiberius, followed by his sickness, which induced fears of a crisis and breakdown in law and good order (Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 17), and then his subsequent recovery, see Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 8–21. Philo summarizes the strong emotion accompanying the successful reversals of fortune, “For no one remembers any single country or single nation feeling as much delight (χαράν) at the accession or preservation of a ruler, as was felt by the whole world in the case of Gaius, both when he succeeded to the sovereignty and when he recovered from his malady” (Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 19 [Colson, LCL]). See also Suetonius, Gaius, 13–14, 16.4.

8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

215

χαρᾶς) reception he had upon returning from his mission.61 Paul himself frequently expresses “joy” (χαρά, χαίρειν, συγχαίρειν) in his letters. For instance, Paul and his cowriters Silvanus and Timothy speak of the Thessalonians as “our repute and joy” (ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἐστε ἡ δόξα ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ χαρά) at the impending arrival (παρουσία) of Jesus (1 Thess 2:19; cf. Phil 4:1). Paul writes to the Philippians about how he was entreating God for them “with joy” (μετὰ χαρᾶς; Phil 1:4; cf. 1 Thess 3:9). Moreover, after speaking of Christ’s reception (προσλαβεῖν; Rom 15:7) of the gentiles as the confirmation of the promises of God to Israel’s ancestors (αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι τῶν πατέρων; Rom 15:8–12), Paul wishes that “the God of hope fill you with every joy (πάσης χαρᾶς) and peace in trusting, so that you would abound in hope by the power of the holy pneuma” (Rom 15:13).62 Paul’s use of “joy” often occurs in contexts of arrival and welcome, notably at God’s restoration of Israel from among the gentiles. In Galatians, Paul has explained that God is bringing felicitous resolution to the crisis of Israel’s exile, death, and enslavement among the nations (“the curse of the law”; Gal 3:13) through the Christ-gift. As such it is little wonder why joy would be included as part of the “fruit of the spirit.” The people receiving these new Christ-adherents and the incoming people of God should be characterized by joy at God’s “new creation” (καινὴ κτίσις; Gal 6:15), the recreation of Israel after its de-creation into annihilation among the nations. εἰρήνη. The term εἰρήνη is used to refer to a group-level status or characteristic, used often in contrast to “war” (so, “peace” or non-wartime conditions) and sometimes used in connection with liberation and freedom of a city.63 In honorific inscriptions the stock phrase “in war and peace” (ἐμ πολέμωι καὶ εἰρήνηι or the like) is part of the honorand’s privilege of inviolability (ἀσυλία) and/or security (ἀσφάλεια) during all times of a city’s life, whether when they are mobilized for and engaged in war or during peaceful conditions.64 Peace is sometimes associated with civic freedom. A status of “peace” can be protected

61 SEG 45.1772C.7 (shortly after AD 19, Perge): “and being pious in relation to the imperial house, and eager for repute in elation to all his fellow-citizens, on returning amid general rejoicing gave a feast (?) in the Augustan agora” (SEG 45.1772C.5–8). I was not able to procure access to Christopher P. Jones, “A Decree from Perge in Pamphylia,” Epigraphica Anatolica 25 (1995): 29–33, so I am relying here on the summary and translation found in Angelos Chaniotis and Eftychia Stavrianopoulou, “Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 1994/1995,” Kernos 11 (1998), §314 (p. 353). Cf. I.Keramos 14.22–23 (AD 14/37). 62 ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς ἐλπίδος πληρώσαι ὑμᾶς πάσης χαρᾶς καὶ εἰρήνης ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ περισσεύειν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἐλπίδι ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος ἁγίου (Gal 5:13). 63 Also note the wider application of εἰρήνη as referring to a “a well-ordered, well-governed, socially and commercially well-functioning society,” see Michael Dormandy, “How to Understand What Passes All Understanding: Using the Documentary Papyri to Understand εἰρήνη in Paul,” NTS 67 (2021): 220–240. 64 E.g., IG XII.6 1.31.19–21 (306–301 BC, Heraion); Syll.3 532.9–10 (218/217 BC, Lamia).

216

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

to ensure the city’s freedom from external threats.65 Moreover, during times of war, εἰρήνη is a goal towards which a benefactor might works in the interest of the population they serve.66 Furthermore, a city’s freedom is sometimes a condition or result of a settled peace.67 For example, the author of 1 Maccabees credits Simon son of Mattathias for realizing peace, joy, and freedom for Israel, saying, “[Simon] made peace on the land and Israel enjoyed a great rejoicing” (1 Macc 14:11; ἐποίησεν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ εὐφράνθη Ισραηλ εὐφροσύνην μεγάλην). The author has the Jewish demos ask, “What gratitude can we return to Simon and his brothers?” (1 Macc 14:25; τίνα χάριν ἀποδώσομεν Σίμωνι καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτοῦ;), highlighting their war-making against “the enemies of Israel” and how “they established for [Israel] freedom” (1 Macc 14:26; ἔστησαν αὐτῷ ἐλευθερίαν). In their accounts of the announcement of freedom resulting from the Romans’ peace with Philip V of Macedon, Polybios and Plutarch draw attention to the elation and joy of the Greeks: So much so indeed after the competition because of the excess of the joy (τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς χαρᾶς) they nearly killed Titus giving thanks.68

65 E.g., “[Phaidros of Sphettos] continued to strive for the common preservation, and when difficult times beset the city he safeguarded the peace in the countryside . . . and he handed over the city free, democratic and autonomous and under the rule of law” (IG II3 985.32–34, 38–39; διετέλεσεν ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρί|ας, καὶ περιστάντων τεῖ πόλει καιρῶν δυσκόλων διεφύ|λαξεν τὴν εἰρήνην τῆι χώραι . . . καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἐλευθέραν καὶ δημοκρατουμένην αὐ|τόνομον παρέδωκεν καὶ τοὺς νόμους κυρίους). Translation from Sean Byrne, “Honours for Phaidros of Sphettos,” Attic Inscriptions Online, last updated January 22, 2024, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGII31/985. 66 E.g., “[Kallias] stayed in town with his soldiers until the peace was concluded” (IG II3 1 911.39–40; συμπαραμ[ε]ίνας ἐν τῶι ἄστει μετὰ τ-||ων στρατιωτῶν ἕως ἡ εἰρήνη σ[υ]νετελέσθη). Translation from Sean Byrne, “Honours for Kallias of Sphettos,” Attic Inscriptions Online, last updated January 6, 2024, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGII31/911. 67 E.g., “being free and autonomous, in good order/peace they will continue into the future” (OGIS 6.15–17; ἐλεύθ-||[ρ]οι καὶ αὐτόνομοι ὄντες ἐν εἰρήνηι| [εἰς] τὸ λοιπὸν διάξουσιν); “Aristomachos . . . has continued to be mindful of the freedom of the People (περ[ὶ τῆς ἐ-]|λευ[θ]ερίας τοῦ δήμου). . . and when a war occurred . . . he did not think that this should be [i.e., that peace should only be between Alexander and Argos without including Athens], but providing an additional fifty talents from his own funds he made the peace common to both cities ([κοι]νὴν ἐπ[ο]ιήσατο τὴν εἰρ[ή]νην ταῖς πόλεσιν [ἀμφο|τέραις])” (IG II3 1.1019.32–45; 244/243 BC, Athens). Translation from Sean Byrne, “Honours for Aristomachos of Argos,” Attic Inscriptions Online, last updated April 27, 2016, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGII31/1019. See also the peace of 196 BC between Rome and Philip V of Macedon (Polyb., Hist., 18.42.5, 44.1–5; or broadly 18.44– 46). 68 Polyb., Hist., 18.46.11 (ᾗ καὶ μετὰ τὸν ἀγῶνα διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς χαρᾶς μικροῦ διέφθειραν τὸν Τίτον εὐχαριστοῦντες). Translation mine, consulting Paton, Walbank, Habicht (LCL).

8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

217

And the herald in tones that were louder than before and reached the ears of all, had recited the proclamation, a shout of joy arose, so incredibly loud that it reached the sea (κραυγὴ μὲν ἄπιστος τὸ μέγεθος διὰ χαρὰν ἐχώρει μέχρι θαλάττης; Perrin, LCL).69

Consequently, joy and peace, especially in the context of the realization of group-level freedom [e.g., Gal 5:1, 13]), are a natural pair for Paul to place next to each other in this list in Gal 5:22–23. A person and people freed from death and enslavement to idols and gifted with the spirit of God will characteristically exhibit joy. Further, the mention of εἰρήνη may relate to Paul’s invectives against hostile rivalry among the Galatians (e.g., Gal 5:15, 20–21, 26). Support for this connection is Paul’s similar entreaty to the Thessalonians to “maintain peace among yourselves” (1 Thess 5:13; εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς; cf. Rom 12:18). That is, instead of zero-sum competitive posturing and intragroup conflict, the eschatological peace enacted by God (Gal 1:3) should also be reflected in a lack of infighting among those beneficiaries of that peace (see also Gal 6:16).70 μακροθυμία. In honorific inscriptions, the term μακροθυμία (“forbearance”, “endurance”) is not used, but the related lexicon of endurance is expressed with vocabulary like οὐκ ὑποστεῖλαι (“not to shrink back”) and, though more rarely, ὑπομονή (“endurance”).71 Recall the strategoi from Erythrai, who were honored because, “shrinking (ὑποστελλόμενοι) from no fear or danger, they gave themselves eagerly to saying and doing what is beneficial to the city.”72 Likewise, Seleukos of Rhosos was honored for his fidelity as expressed in his endurance of many dangers: he “has suf[fered] a great deal of hardship and [run] many great risks on our behalf, without shrinking from any danger in his steadfastness (οὐδενὸς φεισάμενος τῶν πρὸς ὑπομονὴν δεινῶν), [and] has displayed [complete] devotion and loyalty (πίστιν) to the Republic.”73 The terms ὑπομοPlutarch, Flamininus, 10.5. In Paul’s letters, “peace” (εἰρήνη) is mentioned alongside “benefaction”/“beneficence” (χάρις) as coming from God and Christ (Rom 1:7; 16:20; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Phil 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; Philem 3). Indeed, Paul not infrequently calls God “the God of peace” (ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης; Rom 15:33; 16:20; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 4:9). He tells the Roman assembly that “the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet soon” (Rom 16:20). Paul links peace with hope (Rom 15:13), joy (Rom 14:17; 15:13), righteousness/justice (Rom 14:17), love (2 Cor 13:11), life (Rom 8:6), security (1 Thess 5:3), pneuma (Rom 8:6), mercy upon Israel (Gal 6:16), and contrasts peace with death (Rom 8:6), flesh (Rom 8:6), and tumult (1 Cor 14:33). On one treatment of peace in Paul, see Edward M. Keazirian, Peace and Peacemaking in Paul and the Greco-Roman World (New York: Peter Lang, 2014). 71 On the broader theme of endurance in the epigraphical record, see Danker, Benefactor, 363–366. 72 [οὐδένα οὔ-]||τε φόβον οὔτε κίνδυνον ὑποστελλόμενοι, προθύμως δὲ ἑα[υ-]|τοὺς ἐπιδιδόντς εἰς τὸ καὶ λέγειν καὶ πράττειν τὰ τῆι πόλ[ει]| συμφέροντα (I.Erythr. 29.9–12; 270–260 or 261–248 BC, Erythrai). 73 IGLSyria 3.1.718.13–15. Translation from Andrea Raggi, “The Epigraphic Dossier of Seleucus of Rhosus: A Revised Edition,” ZPE 147 (2004): 134. 69

70

218

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

νή (Rom 2:7; 5:3–4; 8:25; 15:4–5; 2 Cor 1:6; 6:4; 12:12; 1 Thess 1:3) and μακροθυμία (Rom 2:4; 9:22; 2 Cor 6:6; see also μακροθυμῆσαι in 1 Thess 5:14) provide Paul with his main endurance vocabulary.74 God himself displays forbearance or endurance (μακροθυμία) in his treatment of human beings (Rom 2:4; 9:22). Paul and his cowriters speak how they endure various forms of hardships and deprivation with, among other virtues, μακροθυμία (2 Cor 6:4– 10). Paul expects Christ-adherents to exhibit endurance (ὑπομονή) when under pressure (Rom 5:3; 1 Thess 1:3). For Paul, Kephas failed to exhibit endurance when he “shrank back” (ὑπέστελλεν) at Antioch (Gal 2:12). Given the pressure facing the Galatians to undergo circumcision (Gal 6:12), Paul’s inclusion of μακροθυμία finds a fitting place in his list of the pneumatic “fruit.” χρηστότης. The term χρηστότης attests to the “kindness” displayed by benefactors. Thus, an honorific decree for Julia Eudia daughter of Euteleinos witnesses that “she spared nothing of her generosity and kindness” ([οὐδὲν] ἐν|λείπουσα τῆς ἰδίας μεγαλ[οψυ]χίας καὶ χ[ρη-]|στοτητος).75 The Olbians expressed their “profound grief” when Nikeratos, a benefactor who displayed such “kindness” (χρηστότης) to them, died. 76 In 48/47 BC, the Knidians praised Kallistos son of Epigenes for his “kind services and greatheartedness” (τὴν χρηστότητα καὶ μεγαλοψίαν αὐτοῦ).77 The LXX Psalms especially attest to God’s “kindness” (χρηστότης) and “kindnesses” (χρηστότητα). So, LXX Ps 24:7 entreaties God, “remember not sins of my youth and my ignorance, remember me according to your mercy on account of your kindness (ἕνεκα τῆς χρηστότητός σου), lord.”78 And, “for the lord will indeed give kindnesses, and our land will give its fruit” (LXX Ps 84:13).79 But it is a lamentable situation when “there is no doing kindnesses” (οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν χρητότητα; LXX Ps 13:1, 3; cf. Rom 3:12). Paul follows the Psalms in characterizing God as χρηστότης (Rom 2:4; 11:22). Moreover, in a peristatic narration elaborating on their numerous difficulties and dangers, Paul and his cowriters commend themselves as “God’s diakonoi” who, as endangered benefactors, display endurance in discharging their services despite the risks (2 Cor 6:4–10).80 In 2 Cor 6:6, their 74 On 1 Thess 1:3 in its epigraphical context, see Julien M. Ogereau, “Πίστις, Ἀγάπη, and Ἐλπίς in 1 Thessalonians: New Insights from Old Stones,” 467–483 in God’s Grace Inscribed on the Human Heart: Essays in Honour of James R. Harrison, edited by Peter G. Bolt and Sehyun Kim (Macquarie Centre NSW: SCD Press, 2022). 75 IG V.2 269.10–12 (1st c. AD). Translation from Women and the Polis §156.1. See also same phraseology in honor of her in IG V.2 270 but in a lacuna. 76 Syll.3 730.18–19, 22–27 (1st c. BC, Olbia). Danker, Benefactor, 325. 77 Syll.3 761.12–13 (Knidia). Translation from Danker, Benefactor, 325–326. 78 ἁμαρτίας νεότητός μου καὶ ἀγνοίας μου μὴ μνησθῇς· κατὰ τὸ ἔλεός σου μνήσθητί μου σὺ ἕνεκα τῆς χρηστότητός σου, κύριε. 79 καὶ γὰρ ὁ κύριος δώσει χρηστότητα, καὶ ἡ γῆ ἡμῶν δώσει τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς. 80 Note the common endangered benefaction terminology like θλίψεις and ἀνάγκαι. On the use of διάκονος as a role in service to a deity, see Epictetus, Disc. 3.24.65 (τοῦ Διὸς

8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

219

service as endangered benefactors exhibits several virtues listed in Gal 5:22: endurance (μακροθυμία), kindness (χρηστότης), and love (ἀγάπη; cf. Rom 12:9, ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος).81 So, kindness, then, is not only a disposition of God in his eschatological work to resurrect the nations, but also a virtuous disposition that Christ-devotees should put into concrete form through their service to others. ἀγαθωσύνη. In honorific inscriptions, the term ἀγαθωσύνη (goodness) is expressed in the common honorific phrases designating a benefactor ἀνήρ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός, καλοκἀγαθός (or displaying καλοκἀγαθία), or the like.82 So, an honorific decree from Keramos honors a certain son of Dionysios, “a good man (ἀνήρ [ἀγα]θός) and adorned in every virtue, fatherland-loving and repute-loving from his illustrious and honored-by-the-demos patrimony, having a noteworthy mindset of dignity concerning his household in everything and displaying love of honor (or “ambition”) towards the city.”83 Exhibiting “goodness” is part and parcel of being a virtuous person and benefactor. As such, “goodness” is a virtue a person demonstrates by benefitting others through one’s conduct, whatever form that takes. Paul’s letters are replete with “goodness” language.84 For instance, Paul exhorts the assembly in Thessaloniki, “see διάκονον); 4.7.20 (διάκονος καὶ ἀκόλουθος ἐκείνῳ [i.e., τῷ θεῷ]); IG IV 774.Col.3.12 (διάκονος· Λα[μ]πρίας; 3rd c. BC, Troizen); SEG 27.159.10 (Ἡρακλείδας Ἀρχεδάμου δ̣ι̣ά̣κ̣ο̣ν̣ο̣ς̣; Hellenistic period, Thyrreion); I.Eph 3417.1a.5 (διάκονοι), 2b.5 (διάκονοι), 3b.4 (διάκον[οι]; 1st c. AD); I.Eph 3418.4 (διάκονος Ἔλπις), 5–7 (διάκονοι Καλλιγᾶς| Δεμητρίου| [Μ]ενεκράτης), 11–14 (Ἔλπις μή-|[τ]ηρ τοῦ ἱερέος διάκο|νος Τύχη διάκονοι Ἀρ|τεμᾶς καὶ Ἐλπιδηφόρος; date unknown). For more examples, see DGE, “διάκονος,” B.II.2.b. 81 2 Cor 6:6–11 also includes important themes also found in Galatians, e.g., dying and living (2 Cor 6:9; Gal 2:19–20), “the truth” (2 Cor 6:7; Gal 2:5, 14; 5:7), pneuma (2 Cor 6:6; Gal 5:22), justice/righteousness (2 Cor 6:7; Gal 2; 5:4), and joy (2 Cor 10:10; Gal 5:22). 82 On ἀγαθός and καλοκἀγαθός, see Danker, Benefactor, 317–320. 83 ἀνὴρ| [ἀγα]θὸς καὶ πάσηι κεκοσμηιμέ-|[νος ἀ]ρετῆι φιλόπατρις καὶ φιλόδο-||[ξος ἐκ π]ρογόνων ἐνδόξων καὶ τε-|[τειμη]μένων ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἀξι-|[όλογ]ν φρόνημα τῆς περὶ τὴν οἰκί-[αν ἔχ]ων σεμνότητος ἐν παντὶ καὶ ||[τὴν ε]ἰς τὴν πατρίδα φιλοτειμίαν| [ἀποδέ]δεικται (I.Keramos 14.3–11; AD 14/37). 84 On “the good” in Paul, see T. Luke Post, Doing the Good in Paul’s Ethical Vision (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2023). Consonant with “goodness”/“the good” in honorific decrees, which refers to benefiting others, Post concludes that “Paul understands “doing the good” primarily as an activity intended to advance the welfare of others,” commonly referring to “material benevolence or benefactions.” Luke Post, Doing the Good in Paul’s Ethical Vision, 260 (emphasis removed). Although, I would hesitate to affirm with Post the historical conclusion that “‘the good’ Paul envisions taking root within and among believers goes far beyond parochial Hellenistic morality.” It seems preferable to see Paul’s understanding of “the good” as not “beyond” but rather an individual expression of “Hellenistic morality.” For one, Paul should be seen as a participant of his culture rather than existing beyond undifferentiated pagan masses and moralists. Additionally, Hellenistic

220

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

(that) one does not return to someone evil for an evil, but everyone pursue the good (τὸ ἀγαθόν) towards one another and towards everyone” (1 Thess 5:15).85 Shared terminology and ethical concepts occur in Galatians 5:22–23 and 1 Thessalonians 5:12–24. So, “peace” (εἰρήνη; Gal 5:22; 1 Thess 5:23) or “maintaining peace” (εἰρηνεῦσαι; 1 Thess 5:13), endurance (μακροθυμία; Gal 5:22) and enduring (μακροθυμῆσαι; 1 Thess 5:14]), as well as joy (Gal 5:22) and enjoying/being joyful (πάντοτε χαίρετε; 1 Thess 5:16). Moreover, Paul understands “the good” (τὸ ἀγαθόν) to be a part of “the will of God” (Rom 12:2), commending his Roman audience to be “sticking to the good” (κολλώμενοι τῷ ἀγαθῷ; Rom 12:9). Again, like in the “fruit of the spirit” of Galatians 5:22–23, alongside “the good” in Romans 12:9–13 Paul also commends the virtues of love (ἀγάπη, φιλαδελφία, φιλόστοργος), joy (χαίρειν), and endurance (ὑπομένειν). In Galatians 6:9–10, Paul makes a similar comment to that in 1 Thessalonians 5:15 (above) and 5:21 (“hold fast what is noble/good”; τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε), saying, “let us not despair doing what is noble” (τὸ καλὸν ποιοῦντες μὴ ἐγκακῶμεν; Gal 6:9) and “let use work the good to everyone, and especially to those of the household of the trust” (ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως; Gal 6:10).86 For Paul, then, exhibiting conduct that is “noble” (τὸ καλόν) and “good” (τὸ ἀγαθόν) – providing services to benefit others among Christ-devotees (“to those in the household of the trust”; Gal 6:10) and broader society (“to everyone”; Gal 6:10) – is an important part of living a pneumatic existence. In other words, the spirit produces ἄνδρες (and γυναί) καλοὶ καὶ ἀγαθοί, benefactors towards the wider population and their own Christ-associations. πίστις. A person’s demonstration of πίστις (fidelity, good faith) could garner praise, as it did for Seleukos of Rhosos.87 Further, a person’s reputation for fidelity might attract the polis to select that person to undertake a critical mis-

morality and views of “goodness” was anything but parochial. As any survey of honorific decrees will show, Hellenistic benefactors performed “the good” in manifold ways, always adapting and addressing the needs of populations at any given moment, and usually at their own expense and risk. At best, calling such generosity “parochial” seems insensitive to the past peoples who rendered real and timely help to others (not to mention simply incorrect). Further, with respect to Galatians 5:22 and 6:9–10, one should not limit ἀγαθωσύνη, ποιῆσαι τὸ καλόν, or ἐργάζεσθαι τὸ ἀγαθόν to mean financial aid. Instead, any beneficial services and conduct, including financial help, should be included. Contra Post, Doing the Good in Paul’s Ethical Vision, 70–77. 85 ὁρᾶτε μή τις κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ τινι ἀποδῷ, ἀλλὰ πάντοτε τὸ ἀγαθὸν διώκετε εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας. 86 Brittain Brewer is right to question the contention that “to do the good” necessarily specifies financial aid to the poor and to prefer that it refers to “acts of service in general.” J. Brittain Brewer, “‘To Do the Good’: Galatians 6:9–10, Benefaction, and Honorific Decrees,” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 10, no. 2 (2020): 160–180. 87 IGLSyria 3.1.718 (36–30 BC, Rhosos).

8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

221

sion for them.88 At the outset of the First Mithradatic War, the people of Plarasa-Aphrodisias selected honorable and trusted envoys (ἄνδρας τῶν τειμ|ωμένων καὶ πίστιν ἐχόντων; ll. b.i.5–6) on a mission to inform the Roman commander Quintius Oppius that they are supporting Rome in the conflict.89 Further, one can see how πίστις begets πίστις, as Quintus Oppius vowed to reciprocate the fidelity of the people of Plarasa-Aphrodisias with his own fidelity (πίστις) towards them.90 In 1 Maccabees, after the honorific proclamation recounting Simon’s several military benefactions in the interest of Judea, the author says: The people saw the fidelity (πίστις) of Simon and his good repute (δόξα), which he had resolved to put to action (ποιῆσαι) for his ethnos, they erected him as their leader and high priest because he had done all these things and (because of) his justice/honesty (δικαιοσύνη) and fidelity (πίστις), which he maintained to his ethnos (1 Macc 14:35).

As such, πίστις, as a virtue exhibited by individuals, promotes the flourishing of the group, especially in times of crisis and need. The word πίστις plays a vital and complex role of Paul’s theological and ethical thinking.91 Given the social focus of the ethical terminology and instruction (as opposed to a πίστις toward God in a purely personal sense), πίστις in Galatians 5:22 should be understood in its normal sense of “fidelity” to others. That is, Christ-devotees are expected to live with fidelity, the disposition and subsequent execution of a commitment to serve the interests of others, which results in an open-ended relationship of trust that is continually strengthened among the group through reciprocal service and trust-building. So important to Paul is πίστις that he calls the people in Christ-groups “those of the household of the trust” (οἱ οἱκείοι τῆς πίστεως; Gal 6:10) and “those who trust” (οἱ πιστεύοντες; Gal 3:22; cf. Rom 1:16; 3:22; 4:5, 11, 24; 10:4; 1 Cor 1:21; 14:22; 1 Thess 1:7; 2:10, 13). πραΰτης. The virtue of πραΰτης (“mildness”) refers to a tendency towards leniency over vengeance and violence.92 Plutarch explains the admirably mild disposition of the Athenian politician Perikles: 88 On πίστις as a civic and divine virtue, see Suzan J. M. Sierksma-Agteres, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ and Fides as Civic and Divine Virtues: A Pauline Concept Through Greco-Roman Eyes,” in Cilliers Breytenbach, ed., Paul’s Graeco-Roman Context (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 525–543. 89 I.Aph2007 8.3. 90 I.Aph2007 8.2.b.i.28–ii.24. 91 See, e.g., Teresa Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); Peter Oakes, “Pistis as Relational Way of Life in Galatians,” JSNT 40, no. 3 (2018): 255–275; Nijay Gupta, Paul and the Language of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020). 92 The term πραΰτης (or in the form πραότης), is contrasted with ἀγριότης (“wildness,” “cruelty,” “violent”; πρᾳότητα μὲν πορίζων, ἀγριότητα δ᾽ ἐξορίζων; Plato, Symposium, 197d). In LXX Psalm 44:4, πραΰτης is placed alongside “truth” and “justice” as marks of virtue that will guide a king well (“and bend and prosper and reign for the sake of truth and

222

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

So, then, the man is to be admired not only for his mildness (πραΰτης) and leniency (ἐπιείκεια) which he maintained in the midst of many responsibilities and great enmities (ἐν . . . μεγάλαις ἀπεχθείαις), but also for his loftiness of spirit, seeing that he regarded it as the noblest of all his titles to honor that he had never gratified his envy or his passion in the exercise of his vast power (τὸ μήτε φθόνῳ μήτε θυμῷ χαρίσασθαι μηδὲν ἀπὸ τηλικαύτης δυνάμεως), nor treated any one of his foes as a foe incurable (μηδὲ χρήσασθαί τινι τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὡς ἀνηκέστῳ).93

In his official and private capacities, the civic benefactor Kleandros, who was praised because his “honor-loving nature accomplishes something towards benefits for all,” displayed the virtues of fidelity/trustworthiness (πίστις), uprightness (δικαιοσύνη), humaneness (φιλανθρωπία), and mildness (πραΰτης).94 As in the honorific decree for Kleandros, the terms πίστις and πραΰτης are paired in Ben Sira, proving to be virtues the God of Israel values (Sir 1:27;

mildness and justice, and your right hand will guide you wonderfully”; καὶ ἔντεινον καὶ κατευοδοῦ καὶ βασίλευε ἕνεκεν ἀληθείας καὶ πραΰτητος καὶ δικαιοσύνης, καὶ ὁδηγήσει σε θαυμαστῶς ἡ δεξιά σου). For Aristotle (idiosyncratically), the “mean virtue of πραότης is the characteristic of one who becomes angry for good reasons, with the right persons, in the right manner, at the right moment and for the right length of time.” A. G. Nikolaidis, “Aristotle’s Treatment of the Concept of ΠΡΑΟΤΗΣ,” Hermes 110, no. 4 (1982): 415. But Aristotle, even in trying to fit πραότης into his ethical scheme, recognizes that πραότης is used in contemporary parlance to describe someone prone to forgive and not seek revenge for a wrongdoing (for Aristotle, this is a moral deficiency). For πραότης as tending towards leniency instead of seeking revenge, see, e.g., Xenophon, Cyropaidia, 6.1.37 (“gentle and forgiving of human errors” [Miller, LCL]; πρᾷός τε καὶ συγγνώμων τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἁμαρτημάτων). Nikolaidis, “Aristotle’s Treatment of the Concept of ΠΡΑΟΤΗΣ,” 418. In Virtues and Vices 4.3, Aristotle says that to πραότης “belongs ability to bear reproaches and slights with moderation, and not to embark on revenge quickly, and not to be easily provoked to anger, but free from bitterness and contentiousness, having tranquility and stability in the spirit” (Rackham, LCL). Danker treats the two terms πραΰτης and ἐπιείκεια as more or less synonymous, saying “the two terms denote one who does not exploit high position to satisfy personal whims or to wage vendettas.” Danker 2 Corinthians, 149. 93 Translation modified from Plutarch, Perikles, 39.1 (LCL, Perrin). Citation thanks to Danker, 2 Corinthians, 149. 94 πίστι τε γὰρ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ| καὶ καταστολῇ πραΰτητος καὶ τὸ κεφάλαιον| οἷς ἂν ἡ φύσ⟨ις⟩ φιλοτιμουμένη τεληώσῃ τινα πρὸ[ς]|| τἀγαθὰ ἅπασιν ἤρτισται (SEG 57.1198.27–30; 17/16 BC, Lydia). See also the honorific decree for Aelius Aurelius Ammianus Paulinus, who as “an example of virtue” (ὑπόδειγμα ἀρετῆς; ll. 19–20), was “praised upon a disposition of gentleness and leniency” CIG 2788.21–23 (ἐπαινεθέντα | ἐπὶ ἤθους πραϋ|τι καὶ ἐπεικείᾳ; Imperial period; Aphrodisias). See also 2 Cor 10:1, where πραΰτης and ἐπιείκεια are paired to describe Christ’s ethical disposition. On ἐπιείκια in the honorific epigraphical record as the ability “to give human interests priority over personal rights or legal privilege” and “the opposite of being hard nosed about the law,” see Danker, Benefactor, 351–352.

8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

223

45:4).95 To the Christ-followers in Corinth, Paul appeals to them “through the mildness and leniency of the messiah” (2 Cor 10:1; διὰ τῆς πραΰτητος καὶ ἐπιεικείας τοῦ χριστοῦ) to substantiate his own conduct among them. In Galatians, Paul instructs “you pneumatic people” (ὑμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοί), probably understood in the sense of those who keep in step with the spirit (Gal 5:25; cf. Gal 3:2, 5), to exhibit “a spirit of mildness” (πνεῦμα πραΰτητος) by restoring a person “caught in a transgression” (Gal 6:1).96 Such a disposition is contrary to relationships of ill-will (φθόνοι), rage (θυμοί), and hostile rivalry (ἐχθραί) that Paul warns against (Gal 5:20–21; cf. Plutarch, Perikles, 39.1).97 ἐγκράτεια. Like ἀγάπη, self-control (ἐγκράτεια) is not part of the common stock in honorific decrees. Nevertheless, self-control was a common topic of discourse among philosophers.98 For instance, Xenophon writes a dialog on ἐγκράτεια, which he relates to one’s control over the desire for “eating and drinking, sexual indulgence, sleeping, and endurance of cold and heat and toil.”99 In Plato’s Republic, Socrates remarks that “prudence is indeed a control (ἐγκράτεια) over certain pleasures and desires” (ἡ σωφροσύνη ἐστὶν καὶ ἡδονῶν τινων καὶ ἐπιθυμιῶν ἐγκράτεια).100 In Arachosia, India, king Ashoka held up self-control (ἐγκράτεια) as a preeminent virtue (alongside “piety” or “dharma”) for the schools under his direction, which he chiefly associates with control over one’s tongue.101 Ashoka preferred that in practicing self-control, 95 “For the fear of the Lord is wisdom and education, and fidelity and mildness is what he desires” (σοφία γὰρ καὶ παιδεία φόβος κυρίου, καὶ ἡ εὐδοκία αὐτοῦ πίστις καὶ πραότης; Sir 1:27); “in fidelity and mildness he [God] consecrated him [Moses], he chose him from all flesh” (ἐν πίστει καὶ πραΰτητι αὐτὸν ἡγίασεν, ἐξελέξατο αὐτὸν ἐκ πάσης σαρκός; Sir 45:4). 96 ἀδελφοί, ἐὰν καὶ προλημφθῇ ἄνθρωπος ἔν τινι παραπτώματι, ὑμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοὶ καταρτίζετε τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν πνεύματι πραΰτητος σκοπῶν σεαυτὸν μὴ καὶ σὺ πειρασθῇς. As Barclay argues, “The Galatians’ manner of life in the community, including their treatment of offenders, must be an outworking of their obedience to the Spirit.” Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 157. 97 See also the relevance of 1QS 5.24–6.1 in Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 174. 98 E.g., Xenophon, Memorabilia, 4.2.1; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 7 = Eudemian Ethics 6; Iamblichus, On the Pythagorean Way of Life, 17.72; Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 14; Xenokrates wrote a treatise “Concerning Self-control” (Περὶ ἐγκρατείας; Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 4.2.12). 99 Xenophon, Memorabilia, 2.1.1 (Marchant, Todd, Henderson, LCL). Xenophon again takes up the theme of ἐγκράτεια in Cyropaidia, referring to the ability to endure hardships (πόνοι) like heat, cold, hunger, and thirst (καὶ τὴν ἐγκάτειαν δὲ καὶ πόνους καὶ ψύχη καὶ θάλπη καὶ λιμὸν καὶ δίψος δύνασθαι φέρειν ἐνταῦθα μάλιστα προσείθιζε τοὺς κοινῶνας; Xenophon, Cyropaidia, 8.1.36). In Agesilaos, Xenophon lauds Agesilaos’s self-control of his sexual passions (περί γε μὴν ἀφροδισίων ἐγκρατείας αὐτοῦ; Xenophon, Agesilaos, 5.4). 100 Plato, Republic, 430e. 101 PH314719.1–2 (“piety [= dharma] and self-control in all the schools [= Pasanda]. Selfcontrol is especially a matter of controlling one’s tongue”; [εὐ]σέβεια καὶ ἐγκρατεία κατὰ

224

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

the schools should praise each other rather than criticize.102 So, for Ashoka, self-control helps curb rivalry and dissention and promotes cooperation and mutual building-up. Paul, then, is probably commending self-control (ἐγκράτεια; Gal 5:23) as a pneumatic virtue so that the Galatians would combat “the desire of flesh” (ἐπιθυμία σαρκός; Gal 5:16) in a manner that tends towards cooperation and against zero-sum competitive rivalry and infighting. That is, in Gal 5:23, Paul probably included self-control to counterbalance the vices (“the works of the flesh”; τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός) of Gal 5:19–21, which may be motivated by ἐπιθυμία and allowed to gain a hold among Christ-groups due to a lack of self-control.103 In summary, the pneuma, in so far as one keeps in step with it (Gal 5:25), can be said to produce a person “complete in virtue,” not only as characteristic benefactors but also ideal recipients of benefaction. In this vein, Danker notes that “from Paul’s perspective all those who are motivated by God’s Spirit are people of exceptional merit.”104 Such people of virtue do not need written law to instruct them in moral uprightness or being good, and neither does conventional or written law oppose virtuous people. In fact, their conduct, insofar as it is virtuous and reflective of “the fruit of the spirit,” goes beyond or beside law, going above and beyond what their civic law requires in order to serve their respective populations. Thus, Paul fittingly cites Aristotle (Politics, 3.1284a), saying, “law is not against such people” (κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ

πάσας τὰς διατριβάς· ἐγκρατὴς δὲ μάλιστα ἐστιν ὅς ἂν γλώσσης ἐγκρατὴς ἧι Alexandria in Arachosia, mid-3rd c. BC). Translation from Patrick Olivelle, Ashoka: Portrait of a Philosopher King (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2023), 307. Iamblachus also connects ἐγκράτεια to control of the tongue. He says that Pythagoras would require his disciples to be silent for five years at the beginning of their training, “testing how they were disposed to self-control, since more difficult than other forms of self-control is mastery of the tongue” (μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο τοῖς προσιοῦσι προσέταττε σιωπὴν πενταετῆ, ἀποπειρώμενος πῶς ἐγκρατείας ἔχουσιν, ὡς χαλεπώτερον τῶν ἄλλων ἐγκρατευμάτων τοῦτο, τὸ γλώσσης κρατεῖν; Iamblichus, On the Pythagorean Way of Life, 17.72). Translation from John Dillon and Jackson Hershbell, Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Way of Life. Text, Translation, and Notes (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 97. 102 “And they should neither praise themselves nor criticize other schools for anything, for that is hollow. It is better to try to praise other schools and not to criticize them in any way. By Keeping to that, they will enhance their reputation and win over others.” Translation from Olivelle, Ashoka, 307. 103 de Boer singles out “bouts of drunkenness” and “drinking parties” among the vices that he thinks self-control counteracts. de Boer, Galatians, 366. But to limit ἐπιθυμία and lack of self-control to those two vices neglects how Paul also sees desire contributing to other of the vices Paul specifies in Gal 5:19–21, e.g., “idolatry” (εἰδωλολατρία). See 1 Cor 10:6–11. On the connection between desire and idolatry in Paul, see Elias Coye Still, “‘Do Not Covet’: The Tenth Commandment in Pauline Ethics,” PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2021. 104 Danker, 2 Corinthians, 54.

8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

225

ἔστιν νόμος).105 Commentators hesitate to make much of Paul’s quotation of Aristotle, usually declaring it irrelevant and coincidental allegedly because the respective contexts are so different. But Aristotle’s suggestion that such a surpassingly virtuous person (εἷς τοσοῦτον διαφέρων κατ᾽ ἀρετῆς ὑπερβολήν) “would reasonably be regarded as a god among human beings” (ὥσπερ γὰρ θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποις εἰκὸς εἶναι τὸν τοιοῦτον) seems to fit Paul vision for the transformation of Christ-devotees into pneumatic divine beings through a process of theiosis or christosis (e.g., Gal 4:19).106 Indeed, Paul and his cowriters express that God and Christ are the cause of (χαρά, εἰρήνη) or themselves display (ἀγάπη, μακροθυμία, χρηστότης, πίστις, πραΰτης) pneumatic virtues in their own patterns of conduct. In this way, the “fruit of the spirit” fits into the ethical mold of imitation of and participation in God and Christ through the divine pneuma in Paul’s letters (e.g., Rom 15:1–3, 7; 1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6). Finally, it should be noted that Paul arranges the list specifically to suit his hierarchy of values and moral map. This is evident by how Paul inserts in the first position of the list the virtue ἀγάπη – the superordinate principle of his ethical reasoning (e.g., Gal 5:13–14; Rom 12:9–10; 13:8–10; 1 Cor 13:1–13; 16:14).107 8.3.3 “The Law of Christ” (Gal 6:2) Within the wider discourse on freedom and ethics in Galatians 5:1–6:10, Galatians 6:1–10 is a self-contained unit that continues the development of the letter’s argument as a whole, demarcated by the opening asyndetic address ἀδελφοί (Gal 6:1) and the conclusion (ἄρα οὖν) to the line of reasoning that is carried through the section.108 It is here that Paul now exhorts the Galatians, The location of the Aristotle citation is given variously depending on the edition cited (e.g,. 3.13.1284A [de Boer, Galatians, 366]; 3.8.2, 1284a [Keener, Galatians, 524n408]; 3.8 [1384a 13][Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 123n54]), so I simply cite book 3 with Bekker number 1284a. 106 Translation from Aristotle, Politics, transl. C. D. C. Reeve (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998), 89. On theiosis and christosis in Paul, see, e.g., Ben C. Blackwell, Christosis: Engaging Paul’s Soteriology with His Patristic Interpreters (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2016; repr., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). Paul might also find this quotation from Aristotle contextually relevant to the Galatians because Aristotle’s subsequent discussion that democratically governed cities exercise ostracism of extremely powerful people, not entirely dissimilar to how the agitators “want to exclude” (ἐκκλεῖσαι ὑμᾶς θέλουσιν) uncircumcised males from the assemblies (Gal 4:17). 107 On the pre-eminence of ἀγάπη in the list, see, e.g., Mussner, Galatebrief, 385–386; de Boer, Galatians, 362–363; Keener, Galatians, 518. 108 The line of reasoning in Gal 6:1–10 is as follows: exhortation (unmarked; Gal 6:1), exhortation (unmarked; Gal 6:2), explanation/background information to support previous statement (γάρ; Gal 6:3), development (δέ; Gal 6:4), explanation (γάρ; Gal 6:5), development (δέ; Gal 6:6), interjection (unmarked; Gal 6:7a), explanation/ background information 105

226

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

“bear the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη βαστάζετε καὶ οὕτως ἀναπληρώσετε τὸν νόμον τοῦ χριστοῦ; Gal 6:2). As has been noted by others, this statement in Gal 6:2 bears several similarities to Gal 5:13–14 with the shared use of (ἀνα)πληροῦν with respect to νόμος (ἀναπληρώσετε τὸν νόμον τοῦ χριστοῦ [Gal 6:2]; ὁ πᾶς νόμος . . . πεπλήρωται [Gal 5:14]) coupled with mutual service (ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη βαστάζετε [Gal 6:2]; διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης δουλέυτε ἀλλήλοις [Gal 5:13]).109 This similarity allows one to connect “the law of Christ” to Paul’s ethic of love, since he attaches the motivation for mutual obligation as love (διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης) followed by support from the Levitical love-command (Gal 5:13–14; Lev 19:18). In turn, one can then observe Paul’s use of the love-command in Rom 13:8–10, which he uses to summarize the prohibitions on adultery, murder, theft, desire (Exod 20:13–15, 17; Deut 5:17–19, 21), “and any other command.” For Paul, obligation in Christ-assemblies is singularly focused on loving one another (μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε εἰ μὴ τὸ ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν; Rom 13:8). Moreover, Paul’s invocation of love in Galatians 5:13–14 as the chief ethical principle and the modifier “of Christ” (τοῦ χριστοῦ) in Galatians 6:2 recalls Christ’s own love through his commitment to self-hazarding and self-giving conduct to benefit others (Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13).110 In Galatians 2:20, Paul specifically conjoins Christ’s love and self-gift to benefit Paul (ἐν πίστει ζῷ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ). Observing the negative rules of just conduct, and positively conducting oneself in mutual service (exemplified by Christ) and the “fruit of the spirit” result in a properly ethically oriented people of God. The connection between the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2) and the instruction to mutual service through love (Gal 5:13–14) also has implications on the relato support previous statement (γάρ; Gal 6:7b), support (ὅτι) + development (δέ; Gal 6:8), development (δέ; Gal 6:9), conclusion/inference + close continuity and development (ἄρα οὖν; Gal 6:10). On the discourse markers of asyndeton, δέ, οὖν, and γάρ, see Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 20–23, 28–36, 43–48, 51–54. 109 See, e.g., Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 131–132; de Boer, Galatians, 377. 110 Hays especially emphasizes the Christ-pattern of conduct in his explication of “the law of Christ,” saying, “Paul employs ‘the law of Christ’ (whatever the origin of the phrase) as a reference to the pattern of action (or ‘structure of existence’) exemplified by the Christ who bore the burdens of others in becoming a curse ‘for us.’ Therein lies the fundamental paradigm for Christian ethics.” Hays, “Christology and Ethics in Galatians,” 286–287. Others also see Christ’s example as an important part of the content of “the law of Christ.” E.g., Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 133–134; Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 134; Hartog, “The ‘Law of Christ’ in Pauline Theology and New Testament Ethics,” 82; Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 598; Jipp, Christ is King, 43–76; Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 253. MurphyO’Connor, like Jipp, sees the royal concept of the “living law” at play in Gal 6:2, suggesting the genitive τοῦ χριστοῦ is explanatory and should result in the translation, “the law which is Christ.” Murphy-O’Connor, “The Unwritten Law of Christ (Gal 6:2),” 213.

8.3 Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

227

tionship between “the law of Christ” and freedom. Paul frames his exhortation to mutual service through love as the proper expression of freedom: For you were called to (or, “on condition of”) freedom (ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ), brothers, only not freedom for an opportunity in the flesh; rather, through love, act as slaves to one another (διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις; 5:13). For the entire law is fulfilled in one maxim, in the “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται, ἐν τῷ ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν; 5:14).

So, then, when Paul then uses this same theme of mutual service in Gal 6:2, which he considers the proper expression of freedom in Gal 5:13–14, he says mutual service “will fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). That is, freedom and law, as any discourse on civic freedom would confirm, go hand in hand. Following shared law is part of getting along together with shared freedom. In other words, being freed from external forces and control also affords freedom to live under shared law. In coordinating the relationship between the law of Christ and the written law of Moses (e.g., 2 Cor 3:3, 6–7; Rom 8:2 “the law of sin and death”), it is relevant to notice Paul’s comments that he is not “under law” (μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον) but at the same time not “lawless” with respect to God (μὴ ὢν ἄνομος θεοῦ; 1 Cor 9:20–21). He calls this not-under-law but not lawless mode of existence “conforming to the law of Christ” (ἔννομος χριστοῦ; 1 Cor 9:21). The distinctions Paul makes in 1 Cor 9:20–21 cohere with the distinction between the written Mosaic legislation and the eschatological “law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:2).111 As a result, Paul can say he adheres to divine (unwritten, eschatological) law, because the curse of the Mosaic law (ultimately, death), has been resolved through participation in the body of Christ. Yet at the same time, Paul maintains a certain continuity between the written Mosaic law and the unwritten eschatological version of divine law through “fulfillment” ([ἀνα]πληροῦν, πλήρωμα) and “goal” (τέλος; Rom 10:4) language, especially with respect to the love maxim (Lev 19:18; Exod 20:13– 15, 17; Deut 5:17–19, 21; Rom 13:8–10). Thus, the continuity and discontinuity between Mosaic Torah and the eschatological age enables Paul to navigate for the Galatians a path of obedience to God without compromising their negative freedom (i.e., not being enslaved/subjected to the entire written Torah;

111 Chester rightly sees the importance of eschatology in understanding “the law of Christ,” which he contends can be understood as a messianic Torah, “the law of the messiah.” He explains, “Not, that is, as a new law promulgated by Christ, in stark contrast to the old, but as the divine law now transformed through both Christ and the Spirit, giving it new and final purpose and meaning. In this way it is made possible to live fully according to the true divine will, in a transformed relationship with God in the new age.” Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 601.

228

Chapter 8: Civic Freedom and “The Law of Christ”

Gal 5:1–3).112 In the eschatological age of the restoration of Israel, the freedom that the Galatians’ benefactor-king Jesus affords them is the positive freedom to live under the law of Christ, which serves as a “living law” among and within them that sets behavioral expectations, facilitates cooperation, and aids decision-making during critical situations.113 Now where does all this leave us in terms of understanding the “law of Christ” in Galatians 6:2? The dizzying number of proposals regarding the meaning of “the law of Christ” need not be fully elaborated here.114 But, having traversed much of the ethical landscape of Galatians 5:1–6:10 and contextualized Paul within an Israelite restorationist framework read alongside his incorporation of civic benefaction terms and motifs, the stage is set for proposing what Paul means by “the law of Christ” (ὁ νόμος τοῦ χριστοῦ). The law of Christ is the unwritten heavenly divine law originally given to Moses face to face (then mediated through the written law), and now embodied by Christ himself in his self-hazarding gift of self to others so that restored and resurrected Israel would be able to “live” and get along together through the divine spirit (Gal 5:25). That is, the law of Christ is a sort of living law, an unwritten, internalized divine constitution for the people of God that is written “on their hearts” (ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν; Jer 31:33), empowering them to embody the spirit of their endangered benefactor Christ among and for one another.115

As Annalisa Phillips Wilson states, “Paul’s ‘law of Christ’ is a distinct, higher-order metaphorical ‘law’ that both stands in antithesis to the Mosaic law and shares properties with it. Paul used this metaphorical law to critique purported misuse of the Mosaic law and to ground its qualified use for believers.” Annalisa Phillips Wilson, “The Craftsman,” 393. 113 For Christ as the “living law” who embodies the law of loving neighbor in his life and serves as a model for his subjects to imitate so that they too could live by the law, see Jipp, Christ is King, 43–76, esp. 64–67, 70, 74–76. 114 For a summary of much of the literature prior to 2006, see Wilson, “The Law of Christ and the Law of Moses”; Chester, Messiah and Exaltation. 115 See also Logan Williams, who identifies “the law of Christ” as “the pneumatological internalization process by which God’s laws become inner reality.” Further, “The completion of the Law is the moment when the Spirit makes the Law an inner code; the Law of Christ is the Torah in the hearts of believers under the auspices of Spirit.” Williams, “Love, Self-Gift, and the Incarnation,” 180, 183. 112

Chapter 9

Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians 9.1 Introduction 9.1 Introduction

Not only do Paul and his cowriters invoke the major themes of endangered benefaction and civic freedom, but they also make use of several other motifs, conventions, and cultural scripts related to benefaction. This chapter will examine several more of these benefaction-related issues that were discussed in chapters 1–6. First, Paul’s invocation of the promises of God and his arguments dealing with the kinship of the Galatians to Abraham and Christ find consonance with expectations of benefactors who make promises to their cities and also reflects the wider Mediterranean practice of kinship diplomacy. Next, Paul’s rhetoric about the Antioch incident is illuminated by the themes of endangered benefaction, word-deed congruency, and imitation. Further, the notion of starting and completing is brought to expression in Galatians 3:1–5. Relevant also are the social conventions of gratitude and ingratitude, which formed the basic relational structure of relationships in civic benefaction. Moreover, Paul’s message about Christ can be put in conversation with the wider conventions of giving or withholding benefits to people depending on their worthiness. Additionally, observations about how honorific inscriptions make use of the motif of “time” has a bearing on Paul’s own narrative of his past (Gal 1:13–14) and God’s eschatological timing (Gal 4:1–7). And finally, the hallmark Pauline term πίστις (fidelity) and ethically formative practice of imitation find resonance with a civic benefaction context.

9.2 Benefaction and Belonging: God’s Promise and Paul’s Kinship Diplomacy 9.2 Benefaction and Belonging

The common practice of inter-city kinship diplomacy in the ancient Mediterranean can put Paul’s own practice of kinship diplomacy in Galatians into broader relief.1 This section will be limited in scope, focusing on the inter1 Paula Fredriksen has found the phenomenon of kinship diplomacy to be useful in contextualizing Paul as a participant is discourses about the relationship between peoples and their gods through kin networks. See, e.g., Paula Fredriksen, “Why Should a ‘Law-Free’

230

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians

section between benefaction and kinship diplomacy. A more detailed study on the wider phenomenon of kinship diplomacy in relation to Paul would be needed to fully contextualize Paul’s kinship arguments. In the previous chapters it was argued that Paul understands gentiles-in-Christ as undergoing an ethnic change by incorporating an Israelite ethnicity for themselves. 2 God, through the death and resurrection of his messiah, has brought to fruition the eschatological post-covenantal-curse deliverance by which God resurrects and reconstitutes Israel from its enslavement to gods among the nations so that they would follow his law by the power of his divine pneuma.3 This reconstitution of Israel means that non-Jews must undergo ethnic change partly by subtraction and partly by addition. On the one hand, gentiles-in-Christ must forsake their gods along with their cult images and attach themselves exclusively to the God of Israel and his messiah.4 On the other hand, they must abide by certain ethical demands of their new solitary high God.5 As a part of the Israelizing process, gentiles-in-Christ add Israelite ancestry. But how does Paul construct a shared kinship between Galatians (or any other non-Jews) and Jews, and between these non-Jews and the God of Israel?6 As they came into more regular contact with the wider Greek-speaking Mediterranean world, Jews imagined and constructed genealogical relationships

Mission Mean a ‘Law-Free’ Apostle?” Journal of Biblical Literature 134, no. 3 (2015): 639– 640; Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), 36–37; Paula Fredriksen, “How Do the Nations Relate to Israel? Family, Ethnicity, and Eschatological Inclusion in the Apostle Paul,” in In the Crucible of Empire: The Impact of Roman Citizenship upon Greeks, Jews and Christians, ed. Katell Berthelot and Jonathan Price (Leuven: Peeters, 2019), 134–135; Paula Fredriksen, “God is Jewish, but Gentiles Don’t Have to Be: Ethnicity and Eschatology in Paul’s Gospel,” in The Message of Paul the Apostle within Second Temple Judaism, ed. František Ábel (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2020), 5–6. 2 This is in continuity with Jason A. Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024); Denys N. McDonald, “‘Ex-Pagan Pagans’? Paul, Philo, and Gentile Ethnic Reconfiguration,” JSNT 45, no. 1 (2022): 1–28. 3 E.g., Deut 30:1–10; Jer 31:31–34 [LXX 38:31–34]; Ezek 36:24–29. 4 1 Thess 1:9; 1 Cor 8:5–6; 10:1–33, esp. 10:7, 14, 21–22; Gal 4:8–9; see, e.g., Exod 20:2–6/Deut 5:6–10; 11:13–17; 30:16–18. 5 E.g., Rom 12:8–9; 13:8–10; Gal 5:13–14; see Exod 20:13–15, 17/Deut 5:17–19, 21; Lev 19:18. 6 Numerous proposals have appeared in the last twenty years. See, e.g., Caroline Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship in the Letters of Paul (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); Joshua D. Garroway, Paul’s Gentile-Jews: Neither Jew nor Gentile, but Both (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); Fredriksen, Paul.

9.2 Benefaction and Belonging

231

between themselves and other groups.7 In the mid or late second century BC some Jewish intellectuals found that creating a kinship affiliation with Spartans was congenial to promote their own Jewish (or Israelite?) genos as primary among peer populations, having Abraham as their common ancestor rather than a famous Spartan. 8 Likewise, Josephus, relying on Alexander Polyhistor’s summary of part of a work by Cleodemus the prophet (also called Malchus), relays how several of Abraham’s sons via Keturah founded foreign cities and lands (Assyria, Aphra, Africa) and fought alongside Herakles against Libya and Antaios.9 An unnamed daughter of one of these Abrahamic allies of Herakles married Herakles and produced at least one son whose lineage traces to certain barbarians.10 Because of the scriptural narrative that he would be “father of a great number of nations” (πατὴρ πλήθους ἐθνῶν; LXX Gen 17:4) and “father of many nations” (πατήρ πολλῶν ἐθνῶν; LXX Gen 17:5), Abraham was a fitting ancestor Jews could mobilize in constructing kinship relations with other groups of people (cf. Rom 4:16–17).11 Like other Jews, Paul too appeals to the patriarch Abraham, a figure from the legendary past, to construct a kinship relationship between Jews and nonJews. But Paul is not only creating a genealogical connection to enhance Jewish prestige among peer nations, like the fabricated correspondence between Judea and Sparta (1 Macc 12:2, 5–18, 19–23; 14:16–23); instead, Paul is trying to persuade a non-Jewish population with an argument about shared Abrahamic ancestry. In this sense, then, Paul’s use of kinship arguments to convince Galatians of a particular construal of shared kinship between Jews and Galatians constitutes an exercise in kinship diplomacy (Gal 3:6–4:31). Paul, like other kinship diplomats, draws on his archive of ancestral genealogical information in Genesis to creatively use his sources to persuade his audience to take a

7 1 Macc 12:2, 5–18, 19–23; 14:16–23; Josephus, A.J., 12.225–227; 13.163–170; 2 Macc 5:6–10; cf. Diod. Sic., Bib. hist. 40.3. See Erich S. Gruen, Constructs of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism: Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 95–111. 8 Gruen, Constructs of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism, 153–166; see also 104–105; Jan M. Bremmer, “Spartans and Jews: Abrahamic Cousins?,” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham, ed. Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, TBN 13 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 47–59. 9 Josephus, A.J., 1.238–41. See Gruen, Constructs of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism, 102–104. 10 Josephus, A.J., 1.240–241. Gruen perceptively comments, “The new narrative represents a usurpation of Hellenic legend to advance the patriarch’s reputation. His sons had brought Herakles into the family, and his reach now extended to Africa and Assyria.” Gruen, Constructs of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism, 103. 11 Fredriksen makes a similar connection between Jewish kinship construction and the relevance to Abraham as “father of many nations” in Paul, 192–193n11.

232

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians

certain specific course of action. For Paul, this shared kinship means the Galatians should not undergo circumcision (Gal 5:1–4). Recall how the kinship diplomacy between Kytenion and Xanthos and between Abdera and Teos could result in solidarity and service in the present, whether it was based on envoy-constructed ancestral ties or a longstanding interaction between the populations (see §3.2.3).12 Similar mention can also be made of how one city praised the people of Atrax, whose envoys, in a display of virtue, kinship (συγγένεια), and goodwill, delivered a generous quantity of wheat without charge despite their own difficult circumstances.13 When the Mesembrians invaded the countryside of Apollonia and desecrated the temple of Apollo, “the Istrians, being kin (συγγενεῖς) and friends and well-disposed to the demos,” sent Hegesagoras, who risked his own life as he lead a fleet to aid Apollonia in its perilous situation.14 Thus, kinship ties could be put to use to motivate a group to provide help during a crisis, even at their own risk or peril. Paul’s configuration of kinship networks is evident in how he talks about Abraham in Galatians 3–4 and Romans 4 and 8. It is easy to get stuck in the weeds in these texts, but the present discussion will be limited to a brief treatment of a few aspects of kinship: adoption, the scope and nature of the inheritance, the central significance of “the seed” of Abraham in syncing up Abraham’s kin network, the relevance of the divine pneuma that has the ability to create life, and the place of trust or fidelity in the Abrahamic covenantal relationship with God. 9.2.1 Adoption For Paul, Jews and gentiles alike derive their kinship to God by adoption (Gal 4:5; cf. Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4).15 Critically, God’s eschatological restoration of Is12 SEG 38.1476 (Kytenion and Xanthos). On Teos and Abdera, see Mustafa Adak and Peter Thonemann, Teos and Abdera: Two Greek Cities in Peace and War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022). 13 SEG 66.369.1–4 (150–100 BC, Atrax): “doing deeds worthy of their virtue and excellence (τᾶς αὐτῶν ἀρετᾶς καὶ καλοκαγαθίας) and of the kinship and friendship and goodwill towards our city (τ[ᾶς] π̣ρὸς τὰν πόλι̣ν ἀμ|μέων συγγενείας τε καὶ φιλίας καὶ εὐνοίας; ll. 2– 3), a thousand baskets of wheat without charge to the city, even though they were being hard-pressed because of the crises (θλιβόμενοι διὰ τοὶς καιροίς).” See also the other references to kinship in the inscription in SEG 66.369.8, 21. 14 I.ScM I 64 (200–150 BC, Istros), quote from ll. 7–8 (Ἰστριανοὶ συνγενεῖς καὶ φίλοι καὶ εὔνοοι ὑπάρχον|τες τοῦ δήμου); cf. ll. 31–32 in which the Apollonians praise the demos of the Istrians as friend, kin, and ally (ἐπαινέσαι μὲν ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν δῆμον τὸν Ἰσρτι|ανῶν φίλον ὄντα καὶ συγγενῆ καὶ σύμμαχον). 15 Fredriksen, Paul, 37, 148–151; de Boer, Galatians, 265; Keener, Galatians 334, 339. But Fredriksen makes too much of the μετά in Rom 15:10 as ruling out gentiles as a part of Israel (e.g., Fredriksen, Paul, 149). It is possible that Paul understands the μετά as joining two separate groups in worship of God (Israel, i.e., Jews, and eschatological gentiles), but

9.2 Benefaction and Belonging

233

rael occurs through the mission of God’s son Jesus, who in solidarity with the condition of mortal humans and the condition of those under law (i.e., “under a curse”; Gal 3:10, 13), releases them from their condition bondage to death (individual and corporate), and in so doing restores humanity and Israel at the same time by affording them sonship adoption (υἱοθεσία) as sons of God (Gal 4:4–7).16 As a result, all recipients of Christ’s benefits share a kin relationship to one another by both being recipients of sonship adoption by God (Gal 4:5). This shared kinship fosters a sense of belonging for his Galatian recipients, as is also evident elsewhere when Paul and his cowriters refer to God as the common divine father of the senders and recipients of the letter, Jews and Galatians (πάτηρ ἡμῶν [Gal 1:1, 3, 4]; ἀββα ὁ πατήρ [Gal 4:6]; cf. Gal 4:2). Indeed, Paul strengthens this kinship by repeatedly calling his Galatian recipients “brothers” and casting others as “false brothers” (ἀδελφοί; Gal 1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18; cf. 1:2; ψευδαδέλφοι, 2:4). But Paul’s narrative of how God bestows sonship adoption on Jews and non-Jews together through the Christevent (Gal 4:4–7) does not explicitly mention any kinship ties to Abraham. It is by conceptually linking the idea of sonship to God with inheritance that Paul brings Abraham into his kinship arguments, since adoption into God’s family affords an inheritance: “so, if [you are] a son, [you are] also an heir through God” (εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος διὰ θεοῦ; Gal 4:7). 9.2.2 Scope and Nature of the Inheritance Genesis simply states that God promises Abram that he would inherit “this land” (ἡ γῆ αὕτη; LXX Gen 15:7), further specifying that God will give a geographically delimitated portion of land to Abram’s “seed” (τῷ σπέρματι δώσω τὴν this reading is not necessary. The μετά could also be understood as inclusive, that gentiles “rejoice” with “his [God’s] people” in the sense that they are now a part of that people, Israel. Paul does not univocally mean “Jews” when he invokes the biblical phrase “my people” (λαός μου) but includes gentiles. So, Paul includes gentiles where Hosea refers to Israel (Rom 9:24–26; citing Hos 2:23/1:10). It stands to reason, then, that, like Rom 9:24–26, Paul sees “my people” in Rom 15:10 as eschatological Israel made up of Jews and gentiles who have been restored as a united people of Israel after the exilic death of the nation among the nations. On Hos 2:23/1:10 in Rom 9:24–26 as the restoration of Israel, which includes gentiles, see J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 79–89. See also Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 201–209. 16 Note how Paul simply uses the first-person plural “we receive” (ἀπολάβωμεν), that is, himself and his gentile Galatian audience, when speaking about the resolution of the plight of humanity and Israel. This suggests that the benefits of the son of God’s conduct are both Jews and gentiles as a single people receiving adoption together. The parallels (e.g., ὑπὸ νόμον, ἐξαγοράσαι, [ἀπο]λαβεῖν) between Gal 4:4–7 with Gal 3:10–14, in which the postcovenantal-curse restoration of Israel is in view, support this reading. See also Moo, Galatians, 267; de Boer, Galatians, 264–265.

234

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians

γῆν ταύτην; LXX Gen 15:18; cf. Gen 17:8).17 But Paul says that God promised Abraham and his seed that they would inherit the kosmos (ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἢ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι κόσμου; Rom 4:13; cf. Rom 15:8–12; 1 Cor 6:9; 15:24–27, 50; Gal 4:21; Phil 2:10–11). 18 Paul speaks of this promise as a divine benefaction, saying, “God granted a favor to Abraham through a promise” (τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός; Gal 3:18; cf. Rom 4:4, 16 [κατὰ χάριν]).19 And because the promise is a benefaction, Paul reasons that the inheritance (i.e., the kosmos) cannot have a stipulation that requires the recipient(s) to receive that worldwide inheritance “from law” (ἐκ νόμου; Gal 3:18; Rom 4:16), which was added after the promise (Gal 3:17). If Abraham and his “seed” (σπέρμα) will possess this cosmic inheritance, the next question is how does one know if one has the correct kin relation to Abraham? Who is the “seed”? 9.2.3 The “Seed” of Abraham For Paul, being a physical descendent of Abraham is not sufficient to receive the Abrahamic covenantal inheritance. In Galatians 4:21–31, Paul distinguishes between Abraham’s “two sons” (δύο υἱοί; Gal 4:22) born by two different women, one “born according to flesh” (κατὰ σάρκα) by an enslaved woman and the other “born through a promise” (δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας; Gal 4:23) by a free woman. By allegorically associating these two women with two covenants, Paul explains how the Galatians have proper maternal lineage through the free woman Sarah (per God’s promise) as opposed to enslaved Hagar (Gal On the whole land delimitation, see Gen 15:18–21. On Paul’s expansion of the inheritance in the Abrahamic promise to a worldwide land promise, see Esau McCaulley, Sharing in the Son’s Inheritance: Davidic Messianism and Paul’s Worldwide Interpretation of the Abrahamic Land Promise in Galatians (LNTS 608; London: T&T Clark, 2019). On the cosmic scope of the inheritance of Christ received in turn by Christ-devotees, see David A. Burnett, “A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix for the Nature of the Resurrection Body in 1 Corinthians 15:39–42,” in Linda L. Belleville and B. J. Oropeza, eds., Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in 1 Corinthians (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2019), 187–211. In summary, “For Paul, his holy ones will be made like the celestial bodies, having bodies like them, fit to inherit their habitat, and to take their rightful place as true heirs with Christ, usurping the old powers and being raised in celestial power and glory as heirs of the cosmos.” Burnett, “A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix for the Nature of the Resurrection Body in 1 Corinthians 15:39– 42,” 204. 19 Cf. Nero’s use of χαρίζεθαι (IG VII 2713.11) to describe how he gave the Greeks an “unexpected gift” (ἀπρεσδόκητον δωρεάν), the benefactions of freedom and tax-exemption (IG VII 2713.11; ἀπροσδόκητον ὑμεῖν, ἄνδρες Ἕλληνες, δωρεάν, εἰ καὶ μηδὲν παρὰ τῆς ἐμῆς μεγαλοφροσύνης, ἀνέλπιστον, χαρίζομαι, τοσαύτην, ὅσην οὐκ ἐχωρήσατε αἰτεῖσθαι. πάντες οἱ τὴν Ἀχαΐαν καὶ τὴν ἕως νῦν Πελοπόννησον κατοικοῦντες Ἕλληνες λάβετ᾽ ἐλευθερίαν ἀνισφορίαν, ἣν οὐδ᾽ ἐν τοῖς εὐτυχεστάτοις ὑμῶν πάντες χρόνοις ἔσχετε; IG VII 2713.9–15). 17

18

9.2 Benefaction and Belonging

235

4:21–31).20 Importantly, these women correspond to cities: the free polity of God – the “Jerusalem above” (ἡ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλήμ) – which Paul imbues with the inviting quality of freedom, and “the present Jerusalem” (ἡ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ), which Paul dismisses as enslaved (δουλεύειν) with its children (Gen 4:25–26). Consequently, lineage through covenantal, not strictly natural, procreation counts in Paul’s genealogical map in tracing Abrahamic kin. The assemblies of Christ in Galatia, Paul reminds them, are “children of promise” (ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα) possessing lineage through Isaac (Gal 4:28).21 Regarding the identity of “the seed” of Abraham who will receive the promised inheritance, Paul makes two critical statements: The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say “and to seeds,” as if to many, but instead as if to one, “and to your seed,” who is Christ (Gal 3:16).22 Why then the law? It was added on account of the transgressions, until the seed to whom it [i.e., the Abrahamic inheritance] was promised comes. (Gal 3:19).23

In Galatians 3:16, Paul focuses on the grammatical point that the word “seed” (σπέρμα) is singular in Genesis 15:18 rather than plural (σπέρματα). The singularity of the seed can also be seen as picking up on the “seed” language in LXX 2 Sam 7:12–14 specifying a royal Davidic “seed” whom God will “raise up” (ἀναστήσω τὸ σπέρμα σου).24 Strengthening this Davidic messianic reading of the seed is an allusion to the royal progenitor of Judah in LXX Gen 49:10 (“until the things reserved come to him”; ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ) as the “seed” of Abraham in Galatians 3:19 (“until the seed to whom it was promised comes”; ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ τὸ σπέρμα ᾧ ἐπήγγελται).25 So, the promises to Ab20 On the paternal and maternal imagery in Galatians, see Jane Heath, “God the Father and Other Parents in the New Testament,” in The Divine Father: Religious and Philosophical Concepts of Divine Parenthood in Antiquity, ed. Felix Albrecht and Reinhard Feldmeier, TBN 18 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 331–333. 21 ὑμεῖς δε, ἀδελφοί, κατὰ Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐστέ. 22 τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ. οὐ λέγει· καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐφ᾽ ἑνός· καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστιν χριστός. 23 τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη, ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ τὸ σπέρμα ᾧ ἐπήγγελται. On the inheritance being what the “seed” is promised, see McCaulley, Sharing in the Son’s Inheritance, 154–159. 24 καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν πληρωθῶσιν αἱ ἡμέραι σου, καὶ κοιμηθήσῃ μετὰ τῶν πατέρων σου, καὶ ἀναστήσω τὸ σπέρμα σου μετὰ σέ, ὃς ἔσται ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας σου καὶ ἑτοιμάσω τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ· αὐτὸς οἰκοδομήσει μοι οἶκον τῷ ὀνόματί μου, καὶ ἀνορθώσω τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ ἕως εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν· καὶ ἐὰν ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀδικία αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐλέγξω αὐτὸν ἐν ῥάβδῳ ἀνδρῶν καὶ ἐν ἀφαῖς υἱῶν ἀνθρώπων. Cf. 4Q174; Psalms of Solomon 17. Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, 123–126; McCaulley, Sharing in the Son’s Inheritance, 146–154. 25 οὐκ ἐκλείψει ἄρχων ἐξ Ιουδα καὶ ἡγούμενος ἐκ τῶν μηρῶν αὐτοῦ, ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ, καὶ αὐτὸς προσδοκία ἐθνῶν (LXX Gen 49:10). McCaulley, Sharing in the Son’s Inheritance, 154–159. Noting that the passive ἐπήγγελται relates to the subject of

236

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians

raham’s singular seed, interpreted as a royal Davidic messiah, are realized in the singular inheritor, Jesus the messiah. 9.2.4 Spirit and Trust/Fidelity If the royal messianic figure is the singular “seed” who inherits the Abrahamic covenantal promises, then how do people subject to death, that is, under “the curse of the law” (ὑπὸ κατάραν [Gal 3:10]; ἡ κατάρα τοῦ νόμου [Gal 3:13), “under law” (ὑπὸ νόμον), or “under sin” (ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν; Gal 3:22), share in the messiah’s inheritance? Torah-obedience as an avenue of inheriting the promises is ruled out, because Torah is not able to create life (ζῳοποιῆσαι; Gal 3:21). Paul’s logic is that union with Christ – “being one in Christ Jesus” (εἷς ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; Gal 3:28) – results in the status of heir to the inheritance along with Christ (cf. Rom 8:17): “if you are of Christ, then you are the seed of Abraham, heirs according to promise” (εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς χριστοῦ, ἄρα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ, κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι; Gal 3:29). As argued previously, “life” (ζωή) and the ability “to create life” (ζῳοποιῆσαι) are wrapped up in the narrative of Christ’s resolution of Israel’s and humanity’s plight as enslaved to other gods and subject to population-level death. Christ’s participation in death in solidarity with those subject to it, coupled with his subsequent resurrection to life by God, consequently, affords those united with him to share in his own pneumatic life.26 It is in this situation of eschatological restoration that Paul points to trust/fidelity (πίστις, πιστεῦσαι) as being connected to human reception of the divine, life-creating pneuma. 27 That is, Christ-adherents trust like Abraham, who trusted God’s promise to create a covenantal lineage for him despite his and Sarah’s somatic decay and necrotized reproductive capabilities (Rom 4:19).28 In other words, in the face of the seemingly impossible-to-fulfill promise that God would make him “father of many nations” (πατήρ πολλῶν ἐθνῶν; Gen 17:4–6), Abraham “trusted before God who makes the dead alive and calls the

Gal 3:18 (ἡ κληρονομία), McCaulley explains, “God put the Law into place until the coming of the seed to whom was promised the κληρονομία” (McCaulley, Sharing in the Son’s Inheritance, 155). 26 This reading coheres with the “material” pneuma reading of Paul nicely summarized in Ryan D. Collman, The Apostle to the Foreskin: Circumcision in the Letters of Paul (Berlin De Gruyter, 2023), 76–80. Against the material pneuma and in favor of a relational view of the pneuma, see, e.g., Volker Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life, WUNT 2.283 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). 27 On the connection between πίστις and πνεῦμα, see, e.g., Gal 3:2, 5, 14; 5:5, 22. 28 Abraham’s trust in God is in the face of his consideration that “his own body had already been made dead” (τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα ἤδη νενεκρωμένον) and “the death of Sarah’s womb” (τὴν νέκρωσιν τῆς μήτρας Σάρρας) had already taken place (Rom 4:19).

9.2 Benefaction and Belonging

237

things that do not exist to exist” (Rom 4:16–17).29 So also Christ-devotees trust in God’s ability to create life from death by resurrecting them from among the nations (Deut 30:3) and circumcising their heart so that they would live (Deut 30:7; cf. Deut 32:39; 1 Sam 2:6; Neh 9:6–8). And so the language of “creating life” (ζῳοποιῆσαι) and “calling” (καλῆσαι) into existence in Romans 4:17 maps onto Paul’s eschatological restorationist view that God “calls” Israel back into existence from among the nations, from “not my people” to “my people” and from “not beloved” to “beloved” – “sons of the living God” (Rom 9:25– 26).30 Paul, then, can say that just as Abraham trusted God (Gal 3:6), “those from trust, they are sons of Abraham” (οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν Ἀβραάμ; Gal 3:7). In summary, then, Christ-devotees trust that God, through participation in Christ’s pneumatic body through the divine pneuma, has re-created Israel from its population-level death among the nations so that now “if anyone is in Christ, new creation” (ὥστε εἴ τις ἐν χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις; 2 Cor 5:17). Hence, Paul speaks of “new creation” in a way that relativizes boasting in the absence or presence of foreskin: “neither is circumcision something nor foreskin, but new creation (καινὴ κτίσις)” (Gal 6:15).31 Abraham’s kin network is held together by means of life-creating pneuma and trust/fidelity (πίστις), not circumcision of the flesh.32 Paul’s appeal to kinship bonds of a shared legendary ancestor (Abraham) to motivate his audience to act a certain way shares similarities and differences with attempts at kinship diplomacy between Greek cities. Paul’s mapping of genealogy is bound up with the restoration of Israel that he sees simultaneously resolving the curses of the Mosaic covenant and bringing to fruition the promises of the Abrahamic covenant. Consequently, Abrahamic kinship is bound up with a network of other soteriological elements: fidelity, participation in Christ through the divine pneuma, and the creation of an extended family by sonship adoption of people from all nations. In short, in Galatians Paul draws on his inherited genealogical resources not to creatively construct a shared ancestral past to motivate a discrete benefaction in the present (like, e.g., Kytenion) but to construct a schema of group-level kin-relatedness that motivates shared be29 καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε, κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα. 30 ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει· καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου λαόν μου καὶ τὴν οὺκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην· καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς· οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος (Rom 9:25–26; cf. 1 Thess 1:4). See also the “call” language in Galatians (Gal 1:6, 16; 5:8, 13). 31 οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις. On Gal 6:15, see Collman, The Apostle to the Foreskin, 95–99. 32 On Abraham as founder of a kin network based on pistis, see Lukas Bormann, “Abraham as ‘Forefather’ and His Family in Paul,” in Abraham’s Family: A Network of Meaning in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. Lukas Bormann (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 207–233.

238

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians

longing (through sonship adoption to God) in the present. If the assemblies of Christ-followers already felt a sense of disaffection from their civic community and now were being alienated from their new Christ-networks at the instigation of those compelling circumcision, Paul’s kinship arguments and rhetoric could serve as a balm to their relational wounds. In turn, this shared belonging directs the Galatians to certain courses of action, such as refusing mandatory circumcision (Gal 5:1–6). Likewise, this shared belonging through a kin network builds the foundation for abiding by shared group norms as summarized in several ethical maxims and virtues throughout the letter (esp. in Gal 5:13–6:10). So, this group-level ethical instruction is grounded not only in shared freedom (Gal 2:4; 5:1, 13) and shared law (“the law of Christ”: Gal 6:2), but also in shared kinship (Gal 3:1–4:7; 4:21–31). Consequently, Paul states, “if we live by the spirit, let us act in alignment with the spirit. Let us not become people of empty pomp, challenging one another, displaying ill-will toward each other” (Gal 5:25–26).33 And, “the one who sows into the spirit from the spirit will reap aionial life” (Gal 6:8).34 Elsewhere, speaking in terms of a household, he urges the Galatians to do “what is noble” (τὸ καλὸν ποιοῦντες) and “let us work good to all, especially to the household of the trust” (ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως; Gal 6:9–10). As a result, like the Kytenians, the conduct of one’s ancestors, even from the distant past, imposes moral obligations in the present. For Paul, God’s now-realized promise-benefaction of the spirit of the son of God to the common ancestor of eschatological Jews and gentiles (through the promised “seed” Christ), restored Israelites, obliges the Galatians to conduct themselves as a group according to certain ethical or ritual standards that are in accord with that spirit. Finally, appealing to a promise can conjure one or several cultural scripts (see §3.1.2). For Paul, the use of promise could accomplish several things. First, because God has fulfilled his promise-benefaction to Abraham, God’s good reputation is maintained, and as a result God is owed a proper response of praise and gratitude. If the Galatians had any fears or doubts about the trustworthiness of the God of Israel induced by the people requiring circumcision for gentiles, Paul’s invocation of God’s promise may alleviate those fears and doubts by assuring them that Israel’s God does not mandate non-Jewish males to undergo circumcision. Moreover, God’s display of faithfulness to his pro33 εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν. μὴ γινώμεθα κενόδοξοι, ἀλλήλους προκαλούμενοι, ἀλλήλοις φθονοῦντες. 34 ὁ δὲ σπείρων εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος θερίσει ζωὴν αἰώνιον. The phrase “aionial life” comes from Jamie Davies, “Why Paul Doesn’t Mention ‘The Age to Come,’” Scottish Journal of Theology 74 (2021): 205. The phrase casts ζωή αἰώνιος as qualitatively different from human time instead of simply an infinite extension of human time, referring to “God’s kind of time in fellowship with ours.” Davies, “Why Paul Doesn’t Mention ‘The Age to Come,’” 205.

9.3 Kephas and the Fearful

239

mise could provoke the trust of the Galatians and hedge off what Paul perceives as a possible move toward defection (e.g., Gal 5:1–4). In sum, by appealing to the notion of promise, Paul’s kinship argument in Galatians 3:6–4:31 could provide additional persuasive power in convincing the Galatians to refuse mandatory circumcision and to do so as an expression of fidelity or good faith to the God who has kept his promise.

9.3 Kephas and the Fearful 9.3 Kephas and the Fearful

In his biography of the Hellenistic dynast Demetrios Poliorketes, Plutarch remarks that viewing negative exemplars assists in moral instruction when paired with seeing positive exemplars. He explains that seeing harmful, shameful, and unjust (βλαβερός, αἰσχρός, ἀδικός) conduct allows one to better perceive and appreciate the virtues of the good and praiseworthy lives so that one can better understand virtue and become imitators (μιμηταί) of the positive moral exemplars.35 Paul too in Galatians sets up foils and counter examples that draw more focused attention to the noble and good exemplars. In Galatians 2:11–14, Paul exhibits Kephas and certain other Jewish Christ-followers as a foil to the conduct displayed by Christ. When dangers and threats faced Greek-speaking cities, fear and terror gripped many would-be benefactors. Instead of confronting the danger, they hesitated out of fear. But the mark of a praiseworthy benefactor was to offer oneself for service when others drew back on account of fear. Thus, Koteies “gave himself more readily to the danger” when others fled the city terrified (πτοηθέντες). 36 With nobody willing to volunteer (οὐδενὸς δ᾽ ἐπιδιδόντος ἑαυτόν) in a desperate situation, Protogenes stepped up to shoulder the burdens of the Olbians time and again (IOSPE I2 32). Agathokles of Istros hazarded danger when others ran away out of fear (διὰ τὸμ φόβον).37 And when a crisis gripped the city of Sestos “because of fear of the neighboring Thracians” (διά τε τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν γειτνιώντων Θρᾳκῶν φόβον), Menas “gave himself unhesitatingly to all things advantageous to the city.”38 When others hesitated or fled, these civic benefactors “gave themselves” and displayed their true quality in service to their grateful cities (see chap. 5).

Plutarch, Demetrios, 1.1–6. ἕτεροι πτοηθέντες [ἐξ]-εχώρουν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως . . . ἑτοιμότερον ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ κίνδυνον ἔδωκεν (SEG 57.1109.Col. II.15–20). 37 I.ScM I 15 = SEG 24.1095. 38 καὶ τῆς πόλεω[ς] [ἐ]ν ἐπικινδύνωι καιρῶι γενομένης διά τε τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν γειτνιώντων Θρᾳκῶν φόβον καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἐκ τῆς αἰφνιδίου περιστάσεως ἐπιστάντων χαλεπῶν, Μηνᾶ[ς] καὶ λέγων καὶ πράσσων διετέλει τὰ ἄριστα καὶ κάλλιστα, διδοὺς ἀπροφασίστως ἑαυτὸν εἰς πάντα τὰ συνφέροντα τῆι πόλει (OGIS 339.15–20). 35

36

240

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians

Paul portrays the conduct of Kephas in terms that suggest cowardice and that show him acting as the opposite of benefactors who in the face of fear laudably devote themselves to benefit their communities to the point of risking their own lives.39 The pressure from a group from James in Jerusalem was too much for Kephas, who “shrank back and separated himself” out of fear (ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτὸν φοβούμενος; Gal 2:12). Paul’s language strongly contrasts the full commitment (Gal 1:4) and self-surrender (Gal 2:20) of Jesus for others with the lack of commitment and the withdrawal of Kephas for the Christ-followers from among the nations at Antioch (Gal 2:12). Linguistically the divergence is striking: Kephas separated himself (ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν; Gal 2:12) to the detriment of others, but Christ “gave himself” (δοῦναι ἑαυτόν: Gal 1:4) and “gave himself over” (παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν: Gal 2:20) for the benefit of others. Paul’s words make use of the endangered benefactor motif, seen through the lens of Christ’s own self-endangerment for the sake of others, to cast Kephas in a role of would-be benefactor who shirked the opportunity to imitate Christ and stand firm in the face of fear. If Christ exhibits the pattern for the gift of the self, Kephas here exhibits the anti-pattern – the ungift of the self – having given himself to table fellowship with non-Jews, he then retracts himself from that relationship.40 Likewise, Paul’s choice of words (esp. ὑποστεῖλαι) juxtaposes the conduct of Kephas with the fidelity expected of Christ-followers (Gal 3:11; cf. Hab 2:4; Heb 10:38–39), depicting Kephas as the anti-pattern of fidelity in this particular incident.41 The problem with Kephas’s conduct is amplified by his apparent word-deed incongruency and performative contradictions. Paul’s charge against Kephas that he is engaging in “playing a part” (ὑποκρίνεσθαι; ὑπόκρισις; Gal 2:13–14) when he withdrew from eating together with gentiles in Antioch is no less than a charge that Kephas lacks integrity. His deed of withdrawal is out of step with his previous affirmations and conduct. If Kephas had already approved that Titus should not be compelled to be circumcised in Jerusalem (Gal 2:3), if he had already consented to the arrangement of eating together with non-Jews in Antioch (Gal 2:11–12), and if he had affirmed Paul’s manner of working among gentiles (Gal 2:7–10), his inconsistency is evident to all when he ceased to eat with gentiles. Moreover, if his audience is tracking with his moral reason39 deSilva characterizes Kephas in contrast to Eleazar from 2 Macc 6:18–31, calling him “a sort of anti-Eleazar here [in Gal 2:13], acting out a role to avoid painful but necessary confrontation.” deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, 204. Against the broader canvas of civic benefactors Kephas can be seen in contrast to them as an “anti-benefactor” rather than simply an “anti-Eleazar.” 40 On Christ’s self-gift in Galatians, see Logan A. Williams, “Love, Self-Gift, and the Incarnation: Christology and Ethics in Galatians, in the Context of Pauline Theology and Greco-Roman Philosophy” (PhD diss., University of Durham, 2019). 41 Stephen A. Cummins, Paul and the Crucified Christ at Antioch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 174–176.

9.4 Galatians 3:1–5

241

ing, Paul’s charge of word-deed incongruency would bring shame on Kephas for his conduct and discourage imitation of his behavior in the present moment.

9.4 Galatians 3:1–5 9.4 Galatians 3:1–5

9.4.1 God the Supplier This section will explore the terminology Paul uses to describe God’s furnishing of the spirit in its benefaction context. In Galatians 3:5, Paul describes God as ὁ ἐπιχορηῶν ὑμῖν τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν (“the one who is supplying to you the spirit and working powerful deeds among you”).42 The verb ἐπιχορηγῆσαι (to supply) occurs in a few Greek inscriptions that honor benefactors.43 First, a late third century BC inscription from Morrylos in Macedonia honors a certain Alketas.44 This individual, Alketas, benefitted the people of Morrylos in several ways: In times of heavy expenditure contributing (ἐπιχορηγῶν) to the maintenance of the visitors, on the occasion of the visits of the authorities and the other obligations of providing shelter, entertaining and spending from his own (ἐκ [τοῦ ἰ]δ.ιου); in the seventeenth year, having accepted to build the city wall, alone, in order to provide for the safety of all (χάριν τοῦ πρ[ον]οηθῆναι τῆς π.ά. ντων σωτηρίας), he had corn brought to the market, and over and above that, spending freely ([δ]α[π]α̣ν̣ῶν μεγάλως), gave pasturing cows to the citizens and to the god.45

The result of Alketas’s beneficence was a city that properly engaged in hospitality to outsiders, became more adequately fortified and safe from potential attacks, was provisioned with food, and in right relation to its deity. The community of Morrylos praised (ἐπαινέσαι) him “for his care and devotion to the citizens” ([ἐπί τε τῇ προ]νοίᾳ καὶ τῇ πρὸς τοὺς π[ο]λ̣ε̣ί̣τας [εὐ]νοίᾳ) by reciprocating his provisions with awards. 46 A second example of ἐπιχορηγῆσαι 42 deSilva brings out the imperfective aspect with his translation of “the one, then, who keeps on supplying to you and working miraculous signs among you.” deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, 264, 276, 276n32. 43 The closely related term χορηγῆσαι occurs with more frequency in honorific inscriptions. Originally the term referred to funding “choral productions at public festivals,” but eventually it gained the broader sense of “to furnish, supply.” Danker, Benefactor, 331. For a choral example, see I.Iasos 160.6, 9, 15, 18. General “furnish” examples include I.Priene 108.151–152 (after 129 BC, Priene); OGIS 339.77 (133–120 BC, Sestos); OGIS 90.25, 33 (196 BC). References to OGIS 339 and OGIS 90 thanks to Danker, Benefactor, 331. 44 SEG 39.605 (shortly after 206/205 or 205/204). 45 SEG 39.605.1–12. Translation from M.B. Hatzopoulos, Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. 1, A Historical and Epigraphic Study. ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ 22 (Athens, 1996), 149; text from M.B. Hatzopoulos, Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. 2, Epigraphic Appendix (Athens, 1996), 70–71 (see Plate LII). 46 SEG 39.605.12–22.

242

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians

comes from an inscription from western Asia Minor in Miletos from around AD 50.47 The people posthumously honored Gaius Iulius Epikrates, who was a high priest for life, agonothetes for life, and gymnasiarch.48 Epikrates “completed (ἐπιτελέσαντα) all the liturgies and through word and deed and dedications and gifts (δωρεῶν) he adorned and provided (ἐπιχορηγήσαντα) (for) the fatherland.” 49 In this light, God’s supply of the spirit and δυνάμεις, performances accomplished by divine power, can be seen as a benefaction intended for provisioning a well-ordered and sufficiently supplied community (Gal 3:5).50 Nevertheless, Paul worries that the Galatians may be ceasing to receive God’s provision properly (Gal 3:2–4). 9.4.2 Starting and Completing Paul utilizes the starting-completing script to admonish the Galatians for considering circumcision as a requirement for men in their assemblies. It was observed that benefactors who started to perform a service were expected to follow through with it to completion. If they did not complete what they started, their reputation would correspondingly suffer. So, when Paul admonishes the Galatians for being “foolish people” (ἀνόητοι), he invokes their failure to complete in the manner that they began: “starting by pneuma you are by flesh completing?” (ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε; Gal 3:3). Paul’s desire is for the Galatians to act like competent and reputable people.

9.5 Gratitude, Ingratitude, and Decisions 9.5 Gratitude, Ingratitude, and Decisions

Paul’s letters are replete with expressions of gratitude to God from him and his coworkers.51 Further, the practice of animal sacrifice to deities – gratitude in SEG 44.938. For another (earlier) honorary decree for Gaius Iulius Epikrates (6/5 BC), see SEG 44.940. 48 ἀρχιερεύς διὰ βίου, ἀγωνοθέτης διὰ βίου, and γυμνασίαρχος (SEG 44.938.8–10). He is also called “benefactor of the city” (εὐεργέτης τῆς πόλεως; SEG 44.938.14–15). 49 SEG 44.938.11–14 (πάσας τὰς λειτουργίας ἐπιτελέσαντα καὶ διά δωρεῶν κοσμήσαντα τὴν πατρίδα καὶ ἐπιχ[ορηγή]σαντα). Thanks to Ross Wagner for advice on the translation. 50 On δυνάμεις as performances of divinatory powers, see Jennifer Eyl, Signs, Wonders, and Gifts: Divination in the Letters of Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 120– 121. 51 Rom 1:8 (εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου); Rom 6:17 (χάρις τῷ θεῷ); Rom 7:25 (χάρις τῷ θεῷ); Rom 14:6 (εὐχαριστεῖ τῷ θεῷ [x2]); 1 Cor 1:4 (εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου πάντοτε); 1 Cor 1:14 (εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ); 1 Cor 14:18 (εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ); 1 Cor 15:57 (τῷ θεῷ χάρις); 2 Cor 2:14 (τῷ θεῷ χάρις); 2 Cor 4:15 (ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσασα διὰ τῶν πλειόνων τὴν εὐχαριστίαν περισσεύσῃ εἰς τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ); 2 Cor 8:16 (χάρις τῷ θεῷ); 2 Cor 9:11–12 (ἐν παντὶ πλουτιζόμενοι εἰς πᾶσαν ἁπλότητα, ἥτις κατεργάζεται δι’ ἡμῶν εὐχαριστίαν τῷ θεῷ· ὅτι ἡ 47

9.5 Gratitude, Ingratitude, and Decisions

243

the form of gifts to gods – provides Paul with a model which he uses metaphorically to instruct Christ-followers to orient their entire lives as quality sacrifices to God (Rom 12:1–2). Moreover, Paul is concerned with the good repute (δόξα) of his benefactor God.52 For instance, he states that the purpose of Christ becoming “a servant of circumcision” was so that the nations would come to praise God and increase his good reputation (Rom 15:7–13).53 On the contrary, refusing to acknowledge God’s good repute and to thank him properly (οὐχ ὡς θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ ἠυχαρίστησαν) is the mark of a disordered, idolatrous mind (Rom 1:21).54 Curious, then, is the contention of some New Testament scholars that unlike other gods, the God of Israel relates to humans on a non-reciprocal basis.55 So, James Harrison speaks of “Paul’s heavy emphasis on the unilateral nature of God’s grace” over and against an ethos of reciprocity.56 Even scholars outside διακονία τῆς λειτουργίας ταύτης οὐ μόνον ἐστὶν προσαναπληροῦσα τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν ἁγίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ περισσεύουσα διὰ πολλῶν εὐχαριστιῶν τῷ θεῷ); 2 Cor 9:15 (χάρις τῷ θεῷ); Phil 1:3 (εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ); Phil 4:6 (ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν θεόν); 1 Thess 1:2 (εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ); 1 Thess 2:13 (ἡμεῖς εὐχαρίστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως); 1 Thess 3:9 (τίνα γὰρ εὐχαριστίαν δυνάμεθα τῷ θεῷ ἀνταποδοῦναι περὶ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ χαρᾷ ᾗ χαίρομεν δι’ ὑμᾶς ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν); 1 Thess 5:18 (ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριτεῖτε); Philem 4 (εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου). 52 E.g., in typical language used for praising a benefactor for his or her deeds (δόξα, ἔπαινος), Paul prays for the Philippian assembly to be “filled with the fruit of justice/uprightness that is through Jesus Christ to the good reputation and praise of God” (πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης τὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον θεοῦ; Phil 1:11). 53 Paul uses several expressions to describe the gentiles’ praise of God in Rom 15:7–13 (δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν, εὐφράνθητε, αἰνεῖτε τὸν κύριον καὶ ἐπαινεσάτωσαν αὐτὸν; cf. Rom 15:6). On the argument that διάκονος περιτομῆς refers to Christ as a “servant of circumcision” in the sense of an “agent of circumcision” for gentiles (as opposed to “a servant of the circumcised”), see Joshua D. Garroway, “The Circumcision of Christ: Romans 15:7–13,” JSNT 34, no. 4 (2012): 303–322. 54 On Rom 1:18–32 as a critique of the nations and Israel together, see Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, 114–132. 55 See Eyl, Signs, Wonders, and Gifts, 198–206 on New Testament scholars who argue for a non-reciprocal view of God’s relationship to humans. Eyl rightfully pushes back against these scholars. 56 James R. Harrison, Paul Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 284. As noted in chapter 1 (§1.3.3 and §1.3.6), Harrison tries to walk a fine line in his rejection of “reciprocity” as he sees it and his affirmation of the obligation to return gratitude to God the benefactor. So, while on the one hand he calls God’s eschatological benefaction of Christ “unilateral,” he also affirms that “Paul endorses conventions from the honorific inscriptions that stress the obligation of the beneficiary to respond worthily of the Benefactor.” Harrison, Paul Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 287. On Harrison’s language of the “unilateral” grace of God, see, e.g., Paul Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 35, 56–57, 100–101. When Harrison speaks of “unilateral” he means that “God was not obligated to anyone by way of gratitude or favour.” Harrison, Paul Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 56–57.

244

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians

of the field of New Testament studies have been influenced by arguments of New Testament specialists that advocate a non-reciprocal Israelite God. For instance, while criticizing the mistaken notion that Greek religion was based on a mechanical business transaction between gods and humans, Jennifer Larson repeats the view that Paul rejects the notion of reciprocity entirely. She states, “the apostle Paul had taught that charis was unidirectional rather than reciprocal,” and that Paul was “attacking the form of reciprocity [i.e., ‘works of the law’] observed by Jews of his day.”57 But, given that Paul’s letters are so replete with descriptions of God’s benefactions and expressions of gratitude in return, any notion that Paul portrays the God-human relationship as nonreciprocal – in the sense that humans are not expected to (voluntarily) express praise or thanks to God in return for his deeds and care – is highly implausible.58 Such contentions for a non-reciprocal God would not only be a complete novelty in Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultural expressions of divine-human relationships but it also does not account for Paul’s frequent expressions of praise, thanks, fidelity, and gratitude to God for his benefactions and deeds.59 Furthermore, the tension that Harrison finds in Paul of a unilateral and nonreciprocal relationship between God and humans that still requires a (non-reciprocal) gratitude to God for the Christ-gift can be alleviated by re-calibrating one’s understanding of Greco-Roman religion. Instead of seeing the reciprocal relationship between the gods and humans as mechanistic or commercial, the reciprocal relationship should be seen as voluntary and, at least at the point of gift and return, mutually beneficial.60 Consequently, Paul’s advocacy for gra57 Jennifer Larson, Understanding Greek Religion: A Cognitive Approach (London: Routledge, 2016), 40, 55n144, citing Eph 2:8–9. 58 Harrison indeed agrees that Paul advocates that humans return gratitude and praise to God, but he characterizes reciprocity as cycle of putting each other under obligation and compulsion to return favors. 59 On understanding Paul’s God as a deity who engages with humans on reciprocal terms, see Eyl, Signs, Wonders, and Gifts, 170–212. Further, Eyl criticizes New Testament scholars who mischaracterize ancient Greek and Roman religiosity to showcase alleged uniqueness (i.e., superiority) of early Christianity as non-reciprocal. Eyl, Signs, Wonders, and Gifts, 198–206. 60 On the voluntary, open-ended, non-mechanistic, and reciprocal nature of Greek religion, see Simon Price, Religions of the Ancient Greeks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 38–39; Jennifer Larson, Understanding Greek Religion: A Cognitive Approach (London: Routledge, 2016), 40–47. Larson criticizes how some scholars characterize the divine-human relationship as do ut des or “contractual or mechanical nature of the relationship” (40). On the contrary she argues, the commercial and gift mentalities are “diametrically opposed,” with reciprocity being a more ancient moral intuition “evolved to facilitate social interaction among primates” (41). So, “In gift exchange, which is a form of reciprocity, the presentation of gifts or favors is expected but (crucially) not required” (41). Of course, the relationship could go sour as expectations were not always met, but that is standard fare in open-ended, voluntary reciprocal relationships. If anything, the God of Israel is

9.5 Gratitude, Ingratitude, and Decisions

245

titude and praise to God can be seen in harmony with wider expressions of reciprocal thanks to gods rather than a radical departure from it. In Galatians, the issue of ingratitude looms large. Paul famously lacks a note of gratitude to God for his audience in the beginning of the letter (cf. Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 1:4–7; Phil 1:3–6; 1 Thess 1:2–5; Phlm 4–6), presaging the tone of the letter and the attention he gives to the Galatians’ own potential ingratitude.61 Indeed, scholars that have engaged the issue of benefaction in Galatians tend to focus on the themes of ingratitude and defection at play in Galatians (see §1.3). In Galatians, Paul most pointedly invokes the script of ingratitude in Galatians 5:1–5. After recounting Christ’s benefaction of liberation and warning the Galatians not to live again with “a yoke of enslavement” (Gal 5:1), Paul bluntly tells them that “if you get circumcised, Christ will benefit you nothing” (ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε, χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει; Gal 5:2). He further explains “to the person who is circumcised” that they become “a debtor to do the whole Torah” (Gal 5:3). In consequence of this possible double trouble of no longer being on the receiving end of the benefactive activity of Christ and instead being indebted to Torah, the Galatians would sever their connection to their benefactor’s generosity/favor. Paul warns the one who would comply with the requirement of circumcision (or perhaps who already has done so) that their decision will affect them: “you were cut off from Christ, you who are attempting to be considered just by the law, you have fallen from favor” (κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε; Gal 5:4).62 As a result, Paul frames the situation so that the decisions the Galatian assemblies must make are set within a benefactor-recipient framework subject to the gratitude-ingratitude social script (see also Gal 1:6–9). If the Galatian males accept compelled circumcision, they will exercise definitive ingratitude to God and Christ their liberator-benefactors and as a result cut off their ongoing relationship of favor and thanksgiving. The “gift as bait” motif in Polybios offers a possible avenue for understanding one way the Galatians could have perceived the χάρις of God and Christ when faced with the prospect of mandatory circumcision. If some people began requiring circumcision for the Galatians, one can imagine the social script of more “mechanistic” than other Greek gods, since his relationship with Israel is presented in terms of a covenant, or treaty. 61 Although Paul does not use εὐχαριστῆσαι in the opening of 2 Corinthians, he praises God with a different expression (εὐλογητός; 2 Cor 1:3–4). 62 On the conative sense of δικαιοῦσθαι here, see Martyn, Galatians, 471; de Boer, Galatians, 314; Moo, Galatians, 325. Note how Paul has flipped the script on who is showing ingratitude to God’s benefaction. In Galatians 2:21 he was defending his own viewpoint, saying that “I am not annulling the benefaction/generosity of God” (οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ). Now in Galatians 5:2–4 he charges others with acting out of step with Christ’s χάρις. On ἐκπίπτειν + genitive, see DGE, “ἐκπίπτω,” B.I.3 (verse privado de, ser desposeído, perder; esp. caer, ser derribado de una posición de poder, perder).

246

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians

“gift as bait” running for some of them.63 A Galatian who turned to the God of Israel and his messiah because of their benefactions would likely already be facing social dislocation to some extent. Forsaking one’s ancestral deities and customs for exclusive devotion to Israel’s God could cause a crisis of belonging. If the Galatians were no longer participating fully in public festivals or other social gatherings, or if some had decided to leave their local trade guild or other association due to its association with devotion to another god, then the social alienation would have been palpable. If the (male) Galatians originally received Paul’s message with the understanding that they would not need to circumcise themselves, the potential humiliation of forced circumcision added to the cutting of ties to ancestral deities and customs and the loss of belonging in their native towns or cities could very easily have felt like the hook of a bait. In this scenario, being told Israel’s God welcomes them into his family without circumcision because of his messiah is the gift-bait to get them to submit to circumcision. If read in this light, Paul’s letter to them would then be setting the record straight on the benefactions of Israel’s God and his messiah. In this scenario, the letter is (in part) reiterating that they must not submit to circumcision, that the Galatians can find a sense of belonging and community among the children of Abraham and Sarah through Christ’s pneuma, and that getting circumcised would actually constitute a violation of the protocols of benefaction and gratitude.

9.6 Benefits to the Worthy and Unworthy 9.6 Benefits to the Worthy and Unworthy

In chapter 3 (§3.1.5) it was noted that typically one would give gifts or benefactions to “worthy” (ἄξιος) people or cities who had a good reputation. It was important for individuals or groups to be discerning in who they chose to benefit, lest they help an enemy or slight a valued friend. Further, people did not give benefactions without any explicable reason; instead, there was a strategy or rationale for giving to one person rather than another. People who gave gifts indiscriminately came under criticism from others. Nevertheless, clemency, or showing favor to someone unworthy or someone who would normally receive punishment, was highly valued and a mark of virtue for kings and political figures. In his reading of Galatians, John Barclay draws attention to how Paul presents God as one who gives the Christ-gift incongruously or unconditioned,

63 The idea that the Galatians may have considered that they had fallen victim to a “gift as bait” scheme is merely presented a possibility rather than a probability.

9.6 Benefits to the Worthy and Unworthy

247

that is, not considering whether the recipients are worthy of the gift.64 To determine whether God is described as giving incongruously, Barclay asks if “there is a hidden pre-constituted rationale for God’s benevolence toward these trapped and sinful beneficiaries.”65 He identifies several incongruous dynamics in Galatians. Paul’s use of the term “to call” (καλῆσαι) in Galatians 1:6 reflects how God’s own initiative in reaching out with generosity/benefaction (χάρις) is done “without regard to conditions of capacity, status, or moral worth” to gentile “sinners” who are ignorant of Israel’s God and who are slaves to nongods (Gal 2:15; 4:8–9).66 Further, Paul’s own autobiographical narrative expresses how God “called” Paul “through his generosity/benefaction” (διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ) despite Paul’s prior striving against God’s assembly and “without regard to his ethnicity, tradition, and excellence” (Gal 1:13–16).67 Indeed, “ethnicity, status, and gender are no longer criteria of superior worth” (Gal 3:28).68 Finally, at the end of the letter, Paul invokes the mercy (ἔλεος) of God upon Israel (Gal 6:16; εἰρήνη ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ).69 But Barclay’s understanding of the unconditioned gift must be modified to account for Paul’s kinship reasoning. God is not arbitrarily dispensing benefits to unworthy gentiles; rather, his benefaction of Christ and the spirit Barclay defines incongruity as a gift “given without condition, that is, without regard to the worth of the recipient.” Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 73. On the unconditioned nature of the Christ-gift in Paul, see also Orrey McFarland, God and Grace in Philo and Paul (Leiden: Brill, 2016). 65 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 353. 66 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 354. 67 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 356–360. 68 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 435. 69 God is repeatedly lauded in the LXX as one who shows ἔλεος. Especially emphasized is the longevity and durability of his mercy. See, e.g., LXX Exod 20:6 (καὶ ποιῶν ἔλεος εἰς χιλιάδας τοῖς ἀγαπῶσίν με καὶ τοῖς φυλάσσουσιν τὰ προστάγματά μου; cf. Deut 5:10; 7:9); LXX Exod 34:6–7 (κύριος ὁ θεὸς οἰκτίρμων καὶ ἐλεήμων, μακρόθυμος καὶ πολυέλεος καὶ ἀληθινὸς καὶ δικαιοσύνην διατηρῶν καὶ ποιῶν ἔλεος εἰς χιλιάδας, ἀφαιρῶν ἀνομίας καὶ ἀδικίας καὶ ἁμαρτίας, καὶ οὐ καθαριεῖ τὸν ἔνοχον ἐπάγων ἀνομίας πατέρων ἐπὶ τέκνα καὶ ἐπὶ τέκνα τέκνων ἐπὶ τρίτην καὶ τετάρτην γενεάν); LXX Ps 17:51 (μεγαλύνων τὰς σωτηρίας τοῦ βασιλέως αὐτοῦ καὶ ποιῶν ἔλεος τῷ χριστῷ αὐτοῦ, τῷ Δαυιδ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ ἕως αἰῶνος); LXX Ps 99:5 (ὅτι χρηστὸς κύριος, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἕως γενεᾶς καὶ γενεᾶς ἡ ἀλήθεια αὐτοῦ); LXX Ps 105:1 (ἐξομολογεῖσθε τῷ κυρίῳ, ὅτι χρηστός, ὅτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ); LXX Ps 108:21, 26 (καὶ σύ, κύριε κύριε, ποίησον μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἔλεος ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματός σου, ὅτι χρηστὸν τὸ ἔλεός σου; βοήθησόν μοι, κύριε ὁ θεός μου, σῶσόν με κατὰ τὸ ἔλεός σου); LXX Ps 135:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 (ὅτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ); 1 Macc 4:24 (καὶ ἐπιστραφέντες ὕμνουν καὶ εὐλόγουν εἰς οὐρανὸν ὅτι καλόν, ὅτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ). On ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ (Gal 6:16) as Paul offering a prayer for God to show mercy on his kinspeople Israel, see Susan Grove Eastman, “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-Reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9–11,” New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 367–395. See also, Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 420–421. 64

248

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians

accords with his prior promise-based plans for the family of Abraham (Gal 3:6–28; 4:21–31). Thus, Paul’s kinship discourse affords him the ability to give a rationale for God’s otherwise unconditioned benefaction.

9.7 Time 9.7 Time

Time could be referenced in relation to benefaction in several ways. A benefactor could be praised for a well-timed service, rewarded for constancy, and honorific decrees sometimes invoked past-present narrative to highlight the continuity of the benefactor’s services from the past into the present (see §3.1.7). Aspects of each of these benefaction themes occur in Galatians. In Galatians 4:4–7, Paul describes God’s well-timed benefaction: “When the fullness of the time period came, God sent out his son” (ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ; Gal 4:4). God’s sending of his son reflects the end of the written Torah’s tenure as confining intermediary. Now, history is divided with reference to the coming of the πίστις (Gal 1:23) and Abraham’s promised “seed” (Gal 3:19).70 God’s proper timing of his benefaction is also seen in Christ’s act of deliverance “according to the will of our God and Father” (κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν; Gal 1:4) and in scriptural foresight and the pre-proclaiming of the good news to Abraham (προϊδεῖν, προευαγγελίζεσθαι; Gal 3:8). Finally, God’s benefaction in the Christ-event was not a one-time gift-event without ongoing effects. God supplies the spirit as a continual resource and works powerful deeds for his assemblies (Gal 3:5). The importance of time also relates to Paul’s own autobiographical comments. In Galatians 1, Paul makes use of past-present narratives. He contrasts his mode of conduct (ἀναστροφή) when he was in Ioudaïsmos and “pursuing/persecuting the assembly of God and destroying it” with when God revealed his son to him (Gal 1:13–16). He again uses a past-present narrative recounting how the Jewish Christ-followers “only were hearing that the one pursuing/persecuting us back then is now proclaiming the good news of the trust that he was destroying” (Gal 1:23). His usage of past-present narratives contrasts with the normal usage of past-present constructions in honorific inscriptions that mark the continuity of a benefactor’s good conduct with a πρότερον-νῦν construction (see §3.1.7). Paul describes his past conduct as characteristic of an anti-benefactor, describing his previous ἀναστροφή as detrimental to “God’s assembly” (ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ; Gal 1:13). Paul’s negative characterization of his past ἀναστροφή contrasts with how honorific inscripGupta is probably right to see ἡ πίστις in Galatians 3:23 as referring to “a social bond with God in and through Jesus Christ.” Nijay Gupta, Paul and the Language of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 143–147. 70

9.8 Fidelity and Imitation

249

tions laud those who exhibit a useful or beneficial ἀναστροφή (residence or mode of conduct) toward the towns and cities in the Greek-speaking world. So, in a proxeny decree an assembly (ἐκκλησία) of the city of Malis (Lamia) honored the horse-doctor Metrodoros because he “made his dwelling (τάν [τ]ε ἀναστ[ρ]οφὰν) and residence (here) for a long time, as it was appropriate for a noble and good man” (ἀνδρὶ καλῶι καὶ ἀγαθῶι).71 Athens praised Protagoras the priest of Asklepios because he “has displayed seemly conduct (τὴν ἀναστροφήν), fitting for the priesthood.”72 The Amphiktyonians praised a certain Pythian priest Demetrios because “he made his residence and conduct (ἀναστροφὴν) worthy of the honor of the Amphiktyonians and the good repute of the fatherland.”73 In Galatians 1, Paul uses past-present discourse to mark discontinuity, contrasting his past destructive pattern of conduct within Ἰουδαϊσμός with his present turn to God’s messiah and the pattern of behavior commensurate with fidelity to him.

9.8 Fidelity and Imitation 9.8 Fidelity and Imitation

The term πίστις has seen significant scholarly interest in the last fifteen years. The studies of Teresa Morgan, Jennifer Eyl, Nijay Gupta, Peter Oakes, Suzan Sierksma-Agteres, Matthew Bates, and John Goodrich have sought to situate the use of πίστις in the New Testament within a broader cultural context.74 These studies have shown the complexity of the term and the variety of senses with which one could use πίστις (trust, fidelity, good faith, trusteeship/position 71 IG IX.2.69.6–7 (146–ca. 130 BC). The decree explains that Metrodoros gave his services “without a fee” (ἄνευ μισθοῦ; IG IX.2.69.8). Text and translations of IG IX.2 69 are from Matthew J. C. Scarborough, “A New Edition of IG IX,2 69,” ZPE 193 (2015): 166– 171. 72 SEG 18.22.12–13 (πεποίηται δὲ καὶ τὴν ἀναστροφὴν εὐσχήμο[ν]α καὶ ὁρμόττουσαν . .. . . .. τεῖ ἱερω[σ]ύ.ν.ε.[ι]; 165/164 BC or 140/149 BC; Athens). Translation from Stephen Lambert and Feyo Schuddeboom, “Honours for the Priest of Asklepios,” Attic Inscriptions Online, last updated April 14, 2021, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGII2/950. 73 FD III 2.161.10–13 (καὶ τὴν ἐιδημίαν καὶ ἀναστροφὴν [ἐ]ποιήσατο ἀξίαν τοῦ τε περὶ τοὺς Ἀμ[φ]ικτύονας ἀξιώματος καὶ τῆς π[ερ]ὶ τὴν πατρίδα δόξης; Delphi; 1st c. AD) 74 John K. Goodrich, “‘Standard of Faith’ of ‘Measure of a Trusteeship’? A Study in Romans 12:3,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74 (2012): 753–772; Suzan J.M. Sierksma-Agteres, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ and Fides as Civic and Divine Virtues: A Pauline Concept through GrecoRoman Eyes,” in Paul’s Graeco-Roman Context, ed. Cilliers Breytenbach (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 525–543; Teresa Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017); Peter Oakes, “Pistis as Relational Way of Life in Galatians,” JSNT 40, no. 3 (2018): 255–275; Gupta, Paul and the Language of Faith; Jennifer Eyl, “Philo and Josephus on the Fidelity of the Judeans,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 12, no. 1 (2021): 94–121.

250

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians

of trust, confidence, proof). The present section does not attempt to comprehensively discuss πίστις in Galatians. Instead, it will draw attention to usage that reflects the letter’s benefaction context. In this study, the term πίστις was considered when used in the context of endangered benefaction.75 What was found is that situations of distress and danger acted as occasions for someone to show their fidelity or good faith (πίστις). The term πίστις was employed when a crisis induced a dangerous situation within which a benefactor could show πίστις to another by reliably conducting commendable services despite the risk. 76 Interestingly, πίστις and fides language grew remarkably in frequency in literature of the first century BC and even more so in the first century AD, with Jewish texts showing a high concentration of πίστις language.77 The high frequency of Paul’s use of πίστις reflects this broader uptick of πίστις language. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, it is evident that the Galatians are in a situation of distress and danger from individuals who are exercising pressure on Galatian males to undergo circumcision (Gal 2:3–4; 4:29; 6:12; cf. 2:14). This hazardous situation can partially explain why Paul relies heavily on πίστις language in the letter. A dangerous situation can force decisions about fidelity and defection, keeping good faith or shirking the risk. Paul construes the decision in front of the Galatians in such terms: choose fidelity to their benefactors (God and Christ) by not submitting to a requirement of circumcision; or choose defection from their benefactors by accepting circumcision, which would alleviate the immediate threat but constitute a decisive act of ingratitude. Paul, of course, tries to persuade them toward what he sees as fidelity.

See the section on Fidelity and Disloyalty in chapter 3 (§3.3.2), the discussion of Seleukos of Rhosos in chapter 4 (§4.4.3), and the First Mithridatic War in chapter 6 (§6.1). 76 See also, Sir 22:23 (NRSV): “Gain the trust of your neighbor in his poverty, so that you may rejoice with him in his prosperity. Stand by him in time of distress, so that you may share with him in his inheritance” (πίστιν κτῆσαι ἐν πτωχείᾳ μετὰ τοῦ πλησίον, ἵνα ἐν τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς αὐτοῦ ὁμοῦ πλησθῇς· ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως διάμενε αὐτῷ, ἵνα ἐν τῇ κληρονομίᾳ αὐτοῦ συγκληρονομήσῃς). A series of honorific inscriptions from Aphrodisias also draws attention to the remarkable services of a man during dangerous crises (Reynolds §28–31). This man, hailed as “deliverer and benefactor” (σωτήρ καὶ εὐεργέτης), is lauded for (among other things) “having saved his country from many and great dangers, having fought bravely in all the wars which beset his country, having guarded the forts entrusted to him by the city and preserved faith to the common interest (?) in the most difficult circumstances (ἐκ πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων κινδύνων σεσωκότα τὴν πατρ[ί]δα πᾶσι τοῖς ἐνστᾶσι τῇ πατρίδι πολέμοις ἀγωνισάμενον ἀνδρείως καὶ διαφυλάξαντα τὰ ἐμπιστευθέντα ὀχυρώματα ὑπὸ τῆς πόλεως καὶ πίστεις ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαιοτάτοις καιροῖς διατηρήσαντα τῶι κοινῶι; Reynolds §30.1–10). Text and translation from Reynolds §30 (5 sublinear dots omitted). 77 Jennifer Eyl, “Philo and Josephus on the Fidelity of the Judeans,” 116–117. As word of caution, it should be noted that Eyl’s numbers are based on TLG and thus omit epigraphical and papyrological sources. 75

9.8 Fidelity and Imitation

251

Paul connects his πίστις language with love and by extension Christ’s selfendangerment in the interests of his constituents. In Galatians 3:11, Paul quotes (and modifies) the Old Greek of Habakkuk 2:4: ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται (“the righteous one will live by fidelity/trust/good faith” or “the one who is righteous by fidelity/trust/good faith will live”).78 For Paul, gentile fidelity to God does not include “works of Torah” (ἔργα νόμου; e.g., Gal 3:6–14), especially not circumcision (Gal 5:2–4). Instead, he connects fidelity to God to love, saying, “for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision not foreskin accomplishes anything; rather, fidelity exercised through love” (ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ πίστις δι’ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη; Gal 5:6).79 The “in Christ” phrase in Galatians 5:6 recalls Christ’s example of committed self-endangering love for others (Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13). Paul then further exhorts the Galatians that they should serve one another in mutual self-

78 The Old Greek reads ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται. 8Hev XII reads [καὶ δί]καιος ἐν πίστει αὐτοῦ ζήσετ[αι]. Although relatively rare, the phrase ἐκ πίστεως does occur in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods and refers to somebody acting “in accordance with/out of one’s own good faith” (ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας πίστεως). The historian Polybios uses the phrase “out of his own good faith” (ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας πίστεως; Polyb., Hist., 28.1.9). In a related construction, the phrase ἐκ πίστεως occurs in the standardized phrase “out of the public interests and his/their own good faith” (ἐκ τῶν δημωσίων πραγμάτων καὶ τῆς ἰδίας πίστεως, with slight variations like ἐκ τῶν δημωσίων πραγμάτων πίστεώς τε ἰδίας). See RDGE §7.50–51 (190/140 BC, Magnesia); IG VII 2225.12–13, 39–40, 44–45 (170 BC, Thisbe [Boiotia]); OGIS 351b.9–10 (ca. 156 BC, Priene); IG IX.2 89b.36–37 (ca. 140 BC, Narthakion [Thessaly]); SEG 58.1349.14 (135 BC, Priene); I.Priene 41.15 (135 BC, Priene); SEG 33.986.16, 19–20 (129/101 BC, Smyrna); FD III 2.70.63–64, 65–66 (112/111 BC, Delphi); IC 3 4 10.73–74 (112/111 BC, Itanos [Crete]); IG XII.3 173.8–9 (105 BC, Astypalaia); FD III 4.37.15 (101 BC; cf. FD III 4.276.16); SEG 29.1076.121–122 (prob. 81 BC, Lagina); SEG 51.1427.31 (78 BC, Rome); IG XII.2 35.Col. B.25–26, Col. C.7–8, 19–20 (48/47–21 BC, Mytilene); Reynolds §8.93–94 (39/38 BC, Aphrodisias). Among the papyri associated with Babatha, the phrase ἐκ καλῆς πίστεως occurs in P.Yadin 28–30 (ca. AD 125): P.Yadin 28.10– 11; P.Yadin 29.9; P.Yadin 30.15–16. Still, the phrase is rare enough that Paul’s usages of ἐκ πίστεως should be probably considered a shorthand reference to Hab 2:4 each time. For Paul’s ἐκ πίστεως usages in Romans as shorthand for Hab 2:4, see Roy E. Ciampa, “Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans: Echoes, Allusions, and Rewriting” in Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in Romans, ed. Andrew Das and Linda Belleville (Lanham, MD: Lexington/Fortress Academic, 2021), 11–29. Ciampa also contends that ἐκ πίστεως does not occur before the Greek translation of Hab 2:4 in Greek literature, papyri, or inscriptions. He says that the earliest papyrological occurrence is in PSI 10.1162 (3rd c. AD) and the earliest epigraphical occurrence is in SEG 6.442 (4th c. AD). Ciampa, “Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans,” 12, 25n5. Ciampa is correct if he means the exact simple phrase ἐκ πίστεως and no other ἐκ πίστεως construction. But more broadly, as mentioned above, the general construction ἐκ πίστεως does occur before Ciampa’s examples. 79 On Paul’s view that circumcision or foreskin is not able to bring about δικαιοσύνη, see Ryan D. Collman, “Just a Flesh Wound? Reassessing Paul’s Supposed Indifference Toward Circumcision and Foreskin in 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, and 6:15,” JJMJS 8 (2021): 30–52.

252

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians

enslavement as a fulfilment of the Levitical love command (Lev 19:18) as an expression of love (Gal 5:13–14; cf. mutual burden-bearing in Gal 6:2). Negative examples pepper Galatians as foils to this fidelity-as-love ethic: Paul within Ioudaïsmos who was pursuing and destroying God’s ekklesia (Gal 1:13–14), Kephas at Antioch who shrinks back out of fear rather than endangering himself for Christ-following gentiles when pressure to disassociate with them comes from Jerusalem (Gal 2:11–14), and those who are mandating gentile circumcision for the Galatians (Gal 6:12). In contrast to these negative examples of compulsion and cowardice, Paul promotes a different principle. When members of the family of God are in danger, it is this principle of fidelity-as-love-of-neighbor that constitutes δικαιοσύνη, exemplified most fully in Jesus’s act of love through self-surrender unto death to benefit his constituents (Gal 2:20; cf. Gal 1:4; 3:13).80 The family of Abraham and Sarah, both Jews and gentiles, are supposed to imitate the example of their messiah Jesus among themselves, each becoming endangered benefactors who risk their lives in affectionate service to one another.

80 Paul commends various people in his circle who he considers exhibiting laudable imitation of Christ’s pattern of self-endangerment. For example, he instructs the Philippians regarding Epaphroditus, saying, “Receive him hospitably in the Lord with every joy and have esteem for such people, because on account of the work of Christ he neared death, hazarding his life so that he would fulfill the shortcoming of your service to me” (προσδέχεσθε οὖν αὐτὸν ἐν κυρίῳ μετὰ πάσης χαρᾶς καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους ἐντίμους ἔχετε, ὅτι διὰ τὸ ἔργον Χριστοῦ μέχρι θανάτου ἤγγισεν παραβολευσάμενος τῇ ψυχῇ, ἵνα ἀναπληρώσῃ τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς πρός με λειτουργίας; Phil 2:29–30). Compare Paul’s description of Epaphroditus with the strikingly similar language of the 2nd c. AD honorific decree for the civic benefactor Karzoazos of Olbia, who “was acknowledged as far as the ends of the world, exposing himself to dangers as far as the Emperors, for an alliance” (ἀλλὰ καὶ περάτων γῆς ἐμαρτυρήθη τοὺς ὑπὲρ φιλίας κινδύνους μέχρι Σεβαστῶν συμμαχίᾳ παραβολευσάμενος; IOSPE I2 39.26–28). Moreover, the decree draws attention to how others should imitate Karzoazos’s example, “And the decree shall be dedicated in a conspicuous place, in order that those who read it take encouragement to imitate a life that receives praise” (ἀνατεθῆναι δὲ τὸ ψήφισμα ἐν ἐπισήμῳ τόπῳ, ἵνα οἱ ἀναγεινώσκοντε[ς] προτροπὴν ἔχωσιν εἰς τὸ μειμεῖσθαι βίον ἐπαινούμενον; IOSPE I2 39.36–39). Text and translation of IOSPE I2 39 from Emyr Dakin, “Political Culture in the Cities of the Northern Black Sea Region in the ‘Long Hellenistic Age,’” (PhD diss., City University of New York, 2020), 177–178. Further, Paul lauds and expresses gratitude to Priska and Aquila for their selfendangering benefaction in his interest, saying, “Greet Priska and Aquila my coworkers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own neck for my life, to whom not I alone thank but all the assemblies of the nations, and the assembly at their home” (ἀσπάσασθε Πρίσκαν καὶ Ἀκύλαν τοὺς συνεργούς μου ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, οἵτινες ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς μου τὸν ἑαυτῶν τράχηλον ὑπέθηκαν, οἷς οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος εὐχαριστῶ ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῶν ἐθνῶν, καὶ τὴν κατ’ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαν).

9.9 Conclusion

253

9.9 Conclusion 9.9 Conclusion

Paying attention to the wide array of expressions of civic benefaction helps take New Testament benefaction research beyond the simple reciprocal versus non-reciprocal debates. The explanatory framework of benefaction connects a complex network of interrelated concepts, social scripts, practices, cultural institutions, motifs, and words/phrases in Galatians. In chapter 7 through 9, Galatians bears both similarities and differences with the wider cultural context of Mediterranean populations during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. At a higher level of abstraction Paul by and large conforms to his cultural context and adheres to the cultural scripts, terminology, and motifs of civic benefaction. Christ exhibits prototypical civic generosity and the virtue of selfendangerment for the benefit of others in his full commitment to liberate his constituents from a network of enslaving and coercive powers. Paul uses the staple benefaction term χάρις (benefaction, generosity) to express the generosity of God and Christ (Gal 1:3, 6, 15; 2:9, 21; 3:18; 5:4; 6:18). Likewise, he uses the phrase δοῦναι ἑαυτόν, common in benefaction contexts, to describe the commitment of Christ to his liberatory service (Gal 1:4). Moreover, Paul’s language about freedom coheres well with the numerous examples of civic freedom in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. That is, in Galatians Paul talks about the double-sided group freedom that entails (1) freedom from external compulsion and enslavement (Gal 2:3, 4; 4:8–9, 17, 29; 5:1; 6:12) and (2) freedom of shared rules and protocols of social cooperation and getting along together (Gal 5:13–6:10). Further, several other words, themes, and social scripts are reflected in Galatians. For instance, the theme of promise and the practice of kinship diplomacy provides a relevant cultural context for Paul’s own kinship reasoning based on the promise of the God of Israel to Abraham and his “seed” (Gal 3:6– 4:31). In the Antioch incident, Kephas and those who withdraw from table fellowship with gentiles out of fear show themselves to be cowardly and failed would-be benefactors who shirk their opportunity to display generosity like other civic benefactors who faced fear and hazard in service of their endangered communities (Gal 2:11–14). Kephas’s lack of word and deed congruency amplifies the shame and lack of integrity of his actions. In Galatians 3:1–5, Paul uses the starting-and-completing script to persuade the Galatians to continue how they started – with the spirit that God provisions for them. Further, Paul frames the decision in front of the Galatians – to submit to circumcision or to resist it – in terms of ingratitude and defection. Accepting circumcision would constitute a decisive act of ingratitude that would sever the benefaction relationship with God and Christ, ceasing the bestowal of ongoing benefits (Gal 5:1–4). Additionally, the “gift as bait” motif found in Polybios can provide a possible avenue for understanding how the Galatians may have felt when pressured to submit to circumcision by others. Next, following John Barclay,

254

Chapter 9: Other Aspects of Benefaction in Galatians

it is probably best to understand Paul as describing God and Christ as benefitting people who are not “worthy” per se to be recipients of a divine benefaction, but to whom they have nevertheless shown favor (Gal 1:6, 13–16; 2:15; 4:8–9; 6:16). Still, in continuity with wider cultural norms, God’s unconditioned benefaction is given in a non-arbitrary manner based on a benefaction-promise to a shared ancestor of distantly related kin-groups (Jews and Galatians) for whom Paul constructs a shared lineage through Abraham, Sarah, and Christ (Gal 3:6–4:31). Additionally, Paul, like other textualizations of critical benefactions, portrays God’s benefaction as well-timed (Gal 4:4–7; cf. 1:4, 23; 3:8, 19) and ongoing (Gal 3:5). As in other instances of benefaction in which a benefactor demonstrates fidelity to another during a crisis by rendering services, Paul urges the Galatians who are under coercive pressure to get circumcised to recognize that uprightness is reckoned not by strict adherence to “works of Torah” but by fidelity to God and Christ, which one exercises through mutual affection and service after the self-endangering pattern of Christ (e.g., Gal 3:11; 5:6, 13–14; 6:2; compulsion: Gal 2:3–4; 4:29; 6:12; cf. 2:14; Christ-pattern: Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13). Finally, at several points it was argued that Paul presents Christ, like civic benefactors, as a model of imitation for the Galatians and as an exemplar of virtuous conduct. At the level of Paul’s own contingent circumstances of time and place the specifics of Paul’s use of benefaction scripts and motifs display their differences with the wider network of expressions. For example, no civic decree honors a benefactor for “giving oneself over” (παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν) to receive a sentence of death by crucifixion (Gal 2:20; cf. 2:19; 3:1), but a few literary texts do use the phrase to describe someone surrendering themselves to help another person. Many benefactors risked their lives to benefit their cities or other individuals. Some were even wounded in their efforts (e.g., Kallias of Sphettos, Theophiliskos) or died as they performed their beneficial services (e.g., Quintus Aulius, Horatius Cocles). Envoys jeopardized their own lives and ransomed people from their captivity, imprisonment, and enslavement (e.g., Diodoros, Prokritos, and Klearchos, the brothers Hegesippos and Antipappos, Dikaiarchos of Thria, Eumaridas, Pyrrha[kos], and Aristagoras). Paul’s portrayal of Christ in Galatians shares similarities with aspects of each of these benefactors, but (as would be expected) no single instance maps onto Christ’s conduct perfectly. One relatively distinct feature of Galatians with respect to benefaction is Paul’s language of affection/love (ἀγάπη, ἀγαπῆσαι). With a few exceptions, the ἀγαπ- terms are absent in the benefaction corpus. Yet Paul focuses on ἀγαπterms with respect to Christ’s self-surrendering conduct (Gal 2:20) and in his ethical instructions for the Galatian recipients (Gal 5:6, 13–14, 22). Paul also distances himself from the pattern of conduct exhibited by the sons of Mattathias in the Hasmonean propaganda of 1 and 2 Maccabees. Even though 1 Maccabees portrays the sons of Mattathias as endangered benefactor-generals and

9.9 Conclusion

255

envoys who liberate Israel from foreign dominion and who restore their native ancestral laws, Paul rejects the Hasmonean type of aggressive, coercive social and political vision and considers it a part of his former way of conduct that opposed God (Gal 1:13–14). Instead, Christ’s liberation comes through selfsurrender to Roman crucifixion (Gal 2:19–20; 3:1, 13; 6:14; cf. 1:4; 5:1). Moreover, like other narratives of benefactors, Paul uses a past-present narrative to describe his own conduct (Gal 1:13–14, 23). But he differs from them in that honorific inscriptions use past-present narratives to draw attention to the continuity of a benefactor’s service throughout his or her life, whereas Paul uses it to contrast his own past conduct with his present. Overall, Paul’s letter to the Galatians exhibits many points of similarity to his wider benefaction context, but also displays several points of variance because of his own specific situation in time, place, and thought.

Chapter 10

Conclusion Understanding the social context of benefaction provides access to the ancient cultural encyclopedia with which Paul, his associates, and his audiences operated. Such an undertaking affords the researcher necessary information for understanding the benefaction language in Galatians. To restate the thesis: Paul’s use of benefaction social scripts, words and phrases, concepts, and motifs in Galatians largely operates in continuity with the wider corpus of benefactionevents but varies with his specific configuration and combination of those various elements. The course of the study details relevant aspects of the cultural encyclopedia of benefaction from roughly 350 BC to AD 150 (chaps. 1–6) and interprets Galatians within the context of that cultural encyclopedia (chaps. 7– 9). This study contributes to New Testament benefaction studies and Galatians scholarship by advancing several streams of scholarship. First, rather than focusing primarily on the issue of reciprocity, it provides a large catalog of culturally appropriate benefaction motifs, concepts, and social scripts for understanding Galatians in its historical and cultural context (chaps. 1–6). Second, whereas other studies are largely reliant on the work of Frederick Danker on endangered benefaction, this study extends his work by expanding the suite of examples of endangered benefaction and by providing a more detailed look at the phenomenon (chaps. 4–6). Third, the study addresses the lack of comprehensive treatment of benefaction in Galatians by contextualizing Paul’s use of benefaction language, themes, concepts, and social scripts (chaps. 7–9).

10.1 Summary of Chapters 10.1 Summary of Chapters

Chapter 1 noted how Paul’s use of χάρις in Galatians provides the entry point into the wider cultural encyclopedia of benefaction (Gal 1:3, 6, 15; 2:9, 21; 5:4; 6:18; cf. χαρίζεσθαι in 3:18). Further, the chapter examined the most significant post-1980 research on benefaction and Galatians. The chapter argued that despite the contributions of scholars like Frederick Danker, James Harrison, John Barclay, David deSilva, and Ferdinand Okorie, a more extensive exploration of benefaction and endangered benefaction in the ancient documentary and literary sources, coupled with a focus on Galatians, could extend the scho-

10.1 Summary of Chapters

257

larship on Galatians and benefaction in a way that goes beyond the valuable contributions of past scholarship. Chapter 2 highlighted the role and importance of proper gratitude to one’s benefactor (human or divine) across all social domains. Indeed, the custom of gratitude for benefits occurs in numerous mammalian species and is probably a cross-cultural human universal with deep evolutionary roots that provides populations with a mechanism to scale-up an extended cooperative society. In the civic benefaction institution that developed in Greek cities, the repute mechanism and information feedback system form an adaptive selection mechanism for cities’ populations and a repository of strategies for group survival and flourishing. In a benefaction relationship, a recipient’s memory (or forgetfulness) correlates to the importance of a benefaction at the time of reception. Additionally, uprightness (δικαιοσύνη) could be a virtue of one who is reputed for generosity and assiduously repaying favors with gratitude. Furthermore, benefaction involves a series of complex decisions. On the one hand, the benefactor or giver had to decide who to benefit, what to give, and how much to give. On the other hand, a would-be recipient had to decide whether to receive a favor or gift or reject it, and how to return gratitude if one decided to accept a benefit. Reputation played a key role in how a would-be giver or recipient decides, but law, custom, and affection also factored into decisions. People who because of poverty were unable to thank a benefactor appropriately could rely on the gods to repay on their behalf. Moreover, obsequiousness could please a would-be giver yet simultaneously disgust others. Being locked in one’s own culturally specific gifting scripts and being ignorant of another’s protocols could cause intercultural misunderstanding. Finally, the gift as bait tactic took advantage of the societal division of knowledge not to cooperate (the normal, win-win situation) but to manipulate others into a disadvantageous position or outcome. As a known tactic in gift-giving, would-be recipients of gifts or benefactions knew they should exercise caution when deciding whether to accept them or not. Chapter 3 explored specific motifs and relational and systemic dynamics within the domain of benefaction that are relevant to Galatians. These included civic freedom, promise, starting and completing, word-deed congruency, benefits to the worthy and unworthy, generosity and abundance, time, ingratitude, fidelity and defection, kinship language, memory, imitation, and community survival. Chapter 4 elaborated on the motif of endangered benefaction in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. People from different cultures appealed to and expressed thanks to the gods for preserving them or others from dangers and textualized the delivering power of their gods in inscriptions and literature. On the human level, individual self-endangerment for the sake of others was lauded in battle, rewarded with personal honors (e.g., crown, titles, statues, gifts), and seen as an example worthy of memory for present and future gen-

258

Chapter 10: Conclusion

erations. If leaders risked their lives, it could motivate their soldiers to imitate their valor and the shared struggle could produce a sense of unity between soldiers and commanders. Notable singular deeds of risk to benefit others from Hasdrubal, Quintus Aulius, Horatius Cocles, Scipio Africanus, and Theophiliskos highlighted different aspects of self-endangerment. Next, the chapter examined in detail how a host of civic benefactors aided the populations of Greek-speaking cities during times of acute distress. These benefactors recognized the dangers of enslavement, captivity, oppressive foreign garrisons, invasion, tyranny, disease, famine, and crushing debt. Moreover, they often undertook personally hazardous missions to provide relief and deliverance to people and populations who were in dire need of help. Chapter 5 examined how 1 Maccabees and Josephus in his Life incorporate the theme of endangered benefaction in their work. The Greek 1 Maccabees portrays the sons of Mattathias as civic benefactors who risk their lives to ensure freedom for the people of Judea. In his Life, Josephus portrays himself as a benefactor who undergoes substantial risk to aid his friends and fellow Jews. Subsequently, chapter 6 used the events of the First Mithridatic War (89–85 BC) to illustrate how many of the topics examined in chapter 3, in addition to the endangered benefaction motif discussed in chapters 4 and 5, are brought together and cohere as a network of related social scripts and themes in the ancient sources. Chapters 7 through 9 offer a contextualized and comparative reading of Galatians in its benefaction context. In general, Paul conforms to his cultural context by abiding by its social scripts, terminology, and motifs. Thus, Paul’s understanding of freedom (ἐλευθερία) is analogous to civic freedom in Greek cities, which refers to a population’s negative freedom from external powers of compulsion and control (whether to a foreign power or a native tyrant) and positive freedom to abide by its own laws, customs, and ways of getting along together as a group. For Paul, Christ has liberated his constituents from a complex of coercive and enslaving powers (negative freedom; Gal 1:4; 2:3, 4; 3:13, 21; 4:2, 8–10, 17, 21, 29; 5:1–3) and provided a freedom to get along together according to certain standards of conduct, decision-making, and virtue exemplified in the phrase “the law of Christ” (positive freedom; Gal 5:13–6:10). Paul’s portrayal of Christ’s act of endangered benefaction broadly resembles the wider cultural pattern of self-endangerment to benefit others who are in jeopardy. Likewise, Christ exhibits prototypical generosity in line with other highly praised benefactors – total commitment to perform a benefit for others (in this case, liberation) even at great cost to oneself and despite hazardous circumstances. He “gave himself,” that is, showed wholehearted commitment, to his liberatory activity and showed affection to his constituents by handing himself over to the Roman authorities to be crucified to benefit others in such a way that he secured them from danger, but the deed resulted in his own loss of reputation and honor (Gal 1:4; 2:21; 3:13). But, like the relationship of Al-

10.1 Summary of Chapters

259

ketas and the Pisidians (Diod. Sic., Bib. hist., 18.46–47), such generosity has the power to secure a bond of affection and a good reputation beyond the grave. Further, Paul’s contention that Jesus’s death results in a “new creation” (Gal 6:14–15) mirrors, for example, how Augustus provided benefits that caused a “new beginning” (παλιγγενεσία) in his effort to aid a city after an earthquake (SEG 65.300.a.7–8). Like the common inter-city practice of kinship diplomacy, Paul himself engages in kinship diplomacy in Galatians by drawing on his archive of ancestral genealogical information to persuade his audience to take a course of action based on shared kinship (i.e., to refuse circumcision) and to motivate a sense of shared belonging among kin members (Gal 3:6–4:31). Moreover, Paul taps into the common social scripts surrounding the notion of promise by characterizing God as faithful to his promise to Abraham, thereby adding persuasive power to his directive to refuse circumcision by giving the Galatians a framework for understanding circumcision-refusal as an expression of fidelity to the God of Israel who keeps his promises (Gal 3:6–5:6). Additionally, Paul makes use of the word-deed congruence script, the motif of endangered benefaction, and the practice of imitation of a benefactor to present Kephas’s conduct at Antioch as the inversion of all three (Gal 2:11–14). That is, Kephas’s words and deeds in the Antioch incident showed lack of integrity, he shirked his opportunity to face danger on behalf of the gentiles at Antioch, and in so doing he failed to imitate his benefactor Christ. In Galatians 3:1–5, Paul suggests that the Galatians are on the verge of becoming disreputable because they fail to continue in the manner that they started, that is, “by spirit” rather than “by flesh.” In so doing, they would spurn their benefactor God who provides the spirit and powerful deeds to support well-ordered and sufficiently supplied assemblies. Paul’s practice and insistence on gratitude to God and Christ and his consistent concern for his benefactors’ good repute throughout his letters, coupled with his invocation of the social script of ingratitude in Galatians (esp. Gal 1:6–9; 5:1–5), shows him in continuity with his benefaction context. Also, this study suggested that the Polybian motif of “gift as bait” could provide a social script for understanding how some within the Galatian assemblies may have felt when faced with the prospects of mandatory circumcision. The incongruous benefaction of God is out of step with the normal protocols of gift-giving to worthy or well-reputed recipients, but such unconditioned benefactions did occur, and people knew that a gift to the undeserving could produce a relationship where it was once lacking. As such, incongruity fits well within the ancient social scripts of virtuous clemency, humaneness, and favor to people who would otherwise not deserve them. Further, in Galatians God does not give his benefits arbitrarily; instead, Paul’s kinship discourse allows him to provide a rationale for God’s benefaction to the Galatians (Gal 3:6– 4:31).

260

Chapter 10: Conclusion

Paul employs benefaction scripts related to time. God’s benefaction is welltimed (Gal 4:4–7; cf. Gal 1:4, 23; 3:19) and he is a continuous resource for his constituencies (Gal 3:5). With respect to himself, Paul depicts his past self as an anti-benefactor whose past “conduct” (ἀναστροφή) inverted the model of typical praiseworthy conduct that benefactors exhibited (Gal 1:13, 23). He uses a past-present discourse to mark discontinuity with his past rather than how honorific inscriptions use past-present discourses to show continuity and consistency of past behavior with the present. Exercising fidelity or good faith toward a person or a city became a critical necessity when a violent crisis occurred. Defection to another person or power could have strategic and practical benefits for the defecting party. Paul’s use of “fidelity” or “good faith” (πίστις) in Galatians can be at least partially explained with reference to the frequent usage of the term in context of crisis. For Paul, the crisis the Galatians face – mandatory circumcision – provides the situation within which they can demonstrate their fidelity to God by refusing to submit to it (e.g., Gal 5:1–5). Paul directs the Galatians to pattern their conduct after their benefactor messiah, who models the principle of fidelity-aslove-of-neighbor (e.g., Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 5:6, 13–14; 6:2). The differences and distinctiveness of Paul’s use of benefaction themes, scripts, and words come not in a simple inversion of the categories in the available cultural encyclopedia but, like any other textualization of a benefaction, come to expression in his specific combination of themes, scripts, and words that he activates within his own local situation. Paul uses words to describe Christ’s benefaction that are not normally used to describe civic benefactors on honorific inscriptions, like “to give oneself over” (παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν; Gal 2:20) and “to love/have affection” (ἀγαπῆσαι, ἀγάπη; esp. Gal 2:20; 5:6, 13– 14).1 Christ’s conduct of liberation (Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 5:1) is in line with the pattern of other benefactors who risked their own lives, offered themselves as ransom, were injured in their service, were killed, or even tortured to death, but the specific known historical circumstances of Jesus’s death by Roman crucifixion inform and constrain Paul’s own description of Christ’s benefaction.2 Finally, Paul’s description of Christ exhibits discontinuity with how the author Although it should be noted that παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν does occur in literary sources and ἀγαπῆσαι is rare but not totally absent from the epigraphical corpus (see chap. 7). 2 The legendary stories about the Roman general Regulus giving up his own life by being crucified by the Carthaginians for the benefit of Rome somewhat temper the “uniqueness” of a crucified benefactor. Although, it is important to note that Jesus was crucified during Paul’s lifetime whereas the sources that laud Regulus for his legendary crucifixion occur several generations, some two to three hundred years, after Regulus’s life. On Regulus and the legendary tradition surrounding him in relation to Colossians 2:15, see Joseph R. Dodson, “The Convict’s Gibbet and the Victor’s Car: The Triumphal Death of Marcus Atilius Regulus and the Background of Col 2:15,” Harvard Theological Review 114, no. 2 (2021): 182–202. 1

10.2 Significance of This Study

261

of 1 Maccabees portrays the benefactor-sons of Mattathias. That is, 1 Maccabees and Paul both portray the sons of Mattathias and Jesus respectively liberating their constituents from dominion to external powers so that they may live according to certain shared norms, but the aggressive and violent military mode of conduct of the sons of Mattathias differs from the self-surrender and crucifixion of Jesus.

10.2 Significance of This Study 10.2 Significance of This Study

By exploring various facets of benefaction from the Hellenistic and early Roman imperial period, this study has sought to contribute to the study of benefaction itself and to several strands of the study of Galatians. First, I have approached benefaction from a bottom-up perspective, attending not just to themes in philosophers like Cicero and Seneca but even more importantly to actual historical examples that illuminate protocols of benefaction and reciprocity. For instance, it is better to understand the relationship humans and the gods in Hellenistic and Greco-Roman religiosity not as mechanistic or do ut des, but instead as voluntary and open-ended. Additionally, the confluence of literary and epigraphical sources helps outline a wide network of benefaction vocabulary, motifs, and social scripts. These aspects of benefaction correspond in several ways to Paul’s language in Galatians. In this vein, this study offers some unique angles to understanding benefaction in Galatians in comparison to the treatments of David deSilva and Ferdinand Okorie.3 Second, I have tried to expand and document the widely attested phenomenon of endangered benefaction. The initial documentation of this phenomenon by Frederick Danker and James Harrison has been significantly expanded, in number and in detail.4 The large array of examples in turn provides comparative data for Paul’s employment of the endangered benefaction motif in Galatians (e.g., Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13). Consequently, the treatment of Christ as an endangered benefactor speaks to the debates about whether Paul’s understanding of the death and resurrection of Christ better aligns with the notion of substitution or participation. Several topics within Pauline studies and Galatians in particular intersect with benefaction. Understanding how intercity kinship diplomats leveraged benefaction relationship between legendary kin in ancestral lineages also finds 3 David A. deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018); Ferdinand Okorie, Favor and Gratitude: Reading Galatians in Its Greco-Roman Context (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2021). 4 Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982); James R. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); James R. Harrison, Paul and the Ancient Celebrity Circuit: The Cross and Moral Transformation, WUNT 430 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019).

262

Chapter 10: Conclusion

expression in Paul. This angle on Paul’s kinship logic adds to the discussions regarding the place of gentiles among the people of God.5 The epigraphical sources provide salient evidence for understanding freedom in Galatians as analogous to civic freedom, putting this study in conversation with those who see Greek manumission documents as most relevant.6 This in turn has implications with respect to Paul’s view of the written law of Moses and the law of Christ (Gal 6:2). Furthermore, incorporating inscriptions was found to be valuable in understanding key vocabulary in Galatians beyond the term χάρις. So, the self-giving phrases like δοῦναι ἑαυτόν (Gal 1:4) and consequently παραδοῦναι ἑαυτόν (Gal 2:20) and the antithetical phrase ὑποστεῖλαι ἑαυτόν (Gal 2:12) come into sharper relief when compared with the wider corpus of civic benefactors. Surveying principles of giving to the worthy and unworthy in conjunction with examples of clemency nuances John Barclay’s emphasis on the unconditioned or incongruous nature of God’s generosity in Galatians.7 Benefaction also has implications for other terms (e.g., πίστις, ἐπιχορηγῆσαι [Gal 3:5], the “fruit of the spirit” [Gal 5:22]), themes (e.g., promise, time, imitation), and social scripts (e.g., ingratitude, “gift as bait”). More broadly, this study situates itself within the wider stream of scholarship that seeks to illuminate the various writings of the New Testament and early Christianity with documentary evidence.8 The use of epigraphical evidence has been found to constitute a treasure trove for understanding the ancient Mediterranean cultural encyclopedia relevant for the study of Paul’s letters. By integrating inscriptions (and to a lesser extent papyri), it is hoped that E.g., Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017); Matthew Thiessen, A Jewish Paul: The Messiah’s Herald to the Nations (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023); Jason A. Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024). 6 Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, transl. Lionel R. M. Strachan (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910); Okorie, Favor and Gratitude. 7 John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). 8 E.g., Danker, Benefactor; Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context; Harrison, Paul and the Ancient Celebrity Circuit; the First Urban Churches series edited by James R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn (Atlanta: SBL, 2015–present); Julien M. Ogereau, Paul’s Koinonia with the Philippians: A Socio-Historical Investigation of a Pauline Economic Partnership, WUNT 2.377 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); Julien M. Ogereau, Early Christianity in Macedonia: From Paul to the Late Sixth Century, AJEC 119 (Leiden: Brill, 2023); Laura Salah Nasrallah, Archaeology and the Letters of Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019); D. Clint Burnett, Studying the New Testament through Inscriptions: An Introduction (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Academic, 2020); D. Clint Burnett, Christ’s Enthronement at God’s Right Hand and Its Greco-Roman Cultural Context (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021); Jennifer A. Quigley, Divine Accounting: Theo-Economics in Early Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021); the Papyri and the New Testament series edited by Peter Arzt-Grabner, John S. Kloppenborg, and Christina M. Kreinecker (Paderborn: Brill Schöningh, 2023–present). 5

10.2 Significance of This Study

263

this study has contributed to the idea that reading documentary sources alongside literary sources is a vital and necessary aspect of studying the New Testament. New inscriptions are published every year, which affords a consistent resource with which to continually re-evaluate the social and linguistic context of Paul’s letters and, more broadly, the literature of the emerging movement and social networks that became Christianity.

Bibliography Achilles Tatius. Leucippe and Clitophon. Translated by S. Gaselee. Loeb Classical Library 45. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. Adak, Mustafa. “Die rhodische Herrschaft in Lykien und die rechtliche Stellung der Städte Xanthos, Phaselis un Melanippion.” Historia 56, no. 3 (2007): 251–279. Adak, Mustafa, and Peter Thonemann. Teos and Abdera: Two Greek Cities in Peace and War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. Adrados, Francisco R., and Juan Rodríguez Somolinos, eds. Diccionario Griego Español. Last updated January 8, 2019. http://dge.cchs.csic.es/xdge/. Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen (later Staatlichen) Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden. Berlin, 1895–2005. Aelius Aristides. Orations, Volume I. Edited and translated by Michael Trapp. Loeb Classical Library 533. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017. Aland, Barbara, and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster/Westphalia, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. Alexander, T. Desmond. From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. Alexandrescu, Petre. “La fin de la Zone Sacrée d’époque grecque d’Istros.” Dacia 51 (2007): 211–219. Andrews, Smaranda. “Greek Cities on the Western Coast of the Black Sea: Orgame, Histria, Tomis, and Kallatis (7th to 1st century BCE).” PhD diss., Iowa State University, 2010. Appian. Roman History, Volume III. Edited and translated by Brian McGing. Loeb Classical Library 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019. Arbiol, Carlos Gil. “Ioudaismos and ioudaizō in Paul and the Galatian Controversy: An Examination of Supposed Positions.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 44, no. 2 (2021): 218–239. Aristotle. Athenian Constitution. Eudemian Ethics. Virtues and Vices. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library 285. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. –. Politics. Translated by C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998. –. Politics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library 264. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932. Arnaoutoglou, Ilias. Ancient Greek Laws: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 1998. Ascough, Richard S., Philip A. Harland, and John S. Kloppenborg. Associations in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012. Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters, Volume II: Books 3.106e–5. Edited and translated by S. Douglas Olson. Loeb Classical Library 208. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. –. The Learned Banqueters, Volume III: Books 6–7. Edited and translated by S. Douglas Olson. Loeb Classical Library 224. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.

266

Bibliography

–. The Learned Banqueters, Volume VI: Books 12–13.594b. Edited and translated by S. Douglas Olson. Loeb Classical Library 327. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. Aubriet, Damien. “Olympichos et le Sanctuaire de Zeus à Labraunda (Caire): Autour de Quelques Documents Épigraphiques.” In Communautés Locales et Pouvoir Central dans l’Orient Hellénistique et Romain, edited by Christophe Feyel, Julien Fournier, Laëtitia Graslin-Thomé, and François Kirbilher, 185–209. Paris: Nancy, 2012. Austin, Michel. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Avram, Alexandru. “Wohltäter des Volkes (εὐεργέται τοῦ δήμου) in den pontischen Städten der späthellenistischen Zeit.” In Bürgesinn und Staatliche Macht in Antike und Gegenwart, edited by Martin Dreher, 151–168. Konstanz: University of Konstanz Press, 2000. Babrius, Phaedrus. Fables. Translated by Ben Edwin Perry. Loeb Classical Library 436. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965. Bagnall, Roger S., and Peter Derow, eds. The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. Barclay, John M. G. Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988. –. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. –. Paul and the Power of Grace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. Barr, Regan L. “Honors for Late Hellenistic Civic Benefactors in Western Asia Minor.” MA thesis, University of Cincinnati, 1995. Bates, Matthew W. Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon Price. Religions of Rome: Volume 1: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Beck, Mark. Der politische Euergetismus und dessen vor allem nichtbürgerliche Rezipienten im hellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien sowie dem ägäischen Raum. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2015. Berti, Monica. Digital Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Leipzig: University of Leipzig. https://www.dfhg-project.org/. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Billows, Richard A. Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Blackwell, Ben C. Christosis: Engaging Paul’s Soteriology with His Patristic Interpreters. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2016. Repr., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Blanton, Thomas R, IV. “The Benefactor’s Account-book: The Rhetoric of Gift Reciprocation according to Seneca and Paul,” New Testament Studies 59 (2013): 396–414 –. A Spiritual Economy: Gift Exchange in the Letters of Paul of Tarsus. New Haven: Yale University, 2017. Blanton, Thomas R, IV and Raymond Pickett, eds. Paul and Economics. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017. Blümel, Walter, ed. Die Inschriften von Iasos. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1985. Blümel, Wolfgang, ed. Die Inschriften von Knidos. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolph Habelt, 1992– 2010. –. Die Inschriften von Mylasa. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolph Habelt, 1987. Boakye, Andrew K. Death and Life: Resurrection, Restoration, and Rectification in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2017.

Bibliography

267

Boeckh, August, Johannes Franz, Ernst Curtius, and Adolf Kirchoff, eds. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Berlin, 1828–1877. Reprint, Hildesheim: 1977. Bormann, Lukas. “Abraham as ‘Forefather’ and His Family in Paul.” In Abraham’s Family: A Network of Meaning in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, edited by Lukas Bormann, 207–233. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Boulay, Thibaut. Arès dan la Cité: Les Poleis et la Guere dans L’Asie Mineure Hellénistique. Pisa: Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2014. Bourget, Émile, Gaston Colin, Georges Daux, Théophile Homolle, and André Plassart, eds. Fouilles de Delphes. Vol. 3, Épigraphie. Paris: École Française d’Athènes, 1909–1976. Bousquet, Jean. “La Stèle des Kyténiens au Létôon de Xanthos.” Revue des Études Grecques 101 (1988): 12–53. Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Braund, David C. Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook to Roman History, 31 BC–AD 68. New York: Routledge, 1985. Bremer, Jan-Maarten. “The Reciprocity and Thanksgiving in Greek Worship.” In Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, edited by Christopher Gill, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford, 127–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Brennan, T. Corey. “Embassies Gone Wrong: Roman Diplomacy in the Constatinian Excerpta de Legationibus.” In Diplomats and Diplomacy in the Roman World, edited by Claude Eilers, 171–191. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Brewer, J. Brittain. “‘To Do the Good’: Galatians 6:9–10, Benefaction, and Honorific Decrees.” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 10, no. 2 (2020): 160–180. Breytenbach, Cilliers. “‘Charis’ and ‘Eleos’ in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” In Grace, Reconciliation, Concord: The Death of Christ in Greco-Roman Metaphors, 207–238. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Bringmann, Klaus. “The King as Benefactor: Some Remarks on Ideal Kingship in the Age of Hellenism.” In Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World, edited by Anthony W. Bulloch, Erich S. Gruen, A. A. Long, and Andrew Stewart, 7–24. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Bringmann, Klaus, Walter Ameling, and Barbara Schmidt-Dounas. Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer. 2 vols. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995. Briones, David. “Mutual Brokers of Grace: A Study in 2 Corinthians 1.3–11.” New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 536–556. –. “Paul’s Intentional ‘Thankless Thanks’ in Philippians 4.10–20.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34, no. 1 (2011): 47–69. Burnett, Andrew, Michel Amandry, and Pere Pau Ripollès, eds. Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. 1, From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC–AD 69). London: The British Museum, 1992. Burnett, D. Clint. Christ’s Enthronement at God’s Right Hand and Its Greco-Roman Cultural Context. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021. –. Studying the New Testament through Inscriptions: An Introduction. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Academic, 2020. Burnett, David A. “A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix for the Nature of the Resurrection Body in 1 Corinthians 15:39–42.” Pages 187–211 in Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in 1 Corinthians. Edited by Linda L. Belleville and B. J. Oropeza. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2019.

268

Bibliography

Burstein, Stanley M., ed. and trans. The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Cleopatra VII. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Burton, Ernest de Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921. Byrne, Sean. “Honours for Aristomachos of Argos.” Attic Inscriptions Online. Last updated April 27, 2016. https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGII31/1019. –. “Honours for Kallias of Sphettos.” Attic Inscriptions Online. Last updated July 25, 2019. https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGII31/911. –. “Honours for Phaidros of Sphettos.” Attic Inscriptions Online. Last updated January 22, 2024. https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGII31/985. Byrne, Sean and Chris de Lisle. “Rhamnous honours Dikaiarchos of Thria.” Attic Inscriptions Online. Last updated June 4, 2021. https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IRhamn/17. Cagnat, René, Jules Toutain, Pierre Jonguet, and George Lafaye, eds. Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. 3 vols. Paris: Leroux, 1906–1927. Calder, William, and James Maxwell Ross Cormack. Monuments from Lycaonia, the PisidoPhrygian Borderland, Aphrodisias. Vol. 8 in Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua (MAMA). Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1962. Callimachus, Lycophron, and Aratus. Hymns and Epigrams. Lycophron: Alexandra. Aratus: Phaenomena. Translated by A. W. Mair and G. R. Mair. Loeb Classical Library 129. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921. Campbell, R. A. “‘Against such things there is no law’? Galatians 5:23b again.” Expository Times 107, no. 9 (1996): 271–272. Caneva, Stefano, and Jan-Mathieu Carbon. “CGRN 137: Decree Concerning the Foundation of the Cult of Seleukos I and His Son Antiochos I at Aigai.” In A Collection of Greek Ritual Norms (CGRN). 2017. http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/file/137/. Carbon, Jan-Mathieu, Saskia Peels, and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge, Collection of Greek Ritual Norms (CGRN), 2017–, consulted February, 2024. URL: http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be; DOI: https://doi.org/10.54510/CGRN216. Carbon, Jan-Mathieu, Saskia Peels, and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge, eds. A Collection of Greek Ritual Norms (CGRN). Liège, 2016–. http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be. Carlson, Stephen C. The Text of Galatians and Its History. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.385. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Chamoux, François. Hellenistic Civilization. Translated by Michel Roussel and Margaret Roussel. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002. Champion, Craige. “The Soteria at Delphi: Aetolian Propaganda in the Epigraphical Record.” The American Journal of Philology 116, no. 2 (1995): 213–220. Chaniotis, Angelos. Age of Conquests: The Greek World from Alexander to Hadrian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018. –. “Emotional Language in Hellenistic Decrees and Hellenistic Histories.” In Parole in Movimento Linguaggio Politico e Lessico Storiografico nel Mondo Ellenistico: Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma, 21–23 Frebbraio 2011, edited by Manuela Mari and John Thornton, 339–352. Pisa: Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2013. –. “The Ithyphallic Hymn for Demetrios Poliorketes and Hellenistic Religious Mentality.” In More than Men, Less than Gods: Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship, edited by Panagiotis P. Iossif, Andrzej S. Chankowski, and Catharine C. Lorber, 157–195. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.

Bibliography

269

–. “Mobility of Persons During the Hellenistic Wars: State Control and Personal Relations.” In La mobilité des personnes en Méditerranée de l’Antiquité à l’époque modern: procedures de contrôle et documents d’indentifications, edited by Claudia Moatti, 481–500. Rome: École française de Rome, 2004. –. “New Inscriptions from Aphrodisias (1995–2001).” American Journal of Archaeology 108, no. 3 (2004): 377–416. –. “Paradoxon, Enargeia, Empathy: Hellenistic Decrees and Hellenistic Oratory.” In Hellenistic Oratory: Continuity and Change, edited by Christos Kremmydas and Kathryn Tempest, 201–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. –. “Policing the Hellenistic Countryside: Realities and Ideologies.” In Sécurité Collective et Ordre Public dans les Sociétés Anciennes, edited by Cédric Brélaz and Pierre Ducrey, 103–145. Geneva: Foundation Hardt, 2008. –. War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. Chaniotis, Angelos and Eftychia Stavrianopoulou. “Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 1994/1995,” Kernos 11 (1998): 265–369. Chankowski, Andrzej S. “La procedure legislative à Pergame au ler siècle au J.-C : à propos de la chronologie relative des décrets en l’honneur de Diodoros Pasparos.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 122, no. 1 (1998): 159–199. Chester, Andrew. Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 207. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Ciampa, Roy E. “Abraham and Empire in Galatians.” In Perspectives on Our Father Abraham: Essays in Honor of Marvin R. Wilson, edited by Steven Hunt, 153–168. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. –. “Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans: Echoes, Allusions, and Rewriting.” In Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in Romans, edited by Andrew Das and Linda Belleville, 11–29. Lanham, MD: Lexington/Fortress Academic, 2021. –. The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Cicero. In Catilinam 1–4. Pro Murena. Pro Sulla. Pro Flacco. Translated by C. Macdonald. Loeb Classical Library 324. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. –. On Duties. Translated by Walter Miller. Loeb Classical Library 30. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913. Clinton, Kevin, ed. Eleusis. The Inscriptions on Stone. Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme. Athens: Athens Archaeological Society, 2008. Cohen, Getzel M. The Hellenistic Settlements of Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Collman, Ryan D. The Apostle to the Foreskin: Circumcision in the Letters of Paul. Berlin De Gruyter, 2023. –. “For Who Has Known the Mind of the Apostle? Paul, the Law, and His Syngeneis in the Messiah.” Pages 147–160 in Paul within Judaism: Perspectives on Paul and Jewish Identity. Edited by Michael Bird, Ruben A. Bühner, Jörg Frey, and Brian Rosner. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023. –. “Just a Flesh Wound? Reassessing Paul’s Supposed Indifference Toward Circumcision and Foreskin in 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, and 6:15.” Journal of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting 8 (2021): 30–52

270

Bibliography

Cooley, Alison E. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text Translation, and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin, 1863–. Crampa, Jonas. Review of Die Inschriften von Keramos, by Ender Varinlioǧlu. Gnomon 60, no. 7 (1988): 603–609. –. Swedish Excavations and Researches, vol. III, part 1, The Greek Inscriptions, Part I:1– 12 (Period of Olympichus). Lund: CWK Gleerup 1969. Crook, Zeba A. “The Divine Benefactions of Paul the Client.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 2 (2001–2005): 9–26. –. “Grace as Benefaction in Galatians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 3:10, and Romans 12:3; 15:15.” In The Social Sciences and Biblical Translation, edited by Dietmar Neufeld, 25–38. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. –. Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. Cummins, Stephen A. Paul and the Crucified Christ at Antioch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Curty, Olivier. Les Parentés Légendaires entre Cites Grecques: Catalogue Raisonné des Inscriptions Contenant le Terme συγγένεια et Analyse Critique. Geneva: Droz, 1995. Dakin, Emyr. “Political Culture in the Cities of the Northern Black Sea Region in the ‘Long Hellenistic Age.’” PhD diss., City University of New York, 2020. Danker, Frederick W. 2 Corinthians. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989. –. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field. St. Louis: Clayton, 1982. –. “The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts.” In Society of Biblical Literature 1981 Seminar Papers, edited by Kent Harold Richards, 39–48. Atlanta: SBL Press, 1981. –. “Graeco-Roman Cultural Accommodation in the Christology of Luke-Acts.” In Society of Biblical Literature 1983 Seminar Papers, edited by Kent Harold Richards, 391–414. Chico, CA: Scholar’s Press, 1983. –. “Imaged Through Beneficence.” In Reimagining the Death of the Lukan Jesus, edited by Dennis D. Sylva, 57–67, 184–186. Frankfurt: Anton Hain, 1990. –. “Paul’s Debt to the De Corona of Demosthenes: A Study of Rhetorical Techniques in Second Corinthians.” In Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy, edited by Duane F. Watson, 262–280. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 50. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Daux, Georges. “Concours des Titeia dans un décret d’Argos.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 88, no. 2 (1964): 569–576. Davies, Jamie. “Why Paul Doesn’t Mention ‘The Age to Come.’” Scottish Journal of Theology 74 (2021): 199–208. Davies, R. E. “Christ in Our Place – The Contribution of the Prepositions,” Tyndale Bulletin 21, no. 1 (1970): 71–91. Davis, Basil S. Christ as Devotio: The Argument of Galatians 3:1–14. New York: University Press of America, 2002. de Boer, Martinus C. Galatians: A Commentary. The New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.

Bibliography

271

Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. Demosthenes. Orations, Volume I: Orations 1–17 and 20: Olynthiacs 1–3. Philippic 1. On the Peace. Philippic 2. On Halonnesus. On the Chersonese. Philippics 3 and 4. Answer to Philip’s Letter. Philip’s Letter. On Organization. On the Navy-boards. For the Liberty of the Rhodians. For the People of Megalopolis. On the Treaty with Alexander. Against Leptines. Translated by J. H. Vince. Loeb Classical Library 238. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930. –. Orations, Volume II: Orations 18–19: De Corona, De Falsa Legatione. Translated by C. A. Vince, J. H. Vince. Loeb Classical Library 155. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. –. Orations, Volume III: Orations 21–26: Against Meidias. Against Androtion. Against Aristocrates. Against Timocrates. Against Aristogeiton 1 and 2. Translated by J. H. Vince. Loeb Classical Library 299. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. –. Orations, Volume VII: Orations 60–61: Funeral Speech. Erotic Essay. Exordia. Letters. Translated by N. W. De Witt, N. J. De Witt. Loeb Classical Library 374. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1949. deSilva, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000. –. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018. –. The Letter to the Galatians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. –. “Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament.” Ashland Theological Journal 31 (1999): 32–84. de Souza, Philip. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Diggle, James. Theophrastus: Characters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Dillon, John and Jackson Hershbell. Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Way of Life. Text, Translation, and Notes. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Dimant, Devorah. “Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature.” Revue de Qumrân 22, no. 3 (2006): 373– 388. Dio Cassius. Roman History, Volume V: Books 46–50. Translated by Earnest Cary and Herbert B. Foster. Loeb Classical Library 82. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917. –. Roman History, Volume VI: Books 51–55. Translated by Earnest Cary and Herbert B. Foster. Loeb Classical Library 83. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917. –. Roman History, Volume VIII: Books 61–70. Translated by Earnest Cary and Herbert B. Foster. Loeb Classical Library 176. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925. Diodorus Siculus. Library of History, Volume II: Books 2.35–4.58. Translated by C. H. Oldfather. Loeb Classical Library 303. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. –. Library of History, Volume III: Books 4.59–8. Translated by C. H. Oldfather. Loeb Classical Library 340. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1939. –. Library of History, Volume IV: Books 9–12.40. Translated by C. H. Oldfather. Loeb Classical Library 375. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1946. –. Library of History, Volume V: Books 12.41–13. Translated by C. H. Oldfather. Loeb Classical Library 384. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950.

272

Bibliography

–. Library of History, Volume VI: Books 14–15.19. Translated by C. H. Oldfather. Loeb Classical Library 399. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954. –. Library of History, Volume VII: Books 15.20–16.65. Translated by Charles L. Sherman. Loeb Classical Library 389. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952. –. Library of History, Volume VIII: Books 16.66–17. Translated by C. Bradford Welles. Loeb Classical Library 422. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. –. Library of History, Volume IX: Books 18–19.65. Translated by Russel M. Geer. Loeb Classical Library 377. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947. –. Library of History, Volume X: Books 19.66–20. Translated by Russel M. Geer. Loeb Classical Library 390. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954. –. Library of History, Volume XI: Books 21–32. Translated by Francis R. Walton. Loeb Classical Library 409. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957. –. Library of History, Volume XII: Books 33–40. Translated by Francis R. Walton. Loeb Classical Library 423. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Volume I: Books 1–5. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library 184. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925. –. Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Volume II: Books 6–10. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library 185. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Critical Essays, Volume II: On Literary Composition. Dinarchus. Letters to Ammaeus and Pompeius. Translated by Stephen Usher. Loeb Classical Library 466. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985. –. Roman Antiquities, Volume I: Books 1–2. Translated by Earnest Cary. Loeb Classical Library 319. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937. –. Roman Antiquities, Volume II: Books 3–4. Translated by Earnest Cary. Loeb Classical Library 347. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1939. –. Roman Antiquities, Volume III: Books 5–6.48. Translated by Earnest Cary. Loeb Classical Library 357. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940. –. Roman Antiquities, Volume IV: Books 6.49–7. Translated by Earnest Cary. Loeb Classical Library 364. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1943. –. Roman Antiquities, Volume VII: Books 11–20. Translated by Earnest Cary. Loeb Classical Library 388. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950. Dittenberger, Wilhelm, ed. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae: supplementum Sylloges inscriptionum graecarum. 1903–1905. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag AG, 1960. Dittenberger, Wilhelm, Friedrich Hiller von Gärtingen, Johannes Kirchner, Hans Rudolf Pomtow, and Erich Ziebarth, eds. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. 4 vols. 3rd ed. Leipzig, 1915–1925. Dobias-Lalou, Catherine. Inscriptions of Greek Cyrenaica. Bologna: CRR-MM, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, 2017. http://doi.org/10.6092/UNIBO/IGCYRGVCYR. Dodson, Joseph R. “The Convict’s Gibbet and the Victor’s Car: The Triumphal Death of Marcus Atilius Regulus and the Background of Col 2:15.” Harvard Theological Review 114, no. 2 (2021): 182–202. Dormandy, Michael. “How to Understand What Passes All Understanding: Using the Documentary Papyri to Understand εἰρήνη in Paul.” New Testament Studies 67 (2021): 220– 240. Downs, David J. “Is God Paul’s Patron? The Economy of Patronage in Pauline Theology.” In Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception, edited by Bruce W. Longenecker and Kelly D. Liebengood, 129–156. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Bibliography

273

Duke, Rodney K. “Simon Gathercole’s, Defending Substitution: Why I Am Unconvinced and Concerned.” The Expository Times 129, no. 10 (2018): 458–465. Dunne, John Anthony. Persecution and Participation in Galatians. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.454. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Durrbach, Félix. Choix D’Inscriptions de Délos. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1976. Durrbach, Félix, Pierre Roussel, and Marcel Launey, eds. Inscriptions de Délos. Paris: Champion, 1926–1972. Eco, Umberto. Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation. London: Phoenix, 2003. Eastman, Susan Grove. “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-Reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9–11.” New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 367–395. Eilers, Claude. Roman Patrons of Greek Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Engelmann, Helmut, ed. Die Inschriften von Kyme. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolph Habelt, 1976. Engelmann, Helmut, and Reinhold Merkelbach, eds. Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1972–1973. Epictetus. Discourses, Books 1–2. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. Loeb Classical Library 131. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925. –. Discourses, Books 3–4, Fragments, The Encheiridion. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. Loeb Classical Library 218. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928. Errington, R. Malcolm. A History of the Hellenistic World, 323–30 BC. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008. Eschner, Christina. Gestorben und hingegeben “für” die Sünder: Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens und deren paulinische Aufnahme für die Deutung des Todes Jesu Christi. 2 vols. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 2010. Eubank, Nathan. “Justice Endures Forever: Paul’s Grammar of Generosity.” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 5, no. 2 (2015): 169–187. Euripides. Cyclops. Alcestis. Medea. Edited and translated by David Kovacs. Loeb Classical Library 12. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994. Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Eyl, Jennifer. “Philo and Josephus on the Fidelity of the Judeans.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 12, no. 1 (2021): 94–121. –. Signs, Wonders, and Gifts: Divination in the Letters of Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Fanucchi, Stefano. Greek Economic Inscriptions 035: Kyparissia. Regulations on Pentecoste Collection. https://geionline.sns.it/search/document/GEI035. Festa, Nicolaus, ed. Mythographi Graeci: Palaephati ΠΕΡΙ ΑΡΙΣΤΟΝ. Vol. 3, Fasc. 2. Leipzig: Teubner, 1902. Fisch, Yael. “The Origins of Oral Torah: A New Pauline Perspective.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 51 (2020): 43–66. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin. “‘The Being That Is in a Manner Equal with God’ (Phil. 2:6C): A Self-Transforming, Incarnational, Divine Ontology.” Journal of Theological Studies 71, no. 2 (2020): 581–627. Flusser, David, and R. Steven Notley. The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Fränkel, Max. Die Inschriften von Pergamon. Vols. 1–2. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1890–1895. Fredriksen, Paula. “God Is Jewish, but Gentiles Don’t Have to Be: Ethnicity and Eschatology in Paul’s Gospel.” In The Message of Paul the Apostle within Second Temple Judaism, edited by František Ábel, 3–19. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2020.

274

Bibliography

–. “How Do the Nations Relate to Israel? Family, Ethnicity, and Eschatological Inclusion in the Apostle Paul.” In In the Crucible of Empire: The Impact of Roman Citizenship upon Greeks, Jews and Christians, edited by Katell Berthelot and Jonathan Price, 131–140. Leuven: Peeters, 2019. –. “Judaism, the Circumcision of the Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2.” Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1991): 532–564. –. Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017. –. “Paul’s Letter to the Romans, the Ten Commandments, and Pagan ‘Justification by Faith.’” Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 4 (2014): 801–808. –. “What Does It Mean to See Paul ‘within Judaism’?” Journal of Biblical Literature 141, no. 2 (2022): 359–380. –. “Why Should a ‘Law-Free’ Mission Mean a ‘Law-Free’ Apostle?” Journal of Biblical Literature 134, no. 3 (2015): 637–650. Gaebel, Robert E. Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002. Gager, John G., ed. Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Gallazzi, C., R. Pintaudi, and K. A. Worp, eds. Ostraka greci del Mudeo Egizio de Cairo. Florence, 1986. Garbrah, Kweku A. “On the Enumerative Use of τε.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik (1993): 191–210. Gardner, Gregg. “Jewish Leadership and Hellenistic Civic Benefaction in the Second Century B.C.E.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126, no. 2 (2007): 327–343. Garroway, Joshua D. “The Circumcision of Christ: Romans 15:7–13.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34, no. 4 (2012): 303–322. –. Paul’s Gentile-Jews: Neither Jew nor Gentile, but Both (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). Gathercole, Simon. Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Gauthier, Philippe. Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVe–Ier siècle avant J.-C.): contribution à l’histoire des institutions. Paris: École Française d’Athènes, 1985. Gellius. Attic Nights, Volume I: Books 1–5. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library 195. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. –. Attic Nights, Volume II: Books 6–13. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library 200. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. Genovese, Cristina. “‘Per Eterna Memoria e Immortalità di un Benefattore.’ L’ ‘Heroon’ di Diodoro Pasparo a Pergamo.” Mediterraneo Antico 14, nos. 1–2 (2011): 57–74. Gill, Christopher, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford, eds. Reciprocity in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Grenfell, Bernard P., and Arthur S. Hunt. The Tebtunis Papyri. Vol. 2. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1907. Goodrich, John K. “‘Standard of Faith’ of ‘Measure of a Trusteeship’? A Study in Romans 12:3.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74 (2012): 753–772. Gow, A. S. F., and D. L. Page. The Greek Anthology, Hellenistic Epigrams. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1965. Graham, A. J. “Abdera and Teos.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 112 (1992): 44–73. Grant, Mary, ed. and trans. The Myths of Hyginus. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1960.

Bibliography

275

Grindheim, Sigurd. “The Law Kills but the Gospel Gives Life: The Letter-Spirit Dualism in 2 Corinthians 3:5–18,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 84 (2001): 97–115. Gruen, Erich S. Constructs of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism: Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016. –. Ethnicity in the Ancient World – Did It Matter? Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020. –. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. –. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. –. “The Origins of the Achaean War.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 96 (1976): 46–69. Guarducci, Margarita, ed. Inscriptiones Creticae. Rome: National Institute of Archaeology and History of Art, 1935–1950. Gupta, Nijay. Paul and the Language of Faith. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. Gygax, Marc Domingo. Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Gygax, Marc Domingo, and Arjan Zuiderhoek, eds. Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. Haake, Matthias. Der Philosoph in der Stadt: Untersuchungen zur öffentlichen Rede über Philosophen und Philosophie in den hellenistichen Poleis. Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 2007. Habicht, Christian. Athens from Alexander to Antony. Translated by Deborah Lucas Schneider. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. –. Divine Honors for Mortal Men in Greek Cities: The Early Cases. Translated by John Noël Dillon. Ann Arbor: Michigan Classical Press, 2017. Hagedorn, Ursula, Dieter Hagedorn, Robert Hübner, and John C. Shelton, eds. Die Papyri der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München. Vol. 3, Griechische Urkundenpapyri der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München. Pt. I. Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner, 1986. Hands, A. R. Charities and Social in Greece and Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1968. Harding, Philip. Athens Transformed, 404–262 BC: From Popular Sovereignty to Dominion of Wealth. New York: Routledge, 2014. –, ed. and trans. From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Harmon, Matthew S. She Must and She Shall Go Free: Paul’s Isaianic Gospel in Galatians. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Harrison, James R. “Augustan Rome and the Body of Christ: A Comparison of the Social Vision of the Res Gestae and Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” Harvard Theological Review 106 (2013): 161–184. –. “Beneficence to the Poor in Luke’s Gospel in its Mediterranean Context: A Visual and Documentary Perspective.” Australian Biblical Review 65 (2017): 30–46. –. “The Brothers as the ‘Glory of Christ’ (2 Cor. 8:23): Paul’s Doxa Terminology in Its Ancient Benefaction Context.” Novum Testamentum 52 (2010): 156–188. –. “Ephesian Cultic Officials, Their Benefactors, and the Quest for Civic Virtue: Paul’s Alternative Quest for Status in the Epistle to the Ephesians.” In The First Urban Churches, vol. 3, Ephesus, edited by James R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn, 253–298. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018.

276

Bibliography

–. “The First Urban Churches: Introduction.” In The First Urban Churches 1: Methodological Foundations, edited by James R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn, 1–40. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. –. “From Rome to the Colony of Philippi: Roman Boasting in Philippians 3:4–6 in Its Latin West and Philippian Epigraphic Context.” In The First Urban Churches, vol. 4, Roman Philippi, edited by James R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn, 307–370. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018. –. “The Imitation of the ‘Great Man’ in Antiquity: Paul’s Inversion of a Cultural Icon.” In Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, 213–254. Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 9. Leiden: Brill, 2013. –. “Negotiating the Seduction of Imperial ‘Peace and Security’ in Galatians, Thessalonians, and Philippians.” In Introduction to Empire in the New Testament, edited by Adam Winn, 165–184. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. –. “Paul and the Agōnothetai at Corinth: Engaging the Civic Values of Antiquity.” In The First Urban Churches, vol. 2, Roman Corinth, edited by James R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn, 271–326. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. –. Paul and the Ancient Celebrity Circuit: The Cross and Moral Transformation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 430. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. –. “Paul and Ancient Civic Ethics: Redefining the Canon of Honour in the Graeco-Roman World.” In Paul’s Graeco-Roman Context, edited by Cilliers Breytenbach, 75–118. Leuven: Peeters, 2015. –. “Paul and the Athletic Ideal in Antiquity: A Case Study in Wrestling with Word and Image.” In Paul’s World, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 81–109. Leiden: Brill, 2008. –. “Paul and the Gymnasiarchs: Two Approaches to Pastoral Formation in Antiquity.” In Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 141–178. Leiden: Brill, 2008. –. Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2017. –. “Paul the ‘Paradoxical’ Parent: The Politics of Family Beneficence in First-Century Context (2 Cor 12:14–16).” In Theologizing in the Corinthian Conflict: Studies in the Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians, edited by Reimund Bieringer, Ma Marilous S. Ibita, Dominika A. Kurek-Chomycz, and Thomas A. Vollmer, 399–425. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. –. “Paul, Theologian of Electing Grace.” In Paul and His Theology, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 77–108. Leiden: Brill, 2006. –. “The Social Context.” In The Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition, edited by Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs, 105–126. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. –. “Sponsors of Paideia: Ephesian Benefactors, Civic Virtue and the New Testament.” Early Christianity 7 (2016): 346–367. –. “Times of Necessity.” In New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 9, A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1986–87, edited by S. R. Llewelyn, 7– 8. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Hatzopoulos, M. B. Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. 1, A Historical and Epigraphic Study. ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ 22. Athens: Center for Greek and Roman Antiquity of the National Hellenic Research Foundation, 1996. –. Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. 2, Epigraphic Appendix. ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ 22. Athens: Center for Greek and Roman Antiquity of the National Hellenic Research Foundation, 1996. Hayes, Christine. What’s Divine about Divine Law?. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015.

Bibliography

277

Hays, Richard B. “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 268–290. Heath, Jane. “God the Father and Other Parents in the New Testament.” In The Divine Father: Religious and Philosophical Concepts of Divine Parenthood in Antiquity, edited by Felix Albrecht and Reinhard Feldmeier, 325–342. Themes in Biblical Narratives 18. Leiden: Brill, 2014. –. “Moses’ End and the Succession: Deuteronomy 31 and 2 Corinthians 3,” New Testament Studies 60, no. 1 (2014): 37–60. Heim, Erin M. Adoption in Galatians and Romans: Contemporary Metaphor Theories and the Huiothesia Metaphors. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Henrich, Joseph. The Secret of Our Success: How Culture is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016. Herrmann, Peter, and Hasan Malay. New Documents from Lydia. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007. Hicks, E. L. “Ceramus (Κέραμος) and Its Inscriptions.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 11 (1890): 113–119. –. “On an Inscription at Cambridge: Boechkh, C. I. G. 106.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 2 (1881): 98–101. Hiller von Gärtringen, Friedrich, ed. Inschriften von Priene. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Hodge, Caroline Johnson. If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship in the Letters of Paul. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Holmes, Michael W., ed and trans. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Honigman, Sylvie. Tales of High Priests and Taxes: The Books of the Maccabees and the Judean Rebellion against Antiochos IV. Oakland: University of California Press, 2014. Horrell, David G. Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics. 2nd ed. London: T & T Clark, 2016. Hultgren, Arland J. “The Ethical Reorientation of Paul: From the Law of Moses to the Law of Christ.” Currents in Theology and Mission 46.2 (April 2019): 30–33. Hunt, A. S., and C. C. Edgar. Select Papyri, Volume II: Public Documents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. Husselman, E. M., A. E. R. Boak, and W. F. Edgerton. Michigan Papyri, Vol. V: Papyri from Tebtunis, Part II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1944. Die Inschriften von Ephesos. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1979–1984. Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin, 1873–. Isager, Signe, and Lars Karlsson. “A New Inscription from Labraunda. Honorary Decree for Olympichos: I.Labraunda No. 134 (and No. 49).” Epigraphica Anatolica 41 (2008): 39– 52. Isocrates. Evagoras. Helen. Busiris. Plataicus. Concerning the Team of Horses. Trapeziticus. Against Callimachus. Aegineticus. Against Lochites. Against Euthynus. Letters. Translated by La Rue Van Hook. Loeb Classical Library 373. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1945. Jakoby, Felix, ed. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. 15 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1923–1962. Jalabert, Louis, and René Mouterde, eds. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Vol. 3.1, Région de l’Amanus, Antioche, Nos. 699–988. Paris: Geuthner, 1950. Jennings, Mark A. “Patronage and Rebuke in Paul’s Persuasion in 2 Corinthians 8–9.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 6 (2009): 107–127.

278

Bibliography

Jipp, Joshua. Christ Is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015. Jones, Christopher P. “A Decree from Perge in Pamphylia.” Epigraphica Anatolica 25 (1995): 29–33. –. “Diodoros Pasparos and the Nikephoria of Pergamon.” Chiron 4 (1974): 183–205. –. “Diodoros Pasparos Revisited.” Chiron 30 (2000): 1–14. –. “The Earthquake of 26 BC in Decrees of Mytilene and Chios.” Chiron 45 (2015): 101– 122. –. Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Jongkind, Dirk, Peter J. Williams, Peter M. Head, and Patrick James, eds. The Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House Cambridge. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017. Josephus. Jewish Antiquities, Volume I: Books 1–3. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library 242. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930. –. Jewish Antiquities, Volume II: Books 4–6. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray and Ralph Marcus. Loeb Classical Library 490. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930. –. Jewish Antiquities, Volume III: Books 7–8. Translated by Ralph Marcus. Loeb Classical Library 281. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. –. Jewish Antiquities, Volume IV: Books 9–11. Translated by Ralph Marcus. Loeb Classical Library 326. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937. –. Jewish Antiquities, Volume V: Books 12–13. Translated by Ralph Marcus. Loeb Classical Library 365. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1943. –. Jewish Antiquities, Volume VI: Books 14–15. Translated by Ralph Marcus and Allen Wikgren. Loeb Classical Library 489. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1943. –. Jewish Antiquities, Volume VII: Books 16–17. Translated by Ralph Marcus and Allen Wikgren. Loeb Classical Library 410. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. –. The Jewish War, Volume I: Books 1–2. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library 203. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. –. The Jewish War, Volume II: Books 3–4. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library 487. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. –. The Jewish War, Volume III: Books 5–7. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library 210. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928. –. The Life. Against Apion. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library 186. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Joubert, Stephan J. “One Form of Social Exchange or Two? ‘Euergetism,’ Patronage, and Testament Studies.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 31, no. 1 (2001): 17–25. –. “Patrocinium and Euergetism: Similar or Different Reciprocal Relationships. Eavesdropping on the Current Debate amongst Biblical Scholars.” In The New Testament in the Graeco-Roman World: Articles in Honour of Abe Malherbe, edited by Marius Nel, Jan G. van der Watt, and Fika J. van Rensburg, 171–196. Zürich: LIT Verlag, 2015. –. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy, and Theological Reflection on Paul’s Collection. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. –. “ΧΑΡΙΣ in Paul: An Investigation into the Apostle’s ‘Performative’ Application of the Language of Grace within the Framework of his Theological Reflection on the Event/Process of Salvation.” In Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology, edited by Jan G. van der Watt, 187–211. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Justin. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Translated by J. C. Yardley. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Keazirian, Edward M. Peace and Peacemaking in Paul and the Greco-Roman World. New York: Peter Lang, 2014.

Bibliography

279

Keddie, G. Anthony. “Paul’s Freedom and Moses’ Veil: Moral Freedom and the Mosaic Law in 2 Corinthians 3:1–4:6 in Light of Philo,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37, no. 3 (2015): 267–289. Keener, Craig S. Galatians: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019. Kokkinia, Christina, ed. Boubon: The Inscriptions and Archaeological Remains, A Survey 2004–2006. Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation, 2008. –. “The God-emperor. Fragments of a Discourse between Greek Cities and Provincial Governors.” In Communautés locales et pouvoir central dans l’Orient hellénistique et romain, edited by Christophe Feyel, Julien Fournier, Laëtitia Graslin-Thomé, and François Kirbihler, 499–516. Nancy: Association pour la diffusion de la recherche sur l’Antiquité, 2012. Komter, Aafke. “The Evolutionary Origins of Human Generosity.” International Sociology 25, no. 3 (2010): 443–464. Konradt, Matthias. “Die Christonomie der Freiheit: Zu Paulus’ Entfaltung seines ethischen Ansatzes in Gal 5, 13–6, 10.” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 60–81. Kowalski, Marcin. “God the Benefactor and His Human Clients in Rom. 5–8.” The Biblical Annals 8, no. 1 (2018): 47–69. Lambert, Stephen. “Decrees Honouring Eumaridas of Kydonia and His Son Charmion.” Attic Inscriptions Online. Last updated May 26, 2018. https://www.atticinscriptions.com/ inscription/IGII2/844. –. “Honours for Prytanis of Karystos.” Attic Inscriptions Online. Last updated February 8, 2017. https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/MorettiISE/i-28. Lambert, Stephen, and Feyo Schuddeboom. “Honours for the Priest of Asklepios.” Attic Inscriptions Online. Last updated April 14, 2021. https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGII2/950. Lampe, Peter. “Paul, Patrons, and Clients.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, edited by J. Paul Sampley, 2:204–238. Rev. ed. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Larson, Jennifer. Understanding Greek Religion: A Cognitive Approach. London: Routledge, 2016. Latyschen, Vasilii, ed. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae. Vol. 1, Inscriptiones Tyriae, Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg: 1916. Le Bohec, Sylvie. Antigone Dôsôn roi de Macédoine. Nancy: Nancy University Press, 1993. Lefèvre, François, Didier Laroche, and Olivier Masson. Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes. Tome IV, Documents amphictioniques. Paris: École française d’Athènes 2002. Lewis, D. M. “Inscriptions from Asia Minor.” The Classical Review (1988): 124–125. Lewis, Naphtali, ed. The Documents from the Bar Kochba Period in the Cave of Letters. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989. Llewelyn, S. R., ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 9, A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1986–87. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Llewelyn, S. R., and J. R. Harrison, eds. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 10, A Review of the Greek and Other Published Inscriptions and Papyri Published between 1988 and 1992. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie. A GreekEnglish Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Livy. History of Rome, Volume V: Books 21–22. Edited and translated by J. C. Yardley. Loeb Classical Library 233. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019. –. History of Rome, Volume VII: Books 26–27. Edited and translated by J. C. Yardley. Loeb Classical Library 367. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020.

280

Bibliography

–. History of Rome, Volume XI: Books 38–40. Edited and translated by J. C. Yardley. Loeb Classical Library 313. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018. –. History of Rome, Volume XII: Books 40–42. Translated by Evan T. Sage, Alfred C. Schlesinger. Loeb Classical Library 332. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938. –. History of Rome, Volume XIII: Books 43–45. Translated by Alfred C. Schlesinger. Loeb Classical Library 396. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary 41. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. Ma, John. Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. –. “Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Age.” Past & Present 180 (2003): 9–39. –. Polis: A New History of the Ancient Greek City-State from the Early Iron Age to the End of Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2024. MacGillivray, Erlend D. “Re-evaluating Patronage and Reciprocity in Antiquity and New Testament Studies.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 6 (2009): 37–81. Maier, Johann. The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 34. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Makarov, Igor A. “Towards an Interpretation of the Civic Oath of the Chersonesites (IOSPE I2 401).” Ancient Civilization from Scythia to Siberia 20 (2014): 1–38. Makarov, Igor, ed., Irene Polinskaya, trans. IOSPE: Ancient Inscriptions of the Northern Black Sea. Vol. III: Inscriptions of Chersonesos. https://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/index.html Malay, Hasan, and Georg Petzl, New Religious Texts from Lydia. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2017. Malay, Hasan, and Marijana Ricl. “Two New Hellenistic Decrees from Aigai in Aiolis.” Epigraphica Anatolica 42 (2009): 39–60. Manetho. History of Egypt and Other Works. Translated by W. G. Waddell. Loeb Classical Library 350. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940. Marshall, Eireann. “Cyrenaican Civilisation and Health: Constructing an Identity in a Frontier.” Pegasus 39 (1996): 9–17. Marshall, Jonathan. Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.259. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Mason, Steve, ed. and trans. Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 9. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Mayr, Ernst. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1982. McCaulley, Esau. Sharing in the Son’s Inheritance: Davidic Messianism and Paul’s Worldwide Interpretation of the Abrahamic Land Promise in Galatians. LNTS 608. London: T&T Clark, 2019. McDonald, Denys N. “‘Ex-Pagan Pagans’? Paul, Philo, and Gentile Ethnic Reconfiguration,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 45, no. 1 (2022): 1–28. McFarland, Orrey. God and Grace in Philo and Paul. Leiden: Brill, 2016. McLean, B. Hudson. The Cursed Christ: Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and Pauline Soteriology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Merkelbach, Reinhold, ed. Die Inschriften von Assos. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1976. Merrit, Benjamin D. “Inscriptions of Colophon.” The American Journal of Philology 56, no. 4 (1935): 359–372.

Bibliography

281

Mihailov, Georgi, ed. Inscriptiones graecae in Bulgaria repertae. Vol. 1, Inscriptiones orae Ponti Euxini. 2nd ed. Sofia: Institutum Archaeologicum, 1970. Mikalson, Jon D. Religion in Hellenistic Athens. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Mitchell, Margaret M. “Gift Histories.” JSNT 39, no. 3 (2017): 304–323. Mitchell, Stephen. Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor. The Ankara District: The Inscriptions of North Galatia II. Oxford: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1982. Moo, Douglas J. Galatians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Morgan, Teresa. Roman Faith and Christian Faith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Mott, Stephen C. “The Greek Benefactor and Deliverance from Moral Distress.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1971. Müller, Cristel. “Autopsy of a Crisis: Wealth, Protogenes, and the City of Olbia in c. 200 BC.” In The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Third to First Centuries BC, edited by Zosia H. Archibald, John K. Davies, and Vincent Gabrielsen, 324–344. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “The Unwritten Law of Christ (Gal 6:2).” Revue Biblique 119 (2012): 213–231. Mussner, Franz. Der Galaterbrief. Freiburg: Herder, 1974. Nasrallah, Laura Salah. Archaeology and the Letters of Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Neyrey, Jerome H. “God, Benefactor and Patron: The Major Cultural Model for Interpreting the Deity in Greco-Roman Antiquity.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27, no. 4 (2005): 465–492. –. Render to God: New Testament Understandings of the Divine. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. Nicols, John. Civic Patronage in the Roman Empire. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Nikolaidis, A. G. “Aristotle’s Treatment of the Concept of ΠΡΑΟΤΗΣ.” Hermes 110, no. 4 (1982): 414–422. Novenson, Matthew V. “Did Paul Abandon either Judaism or Monotheism?” In New Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, edited by Bruce W. Longenecker, 239–259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. Oakes, Peter. Galatians. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. –. “Pistis as Relational Way of Life in Galatians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40, no. 3 (2018): 255–275. O’Brien, Kelli S. “The Curse of the Law (Galatians 3:13): Crucifixion, Persecution, and Deuteronomy 21.22–23.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29, no. 1 (2006): 55–76. Oegema, Gerbern S. “The Reception of 1 and 2 Maccabees in the Letters of Paul.” In Paul and Scripture, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land, 59–74. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Ogereau, Julien M. Early Christianity in Macedonia: From Paul to the Late Sixth Century, AJEC 119. Leiden: Brill, 2023. –. Paul’s Koinonia with the Philippians: A Socio-Historical Investigation of a Pauline Economic Partnership, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.377. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. –. “Πίστις, Ἀγάπη, and Ἐλπίς in 1 Thessalonians: New Insights from Old Stones.” Pages 467–483 in God’s Grace Inscribed on the Human Heart: Essays in Honour of James R.

282

Bibliography

Harrison. Edited by Peter G. Bolt and Sehyun Kim. Macquarie Centre NSW: SCD Press, 2022. Okorie, Ferdinand. “Benefaction in Galatians: An Analysis of Paul’s Language of God’s Favor in Its Greco-Roman Context.” PhD diss., Loyola University Chicago, 2018. –. Favor and Gratitude: Reading Galatians in Its Greco-Roman Context. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2021. Olivelle, Patrick. Ashoka: Portrait of a Philosopher King. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2023. Oropeza, B. J. “The Expectation of Grace: Paul on Benefaction and the Corinthians’ Ingratitude (2 Corinthians 6:1).” Bulletin for Biblical Research 24, no. 2 (2014): 207–227. Osiek, Carolyn. “The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship: The Meeting of Ways.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 39, no. 3 (2009): 143–152. Papiri greci e latini. Vol. 10. Florence: Italian Society for the Study of Greek and Latin Papyri in Egypt, 1932. PHI Greek Documentary Texts. CD ROM #7. Software Database. Los Altos, CA: Packard Humanities Institute, 1991–1996. https://epigraphy.packhum.org. November 1, 2017. Parassoglou, George M. “Four Papyri from the Yale Collection.” The American Journal of Philology 92, no. 4 (1971): 652–666. Park, Young-Ho. Paul’s Ekklesia as a Civic Assembly: Understanding the People of God. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 393. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Parker, Robert. “Pleasing Thighs: Reciprocity in Greek Religion.” In Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, edited by Christopher Gill, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford, 105– 126. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Patterson, Lee E. Kinship Myth in Ancient Greece. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2010. Pausanias. Description of Greece, Volume III: Books 6–8.21 (Elis 2, Achaia, Arcadia). Translated by W. H. S. Jones. Loeb Classical Library 272. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933. Pennington, Jonathan T. The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing: A Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. Phillips Wilson, Annalisa. “The Craftsman: Paul’s Law of Christ and the Stoic Law of Nature.” Journal of Biblical Literature 141.2 (2022): 381–401. Philo. Every Good Man is Free. On the Contemplative Life. On the Eternity of the World. Against Flaccus. Apology for the Jews. On Providence. Translated by F. H. Colson. Loeb Classical Library 363. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941. –. On Abraham. On Joseph. On Moses. Translated by F. H. Colson. Loeb Classical Library 289. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. –. On the Creation. Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3. Translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker. Loeb Classical Library 226. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929. –. On the Embassy to Gaius. General Indexes. Translated by F. H. Colson. Index by J. W. Earp. Loeb Classical Library 379. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962. Pippidi, Dionisie, M, ed. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. Vol. 1, Inscriptiones Histriae et vicinia. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1983. Plutarch. Lives, Volume II: Themistocles and Camillus. Aristides and Cato Major. Cimon and Lucullus. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library 47. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914.

Bibliography

283

–. Lives, Volume III: Pericles and Fabius Maximus. Nicias and Crassus. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library 65. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916. –. Lives, Volume IV: Alcibiades and Coriolanus. Lysander and Sulla. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library 80. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916. –. Lives, Volume V: Agesilaus and Pompey. Pelopidas and Marcellus. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library 87. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917. –. Lives, Volume VI: Dion and Brutus. Timoleon and Aemilius Paulus. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library 98. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918. –. Lives, Volume VII: Demosthenes and Cicero. Alexander and Caesar. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library 99. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919. –. Lives, Volume VIII: Sertorius and Eumenes. Phocion and Cato the Younger. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919. –. Lives, Volume IX: Demetrius and Antony. Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library 101. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920. –. Lives, Volume X: Agis and Cleomenes. Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. Philopoemen and Flamininus. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library 102. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921. –. Lives, Volume XI: Aratus. Artaxerxes. Galba. Otho. General Index. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library 103. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. –. Moralia, Volume III: Sayings of Kings and Commanders. Sayings of Romans. Sayings of Spartans. The Ancient Customs of the Spartans. Sayings of Spartan Women. Bravery of Women. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. Loeb Classical Library 245. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931. –. Moralia, Volume VI: Can Virtue Be Taught? On Moral Virtue. On the Control of Anger. On Tranquility of Mind. On Brotherly Love. On Affection for Offspring. Whether Vice Be Sufficient to Cause Unhappiness. Whether the Affections of the Soul are Worse Than Those of the Body. Concerning Talkativeness. On Being a Busybody. Translated by W. C. Helmbold. Loeb Classical Library 337. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1939. –. Moralia, Volume X: Love Stories. That a Philosopher Ought to Converse Especially With Men in Power. To an Uneducated Ruler. Whether an Old Man Should Engage in Public Affairs. Precepts of Statecraft. On Monarchy, Democracy, and Oligarchy. That We Ought Not to Borrow. Lives of the Ten Orators. Summary of a Comparison Between Aristophanes and Menander. Translated by Harold North Fowler. Loeb Classical Library 321. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936. Polybius. The Histories, Volume I: Books 1–2. Translated by W. R. Paton. Revised by Frank W. Walbank and Christian Habicht. Loeb Classical Library 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. –. The Histories, Volume II: Books 3–4. Translated by W. R. Paton. Revised by Frank W. Walbank and Christian Habicht. Loeb Classical Library 137. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. –. The Histories, Volume III: Books 5–8. Translated by W. R. Paton. Revised by Frank W. Walbank and Christian Habicht. Loeb Classical Library 138. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011.

284

Bibliography

–. The Histories, Volume IV: Books 9–15. Translated by W. R. Paton. Revised by Frank W. Walbank and Christian Habicht. Loeb Classical Library 159. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011. –. The Histories, Volume V: Books 16–27. Translated by W. R. Paton. Revised by Frank W. Walbank and Christian Habicht. Loeb Classical Library 160. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. –. The Histories, Volume VI: Books 28–39. Fragments. Edited and translated by S. Douglas Olson. Translated by W. R. Paton. Revised by Frank W. Walbank and Christian Habicht. Loeb Classical Library 161. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. Post, T. Luke. Doing the Good in Paul’s Ethical Vision. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2023. Pouilloux, Jean. Choix d’inscriptions grecques. Paris: Société d’édition Les Belles Lettres, 2003. Priesigke, Friedrich, Friedrich Bilabel, Emil Kiessling, and Hans-Albert Rupprecht, eds. Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten. Vols. 1–21. Heidelberg: Im Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1915–2001. Price, Simon. Religions of the Ancient Greeks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. –. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Quigley, Jennifer A. Divine Accounting: Theo-Economics in Early Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021. Rabens, Volker. The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.283. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Raggi, Andrea. “The Epigraphic Dossier of Seleucus of Rhosus: A Revised Edition.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 147 (2004): 123–138. Rajak, Tessa. “Benefactors in the Greco-Jewish Diaspora.” In The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome, 373–391. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta. Rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Reger, Gary. Regionalism and Change in the Economy of Independent Delos, 314–167 B.C. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. –. “The Relations between Rhodes and Caria from 246 to 167 BC.” In Hellenistic Rhodes: Politics, Culture, and Society, edited by Vincent Gabrielsen, Per Bilde, Troels EngbergPedersen, Lise Hannestad, and Jan Zahle, 76–97. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1999. –. “Sympoliteiai in Hellenistic Asia Minor.” In The Greco-Roman East: Politics, Culture, Society, edited by Stephen Colvin, 145–180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Rehm, Albert, ed. Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899, Bd. 1, Hft. 3: Das Delphinion in Milet. Berlin: Reimer, 1914. Reynolds, Joyce. Aphrodisias and Rome. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1982. Reynolds, Joyce, and J. A. Lloyd. “Cyrene.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 10, The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C.–A.D. 69, edited by Alan K. Bowman, Edward Champlin, and Andrew Lintott, 619–640. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Reynolds, Joyce, Charlotte Roueché, and Gabriel Bodard, eds. Inscriptions of Aphrodisias, https://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/insaph/.

Bibliography

285

–. Inscriptions of Roman Cyrenaica 2020. Society for Libyan Studies, 2020. https://ircyr2020.inslib.kcl.ac.uk/en/. Rice, Joshua. Paul and Patronage: The Dynamics of Power in 1 Corinthians. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013. Rigsby, Kent J. “Aegina and Megara (IG IV.22 750).” Classical Philology 105, no. 3 (2010): 308–313. –. Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Rillera, Andrew Remington. Lamb of the Free: Recovering the Varied Sacrificial Understandings of Jesus’s Death. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2024. Robertson, A. T. Grammar of the New Testament Greek in the Light of Historical Research. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914. –. The Minister and His Greek New Testament. New York: George H. Doran, 1923. Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. IV.3, The Antonine Period (AD 138–192): Lycia-Pamphilia to Arabia. RPC Online. https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/. Rudolph, David J. A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010. Sahin, Mehmet, ed. Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia. Vols. 1–3. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolph Habelt, 1981–2010. Sahlin, Sencer. Die Inschriften von Perge. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolph Habelt, 1999–2004. Salvo, Irene. “Romulus and Remus at Chios Revisited: A Re-examination of SEG XXX 1073.” In Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-Classical Polis: Fourth Century BC to Second Century AD, edited by Paraskevi Martzavou and Nikolaos Papazarkadas, 125– 137. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Sanders, E. P. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Sanfridson, Martin. “Circumcision in Galatia: Why Did Some Gentile Christ Followers Seek Circumcision in the Early Jesus Movement?” Journal of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting 10 (2023): 67–88. Santangelo, Federico. Sulla, the Elites and the Empire: A Study of Roman Policies in Italy and the Greek East. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Satlow, Michael, ed. The Gift in Antiquity. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. Scarborough, Matthew J. C. “A New Edition of IG IX,2 69.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 193 (2015): 166–171. Schellenberg, Ryan S. “Subsistence, Swapping, and Paul’s Rhetoric of Generosity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 137, no. 1 (2018): 215–234. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, Kapitel 6–16. Giessen: SCM R. Brockhaus Brunnen, 2016. Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Schwartz, Seth. Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Seeley, David. The Noble Death: Greco-Roman Martyrology and Paul’s Concept of Salvation. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Seneca. Epistles, Volume II: Epistles 66–92. Translated by Richard M. Gummere. Loeb Classical Library 76. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920. –. Moral Essays, Volume III: De Beneficiis. Translated by J. W. Basore. Loeb Classical Library 310. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935.

286

Bibliography

Shear, T. Leslie, Jr. Hesperia Supplements 17: Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 B.C. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1978. Sherk, Robert K. Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1969. –, ed. and trans. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. –, ed. and trans. Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Siekierka, Przemysław, Krystyna Stebnicka, and Aleksander Wolicki. Women and the Polis: Public Honorific Inscriptions for Women in the Greek Cities from the Late Classical to the Roman Period. Vols. 1–2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021. Sierksma-Agteres, Suzan J. M. “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ and Fides as Civic and Divine Virtues: A Pauline Concept through Greco-Roman Eyes.” In Paul’s Graeco-Roman Context, edited by Cilliers Breytenbach, 525–543. Leuven: Peeters, 2015. Simonton, Matthew. “The Telos Reconciliation Dossier (IG XII.4.132): Democracy, Demagogues and Stasis in an Early Hellenistic Polis.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 139 (2019): 187–209. Sloan, Paul T. “Paul’s Jewish Addressee in Romans 2–4: Revisiting Recent Conversations.” Journal of Theological Studies 74, no. 2 (2023): 516–566. Soon, Isaac T. “The Bestial Glans: Gentile Christ Followers and the Monstruous Nudity of Ancient Circumcision.” Journal of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting 8 (2021): 116–130. Spawforth, A. J. S. Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Staples, Jason A. Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024. Still, Elias Coye. “‘Do Not Covet’: The Tenth Commandment in Pauline Ethics.” PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2021. Stoian, Iorgu, ed. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. Vol. 2, Tomis et territorium. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1987. Stolba, Vladimir F. “The Oath of Chersonesos and the Chersonesean Economy in the Early Hellenistic Period.” In Making, Moving, and Managing the New World of Ancient Economies, 323–31 BC, edited by Zofia H. Archibald, John K. Davies, and Vincent Gabrielsen, 298–321. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2005. Strabo. Geography, Volume VI: Books 13–14. Translated by Horace Leonard Jones. Loeb Classical Library 223. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929. Streett, Daniel R. “Cursed by God? Galatians 3:13, Social Status, and Atonement Theory in the Context of Early Jewish Readings of Deuteronomy 21:23.” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 5, no. 2 (2015): 189–209. Suetonius. Lives of the Caesars, Volume II: Claudius. Nero. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. Vespasian. Titus, Domitian. Lives of Illustrious Men: Grammarians and Rhetoricians. Poets (Terence. Virgil. Horace. Tibullus. Persius. Lucan). Lives of Pliny the Elder and Passienus Crispus. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library 38. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. 66 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1923–. “Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 1243: Kolophon Honours Polemaios.” Attalus. Last updated June 23, 2018. http://www.attalus.org/docs/seg/s39_1243.html.

Bibliography

287

Tait, J. G., and C. Préaux, eds. Greek Ostraca in the Bodleian Library at Oxford and Various Other Collections, Vol. II: Ostraca of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1955. Tarn, W. W., and G. T. Griffith. Hellenistic Civilisation. 3rd ed. Cleveland, OH: World, 1952. Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Theophrastus, Herodas, Sophron. Characters. Herodas: Mimes. Sophron and Other Mime Fragments. Edited and translated by Jeffrey Rusten and I. C. Cunningham. Loeb Classical Library 225. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae® Digital Library. Edited by Maria C. Pantelia. University of California, Irvine. Last updated September 29, 2021. http://www.tlg.uci.edu. Thielman, Frank. From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Thiessen, Matthew. A Jewish Paul: The Messiah’s Herald to the Nations. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023. –. Paul and the Gentile Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Thompson, Robin G. Paul’s Declaration of Freedom from a Freed Slave’s Perspective. Leiden: Brill, 2023. Thonemann, Peter. “The Attalid State, 188–133 BC.” In Attalid Asia Minor: Money, International Relations, and the State, edited by Peter Thonemann, 1–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. –. The Hellenistic World: Using Coins as Sources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War, Volume I: Books 1–2. Translated by C. F. Smith. Loeb Classical Library 108. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919. –. History of the Peloponnesian War, Volume II: Books 3–4. Translated by C. F. Smith. Loeb Classical Library 109. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920. –. History of the Peloponnesian War, Volume IV: Books 7–8. General Index. Translated by C. F. Smith. Loeb Classical Library 169. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923. Tilling, Chris. “Paul, Evil, and Justification Debates.” In Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Chris Keith and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 190–223. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. –. Review of Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul, by Simon Gathercole. Journal of Theological Studies 67, no. 1 (2016): 251–254. Tischendorf, Constantine von. Apocalyses Apocryphae. Leipzig: 1866. Tucker, Brian J. “The Jerusalem Collection, Economic Inequality, and Human Flourishing: Is Paul’s Concern the Redistribution of Wealth, or a Relationship of Mutuality (or Both)?” Canadian Theological Review 3, no. 2 (2014): 52–70. Valerius Maximus. Memorable Doings and Sayings, Volume I: Books 1–5. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Loeb Classical Library 492. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. –. Memorable Doings and Sayings, Volume II: Books 6–9. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Loeb Classical Library 493. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. van Bremen, Riet. “The Inscribed Documents on the Temple of Hekate at Lagina and the Date and Meaning of the Temple Frieze.” In Hellenistic Karia: Proceedings of the International Conference on Hellenistic Karia, Oxford, 29 June–2 July 2006, edited by Riet van Bremen, Jan-Mathieu Carbon, 483–503. Pessac: Ausonius Éditions, 2010. VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. Varinlioglu, Ender, ed. Die Inschriften von Keramos. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1986.

288

Bibliography

Varner, Eric R. “Portraits, Plots, and Politics: Damnatio Memoriae and the Images of Women.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 46 (2001): 41–93. Vasileios, Petrakos, ed. Ho demos tou Ramnountos. Synopsē tōn anaskophōn kai tōn ereunōn (1813–1998). Vol. 2, Hoi epigraphes. Athens: Archaeological Society of Athens, 1999. Virgilio, Biagio. “La Città Ellenistica e I suoi ‘Benefattori’: Pergamo e Diodoro Pasparos.” In Studi sull’Asia Minore, 117–130. Pisa: Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2014. Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Walbank, Frank W. A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. I, Commentary on Books I– VI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. –. A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. II, Commentary on Book VII–XVIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. –. A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. III, Commentary on Books XIX–XL. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Wallace, Shane. “The Freedom of the Greek in the Early Hellenistic Period (337–262 BC). A Study in Ruler-City Relations.” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2011. Warmington, E. H, trans. Remains of Old Latin, Volume IV: Archaic Inscriptions. Loeb Classical Library 359. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940. Wasserman, Emma. Apocalypse as Holy War: Divine Politics and Polemics in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018. Watts, Joel L. Jesus as Divine Suicide. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2019. Weaver, Taylor. “Rethinking Pauline Gift and Social Functions: Class Struggle in Early Christianity?” In Class Struggle in the New Testament, edited by Robert J. Myles, 191– 208. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2019. Welborn, L. L. “The Polis and the Poor: Reconstructing Social Relations from Different Genres of Evidence.” In First Urban Churches 1: Methodological Foundations, edited by James R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn, 189–244. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Welles, C. Bradford. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934. White, L. Michael, and G. Anthony Keddie, eds. Jewish Fictional Letters from Hellenistic Egypt: The Epistle of Aristeas and Related Literature. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018. Wiedemann, Thomas. Greek and Roman Slavery. London: Routledge, 1981. Wilcken, Ulrich. Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (ältere Funde). 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1927–1957. Williams, Logan A. “Love, Self-Gift, and the Incarnation: Christology and Ethics in Galatians, in the Context of Pauline Theology and Greco-Roman Philosophy.” PhD diss., University of Durham, 2019. Williams, Jarvis J. Christ Redeemed ‘Us’ from the Curse of the Law: A Jewish Martyrological Reading of Galatians 3:13. London: T & T Clark, 2019. –. Maccabean Martyr Traditions in Paul’s Theology of Atonement: Did Martyr Theology Shape Paul’s Conception of Jesus’s Death? Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010. Williamson, Christina G. “As God is My Witness. Civic Oaths in Ritual Space as a Means towards Rational Cooperation in the Hellenistic Polis.” In Cults, Creeds and Identities in the Greek City after the Classical Age, edited by Richard Alston, Onno M. van Nijf, and Christina G. Williamson, 119–174. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. Wilson, Todd A. “The Law of Christ and the Law of Moses: Reflections on a Recent Trend in Interpretation.” Currents in Biblical Research, 5.1 (2006): 123–144.

Bibliography

289

Winter, John Garrett, ed. Michigan Papyri, Vol. III: Miscellaneous Papryi. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1936. Witherington, Ben, III. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte. Edited by P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte. Rev. 4th ed. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Wolter, Michael. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by Robert L. Brawley. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015. Xenophon. Cyropaedia, Volume II Books 5–8. Translated by Walter Miller. Loeb Clasical Library 52. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914. –. Hiero. Agesilaus. Constitution of the Lacedaemonians. Ways and Means. Cavalry Commander. Art of Horsemanship. On Hunting. Constitution of the Athenians. Translated by E. C. Marchant and G. W. Bowersock. Loeb Classical Library 183. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925. –. Memorabilia. Oeconomicus. Symposium. Apology. Translated by E. C. Marchant and O. J. Todd. Revised by Jeffrey Henderson. Loeb Classical Library 168. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013. –. Scripta Minora. Translated by E. C. Marchant and G. W. Bowersock. Loeb Classical Library 183. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Zeller, Dieter. Charis bei Philon und Paulus. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. Zuiderhoek, Arjan. The Politics of Munificence in the Roman Empire: Citizens, Elites and Benefactors in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Index of References Old Testament Genesis 4:25–26 12:2 12:7 LXX 12:10–20 14 200 15:5 LXX 15:6 15:6 LXX 15:7 LXX 15:13–14 15:13–14 LXX 15:18–21 15:18 LXX 17:4–6 LXX 17:4 LXX 17:5 LXX 17:6 17:8 LXX 17:10–14 20 200 22:17–18 LXX 32:12 LXX 35:11–12 37–50 37:21 LXX 37:32 LXX 49:10 LXX

259 235 200 194 200

194 160–61 200 107 160 160 235

Exodus 1–15 3:8 LXX 18:4 LXX 18:8 LXX 18:9 LXX 18:10 LXX

107 160 160 160 160 160

194 201, 208 199 233 200 191 234 234 236 231 231 200 194, 234 208

20:1–12 20:2–6 20:6 LXX 20:13–17 20:13–15 20:17 34:6–7 LXX Leviticus 12:3 19:18

178 205, 230 247 178 206, 226, 227, 230 226, 227 247

208 178, 206, 213, 226, 227, 230, 252

Numbers 25:1–15

139

Deuteronomy 1:8 LXX 4:37 LXX 5:6–16 5:6–10 5:10 5:17–21 5:17–19 5:21 6:4–5 7:9 10:15 LXX 11:9 LXX 11:13–17 11:26 LXX 11:28 LXX 11:29 LXX 21:23 23:5 LXX 23:6 LXX

174, 194 194 178 205, 230 247 178 206, 226, 227, 230 206, 226, 227, 230 178 247 194 194 205 190 190, 191 190 195 190 177

292

Index of References

26:6–9 LXX 27–30 27:15–68 LXX 27:15–19 LXX 27:15 LXX 27:16 LXX 27:17 LXX 27:18 LXX 27:19 LXX 27:20 LXX 27:21 LXX 27:22 LXX 27:23 LXX 27:24 LXX 27:25 LXX 28:16 28:18 28:20–24 28:30 28:36 LXX 28:38–39 28:45 LXX 28:48–49 LXX 28:48 28:51 28:64 28:64 LXX 29:27 LXX 30:1–14 30:1–10 30:1 LXX 30:3 30:6 LXX 30:16–18 30:19–20 LXX 30:19 30:19 LXX 32:39 LXX 34:4 LXX

107 208, 209 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 200 200 200 200 191 200 190 191 203 200 191 191 190 191 208, 211, 230 190 237 194 205 194 191 190 160, 192, 209, 237 194

2:6 OG 4:8 LXX 7:3 LXX 10:18 LXX 12:10–11 LXX 14:48 LXX 17:37 LXX 28:19

192 160 160 160 160 160 160 174

2 Samuel 1:19 7:9 7:12–14 7:12–13 7:12–13 LXX 22:51 LXX

141 200 235 200 194 194

1 Kings 12:4

203

2 Kings 18:29–30 LXX 18:34–35 LXX

160 160

2 Chronicles 16:35 LXX 25:15 LXX 32:17 LXX

161 160 160

Nehemiah 9:6–8

237

Job 5:18 LXX 10:7 LXX 11:2 LXX 11:12 LXX 14:1 15:14 25:4

161 161 192 192 192 192 192

Joshua 2:13 LXX

161

Judges 6:8–9 LXX 9:17 LXX

107 160 160

1 Samuel 2:6

237

Psalms 13:1 LXX 13:3 LXX 17 LXX 17:1 LXX 17:51 LXX 21:5–22 LXX 24:7 LXX

107, 218 218 218 107 107 194, 247 107 218

293

Index of References 24:15–22 LXX 36:39–40 LXX 36:40 LXX 44:4 LXX 47:9 58:2 LXX 84:13 LXX 99:5 LXX 105:1 LXX 105:6–9 108:21 LXX 114:1–9 LXX 114:8 LXX 135:1 LXX 135:2 LXX 135:3 LXX 135:4 LXX 135:5 LXX 135:6 LXX 135:7 LXX 135:8 LXX 135:9 LXX 135:10 LXX 135:11 LXX 135:12 LXX 135:13 LXX 135:14 LXX 135:15 LXX 135:16 LXX 135:17 LXX 135:18 LXX 135:19 LXX 135:20 LXX 135:21 LXX 135:22 LXX 135:24 LXX 135:25 LXX 135:26 LXX 137:7 LXX 139:2 LXX 142:9 LXX Isaiah 28:16 29:22 41:8 43:13 LXX 44 208 47:14 LXX

107 107 161 222 200 161 218 247 247 200 247 107 161 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 107 161 161

207 200 200 161 161

48:10 LXX 51:2 53 177 53:6 LXX 54:3 LXX 60 208 63:16 64:9 LXX 65:1 65:23 LXX Jeremiah 11:14–15 15:20–21 LXX 20:13 LXX 22:3 LXX 23:3–8 24:9 LXX 25:11 LXX 28:2 31 208 31:31–37 31:31–34 31:33 33:26 36:22 LXX 38:11 LXX 38:31–34 LXX 38:31 LXX 41:13 LXX 49:11 LXX 51:8 LXX

161 200 177 194 200 195 207 195

208 161 161 161 208 195 191 203 193 208, 211, 230 228 200 195 160 208, 230 208 161 161 195

Ezekiel 11:14–21 20:33–44 22:24 34:27 LXX 36–37 36:24–29 36:24–28 36:26–27 36:26–27 LXX

208 208 200 161 193, 208, 209 208, 230 211 209 209

Daniel 2:8 OG 3 3 OG 3:17 OG

180 107 182 161

294

Index of References

3:88 OG 6 9:11

161 107 191

Hosea 1:10 2:20 2:23 14:4–5

207, 233 207 233 208

Joel 2:32

Micah 2:12–13 4:6–5:9 7:18–20 7:20

208 208 208 200

Nahum 2:2 LXX

161

Habakkuk 2:4 LXX

240, 251

Zechariah 8:1–13 8:13 LXX 10:6–12

208 191 208

207

Amos 9:11–15

208

Obadiah 20–21

208

New Testament Matthew 5–7 5:43–48 5:44

178 178 178

Mark 12:29–30

178

Luke 4:6 174 Acts 7:10 19:31

161 171

Romans 1:2–5 1:3–5 1:5 1:7 1:8 1:14 1:16 1:18–32 1:21 2:4 2:7 2:11

212 17 4, 187 179, 206, 217 16, 242, 245 18 221 243 243 218 218 26

3:12 3:22 4 4:1 4:4 4:5 4:9–12 4:11 4:13 4:16–17 4:16 4:17 4:19 4:24–25 4:24 5–8 5:3–4 5:3 5:6–8 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:10 5:12–21 5:12 5:14 5:15 5:16

218 26, 221 232 206 234 221 208 206, 221 234 231, 237 234 237 206, 236 193 221 203 218 218 15, 17, 181, 187 187 187 187 17, 207 17 192 192 5, 17 17

Index of References 5:17 5:20 5:21 6:9 6:14 6:17–18 6:17 7:12 7:24–25 7:25 8 8:1–11 8:1 8:2 8:3–9 8:3 8:4 8:6 8:9 8:10 8:11 8:15 8:16 8:17 8:18 8:18 8:21 8:22 8:23 8:25 8:27 8:28 8:29 8:31 8:32 8:33 8:34 8:35–39 9:3 9:4 9:7–13 9:8 9:22 9:24–26 9:25–26 9:25 9:27 10:1 10:4

17, 192 17 17, 192 194 17 3 242 207 3 242 232 211 211 211, 227 211 193 209 211, 217 210 211 193, 209, 210, 211 232 206 206, 236 17 17 206 17 17, 232 218 187 179 17 187 17, 187, 187 206 187 17 187 232 206 206 218 233 207, 237 17, 179 187 187 221, 227

10:11 10:13 10:20 11:13 11:22 12:1–2 12:2 12:3 12:6 12:8–9 12:9–13 12:9–10 12:9 12:18 13:8–10 13:8–9 13:8 13:9 13:10 14:6 14:15 14:17 15:1–6 15:1–3 15:4–5 15:6 15:7–13 15:7–8 15:7 15:8–12 15:8 15:9–12 15:9 15:10 15:12 15:13 15:15–16 15:15 15:16 15:18 15:27 15:30 15:31 15:33 16:4 16:5 16:15 16:20

295 207 207 207 207 218 25, 191, 243 220 4 4 230 220 225 179, 219, 220 217 206, 212, 225–27, 230 179 226 213 212, 213 242 187, 187 217 210 225 218 243 243 243 210, 215, 225 215, 234 187 207 187 207, 232 212 215, 217 25 4 207 207 207 187 19 217 187, 188, 207 179 206 217

296

Index of References

16:26

207

1 Corinthians 1:2 1:3 1:4–7 1:4 1:13 1:14 1:21 1:23 2:8 2:9 3:10 4:14 4:17 6:2 6:4 6:9 7:19 8:1 8:3 8:4–6 8:5–6 9:20–21 9:21 10:1–33 10:1 10:6–11 10:7 10:14 10:21–22 10:30 10:32–11:1 11:1 11:16–33 11:24 12:2 12:12–13 13 1 13:1–13 14:18 14:22 14:33 15:1 15:10 15:12–57 15:14 15:17

206 217 245 4, 16, 18, 242 187 242 221 196 196 179 4 179 179 206 193 234 251 213 179 191 166, 205, 230 227 227 205, 230 206 224 205, 230 179, 205, 230 205, 230 4, 187 210 225 19 187 206 210 79 225 242 221 217 18 18 193 193 193

15:21–22 15:21 15:22 15:24–27 15:26 15:30 15:45–48 15:45 15:50 15:54–57 15:57 16:1–4

17 194 193 234 192 19 17 193, 210 234 3, 192 3, 242 24, 225

2 Corinthians 1:2 1:3–4 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:11 2:9 2:14 3 3:3 3:6–7 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:17 4:7–12 4:14 4:15 5:11–15 5:12 5:14–15 5:14 5:15 5:17 5:20 5:21 6:1 6:3–10 6:4–10 6:6–11 6:6 6:7 6:9 6:10

217 245 15, 187, 218 187 187 187 211 4, 242 208–9, 211 209, 211, 227 227 193, 208–209, 211 208, 211 209, 211 208–209, 211 210–11 15 193 17, 18, 242 15 187 187, 193 187 18, 187 237 187 187 4, 18 15 218 219 218–19 219 219 18

Index of References 7:1 7:4 7:7 7:12 7:14 8:1–5 8:1–2 8:1 8:5 8:7 8:9 8:16 8:23 8:24 9:2 9:3 9:8 9:11–12 9:11 9:12–13 9:14 9:15 10:1–18 10:1 10:10 11 11:5–9 11:16–33 11:19–29 11:22–33 11:23–29 11:26 12:5–7 12:5 12:8 12:10 12:12 12:15 12:19 13:8 13:11

179 187 187 187 187 97 18 4 171 17 18, 19 4, 187, 242 187 187 187 187 17 242 18 18 187 4, 243 15 222, 223 219 19 15 15 19 15 19 19 15 187 187 187 15 187 187 187 217

1:3

Galatians 1–4 1 1:1–5 1:1 1:3–4

204, 226 248–49 196 193, 233 23

2:11–12 2:11 2:12 2:13–14 2:13

1:4

1:5 1:6–9 1:6

1:8 1:11 1:13–16 1:13–14 1:13 1:14 1:15–16 1:15 1:16 1:23 2 2:3–4 2:3 2:4–5 2:4

2:5 2:6 2:7–10 2:9 2:10 2:11–14

297 6, 158, 173, 217, 233, 253, 256 8, 16, 29, 158, 162, 163, 167, 169–74, 177, 179, 183, 187, 194–95, 197, 203– 204, 233, 240, 248, 251–55, 258, 260, 261–62 196 18, 245, 259 6, 16–17, 158, 163, 201, 237, 247, 253– 54, 256 16 233 247–48, 254 16, 29, 167, 229, 252, 255 167, 178, 248, 255, 260 167 18, 196 6, 17, 158, 201, 253 17, 237 29, 248, 254–55, 260 219 250, 254 163–67, 240, 253, 258 203 158, 163, 169, 197– 98, 203–204, 238, 253, 258 219 16, 26 240 4, 6, 17, 158, 253, 256 16, 24 29, 166, 167, 203, 239, 252, 253, 259 240 163 166, 218, 240, 262 240 240

298 2:14 2:15 2:19–21 2:19–20 2:19 2:20–21 2:20

2:21 3–4 3:1–5 3:1 3:2–5 3:2–4 3:2 3:3 3:4–5 3:5

3:6–5:6 3:6–4:31 3:6–28 3:6–14 3:6–9 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:10–14 3:10 3:11 3:13–14 3:13

3:14 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:18

Index of References 164–66, 203, 206, 219, 250, 254 247, 254 196 23, 219, 255 20, 177, 254 16 8, 16, 27, 174–79, 187, 195, 226, 240, 251–52, 254, 260, 261–62 6, 16, 18, 158, 245, 253, 256, 258 22, 232 20, 29, 229, 241–42, 253, 259 18, 177, 254–55 211 242 223, 236 16, 242 18 16, 223, 236, 241– 42, 248, 254, 260, 262 259 231, 239, 253–54, 259 248 251 208 199–200, 211, 237 206, 237 248, 254 190, 192–93, 233 190, 192, 194, 211, 233, 236 240, 251, 254 179, 192 8, 158, 179–95, 203, 215, 226, 233, 236, 251–52, 254–55, 258, 260–61 188, 236 233 235 211, 234 6, 158, 234, 236, 253, 256

3:19–20 3:19 3:21–25 3:21 3:22 3:23–24 3:23 3:24 3:26–28 3:28 3:29 4:1–7 4:1–5 4:1–3 4:1–2 4:2 4:3–5 4:3 4:4–7 4:4–5 4:4 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:8–10 4:8–9

4:9–10 4:9 4:12–20 4:12 4:15 4:17 4:19 4:21–31 4:21 4:22 4:23 4:24 4:26 4:28 4:29

211 162, 235, 248, 254, 260 208 162, 167, 193, 211, 236, 258 162, 221, 236 211 16, 162, 248 16, 162 20 210, 236, 247 236 229 208 211 162 167, 194, 233, 258 192, 203 16, 162 196, 233, 248, 254, 260 193 17, 192, 194, 248 192, 194–95, 232 18, 210, 233 233 162, 167, 258 162, 191, 194, 203, 205, 230, 247, 253– 54 16, 163 162 20, 24 233 16 166, 167, 225, 253, 258 225 158, 203, 206, 234– 35, 238, 248 163, 167, 234, 258 234 234 194 203 233, 235 166, 250, 253–54, 258

299

Index of References 4:31 5–6 5:1–12 5:1–6 5:1–5 5:1–4 5:1–3 5:1

5:2–6 5:2–4 5:2–3 5:2 5:3 5:4–5 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:11 5:13–6:10

5:13–15 5:13–14

5:13

5:14 5:15 5:16–24 5:16–18 5:16–17 5:16 5:17 5:18 5:19–21 5:20–21 5:22–23

233 204 211 238 245, 259–60 203, 208, 232, 239, 253 168, 228, 258 16, 158, 162, 166, 194, 198, 203–204, 212, 217, 238, 245, 253, 260 20 23, 245, 251 212 158, 212, 245 245 212 6, 158, 212, 219, 245, 253, 256 236 251, 212, 251, 254, 260 219 237 212 3, 200–201, 203– 204, 211–12, 225, 228, 238, 253, 258 18 179, 206, 212, 225– 26, 230, 252, 254, 260 23–24, 197–98, 200–201, 212–13, 215, 217, 226–27, 237–38 24, 212, 226–27 24, 212–13, 217, 220 18 212 212 213, 224 197, 201, 212 212 24, 212–13, 224 217, 223 16, 212, 220

5:22

6:13–16 6:14–15 6:15 6:16 6:18

16, 22, 23, 212–13, 219, 220–21, 236, 262 224 238 212, 223–24, 228 24, 212, 217 24, 225 223, 225 18, 24 19, 23, 29, 202, 204, 211–12, 225–28, 238, 252, 254, 260, 262 19, 212, 225 225 225 18, 225 26, 225 212, 238 24, 220, 238 220 16, 220–21 20 16 163–66, 203, 218, 250, 252, 253 196 18, 20, 259 19, 215, 237 217, 247, 254 6, 158, 253, 256

Ephesians 1:7 2:8–9 3:2 3:7 3:8 4:7 4:2 9 5:16

17 18, 244 4 4 4 4 4 180

Philippians 1:2 1:3–6 1:3 1:4 1:6

217 245 16, 243 187 18

5:23 5:25–26 5:25 5:26 6:1–10 6:1 6:2–4 6:2

6:3 6:4 6:5 6:6 6:7 6:8 6:9–10 6:9 6:10 6:11–16 6:11 6:12

300 1:7 1:11 1:12–26 1:29 2:1–11 2:1 2:6–11 2:6–8 2:7–8 2:10–11 2:11 2:12 2:25–30 2:29–30 4:1 4:6 4:9 4:10

Index of References 187 243 15 187 210 187 15 195 192, 195 234 196 179 15, 25 252 179, 215 243 217 187

Colossians 1:3 1:18 2:15 4:5

16 17 260 180

1 Thessalonians 1:1 1:2–5 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:6 1:7 1:9 1:10

217 245 16, 243 218 179, 237 210, 225 221 166, 191, 205, 230 193

2:8 2:10 2:13 2:19 3:2 3:9 4:9 5:3 5:9–10 5:10 5:12–24 5:13 5:14 5:15 5:16 5:18 5:23

179 221 221, 243 215 187 215, 243 179 217 188 187 220 217, 220 218, 220 220 220 243 220

2 Thessalonians 1:2 3:9

16 172

1 Timothy 1:14 4:6–8

17 25

Philemon 1 3 4 13 16

179 217 243 187 179

Hebrews 10:38–39

240

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QHa 5.31 23.13–14

11.20–22

192

192 192

4Q174

235

223

11QTemple 64.6–13

194–95

1QS 5.24–6.1

301

Index of References

Josephus Against Apion 2.142 2.231

183 175

Antiquities of the Jews 1.326 176 1.238–41 231 1.240–41 231 2.137 176 2.326 175 2.327 159 2.329–30 159 4.139 175 4.184 204 4.194 204 4.195 204 4.196 204 4.198 204 4.292 204 5.94 170 6.72 175 6.191 175 6.345 175 7.53 175 7.129 175 7.225 171 8.261 175 9.285 175 10.viii 175 10.ix 175 10.9 175 12.225–27 231 12.256 195 12.376 175 12.390 175 13.142 175 13.163–70 231

13.185 13.214 13.330 13.380 15.244 17.171 17.284 17.295 17.297 18.52

175 144 175 195 171 176 175 195 175 175

Jewish War 2.75 4.553 5.396 5.397 6.366 6.433 7.145

195 175 159 175 175 175 176

Life 14–16 14 15–16 17–19 189–203 202–212 202 204–205 205–207 208–209 212 244 251–52 251 259

29 8 146 146 146 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147–48

Embassy to Gaius 8–21 14 17 19 69 233

214 223 214 214 213 175

Philo Allegorical Interpretation 2.60 3 Flaccus 72 83–88

195 195

302

Index of References

Other Ancient Jewish Literature 1 Maccabees 1:1–64 1:10 1:11 1:15 1:28 1:29–50 1:39 1:40 2:5 2:6–14 2:18 2:19–22 2:24 2:49–50 2:50–51 2:50 2:51 2:62–64 2:64 3:1–9:22 3:1 3:2 3:5–7 3:10–12 3:13–24 3:38 3:39 3:42 4:1–25 4:24 4:28–35 4:28 4:36–61 4:36 4:60 4:63 4:65 5:3 5:4–5 5:6–8 5:9–16 5:10 5:12 5:16 5:17–54

138 138 138 138 138 143 138 138 142 138 138–39 139 139 139 143 112, 140, 143, 145 143, 145 140 140 143 140 142 140 141 141 142 142 142 141 247 141 142 141 142 142 142 142 141 141 141 141 142 160 141 141

5:17 5:20 5:21 5:24 5:55 5:68 6:8–16 6:11 6:18–27 6:30 6:34–37 6:43–46 6:43 6:44 6:47–54 7:5 7:10 7:22 7:23–24 7:27 7:30 7:43–44 8:18 9:1–4 9:6 9:10 9:11–17 9:21 9:23–27 9:27 9:28–12:53 9:30 9:57 9:73 11:22–24 11:23–29 11:23 11:24–29 11:24 11:28 11:34–35 11:53 12:2 12:5–18 5:19–23 12:24

142–43 142 142 143 143 141 141 141 141 142 142 142 142 112, 143, 170 142 141 143 141 141 143 143 142 140, 203 141 141 141 141 141 143 143 143 143 143 143 118 143 112, 143, 172–73 143 143 144 144 144 231 231 231 144

303

Index of References 13:1–6 13:17–18 13:17 13:23 13:31 13:33 13:34 13:41 14:4 14:8 14:10 14:11 14:12–14 14:15 14:16–23 14:25 14:26 14:27–49 14:27–29 14:29 14:35 16:11–17

145 145 143 145 145 145 145 145 146 146 146 146, 216 146 146 231 216 144, 203, 216 15 144 27, 112, 144–45, 203 221 143

2 Maccabees 1:1 1:7–8 1:11–12 1:24–29 1:27 2:1–20 2:17–18 2:18 2:21–22 2:21 2:22 3:24–28 3:33–34 4:16 4:38 5:6–10 6:18–31 7:1–8:5 7:6 7:9 7:14 7:16–17 7:18–19 7:20

107–8, 182, 254 2 107 107, 108 108 203 108 108 161 108 167 202, 203 108 108 107 108, 167 203 240 22 108 108 108 108 108 108

7:22–23 7:28–29 7:31–38 8:1–7 8:1 8:2–4 8:5 8:11 8:13 8:14 8:18 8:20 8:23–24 8:27 8:29 8:35 8:36 9:5 9:8–12 9:13 914 9:17 9:18 10:1 10:4 10:7 10:16 10:28 10:38 10:29–31 11:4 11:6 11:7 11:9–10 11:13 12:6 12:11 12:15–16 12:19–23 12:22 12:28 12:36–37 12:41–45 13:4 13:10–17 14:34–36 14:38 14:46 15:2–5

108 108 108 167 167 108 108, 167 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 203 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 140 108 108 108 108 108 167 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 167 108 108

304

Index of References

15:7–8 15:14 15:16 15:20–36

108 108 108 108

12:1–8 12:7 12:8 12:12 23:15–25

200 200 200 200 191

3 Maccabees 2:1–20 2:12 2:21–22 2:31 4:17–21 5:11–13 5:28–35 6:1–15 6:17–21

108 109 109 172 109 109 109 109 109

Judith 16:2

161

Psalms of Solomon 2:1–7 2:19–21 2:22–23 17

191 191 191 235

4 Maccabees 6:28–30 17:21–22

182 22 22

Odes 2:39

161

Wisdom of Ben Sira Intro 7 1:27 12:1–7 12:2 22:3 29:12 29:15–17 45:4 45:23 51:11

170 223 38, 41 41 250 161 87 223 139 161

Baruch 4:21

161

Epistle of Jeremiah 13 161 14 161 Jubilees 1:8–14 11:11–13 11:16–17 11:18–24

191, 200 200 200 200

Wisdom of Solomon 10:1 161

Greek and Roman Literature Achilles Tatius The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon 1.12.5 171 4.13.4 172, 174 5.11.6 171 Aelius Aristides Panathenaic Oration 1 35 Appian Mithridatic Wars 30–240

149

78–79 81 82 85–88 107 108–11 116–55 180–86 181–86 187 188 192 203 250

152 150 155 150 155 151 152 154 150, 153 150 150 121 151 154

305

Index of References 251–61 253–55

151 151

Syrian Wars 7.37–39 [193–205] 153 9.54 110 Aristotle Eudemian Ethics 6

223

Nicomachean Ethics 7 223 Politics 3.1284a

224–25

Virtues and Vices 4.3

222

Athenaeus The Learned Banqueters 5.212a–15e 151 5.212a–c 151 5.212a–b 151 5.193d 75 5.194 81 6.263c 169 6.264b 175 6.266e–f 150, 153–54 10.439 81 12.538a 175 Babrius 50 50.1–10 50.15 50.18 94 94.6–8 94.9–10 107 107.1–8 107.9 107.10–15 115 115.1–6 115.7 115.11

72 37, 71 71 71 71 73 73 73 78 78 78 78 73 73 73 73–74

119 119.6–10 122 122.5–8 122.9–13 122.14–16 130 130.10–11 143 143.1–6

32 32 74 74 74 74 43 43 74 74

Cicero On Duties 1.13 1.23 1.47 1.48 2.22 2.63 2.69–71

39 66 33 33 68 87 71

Pro Flacco 32

151

Demosthenes Against Aristogeiton 1 97 170 On the Crown 57 89 90 97 100 189

70 170 161 172, 174 15 172

False Embassy 56

175

Letters 3.32

170

Olynthiac 2 2.19

177

Oration 10.4

202

306

Index of References

Dio Cassius Roman History 26.3–5 48.1.1 55.10a.1

72 90 123

Diodoros of Sicily Library of History 2.55.2 5.59.4 5.79.1 9.35.3 10.30.1 11.20.4 11.22.4 11.40.2 12.56.4 13.19.3 13.21.6 13.23.5 13.26.2 14.81.2 14.105.2 14.116.2 15.7.1 15.74.2 15.87.5 16.5.4 16.9.5 16.20.6 16.59.4 16.65–70 17.76.1 17.76.2 17.78.4 17.83.6 17.86.6 17.91.7 17.103.8 17.108.4 18.12.3 18.22 18.29.2 18.34.2 18.40.5 18.46–47 18.46.7 18.47.1 18.47.2

170 171 175 175 176 161 175 176 175 175 175 175 175 171 175 161 180 170 161 170 161 76 175 56 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 170 94 49 93 8, 109 94 79, 196, 259 93 161 170

18.47.3 18.54.2 18.58.1 18.58.2 18.58.4 18.66.2 19.11.1–9 19.36.6 19.61.3–4 19.61.3 19.62.1–2 19.64.2 19.64.3–4 19.65.1–2 19.66 19.67.1 19.67.2 19.72.6–8 19.72.7–8 19.72.8 19.73–75 19.77–78 19.77.5–6 19.78.2 19.80.3–84.8 19.83.5 19.86 19.86.2 19.86.3 19.90.1–2 19.90.1 19.90.3–4 19.90.5 19.105.1 20.14.5 20.19.2 20.100.3–4 20.107.4 20.107.5 20.110.1 21.20 22.9.5 24.12.2 24.13 25 25.8 27.15 27.15.3 27.16.2

79 93 175 93 94 93 94 93 49 49 52 50 94 93 50 78 78 112 112 112 50 50 50 50 110 110 39, 80 39 39 110 110 110 105, 110 50 170 93 81 32 93 175 68 106 32 91 91 170 75 75 75, 175

307

Index of References 27.17.4 27.18.1 30.6 30.7.2–3 30.14 30.21.1–2 31.26.5 31.15 31.15a 31.15.2 31.15.3 32.2 32.4 33.7.1 33.17 34/35.14 34/35.38 34/35.38.1 36.2.2 36.21.1 36.10.2 37.10.1 38/39.14 38/39.20.1 38/39.21 40.3

171 75 68 169 67 68 170 41 36 41 42 75 75 87 87 36 169 169 180 180 175 66, 93 94 170 31 231

Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.40 213 4.2.12 223 Dionysius of Halikarnassos On Literary Composition 25.193 170 25.200 172 Roman Antiquities 1.39.2 1.70.2 3.21.2 3.50.2 5.69.3 6.6.1 6.35.2 6.83.4 7.24.2 7.62.2 8.12.3

170 171 170 175 161 161 161 161 161 176 161

8.90.3 11.27.2 16.1.4

161 172–74 163, 203

Epictetus Discourses 2.4.1 3.24.65 4.7.9

93 218 3

Euripides Alcestis 644–45

176 15

Frontinus Strategems 4.4.2

39

Gellius Attic Nights 3.8 5.6.12–15 5.6.16–17 7.8.3–6

39 113 113 39

Herodotus Histories 1.6.1 1.90.4 3.38

192 32 32

Hyginus Fabulae §51

15, 176

Iamblichus On the Pythagorean Way of Life (Pythagoras) 17.72 223–24 33.234–36 15 Isocrates Letters 4.10

175

Orations 5.139

200

308 Justin Epitome 1.1.20 17.1 21.6 22.6.11–12 24.8 29.4 32.2.3–10 35.1.2–3 38.8.2–9.1 39.2.4 39.4–5 40.1–2 40.1.1 41.4.5 Kallimachos Epigrams 52 Livy History of Rome 2.5 2.10 2.10.11–13 4.29 8.7 22.25–30 26.50.1–13 26.50.7–8 26.50.9 26.50.10–12 26.50.13 39.46.6–48.1 30.53 31.15.1–4 31.44.2–9 32.37.3 34.29.13 37.27.1 38.37–39 38.39.11 42.13 43.4.8–13 45.3.3 45.42.6 45.44.4–5 45.44.8–9

Index of References

94 36 87 94 106 100 36, 87 87 36 94 36 36 36 94

82

114 115 115 114 114 33 39 40 41 40 40 36 36 88 101 50 55 153 153 153 60 96 76 77, 80 38 38

45.44.10–17 45.44.10–11 45.44.12 45.44.19–20

38 38 38 41

Lucian Toxaris 20

15

Lysias Against Andocides 6.40 15 Manetho The History of Egypt Fragment 11.1 175 Memnon DFHG XII.2–3

90

FGrHist 434 F 22.1–10

149

Pausanias Description of Greece 8.51.1–2 43 8.51.1 43 Phaedrus 1.8 4.20

73 74

Plato Republic 425d–e 430e

209 223

Symposium 197d

221

Plutarch Aemilius Paulus 23.7–11 26.7

68 172

Agesilaos 39.4

171

309

Index of References Alexander 35.4 41.1 71.4

171 87 87, 176

Antony 16.3 51.1 68.3 74.3

171 171 94 94

Aratos 34.4 53

54 100

Brutus 10 11.2 26.5 29.10 50

62 87 175 172 94

Caesar 16.2 27.5 45.9 64.6

175 175 175 176

Cicero 5.2 47.4

169 176

Comparison of Agis and Clemeomenes with Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus 4.1 69 Comparison of Demetrios and Antony 6.1 94 Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero 4.2 169 Comparison of Dion and Brutus 3.4 87, 90 3.6–9 62 Comparison of Nicias and Crassus 5.2 175

Crassus 2.4

180

Demetrios 1.1–6 8.1–15.1 8.5 8.7 10.1 10.3–11.1 19.6 23.1–2 25 25.1 25.2 39.2 51.2 51.3

239 51 58 202 51, 58 65, 100 170 51 51 51 176 175 186 68

Demosthenes 3.2

213

Dion 42.1 47.1 47.5 48.1 52.1 57.3

87 175 76 76 80 94

Eumenes 8.5–7 17–18

66 94

Flamininus 4.2–3 4.3 5.4 10–12 10.1–2 10.2 10.5 12.8 15 16.3–4

67 67 175 55 60, 159 55 217 61 94 55

Gaius Gracchus 16.2 16.5

176 87, 89

310 Galba 29.3

Index of References 26.3

175

Sertorius 3.5 17.7 27.1

175 175 175

Sulla 5.1 9.7 10.1 11–26 12.1 25.2 26.4

170 200 172 149 151 151 151

171

Kleomenes 31.2

175

Lucullus 4.1 7.6 16.4

151 121 170

Marius 10.1 28.4 29 29.1–4 29.4 29.7–8 39

87 87 70 70 70, 71 71 87, 88

Moralia 195B 446B 845B

39 171 176

Perikles 39.1

222–23

Philopoimen 15 15.1 15.2 15.3

43 81 43 44

Phokion 30.4–6

87, 90

Pompey 28.1 33.3 47.5 55.3

175 175 175 175

Pyrrhos 4.1 17 21.1–4 21.3 21.4

175 142 39 39 39

Tiberius Gracchus 13.3 170 Timoleon 13.3 23.2 24.2 34.5 36.8

170, 175 202 175 175 176

Polyaenus Strategems of War 5.2.22 15 Polybios Histories 1.21.7 1.23.6 1.43.1–8 1.45.3–4 1.56.9 1.65–88 1.65.6–8 1.65.7–8 1.66–68 1.66.1 1.66.2–3 1.66.5–6 1.66.12 1.68.13 1.69.1–3 1.69.4–14 1.70.1

175 175 67 67 171–72 91 92 92 68 91 91 91 69 91 91 91 91

311

Index of References 1.70.3–9 1.75–78 1.78.13–15 1.78.13–14 1.79.8–9 1.79.8 1.79.10–80.3 1.80.1–3 1.80.4–1.81.2 1.80.4 1.80.8 1.80.12 1.80.13 1.87.10 2.1 2.1.7–8 2.6 2.6.1 2.11.5 2.12.3 2.25.11 2.41.10 2.41.13–15 2.42.5–6 2.43.3–6 2.43.3 2.43.8–9 2.46.1–2 2.54.7 2.70.1 2.70.4–5 2.70.5 3.15.4 3.16.2–4 3.17.9 3.42.2 3.65.1–11 3.67.7 3.84.14 3.109.10–12 4.16.5 4.29.2 4.34.9–10 4.34.10–35.5 4.35.6 4.38.1–10 4.38.10 4.49.1 4.75.6

91 92 92 77 77 92 77 92 77 92 92 92 92 175 111 111, 141 87 88 171 171 175 56 56 56 56 56 56 88 175 100 100 100 170 87 172, 173 180 115 183 175 88 89 172 89 89 89 31 31 87 175

5.7.2 5.11.6 5.14.9 5.22.7 5.37.3 5.40.1–2 5.40.3 5.50.9 5.56.1 5.61.5–62.6 5.71.11 5.84 5.88–90.4 5.88.1–90.8 5.88.1 5.90.5–8 5.93.8–10 6.6.9 6.24.9 6.39.1–11 6.39.1 6.39.4 6.39.5 6.39.6 6.39.7 6.39.8–10 6.52.1–7 6.52.10–11 6.52.11 6.53.1–54.1 6.54.2 6.54.3 6.54.4–5 6.55.1–4 6.55.3 7.1.3 8.12.7 8.12.8 8.16.11 8.21.9 8.37.1–13 8.37.5 9.5.2 9.9.9–10 9.9.10 9.29 9.29.6 9.29.12 9.36

171 178 171, 172 175 170 89 89 175 177 89 175 142 31 83 83 83 119 102 113 113 113 170, 172 113 113 113 113 114 114 115 114 114 114 114 115 115 175 100 100 170 175 113 113 175 118 175 100 55 178 100

312 9.36.5 9.38.4 9.42.4 10.2.1–13 10.2.2–20 10.3.2 10.3.3–7 10.3.4 10.3.5–6 10.3.6 10.3.7 10.6.10 10.6.11 10.13.1 10.19.3–7 10.19.4–6 10.34.6 11.1–3 11.2.1–11 11.2.3 11.2.11 11.5–8 11.5 11.9–10 11.10.1–6 11.10.2 11.12.3 11.16.6 11.16.8 15.10 15.12.6 15.21–22 16.5.1–2 16.5.3–5 16.5.4–7 16.5.6 16.5.7 16.9.1–5 16.9.2 16.9.5 16.21–22 16.21.8–12 16.22a.5 16.26.1–6 16.26.2 16.26.5 16.29.3–4 16.30–34 18.6.5–8

Index of References 100 118 175 116 116 116 115–16 116 116 116 170, 172 170 170 112, 172 39 39 171 111 111, 141 159 112 111 111 111 70 70 60 172 172 114 34 43 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 74 74 175 88 37 37 100 49 88

18.6.5 18.26.10 18.34.1–8 18.34.1–2 18.34.7 18.36.5–9 18.37.7 18.41.8 18.42.5 18.44–46 18.44.1–5 18.45.6 18.46.5 18.46.11 18.46.10–12 18.46.13 18.46.15 18.51.9 20.9.11 20.10.7 20.12 21.19–21 21.19.11 21.20.9 21.21.2 21.21.11 21.29.2 21.29.12 21.35.5 21.36.2 21.41–46 21.46.6 22.11.1–12.10 22.20.1–8 22.20.1 22.20.2–8 22.7–8 22.7.3 22.8.1–8 22.8.9–12 22.8.9–11 22.8.12 22.8.13 23.1–3 23.7 23.11 23.13.2 23.17.5–18.5 25.3.1–3

37 175 42 42 42 76 76 35 216 55, 60, 216 216 60, 159 55, 56 216 55 55 55, 62 81 171 171 43 71 72 172, 173 34 72 160 160 161 171 153 153 87 35 36 36 40, 43 40 40 40 40 40 40 36 36 35 172 87 77

313

Index of References 25.3.4–5 26.1.8–9 26.1.10–11 27.2.6 27.9–10 28.1.9 28.16–17 29.5–9 29.7 29.7.2 29.8.5–6 29.8.4 29.8.5–10 29.8.7 29.9.1–6 29.9.7–11 29.24.11–16 29.29 29.24.4 29.24.13–16 30.4.1–5 30.4.5–9 30.4.13 30.4.14 30.4.16 30.18 30.18.3–4 30.1.5 30.17 30.18.7 30.25–26 30.31.6 31.10 31.21 31.22.10 31.25–29 31.25.9 31.26–38 32.8.5 36.3.1 36.4.2 36.16 39.7 Fragment 153

77 75 75 171 87 251 83 44–45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 88 76 37 37 76 76 76 76 93 41 41 41–42 77, 80 42 81 180 36 34 170 80 80 80 80 175 171 34 77 175

Seneca On Benefits 1.1.1–2 1.2.4–1.3.1 1.2.4 1.4 1.4.3 1.10.3–4 1.10.4–5 2.10.4 2.22 2.24.1 2.26.1–2 2.29.1–6 2.30.1 2.31.1 2.35.5 3.1.1 3.14.3 3.33 4.18 4.24 4.34 5.17 7.26 7.31

87 71 71 30 34 87 71 34 34 34 87 87 87 34 34 87 87 116 87 87 71, 87 87 87 87

Letters 81 81.19

87 34

Strabo Geography 13.4.1 14.2.24 16.2.4

68 175 35

Suetonius Gaius 13–14 16.4

214 214

Nero 24 24.2

57 61

Pseudo-Demades 4[179]

15

Theophrastos Characters 2

41

314 5 13.2 17 22 22.2 22.3 22.6 22.7 22.9 22.10 25 25.6 29

Index of References 41 68 87 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 109 8, 109 71

6.5.1d

39

Xenophon Agesilaos 1.35 4.1–6 4.4 5.4

94 35 35 223

Cavalry Commander 9.8–9 106

Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War 2.68.7 171 4.38 175 6.83.2 200 7.68.1 175 7.82.6 200 7.85.1 175 7.86.4 175 Valerius Maximus Memorable Doings and Sayings 5.2–3 87 5.2 33 5.2.4 33 5.2ext. 4 34

Cyropaidia 6.1.37 8.1.36

222 223

Memorabilia 2.1.1 2.2 2.3.11–12 2.6.4–5 2.6.19 4.2.1 4.4.17 4.4.24

223 87 38 87 87 223 35, 38 30, 87, 213

Symposium 8.36

35

Early Christian Literature 1 Clement 55.1 55.5 Acts of Thomas 104:8

176 175

195

Dialogue with Trypho 95.2 183

Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1:11 183 Justin Dialogue with Trypho 95.2 183 Protevangelium of James 3:1 195

Inscriptions AGRW §21 §74

99 19

AIO 823 837

131 118, 124, 129, 160

315

Index of References Austin2 §32 §38–39 §54 §60 §61 §88 §93 §105 §116 §120 §130 §144 §145 §157 §159 §170 §176 §239 §240a §246 §252

32 50–51 32 106 59, 159 19 60 123 131, 180 136 32 18 134 102 90 56 35 100 36 102 102

BD2 §6 §17 §19 §22 §37 §42 §44 §47 §172

50–51 106` 59–60, 159 56 55 153 60 100 186

Braund §51 §261 §535 §677 CGRN 76 79 85 86 92 96 106 118

80, 84, 123 57 72 85

184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184

132 137 138 152 156 156 167 172 174 176 194 208 221 249

185 63, 65 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 185 184 185 185

Burstein §1 §8 §11 §16 §23 §28 §33 §38 §40 §68 §88 §111

32 32 32 90 56 96 32 32 33 131, 180 100 135

Choix ID 92

14, 15

CID 4 106

118

CIG 2664 2788

190 222

CIL I2 589

57

Danker §12 §13 §17 §30 §41 §44

15 15 15 15 15 57, 61

316 FD III 1.310 1.480 2.54 2.70 2.121 2.161 2.212 2.214 2.239 3.49 4.37 4.43 4.69 4.276 4.353 6.36

Index of References

198 189 189 251 198, 198 249 198 199 201 199 251 118 149, 156 251 57 198, 199

GEI035 3

161

Hands §63

86

I.Aph2007 2.503 8.2 8.3 12.103 12.701

118 153, 221 152, 221 118 130

I.Assos 26

214

IC 1 8.9 1 22.4C 1 22.4C 3 4 10 4 176

58 134 134 251 58

ID 1508

139

202 1453 1455 3417 3418

102 32 32 219 219

I.Erythr 24 28 29 31 504

126 134 129, 217 56 58

IG I3 227

7

II2 469 483 505 657 844 1326 5173

50 169 7, 32 70 118, 124 99 6

II3 1.313 1.352 1.400 1.430 1.844 1.875 1.877 1.911 1.912 1.918–19 1.918 1.919 1.921 1.985

I.Eleus 211

129

1.1019 1.1137 1.1147

I.Eph 8

150–51

1.1160 1.1292

32 66 4 7 32 7 32, 85 125–26, 185, 188– 89 58–60, 159 52 7, 53 53 183 58, 70, 84, 101, 135–36, 216 216 118, 124 8, 118, 119, 140, 171, 172, 173 54 118

317

Index of References 1.1323 4.8

32, 36 124

IV 2 714 774

135 69 219

IV2 1.66

135

V 1.1122 1.1146 2.268 2.269 2.270 2.576

100 33 85 218 218 85

VII 223 412 2225 2712 2713

4.132 4.135 5.860 6.1.31 6.1.145 7.386 7.506 9.233 9.236 9.931 9.955 9.1179

58, 64 4 189 215 6 118, 123, 186 56, 58 55 139 55 190 190

XIV 952

33

IGBulg I2 13

4, 27, 118, 122

IGLSyria 3.1 3.1.718

3059

189 189 251 189 9–15, 57, 61, 81, 159, 234 189

14, 132–33, 217, 220

IX 1.78 2.5b 2.69 2.89b 2.1100a 2.1104

6 189 249 251 189 134

X 2.1.67

107

I.Iasos 2 3 4 160 161

XI 4.687 4.1055

4 185

I.Keramos 6 14

131–32 215, 219

XII 1.761 2.35 3.167 3.73 4.1.75

32 251 33 251 130

I.Knidos 51 52 53 54 55

58 58 58 58 58

IGRR 1.1041 4.145 4.293 4.1756

84 5 82 189

I.GCyr 66900

130, 135

52, 56 56 58 241 184

318 59

Index of References 63

I.Kyme 13

106

I.Labraunda 6 8 8b

184 54, 58, 62, 190 54

I.Milet I 3 123

50, 58

I.Myl. 602

72

IOSPE I2 32 39 43 352 401

118, 127–28, 239 252 14 109, 131 58, 64

III 5

169

I.Rhamnous 17 I.ScM I 8 9 12 15 54 169 64

118, 129

118, 123, 185 189 118, 119, 129–30 8, 118, 131, 180, 239 8, 118, 124, 130, 130, 131, 173, 232

II 2

130, 165

I.Stratonikeia 10 509 512 517 1101 1206

106 59 48, 62–63 109 109 189

66–67 99 58

I.Perge 14

139

Ma §17 §18 §26A

I.Philai 19

165

Malay – Petzl §6

184

I.Priene 11 17 19 25 37 41 108 117 121

55, 58, 61, 63 8, 126 49 93 55, 58, 61 251 15, 68, 134, 241 185 118

MAMA 8.407–10 8.412 8.414 8.417

99 99 99 99

Mitchell [1982] §392

32

I.RCyr2020 B.1 C.416 C.737

130 84, 118, 123 123

NewDocs Vol 9 §4 §10

19, 121 5

Vol 10 §11

5

319

Index of References §16

5

New Docs Lydia §29 §45 §58

184 184 78–79

OGIS 5 6 90 194 213 220 223 229 248 273 308 309 331 339

351b 383 437 441 449 666 669 676 763 764 765 767

50 50, 51, 216 177, 177, 241 7, 14, 135 32 7, 8, 189 2, 56 14, 15 36 15 36 36 15, 15 14, 15, 27, 69, 102, 118, 136, 139, 140, 171, 173, 239, 241 251 14 150 155 58 5, 82 5 123 14, 15, 100 118, 121 7, 126 14, 80, 84, 118, 123

PH 149475 166341 173613 214132 215958 241623 241695 246394 256418 256424 256676

6 107 85 189 184 198 201 153 32 77 118, 124

257992 258005 260252 262400 263138 267761 267762 285795 288719 289357 289481 295274 301900 303291 314719 314720 315261 316574 316597 316601 316953 345067 345421 349601 352553 64248 75475 75478 78552

82 52, 84, 125 155 190 185, 185 27 27 189 5 189 118 85 118, 121 69 223 178 69 118, 121 118, 121 118, 121 118, 121 189 6 86 189 189 188 188 189

RC 1 15 52 63 64 67 71 73/74

50 56 100 93 93 15 48 149

RDGE 7 25 40B 49B 60 70

251 57 60, 159 5 72 155

320 Reynolds 2 3 8 8 9 13 14.2 28–31 28 30 31 42

Index of References

152 153 57 57–58, 251 55, 57 6, 9, 49, 57, 72 165 250 19 250 19 5

Res Gestae Divi Augusti (RGDA) 1 103 1.1 60–61, 159 1.4 15 2 103 3 103 5 19, 103 7 103 8 103 15 103 16 103 17 103 18 103 21 103 22 103 23 103 24 103 25 103 26 103 27 103 29 103 30 103 31 103 32 103 33 103 34–35 103 SEG 1.438 3.584 4.425 6.442 9.6 9.63 11.923

93 189 69 251 84 123 55

12.247 18.22 18.343 18.570 22.214 22.266 22.507 23.412 24.1095 25.149 25.447 26.1306 26.1239 26.1306 26.1817 27.159 27.384 27.513 28.60 29.1076 29.1087 30.326 30.1073 32.1206 33.986 33.1183 33.1184 34.1037 35.744 36.992 36.1027 36.1046 36.1047 36.1092 36.1179 37.957 37.992 38.1476 38.1869 39.605 39.869 39.1243 39.1244 41.971 43.41 44.419 44.938 44.940

198 249 169 118, 129, 136 55 55 155 55 118, 130–31, 239 14, 51, 61 54 96 102 96 130, 135 219 85 7 8, 24, 125 251 189 165 153–54 77 251 32 96 184 189 169 5 33 86 5 27 19, 120–21 131 95–96, 232 130 241 189 118, 119–20 55, 58, 67, 120–21, 165 5 118, 140, 171, 173 189 69–70, 242 242

321

Index of References 44.1108 45.1502 45.1772C 47.1625 48.1104 49.1041 49.1405 49.1529 49.1536 50.1116 51.110 51.1427 51.1832 52.724 54.1020 54.1625 54.746 56.1233 56.1359 57.1082 57.1107 57.1109 57.1198 57.1663 57.1670 58.1220 58.1243A 58.1349 59.1376B 59.1406A 62.925 64.778 65.300 66.369

129, 189 99 215 102 130 7 185 189 97 62 118, 129 251 130 118, 188 99 8 130 82 165 70 190 126–27, 140, 173, 239 78–79, 222 63–64 130 58, 62, 65 189 251 184 58, 63, 65 189 53, 58, 63 81–82, 196, 259 232

Sherk [1984] §6B §15 §19 §26 §48 §57 59a

55 57 60 77 127 150 152

59b §61 §63 §72 §74 §78 §91 §108

153 150 155 57 33 122 72 155

Sherk [1988] §42B §63 §80

5 5, 82 5

Syll.3 317 354 398 409 410 495 528 532 569 588 591 592 609 611 613 613A 616 618 638 656 675 700 730 731 761 762 798 814

15 135 106 15 129 118, 127 19 215 130 6 7, 58 55 57 184 69 19 55 58 32 77, 185 102, 184 106, 127 218 14 218 14–15, 118 5 15

322

Index of References

Papyri and Ostraca BGU 1.37 1.183 1.189 6.1248 6.1296 7.1660

2 187 187 2 2 2

O.Berl. 23

183

O.Bodl. 2.661 2.875 2.950 2.953 2.969

183 183 183 183 183

O.Cair 69

183

P.Herc 1044, fr. 22

188

P.Lond. 1.23 3.1177

186 186

P.Mich 3.194

183

5.262

183

P.Münch. 3.45

177

PSI 10.1162

251

P.Tebt. 2.519

2

P.Yadin 28 29 30

251 251 251

SB 14.11645

180

TM 7701 8944 8949 12095 21339 29258

160 187 187 187 187 186

UPZ 1.14 1.62

186 169

IV.3 3.6300

133

Coins RPC I 1203–1206

57

Index of Modern Authors Barclay, John M. G. 11–12, 19–22, 24, 246–47, 253–54, 262 Boakye, Andrew 164, 193 Bormann, Lukas 206 Brewer, Brittain 220

Heath, Jane 210 Henrich, Joseph 101 Honigman, Sylvie 167

Carlson, Stephen C. 169 Chester, Andrew 211, 227 Ciampa, Roy E. 163, 177, 203, 251 Collman, Ryan D. 166, 207, 209 Crook, Zeba A. 3, 24

Keener, Craig 182, 202

Danker, Frederick W. 2, 8, 10, 13–16, 168, 209, 222, 224, 256 Darwin, Charles 21 Davies, R. E. 181–82, 186 de Boer, Martinus C. 194, 224 Deissmann, Adolf 197–98 deSilva, David A. 22–23, 240–41 Dimant, Devorah 191 Duke, Rodney K. 187 Dunne, John Anthony 164–65 Eco, Umberto 1 Eyl, Jennifer 243, 244

Jipp, Joshua 228

Larson, Jennifer 244 Martyn, J. Louis 174, 177 McCaulley, Esau 188, 234, 235 McDonald, Denys N. 206 Morgan, Teresa 73–74 Mott, Stephen C. 13 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome 226 Mussner, Franz 166 Novenson, Matthew A. 167 Okorie, Ferdinand 10, 23–27, 198, 201 Phillips Wilson, Annalisa 228 Post, T. Luke 219 Robertson, A. T. 181–82, 186

Fredriksen, Paula 178, 205, 207, 229, 231–32 Garroway, Joshua D. 243 Gathercole, Simon 181 Gruen, Erich S. 231 Gupta, Nijay 248 Harmon, Matthew S. 174 Harrison, James R. 11, 15, 16–19, 23– 27, 102, 243–44, 261 Hayes, Christine 208–9 Hays, Richard B. 226

Sanders, E. P. 164 Sanfridson, Martin 163 Soon, Isaac T. 163 Staples, Jason A. 9, 206–7, 230, 243 Streett, Daniel R. 195, 195, 195 Taylor, John R. 1 Thielman, Frank 229 Thiessen, Matthew 207 Thompson, Robin G. 181, 198–99, 201 Tilling, Chris 159, 181

324 Wagner, J. Ross 206, 233 Walbank, Frank W. 113, 116 Wallace, Daniel B. 182, 186 Wallace, Shane 48 Welborn, L. L. 73

Index of Modern Authors Williams, Logan 174 Williams, Jarvis J. 182, 193, 203, 213– 14, 228, 240 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1, 21 Wolter, Michael 202–3

Index of Subjects Abdera 96–98, 232 Abraham – as ancestor 206, 231–33, 237, 254 – blessing of 179, 188 – and circumcision 163 – and freedom 199–201 – and promise 162, 194, 211, 238, 253, 259 – seed of 194, 234–36, 253 – trust of 236–37 Achaian League 40, 56, 88, 100 adoption 232–33 Aelius Aurelius Ammianus Paulinus 222 Agathokles (son of Antiphilos) 129, 131, 180, 239 Agesilaos 35, 223 Aitolian League 42, 43, 60, 88–89, 159 Akornion 122 Aleximachos of Taucheira 134–35 Alkestis 176 Alketas (of Morrylos) 241 Alketas (son of Orontes) 79, 196 Andronikos 38–39 Antigonos I Monophthalmos 38–39, 49– 51, 64–65, 100–101 Antigonos II Gonatas 55–56, 186 Antigonos III Doson 54, 100 Antioch incident, the 163–66, 203, 218, 240–41, 252–53, 259 Antiochos I 63, 65 Antiochos II 56, Antiochos III 66–67, 98–99 Antiochos IV – and the Jewish revolt 138–39, 141 – gift practices of 74–75, 81 Antipappos 123, 186, 254 Antipater (successor) 89–90 Antisthenes 173 Apollo (god) 106

Apollodoros (son of Metrophanes) 86 Apollodoros (son of Pankrates) 130 Apollonios (son of Lysimachos) 214 Apollonios (of Phaselis) 64 Apollonis 35–36 Aratos of Sikyon 54, 100 Archippe 106 Aristagoras of Istros 124, 130, 254 Ariston 85 Aristotle 222, 224–25 Artists of Dionysos, the 5, 99 Ashoka (king) 178, 223–24 associations 99, 202, 214 Athens 51–52, 58–59, 64–65, 100–101, 125–26, 151–52 atonement, see substitution Attalos I 35, 117 Attalos II 102 Augustus (Octavian) – as model of virtue 103 – benefactions of 5, 17, 81–82, 133, 196, 259 – and freedom 48–49, 60–61, 72, 159 bait, gift as 40, 43–45, 77, 245–46, 253, 257, 259 benefactor, killing of 90–92 Berenike 82 Brutus, see Marcus Junius Brutus Chios 81–82, 150, 153–54 Chremonides 59–60, 159 Cicero 33, 66, 68, 71 Cimon (son of Miltiades) 176 circumcision, eighth-day 207 circumcision, mandatory 207–208, 242 – and the Christ-gift 20 – consequences of 6, 158, 245–46, 253 – as enslavement 162–68, 203, 212

326

Index of Subjects

– and fidelity 239, 250–51, 260 – and kinship 207–208, 232, 237–38, 259 civic benefaction, basic operation of 7–8 clemency 17, 75–76, 246, 259, 262 Cognitive Linguistics 1 complex adaptive system, civic benefaction as 32–34, 101–104, 257 congruency, of word and deed 69–71, 240, 253 crisis, lexicon of 118 cultural encyclopedia 1–2, 6, 9, 256, 260, 262 curse inscriptions 165, 184–85 curse of the law, the 179–85, 190–95, 209, 227, 233, 236 danger, and the gods 105–109 defection 67, 88, 94, 147, 149–52, 239, 250 Delphi, maxim of 213 Demetrios (priest) 249 Demetrios I Poliorketes – and damnation of memory 101 – and divine honors 51, 63–65, 81, 100 – as endangered benefactor 51–52, 61 – and Greek freedom 49–52, 57–58, 63–65, 100 Dikaiarchos of Thria 123–24, 160 Diodoros (of Istros) 123, 185, 254 Diodoros (son of Dioskourides) 134 Diodoros Pasparos 82, 121–22 Diodoros of Sicily 75 Diokles (son of Leodamas) 129–30 Dion of Syracuse 62, 76, 80 Dionysiac Artists, guild of 5, 99 Dioskourides (of Strouthion) 119 disease 134 disloyalty 93–94, 149–52 earthquake 31, 81–82, 83, 134, 196, 259 Eleazar (son of Mattathias) 142–43 elements of the world, the 162, 192 emulation, see zeal endurance 114–15, 117, 133, 214, 217– 20 enthusiasm 4, 78–79, 115, 122, 123 Epaphroditus 15, 252 Ephesus 149–52

essentialism 21 Eumaridas (of Kydonia) 124, 254 Eumenes (successor) 66, 93 Eumenes II – as endangered benefactor 173 – and Galatians 126 – and gift as bait 40, 44–45 – promises of 40, 67–68 – and reputation 80 – and worthiness 71 Euphrosynus (son of Titus) 85 Eurykleides (of Kephisia) 54 Fabricius, see Gaius Fabricius Luscinus faith, see fidelity family resemblance 21 famine 134–36, 143, 168, 200 fidelity 86, 93–94, 212, 220–22, 236–39, 244 – and Abraham 199–200 – and circumcision 259–60 – and covenant 139 – and gift-rejection 38 – and danger 133, 217 – of God 18 – and imitation 249–52 – and Kephas 240 – and promises 66, 67, 179 – and risk 149–57, 254, 260 Flamininus, see Titus Quinctius Flamininus freedom, civic 47–66, 158–59, 202–28, 253, 258 fruit of the spirit, the 214–25 Gaius Julius Caesar 62, 90 Gaius Fabricius Luscinus 39 Gaius Julius Epikrates 69–70, 242 Gaius Julius Orius 107 Gaius Julius Proclus 106 Gaius Valerius Laevinus 160 generosity 78–83, 168–96, 218–20, 245– 47, 253, 257–59 Gesco 91–92 Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Hispanus 103 goodness 219–20 gratitude 30–38, 41–42, 242–46, 257, 259

Index of Subjects Hamilcar Barca 92, 111, 141 Hannibal 172 harmony 35–36, 56, 151 Hasdrubal 111–12, 141, 258 Hegesagoras (of Istros) 130–31, 173, 232 Hegesippos 123, 186, 254 Hephaistion (of Kallatis) 136 Hermias (of Stratonikeia) 149, 156 Hieron (tyrant) 55, 61, 63 Horatius Cocles 115, 254, 258 hortatory intention 32 hostages 123, 125, 136, 145, 150, 185– 86 imitation 101–104, 111, 210, 225, 239– 41, 249–52, 259 impartiality 17, 26 infidelity, see disloyalty ingratitude 16–17, 23, 87–92, 242–46, 250, 253 inheritance 210, 233–36 Iollas 185 Ioudaïsmos 108, 167, 248–49, 252 Israel, restoration of 189–96, 204–211, 215, 228, 232–33 Jonathan (son of Mattathias) 143–45, 173 Josephus 146–48, 159, 168, 176, 231, 258 joy 214–15, 216–17, 220 Judas (son of Mattathias) 107–108, 140– 41, 167 Julia Eudia 218 Kallias (of Sphettos) 24, 125–26, 187– 88, 216, 254 Kallimachos (strategos) 14, 135 Kallistos (son of Epigenes) 218 Karzoazos (of Olbia) 252 Kephas 165–67, 218, 239–41, 252–53, 259 Keramos, unknown benefactor of 131– 32 kindness 33, 41, 79–80, 83, 218–19 kinship 94–98, 205–208, 229–39, 247– 48, 253, 259 Kleandros 78–79, 222

327

Klearchos (envoy) 123, 185, 254 Kleonymos 53–54 Koteies (of Karia) 126–27, 173, 239 Kotys (king) 77, 80 Kritolaos 43–44 Kytenion 94–95, 96, 98, 232 language-game 1 language, as encyclopedic 1–2 Laodike 98 law of Christ, the 20, 202, 225–28, 238, 258, 262 love – Christ’s 23, 177–79, 195, 199, 260 – and fidelity 251–52 – God’s 179, 237 – and the law of Christ 20, 212–14, 226–28 – as a virtue 17, 201, 206, 219–20, 254 Lucius Aemilius Paullus 81, 88 Lucius Mummius Achaicus 44 manumission 197–201, 203, 262 Marcus Annius 106, 127 Marcus Atilius Regulus 260 Marcus Cocceius Nerva 59 Marcus Coriolanus 176 Marcus Junius Brutus 62, 72, 90 Marcus Minucius 33 martyr traditions, Jewish 182 Massinissa (king) 34 Mattathias 138–40, 143 memory 7, 34–37, 64–66, 98–104, 114– 17, 257–58 Menas (son of Menes) 102, 136, 173, 239 Menippos (son of Apollonides) 55, 67 Metrodoros (of Pelinna) 249 mildness 76, 221–23 Mithradates VI Eupator 57, 121–22, 149–55 Moschion (son of Kydimos) 68, 134 narrative, autobiographical 247–49 Nero 49, 57, 61, 81, 82, 159 Nikeratos 218 Nikosippos 85 obsequiousness 41–42, 257

328

Index of Subjects

Octavian, see Augustus Olympichos 54, 61–62, 65 Orthagoras (son of Demetrios) 129, 136 ostracism 225 participation 182, 195, 211, 225, 227, 236–37 past-present narrative 85–86, 248–49, 255, 260 peace 51, 64, 146, 185, 215–17, 220 Perikles 221–22 Perseus (king) 36, 44–45, 60, 68, 77, 159 Phaidros (of Sphettos) 58, 84, 101, 135– 36 Phaos (of Cyrene) 80, 84, 123 Philip V 36, 88 Philippides 85 Philon 85 Philopoimen 43–44, 60, 70, 81 Phinehas 139 Plarasa-Aphrodisias 55, 57–58, 152–53, 221 Plato 21, 223 Plutarch 55, 60, 62, 69–71, 90, 213, 239 Polemaios (Antigonid) 50 Polemaios (of Kolophon) 119–20 Polybios – on dynastic gifts 83 – on fidelity 93 – and gift as bait 43–46 – on imitation 102 – on self-endangerment 111–18 Polykritos (son of Iatrokles) 134 poverty 95–98, 211, 215, 257 present age of evil 159–62, 167, 174 Priska and Aquila 188, 252 Prokritos 123, 185, 254 promise 66–69, 93–94, 229–39, 248, 253–54, 259 Protagoras (priest) 249 Protogenes (of Olbia) 127–28, 146, 239 Prusias II 38, 41–42 Prytanis (of Karystos) 119, 173 Ptolemaios (strategos) 50 Ptolemy I 38–39, 52, 56, 79–80, 109 Ptolemy II 59 Ptolemy III 82 Ptolemy IV 89, 108–9

Ptolemy VI 36, 77 Ptolemy VIII 36, 77 Ptolemy Keraunos 90 Pyrrha[kos] 124, 254 Pyrrhos (of Epiros) 39 Quintus Aulius 112, 254, 258 Quintus Oppius 151–53, 221 ransom 7, 123–24, 254, 260 Razis 167 reciprocity 10–13, 23–26, 30–37, 153– 54, 221, 243–45 reputation – and fidelity 93, 220 – and gift-rejection 38–39 – God’s 238, 243 – immortal 100–101 – and ingratitude 87 – as knowledge distributor 33, 37, 72, 74–75, 104, 257 – and liberation 59, 61 – loss of 195, 242, 258 – notable 80 – and unusual gifting 75 restoration, see Israel, restoration of resurrection 192, 204, 208, 211, 230, 236 rewards, for benefactors 7–8, 32, 113– 16, 139, 257 Rhodes 31, 76, 80, 83, 117 sacrifices 18, 24, 31, 242–43 Scipio Aemillianus 80 Scipio Africanus 39–41, 115–16, 258 Scipio Hispanus 103 Seleukos I 63, 65, 67, 90, 109–110 Seleukos II 35 Seleukos III 81 Seleukos of Rhosos 132–33, 217, 220 self-control 223–24 self-giving 27, 140, 169–74, 177, 240, 253, 262 self-giving over 27, 174–79, 240, 254, 260, 262 Seneca 26, 30, 34–35, 37, 71, 87, 116 Simon (son of Mattathias) 141, 144–46, 216, 221 Simos (son of Apollonios) 126

329

Index of Subjects slavery, see enslavement solidarity 195, 214, 232, 233, 256 Sotas (of Priene) 126 Sotas (son of Patrokles) 128–29 Sparta 43–44, 69, 89, 100, 231 Spartacus 30–31 spirit, the 193, 205–11, 223–25, 230, 232, 236–37 Spurius Postumius 56–57 Strombichos 52–53 substitution 177, 181–88, 193–95, 261 Sulla 5, 150–52, 154–56 survival 102–104, 106, 114, 126, 148, 156–57, 257 Teos 96–98, 232 Themistokles (envoy) 176 Themistokles (of Ilion) 96 Theodotos (governor) 89 Theophiliskos 117–18, 254, 258 Tiberius Caesar 5 Tiberius Claudius Babillus 82 Tiberius Ilius Alexander 5 time 83–86, 153, 248–49 Titus Quinctius Flamininus 42, 54–56, 62, 76, 81 Tlepolemos (regent) 74 Torah – see also curse, of the law – see also law of Christ, the – in Hasmonean Judea 145–46

– – – –

and love 178–79, 213–14, 226 unwritten 208–209, 227–28 written 204–208, 211, 227–28, 248 zeal for 139

virtue – see also imitation – see also individual virtues – ancestral 103, 129–30 – civic 7, 78–79, 102–103, 211–25, 232, 253 – filial 36 – and law 204, 206 – martial 29, 116–17, 147 – in Philo 3 worthiness 17, 22, 71–78, 246–48, 254, 259, 262 Xanthos 95–96, 98, 232 Xenophon 30, 35, 105–106, 223 Xenotimos (son of Timoxenos) 85–86 zeal 56, 78, 95, 122, 130, 139, 145 Zenobius 150 Zenodotos Baukideos 51–52 Zeus – Augustus as 82 – Panamaros 106, 108 – Sabazios 15 – Xenios 32