Violence, Scripture, and TextuaJ Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity
Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity Edittd by
Ra'anan S. Boustan Alex P Jassen Calvin J. Roetzel
BRILL
L EIDEN • BOSTON 2010
.·\ lso publishc:d as Volume I7. i\os. 1-2 (2009} or Brill's journal Uib1K-al lrue-rpretation. Th is book is printed on acid-li't:c papc·r. li brary of Congress CataJoging-in-Publicntio n Uata Violence-. Scripture, and textual practi« in carlyjudais!n and Christianity I cditl•d by R::1'amut .S. Boustan, .\ kx I~.J asscn, CalvinJ. Roetzc:l. p.em. Proceedings of a L"<mfi:n:•nce hc:ld Oct. 6-8, 2007 at the Unin::rsity or Minnesota. lnduth-s bibliographical n:fercnccs (p. ) and imkxes. ISBK 978-9f!-O.J- 181r28-4 {pblc: alk. J»p<:r) I. Violence in the Bibi<·- Congrt.-sscs. 2. Vioknce- Rd igious aspects- J udaismHistory of doctrinc:s-Gongrt·sscs. 3. Violence- Religious a.sp<:cts- <.:hristianityHistory of doctrinrs- a mgresses. I. Boustan, Rn'anatt S., 1971- II..Jasscn, :\lex I~ Ill. Rot·t;o.d. Cah·i11. l!S680.V5SV56 2Q09 2 20.8':~036-dc22
2Q09032491
ISBN 978 90 0.1· 18028 4 Copyright 20 I 0 by Kouinklijke Brill ~\~ Lt.•idcn, The i\L'lhc:rlaruk Ko ninldUke Brill ~V inL"Or:J:lOr
. \uthoriz<•tion to p hotocopy items for intemaJ or pcr.sonaJ u~ is granted by Koninklij ke Brill NV provided that the appropriate rt.-es arc paid directly to The Coprright Clearance <.:enter, 222 Rosewood Orio.·t.·, Suite 910, Dann~rs, ~1:\ 0192 :~, US.\ . ft:cs arc su4jcct to change. l'lUNfYJ.) 1:'-< T HY. ~l!.'rl-ll!.IU.A~U.S
Contents
Preface . ... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... ... . ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ....... .. ... .. ... .... ... .. .. .. .. .. ForC'\vord .... ............ ................ ........... ..... ................ ....................... RA'ANAN S. BouSTAN, AI.E.x
P. jASSF.N,
AND CALVIN
j.
Vll
IX
Ro•na
(ntroduccion: Violence, Sc.ripcurc. and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Chriscianicy .... ................ ..................................... .. ALEX
P. j ASSEN
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Violence: Sectarian Formation and Eschacological Imagination................. ....................................... KIMBERLY
B. STRAn
'ON
The Eschatological Arena: Reinscribing Roman Violence in Fancasic.s of the End Times................................... .............. ....... ULVIN
J.
45
ROETZ•.L
'1 he Language of War (2 Cor. I 0: 1·6) and the Language of Weakness (2 Cor. 11 :21b-13:10) ................... ..... ....................... jENNi fER
13
77
A. GLANCY
Violence as Sign in the Fourth Gospel.. .....................................
99
SHE.Lt \' MATIHE\VS
Clemency as Cruclcy: Forgiveness and Fo rce in the Dying Prayers of Jesus and Stephen................................. .............. ....... B ETTi A. BERKOWITZ Reconsidering rhe Book and the Sword: A Rhetoric of Passivity in Rabbinic Hermeneutics .... ......................... ..... ....................... MARGARET
M. MrrcH n
S.
145
t
Christian Martyrdom and the "Dialect of the Holy Scriptures": '1 he Literal. the Allegorical. the Martyrological ... .. .... ............ ..... RA'ANAN
117
174
B ouSTAN
Immolating Emperors: Spccrad cs of Imperial Suffering and the Making of a Jewish Minority Culture in Late Antiquity.............
204
jAN W ILJ.EM VAN H ENTEN
Martyrdom, Jesus' Passion and Barbarism........... .......................
235
Select Bibliography..... .... ................ .............................................. Index of Ancient Sources.............................................................. Index of Subjects..........................................................................
260 265 28 1
Preface The nine artid e.s collected in this volume were originally published in a special issue of Biblicrtl Interpretation: A joumrd of Contemporary Approaches 17:1-2 (2009) . As the. journal volume was going to press, Brill approached us with the idea of reprinting the volume as a standalone book, a suggestio n we enth usiastically embraced. We arc hopeful that the ap pearance of this volume as a stand-alone book will make it more widely accessible to scholars and students interested in the i nter~ section of religion a nd violence. As indicated in our lncrod uctio n, rhc.sc papers grew out of a conference held at the University of Minnesota on October 6-8, 2007, entitled "Sanctified Violence in Ancient /vled itcr· rancan Religio ns: D iscourse, Ritual, Community."l In ad dition to chc papers previously published in Bib/i,·al !nterprrtrttion, we includ e here as a Fo rward the welcome address delivered at the conference by James A. Parente, Jr., Dean o f the College ofLiberal Arts at the University of I\~innc.sota.
~le would like to take th is oppo rtu nity to than k those individ uals
and o rganizations that were instrum ental in both the succ-ess o f the o riginal conference and the pu blication o f the papers deriving fro m it. First and foremost, we owe a profound debt o f gratitud e to the very fine scho lars who took time !Tom their busy and active live.s to accept our invitatio n to participate in the confCrcncc. The generous financial support of on-campus organizatio ns made it possible to bring both junior and senio r scholars toge-ther to share in this convc.rsation not o nly with their peers, but also with the wider, non-special ist p ublic audirors. Participants, presenters. and audicncc.. mcmbcrs alike: ate together and shared in the continuing d iscourse. Doubtless these exchanges added to the richness and d epth of the essays here pre· sen ted. 1 '
An additional group of papers ddivel't'd at the confctt'nc:c will be pubtished in a fonhcoming focus issue of the joumn/ ofthr Amrrican Ar.ufroiJ of Rt!igion under the theme o f "Sanctified Violence in History.,.
VIII
PREFACE
Support fOr the confCrencc came from many o rganizatio ns. At the
University of Minnesota: the College of Liberal Arts and its past Dean, Steven Rosenstone; the Institute fo r Advanced Study and its O ircc.t or, Ann 'Waltner, who nurtured this project from ics very inceptio n; the Institute fo r G lobal Studies; the Department of Classical and Ncar East· ern Studies; the Department of History; the Center fo r Jewish Studies; the Office fo r Public Engagement; the Berman Family Chair ofJewish Studies and Hebrew Bible; thcSundct Family C hair in New Testament and Christian Studies. Within the larger Twin Citic.s community: The Institute for Theological Inquiry and Interdiscipli nary Studies; St. Fran· cis Cabrini Catholic Church; Ho use of Hope Presbyterian C hurch; Macalcstcr-Plymouth United Church; The Center fo r Religious Inquiry at the Cathedral of St. Mark; The Pcravid Foundatio n. And the staff" and graduate students of the Department of C lassical and Ncar East· ern Studies, without whose heroic efforts the confe rence could hardly have taken place. We wish to thank Hugh Pyper, general editor of Biblical lnterprelfltion, for allowing us to come o n board as guest editors and fo r his sup· port of the project. A special thank you goes the Michelle Krejci and Karhryn Harding, the editorial staff of the jo urnal, and Marjo n Jekel of Brill, for their careful attention to detail in the preparatio n of the volume and their willingne.ss to respond to even the smallest request fTom us as guest editors. Thank you to Machiel Klccmans of Brill fo r his earnestness in seeing this book through to a speedy publication. We would also like to thank Patrick McCullough of UCLA, who prepared the indices and proofread the entire volume. Publication of this book was generously aided by subventio ns from the Department of Classi· cal and Ncar Eastern Studies and the Institute fo r Advanced Study, both o f the Univcrsi[y of Jvlinncsota, and an anonymous donor.
Ra'anan S. Boustan, Alex !~ Jasscn, Calvin J. Roet"tel
Foreword
Introductory Remarks to "Sanctified Violence in Ancient Mediterranean Religio ns: Discourse, Ritual, Community" October 6, 2007 On behalf of the College of Liberal Arts, I am delighted to welcome you this evening to this very important conference on Sanctified Vi
lcncc in the Ancient Mediterranean world. Religious difference and religious zeal have long stoked outbreaks of violence at various levels of intensity throughout global history. but there is no doubt that the early years of our twenty-first century have been dominated by the destructive combinatio n of religion and violence, especially since the. tragic events ofSe ptember I I, 200 I . Thanks to t he central role that the most powerful nations in the developed world have a.ssumc.d in these recent conHicts, and to the ubiquitous presence o f the media and it.s d cvcr manipulation by various partic.s1 we arc constantly aware of the potentiality of .sudden ho rrific acts in the name of religio n. This potentiality is almost always with us, from
the security linc.s that many of you experienced as you traveled hcrc for the conference to the daily death counts from ethnic and religious violence in the Ncar East, in South and Southeast Asia, in Western and Central Africa, and in Europc.an and American c.itics. The noxious com~ bination of rel igious zeal with high-t<ehnology weapons has bro ught destruction to many communities with an alacrity unprecedcmed in
history. Death in the name of religion spares no one, and the possibility for evc.n more dcsuuction on an almost uni maginable scale haunts
us all. f:or many Americans before: 9/ 11 , religious violence was an event-
so we innocently supposed- that was separated from our world by geography and history. Ho rrific acts seemed to happen elsewhere: the ethnic cleansing of the Jews by the Nazis was a Euro pean event (despite the ami~Scmitism of early and mid .. rwcncicch.-ccntury America) as was
X
.fOREWO RD
the chronic violence in northern Ireland, in Israel and the Ncar East,
in India and Pakistan, in the disintegrating Yugoslavia, in the Sudan and the horn of Africa, in East Timor, and numerous other locales. Religio us violence was something far away, something we heard about, and maybe even read about, in school when studying about the heroic Jews of Masada, the early Christian mar tyrs, o r the wars of religion during the early modern period in Euro pe. We rarely knew about the extent and depth of religious fervor beyond the ''Judaeo-Christian" experience; we o nly heard and r<:ad about its destructive consequences in the newspaper. o r saw brief gli mpses ofir o n rhc: evening news. In F.tc.t, for many of us who may have come of age d uri ng the 1950s and 1960s, our image. of religious violence, especially in the ancient world, was
mediated by Hollywood extravaganza films such as Q11o Vadis o r 71,_ Rob, in which C hristian martyrs, having defied the fanatical imperialism and tyranny of fi rst~ and .sccond~.c ntu ry Rome arc summarily cxc~
cutcd and then, with a baroque Aourish, gradually surrounded by douds and invisible: choirs of angels welcoming them to rht ir eternal reward. Popular culture in the West, and especially in the United States, has stoked and continues to reinforce thi.s facile, triumphalist notion of marty rdom as a positive expression of religious vio lence. Invoking the
language and zeal of the medieval crusades, such works imply a lcgiti· m ization of violence if undertaken on behalf of the "right" religion. The pre.scnt conference and its accompanying seminars and work#
shops are designed to complicate such simplistic. notions of religious violence and to respond to a growing interest in the general public for a more nuanced approach to this increasingly important topic. The
m ulticultural perspective of the papers, in [K t, complicates the subject precisely fo r the time period that, because of the various triumphalist narratives that we may have imbibed in our early school ycars1 we may have thought we knew so well. At this confe rence, Roman versions of sdf~dcstrucrion and martyrdom arc seen, with an eye on ancient Greek
precedents, alongside the legality and practice of violence fTom biblical times through late Antiquity for Jewish, Christian, Persian, and Arab communities. and, most impon andy fo r the various points of
contact between each of these groups. \Yic arc reminded of the canon· ic.al and heterodox te.xts that subsequent gene rations of ancient readers and scholars used to defend, legitimize , and critique occasio ns of sane.·
FOREWORD
XI
tified violence; we learn about the political martyrs of the pagan G rccoRoman world, and of the changing conceptions of the body, the emotions, and the individ ual subject-the so-called Stoical turn-that enabled both pagans and Christians to end ure violent acts and apothcosizc those in their community who succc.ssfully c.ndurc:d and overcame
them. We also have the opportunity to challenge the negative stereotypes that have been variously applied to Persian and Arab culture by Jews, Greeks. and Romans, and to learn about how those peoples, like their contemporary Jews and Christians, negotiated the difficult passage b
coexistence. With such a rich panoply of perspectives brought o n this complex topic, the .stage is set fOr the attainment of the organizers· highest aspiration, that is. that we leave the confCre ncc with new knowledge
that enriches and complicates what we thought we knew so well before, and that we leave not just illuminated by what we have heard, but troubled and beclouded in the fitce of the new questions and problems we have yet to explore. 1 would like to take th is opportunity to thank Professor Cal Roctzd, the Sundct Family Professor of New Testament Studies, his current colleagues in the Departments of Classical and Ncar Eastern Studies and History at the University of Minnesota, Alex Jasscn and Andrew Gallia, and his former colleague Ra'anan Boustan (now at UCLA), for o rganizing this inspiring confere nce on this cenrra1ly important topic,
and for the inspired way in which "sanctified violence" has been and will continue to be explored in our graduate and undergraduate classrooms and in subsequent discussions with many o f our community's religious institutions who have so generously supported our gathering here over the next few days. Please accept my bes£ wishes for a .success-
ful conference. Thank you. James A. Parente J r. Dean, College of Liberal Arts University of lvtinnesoca
Introduction Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity Ra'anan S. Bousran•, Alex P. Jasson•, and Calvin J. Roen.el'
•ucu
~UnivmiiJ ofMitmrsota
In recen t decades, the relationship between ''violence" an d ''rd igion" in contemporary social and political life has inc reasingly become a pressing subject of public. discourse. The intensification of interest in the causes ofl(rdigious vio lence" ha.s stimulated research into t he ways t hat people o perating within the horizons of o ne religious tradition o r another have historically deri\'cd-and continue to derive--prescriptions for a nd models of "legitimate" vio lence from amhorirarivc texts. practicc.s~ and institutio ns.' Yet, u ncritical dependence o n contempo-rary Western conceptio ns of such categories as ''the religious," "the eth ical," o r ''the political" too often obscures rather t han illuminates the d iversity and particularity o f h istorical phenomena- both past a nd present- t hat might be classed under th e rub ricof"religious violence." Indeed, t he dominant paradigms used bot h within an d beyond the academy fo r understanding rhe causes behind and meanings of "religiously-motivated" violent"< in t he modern world are themselves in large measure products of the highly particular history of rhe a ncient Mediterranean and Ncar Eastern world. For th is reason. contemporary anal# yses o f religious violence often merely recapitulate rath er t han clarify the dynamics o f inrer..communal competit io n and, at timest outright
11 For an O\'C'rview of n:ccnt schobrship·. sec C.K. Bellinger, "Religion and Violence: .~
B;bl;ography.' 71x HdgriiOf, Rrv;rw 6 (2004), pp. 111 ·19.
2
I N'J.RODUC'rJON
antagonism that c haracterized the c.mcrgcnce, !Krwccn the second century sCE and the seventh century C£, of Judaism and Chri.slianity in their various principal fOrms. Th is volume ai ms to contribute to a better understanding of the genealogy of"rdigious violence" by exploring, through a variety of disciplinary approaches, the d iverse d iscourses and practices of vio lence that o perated across the range of early Judaism and Christianity. This volume includes papers that analrLe the specific textual or hermeneutic practices used by various groups in early Judaism and Christianity fo r legitimating their own discourses o f ''religious violence." The nine papers collected here address both the presence of violence in scriptural traditions and the various ways in which early Jewish and C hristian communities employ Scripture to imagine, represent, and legitim ize violence. Several papers also explore the larger historical framc:works that informed these textual practices. The present volume grows out of a conference held at the Un iversity of Minnesota o n October 6-8, 2007, entitled "SanCLified Violence in Ancient Mediterranean Rdigions: D iscourse, Ritual. Community."Thc conference was organized by Calvin J. Roetzd, Andrew B. Gallia, and Alex [~ Jassen of the University of Minne.sota and Ra'anan S. Boustan of the University of California, Los Angdes.' The twenty papers delivered at the confCr<'ncc ranged over th<' political and soda) comcxLS, t<"xmal traditions, rhetorical forms, and ritual id ioms and practices that shaped anc.ient I\1editerranean and Ncar Eastern conceptions of the nexus bctwet'n "religion" and "violence/' with special attention to the Jewish , Roman, Roman~Christian, Persian, and early Islamic cultural s pheres. Contributors considered a number of critical theme.s that bound these d iverse materials together: the social horiz.ons within which these dis .. courses and practices of "sanctified. vio lence" crystallizcdi the social, political, or ideological aims and effects of such discourses and practice.s; and the relationship of discursive and ritual fOrms of "sanctificd vio lence." to community-formation and maintenance.
For a full description of the confC.rtnce, including presenters. paper title'S. and paper abstracts, S('(' \\"1\'":sancrifiedviolence. umn.cdu.
l)
I N TRODUCrJON
3
Several of rhe confe rence papers will be published in a fo rthcoming focus issue of the }ormutl oftl" American Academy of &ligion o n the theme of "Sanctified Violence in H istory." The. articles p ublished here arc drawn fro m the oonfCrcnce papers wi[h a particular focus on Scripture and vio lence in early Judaism and Christianity. The article by Jan W illem van Hen ten was not o riginally presented at the confere nce, but provides a fi tting complement to the eight conference papers.
Scripture and Violence The specific focus in [his volume is violence and Scripture. Violence can be fou nd throughout rhc pages o f the Hebrew Bible (Old 'lcstamcnt) and the New Testament.' The Israelite God is portrayed as a divine warrio r (Exod. 15:3); ' the Israelites themselves arc commanded to o bliterate the inhabitants ofCanaan and arc o ften presented as engaging in .such holy wars;' Jesus .speaks of a coming rime when children will rise u p against parents and have them put to death (Matt. 10:21 , 34-37; Luke 12:5 1-53);6 the apocalyptic visio n of Revelatio n imagines
Bibliography on violence in the Bible is voluminous. For a symhetic statem ent on this thmu:, S<e esp«ially the thoughtful r<:cent essa}' by J.J. Collins, "'The Zeal of PhinC'has, the Bible. and the l..cgitim..arion of Violence,,. JBL 122 (2003), pp. 3-21: rcprimcd as /Am tlx Bib/~}11stijj Viol.wc-t?(f.lcets; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004). Stt also the c itations on spcc:ihc themes in the following footnotes o1s W('ll as in the individual t'Ssays in this volume. 41 Sa-Moon Klng, Divint' Wtr i11 tlx 0 /J T~mmmt and i11 tiJT AJ1dmr Nrar East (BZAW I i7~ Berlin: \'
4
I N'J.RODUC'rJON
one th ird of the world 's population lx:ing killed (Rev. 9 : 15).' Sut•h examples could easily be mult ip lied . Perhaps more importantly, rhe Bible's narrat ives of exemplary acts of violence have become tcmpla tc:s fo r sub~ sequent discourses of religious vio lence, as ind ivid uals and commu ni~ tics arc mot ivated a nd their actions justified (at lc:a.st in t heir own eyes) th rough t heir engagement with rhe b ib lical rexr.• Bur, to paraphrase a common exp ression, rhe Bib le doesn't kill people; peop le kill people. Wh ile it is impossible to d iscou nt the importance of the Bib le's vio lent narratives, t he Bib le's continu ing legacy of vio lence should also be located in rhe he rmeneutic of violence that subsists, lx:yond the bou nds of the text, in t he tcxcual practices and social worlds of specific com .. mu nitics.9 Instigators of rdigious violence believe that they arc carrying out God's d irective as articulated in the Bible. In real ity, t hey arc carrying our what t hey beliror to be God's directive through their reading and inrerpretrttion. of t he Bib le. f or exa mple, the D cutcro nomic dircc.tivt to destroy entirely (-./brm) rh e Canaanites ( Deut. 20: 15-18) is a thoroughly vio lent commandment- and in modern terms would be characterized as genocide. The later h istorical absc.n cc: of any Canaaniu:·s, however, doc.s not blum th is passagc·s vio lent legacy. Later readers of the. Bib le d ramatically t ransformed this d ivine directive t h rough the he rme neu tic al ignme nt of the Canaan ites with t he current detcsce d "other." Thus, t he Canaanites have been ide ntified with the Irish Catho lics (by O liver Cromwell), Native Americans (by t he New Englan d
::> On rhe violent imagery of rhe book of Revdarion and its target.s,
especially j .\X'.. r..-tarsha iJ. P.1mbles ofMtr: Rrudingjohn~ Jrwis!J Apocalypu (Srudies in C hristianw ity and Judaism/Etude.s sur le christia nisme ct le jud:1~ismc-: \'(f.,tt"rloo, O nt.: \XfiJfrid L.turier Uni\•ersity Prt"Ss, 200 1). pp. 122·73: D. frankfurter. "'J ews o r Not~ Reconstructing the 'Other' in Rev. 2:9 a nd .3:9,.. HTR 94 (200 I), pp. 403 -2 5~ A. Yarbro Collins, "'Pers«ution and Vengeance in the Book of Revelation," in D. Hellholm (ed.). Apoca/ypr.idsm i11 tlh· Mditmmmm \'florid n11d the Nrar Etw (TU.bingen: Mohr Sid xck, 1983), pp. 729-49. ~ Colli1ts terms (his d ialectical process the "effective history,. of the Bible ("Zeal of Phint"has," csp. pp. l7-2 1). !'; Sec J. Bckkenbmp an dY. Sherwood (eds.), SnnrrifirJAggrasion: Lrgnci~s ofBibfim/ n11d Post-Biblical Vocnbu!nrirs of Violmcr USOTSup 400; Bible in the 1\~·enty-First Century 3: London: T. & T Clark, 2003). SC"C'
I N TRODUCrJON
5
Puritan.s) , Palestinians (by militant Zionists), and scoros of o ther "enomies" of" lsracl."•n In doing so, the violence perpe trated against the.sc
groups is not o nly justified, but indocd, part and parcel of tho o riginal divine plan. Tho ''iolent logacy of the Bible is a product of both its own violenc narrative and the hermcneucics o f vio lence applied to it. This volumo is thus about both violenco in Jowish and Christian Scripturos and violonco grounded in those Scriptures. Chronologically, the foc3l point of the nine papers collected here is from the last couple centuries before the Common Era through the first six centuries of the Common Era. Thus, the papers treat texts and ideas related to late Seco nd Temple period Judaism, the New Testament and its later interpretatio ns by the church fathers, rabbinic Judaism, and the cultural engagement of all these communities with the larger Roman world . In these ancient Jewish and Christian worlds, the production of Scripture and its ongoing interpretation rcpresenc.s a central medium for the
expression of the theological, ideological. and cultural ethos of the community or individ ual." For example. the exegetical engagement or disengagement with the Hebrew Bible/Old Tostament in early Christian communities is a critical meeting po int in shaping early C hristian iden~ city and fram ing the nature of its relationship to ancient Israel and con~
tempo rary Judaism. Similar dialogues with Scr ipture were taking place in late Second Temple period Judaism and the importance of the written word in rabbinic Judaism unde rscores the continued centrality of
Scripture and tradition in late.r Judaism." The varieties of Judaism and Christianity examined in this volum e regularly evince sim ilar textual
practices. This is no doubt the rosult of their shared Scriptures and overlapping modes of exegesis." At times, these shared textual practices give On rhi.s hermeneutic technique, SC'C" Collins...Zeal of Phinehas." pp. 13- 1-4. l l) For recent discussion of the form:arion of rhe Jen:ish :and Christian scriptural canons, sec t'hc collection of papers in LM. McDon"Jd and J.A. Sanders (eds.), 71Ji! Ca11011 Dtbau (Peabody, MA; Hendrick~on. 2002). and cariier literature cited thei'C'in. m On d1e relationship between canon :and community. see the papers in J.E. Bowley (c:d.), Living Trddhitms ofth~ Bibk: Saipr.urr iu jewish, Chri.stinJI, tmd Mu1/im Pmcricr (St. Louis: Chalice, 1999). I J} A uSC'ful comparison of Jewish and Christian exegetical ~pp roach c:s c:m be found in J.L Kugd and R.A. Greer. EArly· Bihlical!nurprnation (Philadelphia: WC'Stminster, 1986). See also the papers in r-..q . Mulder (C'd.). Mikm: Tt:xt, Tmn.sliltion, &ading dcl))
6
I N'J.RODUC'rJON
rise to similar functions of Scripture, while at other tim c.s overlappi ng exegetical approaches arc employed in the service o f disti nct social and ideological agendas. The recognition of shared textual practices is d irectly related to significant scholarly conversations taking place regarding the relationships between or within various fo rms of early C hristian ity and Judaism. Recent scholarship is continually reth inki ng the once assumed sharp d ivision between J udaism and Christianity from the second century o nward. Rather, scholars arc recognizing that in many cases the lines between Judaism and C hristianity continued to be extraord inarily fl uid beyond the presumed dating of the "parting of the ways.'''·' And, even as (some) late antique Christians and Jews worked m ightily to carve out d istinct and at timc.s opposing religious identities, these projects of d ifferentiation invariably also rovcal the profound cultu ral as well as social concinuitics that c:xistcd among a wide spectrum of Jewish and Christian communities." A nuanced u nderstanding ofJewish and Christian discourses of vio lence wilL therefore. attend to both contiguity and d ivergence in the o ngoing process of negotiation that took place between Jews and C hristians over the course of Late Antiquity.
Aims and Contents In ancicm Judaism and C hristianity, textual practices inscribe commu· nal identity and id eology. The papers collcc.ted in this volume seck to decipher these ancicm inscriptions and ascertain how they can inform lmrrpmntiou iu A11cimtjr~t!Aism d- Em1j Chrisrin11ir:y (CRINT 2,1 ~Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004). 1 ~1 The- best reprcscnt:ltives of these new trends are.-\. Becker and A.Y . Reed (eds.). 7ht \li'np tlmr. Ntver Rmrd: Jnvs And Chrisriam iu Lau AmUfuitynnd tlx Early Midd!t Agt"S (TSAJ 95: Tiibingen: Mohr Sicbeck, 2003; rev. ed. f\·f innc:-.lpolis: Fortrns Press, 2007). and D. Boyarin, &rder Linn: 1br P.mition ofjudar~riJtianiry (Divin.:u ions; Phila· ddphi.a: University of Pc:nnsylvania Press. 2004). 1 "' S«. fo r example, R.S. Boustan and A. Y. Reed, "Introduction to Th<mc-lsruc: Blood and the Bound.-.ries of Jewish and C hristian Identities in l ate Amiquiry,'• HmorJ, 30 (2008). pp. 7·20. which o:plores che theme of ..blood"' as both a powerful marker of rdjgi.ous diffC'rence and as a charged site for discursive' contact, ritual contC'StJtion. and exegetical competition.
I N TRODUCrJON
7
o ur unde rstandi ng o f religious vio lence in the social world-S that pro~
duced them. The papers focus o n the uniq ue contexts of Judaism and Christianity, while at the same time. o pening up the conversatio n to
explore shared textual prac.ticc.s of violence. Several papers pay careful anention to locate these textual practices within their larger Roman
cultural context. Throughout, the dynamic interplay between text, tradition, and violence is located within the broad landscape of Judaism and C hristianity in the ancient world.
We have chosen to o rganiz.c the volume chronologically rather than grouping together papers o n Judaism versus C hristianity. It is o ur hope that the historical trajectory represented by this otherwise straightforward temporal sequence will, in fact, highlight the d ynamic and interdependent relationship between Jewish and C hristian discourses of religious vio lence. In this way, areas of overlap in shared scriptural tra#
dition as well as hermeneutic method will emerge just as often as do moments of inter~communal debate, conflict. and even violence.
1'he volume opens with Alex I~ Jassen~s "Violence and the Dead Sea Scro lls: Sectarian Formatio n and Eschatological Imaginatio n," which employs the model of"scarcc resources theory d rawn from the social sciences to analyze the historic.al formation of the discourse of religious violence within the Q umran community. Jassen shows that, while at
its fo rmative stage of growth, the sect applied polarizing language to various areas of comention within Second Temple Judaism in order to convince "ouc.siders.. of the correctness of the sectarian way, with time this language was transformed into a graphic rhetoric of martial vio..
le.ncc. Jasscn argues, however, that the Qumran sectarians did not employ actual violent tactics against either the conquering Romans o r the wider
Jewish society. as did other Jewish groups in the period. Rather they situated this rhetoric within the ftamework of the eschatological final battle, thereby deferring violent confrontation until the end-time. Jas.sen thus shows that the very process by which a discourse of religious violence injitsed the ideology of the Qumran community simultaneo usly also
defo-srd the impe tus to undertake concrete violem ac.t ion.
In "The Eschatological Arena: Reinscribing Ro man Violence in Fantasies of the End Times," Kimberly B. Stratton likewise emphasizes the central role played by eschatological imagery in the fo rmation of religious identity. Stratton reads early Jewish and Christian rheto ric of
8
I N'J.RODUC'rJON
c.schatological retribution against the background of the Roman culture ofspectacle, highlighting the prominence ofallusions to the Roman arena in these te.xts. She asks what it might mean that Jewish and Christian visions of the final judgment internalized the very language of domination that these tcxt.s were intended to critique. She argues that these allusio ns to and echoes o f the Roman are na constiturc a form of colo .. nial mimicry, which both appropriates and subverts Roman symbols of power. She cautious, however, that the meaning o f this rhetoric is not u niform~ but serves diffcrcnc purposes in different texts and con· texts as Jews and Christians fashioned their identities in con.sc.ious rda .. tion to Roman power.
With Calvin J. Roetzel's "The Language of War (2 Cor. tO: 1-6) and the Language of Weakness (2 Cor. I I :21 b-13: I 0)," we come face to fucc with that most f., mous and articulate of first-century Jewish eschatologists, the apostle Paul. The essay analyzes Paul's usc of martial rheto ric in 2 Cor. 10: l-6 against the background of his wider interactions with the community at Corinth. Romel highlights both the disciplinary and cmancipatory dimensions of this passage in o rder to explore the manifest tension that exists throughout Paul's writings between his continuing deployment of coercive fo rms ofleadcrship and his attempts to fOrmulate an alternative in which strength derives from weakness rather than fOrce. Roetzcl argucs that Paul's expcriment at subverting the prevailing ideology of manhood, while only ever partially realized in his writings, was dc.scincd to have a profound and lasting impac.t o n early C hristian culture. In "Violence as Sign in the Fourth Gospel." Jennifer A. Glancy explo res the narrative and spatial intersectio ns of Jesus' body and the Jerusalem 'lcmplc. She argues that. in the Gospel of john, the violence dircctcd against Jcsus is set in motio n by his own vio lcnt actions in the temple. In particular, Jesus' usc of a whip to drive o ut his fellow Jews &om the temple functions within the narrative as a moment of violent sclf· revdatio n. Glancy argucs that. in encoding violence as a sign, the Gospel doc.s more rhan merely nanmc an cvcnt, bur also contributes a central building-block to the history of religious violence. In a paper that nicely complements that of Glancy, Shelly Matthews traces out the contested afte rlife that the narrative of Jesus' life had within second-century Christian literature. Her "Clemency as Cruelty:
I N TRODUCrJON
9
Forgiveness and Force in the Dying Prayers of Jesus and Stephen" juxtaposes the dying fo rgiveness prayers of Jesus and Stephen. She diagnoses in reccm atte.mpts to situate these prayers
fully within Jewish
scriptural traditions an apologetic tendency aimed at showing that lukeActs is not anti-Jewish. Instead, Matthews argues that the prayers in fact share in the narrative·s larger project of constructing a definitive
rupture between the !ottdaioi and the Cbristinnoi. Matthews contends that, both for Luke and fo r some of his transmitters, the prayers were understood intransitively; they did not effect fOrgiveness toward their
o bjects, the Jewish enemies of Jesus and Stephen. but were primarily intended to highlight the heroic clemency of the speaker. Matthews fi nds significant affinities between this notion o f clemency and the Ro man discourse on d emency1 in which impe rial do mination is figured
as beneficence toward the conquered. Matthews' analysis thus illum inates the potentially violent ram ificatio ns of early Christian expressio ns of forg iveness toward the Jews.
Beth A Berko witz's" Reconsidering the Book and the Sword: A Rheto ric of Passivity in Rabbinic He rmeneutics" likewise explo res the o ften
paradoxical relatio nship between the active and the passive in the histo ry of religious violence. She focuses on the complex relatio nship lx:twccn Torah-study and violence within rabbinic culture in o rder to trace the impact that the hermeneutical postures adopted by rabbis had o n their embrace of o r rc.sisrance to various forms o f le.gaJiy sanctioned
violence. Her essay highlights the rabbis' selective adoption of a posture of interpretive passivity in a variety oflcgal contexts in which their
audience's physical and social welfare is at stake. The essay proposes that the stereotyping of early rabbis as hermeneutically passive by Babylonian talmudic editors allows them to highlight their own exegetical and judicial activism as they bypassed or altered canonical precedents, Berkowitz rhus discloses the dialectic relatio nship between the. rabbis' rhetoric of passivity and the process of interpretative and legal innovation in rabbinic culture.
In "C hristian Martyrdom and the ' Dialect of the Holy Scriptures': The Literal, the Allegorical, the Martyrological," Margaret M . Mitchell challenges the pervasive view that the ideology of religious martyrdom rdlccrs a li teral-o r even hyper.-lireral-modc of scriptural interprc ..
tatio n. Through a d ose reading ofTertullian's Scorpiace and Origen's
10
I N'J.RODUC'rJON
Exhortfftio nd mnrtyrium, she demonstrates that the dichotomy between literal and allegoric3l interpretatio n fails to capture the many and ingenious ways in which Scripture could be understood
by its readers
to
instruct C hristians to embrace: martyrdom. These two tcst~cascs dearly
show that the labds "literal" and "allegorical" fu nctio n as apologetic o r polemical devices to defend o r d iscred it a given interpretation. These
hermeneutical labels do not, however. actually describe the wide range of concre te interpretative practices in which these autho rs engaged as
they crafted their powerful ideologies of religious martyrdom . Ra'anan S. Boustan's " Im molating Empero rs: Spectacles of Imperial Suffe ring and the Making ofa Jewish Minority Culture in Late Antiquit{ seeks to assess the: impact that the: C hristian izatio n of Roman imperial power had on late antique Judaism by tracing the historical developme nt of Jewish fan tasie-s of rc.v cngc against Rome. He argues that in
the early Byzantine period (fifth to seventh century) Jewish writers c:xprc.sscd h eightened animosity toward Rome in a series of vivid de pic,
tio ns of violent suffering directed specifically at the figu re of the Roman Emperor. These visions of eschatological violence not only redeployed specific clements of Roman imperial ideology and practice, but also internalized the increasingly common stereotype of Jews as vio lent tro ublemakers found in contemporaneous Christian sources. Bouscan argues that the creators of th is vivid discourse of retributive justice thus
colluded with their Christian counterparts in constructing the Jew as a membe r of an oppositional an d even dangerous rd igious minority.
Jan Willem van Hen tens "Martyrdom, Jesus' Passion and Barbarism" b rings the volume co a close with a comparative essay that demonstrates important patterns of s imilarity lx:twcen the notion of martyrdom as
it developed in early Jewish and C hristian cultures and martyrdom in our contC'mporary world. He argue-s that Jewish and C h ristian accounts
of martyrdo m highlight the complex relations of power within which both martyrs and o ppressors arc caught. His essay focuses on one ccn# tral theme in these accoun ts, namely, the failu re of c ommu nicatio n
between martyr and o ppressor. The essay views this theme through the lens of the c.oncept o f "barbari.sm 1" wh ich van He men characte rizes as a process of miscommunication that simultaneously s uslains and dis# rupts existing power-relations. The concept of"barbarism," van Hcntcn
I N T RODUCTI ON
II
argues, also illu minates the cinematic. represcmatio n of martyrdom in the 2006 movie Parrtdi" Now, which follows the fi nal days of two young {>alcstin ian malc.s recruited to carry out a ('martyrdom operation" within Israel. Th is comparative concept th us o ffers a powerful analytic3l tool fOr studying the sodo.-cultural dynam ics of religious violence in a vari.. ety of specific historical comc:xts. from anc.icnt to modern. We would suggest t hat the cumulative impact o f these papers is to highlight t he care needed in approach ing the variety of discourses of violence t hat were produced by Jews and Christians in Antiq uity. But we arc also mindt'UI that these stud ies have an important lesson fo r any# o ne-scholar or layperson-seeking to understand the relatio nship between religion and vio lence in t he contemporary world. It is a happy fiction that we can study the andent world d isconnc.ctcd from our own. These essays recognize that ancient Judaism and Christianity, like man y o ther religious fo rmations, have violent chap ters. lvlo re.ovcr, they sug.. gcst that it is na·ivc to assu me that vio lence in the name of religious aile.. giance o r commu nity can be attrib uted to a single source- and once removed will restore a pacified world. They recognize that rhe histories of all religious traditions arc more complex than .such simplistic con .. d em nations-or valo rizatio ns- of religio n would .suggest. In so doing, this collection of essays dcmonsrraccs the many and var ied ways in which the rhetorics of violence that arc deeply roottd in a community's p rav ciccs of reading and writing inform its inttrnal structures as wdl as its posture toward o thers. It is our hope, then, that rhe re-ader will come away fro m this issue with a fuller understanding~nd perhaps g reater suspicio n-o f the mechanisms t hat enable individ uals and g roups to confe r o n rhemselve.s the righ t to defi ne legitimate and illegitimate forms of violence and the boundary between the two.
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Violence: Sectarian Formation and Eschatological Imagination Alex P. Ja« en
lh1ivmity ofMimt~ot.1
Introduction Violent language and imagery frame much of the h istory and world''iew of the Q u mran com mun ity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. ' The se.ctarian commun ity was formed as the result of disagreements ovc.r the ritual a nd cuh ic. maintenance of the temple, which compelled the commu n ity to wit hdraw from the center of Jewish life in Jerusalem.' To lx sure-. there is no evidence that these disagrccmcms ever re... suited in violent e ncounters in Jerusalem. The:y d id, howcvc.r. cvcmu# ally solidify t he perspect i,•e of the community th at all "outsiders"
I) I would like (0 thank se~ral colleagues who offerc:d hdpfulad•,:ice on various d rafts of this paper: Hector Avalos, Ra\ma n Bousr.tn. Eyal RtgC'V and Calvin Roeo:d. For
general introduction co rhe Dead Sea Scrolls. sec A.P. Jasscn, "'Re-ligion in the Dead Sea Scrolls." &ligio11 Compass I (2007), pp. 1·25. Qumran scholarship has generally idcn· ti6ed. rhc Qumr.1n communit}' .-.s the Essencs ns known primarily from Josephus and Philo. The pom'.lit of the ~nes gener-.ltes some rcleo,:am datOl fo r examination of violence: Josephus identifies an individual named Jud::.h the E.
addph;o: Fonr<Ss Press. l976J, pp. 156-59). l) See LH. Schiffman, "'Community without 1Cmple: The Q umran Community's \'(fithdrawal fro m the j erus.1lem Temple,.. in B. Ego, A. Lange an d P. Pilhofer (Ms.). Gt'mtindr oiJ!u Trmpl'l (~'UNT 118; TUbingen: Mohr Sieb«k. 1999). pp. 267-84.
14
AL EX P. JASSEN
arc members of the Sons of Darkness and th us destined fo r ultimate destruction. lndcc.d, vio lence. is at the forefro nt of the community's vision of the end of days, which would witness the. d estruction of the Ro mans and wa)~'·ard Jews in an eschatological war.' Much o f the community's d aily existence was livc.d in anticipation of this ncar
future:' The.archaeological evidence from the Q umran site ind icates that the community's actual end was far from the ideal model o udined in the sectarian texts. The settlemen t was ravaged by fire and the presence of iron arrowheads suggests that the fire and resultant destruction were perpetrated by hostile intrud ers, likely the Romans as they marched o n to Jerusalem .' Pre.sumably, the Q umran sectarians viewed the battle with the invading Roman army as the realizatio n of the long awaited e.schatological battle against the Sons o f Darkness. In spite of the pervasiveness of real and imagined vio lence in the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholarship on violence in the scrolls has on the whole followed more general trends in Q umran studies-philological and historical analysis of the rdevan t texts. Discussio ns of vio lence in the Dead Sea Scrolls, though few in number, tend to generate a synthetic portrait of eschatological violence in the scrolls and examine its possible The description of the w.u can be found in the \'Var Scroll (JQM, 4Q49 1-496) and rdatcd. sectarian documents. SeXY Yadin, 7Ju Se~·o/1 ofJht' Wtr oftlx· Sons ofLig/,1 ag.·1imt JuSonsofDarlmrss (Ox ford: Oxford University Press, 1962), esp. pp. 18-37; J .J. Collins, AfMm/.;tHicism i11 tlx Drnd &n Scrolls {London: Ro utledge, 1997), pp. 91-1{}9; J . Duhaime, 1hr \%r Trxu: JQ;\1 aud &laud Mnnuscripu (London: T. 3nd T. Clark, 2004}. On Qumr-an esch.-.tology in generJJ. S« Jassen, "Religion,'" pp. 11 16. The immediate enem}' in th e esch3tological war is the non·Jewi.s.h n-:.tions, though thC' JC".o:ish '\,iolators 3g.1inst the covenant" ( Tl""lJ 'V'l.!TIO) arC' also included (I QM I:2o sex J. van der Ploeg, U roulnm de In gun-rt jSTDJ 2; leiden: Brill, 1959), p. 57). In general terms, Jews who have rejected the sectarian worldview are nor pan of the true lsr.1d and therefore will be destror«< 3Jong with the non-Jewish natio.u in the war (Collins,Apornl)pticism, p. 9 1). ") See A.. Steudel, " D"D' fl n.,ntt in rhe Texts from Q umr:ln,'" RrvQ 16 (1993), pp. 22546t J .J . Collins, "The Ex:pcctarion o f the End in the De.1d Sea Scrolls,'" in CA. Evans and P.\'\1. Flint (eds.), Eschatology, .".1f'Jsinui.tm nnd rlu Dtad Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: ·">
Emlnuns, 1997). pp. 74-90. See J. Magness, 7ht Arclmrology oJQumnm anti tht Dtnd Sm Srro//s (Gr.1n d Rapids: Ecrdmoots, 2002}, pp. 61-62.
S)
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
IS
biblical and apocalyptic background.• The question of violence in the Dead Sea Scrolls. however. requires a more systematic treatmen t that builds upon the conclusio ns of the philological and historical studies and adnnccs o ur understanding of the origins and
.
61
Sec, e.g.. R. Sollama. "'War ;1n d Violence in the JdC'Oiogy o f the Qumr.m Commu· nity.,. in H. Juusob, J . Laulainen and H. ))al..-.1 (cds.). 14-rhum ~~Calamus (Hdsinki: Finni.sh OrienuJ Societr. 2004). pp. 341-.52: P.R. Davies, ..The Biblical and Qumranic Concept o f\'\f,u,.. in J .H. C lu r lesworth (cd.), 71J~ Biblt' mui""DeadSea Scrolls, Vo/runr Out',. Saiprur~ a11d thr Scrolls (\'\laco: Baylor Uni\-crsity Press. 2006). pp. 209· 32. Sec also tvl. Broshi. "Hatred-An Essc:nc Rd igious Principle oln d its Christian Con· sequence," in B. Kollmann, W Rc:ibold and A. Stcudd (cds.). Amikrs juJmmm uud Friiht'S Clm:Stmtum (~stschrift H . Stegemann; Berlin: de G ruyur, 1999). pp. 24.5-
52. I usc the terms "'religious violence,. or "sanctified violence" to refer to violence dut is bdic:.,.-cd to be sanctioned and/or required by God. ~"J O n sociology and Qumr3n sn1d ies, see P.R. Davies, '"Sccu from Tats: On the Problems of Doing Sociology on the Qumran literature," in J.G. Campbell, W.J. Lyons and L PiNerscn (eds.), Nnv Dir~csiom in Qm11m11 Studin (LSTS )2: l ondon: T. & T. C lark, 200.5). pp. 69-82: E. Regev. S«~~trianism iu Qumrdn: A Crtm·Cultuml Pasprrriw (RS 45; Bc:rlin: d e Gruytc:r. 2007), esp. pp. l0-29.
11
16
AL EX P. JASSEN
The second narrative of violc.ncc involves the c.ontinucd appearance of these debates wit h in the community's esehatologicall iterature as a rhetorical device to legitimize its violent expectations. Sectarian litera~ t urc frames the commun ity's eschatological vision o f d e-structio n fo r its enemies a round the lat ter's refusal to acknowledge the correctness of the sectarian pc.rspcc-tivc. At the same time, the Qumran evidence d is· p lays a u n ique phenomenon. Unlike related groups in Second Temple Judaism (e.g.• t he Zealots) , for the Q u mran community, ideological d issension never translated into rc.aJ..rimc vengeance. There is no cvj.. dc ncc that t he commun ity me.mbcr.s engaged in a ny military traini ng in p reparatio n for t he eschatological battlc.s. Moreover, o ne docs not find in the sectarian literature praiseworthy rcfcn:ncc.s to the zeal of Ph inehas, as is fou nd elsewhere in Second Temp le Judaism to lcgit im izt vio lence (e.g., l Mace.. I :24-27).' Violence ou tside of t he framework of the eschatological battle is not legit imized a nd p resu mably did not exist. Indeed, members of the sectarian setdcmcnt likely maintained some d egree of imcraction with outsid ers- Romans and other Jewsboth in a com mercial and social setting. Thus, by delaying all pun ish ment until the. eschaton. the community simuhanc.ously dejitsrd its own vio lent worldview. This simultaneous hifitsitm and difwion of violence should be u ndt r.. stood in light o f the sectarian structure o f the commu n ity. Eyal Regev's recent treatment of the social structure of the. commu nity has identi.. fied two aspects ofscccarianism active at Qumran: ••inrro\•asionist" and ''rc.volutio nisr." 10 In the fo rmer, sectar ian groups emphasize carefully regulated rule-s as a way to mainrain social isolation from the sou rces of e-vil and thus e-nsure ultimate salvatio n.11 Alo ngside chis structure.• the community also d isplays a "revolutionist" e.xpcctation in the immi.. nen t '(destructio n of rht present world o rder" that will be "supcrnatu .. rally wrough t by d ivine action, for me n lack the power to destroy an d
J.J. Collins, "'The Zc-.1l of Ph inc-has, the Bible", and the" Lcgi rim~ tion ofVioiC"nce," JBL 122 (2003), pp. 3-22. 101 See Regev. Sutttrinnism, pp. 42-66. These models of SC"Ctari:mism draw fro m Bryan R. Wilson, Mngir nnd tlu Millnmium (New York: Harper & Row, 1973). 111 Regev, Strft1ri1mim1. pp. 43-45. See also A. I. Baumgarten, 77u Flouri.;/,ing ofjmnJ/, S<cu ;, tl~e Mnrrnbw1 Em OSJSup )); Lc;den: Br;!l, 1997), p. 13. t-1 SeC"
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
17
especially to re-create the world." 12 The violent eschatological vision serves in the present primarily as a rhc:to rical mol to e mpowc:r the dis~ e mpowen:d <.·om munity. u Like other disc:mpowc:.red groups espousing millennia! beliefs, the community articulated its o pposition to the
present world order in such a way that m inimized the potential fo r present~timc violc:nt e ngageme.n t, in which it recogn ized that it was overmatched. 14
The e.vil-doers will in fact suffer their ultimate fate; its full e.xecution, however, is delayed until the coming end of days when it will be car· rie.d o ut by God and the angds." In the present time, the sect's "weap· o ns" arc twofold: {I) social separatio n and meticulo us observance of law. thereby ensuring the imminent unfolding of its «revolutionist..
ideology and its own salvation in the eschatological carnage;•• (2) A discourse of imagined vio lence chat serves to «empower" the: ''weak,.
community in the face of outside Roman and Jewish power.
Scarce Resources and the O rigins of Religious Violence The o rigins and role of sanctified violence has lo ng been at the. fo re• fro nt of the study of religion." This stud y focuses on o ne particular theoretical model that has recently been borrowed into religious studie.s from the social sciences- the "scarce resources" theory-and con-
sider its worth fo r understanding vio lence in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Q umran community. The...scarce resources'• theory, as o riginally develo ped by economists) posits that violence e rupts whe n critical resources -
particularly ecological (e.g.• food, water, energy) and spatial (e.g .• land, I!)
Rcge.,.·. ~cwrianism, p. 58.
On rhis phenomenon in disempowered groups. s« J.C. Scott. Domituuion aud th~ A.rts of &1isram:1': Hiddm Trmw:ripu (New Haven: Yale UniVC'rsity Press. 1990). pp. ~)6-38. and the aniclcs by K. Sn-..mon and R.. Boustan in this volume. Cf. 0Jvics. "'Concept of War," pp. 230-3 1, who simihufy classifies the description of the C'Sch:uo.1 vr.~ r as "1.amasy." 1og~ea U ) See RegC"\'• &cwrianism, p. 64. I }> See Davies, ..\'(far,.. p. 228. 1 '> Sec B::tumg:mcn, J~tviJh Xcts. pp. I 82-85. m See C.K. Bdlinger. "Rdigion and Violence: A Bibliographr," 1/Jt' H~dgchog R~uil'w 6 (2004), pp. 11 1- 19. IJ)
18
AL EX P. JASSEN
shd te r)- are in sho rt supply." We need only look to some o f the world 's n:ccnl conflicts to sc<: the impon ant role c-hat scarcity of resources plays in the e mergence o f \'iolcncc. 19 Hecto r Avalos has recently a ttempted a compre hensive study o f the o rigins o f religious viole nce by e mp loying t he scarce n:sourccs t heory. :ro In th e case of rd igion, Avalos o bserves, t he. scarcity o f resources- like, fo r c.x amplc, t he e xclusive status o f one group as God S chosen pc.-o .. p ic-is u nve rifiab le and u lrima tdy a matter of h um an percep t io n." Yet, a n in divid ual may die o r kill over such a p resumed scarcity. M ore· over, u nlike with natu ral resources. this scarcity o f rcsourcc.s js actually a construct o f t he religious community or ind ivid ual itsclf.22 The e.xample of "space." p rovid es a good modd fo r illustrat ing th is point. \Vhcn it comes to the natu ral resource o f space. ind ivid uals. t ribes, o r n ations will ligh t for a limited amoun t o f inhab itable or fe r· t ile land . Similarly, rd igioL<S commu nities or individ uals figh t over the righ cs to a limited sacrcd space. In the former case, one can dearly point to tan gible space th at can e mp irically be determined to be. inhab itable
llh For a rC'Ccnt ovuvicw of this theory and its implic-.nions. sec- T.F. Homer-Dixon, £m;iroumnu, Srnrci~ 1111d llio!ma {Princeton: Prine Violnu L.:gacy ofMonotlxism (Chicago: Uni\'C'tsi1)' of Ch;cago Press. 1997). 211 Avalos, Fighriug \%nit. p. I03. 121 A\'alos, Fighting Wotrlr. pp. I03-4.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
19
o r fertile and therefore cause for conflict.:u In the latter case, however) the religious commu nity o r individual itself has created the sanctity o f this limited space. Moreover.• there is no way to verifY the sanctity of the space, as o ne can ro ascertain the fertility of soil. Once the space is deemed sacred by the particular religious traditio n, however, the religious community or indi vid ual will perpetuate viole.nce to maintain its ownership o f the space and shidd it from any non~sacred intrusion. Scarcity of resource.s is both generated and perpetuate.d within religious traditio ns. In drawing out the implications of this theory for religious vio lence, Avalos isolates fo ur areas where. scarce resources translate inco sancti~ fied violence: inscripturation, sacred space, group privileging, and sal~ ,,.tion. In the following, I focus on these four areas and d iscuss their applicability with regard to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Q umran com munity. In each case, I first examine the emergence of a se.ctarian d iscourse ofexclusivity and its associated assum ptio n ofscarcity. This corre.sponds to the role o f this issue in the developing sectarian debates with its opponents. I then discuss examples whe.rc: this presumed scarcity is seem# ingly transformed into real violence. As notc:.d above:, however, the presum ed scarcity never actually becomes real violence. Rather, it emerges as the i
Scripture and Violence The first focal point proposed by Avalos focuses o n the production of Scripture as the exclusive understand ing of the d ivinely revealed word, a process identified by Avalos by the neologism "inscripturation."24 fo r Avalos, the.scarcity associatc.d with the formatio n of Scripture is its tex~ tual character. In a society where literacy is li mited to an elite: scribal class, the fo rmation of the exclusive account of the divine message and its authoritative. in terpretation is beyond the. ken of most of society. Th is exact model cannot be applied without modification to the case m Sec-
J. Simo n,
"ON L1simalt' Rtsouru'S 2 (Princrton: Princeton University Press. 1996), pp. 41 2-28. ~> Avalos, Fig/Jting \~rds, pp. 104·6.
20
AL EX P. JASSEN
of th e Q umran community. Though scholars continue. to debate the extent ofliteracy in Second 1cmple Judaism, the Qumran com munity and its interlocutors se.cm to be a mong the literate members ofsocicty.2 " Furth ermore, though the commu nity's scriptum! texts d iffered in many respects from th ose of its opponents, this rardy forms t he basis o f their disagrc:-.cmcnts.26 The Qumran community dc,•cloped a different dement of scarcity producing "litcracy"- scriptural interp retation . While the community and its o pponents were reading many of the. same core scriptural texts (e.g.. the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Psalms), in th e community's view o nly it knew how to "read" Scripture correctly a nd therefore only the community was p rivy to its real meaning. Through appea l to contemporary rc\•dation and creative exegesis, it (rcomposcd .. a new Scripture that cor.-. responded with its own worldview and historical situatio n that was u nknown and inaccessib le to all those outside the community.
Sectaridn Formation The initial withd rawal of the community from Jerusalem and the concomitant schism with its pric.sdy colleagues has its roots in a d ivc.r gcnt u nderstandi ng of the interpretat ion and applicat io n of b ib lical law." This feature is most p rominently displaye.d in the document known as 4QMiq!at Ma'ase H a-Torah (4QMMT; 4Q394-399)." This document represen ts a letter written by the early scccarian leaders co their fo rmer priestly colleagues in Jerusalcm.'•It outlines a series of laws, in C. 1-fezscr, jflvlih Lirmuy in Roman Pn/e;tinr (fSAJ 8 1; Tubing•n: J.C.B. Mohr, 20<JJ), passim, 'SJ'· pp. 476-78. 2lil The:- v:m majority o f the o lder .s criptural books We're li.kdy rtgardcd as :nnhoric.-.tive
.!:5I O n literacy and the Q umran communi(}'•
SC'C'
by both the' community and its various opponents. SeC' funher, E. Ulrich, "The Bible in the "·laking: The Scriptures Found :n Qumr.-.n,.. in P.\\1. Flint (cd.), 71J~ Bib!~ 111 Qumnzn: 7i-xt, SIJaf'e. ami bm:rpr'latiou (Grand Rapids: E.crdmans. 200 I), pp. ) J.66. 271 Sec Schiffman. "Community... lSI Sec LH. Sch iffman, "'The NC\v Halakhic lC'ttC'r (4QMMT) and the Origins of the Dead SC'.a Sect,.. BA 53 (1 990}. pp. 64-7.3. For the text. seC' E. Q imron and J.Strugndl. Qummn Gwt' 4. V: Miq.!'tt Ma'nfr Ha-Tomh (DJD 10; Oxford: C huendon. 1994)t all translations follow this edition. !'JI Sttugndl (and ochers) later q uestioned whethC't the documC'nt acnuJiy conscinued a letter or may ha~ been oomposC'd fOr internal purposes (sec Qimron and Scrugndl.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
21
which the sectarian autho rs identify their own interpretations as cor~
rect and those of their opponents as illegitimate. The absence of any reference to the.Teacher of Righteousness o r other well-known features of the sectarian community suggest that the. document stems fro m a
very early period in the sect's history, likely C\'Cn before arriving at Qumran:"' As such, it is crucial to understandi ng both the schismatic o rigins of the community and its emerging claim of hermeneutic exdu~
sivity. The legal debates in the text arc framed as competing interpretations of Scripture, in which the authors of the text daim to posses the correct understanding. Thus, the list of laws is first introd uced as "lt he.l precepts (of the Torah)" which arc in accordance "with [ouropinio nJ" (B 1-2). Throughout thclcgal po rtion, the views of the sectarian opponents ("you" [pl.]) arc condemned as incorrect. /Is the list of laws unfolds, the scriptural text is never cited explicitly as a proofte.xt. Rather, the text alludes to o r paraphrases Scripture, a feature that further underscores the. belief that only the authors of the text understand its true application.>' Indeed, in the final exhortation, the addressee ("you" [sg. i) is instructed to study Scripture carefully (C I 0)." Careful study of Scripture-that is, through the sectarian hermeneutic lens-will yield the proper understanding and application of its laws. In 4QMMT, the social boundary between the (proto-) sect and its opponents is rdQumnm Cm.'t' 4. V. pp. LL3- 14). RegardJn:; of rhe pr<"cise genre of the document, it dearly rc-Rects the nature of rhe community$ dispute with its tOml<'f priestly colleagues. JO) F. Garcia M:minez, "4Qi\HvfT in a Qumran Context,,. in M.J. Bernstein and J. Kampen (cds.). &ading 4QMMT: Nnv Paspmiw (Ill Qrmmm Lnu' nml Hifwry• (SBL.Sym 2; Atbma: Scholars Press, 1996). pp. 1)·27. Other dt'ments th::~t poinr to an carlr composition indudt' the overlap with sevemllaws in the sources of the Temple Scroll and the earliest legal str:tf'".l or the D.l0l3SCUS Document. Sec LH. Schiffman. "The Place of 4QMMT in the Corpus of Qumr-.ln MSS," in Bernstein and Kampen ( On the u:;C' of Scripture in 4QMMT, see Qimron and Strugndl. Qumm11 Cm.'t' 4. pp. 140-41. '!> On the shift in number for the addroscxs. see Qimron and Strugndl, Qrmmm Gu!(' 4. II, pp. 114-21. Section B is generally thought to be addressed to the priests in Jerusalem and their currtm allies. while s«tion C is directed at the present Hasmonean leader.
v.
22
AL EX P. JASSEN
at ivdy low. Indeed. it envisio ns a sit uation in wh ich th e opponcms can very easily transform themselves from 1'outsidcrs" to "insiders." More· over, the conciliatory tone of the docu ment suggests that this is c.xacdy what its authors desire. This emerging bdief in hermeneutic exclusivity evident in 4QMMT receives much fuller expressio n in later sectarian literatu re. Unlike 4QM!vrl~ however, later sectarian texts do not p resu me t hat non-sec• tarians can ever ap pre hend the t rue meaning (both legal a nd no nlegal) of Scripture. For legal interpretation, t his is most fully a rticulated in th e Rule of t he Community (I Q S, 4Q255-264, 5QI I). Two impor· tan t points must be made over t he o rigins and fu nct ion of t h is docu· mcnt. Though its rcccnsional h istory is complex, t he composition of th e Rule of th e Commu nity is usually located after the fo rmative phase of the sectarian community (c. late second century HCE) •.)' As such. the doc ument, unlike 4QM!vf1: is sat urated wit h a separatist a nd antago· nistic sectarian ideology. -' 4 These particular fcacurcs suggest chat the Rule of the Community represents the preeminent rule book fo r the fully developed sectarian community (identified as the )'fll}ltd in the tcxr) and thus gives full expression to ics "int rover.sio ni.st" .sectarian ism. Accordingly. when it looks outward to th e rest of Jewish society, the text, unlike 4QMM' f, condemns them all as members of th e ill-fined Sons of Darkness. The Rule of th e Community d istinguishes two laye rs of sectarian legal hermeneutics (l QS 5: 7- 13). The "revealed" meaning (nigleh), eq uivalent to t he simp le meaning of the text, was known to all Jews. By contrast, the "hidde n" meaning (nistar), that is the full understan d ing of th e sc riptu ral text, was tc\'ealed only to the members of the com· munity.'' In 4QMM'l; t he outsiders can access the full meaning of Scriptutc thro ugh careful study. In the Ru le of the Commu nity, t he full
See the re\'tew of the d iffcrc:nt compositional and redacrionaJ schemas in M.A. Knibb, "Rule of the Community," in L H. Schiffman and J.C. Vandc:rl<:.m («<s.), EnqclojJctarirmism. pp. ~)6-37, 46-47. Y>l L H. Schiffman, 7h~ Hnlnkhnhnt Qumnm (SJ LA 16; Leiden: Brill. 1975), pp. 23-
.\'1
32.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
23
meani ng is restricted to the sec.tarian community and its leaders who have. cxpc.rienc.cd God's direct rcvdation ..s6
The distinction drawn between the simple text of Scripture and its hidde n true. meaning and the herm<.' nemic privile.g ing of the sectarians
to the exclusio n of all others is fu rther articulated elsewhere regarding no nlegal scriptural content. The clearc.st statement regarding the com .. munity's herm<.'ncutic exclusivity is found in a distinctive method of
interpreting prophetic books known as peshc.r." Peshcr exegesis assumes that the ancient words of the biblical prophets refer not to their own times, but rather conr•in hidden allusions to the o rigins, development, and particularly the eschatological history of the Qumran community. These hidden messages arc able to be deciphered o nly through the inspired exegesis of the community's lcaders, in particular an indi\•id ..
ual known only by the title Teacher of Righteousness (I QpHab 2:5-10). Not o nly arc other Jews unable to access this hidden meaning of the prophetic words, cvc.n the original prophets were unaware of the full implications of their words (IQpHab 7: 1-5). Like the Rule of the Com· munity, the pcshcr texts arc generally dated to the fully sectarian phase of the community's history:" Most importantly, they represent the "rcvo lmionist" sectarianism of the community by giving full expression to its longing for collective salvatio n in an imminent eschatological age.·";o
As such, they arc uniquely positioned to provide insight into the com· munity's rhetoric of eschatological violence. Pcshcr Habakkuk's claim of hermeneutic exclusivity once again contrasts with the perspective of 4QMMT. The epilogue to 4QMMT contains a pcshcr-likc application of several scriptural paraphrases to the eschatological situation of the sectarian opponents (C 11-16). In contrast to Pcsher Habakkuk, 4QMMT invites the opponents to inspw Scripture (induding the Prophets) carefully in full anticipation
;lo6.)
On the role of revebrion in scctJ.rian formation, see Rege\', Seclllria11inu, pp. S 1-
93. m See T.H. lim, Prslmrim (london: Sheffield .'\c:tdcmic Press, 2002) . .\ti See discussion in Lim, Pe1h.uim. -"> Rcge•.:, St"cwrianism, pp. .58-64.
24
ALEX P. JASSEN
that they will b.: able to ascertain its full eschatological implications (C 10- 11.• 17- 18):"'
Eschatologiral fmnginntion The two interpretive models discussed above established for the community the exclusive meaning o f Scripture-and therefore the exclusive
application of the divine word; all others read Scripture incorrectly and therefore misapprehended the di,•ine word. The community's hermeneutic exclusivity translau:·.d into violent expectations in several ways.
I focus hereon one example from each of the hermeneutics models discussed . The community's primary statc.m c nt of the two~ticrcd -approach to
scriptural law- the revealed and the hidden-concludes with a resounding invective against the sectarian oppone nts for
f3.ilure. to adhere to
both the hidden and rcvcalc.d law (IQS 5:11 -12}-cvcn though they cannot know the hidden law! They thus arouse the anger of God, who (\vill execute great judgme nts resulting in e ternal destruction withou t
a remnant (n',IZII'N~ o',lll n',;h)" (II. 12-13)." The ultimate destruction that awaits those who do not understand Scripture is more fully articu lated earlier in the documC'nt in the .section known as the "Trca~
tise on the Two Spirits" ( IQS 3:13-4:26). A basic premise of this section is that all those among the Sons of Deceit (= Darkness) will be eradicated in the end of days. The identification of the Sons of Deceit with those who fail to understand and follow the revealed and hidden law is suggested by their identical final destiny: ". .. until they arc destroyed. (There will be.) no remnant nor rc.scue for them" (m', :1"'~!!1 n,lZil'N., om~:> >V; I QS 4: 13- 14)."
Though scholars di.s:tgr« on the: preci.S< scriprural content assumed here. it is dear dut some scriptur-.1l books (including prophetic ones} are intended. See E. Ulrich, .. The Non·att('SI:uion of., Tripartite Goon in 4QMMT,." CBQ 6) (2002) . pp. 202-14. 111 Transl:1tions of IQS follow E. Qimron and J.H. CharleS\vorth in Qimron ::md Charleswonh (eds.). Ru/~ of tht' Communisy nnd Rt!nwd Odmmt'nts (PTSDS.SP I; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994). U ! On the shared language, sa:o J . Licht, 7/Jr R11lr £·roll (HC'brew) ijC'rusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965), p. 132. See also IQS 2: 15. 41'1•
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
25
Eschatological violence also features prominently in pcshcr exegesis. The community saw in the prophetic words the key to its own cscha~
tological realization, in particular the. battles that will be waged against the Sons of Darknc.ss. Thus, the. War Scroll prefaces part of its description of the end time battle and the destructio n of all o thers by stating that "th rough your anointed ones, seers of fixed time, you have told us therimlcs of I the wars of your hands" (I QM I I :7-8) ."Through pesher exegesis of the words of the anointed one.s-that is, rhe dassical prophcts••-the community ascatained the details of the eschatological battles and the identity of those worthy of destruction. Thlls, Pesher Habakkuk scc.s in the "nations ( Ol'l:l} of Hab. I :5 an allusio n to "traitors" (o•·m::~} at the. end of days (l QpHab 2:5-6)." The identification of these "traitors" as wayward Jews is indicated by the further q ualification: '\ iolator(s of the covc] nant."46 The utte-r devastation that the u:natio ns" in Hah. I :5 arc about the witnc.s.s ''in your days" (0:;)'0':1) is transferred to the Jewish "traitors" in "the end of days" (O'T.l';'l n'"lnl~)."
Like the Jews who arc condemned to death for failure to adhere to the revealed and hidden law, the specific crime of the traitors is the f:1ilure to recognize the Teacher of Righteousness' exclusive understanding of Scripture (II. 6-9). Translations of JQ?vl follow J. Duhaime in J.H. Charlesworth (eel.), DniiUUCIU 04mmmt. \\7ar SrroiJ. and &lnttd Docmnnur (PTSDSSP 2~ Tiibingc-n; Louis.,.·illc:. KY: \'Vestminstc-r John Knox, 199.5). 40) On the- idc-ncific:nion of rhc- "'anointed ones'" as the- dassic....J prophc-u, see A.. [~ J:u.sen. Jlfulinr.ing tlx Dit1inc Propluvy nud &wlmion in tiN' D~nd &,1 Srrolls nnd &ronJ Temp/, judnim> (STDJ 68; Le;den: Br;ll, 2007), pp. 6!1-72. 85- 103. •n The scriptural le-mma i.s panially r«onstructed and. it is possible that D"'"llU W"JS actuaHy in Peshcr Habakkuk's ~rkzg,. (ct. LXX Kataeck]. 1953), pp. 170-7 1 (d: Jossen, M•diatiug, pp. 30-35). t..l)
26
ALEX P. JASSEN
l'esher lite rat ure expands its eschatological violence to include non· Jews as well. Thus.• fo r example, one of the Peshers to the book o f Isaiah (4Q161) decodes several passages in Isaiah 10 as allusions to the fi nal battle. This scenario describes th e destruction of a grou p known as the Kit tim (4Q I 6 I 8- I 0 iii l - 13). In th is context, the term Kittim rcp re· scnts an ahistorical read ing of a b ib lical term e mployed in several dif· fcrcnt conte xts to rdCr to western nations. Following its own herme neutic principles, t he commu nity id entified the Kittim as their present day e.n cmics from the west- the Romans, whom they viewed a.s their primary oppo nents in the imminent eschatological war. 4a. For th e com munity, the Kitt im arc included a mong the Sons of Darkness and thus experience the same fate as the non~sc:cmrian Jews. Thus, the War Scroll d escribes their fu ture demise with language similar to descrip· t io n of the annih ila tion of the non-sectarians in th e. Rule of the Com · m u nity (sec above): "the Kittim's dominio n shall come to an e nd, wickedness being subdued without re mnant (n',NI.!I); neit her shall there be an escape (;W?!l) ~or the Son]s of Darkness ( I QM l :6-7).•' The passages treated here have a common theme. The community claimed to possess the true meani ng of Script ure as guided by its prin · ciple of hermeneutic exclusivity. Initially, t h is a pproach to Scriptu re me rely guided the wit hdrawal o f t he commun ity fro m th ose who were rcgarde.d as illegitimately ap plying b ib lical law. As t he sectarian com· munity bc.gan to frame its eschatologica l scenario in grcatc:.r detail. it turned to Script ure to p rovide th e details. Read through the lens of he rme neutic.exclusivity-and guided by th e commun ity's "revolu t ion· ist" ideology-Scripture advocated the absolute destructio n of all those outside of the community-Romans and no n..scctarian Jews.
Yadin. Stroll of1h~ \\'Wr, pp. 22-26. While' most scholars a.gr« on the identification of the Kiu im in the Pesh:u im as the Romans, there is some deb:lte whC'ther the \'(far Scroll also has in mind rhe Romans or the Sdeuc.ids (s«' Duhaime, Wtr Tiox11, pp. 77-Sl). 1 ' ' The- Kittim in this passage aft' one among manr non-Jewish members of the Sons of Darkness. The description of the future destruction of the Sons of Deceit in IQS 4: 1-4 presumably ind uded the- Kittim as wdl. Sec' also IQM -4:1-2. ill!
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
27
Sacred Space and Violence The second focal point of scarcity employed by the Q umran community is rdare.d co sacred space:. As disc.us.scd earlier. religious communitics and individ uals that possess sacred space will often fight to preserve its sanctity from outsiders." The Q umran community, like nearly all \>arieties of Second Temple Judaism, recognized the Jerusalem temple as sacred spacc.-.1 Indeed. the original members of the.community were priests who had fo rmally officiated in the temple. For them, the temple never lost its inherent sacred status. Its present defiled status. howC\'er, rende.red this sanctity temporarily profane. While in sdf~i mposcd exile from the sacred space of the temple, the community devdoped a rhetoric regarding the temple that served to outline its conHic-t with its enemies and. of course. affirm its own posi# tion as correct. In doing so. the commu nity argued that only it knew how to adm inister the sacred space properly. Therefore, all others-that is, the current priests in the rcmpl~had profitned it. While the others had dc-sacralizcd the temple, o nly the community could re-sacraliu it.~
Srctnrirtn P'onmttion
4QMMT provides an important starting point fo r understanding the nature of the sectarian withd rawal ftom the Jerusalem temple. The administration of the temple and its cult stands at the foreftont of the legal disputes."' The authors very dearly be lind the correctness of their
Av.1los, Figl!ting \Wmls, pp. 106-8. '>I) See L.H. Schiffman, "Jerusalem in the Dead Se.1 Scrolls,'" in M. Poonhuls and C. H. S..'lfmi (C'ds.), 1ht> Umlt'tlisy ofjausnlrm: Hisrorical Persp~·tiutS (IGmp
1996), pp. 73-88. A rdat«l issue not ti'C'atcd here is the simibr importance of sacred time as a scarce resource. SeC', for ex01mple. IQpHJb II :4-S, \vhich describes how the \'Y'ickcd Priest sough! "to destroy,. 1he TC"achcr o f Righteousness on the lan~r·s 0Jy o f AtonC'mC'nt. Since the' priC'SI followed a dilfercnt calendar, it W;lS not me [}Jy of Atonement for him. The identification of t.he o~'Y of :\tonemC'nt as the scuing for this incident (whethC'r as the real day o r a literary construct) w.as no doubt motivated by e
28
AL EX P. JASSEN
own pc.rspcctivc and hoped that the Jerusalem p riests would recognize th e e rror of their ways. Th is text re presents an initial period of civility in t he sectarian dc.batc with its o ppo nen ts over sacred space and a sin .. cere hope fo r reconciliation.~ Following this in itial attempt at reconci liation, however, th e. debates fo und in later sectarian literat ure represent far more acc.r bic conAicts over the tc.m plc with d iminishing interest in rc.c onciliation. The pre· occupation with the temple in the Damascus Document (CD, 4Q266. 2 73, 5Ql2, 6Q 15) provides t he a ppropriate starting point for th is d iscussion. Q u mran scholarship has long struggled to locate the Damascus Docum en t with in the context o f the larger sectarian corpus. O n the o ne hand, the sectarian language and ideo logy distance it from th e conciliatory tone o f 4QMMT and thus mark it as a tho roughly sec· tar ian document. At the same time,. howc:vc:r, its t heology, law, and soda] structure (in particular, lower social bou ndaries} d iffer consider.. ab ly from the Rule of the Community and the Pcsharim." These d is· tinctions arc often explained by positing that t he Damascus Document is representative of a parent community to the fully developed scctar· ian community of the Rule of the Commu n ity and Pcsharim.'" Though it stems from the more fo rmative p<:riod of the sectarian community, Regev has demonstrated that the Damascus Document still d isplays rhc "imrovcrsio nist" sectarianism of later texts- though in a "lc.ss rig.. o rous" way.' 7 The Damascus Document interp rets !sa. 24:1 7 as an allusio n to the three traps of Belial t hat currently grip Israel-the third of which is the defiling of the sanctuary (CD 4: 14- 18)."' Thus, the Damascus Docu·
Stt furrher Rcgev, Srcmri(mism, pp. 108-9. Stt P.R. D.n 'ic:-s, "The jud01ism(s} of rhe llim;1scus Document... in J.i'vf. B.1umgartc.n, E.G. Cltazon and A. Pinnick (cds.). 77N Damnmu Docmnmr: A Cmwminl ofDiscowry (STDJ 39; Lcidcn: Brill. 2000), pp. 27-43> Rcgc\) Srrrarianism. pp. 163-96. Yo! Sec. e. g., P.R. Davies. 71N Dmnnsrus Covmam: Au lnurprtMtion oftiN "Dmmums Doamuwt"QSOTSup 25~ Shdfidd: JSOT Press. 1983): C. Hempd, 7br Lau~S oft!~ Dmnnscus Documrm {STDJ 29; 1..<-iden: Brill, 1998). Si'l Rcgev, Srctaritmism, pp. 35-36,47. )II"! CD 5:6: 20:22-23 similarly reftr to the ddlling of rhc temple: cf. I~R. D.wic:-s, "The Jdrology oi the Temple in the Damascus Document." JJS 33 (1982), pp. 287-30 1 (289-9l). Set' also CD 6:13-16, which condemns fhc- raiding of rhe temple wc·.alth Sfl
~.,1
29
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
ment, basing itself o n Mal. I: I 0, proscribes involvement in t he temple ritual (CD 6: 11· 14).'' The expectation of d isengagement !Tom t he tern· ple, howev
(p~rhaps perp~t:r·.nrd h)' th~ \Vick~d PriC'St-SCC' JQpH;~b 8:8- 13). Priestly wealth is funhC'r cond~mned i n 4QI69 3-4 i II - J2.
There is signiflcant d iSJgreement 0\'C'T how tO understand this paSSJg~ . S~e gen~raJ discussion in J. Murph)'MO'Connor "The Tr.lnslation of Damascus Document VI, 11i1)
14," Rri'Q 7 (1971), pp. 553· 56: Davies, "Ideology," pp. 295-97. 1hl' Nrrv Dmmucus Do Midr.uh IJ!I rhl' Es
001 B.Z. Wacholder,
61
> This propoS3I is baSC'd primarily on the prominence of cultic law in rhe- Damascus Document. In parrirular, CD II : I 8-2 1 (par. 4Q27 1 ; i 12 15), condemns the use of 3 ddiled as~m fO bring a sacrifice- to the temple. Louis G in'Lherg flrst suggested th:n this passage- censures members o f the early community who continued to parricip:ue in tC'mple- riiUals {An Unlmoum Jnvish St>ct jlvforeshet I ~ New York: jC'\vish Theological Seminary, 1976), p. 70). Ginzlx-rg refers to Josephus Am. I8: I 8 19, whe~ joSC'phus notes that some Ess~nes offered sacrifices in the t~mple through emissaries (see also Philo, Prob. 75). Davies ("ldeolog)';" pmsim; idem. "'Judaism(s),.. p. 34) .,Jso ;'ltgUC'S that the Damascm Document describes., pJrticub.r communit)' that conrinurd to p.1rticipate in the temple to some extent, and therefOre legislatt'd accordingl)'. See further J.l\•1. Baumg.men, "Sacrifice and \'(fo rship among the Jewish Sect'Jrians of (he OC'ad SeJ (Qumr-an) Sc:roll.s,'" in Studit:s in Qummu Law (SJLA 24: leiden: Brill. 19n). pp. ~W-56; Schiffman. "Communitr," pp. 271-72. li!) Scholars h;~ve long debated the precise idemit)' of this indi\'idual, though most agree that it is., Hasmone.m high priest. See the d iscussion in T.H. lim, "Wicked Priest,'" in Encyclopedia ojthl' Dmd Xn Scrolls. vol. 2, pp. 973-76. 4
4
30
ALEX P. JASSEN
bloodshed of the town" in Hab. 2: 17b. the pc:sher identifies the "town" as Jerusakm (1. 7) and the "bloodshed" as the abominable deeds and ddikmcnt of the temple (II. 7-8) . The introduction of the temple into this pesher, though not explicitly stated. is likely based on Hab. 2: 17a: "for the violence of Lebanon will cover you." which forms part of the scriptural lemma fo r the immediate preceding pesher ( I I: 17-12:6). " Lebanon" is commonly understood in Second Temple exegetical lit· c.ratu rc as a reference to the temple and thus the pcshcr imcrprcts "vio~
lencc of Lebanon" (ru:h oon) as alluding to violence agailut the temple perpetrated by the Wicked Priest." This observatio n takes on added significance when one examines the
earlier interpretation of"lebanon" in I QpHab 12:3-4. whe.rc it is explicitly identified with the community (1n'n n~)l NlOI Tll:l.,n) ... Pcsher Habakkuk displays no ho pe that the temple can be cleansed of its current impurity and therefore, unlike 4QMMT and CD, rub out any hopes of reconciliation. Rather, it is the sect itself that begins to sec itself as the true temple; only this new status can undo the. vio lc.n cc agains t th e. physical temple. As th e. commun ity moved from its origi~
nal schismatic origins (as represented in 4QMMT then C D) to its more fully devdoped sectarian identity (I QpHab), the core of its conAict with its o pponents-disagreement of temple law-rcmainc.d the same; the polarizing language of its presentatio n and its practical implica .. tions~ howc.ver. were. dt"cidcdly di ffe rent.
While in self-imposed exile, the community advocated several practicc.s and beliefs that continued to affirm the sanctity of the temple while s imultaneously asserting that this sanctity no longer rc.s idc.d in
the physical space of the temple mount in Jerusalem, but could now be fOund among the Q u mran S<'ctarians . The most p rominent c.xam .. pic of this p henomeno n is the sectarian conceptualization o f the com~
munity itself as a temple in exile., seeing its own members as fulfilling
fit! The construct chain is thus understood as an objecti ~ geniti..-c. On the idemifiCJtion of the tC'mple as "'Lebanon." see G. VC'fmes, Scriptu1Y ttnd Tr1tditiou in judaism: Httgg· ndic Studin (l
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
31
the same expiatory functio ns as the temple in Jerusalem.•>The Rule of the Commu nity state.s that t he.sectarian community was e-stablished as "an eternal p lanting, a house of holiness (1V1 l j7 IT':!) fo r Israel" a nd "a most holy assembly fo r Aaron" (I QS 8:4-10; cf. 9 :6; II :8-9; 4Q51 1
35 2-5).66 Eschntologiatl Imagination The bitter d isagrecmc m between th e.sectar ians and their enemie-s never translated into real violence. Indeed.• in the init ial period ofconflic t the disgru ntled priests merely withdrew fro m the temp le peac<:fully. At the same time, the sectarians belie.ved that t hey constituted the legitimate priesthood and o nly t hey could properly administer the temple ritual. Thus, they looked fo rward to a fu ture t ime in which t he sanctity of the temple would be reconstituted under their leadership. This future vision required th e removal of the c urrent illegit imate priests and therefore set u p a model fo r inevitable fu ture conflict. The primary locus for this vio le-nt conflict is the t ra nsition from the current defiled temple. to the divinely constructed temple a t t he end of days.67 The sectaria n belief th at God will bu ild a temple at t he end of days is most fully articulated in 4QFlorilcgiu m (4QJ74).''' Based on ,,_> Sec B. Gii.nner. 7/x Trmplt all(/ rlu· Commrmil)• in Qmmnu (md tin Nnv Ttsta-
mmt; A Companuiw Sutdy i11 tin Umplr S)mbolism of the Qrmmm ftxts a11d thr Nrw Tmamms (SNTSMS I; Cambridge: Cambridge University PrC'SS, 196.5}; D. Dimant, "4Qftorilegium and the Ide:. ofth e Communit}'asTcmple,,. in A. Caquot, M. Hadas-lt"bd and J. Riaud {eds.), Ht>llrnica ~r. jJtdaica: hommngr il Vafnui11 Nikiprotwrzky ( Lcuven: Pttw-s. 1986), pp. 16.5-89. O ther forms of the' community's substitutive ritual piC'ty not addressed her<' include prayer, ricu~J purity. and the' study of the laws of sacrifice. See Schiffman, "'Community," pp. 2 72-76~ JaSS<'n, "Rdigion," pp . .5-7; Regev, &t·tarinnism, pp. 124-31 . I QS I I:8-9 similarly idenrilles the community as a "'House of Holiness,.. though with slightly d iffC'r<'n t language (iUTii' TI"J:IO}. On th e sh:trcd view o f these: paSS3£CS. seC' Licht, \ti'ar Scroll. pp. 17 1. 230: Gmner, Umplt'aml rh Commrmit)'• p. 30. On the additional evidence of 4QI 74, SC'e below. 6?> For gC'nC'r JJ u~atmt"nt of the esch~nol ogi cal temple, ~e D. Flusser, "The Eschatological Te mple." in j udaism oft/It' s~("OIId ftmp!t: PrrioJ, V'olumt 1: Qummn and Apocafnnidsm (Grand Rapicls: Ecrdmans, 2007), pp. 207- 13. ta) This text has h«n the subject o f intense schobrly inquity. both on accoum of its fr:tgmC'mary textual n-:uurc and rhe d ifhculty in d eciphering irs cxegetiCJl ~nd theologi-
"*
32
AL EX P. JASSEN
Exod. 15: 17- 18, the. text asserts that God will build a pc.r man In contrast, the present temple. is explicitly condemned: "they Ii.e., strangers] formerly laid waste the sanctua(ry of llsrad because of their sin" (II. 5-6) . As a t<m· porary bridge between these two temples, God commands the con· struction of the "sanctuary of human(s)" (O"TN l.!l"lj:>l:l)- that is, the spiritualized temple of thccommunity (4Q l74 1-2 + 21 i 6-7).'" The.contrast between the fin ure perfect temple and the present defiled o ne fo rces the inevitable. questio n: when and how will this transitio n take place? 4Qflorilegium explicitly frames the transition from the present temple (1. 6: the sanctuary of lsrad) to the fu ture temple (1. 3: the. sanctuary of the Lord) within the. context of the conflict between CJI focus. To:t and r.ranslacion fOllow J. Milgrom in J.H. C harlesworth (eds.), Prshotrim, Otlxr CommmMries, and &laud Dorummts (PTSDS.SP 68~ Louisville. KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002), pp. 250-55 toge-ther wirh G.J. Brooke. Ewgesis at Qummn: 4Qftorilrgium ;, iu J~•vilh Co11ttx:r (JSOTSup 29: Sheffield: JSOT Press, 198.5} and :\.. Suudd, lkr ;\1idmsch zur Esrlmtologir n1u drr Qumm1{(t'mri11dr (4QMidrEs.:lmr'·") (~TDJ 13; Lciden: Brill, 1994). A similar \'iew rqprding the eschatological temple is fou nd in the Temple Sc,roll (IIQI9 29:7-10). My analysis hac focuses on 4QFiorilegium for...,.."<> reasons: (I) it is decidedly sectarian and (2) its model for the transition from the presc:m temple to the eschatological temple is more fully developed. On the Temple Scroll, Sec' Y. Yadin, 1hr Trmplr Scroll (3 \'ols.; Jc:ru.salem: lsrad ExplorJtion Society. 1983). \·ol. I, pp. 182-87 and more re«nd)' P. Swarup, Th~ Sr/f-Undmfllllding ofrh~ ~ad Sm Scrolls Crmmumif)•: Au £smut! Plnming. A Hausr ofHoliiU.(J (LSTS 59; London: T. & T. CI:Mk. 2006). pp. 151-64. An eschatological temple is also described in
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
33
the sect and its enemies. The sectarian community is powc.rlc:--.ss against
the present illegitimate stewards of the temple and therefore establishes the spiritualized temple (1. 6: the sanctuary of human(sl) to function in the pre-eschatological age. The violent removal of the priests is delayed until the eschaton. Thus, 2 Sam. 7: II , "I will give you safety from all your enemies," is incerpre.tc.d a.s an allusion to the. future annihilation
of the Sons of Belial (II. 7-9) . These Sons of Belial arc no doubt idcn· tical to the "strangers" (1. 5) who defiled the temple and who will no lo nger maintain a presence in the future. temple . The future annihila--
tion of the errant Sons of Belial is the delayed indictment and punishment for the ritual sins of Belial and his followers-particularly defiling the temple-in C D 4: 14- 19 (sec above). While the Damascus Document merely condemns Belial's de.sccratio n of the tem ple, 4QFlorilc.gium purges the futu re temple of Belial and, though never stated explicitly, purifies the temple through the instillatio n of the sectarian leaders at the head of the eschatological temple. In 4QFlorilcgium, con· temporary conAict is translated into an eschatological setting and thereby in fused with violence. The continuation of the text s uggests that the constructio n of the
future temple and the removal of the illegitimate priests will take. place within the context of eschatological conAict.71 Thus, the first column's
twofOld refe.rcnce to the future temple and the Davidic messiah is chron· ologically named by the citation ofr>s. 2: 1-2: "Why do nations assem· blc, and peoples plot vain things; kings of the earth take their stand, and regents intrigue cogethc.r against the.L ORD and against His anointed?'' (4Q I74 1-2 + 2 1 i 18- 19). This verse is understood as alluding to the
"nations" and the "chosen ones oflsrael" in the end ofdays (1. 19) . Column two clarifies the meaning of this period of the end of days as a time of "rcfining" o r "trial" (~,~r.m nv) (4Q174 I + 3 ii 1). The period of"refini ng" in Qumran literature has different temporal settings. In most texts, it refers to the community's present time that
71
> The 1<-mple Scroll stmes that rhe futui'C' temple with
be built on rhe '"Dar of
Creation,. (reconstructed following E. Q imron, 7Jx Umpf~ Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extr'IIJil>~ &roll.
;cat Temple.'' pp. 208-9)
ALEX P. JASSEN
is dominat<.d by the forces of Belial and therefore the community is constantly tested (I QS I: 17-1 8; 8:4; 4Q 171 1-10 ii 19; cf. 4Q177 5-6 3).72 In the War Scroll, howcv
column will unfold. This eschatological time of "rcfining" provides another setting fo r thc fUture and final devastatio n of Bdial- something rhe Sons of Light wc.re incapable of in rhe pre-eschatological time of "rd ining."'"
Based o n my interprctatio n of 4QFiorilegium and its vision for the eschatological tc.mplc, o nc would imaginc that the \Xiar Scroll or related documents would describe in greater detail the future vio lc.n cc sur..
rounding control of thc temple. Sectarian eschatological documcnts, however, arc curiously lacking in any such description. No discussion,
fo r exam ple, is found regarding the f..rc of the prcscnt templc. Will it be destroyed o r will it be rransported to some o ther location as one finds in contemporary litcraturc?n lvlorcovcr, the. rc:.moval of the ille· gitimatc:. priests and the transfCr of temple.authority to the sect arc never
described; they arc merdy assumcd. Thc War Scroll carefully o utlines thc course of thc eschatological war, d uring which no fighting will take place during thc sabbatical ycar. Rarhcr. this time is devoted to tc.mple scrvice {I QM 2:6). Thus, in the description of thc first sabbatical year
nt See Steudd, "o•n•;t 11"'1nx," pp. 28-2-9. -.tl See J. Carmign3c, "Notes sm les Pesharim,... &vQ 3 { 1961-1962), pp. 505-38 (528). i•• For lUll rrcatmC'nt of the tempor.ll nuances of the eschatological SC'tting in 4Q 174. sec Brooke. Ew-grsis, pp. 17)-78. 7'11 On the destruction, sec 2 Bar. 32:3-4: Mark 14:58; Man. 26:61: John 2: 19 (aUof which arc likdy posr-70 C£). On the' nansfC'r, see l En. 90:28-29. ScvC'ral rC'fC'rcnces to the' eschatologiCJI tC'mplC' do not allude' to the F.nc of the current temple'": Tob. 14:5~ I En. 91:13: Juh. I :26-29). See nm hcr Yadin, 'Rmp/,Scro/1, vol. I, pp. 182-87: Flusser, "E.schatologic-.ll Tcmple,'" pp. 209-10. On rhC' Iacer r.1bbinic evidC'nce. SC'C' A. Aptowitzer, .. The HeavC'nlr Tcmple in the Agada,'" ( Hebr~) Tnrbiz 2 {1931 -1932), pp. l3753, 257-87 (270-72).
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
35
in column two, the War Scroll describes the organizatio n of the temple service and its priestly and Levitical leadership."' Throughout this description, the s
assumed." The War Scroll, however, dO<:s not clarify whether this temple is the permanent eschatologic3! temple or merely the present temple purified fo r service at the onset of the end of the days. Regard ing this latter questio n, F. Garda Martinez has noted the literary corn:.spondcnce bc1:weC'n the descriptio ns of the prosecution
of the war in IQM I: 1-2 and the New Jerus3lem text (4Q554 3 iii). He therefore suggests that the. temple in the War Scroll is identic3! with the eschatological temple de.scribed in the New Jerusalem text (and thus, also 4QFlorilegium and the Temple Scroll)."' Like. the eschatological temple in these texts, the temple of the War Scroll will be erected by God and consequently will require the removal of the current temple and its priests. Though the specific details of this transformation arc lacking, the reconstitution of the sanctity of the temple and the re.storation of the exiled priests to their former starus. howevc.r. is dearly located in the violent circum stances of the imagine.d eschatological war. In the e.s chatological age. the s
Thus, based on Deut. 23:2-3. which excludes certain individ uals from "enteri ng the congregation of the. Lord," 4QFiorilegium excludes e ntrance to the te.m ple fOr o utsiders: "An Ammonite, a Moabitc, a bas--
tard, a fo reigner, ora proselyte" (4QI74 1-2 + 2 1 i 4)." The explanation provided is that "his holy ones arc there" ( OUI 1'll11j:> N':J; I. 4)a reference to the presence of angels.so The indusion of foreigners will
See Yadin, Srro/1 ofslx \l~r. pp. 198·208. 71) See furtht'r I QM 3: II and 7:4, which rt'fer to jt'fusalc."m as the lxlse of operations for the Sons of light. .,.,) Gard3 tvtarrfnC'l. Qrmmm and Apom/ypsir. p. 2 10. Cf. DiTo mmaso. Nnv Jrrusa· ll'm, p. I 84. m See B;1umganrn, "Exclusion... ttl> The reconstruction <1nd interpretation o f this phrase." i.s diflicuh. I follow scv('r-.ll commentators who understand nvnp as a ddCoive spd ling for l'WrTV. O ther schol· ars ~construct here CV 'WTlj?, which can be undt'rstood ~s "my holy ones arc there" or "the ones holy of rhe name.',. (S('(' further Steudd, Dt-r Midmsrh z.ttr &chawlogil'. p.
7#
36
ALEX P. JASSEN
compromise the ritual integrity of the temple and its angelic hosts." A similar explanation is provided for the exclusion of the impure and physically disabled in the eschatological community in the Rule of the Congregatio n (I QSa 2:5-8)- the "holy angds" live among the congrc· gation." Similarly. the pre-eschatological community of the Damascus Document denies entry to the blind, deaf, and other individuals with physical disabilities-also with presence of angds cited as the reason (CD 15:15- 17 with 4Q266 8 i 6-9)."'' The Rule of the Community provides some explanation fo r this exclusion: the pre-eschatological community as a spiritualized temple is joined together with the angds ( I QS II :7·9)." The correspondence between these texts is not by acci· dent. The community saw itsdf-·both in the present time and the fUture eschatological time-as embodying the true temple and thus framed the expectatio n of ritual purity and physical completeness in both sacred spaces as identical. In these texts, the community simultaneously excluded all outsiders !Tom the temple and <.·ommunity at the same time a.s it affirmed its own status as both the. true ritualized temple and as the only legitimate stew· ards of the futu re physical temple. These aspects arc merged in the mar· tial language and c.ultic imagery of the c.schatological war. I QSa I: 12- 13 dictates the minimum age for military service as twcmy..fivc. a provi ..
sion similarly articulated in the Wiar Scroll (IQM 7:2-3)." In IQSa, 43). On the identification of thc "holy ones,. as angels, sec Brooke, Extgesis. pp. 18 1-83 {more genc:rally at Qumran, see Yadin, Scroll ofJ!~ Whr, p. 23 1). Cf. 4Q5 11 35. which describes how God will consecr:uc some' of the ..holy ones,. as an "eternal sanctuary,.. while -:.t the same time the Mnskilwill frighten the ..spirits of bastards." su Brooke, Ext'gl'tis, pp. 179-83. ta• Stt LH. Schiffm:m, llN Eclxuologiml Ummumir.y ofsilt' Drad St'tl Scrolls (SBUv1S 38>Atlanta: Scholars Press, l989). pp. 37-52. For fuJI tr~tmcnt of the o:dusion of disabled individuals in Qumran texts, stt J.H.W. Dorman. 7hr Blrmitlml Body: Dtformi:y and DiMbiliry in rhr Qumrnn &rolls (Groningcn: Rijksuni~·C'rsitC'it. 2007). "'1 CD is extreme-ly fragmentary here. though fht' correct reading is ensured by4Q266 (St'C' J.M. & umgarten, Qummu Cat't' 4.XJ/J: 1/Jr Damascus Docrmtmr. (4Q266-273) [DJD 18: Q,ford: Clarendon, 1996J. pp. 63-64). sa• O n this passage, stt above, n. 66. As Brooke obscrves, this p·assage miiTors thc eschatological o:pec:c3tions of 4QFiori!C'gium (E'
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
37
this individ ual will join "the holy congregation (IZ,i'i"l my) to perform the sen•ice of the. congrega[tion) (i11Vi"l n"ll:!V) ." T\vmty-five. is c.hosen as the age of m ilitary service likely based on the minimum age fo r Levitical service in Num. 8:24.'• Moreover, the identification of the impending military d utie.s as "service of the congrega(tio n]" (i11Vi"l nuv; I. 13; cf. I. 19) is a slight modificatio n of several different biblical expressio ns denoting service for/in the Tabernacle/temple." The ritual service of the physical temple. is transformed into m ilitary service of the community, which itsdfis now conceptualized as the holy sanctuary. The importance of the cultic imagery in describing the age of military service becomes c:vcn more significant in the.continuation of IQl'vf 7. In IQM 7:3-7, the same expectatio n of physical and ritual purity as found in both the community (CD, I QSa) and the future temple (4QI74) is applied to the eschatological army." The eschatological army, however, i.s nor merely characterized as the: absolutdy pure com# munity. Rather, the text continues by descr ibing the army as a "temple in movement" figh ting against the Sons of Darkness (I QM 7:9-15). Thus. the army is led by seven priests clothed in ritual vestments, which arc hc.rc identific.d as "war garmc.nts" not to be worn in the sanctuary (II. 10- 11 ). As Yadin o bserves, the text harmonizes several biblical descriptions of the priestly vestments in order to create a unique priestly
~ Schiffman. Esclmtologirnl ConmumitJ·· p. 20. s:r> The term il'll l l ~V appears as the nomm r~gms with scn•raJ dilferent terms fun ctioning ;'IS the IW!Wt lt'Ctllm: (I) lll"Tj?il "'the sanctuary'" (Exod. 36:1. 3: Num. 7:9);
(2) "JVlO :,nN "the tem of meeting" (Exod. 39:32; Num. 4:33. 35. 39. 43t 7:5; 8:24; 18:4, 2 1, 33): (3) ~m · "the l ord" (Nnm. 8: I I; Josh. 22:27: 2 C hron . .\5: 16; (4) p1!11l ;n;t> "the Tabernacle of the Lord .. (Num. 19:9); (5} ilt.i~ n•3 "'the house of me Lord" ( I Chron. 28: l.l. 20; 23:24, 28, 32; 2 C hro n. 24: 12: 21 :33: 3 5:20: (6) '>x n•> "the
house of God,. (I Chron. 23:25, )2; 25:6; Neh. 10:30). These v.uious expr~s:s ions refer either to culti-c service or physic-.1l labor {particular!)' regarding Lcvirical service}. On the latter category. SC"C' J. Milgram...The Levitial ~'\bodi,'" JQR 61 (1970). pp. 132-54. st) As in 4Q 174. CD, .,nd IQSa, me r~.1son provided is the presence of the angels (1. 6: cf. I QM 12:7-8}. The relationship bet'W'C'en these pass.lges is frt':tted in Yadin. Ti:mp/e Scroll. vol. I~ pp. 290-91; Schiffman, Esc/nuologicnl Conummil)'• pp. 39.46-48. On possible parallels in 4Q491, sec Dorm:m, Blemi!lxd Body. pp. 163-66.
38
ALEX P. JASSEN
ward robe that is of the same general type as the temple wardrobe.•• The subtle distinctions mark the pric.sdy vestments simultaneously as ritual garments and military attire and therefore identifY the role of the priests as both ritual and martial. The text continues by describing a highly ritualiud battle plan led by the "first priest" (1. 12), the six additio nal priests with trumpets, and seven Le.vitc.s with ram's horns. In this model the ritualized o rder of the temple service has been transposed onto the equally ritualized o rder of the eschatological battle. In doing so, the War Scroll merges the scctarian self-identification as the spiritualized temple, the stewards of the permanent eschatological temple, and the militaristic community o rdained to ensure the sanctity of these sacrc.d spaces.
Group l'rivileging, Sah'ation, and Violence The final focal point for the translation of perceived scarcity of resources into violence. is through the idea of~group privileging" and "salvation." As discussed by Avalos, group privileging assumes that ''certain gro ups have privileges and rights not granted to those. outside of the group.""' Such privileges arc. therefore in abundance for insiders and scarce to omsiders. Jn this case. violence e nsues if the privilege is something desired by both gro ups-for example, economic resources. In cases
where the privilege is completely unverifiable, the restriction of privilege is less of a real sourc~ of conflict and more often part ofo ne group's rhetoric of violence. For example. if two groups claim for themselves the status as God's chosen people and therefore assert that they will be save.d from harm at the end of days, each group can merely claim that the o ther is incorrect. The scl f~ide.n ti6cation as God's de.c t and recipi~ ems of divi ne salvation, however, is c ritical to framing a community's
self-perceptio n as privileged as it simultaneously identifies the claims ~~'" Yadin, Stroll oftlu Wflr, p. 2 19. SeC" nlso A. Hunrin, "The G:armC"nts of Aaro n and his Sons According to IQ War VJI, 9- I0," (Hdlrew) in Y. .-\vishur 'Oln d J. J. Blau (eds.), Studi~s in Biblt: all(/ tl!t: Ancinu Nt:ar £ut (Jerll.S.llem: Rubenstein, 1978), pp. L39-44. SJm Avalos. Fightillg \\Vords, p. I08. As Avalos notes, group privileging and salvation are closely connected, and inde«i, the natur<.' of the Qummn evidence recommends their combined C".xamin:uion.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
39
o f mher.s as illegiti mate. O nce this transpires, it becomes vc.ry easy fo r
the gro up that sees itself as God's elect to assume that God withholds salvation from the others in the e-schatological war. Srctrtrirtn fOrmation This worldvicw. howcvC"r) docs nm dominate:" all the. S<'Ctarian documents. Rather. as we have seen in other cases. this violent model re p#
resents the final phases of a developing sectar ian ideology. A non-,•iolcm emphasis o n group privileging and salvation is at the core. of the community's initial disputes with the Jerusalem priesthood. Thus, 4QMMT frames its legal debates as ••we/us" versus "you." lhe authors of the text
("we/us') claim to have privileged knowledge regarding the correct application ofbiblicallaw. Since the addressees of the text ("you") arc o utside the privileged group, they arc deemed to be ignorant of the proper understanding of biblical law. The division of humanity in 4QMMT, however, is not permanent. Rather, the entire document is drnftcd as an attempt to incorporate the o utsiders ("you") into the privileged group. The epilogue articulates the larger purposes of the document: "we have (indec.d) sent to you some of the precepts of the 'Iorah according to o ur decisio n, fo r your welfare, and for the welfiue of your people. Fo r we have seen (that) you have wisdom and knowledge of the Torah" (C 26-28). A renewed examination of Scripture (C 10) together with careful consideration of the scctarian intcrprctation of the disputed laws will convincc the address--
ees that "some of o ur practices arc true" (C 30). The final re-sult will be protection of the add re-ssees from the evil scheming of Belial at the end of days (C 28 -29) . They therefore simultaneously enjoy the privileged knowledge and status of the sectarian community and benefit from the eschatological salvation resc.rved for th is privileged group. If they fail to rcform themselves, however, the scctarian opponents will have no protection against the scriptural curses rha[ are meted our against sin-
nc.rs. The Damascus Document contains many points of contact with the
division of human ity in 4QMM"I Like 4QMM"f, the Damascus Document identifies the sectarian community as the privileged dect of God. The community is the "mmrant (n'"l'Nill) of lsrad" deliberately left by
40
ALEX P. JASSEN
God (CD 1:4-5) in o rder to be reconstituted as a ''root of planting" (CD I :7).'11 In contrast. rhe sectarian enemies arc. represented as ''a con .. grcgation of t raitors," who "depart from the propenvay" (CD 1: 12-13). Acrording to the Damascus Document, those who a rc outside of the p rivileged dcct of God will be destroyed, "without mntJant (n','N1V) o r survivor (no>?;>)" (CD 2:6-7). emp loying the same keyword earlier used to describe the divine f:'tvor bestowed upon the com munity. The text continues by em phasizing rhar one's status as an outsider is preordained by God (CD 2:7-8}. This explicit predestinarian articulation is muted, however, by the earlier statement: " long fo rbearance (is) with him (i.e., God] and manifold forgiveness, so as to atone. for those who repent (of) rebellious sin" (CD 2:4-5)." Like 4QMMT, t he. Damascus Oocumc.nt sees the origins of the sectarian community as the: result of a division ofhumanity into insiders and outsiders. Moreover. the Damas~ cus Document rcinfOrc.cs the bdicf that o ne can change .status and become among the dect of God. The dualistic orientation of the Damascus Docume nt makes such a transition fur more difficult. and indeed, th ere is little indication t hat the Damascus Docume nt holds out hope for such reconciliation with the "congregation of traitors."
Eschatological Imagination Further examination of the community's eschatological world view yidds a much starker p icture. In the Rule of the Commu n ity, privileging for the Q umran community and its attendant eschatological salvation is at the forefront of the community's construction of its sdf..idc::ntity as God's chosen people and ident ificatio n o f all oth ers as among the.Sons o f Darkness.•·' The stark contrast bctw<en the saved insiders and the condc:.mncd outside.rs reinforces the sectarian insistence on separation ("introvcr.sionist") in orde.r to maintain its sanctity and thus ensure its eternal salvation C'rcvolutionist").114
,., For .. full exposition of the pl.,nt im:tgC'ry, SC'C' s,. .Jrup. Srlf- &bdmmudiug. pp. 7588. 921 O n the muted predestination. SC'C' furthC'r D.1vics, ..Jud:tism(s}," pp. 31-32. ts~ On the contr.lst to CD, SCC' Davies. "'Judaism(s), pp. 37-38. ~1 RcgC'v, Srctaria11ism, pp. 39-47.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
41
The dualistic perspective of the community is fully articulated in the "Treatise o n the Two Spirits (I QS 3: I 3-4:26). The passage o pens with the claim that God ''has created the human for the dominion of the world, de.signating fo r him two spirits in which to walk until the appointed time for his visitation: namdy the spirits of troth and deceit" (I QS 3: 17- 19) and continues by de.scribing the nature of good and evil in the world. Each of the spirits possesses a human lot of followers, who arc. assigned
to o ne
of the$<:. lors prior to their birth. O nc can very cas..
ily sec how this d ualistic modd gi,•es rise to the perceived sense ofgroup privileging. Indeed, its very founda tion is that o nly those of the Sons of Light- the sectarians-arc worthy of salvation in the end of days. The pre-ordained divisio n ofhumanity imo good and evil c.rupts into
violence in the end of days. At that time, God will destroy all fo rces of e\•il, including the demonic. leaders and their human followers: "God, in his mysterious understanding and his glorious wisdom. has set -an
end (ltp) for the e.xiste.ncc of deceit. At the appointed rime for visitation (:11 1j?!l 1Vll:l) he. will destroy it fo rever (I QS 4: 18-19). The terminology employed to describe the time for the destructio n of evil locates this devastation in the end of days!' This passage represents the eschatological actualizatio n of a series o f earlier allusions ro the future
eradicatio n of evil (e.g., IQS 3:13- 15, 18; 4:16· 17). In the pre-eschatological age, Bdial and the.Sons of Darkness reign supreme, while rhe Sons of Light can o nly look fo rward to the awaited end of evil. Moreover, as Licht notes, the text
time to realize this shift of power (cf. IQp Hab 7:5-14). The "Treatise on the Two Spirits" represents another e.xamplc of the community's expectation of delayed punishment for pre-eschatological transgre.ssio n. In the pre-eschatological age, the disempowered Sons
·m Licht, Rult ScroU, pp. 100-l. It i.s not dear i( these C'\'ems arc e:o;pected to take pi :tee within (hC' COnt(':Xt or the :tnnihiknion of me Sons of Darkness in the eschatologic:.ll bank ·~ J. Licht, "',-\n Analysis of the' Treatise on the." l\\•o Spirits in DSD." in Ch. R3bin and Y. Y:tdin (eds.). Asp«U oftlu !kad Sr.1 Scrolls Qcrusal(-m: Magnes, l958), pp. 95-
96.
42
ALEX P. JASSEN
of Light formulate a rhetor ic of violence that empowers them in the end of days when the potent Sons of Darkness will suffer their ultimate f:"e. The divisio n of humanity into good and bad is based on the com· m unity's self-perception as a pri vileged group who enjoy the status as God's dect. In contrast, non-sectarians lack this privileged status and therefore do not en joy the same divine munificence. Nowhe.rc in the «·lrcatisc o n the Two Spirits" is there any indicatio n that the Sons of
Darkness can change their status and therefore avoid their ultimate. hlte. Both 4QMMT and the Damascus Document recognize the abil ity for omsidc.rs to make a deliberate choice co become insiders in the prc~cs.. chatological era. ln both cases, however, failure to remedy o ne's ways
c.nsurc.s that the.sectarian opponcm.s lack the.divine. protectio n enjoyed exclusively by God's elect. The Rule of the Community, however, cnhancc.s the privileged status of the already privileged. Thus, as part of the annihilation of all evil from the world, God will purge all traces of the spirit of deceit fro m among the righteous, with the result that the "upright ones" will receive eternal knowledge of the divine ( l QS 4:20-22)- the ultimate scarce resource."
Conclusion
l began this discussion by remarking on the pervasiveness of violence and vio lent imagery in the writings of the Q umran community. This
violent worldview is heavily indebted to the biblical and apocalyptic worlds to which the Qumran community was heir. Violence fo r the Q um ran community. howc.vc.r, plays a much more significant and unique role in the origins, identity, and eschatological expectations of the com munity. I have argued that two ime.rconne.ctcd narratives of vio lence pc.rsist throughom the. Qumran corpus. These two narratives
arc intimately rdarcd to both the historical origins of the. community and its sc.ctarian structure. The first narrative revolves around the emc.rge.nce of violence as a focal point of so much of sectarian literature.. The o rigins of the com# m unity's vio lent expcctarions arc to be found in rhc initial withdrawal
v:'!
Stt furrhcr Lichr, ''Anal)'Sis," pp. 96·97.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND V JOLENCB
43
of a group of disgruntled priests ITom the temple in Jerusalem. Early sectarian literature clarifies the. dispute.s as compe ting daims regarding
the interpretation of Scripture, administration of the sacred space of the temple, and the identification of God's elect people who arc immune to divine recompense. The comm unity-and presumably also its e nc.# mic:s--dc.vcloped increasingly narrow views on these issue.s that ren#
dered the perspectives of its opponents as illegitimate. In doing so, they identified a set of'scarcc rc.sourcc:s" available' only to sectarian insiders.
In the early phases of the community, this scarcity merely translated into an e ffort to convince the outside.rs to embrace the sectarian world~ view and thereby become insiders. ln further carving out for itself a sectarian identity. however, the com-
munity's self- perceptio n as the true Israel and God's deer people intensified; they became the Sons of Light. Alongside this self-perception grew the characterization of all other Jews as illegitimate and evilthe Sons of Darkness. This division of humanity is reinforced by the sectarian perc.cption of scarcity. In contrast to early texts, the com mu#
nity's more fully dcvdoped sectarian literature witnesses the transformation of these perceptio ns of scarcity from innocuous sources of disagreement to templates for conAict and vio lence. The construction
of an exclusive understanding of the meaning of Scripture, the administration ofsacred space, and the salvific privileges enjoyed only by the community me.mbcrs se.rvcd to le-gitimize the systematic violence to o rhers as outlined throughout sectarian litC'raturc. In its m ind, rhi.s pro#
gram was q uite successful. Other Je.ws and Romans were undoubtedly mem bers of the. Sons of Darkness, a status that had been pre-ordained by God ITom before they were even born. Thus.• violence against such individ uals is not only justified, but part of God's original plan. The second narrative of violence found in chc scrolls is the absence of rcaJ .. timc vengeance against sectarian enemies. All violence is post-
poned until the fu ture eschatologi<-al war. In the words of the Rule of the Community: '"The multitude of evil men I shall not capture until the Day of Vengeance" (IQS 10: 19). I have suggested that th is phenomenon should be explained in two ways. First, the delaying of violence until the: cschaton is framed by the community's "revolutionist" sectarianism . The community recognized that it was no match for the
military might of Rome o r the power and authority of the priests in
44
ALEX P. JASSEN
Jerusalem. Thus, it imagined a future time when all its enemies would be annihilated through the hand of God. Second, the discourse of violence. against Romans and others Jews and their vilificatio n as the Sons of Darkness served as a prcscnt ..rimc rhetorical tool to empower the disempowcre.d Qumran community. Thcdtscription of future violence
represents what the community would like to happen to its enemies- if it wen: in a positio n of power to be able to do so. A third narrative. of violence is outside of the. purview of the mod .. ern scholar. the encounter with the Roman arm ies in 68 C>. As I have noted, the community believed that it was living at the end of history and would soon enter the final period of the end of days when the e.schatological battle would witness the complete annihilation of the enemies of the community. It is likdy that the community viewed the o ncoming Roman armies as the realization of its cnd.. timcsccnario and thus anticipated the unfolding of its •rrcvolutionist" expectations. \XIhc.n the opportunity for real violence actually presented itself, however, the community's rhetoric of violence' was no march for chc Romans' real vio lence.
The Eschatological Arena: Reinscribing Roman Violence in Fantasies of the EndTimesl
Kimberly B. Stratton Gtrlmm Univmity
Introduction At the turn of the third century, a prominent theologian a nd apologist for the bu rgeoning Christian movement in North Africa, Tenullian, sought to d issuade his fellow C h ristians !Tom attending games in the Roman a rena. He argued that they constitute forms of idolatry and arc consecrated to t he
Press, 2007), pp. 120-22.
46
KIMBE RLY 8. STRATI'ON
they have o n C hristia ns in the a udience (De spec. 14- I 5): the violena:.• compe tition , a nd hatred fueled by t he games agitate the spirit a nd d rive the. crowd into a fre nzy (dementinm, 16). Mere prcse.n cc in th e arena o pens o ne to demonic possessio n since the arena is their temple. and te rritory ('"in mro t'llm im,twi," 26). The ga mes also endorse hypocrisy by compelling some men to commit murdc:.r while executing o thers for similar or lesser crimes (De spec. 2 1). Despite a rguments made by certain Roman writers' -and appa rently some Christians as well (De spet:. I)- that Roman Judi inculcate mo rality by enfo rcing t he rule of law, 1Crtu1lian contends th at thc: games arc insrrumc.nts of injustice: their primary aim is th e sat iat io n of b lood lust. Finally, Tcrtullian exhorts h is fellow Christians to enjoy a different blood sport-the crucifixion of C hrist (De spec. 29)- and a diffe rent spectacle of violent judgmentC hrist's second coming (ndtlfnl1u domini}, which he explicitly like ns to a Roman spectacle: Bm what a spccude (sputaculmn) is at hand-the rtturn o f fhe Lord. ~~ lon unden iable. at last cxuh:uu, at last triumphant! .. . In bet, thC're remain o ther spectacle-s (alin sfJ«IIImla): that last and eternal D.1y of Judgment (ill~ ultimus d ptrpmms iudicii dies), which rhe nations do nor C'ltpcct, which they once mocked, when the aged of rhis world -:1Jong with aUits youth will be consumed in o ne 6rt'. How great the size of the spectacle that da)~ How I will admire! How I will l:tugh! At that moment I will rejoice. I wiUgloat, watching (sptctans) uiJ those c-mp spa. 30. 1 -3)~
Tertullian gleefully anticipates here d ivine fury unleashed u pon u nwitting idolaters and opponents of Christ. By conceptualizing t he final judgme.n t as a Roman arena in which God plays t he role ofeditor, sponsoring the gamc:.s, and saints rcvd in the satisfact io n o f witnc:ssing jus~ rice sc:rvcd , Tcrtullian reHc:cts a tension in early C h ristian thought chat appears already in th e New Testament: on th e one hand Jesus is portrayed advocating nonvio lence:) even in the hlce of assau lt and h um iliat io n
Cice-ro, fo r cxample, praiSt"d 1lllt1U'rd for their ability to modd Roman vinuc ( Tusr. 2:4 I) whilc Sencca anicubtcs thc norjon (later rc-iterared by Auguninc (see discussion below() that p:1.in can be an instrumcnt of rehabilitation (d~ Ira 1:6: 1). -Q Translations are my own exccpt whcrt' statc:d otherwise-.
·">
"r HE l::SCHATOLOGl CAL A RJ::. NA
47
(Matt. 5: 12, 3 8-42; 26:53; Luke 6:35-36; 9:23-25);' on the other hand , minor infractio ns arc met with divine punishment (Matt. 13:41 -42 , 49· 50; 18:23-35, 41; 22: 13; Acts 5: 1-20) .• This tension should not .surprise. us; fantasies ofeschatological revenge constit me a com mon feature of a pocalyptic literatu re and have o ften bee n attribu ted to t he projected wish fulfill ment of persecuted minor· ity g roups. 7 Anticipated rc:ve.rsals of t he stat us q uo, it has bcc:n argued, serve sociological fu nctions by o ffering hope and comfort to persecuted communitic:.s as well as pro\1 iding a way to manage. cognitive. diss
B. R~id, '"'Viokm Endings in Mauh~w's Par:.blcs a nd C hristian Nom·iolence,"
CBQ 66 (2004), pp. 237-55 (244). Sec J. Ndson-PaU m~ycr, Is Rrligion Killing U?(Harrisburg, PA: Trinicy Press. 2003). pp. 57-7 1, o n rhc violence of God u.-.dirions in the New T~stamenr. 71 Sec P. l. fkrgc r, 1hr Sncrrd Gmopy: Elrmmts ofll Soriologiml 71)t'(}YJ af &/igion (reprint Garden Ci t}~ NY: Anchor, I969), pp. 68-70; SC'<' also I. C. Jarvie, 7h~ &IJ(Jhuio11 iu Amhropology (Chicago: Hen I)· Rcgn~ry. 1967), p. 51 . J. J. Collins, 11Jr Apomlyptic lmdgimuion:Anlurroduction to rlu•}t'tVIih Matrix ofChristianity {New York C rossroad. 1992}. p. 29. rt'jects this appro~lch 3S overly s~n~r-.al: "we CJnnot :.ssumC' ... priori dut 4)
the Enoch liter:uure attestS the same ph~nom~non fhat amhropofogisfs, on the basis of very d iffcrcnt e\·idence, call a m ill~nari :m movcmcnt or 'apoc.lfyptic rdigion.'... ~"J Bcrgcr, 71u· Snnt'd Campy, p. 70. 5«" also V. Turner, 1/Jt' Rimnl Proem: Smmurr aud Ami..Stmcrurr (lthac.t.: Cornell University Press, 1969), pp. 190· 192 o n status 1"('\'C't S;.ll of millcn-ari:.n groups. J. Gager, Kingrlom am/ Conummit)' ( Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Premicc Hall, 1975), pp. 49-57. ~mphasizes th~ problem cognitive' disson:mce poses for millenaria n groups and argue'S fh.at apoc:.ll)'ptic texts, speci6cally Revd.arion, addresses this fhrcat by b ridging the S"P between prcs~nt suffcring .an d future fui6Ument through myth, ritual, and liturgical perform:.nce. Both G:.gcr, Ki11gdom, pp. 27-28, a nd A. Y. Collins. Crisis nnd GuiNmis: Thr PoU!{'T of tl}(' ApD
48
KI MBERLY 8. STRATI'ON
In this article I explore various early Jewish and C h ristian texts in which divine judgmcm is imagine.({ in terms of Roman disciplinary power, often configured as an eschatological arena--<:ither explicitly. as in the case ofTc.r tullian, or implicitly, th rough allusion-and consider how appropriatio n of one of the card inal symbols and instru ments of Roman impcrial ism functions in different texts and contcxts. 10 Part and pared of understanding how these revenge fantasies reconfigure the ideological effects of Roman spectacle, I analrte the role vision plays in destabilizing relations of power and hono r in apocalyptic fa ntasyhow voyeurism and survciiJancc operate within these narratives w replace Roman power wit h d ivine control and what the implications of that configuratio n arc. Editors of the games used them to legitimize and establish t heir leadership th rough t he demonstratio n of both munih· ccncc and power.'' If fi nal judgment is conceived in the model of Roman spectacle, what docs that imply about Jewish and C hristian conccp· tio ns o f God expressed by these texts? Docs God depend upon bloody d isplays of punitive vioknc~ to establish his sovereignty? And if so, what is the legacy of that viewpoint in Western history?
( 1992), pp. 375·95: P. D. Hanson, 1hi> Dmvn of Apom/y-ptir: 71J~ Hiuorical and So
This is nor to sugge-s t that Rome constitmes the only modd fOr \riolcncc in these to:ts. As Nd son-Pallmercr, /_;Religion Killing l.Js?. pp. 59-60. nores, violc-ncc-of~God trJditions in the Hebrew Scriptures provide-d a pr~Xedcnt fo r frami ng violent \risions of d ivinc- justice >1n d esclutologic.t1 re.,.cngc. I Ml focusing hc-re o n cases in which Ro man blood spectacle furnishcs the cognitive modd for ooncciving d ivin e justice as c-m ertainmcnt to be constumd \'isuully and im c nog;uc rhe dynamics of powcr such viewing implies. 111 A. Furrdl, Blood i11 thi' Armn: 11Jt' Sprctar!~ ofRoma!l Powrr (Austin: Univcrsit)' of
Texas Press, 1997), p. 30.
·r HE l::SCHATOLOGlCAL A RJ::.NA
49
The Roman Arena The arena was a ubiq uitous symbol of Roman domination and power throughou t t he imperial period. Literary and archeological evidence ind icate.s that. bc.g inning in the reign of Augustus. the construction of permanent sites fo r the performance of Roman gam es became a com# mon featu re of citic.s throughout t he. empirc. 12 Zc.cv Weiss. fo r t'Xam# pic, identifies the existence of five amphitheatrcs in Roman Palestine dating to the: second and third centuries CE.u Munerd were nc\'cr as widespread in Palestine. as othe.r forms of p ublic e-ntertainment such as drama and at hletic competition perhaps due to the high cost of supporting an amphit heatre and its cven tst14 nc.vcnhdc.ss, once am phi# thcatrc.s were built to entertain Roman ad minist rators, a taste fo r gladiatorial games developed among the Jewish population. Rabbinic literature attests to the popularity of blood sport among Jews in Palesti ne d uring this period, rdCrring to specific types of com# bat that were perfo rmed in the amphitheatre as well as preserving debates over the moral and legal implications of Jewish attendance at t hese events. Like Tcrtull ian, most rabbis prohibited attending games on accoun t of their idolatry, which included, above. all, sacrifices (Tosefta Avodah Zarah 2:2) ." Rabbi Nathan, however, in a d issenting o pinion, permitted Jews to attend 11ltllleYI1 if they cry ou t to save the livc:s
I!) Futrdl. BllWfi j, tlli' A.rma, p. 43. *'>Josephus describes games cdC'br;;n ed by Herod in honor of Caesar that im-oiVC'"d gl:tdiatoriJJ combat as wdl as throwing condemne-d crimin-als nd bt-ttim (Am. 15:268. 274-75), but these may not ha\'C' taken pbcc-- in acrual amphitheat.ft'S, despite Josephus's claim that Herod built onc--. Sec-- Z. \'(feiss. '"Gamc--s and Specmdes in Roman P..llcsrine and ThC'ir RC'8ection in Talmudic LittJ-aturc-." Ph. D. DissC'rtation (Hebi"C'w Uni\·c-rsity ofj C'rus.1lcm: j C'rusaiC'm, 1994}. pp. IS 1·8.5. M. Jacobs. "'The..ltrcs and Performances -as RC'Aectc-d in the Talmud Yerush-almi." in P. SchifC'r (C'd .), 1/u• TnlmuJ Yt-ruslmlmi anti Gmuo·Romnu Culturr (lubingc--n: Mohr Sic-heck, 1998), pp. 327-48 (329) supports this estimate. 14) Weiss, ""Games and Spectacles,.. pp. 2 10·13. m EvC'n if they did not include sacrifices, gamc--s WC'r<.' still banned as a w:tSte of ti me~ they distracted. one from study ofTor-..1h. S. Schwartz, "Gamaliel in Aphrodite's B.11h: Palestinian Judaism and Urban Culture- in the.' Third and Founh Umuries." in Sdliic--f« (C'd.), "1/x Ta./,md Yerushalmi. pp. 203- 17 (20n. discus.scs the types of strategiC's r.1hhis used to accommodate living in Ro man citic.s.
50
KIMBERLY 8. STRATI'ON
(n1UJ!lli'l m< 7·~0) of those who arc defeated, thereby preventing their
deaths. Additionally. he argued that Jews attending gladiatorial con· tests can testifY regarding the death of a combatant., thereby releasing that man's wife to remarry (NUJJnUJ i'lUJNO'l 7v -r•vo)- perfo rming, again, an important public service." This debate and, specifically, Rabbi Nathan's pragmatic o pinion demonstrate the. ubiquitous inAucncc of
Roman games on Jcwi.sh livc.s in Palestine: Jews were implicated in the ideological work of the arena as spectators. combatants, con(~cmncd crim inals. or widows of men who died there.
That the arena constituted a potent symbol of Rome's authori ty and control for those it dominated cannot be doubted. Beth BcrkowirL, fo r example . argues that, for the rabbis, "the theatre comes to stand for
Rome, its power-political, cultural, and physical- embodied in its gamcs." 17 Alison Futrell similarly describes the "menacing political over· tones" of the arena, which continually reminded spectators of the potential force backing the Roman state: it was a form of «threatening entertainment."" Erik G underson profitably employs Louis Althusscr's notion of an Ideological State Apparatus to explain how the Roman arena supported the creation ("interpellation''} of willing subjects according to their proper social stations and classes.•• G underson begins by pointing out that the seating of spectators according to dass- insti.tutcd by Augustus as part of his social rdorms"'- reconfigurcd Roman social hierarchies in an idealized fashion and provided the upper classes an o pportunity to be seen as noble and powerful by the masses." This display enhanced their symbolic status even as their political power diminished under the nc.w [>ri ncipatc; it also played an important role 161
See discussion of this debate in B. Berkowitz. Ew'Cutiou and lnvmrio11: lkm!J Pmafty Discoursr in Emly•~1bbi11it judnism mui ClmJtian Culmres (New York: Oxford Uni~·e.rsity Press, 2006), pp. I56·57. O n the arena in r:tbbinic litC'raru~ in general, see \'(Ieiss. "Games and Spectades... pp. 241·90. 171 8C"rkowitt. Ewauion a11d /uvnuion. p. 158. 1~"1 Futrell. Blood in tiN Armn, p. 89. 11 " E. Gunderson. "'The JdeologyoftheArena," C!aJJicniAmiquit)• I5( 1996), pp. 11 3·5 J ( I 17). He is quick to point o ut 1hat rhe arena wa.s only one among "numerous ideological functionaries supporting -and gC"nC"rating Roman soci~ structure... !Ol O n Augustus's lr.'.: }11/in lhcatmlis, which ordered searing -according to social rank, SC'C' Futrdl, Blood iu tlx An:n:t, pp. 161-67. !h GundC"rson, "'The ldeolog)' of the Arcn:t,'" p. 125.
·r HE l::SCHATOLOGlCAL A RJ::.NA
51
in Roman izi ng t he provincial elites." The propagand istic potential of the arena fo r d isplaying power was fully exploited by savvy emperors, who employed spectacles of vio lence to demonst rate t heir own sovereignty, majesty. a nd ultimately power over life and death of Roman subjects." Alison Fut rd l fu rther argues that the arena served as a primary ven ue fo r p romulgating th e Imperial C ult in its earliest phase and the construction of amphitheatres across t he: emp ire. was demonstrably linked to this functio n." The emperor became emperor and Rome became Rome th rough self-p resentation a nd performance du ri ng the game$. Significantly. much of t his self-constructio n involved t he inscrip tion of subject peoples and natio ns as barbaria n a nd Other. Futrell, fo r instance, asse.r ts that when the: victims of vio lence. were con figured as O ther (th rough costu mes o r ethnic featu res that marked them as either servile o r foreig n) spectators ide ntified with the perpet rator of the violence, deri\•ing satisfaction from witnessing just pun ishment o r rcvenge.l) In Rome, social worth was demonstrated graph ically by the sanctity and inte.grity of elite bodies ''ersus the vulne rability and indignity of lowe r class bodies. especially those ofslaves and fo rcigners.26 The a rena Furrdl. Blood in sl!~ Amw. p. 165. RccC'mly. cC'rt:tin scholars havt' begun rcc\~.tlu:u ing the' cmplu sis on ditcs and so-CJJied trickle-down thC'ory ofRom:tniution, arguing that mort' e-ffort should be made to understand the roles played by non-dite groups in the process. SeC', for e-xample, (he Introduction and ess.1ys collectt'd in P. van Dommden and N . Tcrrenato (eds.), Articulmiug Local Cultum: Poult'r rmd !dmtisy mrd~r the t'." Gund«son, "The ldC"'iogy of the .'\rena," p. I29. 2-4) Furrdl. Blood i11 tl!r Armn, p. 78. R. Beacham. "The EmpC'ror as Impresario: Producing the' Pageantry of Power," in K. Galinsky (<'.·lyrhologiC:ll EnacrmC'nts," 1Jx joumnl of Roman Studiet 80 {1990), pp. 44-73 (54) on rhe dC'piction of foreigners in the arena. ~ Sec R. Bauman, Crim~ auJ Pu11islmmu. in Anrims &mr (london: Roudedgc. 1996), pp. 12, 133; and P. Garnsey, S()("ial SMIIrs and U:gal Privilrge i11 shr &man Empirr (Oxford: C larendon Press, 1970). p. 127. 2!.1
52
KIMBE RLY 8. STRATI'ON
rhus offered Roman citizens t he opportunity to experience their collective supc.r iority an d civility by viewing conquered fo reigners pa.r aded like strange animals and slaughtered in viole nt spectacles. As Gunderson writes: An imagined Rome is givc."n an impossible vision of the substanC<' of ir.s cmpirc and its dC'mrnts are brought in as totally subjected. lheir significmcc-, their
aliC'nne!:S, their objective othcrn<'Ss can fhc.-rcby be casil)' confro nted ::and O\-crcomc given thcir-siruation within the confines of 3 stabilized, orderly ring ofRomanness girding thcm. 27
Exportation of the arena throughou t t he Empire b rought th is same message to conquered peoples: foreig n spectators seated in the bleachers assimilared t hemsdvc.s to Roman notions of social order an d supc.. riority. They allowed themsdve.s to be interpellated as colon ized subjects through t heir participation in th e unifyi ng imperial cult.'• G iven th e. loaded ideological import of th e arena for Roman expansion and control, it is significant and signifYing that Jewish an d C hristia n literatu re of th is period borrows this imagery of blood spectacle in depictions of final judgment and reward. Spectacles of Eschatological Judgment And then, :nonce, angds of the immonaJ :md eternal God will punish aU of thcm (i.e., fornicators, adulterers and magici:ms. among other sinncrs) from above in a drcadful manner with fi ery scourges (q>Aoyivo.t~ !J.O:On;l}. ha\'ing bound them tightly all around with ~cry cha ins and unbrcakable bonds. Then, in the darkest hour of the night they will be thrown undC'r many terrifYing infernal beasts in Gehenna (£\• yi:wn 91')po-lv VrtOtC.C.piC.C.PlOIOt PaAo&\'t((t i«lMol.; ~f.tJUXA.iOtOtv}. where the darkness is imme-.uurable. But o nce they ha\'e inflicred many punishments on .,J) whOS<' he.tn w.u \',:icked, then later, additionally. a tiel)' hot whcd o f tonure from the gi'C':tt river will drive into them on both sides (,WplVO; ii>OX.O~ O.!J..pl._«:;:€P-;r.t aUto\.;;) hecaUS(' wic;kcd d ecds occupied their thoughts. (S;/,. Or. 2:286-296)
Gunderson, "The ldeolog)' of the Arena," p. 133. Fu trell, Blood in rhr Armn, p. I I 8. This is specifically rhe reason r:1hhis (Tosefta Avodah Zarah 2:2) and church fathers, such 3S Terrullia n (/H rpc,·. 4-6), forbid the games.
l7l ;,r,
·r HE l::SCHATOLOGlCAL ARJ::.NA
53
These lines, prophesying perditio n and doom, resemble the very same spectacular punishments inHictc.d o n criminals in Roman amphi~ theatre.s: t hey are bound, Hogged, thrown dd bestins, o r tied to a wheel o r stake and bu rned alive, The Aaming wheel, imagined here to pummd the condemned. rcAects innovative techniques of execution dcvd~ o ped to hold spectators interest.. As blood sport became familiar and even rather routine throughout the. empire, more inventive methods ncc.d ed to be dcvi.scd to outdo previous mwu•m and consequently promote the reputatio n of the editor.z<J Interestingly, this apocalyptic scene derives not from a canonical book of eschatological prophecy, such as Revelation, nor from a pseudepigraphical apocalypse at tributed to an ancient Israelite patriarch or scribe, such as Enoch o r Ezra. These words of doom are attributed to a pagan prophetess-the Sibyl. "' The most famo us collectio n of Sibylline oracles date to the end of the Roman Republic and were housed in the temple of Capitoline Ju piter. These oraclc.s were. said to have been acquired from the Sibyl in Cumae by the Roman king Tarq uin in the late sixth century (535-5 10) sc• >' and were consulted only by order of t he sc.nate and only in e.xtre.m c d rcumstancc.s, such as d uring a n> Coleman, "'Fat;:tl Ch:u-.ldes,.. p. )l and ptwim . •101) Sib. Or. 2 im etpol:tres C hristian m:uerial imo an original Jewish or.1cle that most likdy dates ro the p Later when rhis temple b urned down in 83 ac£, d-estroying rhe oracles. new o nes were collected from doctJmcnts found in dtc colonies and from otht'r Sibyls around the M«
54
KIMBE RLY 8. STRATI'ON
national catastrophe, plague. or in response to numerous prodigic:s.>2 The filet that Sibylline oracles were traditionally consulted in situations of national catastrophe and danger seems to have li nked t hem in the minds of Jewish, a nd later, Christian pseudepigrap hers with prophecies of doom and repentance in the Hebrew Bib le. By placing "proph· ccics" into the mouth of a rcvcrc.d pagan oracle, these Jewish and Christian writers sought to legitimize: their monotheistic messages and d isseminate thc:m more widdy.:t> By d issimulating as a pagan o racle t hat vividly portrays cschatolog· ical judgment in terms of Roman c:xc.c utio n practicc.s, this text resists Roman domination th rough appropriation of Romc·s own techniques of intim idatio n and control. Such mimicry, in colonialist situations as that o f Roman Palestine, expresses the ambivalent rdationship between a dominant group and t hose subordinate to it." In th e case of Sibyllir" Oracle 2, m imic ry of Roman dominatio n replaces the: c.x isting regime with divine. sovereignty: Roman pcrscc.mors find thcmsc:-.lvcs thrown ad bmids while t he righteous look o n a nd c heer. By imagining divine jus· ticc:- in th is way) Sibyr/Jine Ornclr 2 reinscribes the ve.ry strategies ofdom~ ination t hat irs visio n of a pocalyptic justice appears to rcjec.t. Beth Berkowit'L has recently examined a similar rcinscriptio n of Roman exccmion practices in rabb inic literature, where lvlishnah San .. hedrin (7:3) models its own version of execut ion on the p ractices of the " Kingdom," that is Rome. BerkowirL argues persuasively th at t he rab -
Consultation sought to decipher the common good and restore' p11x dromm. i.e., proper l't'lations hetv:een the gods 3nd Romans. In response, Sibylline oracles most ofte-n pr<'scribed culti c 3ppe~mem through proce,ssions. off('lings. or sacrifi ces ofsome kind (e.g., the li ~·e entombment of., pair of Greeks and Gauls in the Forum Boorium, Li ~y 22:)7: Plutlrch, Mmrrllus 3). OCC:.lsionally the oracle stipulated introducing a new cult or deity to Ro me such as Magna Mater in 204 uc~, whose arri'<\lJ in Rome was accomp:utied by fanf.llt' and m ir.ldts (Livy 29:10- 11. 14) . .\'1 Collins, " Development," p. 426. proposes rhat ccrtain common fe-.nures, shared bctwcen the Sibylline oracles 01nd comcmpomry Jewish 01pocalypscs, such 01s the usc o f "rx e/Jelltu prophecy, esclt01rology 01nd a rt'view of a broad sv•ccp o fh istory" conrributcd to the adoption of the pagan Sib)4 by Jewish -and Christian writers, ,..·ho sought to cnlist her -august a uthority for the purposes of legitimfz.ing and univc:rsali1.ing thc:ir ~schatologic-.al messagcs. ~ H. K. Bh.thh::t, 7/x Lo
·rHE l::SCHATOLOGl CAL A RJ::.NA
55
bis m imetically configure their own method of execution (for which they coincidentally lacked autho rity) on Ro man practices, co-o pting for themselves the power and authority of Ro me. This borrowing, how· ever, subversively challenges Ro man dominance by imagining the rabbis to be legally authoritative, presumably in a restored sovereign state.>"
I propose. that a sim ilar f:, ntasy of power is at work in Sibylline Ora& 2. By conceiving e.schatological judgment as a cosmic Coliseum in which Ro man style punishments will be inflicted o n the unjust, this text appro· priates Roman conceptions of power, mimetically adopting the discourse of control that belonged to the occupying natio n. In this text, a Roman Ideological State Apparatus, as G underson argues, which sup· ports the creatio n of docile Ro man subjects and legitimates a hierarchy of status and privilege, is employed to reveal divine o rder and social justice. Roman conceptions of a perfectly ordered society, which enfo rced its laws thro ugh punitive displays of juridical control, opcrate.s in this Jewish/Christian apocalypse with saints rather than Romans occupy· ing the bleachers, presumably o rdered according to their piety and accom plishments rathc:.r than wealth and s tatus. Sinners. co ncc.ivcd as all those who transgress the divine: commandments, become: the objc:.c ts of spcctad~pruricntly displayed for the enjoyment of the regarding saints.:t6 This visio n of heavenly judgment thus inverts the histo rical rolc.s of spec tato rs and Sp<'Ctade under Ro man domination even while it rc:insc.ribc.s central features o f Roman ideology and no tions o f civic o rder. assimilating those social values and wo rld view as its own. In so
doing, it legitimizes using violence and public displays of hum iliating punishment to enforce a particular ideological commitment and behavIO r.
m Berkowitz, Ex~cmion and bwmtion, p. 154. As Ekd.owin discusses, the Tosefro, howeve-r, questions this assimilation of Roman pr:tcticN as porentially thr<"atening to Jewish identit}' (pp. 163-4). :.6~ See D. fr:a.nkfurter, "Martyrology and the ))rurient G01ze,"' JECS 17 (2009). pp. 215-45. whose anai)'Sis of the gr.1phic depiction (fkplmuis) of cottun~ in m:uyrological lirer:uure is illuminating here. I thank David for slt.-.ring the final version of his m."lnuscript for this article with me.
56
KIMBERLY 8. STRATI'ON
In Be rkowitz's analysis of rabb inic laws regarding execution she cm.-
ploys James Scott's notion ofa "hiddc.n transcript" to explain how these texts function secretly to challenge Roman authority: rabbis may have presented one face to their Roman conquc.rors while cxprc.ssing thei r true bdic:fs secretly in opaque documents writren in a foreign tongue.
Scott descrilxs this sort of d uplicity in his book, Domination rmd t/g Arts of Resistance, which examines the discourse of subordinate popu~ lations behind the scenes, whe.n they arc unobserved by the controlling gaze. of the dominant power. He identifies a varict}' ofs ubversive strat·
egies for covertly challenging o r undermining the hegemony of the rul· ing cul ture, one of which involves f.·mrasics of power or retributio n.>7
Scott specifically note.s how apocalypses often play this role., providing comfort through an imagined Day ofJudgment and release from o pprcs· sion/ 11 Yet, unlike the rabbinic material that Bc.r kowitz analrtcs, Sibyl/in'
Orru:!t• 2 is written in Greek, e mploys num erous rcfe.rcnccs to classical literature. and philosophy, and pseudepigraphically attributes itself to the august prophetess revered by Romans and consulted by the senate in grave matters of state. This text thus docs not sce.m to be a "hidden" transcript. but rather an explicitly open o ne. While there is no way to know how many "outside.rs," let alone the Roman senate, would have
actually read these fo rged Sibylline o racles, it is clear that these apoca· lypse.s ddilxratdy and self-consciously d rew upon the. authority of the Sibyl to present their message.'• John Collins notes that Sibylline ora· des "served largely apologetic and propagandistic purposes. Accord· ingly their effectiveness requ ired that they be acceptable representations
>':'!
J. C. Scott, /Jomi11ation and tht Arts ofRrsistmuv: Hiddm Trmuc·ripu (NC'w HavC'n:
Yale UnivC'rsity Press, 1990), pp. 37-38. .!6! Scott, Domintltion, p. ). »I .>\ "Chaldean Histor)',. by Alexander Polyhistor, for example. demonsmues kno,..·fedge o f Sybil/int Ontclt 3. SeC' ))arke, Sib.J,fs. p. 144. Romans WC'rt' wdl awarc of the danger of FJbric.ued or tampered or.ld es: to be ::~pproved as ::~uthorit:ttive and genuine, an oradC' neC'ded to pow the inspection of the QuindecC'nwir priesthood and a vote by thC' SC'natc. Sec B. Lincoln, Aurhority: Comtrurtion and Corrosion (Chicago: University
of Chi~•s• Press, 1994), p. 46: ond P.uke, Sib)'lt. p. 139.
·r HE l::SCHATOLOGl CAL A RJ::.NA
57
of the pagan genre. so that that their Jewish me.ssage could wear the cloak of pagan authority.""' These peculiar texts thus publicize the hidden transcript. As Bruce Lincoln dc.s cribc.s it, they constitute a hybrid of corrosive and author# itacivc discourse, or more precisely corrosive discourse chat masquer# adcs as authoritative speech. Lincoln defines corrosive.discourse as speech that lacks autho rity and seeks to diminish somw ne or something: "Under this term m ight then lx included all those sorts o f speech which arc not o nly nonauthoritativc:, but downright an tithetical co the con# struction o f authority, given their capacity to cat away at the claims and pretensions of d iscourses and speakers who ny to arrogate autho rity fo r themselves."" Sibylline Oracle 2 th us cloaks in oracular authority ideas that in other con texts would be restricted to curses. catcalls, o r satire. Like the hid den transcript that James Scott describes, corrosive discourse allows those who arc peripheral to powc.r, and conseq uently lack the ability o r autho rity to <>press their true opinions o penly, the opportunity to critique social superio rs without fear o f reprisals. The ano# nymity of this type of discourse provides protection as well as cmpowe.rs the speech. By seeming to come from no o ne and everyone at o nce corrosive d iscourse presen ts itself as the vox populari:~"l Sibylline Oracle 2 also draws o n its special status as inspired speech to speak truth to power. As l. M. Lewis demonstrates in his seminal study of religious ecstasy, possessio n by a spirit o r god autho rizes indi\•iduals who o therwise lack social power to express their opinio ns and make demands they would not be able to make u nder normal circumstances- it is not they who speak but the god o r spirit through them.'·' Because they arc regarded as passive vessels or victims, those in thrall to a spirit arc not held responsible for the co ntent of their speech and, Lewis notes. the.y frequently usc this freedom to criticize their social
Collins. '"De\'d opment," pp. 427-28 points out that the use of Sib)1line Oracles for politic.1l propaganda was wdl known throughout the Hdlenistic world. 5<-e also pp. 445-46 o n Christian appropriatio n of Sibrl and her authority. •I> Lincoln. Autlwriry, p. 78. 41»
<~.!)
L.incoln.Autboriry, p. 87. aJ) I.M. Lewis. Emmi(· &ligion: A Swd)' ofShtmumism and Spirit Posmsiou (3rd edn.: New York: Rourledge, 200,\), pp. 26-28.
58
KIMBE RLY 8 . STRATI'ON
superiors." Sibylline Omcle 2 emp loys t h is pnrrhesia of possessed per· sons to critique Roman rule. In so doing. ho\vevcr, it re.i n.scribes Roman value.s and ways o f seeing the world even wh ile ostensibly subverting th em.") This eschatological m imesis o f Roman
The day of judgment here is explicitly configured as a Roman ttmatio (light with wild beasts)." What is e-specially intriguing is the. emphasis
Lewis. £:sratic Rrligiou, p. 27. tS! This is rrue, of course, o f aUcolonial mimicry. As Berkowin. Ewnuio11 mul fllllt'll lio11. pp. 159 16), demonstrates. the r:tbbis wres.tle'd with their own coopting of Roman symbols and instruments of domin-:~tion in their d iscussion of proper o:ecution techniques and the de~e to which they should or should not imitate Roman pracrice:s. 't.1 O n the daring o f this compilation, see\'(~ G. Br.1ude and I. J. IGpstC'in (trans.). Petilrra dr it1b &hmlil: R. !WIJ.mur's Compilnri011 of Disc01mrs for SahbmJJS and Fe;tn/ Dt1)'1 (PhiL1ddphia: Jewish Publication SociC't}' of America, 1975). p. xlvi. •7• The tC'rm used. here {N'"Ulp) is dC'ri\-cd from Greek ('1.1"Tly6:;) -:~nd specifically denotes -:~ gladiator who 6glm with anim.1ls (Br:mdc and K.lpstC'in, Pt·siJ.•tn dr Rnh Knhana, p. 436 n. 36). Acxording to S. LiebC'rman, Gmk iu JnvisiJ Pa!Ntint> (New York: Philipp Fddheim, 1965), p. 38 n. .5 Ia, the saying, "'Be 3mong the o nlookers and not among thoS(' o n view! Be among dtC' SjX'Ctators and not :among the gladiators,,. \\~.ts a Grt'C'k proverb known to the r.tbbis. J. Levinson, ..The Athk te o fPiC'ty: Fatal Fictions in Rabbinic Literarure" ( Hebr~v), Tnrbiz 68 (1999), pp. 61-86 (6.5). d iscusses the ambiguity surrounding this term and the Aexibility .:~nd intC'rchangC3biliry of arena terminology in r:1bbinic literature and concludes th:tt we cannot he cerc-..lin what sort of hght exactly is imagine-d to uke place hC're although hC' vemure:s some hypotherical scenarios to consider. D. S. PottC'r, ''i\·fartyrdom :t.s Spectacle," in R. Scodd (ed.). 71Jmur and Sodny in tlx Cln!!iml World (Ann Arbor: University o f Michig.1n Press, '4!
4
4
4
4
·r HE l::SCHATOLOGlCAL A RJ::.NA
59
o n spcctato rship-bcing am ong th ose watch ing in the aud ience rather than among those in the a rena being watched-which reHects the insecurity ofliving un der Roman occupation. We.know from other an cient sources that individ uals could easily find themselves crossing the. bounda ry betwe.c.n spectator and spectacle on an emperor's whim. Jn the case ofGaius Caligula, for examp le, Suetonius describes his rage at even the smaUest slights and h is sadism in meting o ut punishment, which inclu ded sawing men in halfand t hrowing nobles fld bestias (Gflius, 27). The p recariousness of individual security was C\'Cn more pronounced fOr Jews and Christians. who could move from citiuns to outlaws with the rapidly changing political winds." W. H. C. Frend, fo r examp le, notes that even d uring periods of relative peace and toleration, Christianity remained illegal and could be used against someone in personal dispu tcs.49 What is significa nt about this passage, along with TertuUian's proclamation and Siby/lille Orark 2 , is the degree to which the violence of the arena is accepted as an a ppropriate modd for imagin ing divine judgment at the e nd of days despite its cruelty and social injustice. In Rome social d istinctions were enshrined in law and physically man ifested in corporal punishmcntt capital pu n ish ment was almost never inAicted upon a citizen of Rome in the Repub lic, especiaUy o ne of h igh social
1999). pp. 68-69. howC'ver, notC'.s chat executions. as a gC"-nC'ral rule'. took pbcC' as part of the brstiarii show. 'f.) On the pcrsecurion of Christians and ch:anging politic-.ll rides SCC' \'(~H . C. Frend. "'Martyrdom o1nd Political OpprC'.s.sion," in P. F. EsiC'r (ed.). Tht- EAr&· ChriJti.a11 World Vol. 2 (london: Routledge. 2000). pp. 826-27. 4"1') Frend. "Manyrdom and Political Oppression... p. 823. AdditionaJiy. C hristians were oftC'n blamed fOr n:uural disJstC'rs or othC'r cal:tmiries ;1nd loc.1l officials WC'I'C' sometimes forced to persCX"ute rhe church in response to popul-ar pressure and mob violence (pp. 823-824). Sec also E. A. Castelli. Mnnyrdom nnd J\.ft'mory•: Early Chri!ria11 Cultm't' Making (Gender. Theory and Rdigion~ New York: Columbia Uni\'C'rsit)' Press, 2004). pp. 37·38. B. Shaw, "Judicial Nightmares and Christian 1\·lemory," JECS I I (2003), pp. 533-63. documents the deep psychological impact even sporadic persecutions had o n the collectivt' o1nd i nd i vi du;~] Christi.:ln psyche'. M. GIC'~lSon, "'Mutilated Messengers: Body Language in Josephus... inS. Goldhill (ed.), lking Gn·a( Under Romt': Gt!utml Identity. tiN: &amd SophiJiic, 111111 rht- Dt'~lopmms of EmpiTl' (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 50-85. highlights the constant and capricious usc of violence' as a .show of powC'r under Roman occtJpation.
60
KIMBERLY 8 . STRATI'ON
rank. Rather, they would be ban ned from fire and wate.r (aqune et ignis interdicti.o), which was tantamount to a social death. but did not vio~ late the physical body of the citizen and allowed them to Ace into exile.><> Slaves and foreigners, on the other hand, were subject to de.grading fo rms of publiceapital pu nishment-the summa suplida. This contrast between the noble and dignified deaths ofd ire Roman citizens and the humiliating violation suffered by lower classes and slave$ in the arc·na ideologically reaffirmed the division of rank between honmiom and l?tml;liorn Social worth was demonstrated physically by the sanctity and integrity of dire. bodies versus the vulnerability and indignity of lower class bod.ic.s.' 1 None of these texts indicate the slightc:a revulsio n at this abuse of power and rank manifested in the arena. Rather, all three tc.xts imagine divine justice in terms of Roman disciplinary prac.ticc.s whc.rc. punishment is performed in fro nt of an audience, whose amusement and intimidation constitute c,cntral dcm c.nts o f its rcstrain.ing effect. Indeed, Rabbi Aha's cautionary statement about being among the spectators rather than gladiators at the end of days utilizes the symbolic threat posed by the Roman arena-ever lurking in the background of Jewish Palestinian life-to compel proper piety and rd igious praxis according to rabbinic standards. While the obser vance of Shemini Atzeret as a separate holiday appended to the eighth day of Sukkot is commanded in the 1 orah and described as a solemn assembly, free from work, and requiring a burnt offering to the Lord (lev. 23:36; Num. 19:35), the.assoc.iatio n of this holiday, and Sukkot more generally, with reading of the Torah appears to have de,•cloped primarily during the
~~ ·nu~ aversion to execution for citilC'ns, cspeciall}' nobles,
was so ingr.1ined char during
the Cn!i.line conspiracy, Pompei first lud to decb lt' that the conspirators renou nced
thcir citizenship bcforc he could sC"Ck the de.uh pcnahy for them :LS foreigners (SaiL Cnr. ) I: I8). Duri1tg the Principate, capirnJ punishment for all orders became much more common :t.s :t result of ll e\\~)' C'nforced mnit'fMS laws. Also. the d istinction
betwecn sb VC'/foreigncr and citizen collapsed :tS Roman citizens of tht" lowC'r o rders where subjected to degrading and terrifYing forms of punishmC'nt formerly rcscn·ed for conquered enemies and sla\'CS. Garnsey. Social Stmra, p. 127; Bauman. Crimr dud Punislmmu, p. I 33. }h Bauman, Crimr nnd PuniJimum, p. 12.
·r HE l::SCHATOLOGlCAL A RJ::.NA
61
exilic and post..exilic periods.~2 Deutero nomy first mentions the com .. mandment to read li-om this torah (mn;, ;,·nn;,) d uring the fe.s tival of Sukko t in a sabbatical year (3 1:10-13). But it is the description of Ezra's reading li-om the book of the law of Mose.s (:11VT.l n,m , !lO) d uring the rebuilding of the Second Temple (Neh. 8: 1-8) that confirmed the associatio n of this holiday with Torah for a certain segment of the Jewish population d uring the Seco nd Temple period." After the destruction of the Temple by Titus, Ezra's ideological desce.n dants, the rabbis, reaffi rmed the centrality of 1o mh over and above temple-centered rituals and practices." By elevating Torah in this context, the. rabbinic movement not only provided an alternate cultic focus fo r this important autumnal holiday, but promoted themselves as the authoritative interpreters ofTorah, which they presented as the focus of jewish piety and religious identity.'' Rabbi Aha's threat, therefore, that those who do not properly celebrate the Torah o n Shemini Atzerc.t will face divine punishment as gladiators, lighting beasts in an eschatological arena, reAects a self-interested agenda: promotio n of1orah and rabbinic authority. Most significant
H . Ulfgard, 7ht Story· o/Sukkot: 7hr Sming, Slmpiug, mulS~qua oftiN Bibliml Ftase ofTab~mariN (Tiibingen: Mohr Sid xck, 1998). p. 204, suggests rhat the eighth-day fC"Sti\'al is 01 post-exilic addition to an earlier lsradite holid a)'. " > Ulfgard, 7/)f Story o/Sukko-t. pp. 109-1 2, convincing!)' ~.rgues that fhis story in Nehemiah re fl ects a p0111icular ideology 01n d conceprion of Judaism, which bdonged ro the returning exiles (of71Jl1 'll ) and v.-as in opposition to other Judahite groups. such as rhe temple priest.s and local inhabitants. descendants of rhose left be-hind d uring the exile. The de\'ation ofTorah in Ez.r.t-Nehemiah as the law of Moses, sancrioned by rhe Persian king to be implemented in a rebuilt j t'rusaJem (br.l 7:25), SC'rves to authorize as rhe only true fo rm o f Judaism fhe customs 0111d innovations bro ught b)' Eva fro m the community in Babrlonia. Throughout Ezra Nehemiah it is this community of rtcurnecs that is regarded as "all lsrad," excluding oth er groups who also claimed to share this identity. ~) J. l. Rubenstein, 71x History• of Su!.:kot in du• Xcond Tt-mplr 1111d Rabbinic Ptriod (Atlama: Schobrs Press. I995), examines ~..-.rious v...-.ys the rabbis modified both rhe obser\'a.ncc and meaning ofSukkot in rcsponse to the temple's desrn1ction. '5> In post Talmudic times, this trend roward de"'<..-.tion of Torah during Sukkor culminated in a holiday o f its own. Simhat Torah, which cdebr.u c.s the completion of the year's liturgical Torah rtading. ;\. Rothf..olf. "Simhat Torah," EnorloprdW judaim (CD ROlvt edition, 1997). '.!)
4
4
62
KIMBE RLY 8. STRATI'ON
for our purposes is the fact that his visio n of eschatological judgment d raws ddinitivdyon Roman symbols of power and d isciplinary intim· idation-dc.spitc trenchant rabbin ic critiques of t he arenaS cruelty and idolatry-in his own dfon at social conrrol.' 6 In the Apocalypse of John, threats of eschatological judgment similarly fu nctio n to cajole certain behavio r a nd demarcate. the bou ndaries between churches of Asia m inor and Roman idolatry. David L. Barr identifies three types of violence in the book of Revelat io n : cosmolog· ical violc.ncc d irected against the earth; military violence d irected against the Dragon, symbolizing the emperor and Rome; and jud icial vio lence d irc.c tcd against Joh n's opponents a nd thei r followc rs."Thc fi rst sort of vio len ce draws upon p revious Israelite prophets and. possibly, the Sibylline O racles..'' who predict t he d ire consequences of divine wrath fo rmulated in te.r ms of cosmic catastro phes. such as p laguc:s, famines, and earthquakes. John's visio ns of eschatological destruction, including fitmi nc and pc.s tilencc (6:8), seas of blood (8:9), angels that harvest people with a scythe ( 14: 14), o r pour o ut terrifying locusts wit h scorpio n tails that sting (9:7 -1 0), thus contribu te to au thorizing his visionary creden tials by idcnti~ring h im wit h carlicr p rophets an d seers. The second two types of violence that figure in Jo hn's Apocalypse according to Barr- military and judicial-mimic strategies of Roman domination, sim ilarly employing thn:ats ofspectacular violence w in tim .. idatc. and coerce obedience. for example. Jo h n has a vision of C hrist in rhc guise of a triumphant empero r, returning \'ictorio us from bar..
ric: ,_., Sukkor devdoped stro ng eschmologic:.l 3ssociations in the post-exilic period. See, for example, Zech. 14: I . In rabbinic lic«arure the mkka serves as both a rest and a tC'W'ard (for rhosC> who manage to comply with proper obsemmce); S('C' Rubenstein, 7h~ HistOT)' ofS~tkkot, pp. 27), 279-80, 295. See also J . L Rubenstein, '"An Escharolosical Drama: Ba\'li :\vodah Zarah 2a-3b." AJS Rntietv2L (1996), pp. 1<~7 {17), who nore.s che inversion of power. similar to examples examined previously, in the imagery of Rome being judged and punished by the god of Israe-l in this imagined coun-room scene. s~. D. L Barr, "'The Llm b Who Looks like a Dr-agon? Characteri-ring Jesus in John's Apocalypse." in D. l. Barr (M.). 71J~ &nlisy ofApomiJ'Pw: Rlmoric nud Polir.io in tlu Book ofRrr.vlation (Symposium SC>rics 39: Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2006), p. 208. ~~ Collins, Crisis aud Cuh,·mis, p. 49.
·r HE l::SCHATOLOGl CAL A RJ::.NA
63
Then I saw hea\'en h.-.d b«n oprncd, and behold, 3 white horse ru1d one sitting upon it, rwho is called! FaithfUJ and Tn1e, and in righteousnrss he judges and W'.lgcs war (-.plv£1 -.o.t l«lh.t:f.u(t) . . . upon his he:~d arc many crowns ... He is garbed in 3 cloak soaked with blood (l}t:ll«!IJiivov o.'i!ICUt) and thr namr that he is caiJed is The Word. of God. :\nd the armies of he:t\'<"11, being d :td in lgarmrms} of pure white linrn, followed him on white horses. Out of his mouth risrs a sharp -S\vord with which to strike down rhe ge:miles (tl< f.6v11), and he will rule thrm with an iro n staff ... And he has a name inscribed o n his cloak and upon his thigh: King of kings <Jnd Lord of lords (B«GtAW,; l}aotAtqw -.al ~Vp t o.; );:Uplwv). (19:1116)
Th is passage presents C hrist in the guise of heavenly emperor: he leads a vast cavalry that vanquishes the nat io ns of t he world; he has imperiu m to judge and to make war; he wears the purp le robe of royalty, dyed in t he b lood o f h is own martyrdo m or of his e nemies whom he has sla ughtered, w and bears the name King of kings-sup planting the Roman empc.ro r as ru le r of the world. 1nis visio n harnesses t he ideological impact of a Roman Triu mph to d e.m onstratc Christ's majesty and cosmic imperiu m as well as to in tim~ idatc those whom Jo hn criticiu:s for impious behavior and life style. The Roman Triumph constituted o ne of the most significant a nd ext ravagant spectacles of Roman m ilitary power: it celebrated chc ui~ ump hant general as god-like in his a bility to ch an nel divine 13vor toward Ro man imperial expansion a nd t he subordination o f unruly focs."' This spectacular d isplay o f military might would have resonated with members of the Jesus movement {bot h Jewish a nd gentile in backgrou nd), who wimesse.d o r heard about t he: celebration of T itus's victory over rebellious Ju
64
KIMBE RLY 8 . STRATI'ON
as a triu mphan t general or emperor, th is vision challenges Roman hege·
mony and offered its htarcrs an alternative way to understand recent historical events; dc.spitc apparent disconfirmation, Jesus is, in fact, leading the heavenly armies to b ring vengeance and justice. to the earth."'
In the process. however, this vision of celestial retinues and a sword .. bearing general rc.i nscrilx:s Roman tech n iques ofsocial con tro l a nd sub ..
o rd ination. David Barr ident ifies the third type o f violence to be jud icial, directed against John's opponents and t hose who follow them."' O ne vision, for example, imagines God sitting in judgment o n h is th ro ne like a Roman emperor, deciding the eternal destiny of t he dead:"' ThC'n I saw a l:ugc shini1tg throne and the one who was sitting upon it ... :\nd [ saw the d ead, g:((':tt and small, standing before the thro ne, and books we-((' opened. Also an addirionaJ book V.\lS opened, which is the o nc of life. And the de:td were judged (i ..:p(9l'jO'Qv) b)' what was w rittC'n in the books, according to tht'ir deeds. (20: 11 -12)
Th is \•ision dearly cites, as an intertcxt. D an . 7:9- in which the Ancient of Days sits on a flaming t hrone holding court with the lwob of judgment splayed before h im- and thus a uthorizes itself through this reference to a p rophetic predecessor. The scene also c31ls to m in d individuals await ing th e verdict of a Roman judge before being sent to £Kc their deaths in the arena. Brent Shaw has demonst rated t he powerful psych ological impact Roman jud icial proceedi ngs, as spectacles, had o n denizens of the Roman Empire. Often involving torture to extract a con fessio n or testimony "the public t rials staged by Roman governo rs were calculau:.d to be. p reventat ive spectacles, visual sights th at we.rc mean t to stan le: an ekphrasis of admin ist rative power and of un disguised cO<'rcion so riveting that it was furt her de.v dopcd in in ter· See also S. J. Friesen.Imprrin/ Gdrs and rhr Apom/ypu>ofjolm: &nding &velntion iu tlx Ruins (Nrw York: OxfOrd University Press, 200 1), who reads reveb.rion as a dir«t Ct
response to the rheology and cosmology promoted by Ro ma n imperi.:1l cult. t;;J~ Barr. "'The U.mb Who looks like a Dragon?... p. 208. "' See also J. W. .Marshall, "\X' ho's on the Throne? Revelation in the long Ye.u ,"' in R. S. Bousr;m and A. Y. Rttd (C'ds.), Hrm~tnl;• &al11u nud Earthly· Rralir.ies i11 Law Amiqm· &ligions (C:ambridgc: Cambridge Univrrsity Press, 2004) . pp. I 26-27, 139.
·r HE l::SCHATOLOGlCAL A RJ::.NA
65
nal p ictures of the mind."•> Revelation's portrayal of God, t he.rcfore, as a n eschatological judge harnessc.s this ideological strategy co coerce compliance among fellow members o f t he Jesus moveme nt. While the Roman judge displayed implements of torture to induce fea r and submission in those being interrogated, Revelation displays \•isions ofeschatological torture in fiery lakes (19:20) a nd with bowls of wrath ( 16: 1-17) 66 [ O ind uce conformity. Jo h n's Apocalypse thus mimics strategies o f intimidatio n used by Rome to p romulgate its part icu lar, and some might say, extreme scv tarian point of view. which sought to main ta in rigid social bound aries b
535. E. Sc.trry, 7hl' Bod] in Pain: 77Jt· A1nking mul Unmn.king of silt' World (Oxford: Oxford University Pl't'ss, 1985), pp. 28, 58. describes file impon:tncc of displaying the M> Shaw, "Judicial Nig.hnnares,... p.
~
weapons as pan o f the tortul't' process. .;;) D. Frankfurter, "Jews or Not? Reconstructing the ~Other' in Rev 2:9 and 3:9," HTR 94 (2001) pp. 40,, ~2 5 (414- 15); G. Carey, ..Symptoms of Resismncc in the Book of Revcknion,.. in Barr (cd.). l!Jt' &nlity ofApornb'PM• pp. 173-74. M> See 1~ A. Harl-and. A1so
63. Frankfurter. "Jews or Not?,... p. 4 12, argues that John•s opponents wert" esscnrially P..mline, whert"as John preferr«l3 stricter and more sectarian approac h to puriry comparable to that of the Q umran community. See also Girt")) "Symptoms ofRcsistJnce," p. 174. on John's d esire for strict communal boundaries. ':0) Fund i, Blood i11 silt' Anwn. pp. 78 ~ 79. o n the arena ..-.s a demonstration of d ivine nt.1.ndare. t.
66
KIMBE RLY 8. STRATI'ON
Voyeurism A common t heme t hat perva
as stubble in the fire so shall they burn before." the f.u:e of the holy. as le.1d in the w:ner, shall they sink before the face o f rhe righteous. (48:9)?·' In those' days Sheol shall open her mouth, and t hey shall he C'n gultCd thC'rc in, ThC'ir d estrucrion ShC'ol shall not remit, But sinners slt~U be swallowed up from t he presence of the deer (56: 8) . ~ 1
711
S. Goldhill, "'The Erotic Eye': Visua l Stimulation a nd Cultural ConAin,,. in Bri11g
Gr«k under Romr: Culmml /Jmtit;y, the SmmdSophistir, and tl~ Dt-wlopmmt afEmpir~ {New York: Cambridge University Press, 200 1), p. I 59. See also C. A. Frilingos. Sprc· larks of Empire: Momtn1, ;\./artyn, nnd tiN &ok of Rntt'lation (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Rdigion; Philadelphia: University ofPcnns}~Van ia Pr~, 2004). who makes 3 similar argument fo r the e ntire book of Re velation. Th< Sim ilirudC'S arc the o nly part of I Enoch that W:t.S not discovt'red at Qumran and it h:t.S been proposed that, despite simibr .sectaria n terminology and world \'iew, t he equal role .:~ccordcd to (he' .sun and moon in ,his text made it u nrccceprnblC' to the Qumran community. J. C. Greenfidd a nd M. E. Stone, .. The Enochic Pentateuch o:~nd the DJJ< of th<Sim;J;tudcs." H TR 70 ( 1977), pp. 51.05 (56). -~· Translation from i\'1. Black, 71N Book of En«h or 1 Emuh: A Nrw English Edition with Commrmary• tmd li-xtual Nom (leidC'n: E.J. Brill, 1985). p. 50. i4l Traltsl.ation from Black, 71N BookofEnotl!, p. 54.
ill
·rHE l::SCHATOLOGl CAL A RJ::.NA
67
I Enoch 27. which constitutes part of Enoch's first vision that details his celestial journey and was included among the. texts discovered at Qumran, describes the guilty receiving retributio n in a barren valley destined fo r their judgmen t, which is explicitly de.scribe.d as an everlasting spectacle: In rhe lasr da)'S thC'rc shall rake pbce in thC'm the spectacle's ofrighteous judgC'mC'n t in the presconce of the righreous, (a spectacle) for all time; (and) h C'~ will the pious bless the lord of glory, the e\'C'rb.sting King. In rhe da)'S of their judgC'mem the~' wiiJ hless !tim according as he has imparted mC'rcy to thC'm. {27:3-4);6
This text describes the final judgment as a grand show at which the pioc.s will o bserve, and presumably enjoy, the sight of sinners recei\•ing eternal punishment. Much like the audience at Roman games, the pious savor their privileged status, cxc:.m pt from punishment and pain, acclaim#
ing the King's mercy for sparing them. Watching the sufferi ng of Others in this text-their bodily destruction- reaffirms the integrity and unity of the individual bodies and social bodies that witness it. The spectacle of violence helps co ncretize boundaries betwe
factor in its ideological work. They participate in the spectacle through watching it.
Vengeance, both divine and human, appears to be a pri mary moti\>ating factor fo r the display of divine brutality. The. pious apparently appreciate witnessing their fo rmer oppressors, the kings of the earth, receiving just dese.rts (48:9). This motif of justified violence and voyeuristic plc:.asurc recurs in many eschatological fantasic:.s. Michael
Gilmour, fo r example. examines the dement of Schadenfi'mdt'-
.,.,; Ethiopic driJ)'d = Opaol~ I (>F:iy~«. ;nm, tputncu!Jtm (Black, 1/Jt' Boo.{· of Enotl!, p. 174). ':6) Translation from Black, Tbr Book ofEl10riJ, p. 40. ':7> Scarry. 7h~ &d)• i11 Pain, pp. 37-38. for example, dC'scrihes the inversco relationship during mnure between fhC' shrinking world of the vicrim and the expanding world of the torturer.
68
KIMBE RLY 8 . STRATI'ON
pleasure at watching someone else's sufferi ng- in the second century apocryphon," Apocalypse oJPeur, which represents the earl iest known tou r of hell and "fountainhead" of that tradition.79 G ilmour regards pleasure taken at o nes enemies' misfortune to be.a natural response. to persecution.'• Citing Adela Yarbro Collins' work on the cathartic fu nctio n of apocalyptic literature, he argues that depictions of the righ teous, witnessing and approving of their enemies' esch atological to rtu re.• gran ts permission to the readers or hearers of the tc.xt to indulge in their own fa ntasies of violence a.s a response to suffc.ring.111 In the Apocalypse of Peter, which Gilmour identifies as a reaction to Bar Kochba's pc:.rsecutio n of Christians d uring the sc-eond \\'ar with Romc.11 :! the elect ven t their resentment and lust for vengeance as they watch their oppressors afflicted: By that time fh e angds will ha\·e b rought my chosC'n and my just people who are perfect in all justicc. carrying rhem on their arms. They will be putting on the dorhing of heavenlr life and they will see those who cursed that life rc:-ceive V<'ngeance.3)
This passage explicitly describes the gloating voyeurism of the. righteous as they observe their former enemies being punished. Elsewhere the in nocent victims of infan t icide. and abortion a rc said to ovc.rsc.c the tor.-. ture of their murdering parents and to express approval fo r their torment and suffering: "'' dement and the Mur.uorian com on rcg~rd Apo<. P~t. as Scripture: it continued to be- quoted in patristic literanti'C' until the fifth century Ct.. Sec M. H immdF.trb, Tours of Hr/1: An Apoca{)-ptic Form iu jttvis.IJ and ClJristinu Litrmr.urr (Phil:tddphia: UniV<'r· sity of Pc.mtsylvania Prt"Ss, 1983), pp. 8-9. "-'l H immdf.ub, 7inm ofHtl/, p. 3. f,llj M. J. Gilmour, " Ddighring in the Suffering of Others: E3rly Chri$tian Schadmfmul~ .md the Function of the ApO
·r HE l::SCHATOLOGlCAL A RJ::.NA
69
Nt3r this lir<' is a hug pit, \"e t)" deep. All sons of punishments Row im o ir from e'X'r}"where, lo:uhsome me nstruations. The women there are swallowed up w rheir necks, tortured wirh inte nse agony. These women abort their children, wiping out the work which God has molded. Facing rhem is anorh« place wher<' the children live, rh oS(" children which they kept from li..·ing. When the babies call O ut to God, lightning comes out fro m them, boring im o the eyes or the women who mamged their destruction wirh this 3duhery. Abo'X' there, orher men and women are stand ing naked. Their childf'C'n stand facing them i.n a delightful place. As the children wail. they gtoan and call our to God against their parents, ..they neglected us and cursed us, a nd violating your commandment, rhey pur us to death. They c ursed the 3ngd who formed us, a nd they hung us up. They begrudged us the light whic:h you gave to everybody... Their mothers• milk runs from rheir bre.ms. It thickens and becomes purrid. MeJH:aring animals :tr<' in it, and they go in and out of ir, and they 3re punished forever, with rheir huslxtnds (8};' 4
Again t he righteous indulge their desire. for vengeance in this text and serve to model the appropriare r<:spon.se for readc.rs, who may also perceive themsdvcs to be innocent victims o f oppressio n and pcrsccu~ tion.11' Significantly. however, the majority ofsins which receive eternal pun~ ishment in the Apocab'P"ofPnrrdo not include persecutio n of Christians or oppression and domination. Rather. t hey arc sexual sins, such as adultery/fornication and infanticid e/abo rtio n, and sins of speech, such as blasphemy, sweari ng a false oath, and gossip."" This suggests char the primary function of chis tc.xt is not necessarily catharsis in times of persecutio n, as Gilmour suggests. bu t rather social control-intim~ idating readers into desisting from soda] practices the auchor of t his apocalypse categorizes as sin . Martha H immdfarb, for example, note.s that sex before marriage and infanticide: constitute grave sins almost exclusively in Christian tours of hdl.17 She proposes that this attitude results from t he importance placed o n celibacy and monasticism in early Christianity; nuns and monks could not benefit from a hasty marriage. to escape d etectio n fo r Buchholz, Ylmr Eyn Will & Opm.·d. pp. 203-07, ''free.' transl:uion." an Gilmour, •*Ddighting in the Suffering of Others,.. p. 136. ~ Himmdf.1rh. limn ofH~/1. p. 69, who notes th:u 3dultery and fornic.nion are dif· 6cuh to d istingu ish 3S ar~ abonion 3nd infanticide. an Himmdf.ub, Ttnm ofH~/1. p. 7 1. s.t)
70
KIMBERLY 8. STRATI'ON
sexual indiscretions while Jews and Romans, who also disapproved of prcmariral sex, could remedy a m istake with S\vifl matrimony. H im ..
mclfarb also points out that infitnticide. was considered to be an accept· able form of birth control by Romans and m ay have continued to be regarded as such by gentile converts to Christianity."' The punishments described in chis tc:.xt rhus serve as a stark warning £O its audience. pro .. viding them with a vivid ekphrasis of their future torments if they do not conform to the. author's moral agenda.
The theme of voyeurism and social control also figu res in the Apoc• alypse of John. which Chris Frili ngos demonstrates is fra med entirely as a spectacle of power, informed by the politics of viewing and being viewed that opc.ratcd in Roman culturc.~9 Revelation commences with
letters addressed to the seven churches in Asia Mino r from the risen Christ. Each epistle states that Christ "knows" something about the church to which it is addressed: their works, tribulation, o r where they dwdl for instance. In other words C hrist has been observi11g them and knows what they have been doing. In the case of Thyatira, Christ not o nly knows their deeds but states: "I am he who searches m ind and heart (v£
those who worship the beast and bear his mark shall be "tormented with fire and sulphur in the pmenu ofthe holy angels and ilz the pm· mu of the Lamb" (1 4: 10). By prominently situating the Lamb and angels as spectators in the aud ience of th is celestial judgment scene,.
Revelation figu ratively casts Christ in the role of empe.ror and angds as nobles in the stands. So., just as Christ riding the. white horse of the apocalypse mimics a tri umphant emperor wielding m ilitary strength
Qll
Himmdf.ub, Tours ofHell. pp. 74-75.
Frilingos, Sf"mules of Empirt, pp. l-2. See .-.Jso H. 0 . Maier, "Staging the Gaze: Early Christian Apocalypses <1nd N:trr.ltive Sdf-Rcprtsent:nion," HTR 90 (l997}. pp. 13 1-)4 ( 132]. ro! See HimmdF.arb. Toms of Hell. p. 76, on t~x wliouis as a legaJ principle in the Wl
ancient world.
·rHE l::SCHATOLOGl CAL A RJ::.NA
71
and vanquishing foreign nations, C hrist the Lamb assumes the role of sponsor in an c.schatological spectacle where o ppo nents-including
those within the church, who do not subscribe to the \'ision of piety promulgated by rhc autho r of the Apocalypse.- rcceive their due punishments. By scripting the Lamb and angels as em peror and nobles in a figu rative arena, John's Apocalypse ambivalently rcinscribe.s Rome's methods of terror and intimidatio n to cajole the churches ofAsia Minor into ado pting his sectarian visio n of piety and social segregatio n.
Vision and Sub,·ersion The. dynamics of power between \•ic.wing and being vicwt'd in early
Christian writings has been provocatively investigated by Harry 0. Maier and Elizabeth Castelli with implications fo r this study of eschatological spcctacb. Harry 0. Maier, fo r example, compares the "omnio bsen'llnt eye of God," described in apocalyptic visions, to Bentham's Panopticon, theorized by Foucault in Disciplinr tmd Punisb. Maier writes: «As o ne emers the textual panopticon of apocalyptic. narrative, o ne is colonized as subject of a world of perfect unreciprocated surveillance."•• Readers of these texts, like inmates of the Pano pticon, intc:rnalize thc.ir own surveillance and impose their own sdf~discipline. Furthe.rmo rc:, i\1.aier argues that Chriscians, like actors on a stage, o r
Romans in an arena, learn to play the role defi ned fo r them by authors of these texts. They learn to play themselves in a cosmic drama: "Plots of coming judgment, o r visio ns of judgment figuri ng in larger narra.tivc.s, prc:.sc.nt audie nces to rhemsdvcs in order co persuade chcm of the nec.cssity o f ne.w performances of self."'>'! Tcn ullian's rant against Roman spectacles confirms this perception
of divine surveillance and the disciplinary effect it is intended to have: For do you doubt how in rhat moment, when )'OU are raging in fhc devil's church (u.desia} {i.e., the arena), you a.re ohservC'd by c'IC'ry angd in hC'aven and noted down o ne' by o ne: who UttC'red a blasphC'nl)) who lis(ene'd; whose tongue, whose cars sc-nx-d the devil 3gainst God? ([H :spe~. 27.3)
•m MaiC'r, "Staging the G3ze,.. p. 143. '''· '~~,Ia1C'r, . "5tagmg . the Gau,• p. 14'-'·
72
KIMBE RLY 8. STRATI'ON
Tc:rtullian thus imagines a vigilant angelic bureaucracy keeping accou nt of all our sins and uses this threat to cajole h is readers into abstain ing from pub lic. entertainmen ts. Actions alone, as we have. seen (Rev. 2:23), do not comprise the pitfulls fo r unwary humans; thoughts also can lead to perdition. In the Shepherd of Hcrmas, fo r examp le, which date.s to the mid-second century C.E in Rome.• th e. protagonist, who is a freed slave. encounters h is former ownc.r in a visionary ascent to heaven . She informs Hcrma.s t hat God is angry at him for desiring her in his heart when he saw her bathing in the T iber while he was still her slave (and p resu mably doing h is d uty as her personal servant, I: I). Contemp lating sin, according to this text, is rhus equivalent to actually sinning. Jesus similarly is reported to have said: "everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:28). Hermas's vision consequent ly validates this radical definition of sin wit h revelatory amhorityand confi rms GodS o mn iscience and omnip rc.scncc, present# ing him as the ultimate Big Brother-an all-seeing judge, who is even inside oneS own hcad.93 The posirions of viewer and viewed rcprc.scnt locations of relative power. To ser someone constitu tes having knowledge of th em, knowl .. edge that consticutes power. Carlin Barton, for example. dcsc.ribe.s the toxic shaming t hat could occur when one lacked an ab ility to shield o neself from th e consuming eyes of others." The gaze itself can even be described as vio lent in its aggressive desire to possess o r comrol a body. As FranrL Fanon describes the colonial gaze: ''This ' look', from-so to speak-t he place of the Other, fixes u.-, not o nly in its violence.• hostility, a nd aggression, bu t in the ambi,•alencc of its desire."., Elizabeth C astelli, however, complicates this b inary schema with regard to mar ..
n• This \'iew or God as all knowing is mock«! hy a character in Minucius Fdix's Ottavius, who presents it as patently absurd that a divine being could lx so concerned wich the peninessofhuman li~s ( 10:5). ,., C. Barton, .. Being in the Eyes: Shame and Sight in Ancient Rome,.. in D. Fredrick (ttL), Th~ Roman Gnu: lli!iot~;. Pau'l'r. and r!!t' Body· (Baltimort': Johns Hopkins Uni· versity Press, 2002) , p. 223. 9Sl Quoted. in bell hooks, "The Oppositional Gu.e: Black Female Spcct:nors,.. in Julia l11omas (ed.), Reading /magi's (New York: P.1lgra~. 2000), pp. l23-37 ( 124).
·r HE l::SCHATOLOGlCAL A RJ::.NA
73
tyrdom by illu minating th e opportu n ities be.i ngsccn provided fo r subversion and oppositio n: The d iscourse of manyrdom is pi'C'dic:ned o n the inversion of convC'ntional meanings. which is prcciscly wh)' it fajJs to achieve its pc.rpctr.uors• goals: to d ie in rhe convt'ntional sC'nsc is 10 attain life in the m:l.nyr•s discourSC'. Visuall)'. martyrdom fOr che martyr is also an invC'I'S ion: the martyr is literall)' a witness, the person who testifies in a court to what they have' seen; in the visua.l«onomy of martyrdom, the' martyr hecomC'S a witness through the' display ofthe' sdf: through becoming that which others see . . . . So. 1he econom)' of martyrdom depends upon the looking of the' crowd and the looked-at-ness o f the m.-.nyr.'J6
The dynamics of power that the martyr's wit nessing disrupts. u nfortunately. is reinscribc:d later when Christian ity bccomc:s the sovereign religion of the Roman Empire: and embraces earlier strategies of domination to patro l not just political submission but rdigiousscnriment and piety as well. fo r example. Augustine·s f.'lmo us critiq ue of violent savagery in the arena, which describes the insid ious appeal of bloody dismemberment, is wdl known fi-om his Conji>ssiom (7:8), bu t less wd l known is his advocacy of violence to d iscip line cri minals-including schismatic. dissc.n te.rs such as Donatists. Augustine makes no d istinction bcnvcc.n theological d issen t a nd othc.r crimes; heresy and poisoning arc. subject to the same d isciplinary action (Colltrll Ep. Pnnn. I . 10. 16).' ' Furthe.r more, he justifies not only the usc of corporal punish ment in t hese cases but methods of tortu re that resemble earlier spcctacks of power in the Roman arcna:911
E. A. Gmd li. \lisious and Voymrimt: Hoi] W4muu and silt' Politics ofSight. in Enrly• Clm'ssianity (Protocol of the Colloquy of the Cem
~
·m
Sec\'(( H. C. frC'nd, "Augustine and State Authority: The Example offhC' Donariscs." in Agosti110 D'!pponn "Qwtrsfimus DilpmaMt'" (P.1lermo: PeC"t
Asltgarc Publishing, 2006). pp. 137-46.
74
KIMBE RLY 8. STRATI'ON
For catainl)' it is firring fo r a thief to be torn to pieces through b iting. Ne,~nhdess, a ma n does not d o it himself. or th rough his son, o r SC'f \'J.nt, or C'YC' n yet his slav~. R:nhcr through a dog. the ki nd ofhcasr fOr whom it is proper to d o such an action according to his scmion by binh. (Ek dic1. q. 53:2)
In chis passage. Augustine sanctions tearing a chief apart by dogs, reminding us of Nero's bru tal treatment o f Christians t hree centu ries earlier.• when. according to Tac itus) he: sewed many imo a nimal hides an d gave thc.m ovc.r to wild dogs to be torn apart as a gr uesome spc:ctadc in rctal.. iacion for burning the city of Rome (a c rime 'Tacitus suspects Nero him~ self d irected and falsely blamed o n t he unpopular C hristians, Ann. I 5:44). Augustine considers chis fo rm of punish ment acceptable e\'e n while it is too c rud fo r hu mans to perfOrm; thus he [ransfers the sav.. age responsibility to animals. Elsc:whe.re.• Augusrinc argue.s t hat torcurc:, when used ro presc.rvc law and o rder, is legitimated by its good intentions (e.g., Ep. 153. I 7). Like a doctor, the judge causes suffering in an effort to heal:"' What should I say ugarding punishing o r not punishing, set'ing rhat in every ClSt' \\'t' i ntt'nd to benefit rhe salvation of thost' \',:hom \\'t' decide should lx punished or not puni.shc:d. (Ep. 95:3)
Augustine expresses he re t he notion that sta te.sanctioned [Orturc: purges a wicked soul; it is rhus acceptable not only from the standpoint o f society b ut, a t least theoretically. from t hat of the victim as well, who o chc rwisc would d ie: ''a death more: tcrr{ving and indeed more t ragic., cut off from C hrist's salvatio n and doomed to eternal torment (Contra Ep. !'arm. 1.8.14).'00 This point of view is in f:1 ct represented in earlier Christian writings such as the Apocnlyps• ofPeter 13, where sin ners lx:ing pun ished proclaim God a nd th eir tortu re to be just. Perhaps it is in t his context chat a midrash on the Cain and Abd story in Genesis de.rives. which critiques the ve ry notion of just ili('d vio lence an d d i\'inc judgmt"nt:
11 "
Augustine ht'rC' follows in the philosophical tradition of earli« cl-assical thinke rs. such -as Pbto Gorgiat 473c, 4na; LRws 735d 736a; and Sent'ca. Dt· im 1.6. 1 2 . •~»> Frend, ''Augusti ne and State Aurhority," p. 62. 4
4
·rHE l::SCHATOLOGlCAL ARJ::.NA
75
R. Shimon bar Yohai s::~ys: it is difficult to sa}' this thing, nor can the mouth unnir. It is as if nvo athletes were swnding ~nd wrestling before the king; if the king h:1d w·.1med co sejXlr.nc them (he could h:l''ef, bur he did not ,...-ant to separate rhcm. 1l1en one oVC'rpo..,•ercd his colle.1gue (n"3n) ~nd killed him: (as he was dying} he frhe "ictim} cried. our and .s:.lid, "ler my C:tSC' ('r"T) be pleaded before the king!" (Genesis Rablxlh 22:9)
This statement places God explicitly in the role of emperor sponsoring Roman gam es as other texts have do ne.•u• lr divcrge.s from prcTious pat#
terns, howe\'cr.• by blaming God fo r not preventing Abel's murder. In so doing. this passage compare.s God to an unconcerned. o r worse:.
blood-thirsty empero r, who enjoys watching the entertaining violence of the arena. It consequently reAects an ambivalence potentially underlying all eschatological fantasies of divine justice and wrath : namely, if God is in f., ct a just judge, taking account of all that passes on ear th, why docs he fail to preve.nt oppressio n, bloodshed and war-waiting, instead, umil the ultimate momem to wreak vengeance. on the pe rpetrators.
doubling the amount of final carnage? Furthermore. it raises doubts about the very vision of eschatological judgment and divine surveil#
lance that undergirds much Jewish and Christian theology. Without a final judgment and redemptio n, Christianity as it develope.d under the domination of the Roman church collapses. f'vlartyrdom is revealed to have been pointless and Christ's death itsdf can no lo nger be viewed as the central merciful act of God and channel of mercy and grace. This mid rash, attributed to a sccond ..ce.n tury rabbi, who survived chc
brutal suppression of) udaea after the Bar Kochba rebellion, may reflect the cynicism and despair of that era. Altcrnati,•cly, it could represent the distancing of j udaism from apocalyptic rhetoric. under Christian domination (when the midrashim were actually redacted) where such
Sec also Levinson, "The Athlete ofPicry,.. who similarly discusses chis p.1rable ('wn) in rerms of Rom.1n imperial pr.-.cticcs and the ideologr of the arena. Additionall)) J. Levinson, '"Tragedies N:lturally Performed:' F.ltal Charades, Parodia Sitm1. and the Death of Titus,.. in R. Kalmin and S. Schwanz (eels.), Jnvisb Cultu~ aiU! Socil'l)' Unda !IJt' CIJristinu Roman Empin·, vol. 3 (Jntcrdisciplinar}' Studies in Ancient Culture and Rdigion; leuvcn: P«tcrs, 2003), pp. 349-82, considers other midrashim dut appropriate :lnd inVC'n Roman ideologic:. I s1rarcgics as a form of lircrar}' ~sist:mce. lOll
76
KIMBE RLY 8. STRATI'ON
rhetoric served to lc:gitimatc. stare .sanctioned violence against d issent· cr.s such as schismatics, '' heretics," and Jews.
Conclusion This mid rash on the story of Cain and Abel b rings a caurionary per· spcctive to t he eschatological arena a nd fanrasics of violent revenge so prominent in early Christian a nd Jewish literature. It reminds contcm~ pora ry readers of rhc. impc:-.r ialist context that gave birth to t hese visions and warns of the danger inhcrcm in rcinscrib ing Roman strategies o f domination in sacred literature:. Because c:.schatological judgme.n t fo rms the backbone to much mono theistic theology these l:1ntasies of vio lence continue to operate in discourses of domination. sanctifying contemporary acts of aggression and vio lence. Perhaps, like R. Shimon bar Yohai, we nc::cd to q uestio n t he very notion of d ivine .surve.illance and judgment upon which these texts are based, opening t he way to ne.w conceptions of GodS justice an d sovereignty.
The Language ofWar (2 Cor. 10:1-6) and the Language ofWeakness (2 Cor. 11:21b-13:10)' Calvin J. Roetz.el U11ivmity• o[Mimtt'JO!il
Introduction Before 9/J 1 a nd afte r, studies of religious vio lence have mult iplied, an d no religion has been exempt.' These studies show that all religious tra· d itions have vio lent chapters in th eir h istory. \'\lhilc it is nai\'c to assume that true religion would put an e nd to conflict, we need not assu me that violent con Aict is inevitable. T he hope inform ing t h is essay is t hat a better u nderstandi ng of how symbolic languages work in context, how clashes be tween them p romote vio lent conflict, how social worlds a nd political contexts interact, a nd hov~· cultural interaction can pro... d ucc surprises and expose the presumptions of religious violence. a; This cssar is offered in memory of Professor Emeritus Alfred Aeppli, Uni\'crsiry of Minnesota, a non-sp«ialist and peace ad\'OCltC' who, though terminally ill, attended
all of rhc sessions of the conference, and pose'd manr questions. !) A smaJI sample would include B. Lincoln, Holy 7tmm, 11Jiuki11g ahout Rrligion af ur ScpumiMr II (Chic.1go: University of C hicago, 2003}; D. Bo}':.ltin. Dyingfor God, Marryrdom and tl1e ,.\-faking of Clmiti1111ity and judaism (Stanford: Sunford Unive-rsity Press, 1999}: E.A. Castelli, Martyrdom nnd MemOIJ'• Eitrly C!Jrisri:w Culflm• Making (N('I.v York: Columbia Univc-rsit)' Press, 2004): r-..f. Jucrgensmeyer, U"or i11 thr Mind of God: 77x Glob:t! R£sr ofRrligious Vio/mcr (Ekrkdq: University of Californi:1 Press, 2003); R.G. Hammc-non-Kdly (ed.}, Violmt Origim: U:illtrr Burknr, Rmi Gimrd, auJ }lllmthan Z. Smith on Ritual Killing and Culmm/ Fomuuio11 (Stanford: Stanford Unive-rsity Pres.s. 1987): D. Nir<-nbctg. Communitia ofViolcm:c Pn-srcutio11 ofJ'-'!inoritie; in tilt' MiJdlt' Agr1 (Princeton: PrincC"ton Uni\·c-rsit)' Prc.ss, t996h D. Frankfuner, Evil lncarnak: Rumors ofDemonic Compimry and Saranir Abusr i11 Hi11ory (Prince-ton: Prince-ton Unino:rsit)' Press. 2006); M. Gaddis, 77Nre i1 No Crimr for 71NJJr Wlm Haw ChriJt: Religious Violence iu tile Christian Romau Empire ( Berkdey: University of California Press, 2005), and scor('$ of papers and sc:ssions at annual professional meetings.
78
CALVI N
J.
ROETZ.t:L
T his essay seeks to engage with this broader discussion of religious vio lence. It focuses o n Paul's language of war, which has coo ofccn been exempt from studies of religious violcncc,.l and attends more narrowly to the discourse in 2 Cor. I 0: 1-13: 10.' Written after a disastrous "painful visit" made to patch up a relationship gone sour, this fragmcm was probably a part of Paul"s "tearful letter" mentioned at 2 Cor. 2:4. T he visit that Paul made in haste in o rder to defend his apostolic legitimacy sparked off a bruising public fight with ri,•al apostles and their partisans and has ended disastrously (1 1:6-7). Humiliated, shamed, and angry, Paul limped away to Ephesus to ponder a response. T he letter norcs anacks on his apostolic legitimacy, honesty, stcadf'lstncss, sinccr.. ity, adequacy, rhetorical sufficiency and bodily presence. Weak to begin with, the legitimacy of Paul"s claim to be an apostle of Ch rist was rhus further undermined. Support fo r his gospel once enthusiastically received by this small cell of believers in Corinth, now suffered when compared with the gospel preached by the Super Apostles (10:10; 11:6; 12:7). Influential partisans of the itinerant Super Apostles mocked Paul's physical weakness and rhetorical deficit and so intimidated his supporters that they went silent. This erosion ofsupport and escalation of public opposition alarmed Paul, and in response he concocted a savage and
ugly brew of war metaphors aimed at his gai nsayers (10: 1-6). While battle metaphors do appear elsewhere in [>aul's writings to embolden hope, celebrate an apocalyptic triumph, encourage faith, love, and perseverance (e.g., 1 The.ss. 5:8; I Cor. 15:32, 54, 55, 57; 2 Cor. 2:14, 24; 7:5; 14:8; Rom. 8:35, 37; 13:4), only here docs he unleash such a savage explosio n of martial metaphors onto the heads of his convertS. While the chief antagonists whom Paul hopes to discredit arc the Super Apostles, he addrcssc.s them only indirectly in order to subvert the support given them by doubting and defecting believers. Paul's hurt, anger and anxiety were so inflamed by their slandc.rous accusarions that he
» Recent studies of note art' those- of Pe-ter lampe and Robcn Jewcrt prese-nted at a session on Paul and Violence at thC' 2006 annual meC"ting of the Socict}' of Biblical Liter.tture. An important colJcction of essays is that of L Gibson and S. Matthews (eds.), v,·..,. lmrr ;, t/Jr Nrw T~t.1mmt ( Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2005).
'*
THE LANGUAGE. O f WAR AND THB LANGUAGE Oll WEAKNESS
79
conjured a res ponse with martial language that would have sounded bru tal to his readers.' My invcsrigation into Paul's martial rhetoric asks first whether t his u n-sutured dialogue "represents not the violence of language but the victory of violence over language."t• And, second, it seeks to clarify whether Paul later real ized t hat the victory such language promised was hollow. or that it was what Dawes calls a "j(tlse discourse in the same way that fo rced dancing on slave ships was a fo rm of lalsc mobility"? In o ther words, even if his bullying should work, would the consent it forced be &lsc?' Paul's denial in 2 Cor. I 0:9- "1 do not want to seem as though I am t rying to frigh ten you with my lettcrs"- sccms disingenuous, fo r t he ITightful scenario he sketches in I 0:2-6 appears to do exactly that. I take t his to indicate t hat Paul is concerned that he may have gone too f.u.later, after his reconciliation strategy has p roved suv ce.ssful, he alludes to this momentary pause. 2 Cor. 7:8, which I believe followed Titus' news that Paul's "tearful letter" had effected a reconciliation, attempts to mi nimize t he severity and fo rce of t hat earlier angry o ut burst: "For even if l made you sorry with my leu.:r~ I do not regret it, though I did regret it" (my emphasis). D o Paul's second t hough t> abo u t using this violent rheto ric reflect an awareness of the fin ility of such forceful speech? And d id that lead him to seck alternatives? W hile some Pauline scholars downplay the anger and h urt embedded in t he bellicose out-burst in 2 Cor. 10:1-6,• t his essay seeks an alterA fuller discussion of the placement of rhis letter fragm ent is .-....-ailabfc in Ill)' 2 Cor imhimu, AbingdM Nrw Tt'ltammt Co11mmuariN (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007}, pp. 19-38. 1 ' jo1mes Dawes, 71Jr Langw1g~ oJlflar: Liumtw~ nnd Gt!mrr i11 tiJr US. from thl' Ci~ if \%r 77mmg!J World \\i'ar II (Cambridge: Harvard Uniwrsit}' Pres:s. 2002), p. 174 If P..tul did so realize. he would ha\'e anticip:ned the ddih A. 1\•lalherlx:-, "Anti.sthcncs and Odysseus, and P.'IUI at W.u,.. in Rml and thr Popular Phi/osophr-rs (Minneapolis: Fortress. 1989}. 112 saw here language simibr to thou -of the "rigorist C}'nic,. and the "'Stoic sage": M.E. Thrall, 7hr lml'matimwl Critical Commmtary, II Corimhiam (2 vols.: Edinburgh:
4
4
4
4
80
CAL V I N
J.
ROETZ.t:L
native mo del fo r understanding t hese wounding words as well as the impact th ey had on both Paul and the recipie nts of h is speechhurtful letter. His st':lld ing response to those who maligned h im as "weak" ( I 0: I 0), who accused him o f walking KCau l's language of war, his emerging d iscomfort with it, and h is fu mbli ng attempt co find an ah crnacive.9 ·rhc text under consider.nion may bC' translated as follo,vs: I mysclr l~ul bcsl!'«h }'OU through the." meekness and gcndcness o f ChristIll who when prescnt am humble o1mong you, hut wht>n o1bscnt :un bold tow.u d younow 1 beg of you tholt when 1 come I do not have to be courageous with by daring to stand up to rhosC' who think we nre li\·ing purd}' acc4rding to tht' tlcsh. For indced we arc living in the Resh
T.& T. Clark, 2000), vol. 2, p. 617 sees the siege warf.ue outlined here as a "figurative use"; J-f.E. Beo:, Dt-r Apmu/ Pauhaund die Jokmtisch~ Tmditiou (TUbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1972}, pp. 68-69 views the warf.ue here portrayed as ~ nti -Soph i.stic rhetoric; Victor PauJ Furnish, II Corimhimu (:\B 32A; Gardc-n C it)'• N.Y.: Douhbl:ty, l984}. p. 462 also thinks Paul's rhetoric rooted in the ami Sophistic tradition; J.P. Sampley, 11Jr Ntw fmtrprttr-rS Bib/~: 7lx Srcond Lr-r.wr 10 rhr- Corimhiam (12 vok; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), vol. I I. pp. 137-38, does touch on the imporr-.mce of this pas· sage b ut under the constraints of the commentary CJnnot de\·elop his insight. Windisch traces the genealogy of this m;1rrial rhetoric to that of an apoCJlyptic holy war. Standing in the shadow of a mili1ant Messi-'lh eng;~ged in fhe hnal barrie betwe'<1l God and th e forces of e\·il, Paul now wields di\·ine weapons to subject the world to Christ. See Hans \X'indisch. Drr zu~iu· Korimhrrhrir{(GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprech1, 1924), pp. 295-96. ~ I am indebted to Ill}' colleagu es in the P:tuline Theology Group for persuading me, ove-r a ten·}'ear period, rhat P.Jul's thinking and theology was an rmr-rgmt one that was hamme~d o ut in his engagement with urgent and v.uying contexts in the churches and that changed in the t!tce of flerce challenge. On this vi-(".v, Paul did not begin his apostolic ministt)' with a pre-cue rhrological template that he could simply impose on every situation wirhout adaptation. 4
THE LANGUAGE. O f WAR AND THB LANGU AGE Oll WEAKNESS
8J
(hut( we do not ' 13£" a war like rhi.s world does. For the weapons of our w.uf:u'C are not worldly but d ivindy potcm, pulling down strongholds, O\'erthrowlng argumenu an d every high. thing. lifting itsdf up against the knowledge of God, a nd making e\'C'l) ' design captive to th.e olxdieuce o f Christ. We stand at the rt":ldy to avcuge C"t'el}' d isobed ience until your obcdiencc is complete. (2 Cor. 10: I-6)
Two Interpretive Models for Parsing Paul's Language ofWar and Its Afterlife
71Je Disciplinary Model In his book, Thr Lnngwtgr ojlXIar, Jamc.s Dawes contrasts two interpretative modds fo r u nderstand ing the language of vio lence from the Civil War th rough World War II." First, there is the "disciplinary" model favored by "post-structuralists." M any poststrucruralist thinkers hold a post.. Enlightenm cnt universalism that eleva ted rat ionality ro a rransccn.. dent status t hat fed a "narrow minded will to power" a nd gave language a violent c haracter. 11 In this view, rarely is language a true commu ni .. cative exchange bcrween equals, b ur instead is an instrument of power used to dominate, subd ue, conrrot manipulate or assert supe riority over an "other." Rather than con.. vcrsatio n with o r between c:.q uals, lan .. guage is an atte mpt to secure o ne's place in a h ierarch ical structure above the ''other." In this view, "the discursive is th e opprcssivc,"' 12 and with fCw exceptions exists to dominate. 'T\vo exceptio ns arc noted: a respectful conversation between true equals, and the usc o f language by subject peoples resisting imperial is-tic exploitation or abuse. While such exceptions can be celebrated, even 1 the ' most simple a nd basic act of la nguage, naming/' is simultaneously ••the most basic an d simple act of coercion."•J In this view~ lan guage is sO) o.,wes, Lallglwg~ of\f1u; csp. pp. 1 23, and 203- 18. U) Do1wes, La11guag,· of\flar. p. I 8. I !) l>.lwes, Ltmguagt> of\'t7ar, p. I 8. I )} In the summ ary of M . Steele. 7Juoriz.ing Trxwa/ Subjects: Agmcy and Opprmion (Cambridgc: Cambridge Unive rsity Press, l997). p. 30, as ciced in D,1wes, Umgrtagr o[W{>r, p. I7. 4
82
CAL V I N
J.
ROETZ.t:L
hardly "th e city gate that separ.w:s us from violence .. . ; it is instead a p rison wall that imp lies a larger system of rh rc.at and coc.r cion ."•• Even while recognizing t he way an ideology given cransccndcm status u nder.. scores t hC' violent potential of language, most post~structuralists, nev~ crthclc.ss, understand the d ialectical relationship t hat inevitably exists between freedom and d iscipline. As valuable as such a pproaches arc in exposing rhesuuccural violence oflanguage, critics have offered rcbm .. tals. H anssen, for example. well notes t he inherent risk that such a n approach will become a "universal. anri.. humanis6c, m echanized rhcmric~ so that ch ert is no placC' an ymore fo r an Aristotelian forensic rhetoric) with its belief that political power is constitu ted t hrough inter-subjective deliberation."')
n" EmflnciptltOIJ Mod,/ O pposite t he discipli nary stands t he c mancipatory model. W h ile recognizing the linkage between language and powc.r, the shape of th is model was profoundly influenced by Hannah Arendt. Arendt's view was deeply info rmed by her experience of the T hird Reich in the late 1930.s, !Tom which she narrowly escaped. "•Those experiences informed t he sharp distinction she drC'\v between a model of social construction base.d o n coercio n, ultimatum, intimidation a nd th reat, an d one based on a power gained through a language of deliberat ion.• negotiation, per· suasion and consent." At home in t he G reek ph ilosophical traditio n and schooled in continental philosophy, she argued that language is not
1 ''
As noted also in D.w.res, Languag< ofWlar, p. 19. For a comprehensi\'e ti"C3tment of fo uClult and religion and his view of language that imprisons even the newborn, sec &ligiou a11d Ot!mrt: Michd FQtKault (sdectcxl and edited by J.R. Carrette: New
York: Routl«lge, 1999). 1 ~1 B. Hanssen, Critiqtu ofViolmcc Brm~m lbmmmumfism and Cri!im/7brol)' (Lon· don: Routledge, 2000). p. 167. While gunting th e impo.nance of the u itique o f \'ioiC"ncc inherent in this appro.1ch, she conrinues thal such an appro.1ch runs the risk of an "'epoch:;1l nihilism,. (p. 168). tlil See E. Young·Brudtl, Hmmnh Art'11tl1: For Low ojtlu Wfn1J (New Haven: Yale Uni· \'ersity Press, 1983). 17 ' Sc:e H. Arendt, On Viol
THE LANGUAGE. Of WAR AND THB LANGUAGE Oll WEAKNESS
83
in trinsically violent but instead may be enabling and politically constructivc.111 Her reasons for locating language o utside coe.rc.ive violence
and rule by ultimatum and threat were both existential and philosophically based. ~aced with the horrors of the Holocaust, she argued that all speech m ust fall silent out of respect lest its terror and genocide he reincarnated in language. But1 against such a totalitarian context that
aims to silence speech, Arendt juxtaposed a lihcral democratic setting that recognizes the issues of power and how they are negotiated through deliberation and consul tation.•i1
Harshly critical of Arendt's location oflanguagcoutside the realm of violence~ post..structurali.sts point to the usc oflanguagc to rebel against tyranny within the conte-xt of violence. Also o bjecting to Arendt's priv.. ilc:-ging o flibcral democratic. systems, many post..structural ists note the imperialistic tendencies in liberal democracies. Bur Arendt's distinction
he tween power gained and exercised th rough negotiation, deliberation and the rule of law protected by liberal democracies and the power exercised
by intimidatio n and
threat of totalitarian systems i.s a useful one
for this study. Whether or not one treats this premise as real or valid, the point here made is that in treating them as real they may become real without being coerced. T he questions inevitably will arise, is the rhetoric of violence really violent, or docs it only sound that way? On this point Arendt comes ncar to the point wdl made by j udith Butler that the violence do ne by word and that done by deed are hardly analogous but both arc damaging.211 Words can inflict an "actual though distinctive form of injury
itself."" For example, Butler argues, hate speech by nco-Nazis and the KKK or speech acts like the burning of a cross or pornography may, in
f3cr, reincarnate
the violence it s ignifies. \\/hile she notes that a sim ..
u) See Are-ndt. Human Gmdisiou. '> Arendt. Hrmuw Gmdhi011. pp. 26·27. S<e also H:mssen. Critique
1
of Violma. p. 164. 2<» On this point I hope 1 am in agreeme-nt with Bruce Lincoln who made this point me- in a pri.....-.te COO\'Crs.uion. [\·e-n granting that words do wound and somC'times inAict lasting psychic damage-. the-re is a difl-'ermce berv•C'en the "sticks and stones" th;'lt break bones and "words." 2 1> J. Buder, Exdt~~bl~ SpuriJ: A Politi($ ofP~!ifomttwt·~ (NC"\v York: Routle-dge-, 1997). p. 18. 10
84
CALV I N
J.
ROETZ.t:L
plistic conflation of deed and word is indeed m isguided. an intimate link between them should be acknowledged. One may also cite Elaine Scarry's study of war trauma in fUrthe r support of the emanipatory model oflanguage. Like Arendt, she sees both the dc.scructivc and constructive possibilities in language. W.1r and its trauma may, and often does1 silence speech (as in po.st.. uaumatic syn.. drome), she claims, and then shows how a safe setting may encourage the recovery of language that signals the begin ning of healing and the rcconsuuction of world. 2;! Seen in this way, to borrow DawcsS phrase, language carries within it an cmancipatory possibility. We sec then that there is overlap between these two models, and both arc instructi\•c for our consideration of Paul's language of war and its afterl ife. T his essay draws o n insights fro m both models to offer an alternative reading of the brutalizing and vicupcrativc rhetoric of Paul's "letter of tears" (2 Cor. I 0: 1-13: I 0). It explores Paul's ambivalence about the usc of this language, his discomfort with its coercive and manipulative aspects. and his halc-i ng search for a language more con.sistcnt with his emergent theology, and more critical of the alternative constructions of the super aposdts. It recognizes Paul's ambivalence regarding an apocalyptically inspired divine violence, and his straining between a reconciliatio n sought and an order forced by ultimatum and threat. The " Brave'' Warrior and His Language ofWar
1/Jr Apoa~lyptic Nerve ofPauls Lttnguagr ofViofmce Given his injunctions against violence, Paul might seem to be an unlikely subject to consider under the rubric, "a language of war." I Thessalonians urges converts to "repay no one evil for evil" (5:5). Gal. 6: I 0 implo res believers to "do good to all." Most of Paul's letters open and dose wirh peace wishc.s. 2 Cori nthians 5 advocates a ministry of rcc-· ~ E. Scarr)'. 7hr Bod)' in Atin: 1hi' Mnking nnd tilt' Umnnkiug ofthr W'orld (New York:
Oxford University PreM, 1985). pp. 133-37. Also J. Herman, 71mtma and Rr(·out'ry (New York: B:LSic Books. 1992). p. 3. compares rhc rr.mma ofwar \'ictims and rhc trauma of domestic violence or t:lpc. Sec also Dawes., l.llnguage ofW'ar, p. 222 n. 2.
THE LANGUAGE. Of WAR AND THB LANGUAGE Oll WEAKNESS
85
o nciliarion. I Corinthians 13 ranks O:·tanq as the supreme divine charis that heals fractured communities (I Cori nthians 13). A rheology of hope sheds light on the dark corners in the human story, and Rom. 12: 18-21 commends non-retaliatio n, peaceful intent to all and love fo r the enemy. fu positive as these formulatio ns arc, however, their emphasis o n rev o nciliarion and peace can hardly conceal the shadow side of Paul's rhet· o ric, for over them looms an imm inc:m divine renibucion for these enemies of God and God's deer that renders any human retaliation puny and. in fact, specifically fo rbidden." Thus o ne can do good to rhe "enemy" fo r " by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads'' (Rom. 12:20). Paul believed God had inserted him to play a part in this final, cataclysmic, revolutionary holy war as the denoue· ment of history rapidly approached. Paul held rhar in Jesw' death and rc:.surrection the advent of God's rule and victory over great cosmic, personalized fo rces like Sin and Death had been launched (e.g., I Cor. 15:26, 54-55}. As an agent of this Christ, Paul claimed the authority to thre-aten, scold, sham e, and uncr divine curses and judgment in the
name of the Lord Jesus (I Cor. 5: 1-5; Gal. I :8, 9; I Cor. 16:22). While he had hardly thought through rhe implications of this conviction. nor developed a comprehensive view of how w impose it on every new sit# uation. he was certainly not averse to asse rting his authority. I take Cor.
10: 1-13:10, therefore, as an ad hoc arrangement written in the after· math of his recent "painful" visit, and in the clutches of sickening worry about the fu ture of the Corinthian church and the success of the gen· rile m issio n (2 Cor. 2:13; 7:5).
Language ofWar as Cultural Koinr Out of his fie rce anger and bitter disappointment exploded a wither· ing blast of martial rhetoric in 2 Cor. I 0:1-6. Paul's addre.ssees were no strangers to suc.h language or the existential c:xpc:ricncc of the pain and
hell of war. Even the literature of heroic warriors like Odysseus, so much a part of the cultural vernacular, recounted the terror and loss of Troy, rhe Pdoponnesian War, and conquests of Alexander. Homer's Iliad and .m SC"c the cpoc.haJ es53Y of rhc late K. Stcndahl, .. Hatt", NonMRt"u]iation, and Love, I QS x, 17-20 and Ro m. 12:19-2 1: HTR 55 ( 1962), pp. 343-55.
86
CAL V I N
J.
ROETZ.t:L
Virgil's Awend were embedded in th is cult ural memory, and informed Stoic and Cynic d iscourse as wdl. Whether Paul's readers knew Aeschylus' Agnmrmnon and its accou nt of t he Tfojan War, we. do not know; t hey certa inly knew t he mourning and loss a strophe of t hat poem n:counts: From each home once rhel't' went A man forth: h im it scm Each knows; but wh:lt arc tho.st' rtcurn? A little dust, an urn. (Agnm. 44 1-442)
But un like the actors in t hese grea t sagas. Paul's account is no tutorial in b ravery. A Roma n cross stood at t he center of Paul's Jesus story. Coming !Tom the u nde rdass, most of h is readers knew about t he brutality o f Roman warfare. They would have agreed with the British chief Calgalus whose words Tacitus cites: "They [i.e., the Roman Legions] make a desolation [wilderness] and call it peace" (Solitudinem focium pt1cem t1ppe/lnnt)." And the pax Romnna provided no respite from war in the eastern Roman provinces. Corinth itsdfstill displayed scars of the devastatio n left by the Roman legio ns in 146 sCE," and most were surdy aware of the blood spilled o n their own soil at Actiu m, Thebes, Athens and Ph ilippi.,. In th e spaces between the lines of this great imperial mcta~narrativc, other stories wc:rc wrincn- ac.counts of the marks of ownership on slave bodies, stories of d islocation caused by Roman control of t he eastern provinces, and tales of war from the underside. In the subrext of th is cult ural narrative were the c.rks of the innocents, t he: refugees, and the enslaved. Many. perhaps most, of th e Corinthian community wore o n their enslaved bod ies marks of owne.rship that made them h uman and d isposable capital, and to t hem Paul's language of war was powerful and perhaps repugnant." "'Agricola,'" in rhe Lotb Clmsiml Libmry (Cambridge: Harvard Unin•rsit)' Press, 1970), seer. 30. 2'$l A valuable Corimhi:m bronze' w3s rc."fined by rhe 6res that ldt Corinrh in t"mbt'rs .
!41
Not so F.tr away was Actium o A-(.ring mute testimony to the colossal dC'fcar of the forces of Marc Anthony by Oct:t\'ian in 3 1 a.c~.
.tril
S.S. Banchy, Fim·CrnturySim;rrynntiJ CorimiJimu 7:21 (Missoula. MT: Sociery of Biblical Literature, 1973), pp. 161-72, makes:. .strong c:uc for assuming thar one
rt
THE LANGUAGE. O f WAR AND THB LANGU AGE Oll WEAKNESS
87
Paul also was no strange r to war's sounds and fury. Even if h istori~
cally f:, lsc, Jerome's report that Pompey's "surge" thro ugh Pabtine in 63 BCE ripped Paul's g randparents from Galilean Gischala by fo rce, stuffed them into a slave ship, and disgorged them for sale in 'Eusus, contains an important truth. T he imprint of the physical and psychic trauma of such con~ucsts left their mark o n both [>au I and his converts. Paul tells of the body welts left by 3 Roman floggings (2 Cor. 11:25). He preached in Philippi and surely heard of the carnage suffe red by Cassius and Brutus there at the hands of Marc Antony and Octavian over two generatio ns before (42 BCE). He knew the glorified and horrific storic.s of holy war embedded in his scriptures, and in his name was incarnated the tragic end of his namesake, Saul, who suffCred a cat-
astro phic loss to the Philistines, lost his son Jonathan in the battle, and fell on his own sword to avoid capture ( 1 Samuel 3 1). For both !)au! and his addressees, war's bloody horror was etched o n the corporate memory and these shared experiences conspired to load Paul's language of war with a highly evocative character.
PaulS Declares 117ar on His Com"'rts \Xihile such language was not natural to Paul, he was so infuriated by the slanderous charges against him, so devastated by the desertio n of his converts to the partisans o f the itinerant apostles, and so cerrain o f
the truth of his gospel and of the rightnc.ss of his apostolic claim, that he snatched from his cultural vernacular the most brutal language he knew to respond to this threat to his apostolic legitimacy, his gospel and his Cemile mission. His o p
tie ness of C hrist" ( 10: 1a) sharpens the contrast he draws against his critics' taunt and d rips with bitter >'2mlSm: "I who am humble (1C), and his speech is of no account" ( 10: 10, RSV). Against these critics
third of the Corinthians cdJ group wa.s sla\'e. one third former slavc.s or freedmen and women, and one third frtt. And more recently. J.A. Gbncy, Sl.111rry i11 Enr(y Christitmity (Minneapolis: Fortr<'SS Press, 2006} has wdl documcmed the- plight of the- sb\·e.
88
CALV I N
J.
ROETZ.t:L
impugning his manliness, mocking his epistolary bravado, and portraying him as cowardly, Paul angrily o!Ters this bellicose response. Against the scornful view that he was weak-for which, read "worn ..
anish"- his presentatio n of himself as a m ighty warrior is highly ironic if not laughable ( I 0:2) and triggers his threat to attack. In a classic case o f saba rattling, he begs his interlocutors not to fo rce: him to
lx: 'cou .. 1
rageous (9a .pp£ro)" o r to act with "bold nc.ss (t oi,J.li]cr
an evanescent divine glory (3: l- IS) , his challenge segues into an account of a warrior leading a fu rious assault o n the foe (I 0:3). In words d ripping with sar<-asm he. continues: "Fo r while walking in the flesh (ev crC
( I0:6). Paul's assault o n sophistr)'1 a caricature fOr speech, conceals the truth that Walt \Xlhitman suggested in his poem "Beat, Beat Dru ms!" that war suppresses voice. Whitman's poem re flects on the way war rhcto .. ric silences the moans of the injured and hides the fitces of the dying combatants; t he c ries of innocent childre-n; the tears of mothers and
fathers; the voice of the dead and dying; the torture of innocents, and the trauma of refugees. All are a reality almost too painful to view: "Let nor the c hild's voice be heard, nor the mother's C'ntreatics."29
The dissonance between the opening appeal to tht "meekness and gentleness of Christ" and the bellicose rhetoric following o!Ters a curious m ixture of the language of power relationships-one emphasizing "meekness," a womanish trait that suHCrs violence, and the other the
1
22}
191
Sc:e fum ish. II Corinthians, p. 459.
Walt Whitman, .. Be.1t, Be:tt. Drums,,. in Lf'nt-w of Gnus (1900) cited Languagr o/War, p. 7.
hy D.1wes,
THE LANGUAGE. Of WAR AND THB LANGUAGE Oll WEAKNESS
89
bravery and the might of the warrior in combat. So, ffom the beginning in chis intersection of differing perceptions of powe r. there is a
tension in Paul's speech that is so great that the letter almost trembles in o ur hands. The intent is clear. It aims to silence the speech of the critics and their partisans. Against rhe scurrilous comempt fOr him as
womanish ("weak") voiced by the Super Apostles, he portrays himself as a gibboror <Xvt K~to;} a mighty, invincible warrior in God's final apov alyptic struggle. In the fury of this verbal o nslaught, Paul turns on those who moe-k his cowardice, his manlin<:ss, his rhetorical ineptness. and
his claim to be an apostle. Some would soften the harshness of this bellicose rhetoric by suggesting that Paul uses the martial rhetoric only metaphorically. Both Paul and the Corinthians understood that the martial language in 2 Cor. 10:2-6 was metaphorical. Paul o bviously had no army of legions to command, no authority to declare: war, to atrac.k a city, and to lead
an attack over a scaled wall like Alexander the Great once did. But neither of the conversation partners understood this metaphorical display to be only decoration for normal speech that could be stripped away with little loss. As W.V. Quine put it, it '' is a m istake, chen, to think of linguistic usage as lite ralistic in its main body and metaphorical in its trimm ing.''JC'
Also, it is unlikely that either party would have understood this martial imagery as a theological allegory o r a cheap rhetorical trick. Because of the shared experience of the horror of war, Paul could invite the Corinthians to find a resemblance between those cxerc.ise.s of physical force
and this metapho rical display. T his metapho r conceals within it the possibility for further devastating alienation. Bur Paul's metaphor is no calm, cooL collcc.ted invitation for the Corinthians to enter a world of
reflection. It is a fierce challenge to think about what they arc doing. If rejected our of hand, then further alienation is possible. Thus metaphors do offer the possibility of a new or changed way of looking at events, o r of"percciving the world.";n f rom that we sec. PaulS martial metaphors do launch an angry clash of wills fully compatible with the Quine, "A Postscript on Mct~phor," in Shddon S3cks (eeL). On Mnaphor (Chicago: Uni\·crsit)' of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 160. .m P. Ricocur, "l11c Metaphorical Process," in Sacks, Ou Mnapl10r, p. 150.
Yl> \V/.V.
90
CALVIN
J.
ROETZ.t:L
disciplinary mo
depth offcding about an issue of paramount importance. At rhisstagc, it is unclear how the story will end. Buc the case is not as straightfOrward as it seems. For the rhcwric of violence touches Paul as wdl. His vituperatio n hardly Aowed lightly from his pen o r without later reflection. As he pausc.s, he seems to rcc-· ognizc the contradiction in the inte rsection ofhis bellicose rhetoric and
his opening appeal in the "meekness and gentleness of Christ (10: 1) . For an instant he realize-s that his martial expansion of discourse was a fo rm of violence in and of itself, and he backs away from his fu ming vengeful rhetoric; it was not to exact revenge, he says .somewhat disin# gcnuously, but to build up the community that he waged a war of words ( I 0:8). With the blessed gift of hindsight, he will later soften the harshness and irratio nality of his bdlicosc language. Months later he says, "even if I hurt you with my letter, I do not regret it (though I did regret it, for I sec that I hurt you with that lcrtcr, though only briefly)" (7:8, adapted from NRSV). But his remark is disingenuous, for he did too mean to hurt1 and to bring the Corinthians to their scnsc.s. T h is later
reconstruction, however, was made possible by the following happy trail of events that brought reconciliation and allowed Paul to spin those earlier hurtful words. These attempts to soften the brutality of this opening broadside reveals the tension between Paul's usc of language to thn:atcn, imimidatc and control and h is attempt to construct a world
that would "subdue violence with language" and through threat and intimidation put an end to th is conflict with the Corinthians.-'2
But Paul had not comprehensively worked out the full implications of his second thoughts about his martial rhetoric. So schooled was he in this cultural and religious vernacular that the language was ready to hand, and though momentarily repulsed by it, his step back was only momcmary. Immediately, he threatened his antagonists anew:" Let such people understand that what we say by letter when absent, we do when present" (my emphasis to RSV, 10: I 1}. T hus we sec in this dustc.r of martial rhetoric a fo rm that wdl conforms to Dawes's disciplinary mo
)ll
Dawes, 711(' Language ofWtr, p. II .
THE LANGUAGE. O f WAR AND THB LANGUAGE Oll WEAKNESS
9J
that uses language of war to coerce, to silence dissent, to control speech and thought, to subdue, to humiliate and to dominate.
The Fool and His Language of Weakness Did Paul's bravado confirm the critics' charge and fu rther fuel their scorn fo r his "weighty and strong" letters and their contempt for his "wc.ak" persona {I 0: I 0)? We can hardly say, but it docs seem that a realizatio n of the futility of attempting to persuade with ultimatums, threats and intimidation played a role. After his attempt to frighten his converts with the language of war cam e an attempt to discredit the Super Apostles by demonizing and stigmatizing them as agents ofSatan, who disguise themselves as "child ren oflight" {2 Cor. 11: 12-21 a) . After the me of threats, bravado, sarcasm and demoni.zation did f>aul turn co a form of deliberative rhetoric designed to persuade not threaten. The break comes with Paul's ironic casting of himself as a fool, a stock character of public productions. From 11:21 b- 12: 10 he impersonates or raeher becomes a fool who offers a radical revision of the true nature of power. His rhc.toric returns to the charge thac he is weak and cowardly and offers a radical theological redefinition of power through a public discourse o n the body. Owning the persona of a fool, a popular character of the theater who could amuse. criticize and ofcen unmask prctcntion.s m powerJ Paul iniciaces a b rcical and comical boasting#contesr. Turning on its head the manly status that battle scars etched in combat on the chest (Quintillian, b ut. 2.15.7), Paul offers his own body's language (smno corporis) with an alternative narrative. Playing the fool (2 Cor. 11:21b), he lets his body tell a story completely at odds with that of the braggart warrio r of I 0: 1-6. A catena of rhetorical quc.stions draws the contrast lx:twccn himself and the boasting antagonists: "Arc they Hebrews, so am I; arc they Israelites, so am I. Arc they children of Abraham, so am I; arc they servants of Christ? I am talking like a madman- ! am a better one- with F.ar gre.atcr labors, far more imprisonments. with count.. less floggings, and often ncar death." Calling on a catalogue of hardships oft appropriated to legitimate claims to heroism, he bares his naked back to display the story cut there into his flc.sh: " Five synagogue beat-
92
CALVI N
J.
ROETZ.t:L
ings o f forty lashes minus one. three Roman scourgings with rods~ a stoning by a mob (I 1:25)," imprisonments galore (1 I:23), three ship· wrecks, and peril on "frequent journeys": '(danger from rivers, danger from bandits, danger from my own people. danger from gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers and sisters; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, hungry and th irsty. often without food. cold and naked . .. " The story told by those markings was not one of valor, but of inferiority, servil ity and "wcakncss":JJ ''\Vho is weak, and am I not weak? Who is made to stumble and am 1 not indignant? lfl must boast 1 will boast in the things that show my weakness" (adapted from NRSV, I 1:26-29). Recall that the earl ier ridicule of him as "weak," even piti· able ( I 0: 1O) triggered a blast of martial metaphors that aimed to hurt, destroy, enslave and shame. In bitter irony, he owns that slur and po ims to the language of his body to confirm it and to use that confirmatio n to persuade, not threaten. As it is developed, this politics is nc.arcr to that commended by Arendt, the emancipatory model. that opens the door for negotiation and the construction of a world other than that portrayed in I 0: 1-6. The irony of this fool's display would not have escaped Paul's readers. Paul here appropriates their "weakness.. or womanish epithet and conjure.s another body whose economy is the polar o pposite of the war· rior body." Like that of his lord Jesus, beaten, shamed, and crucified. the fool's self-portrait as a humiliated, servile, scar pocked earthen vessel of divine authority (2 Cor. 4:7) dashes dramatically with the char· actcr sketch of I 0: 1-6. If as Shaw suggests the inscription of a name o n a body was a "sign of servility."" then Paul's reading of these" cr~tyf.(Ctt<X TOillecroil" carved on his back (Gal. 6: 17) meant to aurhenticate his divine agency was radical indeed. Jennifer Glancy drew o ur attentio n to rhe counter-narrative told by those shameful, humil iating scars o n
»• Sec C.P. Jones, "Sr.iguur. Tatooing and Branding in Gracco-Roman Antiquit)~" JRS 77 (1 987), pp. 139-55. B.D. Shaw, "Body/PowC'r/ldcntiry: Passions of the Martyrs,.. JECS 4 ( 1996}. pp. 269-3 12 (3 11). Sec also J.A. Gbncy, .. Boasting ofBc:nings (2 Corinthians 11:2325)," JBL 123 (2004), pp. 99-135. }'>l Shaw, "Body/PowcrlldC'ntiry,.. p. 306. 3-'l
THE LANGUAGE. O f WAR AND THB LANGUAGE Oll WEAKNESS
93
the back. T he scars left o n the chest of the braggart warrio r were cultural markers of bravery, courage, and invincibility, those o n the back,
markers of servility, shame, degradatio n and abject weakness (II :2635)..16 Almost, as if in a Aash, the fool mystically joins the scars on his back with those o n the back of Jesus (Gal. 6: 17). Granting a high level of cultural confo rmity, Paul makes his own body an important if ironic weapon in this struggle.-'7
The Fool's Language ofWeakness This c~talogue of suffcringssuggcsts that the ~rlicr attempt to impugn Paul as ''weak" (I 0: I 0) o r womanish had remained like a burr in his side. Now, it works its way to the surf:'lcC' to inspire some o f his most
creative thinking about "weakness" (&oBev{l<;) and power and their relationship to ~postolic legitimacy. To be "weak" o r humble was in the words of Shaw to be ,..poor, submissive. slavish, and womanish," aU sig~
nificrs of "shame, humiliation, degradation, and . .. that which was mo rally bad."J• T hus to be called "weak" was to be deemed unfit fo r ministry.
A check of Paul's usc of the word "weakness" is instructive. After the single reference in 10:10, all of Paul's remai ning uses in all of2 Corinthians appear in the Fool's Speech ( I I :2 1b- 12: 13) and the argument summary (13:3, 4. 9). For example, sec the six references to the adjective (&cr9£veux) in II :30; 12:5, 9, I 0; 13:4, and three usc.s of the verb (acr9evero) in I I :21, 29; 12:1 0. In a stark caricature of boasting- "If I must boast, I will boast of the things thatshow my weakness" ( I I :30) - and an ironic documentatio n of it, Paul offers two exam ples of his .... 1. wca.Knc. ss o r " unmanI'mess."
T he first example contrasts d ramatically with that of the braggart warrio r sketched in I 0: 1-6, and recalls his cowardly fligh t from Damascus under the cover of darknc.ss." O f his escape from the d utchc.s of ~ Glancy, .~
.. BoastingofBe.uings (2 Corinthians 11:23·25)."
Shaw, "Body/ fuwcrlldentity,,. p. 306. Shaw, "Body/ Power/Identity,,. p. 303. ·" ' LL. Wdborn. "The R u MW3)' Paul.' HTI/92 (1999). pp. 115·63, argu.... thar Paul is here playing fhe runawar fool, .-. stock char.:tc(cr of mime (pp. 152-61). The weak· }I)
94
CALV I N
J.
ROETZ.t:L
the Damascus governor under King Arctas, Paul says, "I was let down
in a basket t h rough a window in the wall and escaped fro m his hands." Coming after t he catalogue ofhardships (I I :23 -29), the passage appears to be a non ..scquimr. Some think it was an ahcnhought, a marginal "gloss" copied into the text, or even a later in.scrtion,40 but Edwin Judge has argued persuasively that the talc was a parody of the warrior's boast ofbcing the first over the wall and thus the recipient of the coronnflmrflr fir, a lifelong symbol of bravery." If Judge is correct, Paul's cowardly nocturnal retreat gave palpable proo f of his wc.aknc.ss, his unmanliness, his dishonorable and shameful behavior. and contrasts dramatically with the warrior Paul o r 10:1 -6. The interprttatio n is en tirely consis· ten t with the context and certainly magnifies t he. irony of Paul's boast o f his weakness (I 1:30}. The second example of Paul's weakness concerned the troublesome "thorn in the flesh" that r<:maincd as a "messenger of Satan., to torme-nt him. In spite of his earnest, prayerful, th rice repeated request fo r its removal," it remained to torment him {12:7-8). T he "Lord's" answer, he recalled, was unambiguous: "'My grace {z&pt<;) is suiTicient for you, fo r [myj power (o{wCXf.lt<;) is made. perfect in weakness (O:o9 e,•tt<;<).' So I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknessrs (
his weakness and the mythically link of that weakness to t hat of his C hrist, turns an epithet hung o n him by his adversaries into a signifie r
!)• Paul thus d ude.s the dr:agnet, escaping by wit and stt"afth (p. 157) and thus sharpens the ironic comr-.ut with the br3ggarr warrior. "'' \X'indisch. Da zwt'itr Korimhn-brir:fi p. 363 called this passage a supplement or gloss, and H.D. Beo:, !Xr Aposul Rwlus und dit' ;okmtisrht' Traditio11: Eint' cx~g~tisd)f UmrrsuriJrmg ZJtJeinn· 'Jfpologi~" 2 Korimhrr /0*13 (TU.bingen:J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebed::J, 1972), p. 73 n. 20 1 wJs more direct c.1Uing this:. "'sp3terer Einshub... 411 E.A. Judge, "'Paul's Boasring in Rdation to Contemporary Professional Practice,.. Autmtli:m Bib/ira/ R~virw 16 { 1968), pp. 37- 50. 121 It is tempting to \'iew this threefold request in light of the Jesus tr3dition in Mark 1-4:32*42. hut "''C' can hardly be.- sur~.
THE LANGUAGE. Of WAR AND THB LANGUAGE Oll WEAKNESS
95
of strength rather than emblems of shame, and totally redefines the nature of power. Thus [>aul parodied the pretentious and grand claims of his critics and boldly stroked and simultaneously used his body as a weapon. He presented it as shamed, bloodied. imprisoned. shipwrecked, beaten, hungry, sleepless and scarred as an imitatio 0Jristi (12: 10). T his attempr to persuade with reasoned discourse that Paul came to gradu#
ally is full of surprises and wdl fits Dawe.s's emancipatory model. If what I say is correct, that Paul moved from harsh invective and vituperation to reframe the whole nature of power, then it may be that
here we sec him take note of the limits of m ilitary power and the scalding rhetoric that framed it. We wirness his <~iscomfort \Vith rhetorical
brutality and sec him adopt the persona of the fool and be transformed by the story the fool recounts. He seemed to realize, as Foucault sugges[s. that his earlier expansion of discourse was vio lent. Now he steps
back to consider afresh the nature of power, and in the final line of the letter he seems to apologize indirectly for his earlier angry, vitriolic out# 1 bursts: ' 1 write these things while I am away from you, so that when I
come I may not have to be severe in using the authority the lord has given me for buildi ng up and not for teari ng down." (13: 10) . The tone of the remaining chapter softens, as he addre.sscs his converts as "beloved"
(12: 19) . and the followi ng letter of reconciliation ( I :1-2: I 3; 7:5- I 6) speaks openly of his love for his converts (2:4) and seeks to dull the harshness of the earlier exchange. But, as verses I 2: I 1- I 3: I 0 show, Paul had not yet thought through the full implications of this insight. When he finished the "tearful letter," he was hardly confident it would persuade. The sting of the slanderous charge.s against him still lingered to fud a biting and shaming sarcasm (12: I 7). His protest of being abandoned by his own children who called his sacrifice "crafty and deceitful" was meant to shame (12:16- 17) . In an honor-shame culture, such public ridicule was considered serious, humiliating and harmful to the entire community. and this public shaming was performativc, in some sense like hate speech
that effects what it describes.''
4))
SC"c Bmlcr, ExriMbft: SperdJ, cited :n n. 2 1 above. This point was wdl made by Pe-ter LampC', "'Can Words he Violent or Do The)' Only Sound That \'(fay? Verbal \'(farfare
96
CALVI N
J.
ROETZ.t:L
Added to Paul's shaming of his readers were his threats. He fulmi· nated that when he returned he would not be "lenient" (13:2). Trading on the cultural mythos of rhe arrival of a lordly figure bri nging redemption or visiting terror1 he warned that they must reform or else at his napt>o(a he would be "severe" (13: I 0). Yet expressions of his
longing and love for them mix with these threats and shaming (12: 15, 19), and end with hisself-conscious claim that the "authority that the Lord" gave him was ''not for tearing down" but "for building up" (13:10). So which model so finely sketched by Dawe.s offers the most apt description of Paul's modw vivendi. Our p reliminary d iscussio n .sug~ gests that neither alone. is sufficient, but rather that Paul's paradoxical discourse includes items of both that may seem to be contradictory. His apocalyptic mythos sets him in the overlap between the two and incarnates both threat, inti midation, cocrcion and possib il ity, ncgoti.ation, and persuasion. h is interesting, however, that in rhc afi:crlifc of
Paul's text, the fool's discourse of weakness was given voice in the marytrological traditions of the early centuries. This radical ideology of power in weakness totally invcrtC"d and subverted the ''dominant male discourse on the body" and elevated the womanish weakness as "the p ri mary modes of idcmific.ation and resistance," and one \\'as able to win by losing:44
Conclusion
T he appearance of rival, itinerant apostlc.s of Christ. who demeaned Paul's body, speech, gospel and fitness for min istry, gained a following and set oft' a fie rce struggle for the loyalf)' of these converts. T hough he saw the anonymous intrude rs as satanic~ most disturb ing to Paul was the desertion of his own converts and their scorn for him as thc.ir "father."
T he bruralit)' and menacing tone of Paul's language of war was aimed at his converts (I 0: 1-6) and well fits the disciplinary model. lt intends to hurt, ro silence speech and to eliminate' opposition; ir allows for no from afar as Compensation for a Phtcid Personal Prcst'ncc (S«ond Corinthians}." a paper ddi\'ercd at the annuaJ mee(ing of the Sociery of BiblicaJ Litt'r-.nure in 2006 . ..,., Shaw, "Body/Power/Identity," pp. 31 1-12.
THE LANGUAGE. O f WAR AND THB LANGUAGE Oll WEAKNESS
97
compromise or negotiatio n. Even Paul hims.d f seems momentarily
repdled by its harshness and drew back (1 0:8), but he soon launches again into a section stigmatiz.ing and demonizing his antagonists a.s acolytes of Satan "fitlsc apostles. deceitful workers, and pretenders disguising themselves as apostles of C hrist" (11 :13 -15; 11:3, 4, 23). In 11 :21 b- 12: 10, the lettcrtakcs a significant turn. Almost as if Paul realizes the fu tility of trying to frighten people into o bedience (1 0: 10) and the usd cssness of demonizing or stigmatizing his adversary~ he turns to a creative negotiation of the meaning of the narrative literally inscribed
o n his back. While his critics mock his bodily weakness, Paul finds in these scars not significrs of shame but mystical links to Jesus' passion. He employs the fool's persona in an attempt to persuade his readers this link would authenticate his apostleship, the truth of his gospd, and the nature of divine power. T he fool's speech recalls the core of his preaching to them-" I decided to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and him crucified" ( 1 Cor. 2:2)- thatthcy o nce gladly received as the core of his argument. In the fool's language of weakness, he holds o ut the possibility of a nc:w understanding of power that confo rms to rhc cmancipatory modd sketched above. Finally, Paul's completion of the letter in which his appeals andreassurances of his love and devotion arc linked to bitter sarcasm, shaming
and apocalyptic threats, reveals the complexity of his rhetoric. T hough the touch of 12: 11 -1 3: I 0 is softer, a sharp edge remains that makes this a curio us. m ixture o f the: two models. So, it is m ismken to try to locate Paul exclusively in either the disciplinary o r emancipatory modus oprrandi. "'rfaces of this c reative, though .still embryonic., understanding of power pepper the rest of Paul's correspondence with the Cori nthians. Mixed with his pain at their rejection, stands his profession of love for them (2 Cor. 12: 19); after the storm passed, he urges forgiveness fo r offending Corinthians (l: 1-2: 13: 7:5-16; esp. 2:6-10) and even for the partisan who publicly humiliated him o n his "painful visit" (2: I. 5-10; 7:12; 12:21 ; 13:1-2), he urges forgiveness and restoratio n. It appears then that in this adoption of the fool's persona, Paul docs not just play the part; he becomes the fool and the discourse of the character changes him as wdl. It is unlikdy that Paul was fully aware of the full implications of his insight, but the letter borne by T itus appears to
98
CALV I N
J.
ROETZ.t:L
have persuaded the Corinthians that the marks of Jesus carved o n his weakened body legitimated his apostleship, established his fitness fo r m inistry, and authenticated his gospel (2 Cor. I: 1-2: 13-6: 13; 7:5- 7: 16). Some of those implicatio ns would remain for others to apply. In the afterl ife of this text, Shaw argues, the fool's language of weakness and power became a core conviction of the C hristian marryrologicat uadi~
tio ns and played a central role in a new "economy of the body"" that challenged the state pornography of"public executions and rhe ideology of manhood.•• But this is hardly as wonderful as it may appear. Threats and fears intermingle throughout the rest of the lettc.r (1 2: 11-13: 10} and recall the disciplinary model. And even the hope to use his power for "building up and not fo r tearing down" is introduced with the threat to be "severe" if necessary (13: I 0). This tensio n between negotiation and discipline. between freedom and comrol supports the view taken here chat Paul's approach is a complex mixture of the two models put forwa rd at the. beginning of this essay.
<\l -161
Shaw, "Body/Powcr/Jdemity,"' p. 305. Shaw, "Body/Power/Identity,.. p. 306.
Violence as Sign in the Fourth Gospel Je•utifer A. Glancy UnitJt>nity ofRichmond
In early Christian memory Jesus and JcrusaiC'm were twin sirc.s of vi
1 '
R. Fric:dla nd and R.D. Heche, "11le Politics of Sacred Pbcc; Jc.-rusalem's l Cmple Moum," in J. Scott and P. Simpson-Housle)' (cds.}. Snrrrd Plaut nud Ptofiuu: Spnm: Ess4p 011 thr Grogmphits ofjudaism. Christianity. and Islam (New York: Gru nwood,
199 1), pp. 21 -6 1 (55).
100
J ENNlfER A. GLANCY
with the Temple Mountlharam a.l-sharif.The art id e thus docs not cover the symbolic visit of thcn-lsraeli prime m inister Ar iel Sharo n to the Temple Mountlharam al-sharifin 2000, a visit made under heavy armed guard, no r d ocs it mentio n the ensuing vio lence that came to be known as the al-tUJsa intifada. W hat I find helpful in l'ricdland and Hecht's analysis is their critique of Mircca Eliadc's resolutely ahistorical treatment of sacrc.d spacc:. For Eliadc 1 sacred s pace. is set apart fro m m un..
dane space by hicrophany. In sacred space, God-or divine power-breaks into ordinary place and rime; sac.rcd space is continuous with heavenly and chthonic real ms rather than the terrestrial realm. Sacred places are q ualitatively dilfcrcnt fro m surrounding places, dilfcrcnt ffom landscapes o rganiud by profane human exchanges.' Friedland and Hecht challenge the story Eliadc tells about sacred space. For Eliadc, sacred space exists outside of history; for Friedland and Hecht, sacred space is tho roughly historicizcd. Friedland and Hecht argue that sacred space is socially constituted, organized, and reproduced . The m ilitary power o f the s tate, they write. (1stands at the prof:·mc pe rimeter of any sacred space as the guarantor o f its sanctity. ••.J How docs this rdatc to the late first~ccnrury text in questio n. the
Gospel of John? Like other products of early Christian memory-making, rhc Gospel ofJohn intcranimates a history of violence centered o n Jesus with the history of violence at the site of the Jerusalem temple. As a result. fo r those steeped in a Jo hanninc world view, violence affect·
ing the temple site may appear to be dc.stincd and inevitable, the sequela o f an originary act of violence, rather than as the decisio n of human
agents who arc rc.spo nsible fo r their acts of violence. Friedland and Hecht conclude, VioiC'ncc is a form o f communication .... Symbolic \'ioiC'ncc. proF.mation. is usC'd
hy members of one' community... in o rder to mohiliZC" chcir own communities, to nuke their dC'~nition of reality the dominant one. to demonstr.ue the ultimate
powerlessness of the other, and to redefine the other as ... prof:1nc. By profaning
~
r-.·firct".l Eliade devdop«< this position in a \':triC't)' of writings. including 71Jr A1yrh of tiJT Errmal Rrrum: Gm!tos and HiJtOT)' (ttans. W.R. Trask; Princeton: Princeton UnivC'.rsity Press, 197 I) and 77Jr Sacrrd and thr Pr'Dfimr: 1lu Nntltrf' ofReligio11 (trans. \V..~R. Tr:tsk; New Vorl.: Harper l Orchbooks, 196 1). ~ FriedJand and Hecht, "The Politics ofSacrC'd Place." p. 23.
VI OLENCE AS SI GN I N 1"HE f0U R1"H GOSI,t:L
] Q]
the other•s sacred place you make the other prof.·mc, an ..-.lien with no claim to possession of that .space:'
On John's tdling o r any other, jesus' action at the temple was hardly a credible attempt to reconfigu re temple space and practice in any lasting way. jesus' appearance in the temple, whip in hand, fu nctions as a sdf~revdatory sign. The Fourth Gospd represents Jesus' action at the temple as an instance of symbolic vio lence, a form of communication by which Jesus attempted to make his definition of reality the dominant o ne, indeed, to displace the space of the Jerusalem temple with and by the space of his own body. Bodies and Space Histories of bodie.s propd historie.s of space. The space of the temple was defined and altered by the movements and perceptions of each body that worshipped there.' The temple was preeminently a place of .sacrifice. TI1e corporal exchanges of sacrifice, the: movements of humans executing animals and burning portions of animal flesh, visceral rc:av tions to the odors of blood and of roasted meat, demarcated the temple precincts. We may also imagine the temple as a place of praise: bodies swayed, hands clapped, throats opened in song, and arms were extended to the heavens. The space of the temple was different for a person lilting his hands at night in the holy place and for a person with hands bloodied from slaughter, even though the same person m ight have both experiences. The space of the temple was moreover different for a priest engaged in slaughter and a pilgrim from a mo re rural area, a pilgrim like the rube !Tom Galilee who is reported in synoptic tradition to have perched on the hill opposite the temple mount and marveled at the Herodian-sizcd stones of the temple (cJ. Mark 13:1). Henri Lefebvre, preeminent philosopher of space, refers to space as it is "directly iivrd"as ''representational space." \'V'hat is rcprc.sentational '' Frie'dl:md and Hecht. "-The Politics of Sacred Place," p. 56. .,l N .B.: Prayer and h}'miH inging were not formally prescribed in temple worship. For an assessment of e\·idcnce rd:ucd to temple worship and more broadly to forms of worship in rhc Second Temple period, K'C' S.J.D. Cohen, From tl" Maccn!Mes to rht! Mislr 11al! (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox P~-ss. 2nd cdn, 2006). pp. 5 1-65.
102
J ENNlfER A. GLANCY
space? " Representational space is alive," Lefebvre tells us. "[lit speaks. It has an affective kernel or centre: Ego, bed , bedroom, d welling, house; o r: squarct church , graveyard. h embraces the loci o f passio n, of actio n and o fl ivcd situat ions, an d t hus immediately imp lies timc:."6 In choos.ing to approach the temp le with a wh ip in his han d, Jesus acted o ut of an ideologically charged pe rcep tio n of what the temple should be: the ho use of h is fiu her, not a house ofcomm erce, a marketplace (oikos emporiou). As f rancis J. ~~loloncy writes, '•The hirron is now called an oikos. It is not only an area where people gathe r to worship God (hieron), bu t a p lace among m en and women where the G od o f Israel, whom Jesus calls 'my Father.' has his dwelling (oikos)."7 But as Jesus' whip Sicked across the tab le.< of merchants and, John suggests, the backs of b uyers, the representa tio nal spaces o f habitues of t he temp le precincts were disru pted. The temple space was alive, alive for buyers and sellers an d sinners and beggars and p ilgrims, alive for the powerful a nd for the desperate. To retu rn to t he for mula tion of Friedland and Hecht, " By profitning th e other's sacred place you make th e other pro fa ne, an alien with no claim to possessio n of t hat spacc." 8 Jesus seems to have: sought to re..sacralizc the site1 yet from the lived perspectives of t hose worship .ping on the site, Jesus' d isruptive action would have functio ned as a profanatio n of space, an attempt to render them alien fro m a f3m iliar representat io nal space. In entering a nd altering the temp le space Jesus d iffere ntly affected t he representatio nal spaces of ou tsiders like Galileans a nd insid ers like p riests.' Accord ing to John, Jesus, brandishing a makeshift whip. strode
IV
H . Lefebvre, 71~ Production ofSpua (trans. D. NicholsonMSmith; Oxford: Bbck-
wdl, 1991), p. 42. i>
f.J. Molone)'. 7h~ GcJJpflofjolm (S.um Rzgi11a 4: Collegeville, MN: liturgical Press.
1998), p. 77. Friedland and H «ht. "The Politics ofS.1c.rcd Place-," p. 56. ~~ B.J. (\·falina and R.l. Rohrbaugh w rite that temples in rhc Mcditcrrane-. m world, i ncluding rhe j crus.1Jem temple, "wc.rc personifi ed nnd viev.'t'd as moral pC'rsons. They had asc-ribed honor just as did :tny fam ily or individual and could he insulted, cursed, hated. and dishono red. B)' dishonoring the temple, one d ishonored all of its pC'rsonnd" (Socini-Scimu Ommmuary on silt' Gospfl ofjolm [Minneapolis: Fortress Press. l9981, p. 79). Although they do not rely on the vocabul:tr)' of ('(-prcsC'ntational space, their charJCtC'riz:ttion of temple spaces .u "moral p
VIOLENCE AS SIGN IN 1"H E f0 UR1"H GOSI' t:L
103
into t he midst of the moneychangc rs and mino r merchan ts, scattering them and overt urning their tables. Some decades later, the Roman army e n te.red and altered this same space in a vio lent conAagrat io n. Violence is spatial. We may speak of e motional violence, but when we do so we speak metaphorically. Although we may speak o f a natural event like a hu rrican e o r tornado as violent, violence bette r describes an imentio nal actio n or the effect ofa n inte ntional action , wherhc:-r the: actor is human o r djvine. Violc:-nce rearranges space:, a t least temporarily. Wh ip in hand, Jesus brieRy reconfigured the space of the temple. In th e aftermath of the razing of t he Roman temple C hristian memory connected the story of Jesus' body to the h istory of the temple. A h istory of a body propelled a particular telling of t he history of a sacred space.
Jesus with a Whip In t he synoptic Gospels, t he incident where Jesus overt u rns th e tab les of moncychangers and merchants in t he temple intensifies te nsion al ready existing between Jesus and the au thorities. While Jesus' action in th e temp le motiva tes the authorit ies to e mploy violence to rid t he m# sdvcs ofJesus and the threat they perceive h im to represent, by the time the incident occurs Jesus has had a series of ru n#ins with aut horitative figures who o ppose him and would like h im out of the way. Not so in the G ospel of Jo hn. The Gospel ofJohn reports Jesus' actio n a t th e temple before reporting any disputes involving Jesus. We have had a h int of conAict with th e delegatio n of priests and scribes sent by the Jerusalem authorities to inte rrogate Joh n the Baptist. Who arc you, they d emand, and why do you bap tize? Warren Carter emphasizes the hostile tone of t he exchange. "This scene," Carter writes, ''crcatc:s the impre:Y sion th at the Jerusalem leaders exercise constant surveillan ce:-, cha t they spy o n, and arc an tagonistic toward, figures whom t hey have not
of lived space, rc-presc-nt.nional space. as alive. In their analysis of the temple as a locus of exploitat-ion. 1-.•l:tlina and Rohrbaugh do nol consider whether lower-status pC'rsons fro m Galilee or more' distant lands who had pinched togethC'r funds to make rhe P:us0\'C'r pilgrimage. persons who. o n "hi ina and Rohrbaugh's account, would h:tvc bcC'n exhilarated by an o:pc-rience of ~om1mmiuu (cf. pp. 75-77). would ha\'e fdt dishonorcd by Jesus' aggR:ssivC' actions.
104
J ENNlfER A. GLANCY
authorizcd."•o Can er comments that the "'ominous tones" present in
the interrogatio n of the Baptise "are intcnsificd" in Jesus' action in the TC"mplc. 11 H e doc.s not comm ent, however. o n who is responsible for that intensification o f o minous tonc.s. Jesus, not the Je rusalem hicrar..
chy, sets in motion his own collision course with the temple authori~ tics.
A q uick review of the few earlier scenes in the Fourth Gospel establishes the peculiar and disruptive character of what Jesus' followers take to be a display of zeal o n his part. The Baptist's acknowledgement of Jesus as the l am b of God marks Jesus' arrival on the scene. Jesus calls disciples, including Andrew, Simon Peter, Phil ip and Nathaniel. At his mother's prompting, Jesus turns \\'atcr into wine at a wedding in Cana. linking self-revelatory sign to the belief of the d isciples, the evangelist comments, "Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him" (2: l l). After this, John writes, Jesus goes with his mother, brothers, and his new disciples to the town of Capernaum for a few days, an unexplained interlude in a beach town on the shore.s of the Sea of Galilee." From there Jesus travels to the pilgrim festival of Passover in Jerusalem. Whether he trav· ds alo ne or with his newly-acquired followers is textually unspecified. When Jesus arrives in Jerusalem he. finds moncychangers and sellers of livestock in the temple. He devises a whip and drives them all o ut of the temple. He also overturns the tables of the moneychangers along with their coins. C hallenged fo r a sign of his autho rity by those whom John calls "the Jews," Jesus says, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." John glosses, ''He was speaking of the temple of his bod y" and adds that Jesus' disciples later interpret Jesus' words in light of his death and resurrection. Com mcmators on the scene o ften note [hat, unlike in the synoptic
Gospels, in the Fourth Gospel Jesus' action in the temple doe.s not move the author ities to conspire to kill him. However, in the Gospel of Jo hn,
W. Canl!'r, jolm: Stol')'uller, lmrrpmn~ Ewng,.fist (Peabody, MA: He-ndrickson, 2006), p. 30. 111 Guur, Jolm, p. 31 . 121 Sec C.W. Hedrick. "'Ve.srigial Scenes in John: SC'nin~ Wirhout Dr-.unatic Func,;on." NovT47 (200)), pp. 3)4-66. 1" 1
VI OLENCE AS SI GN I N 1"H E f0U R1"H GOSI, t:L
105
Jesus' action in the temple is the first reported dispute between Jesus and Jewish authoritic.s1 initiating the lo ng series of charged encouncers that culminacc in the decision of the authorities to execute him. In the
Gospd of John, the raising of Lazarus is the event that immediately precipitates chc conspiracy to exccucc Jesus. After Je.sus raises Lazarus
from the dead, the Pharisees and chief priests convent the council. Their fear is that the signs performed by Jesus will lead the Romans to destroy their holy place and their nation. The history of violence in the Fourth Gospel concinues to inu:rcalate violence implicating Jesus wich violence
implicating the temple. Mark Matson acknowledges the importance of the temple incident to the structure of John's Gospel. He writes that the temple incident, which inaugu rates Jesus' public ministry. "is also the beginning of opposition by 'the Jews.' a motif that dominates the structure of the FlourrhJ Gospel." Macson lists a number of incidenc.s that ensue: Jesus· return to Jerusalem for a festival that concludes with "the Jews" seeking to kill him; Jesus' return to the temple fo r the Feast of1abernad cs, a visit that doses with a ncar~arrest at the cemple; and Jesus· e.scape from stoning after he participates in the Jerusalem celebration of the Feast of Dedication." Marson concludes, "It is difficuk to imagine the Fow1b Gospel in roen an approximatr nflrction of its c-urrent form without tlJe 1Cmple lnritlem being located near the begi1ming of the story·."" While Matson thus acknowledges the importance of the temple incident in precipita[ing the collision course between Jesus and the authorities, he docs not comment on the source of the conAict. In the cncounter betwecn
John the Baptist and the emissaries of the temple authorities, the emissaries travel co thc Baptist's turf where they question him aggrcssivcly.
Not so with the Johannint temple incident. With no reported provocation, Jesu.~ enters the temple precincts and physically fOrces a recon-
figuration, albeit a tempo rary rcconfiguration, of the people and animals there. The violent opposition to Jesus that is born with the temple incident and intensifies over the course of the Gospd is precipitated by Jesus' own act of violence. •J> M.A. Matson, "The Temple Incidc:nc: An Integral Eleme-nt in the- Fourth Cospd 's Narrarive," in R.T Forma 3Jld T. llt-:ltchc-r (eds.}, ]nus;, johmmint' 7hulition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Prt:ss, 2001}. pp. 1 45~53 (150). I ~) Matson, "Temple- Incident,,. p. 152. (Scmcncc i.s iralici:tcd in Matson's anide.)
106
J ENNlfER A. GLANCY
In an article entitled "John's Account of Jesus' Destruction in the Temp le: Vio lent o r Nonviolent?" Mark Bredin raises t he q uestion of whether Jesus d eployment of a wh ip to clear the temple "harmonizes with the Jesus who teaches love fo r neighbors a nd enemies al ike."" Bred in maintains th at c-hc temple is a locus of vio lence, a house builc o n plu nder an d sustained by o ppressive d istinctions between elites and those they explo ited. He concludes that because Jesus' action is a "critique o f temple as locus of vio lence" 1441, Jesus' actio n is t herefore "exemplary and courageous. Jesus is the non ..vio lcnt revolutio nary of peace par excellence" [501. Bred in thus implicitly assumesthat because the temple is a sire of violence and source of exploitatio n Jesus' actio n should be exemp t from d enominatio n as a n act of vio lence. Is th is the case? Is an attack on a house of violence a n act of non ..vio lcnce? For a pe.r haps surprisingly relevant parallel, we m ight turn to an opinion piece in the New York Times co-authored by Wesley Clark, the fo rmer ch ief commander of NATO forces. C lark and his co-autho r Kal Raustiala argue that terro rists should ~ categorized as criminals rather than combatants. Combatants, they note, arc pcrmitrcd by intcrna .. tio nallaw to kill military personnel and attac.k m ilitary sites in the conduct of war. "Labeling terrorists as com batants also leads to thi-s paradox,.. C lark a nd Raustiala write. IWJhile the ddiber.lte killing of civilians is never permitted in war, it i.s legal to target :. military installation or asset. Thus the att".tck by AI Qaeda on the destroyer Cole in Yeme-n in 2000 would be allowed, as wdl as :ttt.ldu o n comm :1nd :lnd control centers like the Pentagon. For all these rr-.uons. the more appropri:lte designation for terrorists is not ''unl:twiUI combatant" but rhe one long used by the United States: criminal.1'
\Y/c may ask whether violence is ever justified and , if we agree that it is, debate justificatio ns for violence. C la rk and Raustiala, for exa mp le, list two fac tors taken into accou nt by incernatio nal conventions legitimat.. ing vio lence. They argue t hat fOr military vio lence to be considered 1 ~1
M. R.J. Bred in, "John's Account ofJesus' Demonstration in the l~m pl e: Violent or Biblirnl lbrology Bulinin 33.2 (Summer 2003), pp. 44-50 (44). W.K. Clark and K. Raustiala. "Wh)' ·rerrorists A('("n't Soldiers,"' Ntw ~r.k Timn
Non~viol ent?." 161
August 8, 2007.
VI OLENCE AS SI GN I N 1"HE f0U R1"H GOSI,t:L
107
legitimate the target m ust be military and the viole m ac.rors must be
soldiers or rhe equivalent. Despite rhe presence of Roman soldiers, rhe Jerusalem temple was not a military installatio n. Nonetheless, in assess..
ing John's version of Jesus' action in rhe temple we may similarly factor in both rhe legitimacy of rhe target and Je.sus' authority ro act. Justified violence-even if one considers violence justifiable-docs not equal non-violence. While one may conclude o r prc.sume that rhe Johan· nine Jesus is autho rized to ace as he does, that the temple is a legitimate
target, and that Jesus' antagonistic.sweep of the temple is therefore justified, when Jesus picks up a whip and drives our carrie and sheep and merchants and moneychangers, he is not an exemplar of non .. vio-
lcnce. In general, commentators o n the Johannine temple scene do not
que.srion the implications of Jesus wielding a whip. Raymond Brown mentions in passing the ''sweeping violence"' ofJesus' action in the 'lC:mple, buc only in the concext of considering whether Jesus' intention was to protest abuses of the sacrificial system o r to protest the sacrificial system itsdf. 17 Moloney characterizes Jesus' action in the Temple as ''aggressive."'u Rudolf Schnackenburg notes a contrast lx-rwccn Jesus' sdf.. revdation at Cana, ac the joyous occasion of a wedding, and his sdf~rcvdation in the temple, \\•hich is, Schnackenburg observes, ''a sefi .. o us conflict, full of menace."•• Schnackenburg also observes that no o ppositio n is roiled by Jesus' actio n."' Whence the menace? Whereas in many Gospel narratives Jesus is menaced, in the Johannine temple scene, Jesus menaces the sellers and moneychangers who scramble to
escape the II iek of his whip. Discomfort with the violence of the scene may be evident in rhe desire of some translators to limit Je.sus' whip work to fo ur-legged ani· mals. While rhe scene includes violence against both animals and prop· erry, what is more jarring is the ''iolence direcred ar humans. The NRSV
m R.E. Brown, 7hr Gosptfmyortfiflg to jolm (2 vols.; AB 29; Garden City. NY: Dou·
bJ,day, 1966), vol. I, p. 122. Moloney. Go!prlofjolm, p. n . R. Schnac:kenburg, 71Jr Go1prl according to Sr. jolm (3 \'Ols.; New York, Crossroad. 1990), ,..J. I. p. 343. ») Schnac:kenburg, 7h~ Gosprl according fQ S:. john. \'Ol. I, p. 347. II)
1'>
108
J ENNlfER A. GLANCY
translates 2:14-15: "In the temple, he found people selli ng carrie, sheep, and dove.s, and the money changers seated at their tables. Maki ng a whip of cords, he. dro,•e all of them o ur of rhe temple, both the sheep and the cattle," a translation that could be taken to imply that "all," pamrts, refers exclusively to rhe sheep and the carrie. Although the NRSV docs not include a footnote to suggest an alternate translation, the majo rity of commentators understand pantas to agree with the prcced.ing references to livestock vendors and moncychangcrs. Here as else~
where the evangelist would not win high marks in a course o n Greek prose composition. As Howard K. Moulton comments in a 1967 translation note, with e ither translation "the grammar nccd.s stretching a
little."" Although Moulton concedes the translation is not crystal-dear, he believes the evidence tilts toward associating pnntas with the sellers 01 and moneychangcrs. He writes, Thc normal interpretation of pnntns would be that it refers to the preceding masculines (those engaging in trade at the temple), and not to rhe succeeding sheep (neuter) and oxen (masc.). It might be possible to refer it loosely to rhe sheep and oxen, but rhe normal gender for such a combination would be neutral."'" Brown translates, " In the temple precincts he came upon people engaged in selling oxen, sheep, and doves, and mhcrsscarcd, changing coins. So he made a [kind ofl whip out of cords and d rove the whole pack of them o ut of the temple area with their sheep and oxen."'-' Brown's colloquial translatio n fo r pantlls, his homely "whole pack of them." seems to me to capture the mood of the scene as well as a bit of the ambiguity in the phrasing. Bred in argues for "sheep and oxen" as a preferred referent. As Moulton comment.~, a case c.a.n be made for this translation; Bred in's translation, however, is explicitly shaped by his desire to deny the characterization of Jesus' deployment of a whip as violent. Bredin argues that if Jesus had d riven o ut the sellers, he would have raised hackles among temple, a reaction not evident in the Jo hanninc account. But can we imagine that anyone with the power to retaliate would respond with equan im.. ity to an anack on livestock? The re-strained reaction to the disruptio n H.K. i\·{oulton. "Pamm in John 2:l)," Bib!l' Tmmkuor 18 ( 1967), pp. 126-27 ( 127). 121 Moulton, '' Rwras in John 2: 15,.. pp. 126-27. l3l Brown, 71J{' Gosprl nccording UJ jolm. vol. I, p. 114. 211
VI OLENCE AS SI GN I N 1"HE f0UR1"H GOSI,t:L
109
of commerce might suggest that the sellers of livestock who made a living in the temple were not especially influential with the temple hierarchy. On this reading, Jesus docs not raise his hand against the high priests or the Sadd ucees but against small-scale merchants who lack the authority even to punish a man who interrupts their transactions by attacking their merchandise. The first time we sec the whip, its handle is in Jesus' hand. later. of course, Jesus stands at the other end of a whip when he is flogged by Pilate. John tells us that Jesus makes a whip of cords. The Greek word phrangelion is used for the kind of whip that in latin, as in English, is called a jfagrllum, a vicious multi-manded whip set with lacerating bits of metal or bone . Following a variant manuscript tradition~ Brown
translates, "Jesus made a (kind on whip out of cords.""' Presumably Jesus' whip of cords is characterized as a phrangrlion because of its multiple strands. loosdy following Brown, we might translate, "Jesus made a [kind ofj flagellum of cords," as Jesus would not have gone to the trouble ofbraiding spikes into the whip. Nonetheless, we should pause to note that although we arc more accustomed to thinking of whips
slicing Jesus' back into ribbons, Jesus as the lamb-like victim of violence, the whip first touches Jesus' skin when it is nestled in the pal m of his hand. Jesus docs not enter the temple complex as a lamb. Rather, with his improvised flagellum he scatters the lambs and the dove.s and their sdlers. John reports that, in the midst of Jesus' trial before Pilate, " Pilate took Jesus and scourged him" (19: 1). Stephen D. Moore calls our attention to the peculiarity of the phrase, which the N RSV translates, "Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged." Moore summarizc.s scholarly understanding of the verse: ('So f:1.r as I have been able to ascertain," he write.s, ''even the most encyclopedic Johannine commentaries. for all their exhaustive industry, fail to register PilateS direct agency in the scourg.ing as even an easily dismissible interprc:tation." 1 ~ It's somehow easier
to imagine Jesus than Pilate with a whip in hand. While not impossible that a Roman prefect would pick up a whip to strike a slave o r other
U)
lU
Brown, lbr GMp~l ammling to jolm, \'OI. I, p. 11 4. S.D. Moore, Empirr anti Apoca/ypt~: Po;uolonial Srudif'l a11d Ntw 7flramms Srudit"J
(Bib!Tin tht' Modnw World I2; Sheffield: ShdRdd Phoenix P~-ss. 2007}. p. 58.
ll 0
J ENNlfER A. GLANCY
low-ranking person, a purposeful scourging of a prisoner would typically be ordered rather than executed by a person in authority. In a Roman context, the bodies o f lower status pe rsons were systematically
vulnerable to violence in ways that the bodies of higher status persons were not. lvlo rcovcr1 higher status persons protected their own dignity
by employing slaves and other low ..status persons for actual executio n of violent acts. A vignette recorded in Aulus Gdlius's Attic Nightr depicts Plutarch watching as a slave is whipped. The slave, privy to Plutarch's moral teaching, charges Plutarch with violating his own precepts against acting in anger. "Not at all," Plutarch replies, "Is my f:1cc red, am I breathing heavily? Carry on," he instructs the slave perfo rming the beating (1.26). Part of the diminution of dignity associated with physical execution of violence is the degradation of being carried away by passion:;:(, O ne reason it is difficult to imagine Pilate lifting a whip agai nst Jesus is that Pilate exhibits no other signs of rage. Although jo hn does not state that Jesus is driven by rage as he empties the temple of merchants and moncychangcrs, he docs tell us that Jesus is driven by passio n. o r at least so Jesus· friends bdicvc. His actions prompt his followers to recollect the sentiment of the psalmist. "Zeal fo r my fiuhcr's house will consume me" (cf. Ps. 69:9). Is this the first time Jesus lifts a whip? Jo hn docs no t speculate on Jesus' ur-history of violence, o ther occasio ns when Jesus gripped a whip in his fist. I suggest that Jesus has some f:1.miliariry with whips because he seems to use o ne effectively to ach ieve his end of disrupting temple com merce. The whip may be Aagcllum-likc rather than a flagellum, but the man who lifts it knows what he's doing. Jo hn docs not suggest that Jesus holds the whip uncomfor tably, Aicking it impotently as he is dragged away by guards. Neither john nor the johanninc jesus recoils from the usc o f vio lence.
Violence as Sign
Jesus drives away the sellers of animals and the animals themselves, but he docs no t drive away his followers. Jo hn docs not report the disciples !I>!
For im'aluablc- comext, SC'C' \'(~ V. Harris•s magi$tc.-rial Re~mtining Rage: 7h~ !d~ology of
Angrr Comrol i11 Clauiml Amiquir;y (
VI OLENCE AS SI GN I N 1"HE f0UR1"H GOSI,t:L
Ill
journeying with Jesus from Capcrnaum to Jerusalem, nor arc they explicitly described as present in the temple, but their presence is im plied by their reported reaction to Jesus' words and deeds." When Jesus leaves Jerusalem for the desert, his disciples arc by his side. More importantly. Jesus' violent display seems to attract new followers. Immediately following the temple episode Jo hn records, "When he was in Jerusalem during the Passover festival, many believed in his name because they saw the signs he was doing" (2:23) I argue that Jc.cts' Jerusalem signs include the temple incident and that many believed in Jesus' name because of their attraction to his violent behavior. As with the Cana incident where Jesus curns water imo wine 1 John's narration of the temple incident implicitly links self~revelatory sign and rhc belief of followers. o r at least, of would-be followers. In the Gospel ofJohn, signs arc typically either miracles o r the kinds of proofs a skeptic might require. C.H. Dodd argues that the word 1
'sign" is also apposice fOr Jesus' action in [he temple. Brown disagrees.
He writes, "The f.1er that rhe cleansing of rhc Temple is followed by ii 23, which mentions that Jesus did many sigm in Jerusalem. docs nor really prove that the cleansing is a sign."" Brown argues that because John 4:54 refers to rhc healing of an official's son as Jesus' second sign, Jesus' epiphany in the temple cannot be enumerated among the signs. (There may be a geographic restrictio n to that e numeration, that is, signs associated with Cana.) Brown's verdict is Aawed. The logical problem presented by the allusion to a second sign in 4:54 is neither created nor exacerbated by understandi ng the temple incident as a sign, as 2:23 refers to Jerusalem witnesses to m ultiple signs and in 3:2 Nicodemus rcl<:rs to the signs Jesus perfo rms. Dodd, I think, is right. After Jesus empties the merchant stalls with his whips, the Jews ask him fOr a sign, buc his questio ners have iro nically m issed rhc point. The
m As Jesus demands that merchanrs dear the temple of avi.an merchandise, he refers to the temple :t.s his F.uhC'?s house', a pronouncement that prompts his disciples torecall the words of the' psalmin with fhC' phrase, "Zeal for your house' will consume me" (2: I 6· 17). a sequc-nce that suggests fhe discip!C"S arc prcsC'nt in the temple. For an altcr· nJte \'iew, seC' Hedrick, "'V<"5tigial Scene.s in John,.. p. 355. I agree with Hcdrick that w. 21-22 do not n«marily presuppose' the presC'nce of the disciples in the tC'mp!C'. Their pre-sumed presence' o r absC'ncc does not affect nl}' argument. lt) Brown, Gospt/ ammli11g to john, vol. I. p. 528.
11 2
J ENNlfER A . GLANCY
emptying of the temple is itself the sig n, a sig n whose deeper meani ng Jesus unfolds with his assertion that he has can rebuild the temple, once destroyed, in thre< days. Dodd writes, " In the words 'Destroy this tern· ple. and in three days I will raise it up', Jesus is not promising a significam event yet to come. but inviting His questio ners to sec in the actual
occurrence of the Cleansing of the 'lcmplc the semeion lsignl they desirc."29 Dodd's definition is consistent with Dorothy Lee's more recent assessment that Johanninc signs arc defined less by their m iraculous q uality than by their Christological sig nificance: "The 'signs' /Unctio n as symbols, taking the reader from the material to the symbolic, from fles h to glory, transfiguring the .
.til!
C. H. Dodd, 77J~ lmt'rpn:tasiou of t!Jr Fourth Got~! (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1968). p. 30 I. For a more n-ccnt assessment of the Tc:mple incident as a sign, sec Mats.on, "'Tc:mple Incident." p. 149. ;ill D. lee, Flesh and Glor.y: S.rmbcl, Gmdrr, a11d 7JH:ology in r/,r Gosprl ofjolm (New \'Ork: Gossroad. Herdc:r and Herder, 2002). p. 37.
VI OLENCE AS SI GN I N 1"HE f0UR1"H GOSI,t:L
11 3
even the disciples arc in a position to understand the Chrisrological significance of the temple incident until after the resurrection. J>crhaps what Jesus knows about the would-be Jerusalem disciples is that they arc the kind of people fo r whom violence is a lure. " Destroy this temple," Jesus says in Jerusalem, ')\nd I will rebuild it" (2: 19). John glosses: He was speaking of the temple of his own body. The readers of Jo hn know that the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in a manial conAagratio n. They prodaim that Jesus, executed in Jerusa~
lcm at the behest of religious authorities, was raised from the dead. The history of o ne space, the temple, ends violently; the history of another space, Jc.sus' body, is transformed." Curiously and explicitly, John insists later in the Gospel that t hese two histories arc e ntwined. After the rais..
ing of l azarus, the chief priests and Pharisees convene the Sanhedri n. They arc panicked. "What arc we to do? This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this. everyone will believe in him. and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation" (I I :47 -48). But why should the raising of Lazarus attract the al!cntion of the Romans to the holy place, that is, the temple? The raising of lazarus was o nly the most recent sign performed by Jesus in the Jcrusaltm vicinity. The fitst of those signs was Jesus· whip ..widding out~
burst at the temple. The actions set in place by the Sanhedrin arc designed to make .sure that Jesus cannot continue performing .signs, but the Johanninc audience knows that the Roman army nonetheless destroyed the temple. Moore has drawn attentio n to the enigma implicit in Caiaphas' prophetic reply to the Sanhedrin, "You do not understand that it is better for you to have o ne man die fo r the people than to have the whole natio n destroyed" (I I :50). Moore comments. 'Tl'J hc 'nation', cpitoIn John, Jesus• resurrt'\:(ed body, which passes through walls but retains the mark of nails. possesses a curious spatiality. Karmen MacKendrick highlights the spatial odd+ ness ofJesus' wounded post+Easter bod}' in Johannine rC"presc::ntation: Thomas ''extends his hand imo the wounds in that body, the gaps. the ~.ssures, rhe spaces of absc::nce around which th~n body is risen ... As if (his were not odd enough, we re-mind ourselves that this is the rism bodr-sur<"h• . "-e think. a bodr. that could rise from rhed~d could . also heal? \'(lhy that is. do these wounds re-main at all ... ,. (\\i'ord .'11/ad~ Ski11: Figuring Limguag~ at th~ Surfitrt' (If F/r;h [New Vorl.: Fordham University Prcss. 20041, p. 3.3). 3l)
.
11 4
J ENNlfER A. GLANCY
m izcd by its sacred city and ' holy placc', was t\•tntually destroyed by the Roman s, notwiths tand ing the cons ignmen t ofJesus to the Romans by the l<X-.1 Judean leadership."" He goes o n to note the Jo hannine spiritualization of Caphaia.s' prophecy: Jesus is to die for both the nation and the scattered children of God. But nonetheless, the fear expressed by the Sanhedrin precisely presages the events of the Jewish War, the destruction of the sacred place of Jewish cult and the resulting loss of a political center fo r the nation. Th is curious passage links the death of Jesus an d the destructio n of the temple. The violent sequence set in
motion by Jesus' violent epiphany in the ttmple leads no t only to his crucifixio n but to the destruction of the holy place, the ) trusalem ttm-
plc,
tw o histories of viole nce that in John's telling teeter from hu man
responsibility to pro phesied and inevitable seq uelae of Jesus' inaugural act of violence.
Histories ofViolence
The Gospel ofJohn twins the history of Jesus' body with the histo ry of the. ttmpk . O n Jo hn's ttlling, intersections of those two violent histo· rics arc multiple. J have fOcused our attentio n firs t o n spatial dimcn#
sions of Jesus' action at the temple, in particular, o n his usc of his body to reconfigure physical arrangements at the temple. I have argued that, in the Fourth Gospd, the violence directed against Jesus' body that unfolds in the passion narrative is catalyzed (on a narrative b•d) by Jesus' own physically enacted violcncc at the temple site. I have thus d rawn attention to Jo hn's mo tif of Jesus' bod y as the replacement o r completio n of the temple, which had of course been destroyed by the time th e Gospel was writtcn.JJ 1 have argued against interpretations of
~~ Moor~,
EmpirrmuJApocn/yptt\ p. 67. }.\! 'X'hile >1n cxtC'nded argument to address the important question of wherher John treats Jesus' bod)' OlS the rtplacement or completion ofthe- temple F...lls o utside the scope of the prese-nt essa}', a few additional words .,bout Ill)' own undeNtanding are in order. I understand John 2:23 co suggest that Jesus is a replace-ment or substitution for the temple.! nonetheless hdi('V<' that this reading is and should he theologically problematic for contempor.uy Christians who are rightf)' concerned that the theology ofsupetSC'lSionism h:1s so long contributed to Christian prejudice and \'iolence ag:1inst Jeo.Vll.
VIOLENCE AS SIGN IN 1"HE f0 UR1"H GOSI,t:L
11 5
the scene that m inim ize its violence, vio lence that. wit h in the narrative structure of the Fourth Gospel, erupts without motivation. Finally, ) have insisted on identification ofJe.sus' action at t he temp le, h is usc of a whip to drive out his fellow Jews, as a fo rm of symbolic communication.J·1 Jesus' a ppearan ce in the temple, wh ip in hand, functions as a vio len t e piphany, a mome nt of sdf.. revclatio n akin to h is scJf.. rcvda.tion at Cana. I agree with Matson, who argues that John's placement of the temple incident at t he outset ofJesus' pu blic ministry is critical for u nderstand ing Johan nine narrative. Throughout the Fourth Gospel Jesus e ngenders susp icion and hostility fro m religious leaders. While there a re. many reasons fOr that suspicion and hostility, surely Jesus' initial a ppearance wielding a homemade Aagellum is among th ose reasons. Recognitio n of t he temple incident as a sign forces us to consider what, precisely, Jesus reveals about himself when he p icks up a whip to clear men and goods from t he space he calls his Father's house. I close by returning to the words of Friedland and H echt: "Symbolic violence. profanation~ i.s usc.d by members of one community . .. in order to mobi-lize their own commun ities, to make t heir d efinition of reality the dom-inant o ne, to demonstrate t he ultimate powerlessness of t he other, and to redefine th e other as ... proF.me. By p rof:,ning t he other's sacred place you make the other profane, an alien with no claim to possession of that space.">> ) am concerned here: not with the question of wheth er Jesus' cleari ng of the temple was an act of profanation {or even wheth er we can ascribe that act to t he l ifetime of t he h istorical jesus, alt hough
>'> Anorher major question outside the scope of the pi'C'sem essay is whether Jesus' action at rhe temple i5 pr«ipitated by a socioeconomic critique, ~\S Carter and Bred· in 3''er. I find their interprt"tations artTactive on ideological grounds. I would like to agree. Howe\'er. in ~:tding the Fourth Gospel I do not 6 nd evidence th:Jt (he cv.mgelist presc'nts Jesus• conAict with the temple outhoritics 3S motivaud by Jesus• concern for impoverished or otherwise exploited populatjons. Malina 3nd Rohrbaugh write, "\'Vhether temple tmde w:ts d ishonest or not has often bccn debated by modern schol· ars. but (he different terms USC'd in M:.lfk and John would have been synonymous in the minds of ancient pe-asants. For many pel.S3nts. all traders or merchomts wei'C' d ishon· orable extortioners and presumed to be d ishonest.. (Sorini·Soimce Commnm1ry, p. 74). Perhaps, but John provides no texttJal dues to suggest this is his point of view. .\)) Friedland and Hecht, "The PoliticsofS:acrcxl Place." p. ;6.
116
J ENNlfER A. GLANCY
1 would argue we can). Rather, 1 am arguing that John's inscription of chac episode as a momentous sign in Jesus· career is itself an act of profanation. By encoding violence as sign the Gospel of John not only records the history of violence but hccomes an episode in that history.
Clemency as Cruelty: Forgiveness and Force in the Dying Prayers of}esus and Stephen Sheth•Mattbe.ws Fum1~11 Uniwrsity
Stephen's final gesture before dying is to pray on behalf of those who stone h im. In a dear allusion to the dying fo rgiveness prayer o f the LukanJesus from t he cross, Stephen p rays, " Lord, do not hold this sin against them (~"i>pt£. ~i1 otlwns aurols t ai>n,v t~v ixf.laptla,•)" {Acts 7 :60}. The p rayer puzzles o n a n umber of levels. Unlike virtually all other forgiveness prayers preserved in Christian tradition, it is "free~ standing"- detached from t he expected cond itio nal dausc tying this fo rgiveness to repentance on the part o f the persecutors. Therefore, it could be read as an attempt to d isrupt the tal ionic framework of cosmic justice within which unrepentan t evildoers ultimately meet t heir requ isite punishment. Furthe rmo re and iro n ically, because the prayer is woven into a narrative in which the Jewish persecutors of Stephen arc condemned , the prayer fo r forgiveness is rendered inefficacious by the au thor who preserves it. Stephen, the character, may pray for mercy upon his tormentors, but Luke, the autho r, makes dear that Stephen's prayer has no consequence fo r t hose tormcmors. Especially in view o f Acts' construction of u nbelieving Jews as villainous a nd savage, thC' assertion o f th is merciful response to his Jewish persecutors by t he proragonist Stephen stands jarringly at odds with the author's own depic· tions of them. How o nC' accounts for t hesC' puzz1cs.• or whC'thC'.r o ne recogn izes them in the fi rst place, has great import fo r how o ne situates Luke· Acts within discourses concerning emC"rging early Jewish a nd C hristian idcncit ies. If one contemplates th e merciful p rayers solely in relation to the mar· tyrS cry for vengC"ancc, o ne might cmb racC' a Marcio nite reading of Luke· Ac.ts, affirming the victory ofJesus and Stephen's God of love over
118
SHELLY MATTHEWS
the hateful God of the Maccabees.' Should one argue t hat t he p rayer does not communicate a radically new .sentiment, but stands well wit hin traditional Jewish expressions of intercession and mercy, Luke..Acts can be read as fully con tinuous wit h such forms ofj udaism.' If one sees the p raye r as rcAcctivc of th e author's own perspective. one could argue that Lu kc..Acts demonstrates compassion toward t he Jcws.3 This art icle explores the conundrum of th e dying forgivene.ss prayers of jesus and Stephen by p lacing t hem aside related bod ies of literature wh ich serve to clarify t he ir significance. These include biblical and extra· b ib lical narratives of persecuted prophets and the suffering righteous, the literatu re of the Maccabean martyrs, the eth ical exhorta tions to enemy love and non .. retaliation in the Sermon o n the ~iount/Scrmon on t he Plain, and Roman d iscourse on cleme ncy. My argument will be two.-p rongc.d . First, through a conside ratio n of various scriptural texts that have been posited as models fo r the dying fo rgiveness prayers, I will show t he distinctive p lace that these prayers hold in th e conmuc· tio n of Christianity as not·J udaism. \XIh ilc strong intcrtextual rdation.. ships exist between the death narratives of Jesus and Stephen as well as scriptural narratives of persecuted prophets and martyrs, the fo rgive· ness p raye r in itself is a dramatic overturning of t he expected c ry of the martyr fo r vengeance. As an expression ofsclf- mastery a nd the ability to refrain from re taliating in t he: face: of undc.scrvc:d vio lence, it is a n assertion of th e ethical superiority of C hristianity over Judaism. As a n expre.ssion of u ndeserved mercy substituting fo r deserved re taliation , it may be considered a "marcionite" assertion 1 an d may wdl have taken shape within th e: context of the dcvdopingsecond~a:ntury marcionitc controversy.• J.S. Banks, "'Professor Deissmann on Jesus at Pr:ayC'r,.. ET ll ( 1899/1900), pp. 27073. .!) G.P. Carr:u. "'A Pcntarcuchal Echo in Jesus' Prarcr on the Cross: lntC'rte:nwlit)' hetv:een Numlxts 15,22-31 and Luke 23.34a,.. in C.M. ·Ju ckett (c-d.), 71J~Saipmm in th~ Got~ls (BETL 131; lC'UVC'n: Lcuven UnivC'rsity Press, 1997), pp. 605-16. » C..: \. EW~ns. "Is Luke's ViC"\v of thC' j C"\vish Rcjccrion ofJesus Anti-Semitic?,. in D.O. Sylva (C'd.}, &imaging tlu Dcatl, qfr/,~ Lukan}Nut (Frankfurt am Main: Hain, 1990), pp. 29-56 (52-3). \'(fhik consrraints ofspace limit me' fro m expanding on e-ach of thcsC' sc.1rting points :u any length, I note hC're the foiJowing premisC'.s upon which my argument builds. I}
'*
CLEM ENC\' AS C RUEJ.1' Y
11 9
Second. I will attempt to temper the usual triumphalism that is associated with the obs.:rvatio n that Lukan me rcy is distinct fro m l\1acca# bean vengeance by drawing attention to t he violence that infuses t h is rhC'to ric of mercy. Here I demonstrate how the Ro man d iscourse o f clemency illuminates t hese dying fo rgiveness p rayers. Clemency is a peculiarly Roman virtue closely associated with imperial conquest. The virtue is freque.ndy invoked to mark the t ransitio n from war to peace-1 from t he time of conq uest to the time when the ' happy captives" arc incorpo rated into the empire. In the d iscourse of clemency, the emperor takes the center stage. The c.clcbration o f clemency is fi rst and fo re... most-if not solely-a cdcbration of th e emperor's virtue. It is not a discourse which lingers lo ng on the recipients of the empcro r·s mercy; it is not concerned to represent faithfully t he subjectivity o f th ose captiv.:s. As a discourse celebrating th e emperor's virtue by articulating h is power over t hose to who m he grams clemency, t he discourse serves as a n analogue for t he functio n of enemy love and non .. retaliation in ccr# tain strands ofearly C hristian thought. including luke-Act>. The power I presume an early sccond·crntury date for Luke·Acu, ~l d-ate recently reintroduced br sever.1l scholars, most comprehensivdy h}' R. Pervo. Dating Am: &uvcm thr Et...mge/isu nnd J" Apologilts (Sant.l Rosa, CA: Polebridge. 1:006). Acknowledging the work of D. Boyar-in on hordC'rlincs a nd boundar}' construction, I prC'SUme th~t Jewish and C hristian identities are under construction a nd quite Auid in this earliest period of their emergence {Bor&rliues: 77Jr P.utition ofjudaro·ChrisJitmity (Divinations; Phil· adelphia: University o f Pcnnsyl.,.'3nia Press, 20041). But in recognition that Luke at· tempts to mark an d fix two d istinct social groups in his own construction project, I will occ.uionally use rhe terms Christian an d Jewish co mark these two groups. J. Tyson has rc-inttoduccd the arguments of John Knox that the 6nal form of LukeActs is a response to Ma.n:ion primarily in terms of its treatment of P:lul and of j C'Wish Scripture (MarrioJinnd Lulu-Acts: A D4ini11g Strugglr !Columbi01, SC: University of South Carolina Press. 20061). My own work o n d1e ems ion bctw«n mercy, judg· me nt and forgivC'ness in Luke-Acts, addreSSC'd in pan in rhis a.nide a nd morC' fully in my forthcoming ma nuscript. raises rd ated q uestions concerning "marc ionite" impulses in the second cenrury. SC"< S. Matthews. Prrfoct Mar:yr: 1br Sronitrg of Suphm muf thr M1tking of Gmtilr ClmJtinnity m Acts (forthco ming). \'Vhile T}'son posits the person Marcion as the impetus for thC' fin-al fonn of Luke·Acts, in Ill}' own work, I use thC' design:uions "marcionite,. and "marcionite-like,. more loosd y than -r:rson docs (and hence, in lower C.lsc}. I u nderst.lnd thC' terms to designate a conscc-lla· tion of ideas which e·vemually come to be associated with lvl:trcion, but which appc-.u to be percolating befort' 150 C l! !lS well.
120
SHELLY MATTHEWS
dynamics of t he rhetoric of clemency help to clarifY why Luke and other c.arly C hristian authors can celebrate enemy love a.s a C hristian pru~ prium on the o ne hand, all the while engaging in the u ncharitable proj· c:-ct of constructing vicious Jews as the enemy d osed off from salvation on the other.
Luke23:34a Crucial to the significance of Stephen's dying forgiveness p rayer is its direct antecedent, the prayer of Jesus from Luke's passion narrative a t Lu ke 23 :34a. The p rivileged place of t he d ominical fo rm of rhe forgiveness prayer in receptio n h istory, a nd th e common issues b inding t hese two iterations of the forgiveness p raye r require that they be considered in tandem.
7he lext-Ciiticrtl Problrm The dying p rayer of Jesus at Luke 2 3:34a is absent from several significant tcxcual witnesses, including P 7>, as well as B and 0*-. The w~:.ak man uscript attestation leads some scholars to argue that the text is not origi nally Lukan.' This argument against Lukan o riginality has bee n b uttressed trad itionally by the protest that no scribe could willfully excise such a significant d ominical prayer from a b ib lical manu.script.6 The stronger case, however. rests with those who argue for the o riginal.. ity of the p rayer.' While absent from significant manuscript traditions,
»
Those :arguing th is position include the editors of the Nestle-AJand 2Jd' ed ition of the Cr.xk New Test:tmem, who continue to pl:tce the phrase in double square br.lckets m:trkjng them as theologicall}' significant in Christian tradition, but not originaL Sec :also recent :trgumems of J.H. Pette r, "'Anti-Jud:tism and lh e Texrual Problem of Luke 23:34," Filologin Nrotmcwlmtarin 5 ( 1992), pp. 199-204; and J.A. Whitl:trk 3nd M.C. Parsons, "The 'Seven' Last Word s: A Numerical i\·{otivation for the Insertion of
Luke 23.34o," NT'S 52 (2006), pp. 188-204. G) See, for example, B.M. Meager, A Uxtual Commmtilry 011 thtt Gr~tk /Vrw Tt'$tammt (Stuttgart: Biblio-Druck GmbH, 1975), p. ISO. n i\·{)' arguments rcg;~ rding o:ternal and imern3J consider.nions F.tll OOsically in line with those of K. Haines-Eio:cn. GtU1rdi111u of Lmm: Litrntf')~ Pou't'r. auJ tlx Tmnsmiu~rs of Early CJ,ristian Litnmurt (New York: Oxford Unin:rsit)' Press, 2000). pp. 119-24~ B. Ehrman, "'The lCxt o f rhe Gospels at the End of the Second Century,"
CLEMENC\' AS C RUE1.1·y
121
the words arc found in texcual wimesses as imponam as N * and A. The
patristic evidence fo r the prayer in the Third Gospel is also substantial. The. presence of the traditio n in lrenaeus (Haer. 3.16.9; 3.18.5), and verbatim matches with the prayer in Hegesippus (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23. 16) and Torian's Diatmeron (Ephrcm, Commwtary 10. 15; 2 1.3; 2 1. 18) seem best explained as evidence that such a prayer was contained in Luke, rather than d rawn !Tom another source. Internal considerations also po int in the direction oflukan original# iry. As many have noted, a close interlocking strucrurc knits the death
of Stephen to the death of Jesus across the two volumes.• Before his death, the persecuted Stephen speaks three times in front of the m urderous mob. Jn the two instanccs in which the manusc.ript tradition is
secure, his words arc modeled closely, though not precisely, o n the words of the persecuted Jesus (cf. Luke 22:69 and Acts 7:56, Luke 23:46 and Acts 7:59). Those who argue against Lukan originality and for later scribal interpolation of23:34a must presume the unlikely scenario by which the autho r of Luke-Acts modeled two of Stephen's dying utterances o n words of}esus, then scripted for Stephen a third saying, a forgivcne.ss prayer, that was later modified and retrojcctcd into the Gospel of Luke. The careful parallels in the first two instances of Stephen's speech suggest that his third and final utterance concerning forgiveness in Acts 7:60 is not a detail luke introduces here for the first time, but that o nce again he d raws from a model saying in the Third Gospel, that is, an original prayer for fo rgiveness attributed to Jesus in Luke 23:34a. A furthe r internal consideratio n is the explanatory clause "for they know not what they do," which fits into the teleology of Luke-Acts regarding chc relation of sin and ignorance. The characterization of Jesus' per.scc.ucors as acting against him "in ignorance" in Luke 23:34a
in D.C. Parker and C. B. Amphoux (C'd.s.) . Co&x &uu: Sutdie; from tlu• Lunrl OJ{. logquium jw" 1994 (NTrS 22: l
122
SH ELL Y MATTHEWS
conforms to apo.swlic preaching in Aces that the Jews act~d in igno~ ranee when they crucified Jesus. Hence, Peters speech: "But you rejected the. Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to you, and you killed the Author of life . .. . And now, friends, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your rulers .. . " (Acts 3:14- 17); and Paul's: "Because the residents ofJerusalem and their leaders did not rccogniu him or understand the words of the prophets that arc read every Sabbath, they fulfilled those words by condemning him" (Acts 13:27) . In short, Luke 23:34a, in which Jesus makes excuse for those who cruc ify on account o f their ig norance, anticipates prcdsd y the apostolic preaching concerni ng the ignorance ofJc.sus' tormento rs. Finally. the. traditional means of clinching the case against Lukan o riginality- the suggestio n that such a powerful do minical saying simply could not be excised by a scribe-now loses its force as scholars of tcxt~criticism situate early Christian scribal activity within its social, religious and ideolog ical contexts.9 The scrilx:s who transmincd the manuscripts of the New Testament struggled to make rheological/ideo logical sense of them. Processes of excision. interpo lation and o ther fo rms of amending the manuscripts that lay before them were part and parcel of this struggle. It appears that, at least in some ancient scribal quarter, the fo rgivcnc.ss prayer did not make sense. Those who have argued this view most recently, including E. Epp, B. Ehrman. and K. Haincs~Eir-tcn. have srrcssc.d the non..scnsc of t he prayer in terms o f inc.rc.asing anti..Judaism. 10 A Jesus prayer fOr forgiveness ofJews strains credulity in the second century and beyond, in view of increasing anti.Jcwish sentiment in Christian communitic.s, and especially in view of the Christian reading of the destruction of Jerusalem as sure sign of God's vengeance o n the crucificrs. While concurri ng that anti-Judaism is o ne likely motive fo r scribal excision of the prayer, I note further that the. ideological challenge of the prayer is not o nly that Jesus prays fo r
{') See cspeci::tll}' H11incs-Eio:en. Gwmlinm of Lm~rr. B. Ehrman, 1br Ortl10dox Cormption of5
CLEM ENC\' AS C RUE1.1·y
123
the fo rgiveness ofJews, but that Jesus prays for the forgiveness of undeserving and unre pentant Jews. As such, the forgiveness prayers can be read as a radical disruptio n of the tal ionic framework of divine justice.
Th is double-edged concern of the emerging church to carve out a position that was both anti-Jewish and pro-talionic (which is to say, the position of anti ... marcionite, proto~orrhodox Christian ity) provides a
fuller explanation fo r the scribal excision of the dom inical forgiveness prayer from the Gospel of Luke.
77Je Expiring Excuse CfaiiSe While this dominical prayer from the cross in the Third Gospel has unde.rstandably received more scruti ny than the successive prayer of
Stephen, both by early and modern readers, it is possible to read Jesus' prayer as creating less theological dissonance than Stephen's. Though the Jesus prayer is "free-standing" in the sense that it docs not e.xplicitly offer forgivene.ss on the condition of repe ntance. it at least offers the igno rance cxcuso-for they know not what they do-as an explanatory clause. Key to the teleology of the sin/ignorance motif in LukeActs is the asse rtion that the ignorance excuse i.s not val id in pcrpewity.
but expires after the post-resurrectio n apostolic preaching, for both Jews and Gentiles. Consider especially Acts 17:30-31 : While Cod has overlooked the times of human ignor:tncc, now he commands all people ever}'\\thC"rc: to rC"pc:m , because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in rightrousness bra man whom he h:u: appointed, and of this he has given 3ssurance to all by rJ.ising him from the dead.
The merciful prayer of Stephen, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them," is a starker disruptio n of talionic josticc than that of Jesus due to its po.st.. resurrec.[ ion setting. Unlike those who crucify Jc.sus, Stc...
phen's killers arc without excuse. They do know what they do, and even yet Stephen prays mercy upon them. Moreover, if one understands this Lukan teleology of ignorance to be linked to the distinctio n between forgivable sins against the Son of Man and unfo rgivable sins against the Holy Spirit (cf. Luke 12: I 0-12), rhe contrast between the two prayers is fu rther underscored. Since Stephen at the moment of his death is " filled wirh the Holy Spirit" (nAI\ P11~ nvtu~a~o:; l.tyiou; Acts 7:55), he
124
SH ELL Y MATTHEWS
i.s asking that his persecutors be forgiven fo r a resistance to the Holy Spirit t hat Luke's Jesus has pronounced unforgivable. 11
The Question ofthe Prayers Object The merciful prayer in the Third Gospel migh t also be consid ered less d issonan t with t he ovcrarching theme of vengeance against lou.dnioi if the o bject of fo rgiveness is read as Ro man , rat her t han Jewish. The an tecedent of <XUtOt~ at Luke 2 3.34a is not d early specified. Fo r whom, precisely. d ocs Jesus ask forg iveness? It has been argued t hat the objects o f th e prayer arc those driving the nails a t Luke 23 :33. who a rc presumably Roman soldiers, even t hough t hey arc no t specifically so named." O r, it may be th e Jewish agents of the crucifixion-the chief p riests, the leade rs a nd the people- who arc t he last-mentioned a ntecedent at Luke 23: 13.'3 lf Jcsus is understood to be fo rgiving th e Romans he re, t hen the prom ised vengeance spoke n by h im docs not contradict the merciful prayer. fo r th ese con Hicring mc.ssagcs arc aimed at d iffer.. cnt recipie-nts. In this reading, Jesus· turn fro m t he' Jews whom he con.dcmns:~ a nd coward the Romans whom he fo rgives, amici pa tes t he same moveme nt o f Paul in Acts, and ultimately o f the Gentile church in sub sequent C hristia n centuries." Alternately, ifJesus' plea for mercy is read 11
'
For arguments linking Luke 12: 10· 12 to both the ignorance motif and to the ston-
ing ofStl."phc-n, see H.T. W're'Se, ..Zur Rolle des GC'isteswortC'S in frU hchri$dichen Traditionc:n (lC 12, lO JXIrr.)," in J. Coppens. J . Delobd. and T. Baarda (cds.). Logia: In paroles d~]Nus (Lcuven: Uitgewrij Pc-c-tC'rs, 1982). pp. 373-77 (377}; and P. Hoffin:1nn, "Jesus VC'rsus menschensohn: Mr 10.32f und die .synoptische menschC'nsohnUberlieferu ng.'" in L Oberlinncr and P. Fiedler (eds.), Salt der Erde, Licht der \~It: ~.wgctischr Studim zmn Mat:IJiimcwmgt!ium (Stuttg.lrt: Verlag karholisches Bibe-lwC"rk, 1991}. pp. 165-202. 1.!) This is the position of t-.,f. Blum ...... tlmn tie wissrnniclu, was tit' um.,. Zur Rn.rptiou dcr Fii1·biruJmr am Kn•uz (Lk 23,34a) i11 tier nntikm jiitli!ch-chrisdichell Konrro"'"" (NTABh 2/46; Munster: Aschendooif, 2001), pp. 53,205-208. 1~1 As o ugued, for example, h)' J.T. Sanders, 77JrJrws in Luk~-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Prm, 1987), pp. 11-13, 226-28. 1 ~1 This supe~ssi onist reading is fo und, for example. in Hippolytus' third-cC'ntury rrcari.s< agaimt rhe Jews. in which he has Je.sus speak: .. But as for me, in nl)' pta)'tt unto Thee. 0 lord. I said, ' Father, forgive them: namd}' rhe Gentiles. hecaUS(' it is the rime for favor with Gentiles (8t6n ..cup~),; eVSo)\tcx.; t&v i:~00\•1'" (Dmumstmtio ndvrtlujuda~os 3.20.4).
CLEM ENC\' AS C RUEJ.1'Y
125
as pertai ning to the Jews," t hen t he prayer ofJesus aligns pe rfectly with the prayers of Stephen in Acts a nd lxspcaks t he same cont radiction-a hero·s p lea for mercy upon Jews contained wi[hin a b roader narrarive condemning rhem. In contrast to th e Third Gospel, t here is no am b iguity concerning the intended object of Stephen's fo rgiveness prayer. Stephen's martyrdom owes exclusively to t he agency of the Jewish mob. No Romans arc at th e scene of this barbarian stoning. The objects of Stephen's prayer arc u ndoubtedly t he loudaioi whom the aut hor of Acts condemns."'
Echoes of Scripture in Luke 23:34a/Acts 7:60 Early C hris[ian exegetical crad itions making connectio ns bc:cwcen che Lukan fo rgiveness praycl'li and texts !Tom Hebrew Scripture arc few and rdativdy late. A rccem d uster o f modern sch olarship, however. attempts to situate the forgivcne.ss prayers sccurdy within Jewish Scriptures in o rder to conclude t hat the prayer has a "thoroughly Jewish background," or~vcn more strongly- t hat '' Lu ke has not given u p on t he Jews:·,,. Because my own positio n, to the contrary. is that th rough th ese dying forgiveness p rayers Luke attempts to construct a b reak between the loudnioi an d followcl'li of The Way, 1 consider here the argumen ts of those who suggest that t hese prayers a rc closely modeled o n Jewish
•n For chis ~ading in (he third century, seC" O rigen, P
lia 25. On stoning as a sign of barb~.rism from a Roman imperial perspective, SC'C' S. tvl:ttthe'.'\lo-s, "The NC'C'd for the Stoning of Stephen,.. in E.L Gibson and S. Matthews (cds.). Vio/mc~ inth~ Nnv Tmm1wlf (New York: T: & T. Clark, 2005), pp. 124-39. m D. Daube argue'S for the )C"wish b:ackground of rhC" fo rgivC"ness prayer through noting links bctwC'C'n the forgiveness pr;~.ycr and atonement pro\'isions in L('Viticus ("'For thq know not v..·hat the}' do•: luke 23.24,,. in Studia Ruristica 4 (TU 79; Berlin: Akad· ernie, 1961 }, pp. .58-70). C arr.lS takes the argument one StC"p further. "The fact th::at jC",sus prayed tOr the Jewish rdigious establishment in spite of their in;lbility to understand the C"Vents surrounding him as Messi..-.h i.s a tdling corrective to the \'iew espoUSC'd h}' Sanders Iof luke•s ami-Judajsm ). luke•s passion account indic.1tes that he has not given up on the Jewish leadC"rs but pr.!)'S for them. Sina th~: pnry~r is tmiquf' to Lukt' mul its badfgnmnd nmmls with OT lnw, rllf! vir-w is srrmgtlmr«
126
SHELLY MATTHEWS
Scriptures and who then conclude t hat the au th or of Lu ke-Acts stresses continuity more than rupture.
Atonemnltfor l undvrrtent Sim Owing to the explan atory d ause "for they know not what they do," it has been argued that th e forgiveness p rayer of Jesus invokes atonement ceremonies elaborated in the 'TOrah pertaining to inadvertent sins of the congregation (Num . 15:22-3 1; cf. also Leviticus 4). 18 Bu t any connection between the forgiveness prayer and provisions fOr the atone# mcnt o f inadvertent sins seems at bc.st a fai nt echo rathc.r than a dear litc.rary allusion. W hile Jesus is indeed asking here fo r t he forgiveness o f u nwitting sin , the situation in which he docs so is f:'lr removed fro m the p rovisions imagined by the au thors of the Pentateuchal legislation. The priest takes the primar y role in performing atonement in the case o f inadvcrrcnt sins in t hese Scriptu res. and while Luke casts Jesus in the mold of the Old Testament "p ro phet like Moses,"" he makes no explicit connectio n between Jesus' life and death and a ny priestly fu nctio n.'• Fu rthermore, and d iffe rently /Tom Luke, in the p rO\•isio ns from the Torah the congregation is presumed to be: cooperating in t he p rocc:ss o f making amends, for they arc instructed to aid in p reparation fo r the p riestly imercc.ssio n by prc:scnting t he sacrificial a n imal to the pric.st. A rd atcd and most o bvious d iffere nce is that th e Torah provisions do not imagine t hat th e priest is f."i ng imm inent death a t the hands o f an angry mob for whom he is a ut horizc.d to make atonemen t. IJl:!
Carras, "A ~nt:l teudu.l Echo,.~
o. .ube, ... For they know not what they do.',. See
:tls.o the argum ents aJigning Jesus' prayer with the intercession of biblical prophets in Blum. " ... dnm si~ UJimw11iclu, UNU sit' tm1," p. 37. See D. ?vfocssner, "'The Christ Must Suffd: New Light on the Jesus-Peter, Stephen, Paul Parallds in Luke-Acts," NovT28 (1986), pp. 220-56: f. Bovon. "La figure de Moise d :uts I'oeuvre de Luc." in R.. Manin-Achard, et .,). (eds.), Ln Figur~ d~ .•Woiic iCThur~ t'l n:lt'ctu~s (Genc\·a: Labor ct Fides, 1978), pp. 47~5 . li.l+
For the dassic staument o n the olbsence of atonement theology in luke's Passion, sex- H. Conulmann, 1/Jt' 7!Jrolog)' ofS:.. Luk~ (New York: Harper and Row, l96 l}, pp. 200..202: cf. the recent attempt to argue fo r some form of atonement thrology in Luke-Acts in D. tvfocssner, "The 'Script' of the Scriptures in Acts: Suffering As God's 'Plan' (Boui..i}} for the World for the 'RdeJ~ of Sins'," in B. W itherington (ed.). His:ory. Lit.,mtur~. nnd Sorit'ty i11 siJ~ Book ofArtt (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni\•ersity Press,
.'Ol
1996). pp. 218-50.
CLEM ENC\' AS C RUE1.1·y
127
i.
at the poin t of death." As the NSRV translaros from the H ebrew, while he poured ou t himself to death: "[heI made intercession fo r t he transgressors" (V'l!l' D'V11l!l171). Unlike the previous textual models discussed, the Isaiah passage in Hebrew at least shares with the Lukan passion the detail of intercession in the context of pcrsccmion. Moreover, it is clear that Luke has lsa. 53:1 2 readily at hand-albeit in LXX form-for he incorporates t he prophecy oflsa. 53: 12b, "and he was counted among the lawless" into his passion narrative at 22:37. A key difficulty with seeing the verse as a direct model for Luke, howe\•er, is that the Septu~
agint-thc t ranslation of the Hebrew Scriptures upon which Luke depends th roughout his work-docs not contain the notion of intcrcc.ssio n fo r transgressors at 53: 12c. The verse in the G reek Bible concludes, rather, "He bore t he sins of many and wfls hflnded OPf'r bemuse ofthf'ir tnmsgrmiom (K<Xt ou'.t 1i:t<; avo~ I<X<; <XiJtrov napeoo&q)." Hence. those who argue t hat t he intcrcc.sory prayer of Jesus at l u ke 23:34a owes to Luke's reliance o n lsa. 53: 12 must argue that Luke somehow has some access to a Hebrew text. t z
Wisdom ofSolomon Brian Beck has suggested t hat the response ofjesus !Tom t he cross can be illum inated by t he close parallels between it and t he situatio n of the suffering righteous, especially as found in W is. 1:16-3.9. Noting t hat o ne of the crucial issues fitccd by the righteous suf!Crer is whether "he can sustain insuh and ton ure without moral collapse," he argues that
the prayer for enemies at Luke 23:34 "brings o u t the bearing of Jesus under testing, and illustrates his consistency of character." Like the righ~
tcous man suffering unjust persecution in Wisdom of Solomon (cf. c.sp.
tn On rhe usc- of lsai.oh in luke. sC'C'. for c-x.1mplc-, J. Marcus, "'1l1e Old l esramc-nt and rhe Death ofjesus: The Role ofScripturc- in the Gospe--l PJ$Sion Narr:nivcs,,. in J.T. Carroii3Jld J.B. Grc><-n (cds.), 77Jr D~mh ofjmu in EArly ChriJtiauiry (Peabod)'. MA: Hendr;ckson, 1995), pp. 205-33 (2 13-18) . .!!) For discussion and bibliogro1phy, see Blum, ..Drm1 Sit' wissm nidJt,,. p. 38.
128
SHELLY MATTHEWS
2: 19), Jesus also demonstrates gentlene-ss (tnttiKtta) and the ability to bear evil without resentment (civtl;tKC'J.KtC'J.)."' While the depictions of Jesus and the righteous man in the Wisdom ofSolomon do share these character craits, there is a c rucial differe nc-e in their response to persecution. The righteous man docs not pray for the forgiveness ofhis enemies, but suffers in silence. Differcndy from Jesus who prays forgiveness
upon his tormentors, the silence of the righteous sufferer (Wisdom of Solomon 2) enables him to exhibit the virtue of gentleness and self. mastery without contravening the ovcrarching framework of the text
which affirms that the righteous will be rewarded and the persecuted judged (Wisdom of Solomon 3). Etl(liu.fltion
for purposes of my own argument, it is not necessary to suggest that Lukes narrative world was totally divorced from the conceptual prec· edents considered above. It is possible that readers of Luke m ight hear echoes of atonement provisions, o r affirmations of the suffering scr.. vam·s gentle ness in these prayers . Origcn provide-s a relatively early instance of one who conncc c.s Lcvicical provisio ns fOr inadvcncm sins
and the dominical clause, "for they know not what they do" (Hom. Lev. 2.5) . Eventually commentators do link l uke 23:34a and !sa. 53: 12c as an instance of prophecy and fulfillment."' My chief objectio n to argu· ments that have cited these passages as conceptual precedents for the forgiveness prayers is how they attempt to minimize the rad icality of
luke's project by suggesting that if a Jewish precedent can be fo und for luke~s prayer, then Luke still stands within Judaism, is not attempting to severe Christianity from Judaism and/or should be understood as de monstrating compassion for the Jews.
A first principle. however, in both the study of literary allusion and in the more diffuse study of literary echo is that allusion and echo always
B.E. Beck, "'lmitatio Chrisli' and the Lucan Passion Narr:tti\·e,.. in ~~ Horbury:.nd B. McNeil (eds.), Sujforing and Martyrdom i11 tl" Nrw Trstamm: (Cambridge: Cambr;dgc Un;vcr.,;ty l'rcss. 198 1), pp. 28-47 (44-45). ~1 C ( Haimo of Auxerrt.>s medie\'al commentary on Isaiah 'lt 53.12 (K. Aland, Syuopsi! qmmuor Et~tmgrliomm [Sturtg.an: Deursche Bibdniftung, l976 j, p. 484).
13!
CLEM ENC\' AS C RUEJ.1'Y
129
supply th e o riginal text with new meaning. H. Plett's o bsetvation in regard to the .study of quotation-that every quotation provokes con~ Hict or inte rference between the material quoted and its new contextalso a pp lies to other forms of allusion." R. Hayes, fo r instance, in his study ofliterary ech<><s in Paul's letters, speaks of the revisionary power of allusive echo to generate. n<:w figuration. He. notes that a key task of c.riticism attuned to the rhetorical effect of literary echoes is ;(to give an account of the distortions and new figuration that lec.hocsl generate."26 \XIhile t he arguments above focus o n t he possible allusio ns to Script ure and wisdom literature that the prayers fOr me.rcy a<..'tivate, they fail to note the ('revisionary power," the "interfere.nce or conflict" that Luke's usc of the allusion entails. Luke does not invc:nc, but rather invoke.s tra~ ditions of merciful prayers fo r sinners and gentleness in the face of persecutio n. Yet, he also exerts a conside-rable amount of revisionary power by placing t hose p rayers of mercy on the lips of martyrs on behalf of their executioners. He re precisely lies Lukan original ity, Lukan departure from Jewish literary precedent. In order to appreciate th is revision~ ary power, it is instructive to compare these dying prayers with tho.sc of other martyrs.
Vengeance Overturned: Reading Luke\i l'rayers against the Martyr's Cry In the literatu re of the suffering righteous and t he persecuted prophets, as well as in martyrdom texts proper, belief that God would ultimately vindkatc. the righteous and judge the.i r tormentors pervades. God's ultimate justice, in the form of vengeance against tormentors, is a bedrock solution to the problem of t heodicy, the question of God's presence in the m idst ofsufferi ng. As noted in the instance of Wisdom of Solomon, while t he righteous su ffere r may endure in gentleness and forbeara nce (tnt£ll<Wl Kc:tt c'tvt~t><Wda Wis. 2: 19-20), the poet offers
H. Pleu. "lntercextualiries," in H. Plett (ed.),/nur0.·uality(Rese~rch in '!ext Theory 15; Berlin: de Gruyrer, l99 1), p. II. .)6.) R.B. Hayes, &!JON oJSrripttJn: in tlu Lrrurs of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 19. lU
130
SHELLY MATTHEWS
confident assurance that their tormentors will ultimately lx: punished; the ungodly die without hope (Wis. 3. 10-19). The tormented may endure in silence-compare again Wisdom of Solomon 2, as well as the depiction of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, which draws explicit attention to the dosed mouth of the persecuted (Isa. 53:7). But fo r the martyr, at least as typical as s ilen t resistance arc last words expressing conviction in the tormentor's ultimate punishmcm. In the Maccabcan
litcraturc1 confident and spiteful predictions of \•cngcanC<." arc dc:livcrcd by the tormented directly to the persecuting tyrant. Four of the seven martyred brothers in 2lvlaccabccs proclaim venge-ance on their tormen.. tor in their last speeches (2 Mace. 7: 14, 6, 19. 3 1· 36).ln 4 /vlaccabccs, the brothers· convictions concerning ultimate vengeance arc fore.. grounded in a unison chorus: "For we shall have the prize of virtue; but you because of your blood thristyncss will deservedly undergo /Tom the divine justice eternal torment by fire" (4 Mace. 9:9). The conviction of ultimate vc:ngcancc is then repeated. at c.ach of the seven deaths, [hc.rcby taking on the quality of a liturgical refrain (4 Mace. 9:32; 10: 1 1; 11:3; 11:23; 12:12; 14:18; 18:5. 22)." The prayer for vengeance uttered by the prophet Zechariah stands in a clost intcrtcxtua1 relationship to rhc story of Stephen, illuminac~
ing the distinctiveness of the final merciful prayer of the dying hero. Luke makes allusion to the stoning of the prophet Zechariah, first recounted in 2 Chro n. 24:17-25, in his accounts of both Jesus' and Stc· phcn's deaths. According to the Chronicler, Zechariah is persecuted because of his words indicting King Joash and the people of Judah for transgressions relating to law and temple. The people conspire, at the bidding of the king, to stone the prophet in the court of the temple. The C hronicler records his final prayer, "As he was dying, he said,' May YHwH sec and avenge!" (24:22).' 3 Vengeance docs come quickly, for in O n the importance o f \'engean-cc to martyrdom lirerarurc specific:~ll)'. see J.W. van HcntC'n, .. Zum EinAuss jiidischer Martyrit"n auf die liter-.lture des fiiihen Chrisuntums, II. Die ApostoUischen V.1tC'r," ANRW2.27. l ( 1992), pp. 700-23. Note rh:lf in rile r.tbbinic legends of the mother and her seven sons, the affirmation of rhe name of Cod is substituted for the Macceabc-.m Cf}' of \'Cnge:mce. SCX" Lamenta-
r:'l
tions Rabbah 1.16; Bab)'lonian Talmud Gittin 57b. !ll!
Josephus recounts rhe story at Am. 9. 169. wirh simil.-.r focus on God's avenging
role'.
CLEM ENC\' AS C RUE1.1·y
13 1
the next episode Jerusalem is destroyed, KingJoash is defeated by enemy armies, and ultimately murdered by his servants (24:23-25). As scholars have shown, the story of Zechariah's violent fate and its link to a forsaken Jerusalem becomes a touchstone in rabbinic and other Hellenistic Jewish sources for meditations o n prophet persecution, blood vengeance, and communal blame for the destruction of the city in 70 CE." Luke, drawing from the sayings source (Q), employs this tradi[ion of Zcchariah·s persecution with its stark articulatio n of the. scope of the promised vengc.ance or reckoning, for this generation will be called to account [eKSl'lt€ro) for his m urder along with all prophct-murdc.rs leading up to his: Ther(for<: also the Sophia of God said. "I will srnd them prophets and apostles. some of whom they will kill o1nd persecute," so that this grner-.Jtion may be ch3rged with th(' blood of :tll the prophets sine<: th(' foundation of the world, from the blood of Abd to the blood of Z('ch.ariah. who perished benveen the o1har o1nd the sanctuary. Yes, I tdl you, it will be durgcd against this generation. (lukefQJ 11 :49-50)
That the narrative method of Luke-Acts is to situate Stephen as well as Jesus within the line of persecuted prophets embod ied in the Zechariah tradition is clear from the connections between this oracle in Luke II and Acts 6-8. Jn the book of Acts, Stephen's own words recall those of Jesus: <'You stiff~necked people, uncircumdscd in hearts and cars1 you arc fo rever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do. Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute?" (Acts 7:5 1-52). Instead of invoking Zechariah as the cxemplum of the persecuted prophet, Luke offers up Stephen himself who meets a fi1tc like Zechariah's, death by stoning. A further connection: Jn phrasing not shared by Matthew, Luke introduces the Q oracle on Sophia and the persecuted prophets by noring how his audience is linked to prophet persecutors of old: "Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors killed. So you arc wimrsses ()lP€<;) and
m SeeM. Johnson-DeBaufre, "The Blood Required of This Gener.ltion: Imerp«'cing Communal Bbmr in a Colonial Com<>:t,.. in Gibson and Matthew.s («<s.), Violmcc in t!U' Nt'w 7~rammt, pp. 22-34, (27-28); D.C. Allison. Jr.. 7!Jt lm~nl'xtunl )mrs: &ripmrr iu Q (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000). pp. 149-5l.
132
SHELLY MATTHEWS
npprove(oweuooKe!te) of the deeds of your ancestors" (Luke 11 :47-48). This word combination ''witnc.s.s" and "approve .. appears one.: more in Luke-Acts in relation to Saul's role in Stephen's death:". .. and the wit· nessrs (olllaprope~) laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. . .. And Saul npproved (i\v ouveuooKrov) of their killing him" (Acts
7:58-8: 1; cf: 22: 19). In view o f the:: intcrtcxtual relations between c-hc Zechariah .story, Lukes employment of the Q oracle, and the Stephen story, the divergence of the dying prayers of Zechariah and Stephen is dramatic. With his dying words, "Lord, do not stand this sin against them," Stephen seems to offer a countcr..discoursc.-a New Testament, if you will-a deliberate refutation of the vengefully expressed desire of the dying Zechariah, "Behold, Lord, and judge." For this author who is hesitant to e mbrace the term Christian fOr his social group,.;o the ~Father, fOr·
give them" functions much like the declaration "C1JistMnos mm" in later martyrdom literature-the uncrancc is pcrformative) constructing the
followers of the Way as a New Type. For Luke this New Type embodies a distinctly superior ethic. The dying declaration indelibly inscribes followers of the Way as radically forgiving, in stark contrast with the barbarous loudaioi who arc radically unforgivable."
Mercy Perfected: Reading the Dying Forgiveness Prayers in Line with the Semton on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain To say that rhc dying fo rgiveness prayers in Luke-Acts arc an assertion of a C hristian u.ovum m ight be understood as nothing more than an acknowledgement that these prayers are embodiments of the teachings attributed to Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain, I am persuaded by the arguments of R. f>cor\'O that luke avoids the term "Chriscion,.. bcc:tUS(" it suggests for him factionalism and/or sectarianism. Acu does not wi.s.h to cast the RlO\'C'IllC'Ilf as merely a hniresir within Judaism-alongside the parries of the Pharisees >1nd Sadducees-but rJther as something all-encomp:tssing, "true lsrad,.. as oppOSC'd to "&lsC' Israel ,. See Dating Am. pp. 168-69. )II The forgiveness pr:t}'tr of James. the brother of Jesus, in the manyrdom narrJtive pre~f'·ed in Hegesippus functions similarly. For analysis, sex Mart'hcws, Prrfod Mnr.'il•
'Y"·
CLEM ENC\' AS C RUE1.1·y
133
since the sermon itself is widely (though not universaJiy) regarded as the d istinguishing feature: of C hristian ethical teaching." As many modern commemators have noted, t he d epiction of Jesus, Stephen and James p raying fOrgiveness on their tormentors at t he time of their deaths can be read as deliberate and exemplary enactments of Jesus' teaching to love enemies, and p ray fo r-rather than retaliate against-chose who persecute. In both Matthew's Sermon o n the Mount (5:38-48) and Luke's Sermon o n the Plain (6:29-36), enemies arc t hose who do violence to the commu nity; and o ne way in which the command co love enemies is conc.retizcd i.s th rough the exhorta[ion to pray fOr them. In view of these ethical exhortations, Jesus' prayer from t he cross for his tormentors to be fo rgiven can be understood as a concrete d emon-stration of his greatest ethical teaching o n enemy love. When Stephen prays likewise at his martyrdom~ he is engaging in a sup reme exercise of imitntio Christi. That some early C hristian readers connected the d ying forgiveness prayers of Jesus and Stephen d irectly to the ethical teach ing o n enemy love and p rayers for persecutors in the S/vl/SP is evident from the writings of l renac:us: That he exclaimed upon the cross, .. F.1ther fo rgive them fOr they know not what they do," rexhibitsl rhe long·suA-Cring patience. compassion and goodness of Christ.. . . For the word of God who s.1id to us, "Jove your enemies, pray for those
Hereafter rdCtC"nccd as SM/SP. The poles of the debare over the question of whcthC'r the teaching on non· reuJi:nion and en emy lo\'e arc ., Christian novum are repre.s
.\!)
33 11979], pp. 209-25). Entry points into scholarship on SM/SP Cln he found in the recently m mslated and l't'vised commC'ntary o f U. luz, Mnn/,ew 1-7: A Commnwzry ( Hermeneia; M inneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), pp. 170-72,226. 283: \X~M . Swartley, "\'(faz and Pe.1ce in the New l Cst:tmC'nt,.. in ANR\\72.26.3 (1996). pp. 1298·2408; and H.D. Bctz, 1/Jr Srmum o11 r!J,. MtJtmt: A Commnmrry on the &nno11 on thr MtJtoll !ndudiug rhr Samon 011 tiJT Plniu (Mnulm~' 5:3-7:27 and Lukr 6:20-49). (Hermcncia;. M inneapolis: Fortress, 1995).
134
SHELLY MATTHEWS
who hate you,.. h imself d id this very thing upon rhe cross. (Ha~r. 3.18; [Robc.-rtsDona1dson])
and Cyprian: How y,:iU you love rour enemies .,nd pr.1y fo r your adversaries and persecutors? \Y/e -sec what happened in rhe case of Stt"phen. \X'hen he was bang l..ill«< by the violence .,nd stones of the Jev•s, he did not ask for vengeance but forgi\·eness for his murderers. saring, "0 lord. do not lar this sin against them... (Rll. 16
IWal!;sl)
Bu t I suggest that it is also rhe case that some early readers did not understand the dying forgiveness prayers, in their free-standing form, as cut out of the same d oth as Je.sus' crhical teachings in the SM/S l~ The reason that the free-stand ing form o f the dying fo rgiveness prayers would not necessarily be undc.rsrood as stan d ing in continuity wit h Jesus' teaching o n
As Gordon Zerbe has docume nted fo r both early Jewish and New Testame.n t tcxts1 oonfide.ncc in God's ultimate vc.ngeancc frequently becomes ratio nale for passivity, non#retaliat io n, and even me.rciful behavio r in the f.Kc o f persecution." Viewing the earliest strand of the enemy love exhortatio n p reserved in Q in light of th ese texts, Zerbe conclude.s that c:ven here "non~reraliation and good deeds in response to persecutors . . . arc grounded in the hope ofcscharological vindication and judgment."-" The Sermon o n che tvlo un c's cxhonat io ns to enemy love and non~re.. taliation can be read, chcreforc, as confo rming to t he logic expressed by the apostle Pau l in Romans 12, whc.re he. counsels h is audience to C.M. Zerbe, NoJJ·RLMlimitm in Early jrw1ih aut! Nrw li:stamrm Tr:m: Ethi.ml 71~rm" iu Sodn/ Co11l<-xt1 OSPSup 13; Shcffidd: JSOT Pn:ss. 1993), pp. 37-39, 75-77, 92-93,98-99, 11 9-26. 158-60, P'-";m. ~~1 Z
CLEM ENC\' AS C RUEJ.1'Y
135
be kind to their enemies and leave the vengeance u p to God: "if your enemies arc hungry feed t hem; if they arc thirsty give t hem something to drink, for by doing this you will hea p burning coals on t heir heads" (Rom. 12:20)." While one might hesitate to imagine that such vindictiveness gov# crncd early readings of t he signaturccthical teaching ofJesus, d ear evidence for precisely th is reading of the SM/SP is fo und in Tcrrullian's Against lvfardou. In h is ace rb ic rebuttal of l\1-arc.ion's characterization of Jesus as a novel teacher of extreme mere)' in t he S/vl/SP, 1crtullian notes, to the contrary. that Jesus' cou nsel to ''rum t he oth er check" is nothing more chan a n exhortation to have (..pacicnce, in expcc.cation of vengeance (patimtiam docet vindicate expectatrimn)" (Mar. 4.16.4). Though book fou r of Agaimt Marcion serves as a commentary on large swaths of the Third Gospel, it makes no reference to Jesus' forgivcnc.ss praye r at Luke 23:34a. It is impossib le to ascertain whether the text of the Gospcl1crrullian reads has already been purged of t his passage, or whether he h imself knows, b ut supp resses th is praycr.J6 In a ny case, for those early C hristians who, like 'lcrtullian, u nderstood Jesus' teaching o n enemy love and non~reraliation wit hin t he frame# work of God's ultimate vengeance, prayers fo r God to forgive t hose enem ies, rather th an co execute vengeance, would be read as confounding that framework. Whether ']crtullian has suppressed the forgiveness prayer, or it has already been suppressed fo r him, t he impulse to do so is understan dable in view of the prayer's radical assertion ofd ivine me.rcy over justice. While chose with marcionite leanings mighc h ave a rgued otherwise, "fertullian insists that the Sermon o n the lvlou m doe.s not disrupt divine cosmic justice. ln his view, the laws of vengeance arc not
,\;} W hile many New Testament schoLus ha\'C w ished to so !ten Paul's apparC'nt vindictiveness here, Kristcr Stcndahl argued more than 40 years ago (in h is t)'pically pcrspi· cacious and provocative manner) that P.1ul's -;'l.rgumcnt in Romans should be read -;'IS exhibiti ng the same vindicri\•encss as found in the Dead Sea S crolls. See K. Stcndahl, "'H-;'Itc, Non·rnaliation, and lo\'C: JQS x, 17·20 and Rom. 12: 19-2 1," HTR 55 (1 962). pp. 337-55. For a recent review of literarurc o n Rom. 12: 17·21, sec Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, pp. 211 ·69. \6) Tcnulli:an docs m:ake reference to luke 23:34b. the casting oflots fo r Jesus' doth· ing. and -;'!Ccuses Marcion of ha\·ing excised that \'cry passage from the text (Marr.
4.42.4).
136
SHELLY MATTHEWS
confounded byJcsus' teach ing on enemy love an d non~rctal iation. Yet, t he dying p rayers fo r forgiveness of tormentors could be understood to do just t hat, by t heir suggestion t hat Jesus would have d ivine justice against evil doers be suspended altogether. A study of t he reception history of the dying fo rgiveness prayer suggests that T'crtullian was not alone in h is concern to disabuse early Chris .. tians of the (marcionitd} notion that d ivine forgive ness could be so ITedy offered, C\'en to the u nrepentant. One rhetorical strategy fo r coun tering such a notio n was to anchor the fOrgiveness p rayers solid ly co acts of rcpcmancc and conversion. Thi.s remed y is seen in one legend p reserved in Jerome, where-in an ac.t of creat ive imagination rivaling even Md G ibson's recent film po rtrayal of t he passion-t housands of Jews arc supposed to have gathered arou nd the c ross to witness Jesus' d eath. They convc.r t f'll/11/lJJf subsequent to Jesus' p rayer: The lord so fo.,·cd Jerusalt'm that he wept and lamented over the cit)'. And as he hung o n the c ross he said, .. Father fo rgive tht"m for the}' know not what the}' do.'" And he brought about what he pr.1ycd for. and immcdiatdy sever-.al thousand Jews bec.une f.a ithful. and until the 42nd year, time was given for them ro repent. Q
An other rhetorical strategy was to merge t he plea for forgiveness with the " if it be possible" clause of Je.sus' p rayer !Tom Gethsemane, thereby rendering rhe fo rgiveness of the crucifiers as impossib le as th e reversal of Jesus' earthly fate to suffer from t he cross. This rhetorical strategy is preserved in paragrap hs 6 a nd 25 of the Didi1JCd!ia.: "For our Savior himself also was plead ing with h is f ather for sin ncrs1 as it is written in the. Gospel: My Fat her, they know not what they do, neither what t hey
Similar legends of mass conversion around the c ross. attributed to the "Gospel of rhe Nou:orcans." a nd hence of possible carl)' date, are presrrvcd in Haimo of Auxerrc's medit'V.al commrntar}' on Isaiah at 53.12, and in a medievaJ manuscript known as chr Hisroria pttJSioniJ Domini f. 55'. For chc l:mcr two in English transb.rion. SC'e \X~ Sch nccmdcher, Nrw Tmammt Apotry'P!Ja (trans. R.M. \'(fiJson; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. 2nd edn , l99 1}. p. l62 n. 24; p. L64 n. 3:5. For discussion see Flusser, '"Sir wisscn nicht, was sic run': Gcschichte cines Hcrrcnwoncs;'" in I~G. MUller and \YI. Stenger (eds.), Kominuitiit tmd Einl~t:ir:for Fra1n Mutml'r (Fried· burg: Herd
CLEM ENC\' AS C RUEJ.1' Y
137
speak: but ifit b, possib{,, forgive t hem" ([cf. Lu ke 23:34a, lvlatt. 26:39. I Tim . I :7], emphasis add ed ). Returning to the te:xt~critical question, I suggest again rhar striking the do min ical saying from t he Lukan text is another mechanism fo r suppressing rhe notion that Jesus migh t forgive unrepenranc sinners. Th e fo rce of t he id eological repugnance requ ired to prompt a scribe to excise a phrase from th e Gospels attrib uted to the Lord himself from the cross demonstrates th e h igh srake.s of rhis controversy in some qua rters. That conccrn over proper ime rp reratio n of the dying fo rgiveness prayer persists into the fourth century is seen in the homily o n the stoning o f Steph en by Asterius of Amasca (c.. 330-420 CE)."' Asterius lays o ut q uite exp licitly the t heolog ical problem t hat w me.s fro m a straigh tforward read ing o f Stephen's prayer: But let us also consider rhc words of IStephen'sl pr.aycr, to what aim he says, .. Lord, do nor hold thc:ir sin against them." He pt'.l}'S not, .-.s some incorrectl)' presume, th:u the sin of h is e nem ies should remain un:wenged and guiltless. Tlut would make- him opposing Divine intention: he would .s«m to rcctif)• the rightrous judgment and the legislation which would give the murderers wltu ther deser\•ed. (Deha nd.schutterl
He then prc.sses Stephen's words into con fo rmity with a view o f God's justice t hat makes forgiveness contingent u pon repentance and conve.r ston: But what does he say? "Lord, do not hold their sin against fhem" that is. "Give them fear because o f compunction~ bring them to regret what th<'}' dared, let them not d ie away in circumcision. draw them th rough repenun ce to knowledge ~hout you, kindle in their hearts the Aame of the Spir it. If they repent in that war. it will be manifest that you hold not chat sin against them, but br the bath of grace the)' will wash away your and ffi)' blood and be fr~X of ~ny charge." ID(handschutrerl
.u; For introduction toAsterius and translation of this sermon, see B. Dehandschutter, "'Asterius. of Amasca," in J. Lecmans, W. Marer. P. Allen and B. Ddun dsch utter (eds.}. ''Ll'r m Dir that \%'{- may LilY".· GtY~Jr Homilil's 011 Chrittidll :11/drtyrs fi'om Asia Mimn; Palmilll' aud Syria<. AD 350-AD 450 (london: Routledge, 2003), pp. 162·93.
138
SHELLY MATTHEWS
Astcrius, then, upholds the orthodox view that fo rgiveness and repentance must
be anchored together. But, reading against the grain, one
sees that he has thought through another reading of the prayer- some m ight suppose the "enemies" to be off the hook. Note also Asterius' easy equation of the killers with the circumcised and of repentance with the move away from c ircumcision, which collapses any distinction
between the sinful deed and the very state of being "Jewish," as well as any distinction between atonement fo r sin and the conversion to Chri.s.rianity. If these examples from Tcrrullian, Jerome, the scribe excising Luke 23:34a, the Didascalia and Asterius of Amasea «rvc as indicatio ns of those who could not readily assimilate t he freestanding dying fo rgiveness prayers into the framework of tal ionic justice. the question must
still be raised: how could many other proto-orthodox C hristians affirm t he dying forgiveness prayers as representative of Christian ethical supe· rioriry, without falling inco the marc.ionitc position of embracing an
extreme view of mercy predicated on the suspension of God's vcngc.ancc? For the answer to this question. I turn to the grammar of proto~ortho ..
dox affirmatio ns of the dying forgiventss prayers. Gramnllltical lntramitiviry~
In many cases in which proto-orthodox Christians embrace the free· standing version of the dying forgivt:ne.ss prayc.rs a particular reading strategy appears to be in operation. In .such instances, I .suggest, read .. crs grant co the prayers an intransitive grammatic-al force. That is, they read the prayers as a celebration and idealization of the subject who so prays, without imagining that thc.sc prayers have any reconciling efFect fo r the objects of the prayers. The forgiven= prayers arc invoked to idealize the subject who so prays as one who is "wonderful" or "per· feet." Euscbius, for example, cites Stephen at prayer before his death as t he. model of perfection imitated by the martyrs of Vie nne and Lyon (Hist. eccl. 5.2.5); Epiphanius refers to James' recitatio n of the fo rgiveness prayer as "wonderful" (Pr111. 78. 14.6) ; lrenacus cites Luke 23:34a as an example of Jesus's compassion (Htter 3.18.5); and Acts 7:60 as proof that Stephen was perfected lt£/,tt60>j (Hner. 3.12.13; cf. Hner. 3. 16.9) . These acclamations direct the reader toward the subject, the
CLEM ENC\' AS C RUE1.1·y
139
o ne who so p rays. and not toward the object, the enem ies them~ selves.39 That the dying fo rgiveness prayers ean be extolled as a sign of the praying subject's pcrfc:c.rion without any concession chat these prayers have consequence fOr persecuto rs is read ily seen in the writings of Ire~ naeus, whose praise in passages noted above fo r Jesus' compassionate prayer from the cross affects not his strong confidence that Jews who fastened Christ to th is cross arc condemned. In book 4 o f Agflimt H er.sies, he likens Jewish Exodus th rough Egyptian dc.m uction to Christian salvation t hrough Jewish condemnation: Unless, then, rile Jews hod become the slayers o f the Lord (which d id, indt'C'd, take eternal life away from them) . . . we could not h;we been saved. For as they were saved (during the Exodus] b)' means of the blindness of the Egyptians, so arc we, too, by chnt of the Jews; if. indeed, the d eath of the lord is che condemnation of those who folStencd him to the cross, an d who d id not hdieve in his advent, but the salv.1tion of those who believe in Him. {Hnrr. 4.28.4 (Rolx-rts·Don-aldsonJ)
lrcnaeus then. apparen tly without iro ny, is able to celebrate both the compassio n Jesus demonstrates through praying for his crucifiers and the certainty chat t hose crucificrs receive no compassio n as a resulc of the p rayer."' In the end, acknowledging the propensity to read the p rayers as having an intransitive grammatical fo rce might also serve to explain t he. puu lc of the ambiguous antecedent in the dominical prayer preserved at Luke 23:34a. As noted earlier, t his textual ambiguity promp ts debate over whether Jesus' prayer to fo rgive "them" is aimed at Jews o r Roman soldiers. But such debate is p rem ised o n the assumptio n that the object, the "them," is crucial to t he meaning of the utterance. If it is recognized instead that the prayer fu nctions m uch mo re to idealize Jesus than to Perfection of the subject i.s th e d riving force bC'hind PolyCJ..rP•s cxh on arion to pray for enemies as wd l (sec Phil 12.3). That the rhetoric o f early Christian enemy love functions primarily in terms of identity asscnion, and not as program for efhic.1l ac· tion has b('("n noted b}' W. Bauer, "'OolS Cd>ot der Feindesliebc und die alten C hris· ten,,. in Georg StrcxkC'r (ed.), Aufiiitu tmd Kl~i11.: Schrifim (TUbingen: Mohr Siebeck,
)i)
1967), pp. 243-44: rcpr. fTom ZTK27 ( 1917). 0>
For further condt:nmations of the JC"\vs as Christ kiJIC'rs in lrcnaeus, .see Htt~r.
4..16.2: Ep;d. 69.
140
SHELLY MATTHEWS
dfc<:t rhe forgiveness of any group, rhe importance of attaching a group idcmity to chc pronoun ''them" recedes. The acknowledgement of the praycr·s grammatical instransitivit:y prompts consideration ofan analogous discourse of power in the ancient world, through which the virtue of the subject's beneficence is celebrated, without corresponding attention to the o bjects of that beneficence. This leads to my concluding sectio n o n the Roman discourse of
clemency. That early Christian writers operate in a world that celebrates the granting of pardo n pri marily in terms of the subject-the emperorS power and virtue--with little or no consideration of the o bjectthe captives and their plight-provides a model for illuminating the power dynamic. undergird ing intransitive readings of the me rciful
prayers.
Clemency as an Analogue for the Dying Forgiveness Prayers in Luke Clemency is a peculiarly Roman virtue embodying a particular sort of mercy. In as much as the virtue bespeaks the ability to control rage against enemies, and to refrain from avenging all but the most serious of injuries, it is c.loscly allied with the Greek virtue of self-mastery, the control of the passions. There arc rcsonancc.s betwee n cl.ementin and qualities such as cr<»<j>POoVVl], eyKPtttet<X, and liPClOn JS. Yet, clemenria is not the equivalent of self-mastery, as is made dear through consideration of how these various virtues arc employed in di.scourscs of power and authority. In comparison to clrmentia, .sdf..mastcry m ight be con~
sidcred as having something of a "populist" bent, since, as embodied in Stoic/Cynic philosophy, self-mastery is a virtue that all would do well to cul tivate. In particular d rcumstancc.s even a woman o r a .slave might be said to possess this virtue. Moreover, in ccnain instances. self~ mastery may be employed as a weapon in the politics of dissent and resistance. Consider, for example, 4 Maccabees, where the self-mastery of the entire Maccabean family enables them to defy the colo nizing tyrant, and even the Maccabcan mother proves under threat of torturethat she too can "take it like a man.".t• tu O n issuc-S of gender and contest in this text, sec S.D. MoorC' and J.C. Anderson,
"Taking it Like a M:m . : t-.·fasculinit)' in 4 Maccabees," JBL 11 7 ( 1998), pp. 249-73.
CLEM ENC\' AS C RUEJ.1'Y
14 1
In contrast, clemency is a vinue chat has a more firmly fixed and ver# tical power dynamic. Only one in a position to exact revenge, through his legal and practical aut hority, may chose instead co exercise leniency. It is not the virtue someone of le.sser scams might g rant to someone with grc.ater, nor is it invoked as a me.ans of resisting tyranny- fo r it is always the possession of t he o ne wit h superior social standing. "'A slave, a snake, o r an arrow may slay even a king_," notes Seneca in his essay on clemency, "but no o ne has saved a lifC who was not gre.ater chan the o ne.whom he saved (srn,dvit quidrmnemo nisi mnior eo. qut>nl servabat)" (Clem. 1.21.1) . In his spin ning out of definitions, Seneca u nderscores chat clemency "means restraining the mind fro m vengeance when it has chc power to take it, or the leniency of a superior toward.s an inferio r in fixing punishment" (Clem. 2.3. 1). In the period of concern to us, the Roman imperial period in which che aut hor of Lu ke..Acts writes, the: emperor is, of course, t he supreme wielder of the virtue of clemency. N u merous artistic representations of the emperor pardoni ng barbarians after their conquest survive fl-om t he Imperial period, includ ing several images o n t he massive colu mn of Trajan erected in Rome to commemorate his defeat of the Dacians in the firs t decade of the second century. Here Trajan is depicted gesturing magnanimously co a group of Dacian women, guiding them to the h<>at which will deport them from their defeated homeland. In this image the:: women arc resigned, but not horrifie.d. Their modesty remains intact -they arc fully clothed and protected captives of war, not d isheveled victims of rape and other bru talities." Such depictions of cap tives with serene-and sometimes even joyful-<:ountcnance ac chc prospect of incorporation into the beneficent empire arc common to the di¥ course of d cmency. As Melissa Dowling notes in her interpretation of o ne of these images, preserved o n an altar base from the V illa Albani: Each man carries the arms of h is own pe-oples; ~.Jch represents a d ifferent conquert'd group; each marches with frtcdo m and almost an cxpr~sion of jo)'. The stru£Sies and horrors of battle art' ignored; all we SC'C' cdehr.ucd arc rhe happy new additions to the Roman world. l11ee>:t:1nt August-.'ln vistory rdiefs emphasiU' ~ S. Dillon. "'WomC'n on the Columns ofTraj:m and Marcus Aurelius and the Visu· al Llnguage of Roman Victory,.. in S. Dillon and K.E. \'
142
SHELLY MATTHEWS jO}'OUS in the' d cmc.-n cy they ha\'C' received. not agoniud O\'C'r their losses, not in the act o f be-ing executed .... The presC'mation of happy c3ptives links togC'ther the d ispar.ne ideas of victory, dC'mC'ncy. justice, and p iety. . . . lhe victory anesrs to the virNIS of the conqueror .... Pit'ty is present in the fo rm of rhe dedication. an offering to the gods in thanks for victor)'. Justice
conquC'rcd mC'n
appears in the barlxlri:.ms• cheerful accC"ptancC' of the d emC'n t treatment. 4J
The cxcrds.c of clemency is, then, an exe rcise of power. The prccondi~ tio n of cirmentid is submissio; in situations of conquest, clemency sig~ nals victory so comp lete that the vanquished may be pardo ned. In as much as d c.m cncy is a n impe rial virtue, I suggc.s t t hat the fOr.. givcncss p rayers in Lukc#Acts exh ibit t his author's conce.r n to merge Roman discourse about the empe ror with Christian discourse about Jesus. Joel Marcus has recently argued t hat crucifixion in t he Roma n world was regard ed «mong the cmcijiers tlmnsrlves as a sort of parodic exaltation: ''Crucifixio n was intended ro unmask. in a deliberately gro .. tesque manner, the pretension and arrogance of t hose who had exalted themselves beyond their station .. . ,"« Marcus concludes that the d anger ofsuch parody is the difficulty in th e end of d iscerning who is mock· ing whom, such t hat "th e height of the cross migh t undergo a transvalua[ion and be seen to point toward th e spiritual em inence rather than c-he arrogance of the victim."4 -> By the time char Luke..Acrs is writ~ ten, t his transvaluatio n of the meaning of crucifixio n i.s well u nderway. That Je.sus is emperor· like in Luke·s passion namuive is cle-ar from the total control of emotions he exhibits throughout th e story. There is no grief in Gcthscmanc or no cry of dereliction fTom the cross. His for· giveness o f the condemned criminal on the cross (Lu ke 2 3:41-43), as well as h is prayer fo r the forgiveness of h is crucifiers arc additional means by which Luke elevates Jesus' status, marking him as true emperor-the one who has the power to pardo n ..u'
•31 M.B. Do\\~i ng,
Clnnmq mul Crurlf)' in thr Roman \'Vorld (Ann Arbor, MI: University of M ichigan Press, 2006), p. L39. -~oat J . Marcus, ..Crucifixion as Parodic Exalr.u ion," JBL 125 (2006), pp. 73·87 (78) . •.,, Marcus...Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation," p. 87. ~"' This merging of discourse concerning the emperor and Jesus is e\·idc:m also in LukeActs' depiction ofJesus• 3scension. Sec Ga.ry Cilbcn, "Roman Propaganda and Christia.n Jdenritr," in T. ~nncr and C. Vander Stichdc (tods.), Conrextunlizi11g Arts: Lukmr
CLEM ENC\' AS C RUE1.1·y
To
143
be sure, the discourse of cle.m enc.y is not a precise analogue to the
dyi ng fo rgiveness prayers in early Christian litemture. Jesus and Ste, phen appeal to a deity to grant fo rgiveness, an act of deference to a higher power that the emperor need not make since he alone authorizes the pardon. l\1oreover, from a Roman perspective, the loudnioi whom Luke de picts in his narrative, whether those who assent to Jesus' crucifixion o r those casting stones at Stephen, would not ~ considered worthy candidates for dement treatment. Even for a reader steeped in
the logic of clemency, a pmyer fo r the forgiveness of the undeserving would still puzzle. While Roman dcmcncy docs not m irro r perfectly Lukan fo rgivcnc.ss, it serve-s nevertheless as a useful discourse for illuminating the
function of the fo rgiveness prayers for the following reasons: First, the powc.r dynam ics of clemency make dear that the prayers for mercy need not signal passivity, humility, submission or dtferencc o n the part of
the o ne who so prays. lnstc.ad, the prayers for forgiveness can be understood as an assertion of power over those inscribed as persecutors. Sev o nd. the discourse ofd emcncy inscribes imperial conquest as beneficence. skirting the issue of brute fo rce that is the preconditio n of the dement treatment. Luke, of course, is not himself an agent of the colonizing power, but rather writes under colonial rule.47 Yet Luke appropriates
something of the coloniu r's logic by celebrating the beneficence his hc.rocs extend toward the Jews, while concomitantly affirming that the violent destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is a deserved punishment and that unrepentant l oudnioi arc cut off ffom salvation. Finally,
inasmuch as the celebration of clemency is primarily a celebration of the emperor's virtue, concerned only secondarily- if at all- with the o bjects of the empero r's clemency. it serves to clarify the practice of reading the forgiveness prayers intransitively, o nly in terms of their sub.. jeers.
Nmnuiw and GrmJ-Ronum Disroursr (S}'lllposium 20; Atlanta: SociC"ty of Biblical Litcrarurc. 2003), pp. 233-56 (242-47). •7> For postcolonial interpretacion ot luke", SC"C' Y.S. Ahn, 7he Reign ofGod and Romr iu Lukr1 Passion Nn"atit~t: Au Eau A1ian Global P('npeaiw (Biblical lntC"rpret:trion SC"riC"s SO~ lC"idC"n: Brill, 2006).
144
SHELLY MATTHEWS
Both the argument that the author of Luke-Acts gestures toward the Roman virtue o f dcmenc.y. and the recognition o f the c ruelty toward the Jews contained within that gesture, are part of my larger project of understanding Luke.-Acts as a document that has absorbed Roman lmpc· rial outlooks and aims.;i$ lt is common in New Testament .scholarship, including scholarship on Luke-Acts, to juxtapose the Pax Romanrtpeacc through violent conquest-with the true peace of the GospeL the true peace of Christianity, generally figured a.s non ..vio lcncc, passivity, extreme mercy, kindness, and love toward enemies. I do not mean to
deny that certain strands of the Jesus movement embodied the..: values o f merc.iful treatment toward enemies and passivity in the fu.cc of
hostility. A study of the reception history of the forgiveness prayers indic-Ate that th is specific saying, along with the more general dominical teachings o n enemy love and no n-retaliation, provoked multiple and vario us reactions. Bur I would suggest that in the telling of LukeActs, the ethical teachings of early C hristians share considerable space with thC' values of the Pdx Romnna- inscribing vio lence as peace, con.. quest as beneficence, and c ruelty as d cmcncy.
-IS!
Sec Matthews., Pnfrrt Manyr.
Reconsidering the Book and the Sword: A Rhetoric of Passivity in Rabbinic Hermeneutics B |
The Book and the Sword David \Vc:iss Halivni, a Holocaust survivor who immigrated to the United States a nd eventually to Israel, wrote a memoir t hat he called T!Jc Book and the Sword.' This motif derives from an early midrashic text and is developed by the Babylonian Talmud, t he vast compendiu m of rabbinic teachings ranging !Tom the fi rst centu ries of t he common e ra to the fifth, sixth, and beyond, and the subject o f H alivn i's great scholarly passion as wdl as h is lifeline during the darkest of times in Ausc.hwitz.. 1 The book an d the sword-similar \\'ords in Aramaic, N,DO and N!l"D--appcar ap propriately e nough fo r H alivni's purposes in a rabbinic martyrdom narrative, t hat of second -century CE Rabbi Ela:c.ar ben Pcrata, fo und on tractate Avodah Zarah folio 17b.' It is a gri mly entertaining trickster talc highly elaborated by the talmudic red actors. in which Elazar ben l'crata ma nages to parry the prosecution of the D. Hali\'ni, 7ht· Book nnd th~ Su10rrl.· A Lifo ofLmming i11tllt' Shadow ofDmru
or
146
B ET H A . RERKOW'I TZ
Roman aut horities t hrough a series of witty d efenses.• 1l1c book and t he sword appears towards the begi nning of the scene, when the Roman jud ge-s accuse Elazar ben Pcrata of both teaching Torah and band itry: "Why have you taught and why have you stolen?" The accusatio n is a rhetorically repetitive sequence: n :ul ~OV\? 'Nr.n tl'ln NOV" ,NO.> Elazar ben Pcrata, not to be outdone either by t he Romans' rhetoric or by their accusations, respo nds: "I f the sword, no book, and if the book, no sword, and since there is none o f that, chef(: is also none o f that" (Nn'~ 'Dl Nil Nn'~ Nil"TDl N!l"O N? N,!lo 'Nl N,!lo N? N!l"O 'N).• W it h a fuzzy logic, Elazar ben l'e rata retorts that he can not have be
or
•> On the litcr.uy mC"rhods and cultural concerns rhC' redactors of n-arr.ltives in the Babylonian "Talmud, sex J. L Rulxnstein. Talmt1dic Sun·i~:s: Narrative An. Composition, afld Culmrr (lklltimorC': Johns Hopkins UnivC'rsity Press, 1999): idC'm, 7br Cultun of thr Bnbyloui.all Talmud (Balrimo~: Johns H opkins Uni\'C'rsity Press, 2003). S> Tmnslarion of d1C' Babylonian Talmud is my own and based o n thC' version o f the text in rhC' standard primed C'dicion. Variations in manuscripts and printed editions will be noted when signi~cant, as dr .1wn from the HC'brcw University's Online Trcasur}' ofTalmud Manuscripts at http://jnul.huji.ac.il!dl/talmud as wdl !lS R. N. Rabbinovicz, Diqdstqt'i Sofrim/Variae Ln:tione~ (2 vols.; New York: M. P. PrC'S.~. 19m. OthC'r rabbinic corpora will be translatC'd from their st-.mdard critical editions. which will be cited as the')' are d iscussed. IV In the Paris ma nuscript the retort is in rcvC'fse ordC'r, with the hook mentionC'd flrsc. i'> ll1e somewhat tortured cxplan :Hion ofl :1.lmud comment:uor lllshi (Solomon ben ls.uc. 1040- 11 05, f rance) runs along these lines: "'Since I do nor ha\'C' the CWO rcrimesl i n me, since' bC'hold t'hc two of them (the crimes) are not in one pC'rson, so the othC'r is not in me, and rhe one w ho says (thi.s) to }'OU about me is found a lior in his words."
RECONSlDERlNG 1"H ti BOOK AND THE SWORD
147
sword is dearly the operative principle.• In another motif within the Babylonian Talmud. that of the war ofTorah (;nm '?1V ;mon?o), study is figured as a war of its own.• possibly acting as a substitute fo r and sublimation of the physical kind (but often generating its own forms of physical vio lence within talmudic narrati\•cs).9 l wan t to explo re in the d iscussion that follows what the Babylonian Tal mud may itself be trying to sublimate in this text. In what ways arc the book, i.e., the Torah, and the sword more compatible than the Babylonian Talmud here suggests? How docs the Babylonian '!almud itself in othc:r texts complicate the set of connections between the two? And how can we best understand these complications in light of what we know about the broader set of concerns that characterize the Babylonian Talmud and prior tc.xts that it transforms? I will usc another pcricopc to address these questio ns, a discussion on BT Sanhedri n 52b about the execution method of decapitation. I will look at the way that the lorah is deployed in the course of that pcricope's conversation about crim inal execution, which also fc:aturc.s the sword. I will focus o n a hermeneutical stance. that the pericope proposes. a posture of passivity in the face of the dictates ofTorah, an idiom that I will suggest the Talmud adapts from earlier traditions. I will contrast that stance to the hermenc.urics that arc exerc.ised in that d iscussio n, hermeneutics that arc: in face q uite creative, and I will consider the signific.ancc of the theme of the talmudic discussion, that is, legal violence, for understanding this posture of passivity.
101
S<e BT (Bab)1onian Talmud) Sanhedrin 37b d iscussed lx-low (and parallds on BT Kewbbot 30.1 and BT Sotah Sb), which a.s:sociate.s the execution method of dec.1pi· tation with the Roman authorities.; sec' aJso BT :\mdah Z-.rah -4 Ia, where che sv•ord is a S}'mbol of Roman power. Execmion by the sword is associated in some texts with Noahides (Lc\
]Pales1inian Talmud) To'anil 4:) (69b): BT Mcgii!Jh I )b: BT Hagig>lh 14a: BT San· hedrin 42a, 93b, I II b. I wish to t hank :\ryeh Cohen fOr .sharing with me his unpublished paper. "Study of TorJh as a D iscourse of Violence; M ilkh :mnah shd Torah, Variations on ::l Th<m e." O n this motif, stt also Rubenstein, Cul:urt'of&byimliilll Trtf·
mud, pp. 59-6 1.
148
BETH A. RERKOW'I TZ
I will argue that th is idiom as it appears in several early rabbinic (tannaitic} texts and then expanded in Babylonian talmud ic rcxts is unusual in giving explicit expression to cmbarrassmcm about scriptural canon. While many a ncient exegetical texts ar< implicitly fueled by embarrassment, this id iom features an u nabashed insult of Scripture t hat threatens to destabilize the a uthority of Scripture and of t hose who, in the rhetorical idiom, play the role of reluctant interpreter. I will suggest that th e stance of reluctance can in fac.t serve the interests of th e interpreter in a variety of ways. Finally, I will p ropose thar the srereotyping of early tannaitic figures as hermeneutically passive. borrowed /Tom the Tannaim's self-representatio n, allows Babylonian talmudic editors to highlight their own exegetical activism as t hey transform inherited sources, both b ib lical and early rabbin ic. The posture of passivity is, in most instances, represented by these editors as a posture of th e past and a posture of Palestine. Indeed, even in the early Palestinian texts whereth e idiom firs1 appears, the passive posture is a lready set largely in the past, referring backward-S to an even earl ier prccc.d c.m in an cvcr~rccedp ing set of references. In my conclusions, I will reAect upon when and why rabbinic texts represents hermeneutically passive rabb inic judges and what that may be a ble to tdl us about the complex relationship between legal exegesis, judicial authority, a nd violence wit h in rabbinic lircrature, from early to late, from Palestine to Babylonia.
Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 52b: " What Can I Do? For Behold th e Torah Said .. . " The Babylonian Talmud pericope about decapitation fu nctions as a commentary o n M ishnah Sanhedrin 7:3, which features a dispute regard ing how t he execution method should be pe rformed: The commandment offhosc to be decapirattd: They would chop off his head with a sword (he way that the kingdom does. Rabbi Jud.:lh says: This is a disgrolCC'. Rather, they should lay hi$ head down on the block and cut it with a n ;»;e. They said to him: There is no execution mo.re disgraceful than rhat.16 1111
li-anslared from the Kaufmann manuscript. I ha,·e previously explored th is mishnah in B. A. Berkowitz, Ewrmitm and bwmtion: DeatiJ Pmalty Discount' m Early Rab-
RECONSlDERlNG 1"H ti BOOK AND TH E SWORD
149
The Sages and Rabbi Judah (mid to late. second-<:ent ury CE 'la n naim) d ebate wh ether decapitation should be done wit h a sword or an axe (an d whether the convicted criminal should be upright o r prone). The Sages describe their sword method as character istic o f "the kingdo m," a n o bliq ue reference to Roman imperial a uthority. Each party in the d ispute declares th e other's method to be a disgrace, bur they do not reveal t heir reasoning. The Babylo n ian lalm ud include.s a pericope o n t his m ishnah t hat begins with a baraita, a purported ly tannaitic text. l l This baraita fc.a# turcs \\•hat appears to be a continuation of t he conversation between Rabb i Ju dah and the Sages where rhey articulate some of the logic. behind their positions: It is taught: R.-tbhi Judah s.1id to the Sages: Even I know that it is 3 d i$gr.lcefuJ execution, but wh3t can {do? For behold the Torah s,,jd , ..And in their laws )'OU should not so" ( L
Rabb i Judah here admits to th e Sages that t hey a rc correct in calling his axe method a d isgrace, bu t he proce.cds to justi~· why he neverthelc.ss endo rses t he axe. He a pplies Lcv. 18:3's prohib itio n o n going "in t heir laws" to the Sages' ad mittedly more d ignified but u n·Jewish sword metho d . Since rhe sword method is used by the Romans. ado pting it would constitu te a t ransgression of Lev. 18:3, and, therefo re, accord # ing to Rabbi Judah, the a." method m ust be used instead, with all irs Haws.
hinic nnd Cl!ristiau Gt!ntr~i (New York: Oxford Uni,·ersit)' Press, 2006), pp. t 53-80, and discussed the rnJmudic pcricopc comm enting o n it in an e.ulier 3Mide, B. A Berkowitz. "Decapitation and the Discourse of Anti-Syncretism in 1he Babylonian Talmud," }AAR 70 (2002), pp. 743-70, bur ffi)' cur~nt discussion will give extended ancntion to the rhetoric of passivi1y that 3ppears in it. U ) \'<'hether to suppose baraitot to he authentic tannaitic material is uncertain; s« L. Jacobs, "Are There Fictitious &r-.litot in rhe &hrlonian 13lmud?" HUCtl42 ( 1971), pp. 185-96. whose argument for editorial meddling in baraitot r follow hC'rc.
150
B ETH A. RERKOW'I TZ
A Rhetoric of Passivity: "What Can I Do? For Behold the Sages
SaJ'd ••• " According to the talmudic baraita, Rabbi Judah's submission to lev. 18:3 lies behind his apparently reluctant sanction of the axe. In a parallel baraita in the tannaitk compilatio n lOscfm. the rhcwric is some~ what different, with Rabbi Judah q uoted as saying: "Certainly there is no execution more disgraceful than this, but 011VT.l (because of, under the rubric of) 'and in their laws you should not go' (L:v. 18:3)."" Rabbi Judah sim ilarly changes his m ind and proffers lev. 18:3 as the motivatio n, but the Tosefta docs not insert, "What can I do, fo r behold the Torah said . .. ," and the Palestinian Talmud's quotation follows suit. The Babylonian 13lmud's version is unique in emphasizing Rabbi Judah's passivity befOre [he verse.
A sim ilar idiom fou nd in another legal context in the Tosefta and roughly contemporaneous Sifr< Numbers offers some insight into what m ight be at stake in the conAict between good law and bad legal preccdcm: And it so happC'ned that Yohanan bC'n Bag Bag SC'Ot [a missive or me-ssenger! to Rabbi Judah ben B:ncrah in NC'tsivin {Nisibis, B.-.bylonia}. He said to him: " I heard about you that you say. 'A daughtC'r of a n lsr.ldirc betrothed to a priest cars terunuh (tithed food)."• HC' sent lbackj to him: "I had :wumcd about you that you arc an o:p
u, lOscfta Sanhedrin 9: II (M. S. Zuckermandd, 70ufia: A~~ording UJ rhr Erfim and Vinmn Mmmsrripu IJC'rusalcm: Wahrmann. 1963], pp. 429-30}; paro1lld in PT Sanhedrin 7:3 (24b). This is the rC'3ding o f the Vicnna manuscript and the flrsr printed editio n; the Erfurc manuscript has a confusing text. For a reconstruction of the text dcvd opmcnt. see Y. Lorlxrbaum, .. Blood in the Image of God-l11e Punishment of BC'he.ad ing in Early Rabbinical LiterJture" ( HcbrC'w). Bm·-1/nn Law Studit'SI5 {2000).
pp. 429-56 (454-56).
RECONSlDERlNG 1"H ti BOOK AND TH E SWORD
151
thar rhe woman does not cat tcrumah umil she C'ntcrs thC' huppah (marriage' canop}') ... ,.13
In th is exchange lx:twccn two Second-Temple period figures, Yohanan ben Bag Bag challenges Judah ben Bate rah to justify his permissive position regarding the rights o f a n Israelite t-aste woman betrothed to a priest to begin to cat tcru mah, the food he receives as a tit hed trib ute.•• In response, Judah ben Baterah rid icules Yoh anan ben Bag Bag's legal reasoning skills, constructing a complicated n fortiori argu ment to defend the pc.rmisshre stance, though he [hen reverses course and submits to the rab bin ic p recedent t hat the woman must first be fully married to che p riest before she ca n cat terumah.•> The scacus of che permissive stance remains unresolved wich in ch e story, however, since Judah ben Baterah never explicitly denies the rumor that he holds th is stance, and most of his comment is d edicated to p roviding a full justificatio n fo r it. Earlier the Tosefta attributes to Judah ben Baterah precisely such a permissive position (though it may be referring to a later rabbi), leaving us with a h ighly amb ivalent p resentation of th e law. 16 It is also perplexing t hat t he restrictive position t hat Judah ben Baterah cites as a precedent is p resented earlier in th e Tosefta, as well as in Mishnah Kerubbot 5:3, as a late legal emendatio n." In sum, t he texts mark not o nly amb ivalence bur also upheaval regarding rhis law. Tost'fta KC"tubhot 5: I (S. Litbcorman, 71Jt To~a {Ordn· Ntuhimj I New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of AmeriCJ, 19951, pp. 71-72; Zuckermandd, p. 266); parallels in Sifre NumbC'rs I 17 ( H. S. Horovin, s;phr~ d'& Rnb IJc-ru.saiC'm: ShaiC"m, 1992), p. 137): JYr Kewbbot ):4 (29d): BT q;ddushin IOb. 14> Such is the' d'3ting by Ma.rgJiioth. The Sifre Numbe-rs p:aralld h:as "'Rabbi Judah." which might set the text larcr. n> SC'C' expbnarions in S.lidxrm.:m, 7imfia ki-Fshuuth: A Comprrhm.sin Commmrary 011 th~ Tosrjia (HduC"\v) (8 vols.~ Jerusalem: lhe Jewish ThC"'iogical SC'minary of America, 1995). vol. 6, pp. 25 5-59. 1'> The position is slightly more complicated but is consistent with the permissive st:mce: '"R.-tbbi Jud:ah ben Barer..h says: One give-s her two ponions of tC'rumah and one of hullin (norm:.! food)... As l.iC'bC'rm:an explains. Rabbi Judah bC'n Baterah surmises that the da}'S of her mC"nstrual impurity whC'n she" cannot car thC' tcrumah add up to about one third of the time when she is purC'. m The PT pericope outlines the legal C"Volurion. running chronologicall}' from most permissi\'e to most restrictive; SC'C' J. N. EpstC'in,!mrodunion to :WiJ/mair Uxt ( Hebrew} (Jerusalem: MagnC"S, 1963), p. 972. and Lie-berman, Tosqia ki-Fslmtah, p. 257. IJ)
152
B ETH A . RERKOW'I TZ
Both this passage and the talmudic baraita above featu re rabbis locked into positions that they themselves ad m it to be weaker. In this case, the rabbi represents his position as relatively lacking in logical basis." The toseftan arrange me nt of mate rial suggests that the legal precedent also has poten tially adverse social consequences: Immediately p receding the exchange is related an inc.ident in which Rab bi 1a rfo n (a prominent late fi rst-cmtury/early second-cent ury sage} be troth es three hundred women and feeds them t ithed fo od d uring a t ime o f scarcity. " Rabbi Tarfon is rcprcscncc:d as espousing the pc.r missivc stance om o f concern fo r the welfare of women who might o therwise starve (and in t he pro cess d rastically expand ing his household )."' Hdd ity to legal precedentin o ne case Pentateuch al an d in the oth er rab bin ic. the autho rity of which appears co hold equivalent status as a power ofconstraint- fo rccs the sage to compromise his own logical powc.r.s and ethical commit~ mc nt.s, and in neith er case does t he sage sc-C'm p leased with the posit io n in which he fi nds h imsdf:
Sc:e also Sifre Zuta N:uo 6: 12 ( Horovitz, p. 243). whC'rc Rabbi Joshua, responding to Rabbi Aki\'a•s nforriori argumt"m chaliC'nging the amount of blood that :t nazirite is pcrmittC'd contact wirh before he is requircxl to renew his vow, '3dmits: "1 deem it appropriate to moke an n fortiori argunH•nt, but what em I do~ For the s~\ses decreed a half log (a unit of mea-surn nc-nt)." A simil:lt idiom is employed here. likewise conmuting t'hc prior rulings of the Sages with sound logical argumentation. See par:~Jids in i\·{ishnah Nazir 7:4 and especially l OsC'ft:t N:u:ir ): I. which describe'S o lcgaJ e\·olution :u well !lS an .-.ngry e-xchange bc-cween sage-s comparable to whu we 6 nd with the Ketubbm low. Iii! Though the texts se<m to assume that it would have been burdensome for a woman, e-specially an lsrad itc woman not &miliar with food purity practices, to have to sc-11 the terumah while -she is menstrually impure and c.annot touch the food; see Lie-herman's discussion. Ncvcnhde-ss, the Rabbi Tarfon narrative- suggests that the burden of not being able- to eat tithed food would ha\·e bct'n hea\•ier. See parallds in PTYevamot 4: 12 (6b) and Song of Son&< Rabbah I. 101 Rabbi Tarfon is a priest (3pparcntly a very rich one), and his decision to bc-troth rather th::an to marry the womC'n indicates hi.s intcmion to help them survive the fam ine and then to part ways; see discussion in Lieberman. Torqia ki Fs.l111tnl,, p. 258. l*t
4
RECONSlDERlNG 1"H ti BOOK AND TH E SWORD
153
Tracing the Idiom: Judah ben Tabbai in tbe Meltbilta Why would rabbinic texts represent rabbis espousing positio ns that those rabbis themselves do no t find compelling? To explo re fu rther this rhC'toric. o f passivity and its implications, I want to give extended attcn# cion to anothe r early rabbinic text featuring an idio m idemical to that
of the talmudic pcricope: And it so happcncd that Judah hen l "ilhbai cntcrcd a ruin and he found thcrc somcone who had hccn kiliC'd rwitching and the sword dripping blood ffom the lund of the kmcr. Judah bcn Tabbai said to him: "May la curse] comc upon me if it is not I or you who killed him, but what Cln I do~ For bchold the l Or.lh said, •... according co rn·o witnesscs-the mattcr will stand,' {Dcuc. 19:15}. bm the one who knows and the one who is kecpcr of thoughts will exact P"'ymem fiom this man.'" He had not )'Ct dcpa.rted from cherc whcn a snake bit him and he die<:J ..!l
This te.xt fc~turcs the hoary Hasmo nean-cra figure of Judah ben Tabbai, a member of the zugot (pairs), represented by the rabbis as their forerunners. According to the narrative, Judah ben Tabbai essentially witnesses a murder but can do nothing to prosecute the murderer because he is hampered by the laws of testimo ny. As in the c~c.s above.
Judah ben Tabbai expresses Frustration at his inability to enact the law as he would like. The cases present a paradox, one we can imagine is typical o f most legal systems: Perfec.r justice is some times compromised
by the law itself. Judah ben Tabbai's story is somewhat unusual in that he plays both legal participant-he is the o ne who sees the murdererand legal autho rity- he is the one who determines his own inability to take legal actio n. The cases of Judah ben Tabbai's murderer and Rabbi Judah's axe method arc in some ways mirror o pposites. The Rabbi Judah case deals with a situation where a criminal has already been convicted; the Judah ben Tabbai case deals with a crim inal who cannot be convicted . The Rabbi Judah case calls for a cr uder form of judicial violence than is ideal; the Judah ben Tabbai case calls for less judicial violence than is ideal. lt is precisely regard ing this point that some o ther differences Mc.khilta de-Rabbi Yishma•d. Masekhta de-Kaspa 20 (H. S. Horovitz and I. A. Rabin. Mrcbiltn d'Rnbbi lmuu! Uerusalem: Shalem, 19971, p. 327).
l l>
154
BETH A. RERKOW'I TZ
become significant: Judah ben Tabbai is a figure from the long lost past, while Rabbi Judah is a more recent rabbinic figure, so that the greater judicial aggressio n is set in more recent rimes. The Judah ben Tabbai text offers a narrative, while the Rabbi Judah text featu re-s a legal debate with prescriptive rhetoric. Finally. in the Judah ben Tabbai narrative, God sends a snake to kill the murder
Judah ben Tabbai's Problem: Deut. 19:1; The drama of the narrative can make one fo rget to ask: What in the verse so inhibits Judah ben Tabbai? In fact, it is not dear. O ne obsta· de to which the verse may be pointing is that Judah ben Tabbai did not actually sec the murder-he sees the body in irs death spasms and he sees the bloody >word, bur he docs not sec the moment of murder. The identical scenar io is recounted earlier in rhc Mckhilta as an example of a case where testimony is inadequate because it is not eyewitness. with Exod. 23:7 fu nctioning there as the basis fo r requiring eyewitness testimony ("An innocent or righteous [person] do nor kill"). The parallels in the Tosc.fra. Palestin ian Talmud, and Babylonian Talmud all feature ~
The- other versions subslitutc Judah 1><-n Tabb.1i with Shimon brn Shctah: l Oscfta S.:.nhedrin 8:3: PT Sanhedrin 4: II (22b)> BT Sanhedrin 37h: BT Shcvuor 34a. The r:.1Jmudic texts have the vari:.1 nt 10, instead o f ll'1: "'your blood" is not ddivC'red into my hands.
RECONSlDERlNG 1"Hti BOOK AND THE SWORD
155
this narrative; as an example of testimony from conjecture. which thcy
prohibit. But there is another problem with testimony in the case of Judah ben Tabbai, and that is the requirement for two o r more witnesses mentioned explicitly by Deutero nomy 19- Judah ben Tabbai appears to be alone. So the q uestion emerges: Which problem is Judah ben Tabbai referring to as that which binds him? The medieval commentators. addressing the ambiguity, claim that thcre must have been
another man with him, thereby allowing the text to be addressing strictly the problem of te-stimony !Tom conjecture, which is how the Talmuds construe it.:u 111e commentators arc pressed inco this act ofeisegcsis by the talmudic. receptio n o f the text, but their insertion of an extra
witness only points more poignantly to the difficulty of the story: It docs not make for a good story, especially a good legal story, if there was never any chance that Judah Tabbai could have prosecuted the killer. There needs to be one obvious problem, but there arc two. The problem hinges on how the verse !Tom Deuteronomy is being invoked within the story. If Judah ben Tabbai is concerned that he is the sole witness, then his application of Dcut. 19:15, which req uires two o r more witncsses C'A single witness may not validate against a per#
son any guilt o r blame for any offense that may be committed; a case can be valid only on the testimony of two witnesses or more"), is straightforward. But if Judah ben Tabbai's concern is that his testimony is not eyewitncss, then his application of the verse becomes opaque: How docs Dcut. 19:15 furnish a requirement for qewimrss t<stimony? Perhaps he understands ''wimcsscs" in the versc to imply visual access to the
moment of the crime-this is the medieval commentary Tosafot's explanation-but it is undeniably an interpretive leap from the word "wit# nc.ss" to the claim that testimony from conjecture is inadmissible. It is
entirely conceivable that a classical rabbi would be willing to make this jump, but no rabbi explicitly docs in the passage. Moreover, the. cxclu-
See, for example. the l OsafOt (Talmud commentators from the 12'"-14"' centuries, priml rily in France and Germany) on BT Sanhedrin 37b. s.v. '1'~ ,101l 1 1J'T r-xv.1l1c Munich ms. and Yad Har:tv Henog ms. of the BT include :tdditionaJ argumentation that r:.1ises this problem and neady proposes that there are two problems in the narr:.ltive (iDNP iij.ll N 1n), one of conjC"CfUr<:' and one of the single witness, and it is only regarding the second problem that the verse is brought.
l))
156
BETH A . RERKOW'I TZ
sion of testimony from conjecture is established earlie r in the passage
o n the basis of Exod. 23:7 and not Dcut. 19:15. The narrative proves ironic in that the biblical verse that Judah ben T,, bbai claims to be con· srrained by is not actually being applied that d early.
Rabbi Judah's Problem: Lev. 18:3 A similar irony e merges from the decapitatio n baraita when the same
question is asked . Rabbi Judah presents Lev. 18:3 as a d ear force pro· hibiting the adoption of the sword and requiring the repugnant axe, but a careful look at Lev. 18:3 reveals that its application is far fro m obvious. Lev. 18:3 has three parts: Part 1 pro hibits rhc Israelites from the practices of the Egyptians; part 2 pro hibits the Israelites from the practices of the Canaanites; part 3 scC'ms to summarize and reinforce the first rwo parts: " Like the practice of the land of Egypt which you dwelled in, you should not practice, and like the practice of the land of Canaan to which I am bringing you, you should not practice, and in their laws you should not go." Bur part 3 uses new language in a shift from the parallel language of parts 1 and 2. and its separateness raises questions about its relationship
to
the firs t two parts, questions that are
implicitly asked by the textually sensitive rabbinic readers: Arc the third part's mpm {laws) equivalent to the muvo (practice) mentioned in the first two parts? Who is the referent of the third pan's ambiguous pos· scssivc pronoun "their" laws-Egypt, Canaan, both peoples, other pco· pies? What kinds of practicc.s arc prohibited: general habits, legal prescriptions, worship practicc.s, something else? The remainder of Leviticus 18, which provides a series of primarily sexual taboos, suggests that sexual sins are the subjec-t of verse 3's concern, but the verse itself docs not indicate th is. Early m idmshic texts respond to the ambiguities in the verse. A pas· sage from the tannaitic Sifrn take. a restrictive approach to the third part of the verse, understanding the final clause, and in their laws you shall not go," as limiting the scope of separation between Israel and irs neighbors: I(
Or like the practice of che land of Egypt '3nd like thC' practice of the l:tnd of O.n3an you should nol pr•lcticc~
RECONSlDERlNG 1"H ti BOOK AND TH E SWORD
157
Is it possible th.a t one should not build buildings o r plant plam.s like they do? Scripture teaches by S<3yin g. "'And in their laws you .should not go'"- I said (thi.sj o nly with respect to rhe laws that arc legislated to th em and to th eir fathers and to their f.lthers• f.nht"rs. And what d id they used to do? A man would marry a man. and a Yfoman (would marryI a woman. a man would marry -a woma n and her daughter, a woman would marry two (men(. f or this it wa..s said, ..and in their laws you should not go...!•
The Siffa fi rst suggests that the verse prohibits the Israelites fro m ad opting the general cult ural habits of Egypt and Canaan, o nly to daim that the th ird part of the verse, "and in th eir laws you shall not go," teaches that that the building and planting methods of Israel's neighbors arc no t what is at stake here. According to th e Sifra's conclusion, Lev. 18:3 proh ib its o nly a lo ng-held transmitted core of t radition consisting of various marriage prac.ticc.s th at sc.cm to be loosely based on the l ist of taboos in Leviticus 18. But another m id rashic passage inserted into the Sifra docs not read Lev. 18:3 in light of the sexual taboos o f levit'icus: "And in (heir laws )'OU should not go,.-and wh-at (informationl did the knnw (that which is written. i.e .• the verse) lc:..,·e that it d id not say? For was it not '.lJrcady s.Jid, "'[W hen you enter the land that the Lord )'OUr Cod is gi\·ing you, you shall not learn to im itate the abomin-ations of those nations. J Lt't no one be found among you who consigns his son or daughter to the 6rt', etc.• o ne who ca..sts spells or one that consults (a ghost(, t'tc.'" ( Deuc. 18:10- 11)? W lt.-.t docs Scripture teach in saying ..and in th eir laws you should not go"? That }'OU should not go in their hab its, in the things that are inscribed for them suc-h as tht'3tt'rs. circuses. and stadia. Rabbi Meir says: These arc rh e Amoritc ways rh.lt tht' Sages e numerJted. Rabbi Judah ben B:uerah says: That one should not dress cxtrav::.gandy, .-.nd dt.-.t one should not grow the fringe. and that o ne should not cut one's hair.~ ~) Sifra Aharei i\·lot 9, transbted from tht' Asscnu ni Codo:. See my discussion of th is Sifra passage an d the subsequent material in "The Limits of'Their laws': Ancient lbbb inic Controversies about Jewish ness (and Non-Jewi~hness),'" jl'tvisJ, Quarudy Rrview 99 (2009), pp. 12 1-57. a nd St"e rt'ft'rences there. ll) This material is from a liter:uy unit i nserted into the Sifr.-. COIWt'nrionally c.1Ucd the Mt'k.Jlilta d e-Ar.-.yot a nd attributed not to the school o f Akiva like most of tht" Sifla b ut to the school ofYishma'd: see J. N. Epste.in, Jmroduniom to the Litr-mlltrt' oftht' Tiuuutim: .'\1islmah, Tosrfia, and -''-'litlmhr-i Halalthn/, (Hebrew) Qerus..1Jem: t\·{agnt"S, 1957). p. 640; M . Kahane• .'Wamucripss of tiJr- Halnkhic :\1idnuhim: An Annotated
158
BETH A. RERKOW'I TZ
Unlike rhe previous m idrash from t he SifTa, which reads th e final clause of Lev. 18:3 as a restrictio n on t he interp retive range of the verse, this midrash sees the end of the verse working expansively, as adding cxtta informatio n. The additional p rohib itions read out of lev. 18:3 by the anonymous position rdCr to habits (nlolr.Pl. nimusot, borrowed from th e G reek nomos) which arc inscribed, and three examples drawn from contemporary Roman life are provided: theaters, circuses, and stadia. The other two positions also seem to include contemporary references, Rabbi Meir to Amoritc ways, wh ich is the rabbinic title for a series of superstitious p ractices listed dsnvhere, a nd Rabbi Judah ben Barcrah probably to Roman hairstyles." These midmshim rc:prcsent two diflcrcm rabbinic approaches to reading U:v. 18:3: The fi rst text reads t he last part o f the verse rcstticrivdy as a reference to t he inherited marital p ractices of ge ntiles, and t he scc.ond text reads the last pan of t he verse expansively as a rcfcrc.nce to var.. ious popular Roman leisure activities, grooming habits, o r supe rstitious p ractices. \'(!hat is most interesting fo r pre.sent purposes is that none of these readings arc rdkcted in Rabbi Judah's position. Rabbi Judah applies Lev. 18:3 to Roma n execution meth ods, which do not fit dearly into any of the categories defined in the midrashic texts. The exercise in reading midrashim reveals that Rabbi Judah is engaging in his own m idrashic activity when he a pplies th e verse to the sword (as, indeed, any interpreter is when he or she makes claims w the mean ing of a text). But the striking characteristic of the baraita that differentiates it from the midrash ic texts is that Rabbi Judah docs not p resent his reading as exegetical ac£ivity but as hermeneutical submission.
Cnralogur (Hcbr~w} Ocrus.1lem: Yad h:hak lkn-b·i/lsrold Acadcm}' of Scicnccs a nd Huma nities, 1995), pp. 60-88; Marc Hirshm:1n, Tomb for tbt' Emirr \¥'arid (HC'brcw) (fd Aviv: Hakibbut< Ham
ri1um Empiritchm Winmsclwfobtgriff!m Sp/iramikm rmd Fnibmirulaltnliclmr judm""" (fubing
RECONSlDERlNG 1"H ti BOOK AND THE SWORD
159
Problems with Passivity: The Babylonian Talmud's Redactional Voice
The remainder of the peri cope in the Babylonian Tal mud probes Rabbi Judah's passive posture. The anonymous redactors show that the Sages' sword position, while it may appear to transgress lev. 18:3. in fact can
also be grounded in biblical authority: "And our rabbis? Since the sword is written in the ' Iorah. we do not derive it from them ." The Talmud devises an ingenious suategy that nawralizc.s the adoption of appar~
ently foreign practices by declaring that any practice that can be found within the biblical canon is to be considered native, But the talmudic. pcricope is fo rced to go to great inte.r prctive lengths to find a biblical source for the sword, ultimately finding it not in a passage that discusse.s criminal execution or the sword but in the command for brotherly
love as it is surprisingly interpreted by third/fourth-century Babylonian rabbis: "Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: Scripture teaches, ' Love your fellow as yourself' (Lev. 19: I 8): Choose a nice execution fo r him." Rabbah bar Avuha understands "love thy neighbor" to be a direction for <~ignified execution of criminals, rhus pitting Lev.
19: 18 against Lev. 18:3 and the sword against the axe. By the dose of the pcricope, the impression is left that the Sages' sword method is not so easily found in the pages of the written Torah, but that creative exegesis can force it to appear (the Palestinian Tal mud pericope, by contrast, uses some of the same exegetical materials but present.s them in
a straightfo rward way and wholly omits Lev. I 9: 18). The Babylonian Tal mud's pericope suggests an alternative to Rabbi Judah's passive posture, a herme neutics that is complex and creative and extremely sup-
ple, which in this case produce the dominant legal position. Other pericope.s in the Babylonian 1almud also challenge the passive hermeneutical posture. 1l1e pericope o n the Judah ben l:,bbai narrative raises a different set of problems with passivity, juxtaposing the
story ofJudah ben Tabbai with another baraita describing the cessation of Jewish criminal jurisdiction after the destruction of the Second Temple:
160
BETH A. RERKOW'I TZ
or
And did he merit,.. snake-? But behold Ra'' Jose-ph said, and thus tc-.lches those the house ofHizqirah27: "'From the day that the Hoi)' Temple w:t.s destroy«l, en•n though the S.1nhedrin was annulled. the fo ur execution mNhods wc.":re not annulled . .. . One who was COO\'ic(cd with (a penalty of! stoning, either he would
taU from 3 roof or a wild animal would trample him. One who ,.,.'3s convicted with fa pe.ult)' ofl burning, eith er he would fall into a 6~ or a snake would bite him. O ne who was convicte-d with fa pcn:thy ofj d ccapit01rion. either he v.-ould be
ddivw:d over to the kingdom or bandits would att3ck him. O ne who was con,;ctcd with (a pcm-alt}' ofl strangulation, cither he would drown in a ri'o'C'r or would d ie o fchoking." That man had anothC'r sin in him, as t he mast« said: "One who is convicted w ith a pc-naJry of nvo execution methods of fhe coun should be judged with t he more sevcrc."~10
The baraita taught by Rav Joseph (late t hird/early fourth-cent ury Babylo nian rabbi) and the house of Hizqiyah (early third-century) refers to the four execution methods standard ized within t he rabbinic legal system: stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation.29 This baraica interposes a radical b reak in Jewish judicial power p re· and post· 70 but then imaginc.s a means by which continuity is restored: G od intervenes to execute crim inals precisely according to the cxecurion method tha[ the rabbinic. court would have im posed. The only d ifference between now and then is that the t xec.utio n transpires through seemingly ('nat# ural" o r non-judicial channels (excepting the Roman government, which provides one of t he back- up plans, bu t which is quite tdlingly grouped with ladders falling over and snake bites as examples of cases of bad fo r· tunc). The anonymous redactor observes a contradiction between the two baraitot: lf the fOu r rabbinic execution methods were mimicked
The Munich and Flor~n ce nlSs. substitute Rabbi Hinra fo r Bei H izqiyah (and Floren ce substitmes Rav Jose for Row JosC'ph) . !li'l BT Sanhedrin 37b (par:tllds for the second b,.1raita are on BT KC"rubhot .30a :md r.l
BT S<>tah Sb). For recent scholarship o n the four e:t«tJtion methods of rJbhinic law. sec M. Hafbc-rtal. fmt'rprrtil~ Rt'I:VJ!miom iu t!Jt' Makiug: Valur:t as bJtn"f'r
J!J+
Y. Lofi>erbaum, imago Dri: Laurnnd Narratiw(HebrC'"W) Uerusalem: Schocken. 2004). pp. 170..38); D . Stc-inmert. "Crimes .,nd Punishments. Pan 1: i\·{itot B
RECONSlDERlNG 1"H ti BOOK AND THE SWORD
16 1
by God after the time when rabbis could no longer apply them, then how is it possible that Judah ben 'Jabbai's murderer was bitten by a snake? According to the four,method schema, his crime called for decapitation. which in the post-Temple era should have merited execution
by the Roman go,•ernment or bandits. But Judah ben Tabbai's mur, derer, bitten by a snake, got the punishment due to a cri minal penal, izcd with burning. The redactor resolves the problem with a clever though preposterous proposal that this homicide had in some previous c ircumstance committed another capital crime, o ne that did deserve burning, and that in this story he was being executed by the more severe
execution method that he had brought upon himsdf. which was, in fac.t, burning and not decapitation.
The point, I would suggest, is less whether we believe the redactor's solution but rather what issues the redactor is able to raise with it. Through his creation of contradiction and resolution, the redactor holds
God accountable to the ways of the rabbinic court. The redactor, following in the footste ps of the second baraita (about the cessation of capital punishment) and very much not in the footsteps of the first (the Judah ben ' fabbai narrative), expresses discomfort with the idea that God m ight intervene where the rabbinic court can not, but, more impor#
tantly, in a way that the rabbinic court would not. The redactor domesticates tht divine intcrvemion of the first baraita, requiring God to
follow the same rulc.s of punishment that Judah ben Tabbai would have. The pcricope points out, in the process, rhe problems with Judah ben ·r:, bbai's passive stance, even while it docs not critidze him for it. Rather.
Judah ben Tabbai's passivity provokes God's activity. and it is God's activity that becomes momentarily problematic in that God docs not
appear to follow the rules of the rabbinic court. Whereas the pcricope with Rabbi Judah on Sanhedrin 52b offers alternatives to passivity, the pericope with Judah ben Tabbai o n Sanhedrin 37b demonstrates problems that may arise from it, such as God's unrestrai ned interference in human affairs.
Babylonian Talmud Trajectories \XIhat we have .seen .so far are two narrativc.s from early rabbinic com# pilatio ns that fC:aturc a passive rabbi, o ne forced to take a strict stance
162
BETH A . RERKOW'I TZ
o n women's rights to cat tithes. the o the r forced w let a murde rer go
free, and then a similarly modeled baraita in the Babylonian Talmud in which the passive rabbi prescribes an cxcc.ucio n method he adm its
to be exceptionally grisly. In all these cases, the precedent to which the rabbi claims to be subject is in fact m o re ambiguous than the rabbi seems to recognize. \Yie have looked at the talmudic pcricopcs o n the latter two baraitot whcrcin the passive stance is implicitly criticized either as unnecessary o r as unpredictable in its con.scqucncc.s. As we
will go o n to sec, the Babylonian Talmud feat ures two other baraitot in which early rabbinic figures arc po rtrayed taking passive hermencuti· cal postures, in one case regarding the Sabbath boundary and in the o ther regarding womcn~s claims to money promised to them in their ketubbah (marriage document). Once again, in both those cases, the precedent in fact proves to be less definite than the rabbi himself represents it. Before we go o n to consider this paradox within the pas .. sivc posture as well as to trace its literary dcvdopmcnc and cultural sig.. nificancc, we will also sec that the Babylonian Talmud develops its own version of the passive posture. In o ne set of narratives rdating to the
kctubbah claims, the Babylonian Talmud shows this posture to be almost final to rabbinic authority and even to the very life of the particular rabbi who chooses passivity in the F.tce of precedent. The baraita in B'f Eru\'in uses the idiom to raise questions abouc the Torah's technological acumen. Mishnah Eruvin 5:4 legislates how the area is to be measured within which it is permissible to travel o n the Sabbath: "One docs not measure !Sabbath limits] except with a rope of fi fty cubits, neither less nor more." In the talmudic baraita, one early rabbi (late first/early second-century CE) laments the Torah's method of measurement: " Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah said: You have noth ing better for measuring than iron chains, hue what can we do? For behold the.Tomh said: ' With a measuri ng li ne in his hand' (Zcch. 2:5)."" The baraita introduces the text as the wrorah'> but in f:'lct quotes a verse from
the Prophets that describes Zcchariah·s vision of the rebuilding of jerusalem (the Palestin ian ·ralmud parallel docs also include the motif of passivity and explicitly refers to the Prophets, though it cites a differBT Erm•in 58a (the Soncino printing has "WhJt can I do,.. making it identical to the idiom under discussion); par:.1Jid on PT Eruvin 5:3 (22d).
.Ill!
RECONSlDERlNG 1"H ti BOOK AND THE SWORD
163
ent verse, Ezck. 40:3)." Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah claims that rhe best method of measurement (i.e., ?n:J ?IV mN?IVW, iron chains) is not the one mentioned within the Bible (i.e., un, a rope), but that Zechariah's reference is unfortunately binding. The baraita points to a different kind oflegal shortcoming than o nes discussed previously with respect to a betrothed Israelite woman's right to eat tithe.s, or a con# victed cri minal's dignity, or God's unpredictable interventio ns: In this cast". the Bible's instruction undermines the Bible's own law, requiring Jews to make their own measurements with bad technology in o rder to achieve the symbolism that associates the Sabbath space with the Holy Tcmple.' 2 The same irony exists here, however, as in the other c.ase.s: Zc:chariah's vision is hardly an o bvious restriction on methods of measurement fo r the mw (a symbolic Sabbath boundary), but Rabbi joshua ben Hananiah presents the verse's demands as clear and immovable. Indeed, the biblical basis of the entire eruv system is minimal compared to other areas ofJewish ritual, as Charlotte Fonrobcrt has observed."' A baraita on BT Ketubbot 87a invokes the idiom with res pect to a precedent set by the Sages (as in the 'losefta Kerubbot passage discussed above regarding the woman betrothed to a priest). That precedent makes it more difficult for a widow to recover her ketubbah money from the estate of her deceased husband:
.U> EU'kid's language- of measureme-nt mimics ZC'chariah's bur adds the mention of
a rod~ S('(' Eze-k. 40:3 and 40:5. The Babylonian Talmud problematiles the discr<"pancy between the two \'erscs. using Ezckid ro challenge Rabbi Joshua (though tht'rc is unsurprisingly a high dt'gt('(' ofro:tual v:.uiarion regarding the quotations from the vt'ry similar \'el"SC's from Zt'ch.1-riah and f.zt"kid). ThC'SC conttasrin.g short pcricopes conform to my proposal that the J':tlesti.nian Talmud does not probe the rht'toric of p.usi\•ity in the s.-un t' way dut the Babylonian Talmud docs. O n the cord vs. the rod in Ezekid, SC'e 'i'l/ Zimmcrli. Eukifl: A Commmrary ontlu Book oftiJr Propher Ez,.:kiel. (rr-.ms. R. E. CIC'm enu; Herment'"ia: Philaddphia: Fortress Press. 1979), p. 348. .m The inaccuCJcy of the method of me.1suremem leads some commentators like the Mt'iri (Mcnahem bt'n Solomon Mt'iri, 1249·13 15. Proo.tC"nce) to cond ud~: chat the baraira's intention is not to exclude aUother mC'thods besides the rope but is rJtht'r to ascenain that the rope is not cxdudt'd. ~.» C. E. FonrohC'rt, "From St'paratism to Urbanism: Tht: Dead Sea Sc.rolls 3Jld the O rigins oftht' Rabbinic Eruv,'" DSD 1 I (2004), pp. 43-7 1: cadt'm, "The Political Sym· holism of the Eruv, • JSS II (2005), pp. 9·35.
164
B ETH A. RERKOW'I TZ
Abba Saul34 rhe son of lmma }'i Miriam said: "WhethC"r rthe husband wrotel '\'(fithout oath• or ' Free from ooth; whC"ther fhe wrote,l ' \'Vithout •tow• or 'Free
fro m vow,• or whether fhe used the expi'C'.ssion) 'From my possessions.' or ' From these possessions.' neither he no r his heirs may impose an o:uh upon her; but what c.1n I do? For behold the Sages -said: 'The one who comes to o::ac( payment
om of che prop(ny of orph:1ns. he shall be paid only with an oath.',.
This baraita comes in a series of statements attributed to Babylonian rabbis (amorai m, third-century and o n) taking a patchwork of posi· tions on whether a widow (o r divorcee), before she can collect her ketubbah money, must take an oath that she has not previously collected some or all of it (or, possibly. whether she must rake any oath at all that her husband or his heirs o nce he dies might wish to impose with respect to her possessio n ofhis property) ." The question is determined by how o ne construes the force of various dauscs that the husband may have written o r expressed verbally in o rder to bypass the imposition of an oath o n his wife. Abba Saul paradoxically rake.s both the most pcrmis· sivc and most restrictive stance: According to his own reasoning, she should never be required to take an oath, but according to the rabbinic precedent he q uotes as amhoritative, she should always be required to take an oath when collec.ting from the property of the heirs no matter what waivers may have been anicularcd. This restrictive precedent is quite surprisingly declared by Rav Nahman in the name of Sa mud at the end of the discussion to be the definitive ruling. 1'his ruli ng is pre· sented almost verbatim later in Mish nah Ketu bbot 9:7·8, bur Abba Saul's innovation is to assert that the ruling overrides any dausc.s of
Vari:ult:< han~· '"Abba Samud." Jn rithC'r version, the idC"ntity of chis 6gure is unde:1r. }\l Commt"ntators suggest th at :\.hba and Im ma hC'n- an- honori6c tides. .141 The- statements chemsdves do not make de:1r what is the context for the oath (the T3lmuds address chis ambiguity). llte .-.m or.-.ic commt"ms .s «m to be intended "OS an addition to Mishnah Kewbbot 9:5, which lays out a series of possibk clauses Jnd their implications for a widow•s o r her inheritors• obligation to take an ooth imposed c itht"r by the h usband o r hi.s inheritors. The context for dtt" ooths d iscussed in the mi.shn":th arc similarly ambiguous. The nt"ighboring to:ts within the rvfishnah and in the l Osefta paraiJd (T. Kctubbot 9:3) deal w ith other kinds of oaths dut a h usband m ight impose on his w ife (such :15 if he puts her in a po.sirion o f control over his property). suggest· ing 3 more compre-hensive context for the d iscussion. .\4!
RECONSlDERlNG 1"H ti BOOK AND TH E SWORD
165
exemptio n." The related Mishnah Gittin 4:3 suggests that there was controversy surrounding this ruJing in the tannaitic period: It dC"Scribcs the same original position, then a change wherein rabbis chose not to enforce the oath. Since this change seems to have rc.sulted in a widow's not being able to collect her ketubbah at all, a vow was then imposed instead of an oath in order to rc.store to the widow her o pportunity to claim her ketubbah. This narrative of legal evolution is recounted in the context of a host of laws described as being "for the repair of the world," pointing explicitly to the impact of these laws o n social wclfiue. As in the Tosefta Kctubbot text discussed earlier, this baraita portrays a legal author ity who would prefer to take a more perm issive stance but rc:prc.sents himself as forced to ta.ke a restrictive one based o n the precedent set fo r him by the Sages. Also similar to the Tosefta Ketubbot text is the conflict created between an individ ual jurist's legal logic and inherited precedent, as well as the legal upheaval that seems to swirl around that precedent. Another noteworthy feature of this baraita is that its status as a baraita is explicitly unstable: It is first presented as an amo raically transmitted traditio n by Rav Nahman in the name of Samuel in the name of Abba Saul and o nly then presented as a baraira as a secondary alternative. The Babylonian 'falmud c.reatc.s its own Aramaic.izcd version of this passive posture, 1':lPK ' 1<0 (What can I do?), and in the pcricope in BT Gittin on th is law, applies it to the most re.scrictivc position yet, that a woman's claim to her ketubbah money is not enfOrced at all .>11 This is a precedent set by the Babylonian amora Rav (early third-century) and then followed by Rav Huna (late third-century Babylonian amo ra) and Rabbah son of Rav Huna, who in legal narratives related in the pericope each respond to a widow who attempts to c.laim her ketubbah money fro m the child ren's estate with the rhetorical "What can I do for you? For Rav would not allow a widow to collect her ketubbah m Abba Saul seems ro inrcrprC't Mishnah Ketubbot 9:7-8 as prt>duding the C':trlier Mishnah Kerubbot 9:fs clauses of exC'mplion. Some l.uer Jewish legal comment:uors tr}' to find ways to limil the restricli:VC'Ili!"SS of his position and to rciiHC'g.rate Mishnah Kerubbot 9Ss exemptions; see rhe helpful discussions in the Meiri's Brit bn-Btl!irnl!. S.\'. ilJ lVO~ U,N"'~ ,:!~ .a nd in the No~llat'oflht' Rirb.1 (Yom Tov ben Abmham lshbili. 1250- 1330, Spain), .s.v. '7-.K:v tU.N. both of \...·hom 6nd these anempts implausible. 3l) BT Ginin .35o.
166
B ETH A . RERKOW'I TZ
money." In the first narrative, the woman proceeds to argue her own clai m and Rav H una accc:d cs to her rcquc.st,. and in the second narra~ ti,•e, the woman respo nds angrily and puts a curse on Rabbah son of Rav H una that leads to his fitlling ill, and in the end Rav's precedent is changed to one that is highly fitvorable to a widow's clai ms." A rabbi's slavish adherence to an earlier rabbis legal preced ent- which results in a woman's inability to collcc.t mo ney due to hc:r- almost results in that rabbi's d eath, pointing to what is perhaps the most serious potential problem with the judicial passivity this id iom exhibits, and that is public ire. In an extended narrative o n BT Bava /vlerLia 83b, the same motif.- what can 1 do? ("T':JJ)N ' NO)- is used with ros pcct to the decrees of the Ro man imperial hegemo n-and leads to the execution of inno· cent Jews. A rheto ric of slavish ad herence to authority, whether rabbinic o r Ro man (or perhaps even Sasanid), is shown to have potentially tragic cons.cqucncc.s for Jewish com mu nal welfare, o n whose fo rt unes rabbinic jud icial autho rity would seem to depend ... For-:1 complt"mC'nhu)' rt':tding ofthis pcricopc. scc A. Cohen, Rrrmding Tnlmud: Gmdn; Law and thr PtN:tia ofSugyot (Atkmta. GA: Scholars Press, L998), pp. 153-92.
}I)J
401
A number of other te>:ts whe~ "l'~V~ 'NO appe;:~rs deserve their own tre-atment a nd can nor be covcrc:d hC're: BT Bcrakhot 56a; BT Eruvin 39b: BT ·t1\mit 24a; BT B:wa Batra .54a, 168b. The ron1ean be said for other cases whcre versions of fl1VV N i'IO (what can I do:} appear, h ut which are diffi.ren t e nough in their contexts from the idiom hert" considel"t"d rhot I have chosen not to d iscuss them; see Sifrc Z uta II :26/BT Sanhedrin 17a: Sifi-e Deuteronom}' 322; Mishnah Ta'anit 3:8 (par.\lld s in PT Ta'anit 3: I 0 (67aj , BT lkr.1khot 19a, BT Ta'anit 19a, 23a); 10sd1a Ye\';lmot 8:7 (and talmudic ekthorarion in BT Yevamot 6:~b); JYr Ciuin 4:9 {46b); PT Sanhedrin 1:4 ( 19c); BT Eru\·i n 2 1b, 6Sa; BT Pes.1him 87b; BT Ta'anit 17a/BT S-1nhedrin 22b; BT Kerubbot 5-4bt84b; BT Citrin .54b; BT Qiddushin ?Ia; BT Sanhedrin 65b. I have not explored the idiom .-.s it appcars in the amouic mid rash collections since my i nterne here has been the legal violence associated with it. ~l theme the amoroic collections do not high-
light. In a rwist on the idiom, a story on BT Nedarim 20b has the inherited precedent (in this case, the Torah} being too pe-rmissive. In that leg>1J narrati\'e, Rabbi Judah the P:uriarch {late second/carl}' third-century) rtfuses co prohibit what the Tomh perm its: :\woman came be-fore Rabbi; she said to him: "Rabbi, J.sct for him (my husband) a table and he ovenurned it." He said to her. "My daughter, the Tor.1h has perm itt~!'
RECONSlDERlNG 1"H ti BOOK AND THE SWORD
167
The p itfalls of passivity arc explicit in o ne other apparendy early text where a judge's passive posture is expressly rebu ked and prohibited: And from where (do we know) thou when one o f the judges le-ft Ithe court) he should not uy, I ~cquit and my colleagues convict but what Cln 1 do, the)' outnumbered me. Thus wa.s it said: "Do not deal basely with your counnymen" (L('V. 19: t6). and rhus it says, "'A base fellow si\'CS :-.way secrets. but a trusn•:onhy soul '-«'Ps a confidence'• (Prov. 11: 13):u
The judge who fi nds himself in an acquitting minority should not exit the court denying h is complicity in t he conviction. The judge's rhetoric of passivity, a hostile act against his judicial colleagues whose auth ority and likab ility he sacrifices to h is own, d irectly threatens the integrity of the rabbinic court. l11c talmudic pcricopc on BT Sanhedrin 31a, where the baraita is juxtaposed with a story of a student who is expelled fro m the study house for revealing its secrets, implies that the study house and its partner, t he court, can survi\'C' o nly if they arc sup ported by rab bis who protect each oth er's judicial activism as well as admit to [heir own.
Conclusions The Babylonian Talmud 's d istinctive concern with th e judge's interpretive stance is h ighlighted when Palestinian Tal mud parallels arc compared. Either the Palestin ian Talmud docs not thcmatizc this inte rp retive stance and omits the idiom we have: been discussing, or, as The story e mploys a euphemism for sex-..setting the rohle"-and builds o n the euphemism to describe what .seems to be an atypical sexual position, possibly anal sex-"overturning the table." The Yooman in the narrative requesu that Rabbi Judah prohibit her husband's sexual demands. but R.Jhhi responds that the Torah furnishes him with no basis to intt't\'enc. As in some of the leg.1J narr.Hives discussed above, the rabbi adopts a posture of passi\'it}' as he denie-s wivt"$• claims against their husbands. S<:e discussions of this text in M . Sad ow, Tatting the Dish: Rabbinic RlxtoriN ofSrx1111lity (Atlam;.l, GA: Scholars Press. 1995). pp. 239-41. and D. Borarin, Carlini !mul· Rradi11g Srx in Talmudic Culm" ( Bcrkdey: Universicy Californ ia Press,
or
1993). pp. 109-22. •m SifrJ Qedoshim Parashah 2 Pcreq 4: paralle-ls in Mishnah Sanhedrin 3:7; PT San-
hedrin 3:11 (21d): BT B.wa Q.unma 99b: BT Sanhedrin 29a, 31a.
168
BETH A . RERKOW'I TZ
we arc abo ut to sec in the case of the Palestinian lalmud's parallel fo r the Toscfta Kcrubbot/Siffc Numbers exchange between Yohanan ben Bag Bag and Judah ben Batcrah, it m inimizes the tensio n between legal precedent and contemporary lawmaking. In the Palc.sti nian 'Tal mud's appendix to their co nversation, the weight ofo pinion is decidedly shifted towards the Sages' legal precedent: And rhey supported fit with] a Vt"JSC, a..s it w;u said, "All who are dean in your household ml)' en thcm" (Num. IS: I3). Rabbi Judah s.1id, "BC'hold rhi.s is an a fortiori o1rgumC'nt that has a response to it ... and c''C'£}' a fortiori argumcm that has :t response' to it, that nfortiori argument is annulled....
The Palestinian lalmud bolsters the early rabbinic precedent in two ways, by showing its biblical basis and by pointing o ut the weakness in the challenge posed to it from the a fortiori argument. In so doing, the Palestinian Talmud practically renders Judah ben Batcrah's words mean· inglcss, since he no longer has any need to throw up his hands and lament, " What can I do?" \Xiith such a worthy legal precedent, why should he do anything at all except legislate according to it?" The Palestinian ·r., Jmud docs away with the drama of authority that th is idiom produces, since no longer doc.s the individual rabbinic jurist appear to be bound by distasteful canonical texts that he might rather disown. The Babylo nian Talmud, quite to the contrary, provides an e xtensive discussion of the baraita·s a fortiori argument, setting fonh an imprcs .. sivc variety of ways to undersrand its logical Aow and using it as a sup .. po rt for positions at stake in the pericope. 4J The comrast between Palestinian and Babylonian corpora sugge.sts
that this idio m of passivity begins in a small handful of early rabbinic (tannaitic) texts and is borrowed and adapted by the Babylonian Talmud, whose editors may likely have inserted the idiom into a slightly larger handful of baraitot and narratives about early rabbinic figures. It appears to be an o riginally tan naitic posture. not without its own d)
The precedem come'S to seem .so wdl4grounded that commentators rewrite ir so
a.s ro be in more in line with the earlier more pennissi\'c laws, inurpreting "until she enters thl." huppah'" to mc:tn "until the rime when she would normally enrer thl." huppah (even if she thl."n rl."mains betrorhcd)'"; sec Lieberman, p4 259. 431 BT Qiddushin IOlr lla.
RECONSlDERlNG 1"H ti BOOK AND THE SWORD
ambivalcnc~,
169
then developed by the Babylonian ·r:,Jmud into a kind of
tannaitic stereotype. which the Talmud in some cases proceeds to probe and c hallenge. Worth noting is that the o nly two texts in tannaitic cor-
pora with the "To rah" version of the idiom, the Judah ben Tabbai m urdc.r story and the exchange bctwccn Judah ben Barcrah and Yohanan lx:n Bag Bag, arc both from "Yishmad" school midrash collections. Ar.
ncutical ideology and therefore representing a proverbial tip of the iccberg, making it a resonant way fo r Bavli redactors to typologize early
rabbinic figu res. We return to the question: What interest do the early tannaitic texts
and Bavli pcricopc.s have in representing rabbis whose hands arc tied? If we rake together the baraitot discussed here, we find that this rhetoric of passivity appears in two cases involving c riminal punishment, two cases involving women·s daims upon their husbands, and o ne case
involving the measurement of the Sabbath area. The.sc cases vary with re.spec:t to what competes with canonical authority: individual powers
of logic or legal interpretatio n (the case of the woman betro thed to a priest and the widow claim ing her kctubbah), individ ual powers of perception (the case of Judah lx:n Tabbai and the murderer), ethical sensibilities (Rabbi Judah's decapitatio n by the axe}, and accurate technology (measuring the Sabbath area). They also vary with respect to the nature of that canonical authority: Sage.s (in the cases of worn#
en's clai ms) or Scripture {in the other cases). We might first hypothesize that these areas of law arc loci o f particular discomfort o r anxiety
for rabbis. Indeed, recent scholarship on rabbinic law suggests that these these three areas-gender relatio ns. criminal punishment, and the
eruv---<:ach were heavily charged with implications fo r social boundaries and rabbinic autho rity over them.4 ) Perhaps, then, the representation
..1
A. Yadin. Scriprun-·ns Logm: Rabbi !slmu~tlmul tbr Origim ofMidnuh (Phibddphia:
Uni\'rrsity of Pennsylvania P~s. 2004). •n SC"e my Ewrmio11 and lm't'ntiM on the bws of criminal execution: on genders« Bor.lrin, Carnal!muf. ). Hauptman. &~ading tht' Rabbis:: A \\i'oman1 VOicr (Boul·
der. CO: Wert\'icw, 1998); C. E. Fonroberr, J\lmstrunl Puril)•: R;tbbinic and Chris·
170
B ETH A . RERKOW'I TZ
o f the passive and u ncomfortable rabbi is a product of exactly t hat, rab b inic.d iscomfo rt wit h particular rulings in these highly significant legal arc.a.s. Ifso, rhc:sc cases rc:vt:al to u.s chinks in the rabbinic armor, moments where tension is generated between their inherited cano n and thc:ir own assumptions and commitments. Bm fur ther consideration suggests something more complicated. In the cases where the l o rah is invoked. the application of th e verse is in fact much more u nstable t han the ju rist presents it, suggesting th at the posture of passivity may actually be working to concc.al the inn ovative, non~scripcurally driven ap plicatio n o f t he law in q uestion. In th e cases where rho precedent of the Sages is invoked, we sec a comparable amb iguity. In the case o f t he. widow collecting her kctubbah , he r unwaivcrablc obligation to take an oath is hardly clear li-om th e tan nait ic sources, and in the case o f the the betrothed woman eating tithes, there arc many more permissive p recedents that the texts also present. Indeed, both cases suggest anything b ut rabbis' passivity when it came to legislating o n th ese issues, where legal c hange is marked with what Aaron Panke n has called a ''rheto ric of innovation," which in these instances includes the language of;upn (a mend ment) , i1ll\!IN1 i1l\!ID (first m ish nah). and ti'l~inN ~UJ n':J. (a lata coun ).46 That mean s we may be seeing not t he. tension we t h ink we arc, a rabbi forced to fo llow a precedent he eschews, bu t mthcr a rabbi striking out in new legal d irections but wishing not to leave the canonical covc.r beh ind. \VIc might fu rthe rmo re th ink abouc t he contrary forces {ha{ {hesc narrarivcs fearurc-logical skills, ind ivid ual pe rception, ethics, etc. -and how the competitio n with Torah/rabb inic precedent h ighlights t he strength of t hese forces even when they arc shown to fail. \Y/e might also sec t hese cases as carefully chosen crisis cases whe re rabbinic fidelity to canon is tested and confirmed. In other words, th is idiom marks a rabbin ic perfo rmance of submissio n t hat has important
ri
sian Rmmstntr:.iom ofBihlicn/ Gmdr-r (Stanford: StanfOrd University Prc.ss, 2000); M.
J..<.hm:ln, "'\'(/'omen 01nd Pousov~-r Observance: Reconsidering Gender in the Study of Rnhbinic Texts." Sttulirs in Jrwish Civi/iutiou 14 (2003), pp. 45 66; on the miV sec scholarship cited above-. -16! A. D. Panken, 7!Jr- Rhr-UJrir of hmowuion: Sr-/fCtmsdous Lrgal C!Nmgr in Rnbbinir Litr-ralftrr- (L3nham, M D: University Press of AmeriCJ, 2005}. 4
RECONSlDERlNG 1"H ti BOOK AND THE SWORD
17 1
implicatio ns for the project of rabbinic decision-making. These cases arc o pportunities for rabbinic authors to show that the .source of their amhoriry lies not in their own decision ..making powers but in the sacred scripture and hoary precedent from which their decisions de rive. Their discomtOrt in these cases is fuel that drives o ther cases, sinc,c what is
demonstrated here is that when push comes to shove, rabbinic loyalty lies not with their own prdCrences, logical powers, or social com mit ..
ments, but with Scripture and precedent. And the tension o r drama of these cases in fact defuses tension that might arise in other cases, where we can presume the rabbinic jurist must be comfonable with precc ..
dent. So these test cases, while few, cast light on o ther cases, by show· ing that fealty to precedent lies behind all of them, and that a basic comfort level with scriptural or prior rabbinic authority can fo r the most part be ach ieved. Finally, these few cases may have been situations where rabbinic authors felt that their deci..sio n..s required some de.m o n..stration of em bar.. rassment. Two of the situatio ns involve wome-n making clai ms upon
their husbands o r relatives, where the rabbis' own male gender makes them appear to be natural all ies of the husbands. The jurist's rhetoric of passivity helps to defuse the gender tensions embedded in an all· male monopoly on authority. The cases ofcriminal punishment inspire the rhetoric of passivity for similar reasons, to defuse tensions that arise
fro m the ultimate exercise of autho rity. the taking oflife. Rabbi Judah's passive hermeneutical stance here can be seen as one instantiation of a
broader passivity that I have elsewhere argued is adopted by the rabbis in thei r laws of criminal exccutio n.'17 This ki nd of passive judicial pos..
turc. both regarding the canons the judge interprets as well as the violent deeds he o r she author izes, is entirely typical of judicial violence not o nly in the early rabbinic context but in many other contexts as
well. as historical and jurisprudential scholarship has extensively shown. Robert Cover the legal scholar has observed, for example, that it is never the judge who pulls the switch.'* Along these lines, Rabbi Judah's rhet· o ric of passivity ensures his distance from the violent execution me.t hod SC'e Ekrl.owitz, £\w"lttitm mtd bwrmiou. pp. 65-94. ~t) R. Cover, "Violence and the \'(lord," in M. Minow, M. Ryan. ~n d A. S.~rat (eds.), Nan;ttit-r, Vio/rou, and th.r Lmv: 71~ Essays ofRohrn Cowr (Ann Arbor: University of
'1>
172
BETH A. RERKOW'I TZ
he advocates. Judah ben Tabbai's rhetoric of passi\•ity. in reversc,liccnses him not to redress the violence of a c rime with the vio lence of cxccu.. tio n. ~I have discussed above, in one case we have. the cmbarrassmcm of too much vio lence, in the other case the embarrassment of too litp tic. The e mbarrassment we do not sec but which may be the most acute
is that of not being able to inAict crim inal punishments at all in the political matrix of ancient Palestine and probably at least partially in later Babylo nia (though the judicial capacities of Babylonian rabbinic Jews were probably greater, especially in the redactio nal period). The rabbinic rhetoric of passivity, accordi ng to whic.h the rabbinic jurist
subordinates himself to the rulings of the Torah or the early Sage.s, may actually be trying to displace another ki nd of passivity, one not self-imposed by the rabbis' own piety, but a political passivity imposed by powerful imperial governments. Tiu· rhetoric of passivity I have hcrc examined s uggests a vastly more complex interaction between Torah and violence than the book/sword binary suggests. The dominating authority ofcanon- scriptural as well as rabbinic, which appear homologous- is invoked to justify both too much vio lence and not e nough, to ratio nalize de nying womcn's clai ms, and to privilege religious symbolism over technical accuracy. But in
many, if not all of these cases, the Babylo nian Tal mud may be injecting these tensio ns precisely in order to leave them behind. Scholarship in the last two decades has pointed to the Babylonian Talmud redactors' inclination towards legal innovatio n, and, not unrdatcdly, thei r
privileging of dialectical argumentation, especially when contrasted to the Palestinian "J:, Imud." The Babylo nian 1a l mud's identificatio n of herm eneutical passivity with early rabbis may be fu nctioning to M;ch;gan Pre>s, 1993), pp. 203-38 (234) (r<pr;mcd from Y,/, Law jouma/95 11986], pp. 1601-29). ' 91 On the B.-.bylonian 131mud's tendency towards legal inno\·ation in contmst to the ))alestinian T.-.Jmud. s~ H. Bcn-Mc.-n.'lhem, Judicial Droiation iu Talmudic Lilu•: Govmu·d by Mm, Not by Rules {New York: Harwood, 1991): but -sec the argume-nt of C. E. Hayes, "'The- Abrogation of l Orah Law: Rabbinic Taqqanah 3nd Prae-torian Edict," in R Schafer (cd.}, 7hr Talmud Yrrusl,a/mi aud Gm('('o-&uum Gtlum·, Voltmlr Om~ (TUbingc.-n: Mohr Sidxck, 1998), pp. 643-74, where the PT 01ppcars to be more.- comfortable than the BT with rannaitic !c.-gal innov.uion. On the BT'sdistinctive privileging of dialectical argumentation. sec.- Ru~nstei n, Crtlmr-rof&byiMiau 7fllmud,
RECONSlDERlNG 1"H ti BOOK AND THE SWORD
173
archaicize that srance and to associate it with Western colleagues. The
Mishnah and Palestinian T:, lmud, the corporn most concerned with centralizing rabbinic auchority according to recent re.search, least fca..
ture the motif of the passive rabbi relinquishing his own legislative authority in the face of scriptum! and rabbin ic precedents. The rhetoric of passivity examined here provides an illuminating set of texts with which to explore the Babylo nian 1al mud's continuities with and divergence.s from Palc:stinian corpora when it comes to representing the rab-
bi's power to interpret canon and to argue law. The Babylonian Talmud's association of passivity with the past and with Palestine may be helping to highlight its own very different approach to legal exegesis and judicial authority and the potential violent consequences of both. What we find when we look across rabbinic literature is that this rheto ric of passivity, with its multifarious outcomes, is matched by the "rhetoric of innovation" described by Pan ken, wherein rabbinic authors devise various mechanisms for bypassing or changing cano nical prece..
dents, or by a related phenomenon de.scribed by Hanina bcn-Menahem as "judicial deviation.''>• We might sec the rhetoric of passivity as dialectically related to th is other rhetoric: When a rhetoric is put in place that jus tifies in novation, then a rhetoric is demanded that will
justify
11ot
changing a legislation but rnthcr retain ing precedent, and
vice versa. What we arc talking about here is not simply the twin filets of legal conservatism and legal innovation within rabbinic literature~ but the rhetorics e.mploycd to construct a le.gal position as o ne or the other. Explo ring how the.sc f\\'0 rhetorical tracks exist in tandem within
rabbinic literature, how they each unfold and interact, can help us to sketch o ut a richer range of hermeneutical postures adopted by rabbis and the various kinds of legally sanctioned violence that arc either e mbraced o r rcsiste.d as a result.
pp. 39-53; D. Boyarin, &rdtr Lints: 711~ Rmirio11 ofju&uo-CJ,rissi.tnisy(PhiladcJphia: Uni\·crsity of Pecnn5)'lvania. P~s. 2004). pp. I; 1-20 I. \o)) In lkn l\·ft'nahem, judicinl Devinsiou, see especially pp. 86 98. 4
4
Christian Martyrdom and the "Dialect of the Holy Scriptures": The Uteral, the Allegorical, the Martyrological
Margaret M. Mitchell Univmity 4 CIJi
Everybody know'S.1
When it comes to Scriptures and vio lence, it is quite simple: the prob~ lcm is that some people jtiSt take things too litem!~·· \Xlhcrher used to jus· t{v perpetrating violence o r to rationalize experiencing violence for the
sake of religion, the problem is biblical literalism. And fo r Christians it is focused on the second coming ofJesus. The great Gibbo n knew this. In the justly famo us chapter 15 of his The History ofthe DecUne and Fall ofthe Roman Empin", entitled "The Progress of the Christian Religion. and the Sentiments, Manners, Num· bers, and Conditio n of the Prim itive C hristians," the Gibbon (as his contemporaries referred to him) placed "zeal," even to the point of death, "to guard the chastity of the gospel from the infectious breath of idolatry," at the head of the five causes he identified of"the progress and establishment of C hristianity."' Gibbon thought Christians inher· ited this zeal from Jews, especially Phariscc.s who shared a belief in im mortality. which Gibbon ranked as the followi ng, second cause. The key differe nce fo r Christians was that this belief had "obtain[edj the
11
As Leonard Cohen has taught us; in this connection I oil attention especially to the third smnu of his song: "Everybody wants a box of chocolates I :lnd a long stem rose I <"V«ybody knows'" (CLronard Cohen and Sharon Robinson, 1988).
E. Gibbon, 7/Je History of the Decliur a11d Fall ofdu Roman EmpiJY («<. J. B. Bury; 7 vols .~ London: t'.,{ethuC'n, 1909). vol. 2, quotes from pages 20 >1nd I, re-spectively.
2l
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU' SCJH PTURJ::S •
17 5
sanction of Divine tru th from the au th ority a nd examp le of Christ."' Bur it was not only the source o f t ruch-in the New 'TCstament Scripturc.s and the purported cvcms to which they give witness-but the interpretive method fo r accessing that truth, that in Gibbon·s view accou nted for the an cient C hristian martyrs' willing acceptance of death for their religion: The ancient Christians wcf<' animated by a contempt fo r their prese-nt existence. and by a just confidence of immorr-.ality. or which the doubtful and imperfect
faith of modern ages cannot give us any adequate notion. In the: primitive church. the influc:ncc o f truth
Wll
very powerfully strengthened by a n opinion which,
howevc.-r it mar d escrve respect for its usefulness and :mtiquit)\ has not lx:cn found agrce:tblc to experie nce. It was uni\·crsaUy be-lieved chat the e nd o f the world and the kingdom of Heaven we~ Olt hand. lhe near .-.pproach of this wonderful event lud been predicted by rhe apostles; rile tradition of it was p~served by their t'3rliesr disciples. and llmu ll4}(J undmtood in tlh"ir liuml Mnst the d iscourses of Christ himsd f were obliged to c,;pect the second and glorious coming of fhe Son o f M.m in the d ouds, before that generation was totally (').1inguished_, wh ich had bchdd his humble condition upon e.:tnh, and which m ight still be witness o f the Cllamities of the Jews under Vespasi.ln or Hadrian. The revolution of SC"\'cmecn centuries has instructed us not to pms tO(} dosrly thr mysurious langungt' ofprop«q and Y('f,•dntion; but, as long as, for wise purposes, this error was pC'rmitted to subsist in the church, it was producti\'e o f the most salutary e ft'Ccts on the faith a nd prlctic< of C hristians, who lived in the awful expectation of tha t moment when the globe itsdf, and all the v.-.rious r.1ce of man kind, should tremble at the appeaunce of their d i\'ine judge.~
In th e acco mpanying footnote Gibbon p raises Erasmus for having "rcmov[cd] the difficulty" of such passages as Matthew 24 and I The.ssalonians "by the help of allegory and metaphor."' The point is clear a nd simple: early C hristian marty rdom, in G ib bon's view, was d ue to this "error" of literal b ib lical interp retation. The "revolucion of sevcn.tecn centuries," he glib ly and disingenuously opined, had taugh t hi m and h is developmentally superio r contemporaries to recognize allegory for what it is. and not "press [it) too closely."
Hisrory, vol. 2. p. 24. ~~ G ibbon, Hiuory, vo-1. 2, pp. 24-25 (italics ;added). " G ibbon, History, vol. 2, p. 25 n. ()2. .\! G ibbon,
176
MARGARE'r M. MITC HELL
Sam Harris also knows. Again and again in h is book 71" t"nd ofJ.nith: Religion, 7Crror anti the Future of&ason, H arris decries scriptural liter.. alism as t he cause o f Christian and Muslim sanctified violence {as well as other ills). • \XIhat Gibbon d issected wit h inimitable irony.' o ur contemporary bludgeons, charging that hardly t he seventeen centuries down to G ibbon, or even rhc nvo since, have expunged chis ancient ignora .. mus from the human race. C hristopher Hitch ens {a.k.a. "The Theresa-slayer") also knows. In a chapter of his God is not Grt'at: How Rrligion Poisons Evrrything. e ntitled "God Kills." Hitchens sets up th e ITightcning specter of "th e literal mind" lwhich) "docs not understand the ironic mind, a nd sees it as a
source of danga.'·8
S. Harris, 1hr End ofFaith: Rrligion, TmY~r and thr Fumrf' ofR~:nsM (Boston: Norton, 2004), pp. 14, 16, 17. 34, 66. In :t tC'presC'nt"Jtive argume-nt. on p. 14, Harris
#
cites a Gallup Poll that "'35 pc.-rcent of AmcriClns bdieve that the Bible is the literal and inciTant word o f the.- Cre.uor of the Univ<:rsc," and "laJnorhcr 48 (XI'CC'nt bdieve that it is the 'inspired' word of the samc-still inerrant. though ceruin of its p;1ssages must be imerprc:ted symbolically before their truth can be brought to light,... to condude: "we, as ;1 species, have grown almost perfectly intoxicated by o ur myths." Harris appc:;~rs not to reali.U' that he is treading on \'er)' old ground here-indeed, as lOund widtin the: Bible iudf-becween literJJism omd allegory as interpretive modes :tS:SO· ciated. with mythic discourse, as rhe following F.tlse di-chotom)' dcmonstratt"S: "The 6rst th ing to observe about the (religious! moderJte's retreat fro m scripmral literalism is dtolt it draws its inspiration not from scripture h ut from cultural developments that ha\·e rendered many of God's uttc:r.mces difficult to accept as written"' {what about 2 Cor. 3:6, for instance-?!) . n G ibbon artributed his ability to "manage the weapon of gran!· and tempcr.lte irony,. to hi.s reading of P·Jscal's letters (Gibbo11S Autobiogmpl!y fcd. t'.·f.r-.·f. Rcot"Se: London:
Routl«ig< and K«!!>n Paul, 1970], p. 50). C. Hitchens. God Is Nor. Gn•at: Hour RrligiM Poilom Ewr:ytiJing (New \·Ork: Twd\'e,
U
2007), p. 29. And )'et there is no trace of this "'ironic mind,. in Hitche ns• own statement o n p. 120: "'Either the Gospels arc in some sensc literal truth. or the whole thing is C'S$C'ntially a fraud and perhaps an immoral one at that." This is not a consistent hermeneutic. however, as on p. 175, Hitchens applauds Martin luther King for his '"allegory" o f the Exodus and conquest n3rr.ltives. which, Hitchens thinks, defangs it of its violen ce'.
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU ' SCJHPTURJ::S •
17 7
Chic-.lgo, Sept. 3. 2007 (amhor's photo)
Michigan Avenue megaphone man also knows. Tho sign he holds is tos· timo ny to what ''everybody knows"-or o ught to know- as they go about tho serious business ofsho pping o n Chicago's Magnificent Milo: that Christian sancti~•ing violence-past' and present (post· Rcagan)doponds directly and uneq uivocally upon "literal" biblical interpreta· cion. The purpose of my paper is to challenge this widespread assumption about biblical literalism as the cause of sanctified violence. 1'v!y focus will be o n the
sanctifies violence perpetrated against early Christians for refusal to carry out cultic acts of piety toward the gods upholding the imprrium Romttnum. like other recent works, such as rho excellent study by Elizabeth Castelli, I regard early C hristian martyrdom as a cultural
He apparently singles o ut Pope Gregory VII (l'l'g. 1073- 1085) lxcauscofking Hemry IV•s famous submission at Canow in 1077 (after walking barefoot as- a pC'nitcnt
\IJ
through the Alps), seen .-.s .-.metonymy ofsC'Ctllar leadcrship bowing to religious power. The sign maps this narrJtive onto Ronald Re:1gan and P:tt Robertson in I982.
178
MARGARE'r M. MITC H ELL
constructio n, 10 a way of making st"nsc oflifc expcricncc.s with rdCrcncc to a force-field of carefully fitshio ned mean ing. Crucial to my under· standi ng of this cultural creation is the role of the Scriptures. Late antique Christian manyrological literature, whethe r prtssiones, acta, rncom.irt, vitar or txhort11tio1us, all have in common continual rdCrcncc points to a scriptural record held as aurhoritarive. O ne of, if not chc, chief characteristic of the Christian cult as it emerges on the landscape of Mediterranean rdigion is this bibliographic precocity, by which 1 mean that Christ-bclie\•ers possessed a body of texts that they wished to live inside of; and in turn they liked to record the way they did so (both exegetically and experientially) in fu rther texts."
The Rhetorical Construction of the Literal/ Allegorical Divide In tracing this process- the creation of an early Christian literary culture- ! have become increasingly convinced that the dichotomy opcrE. Casrdli., .~fartyrdom a11d M~mory•: EArly Chrir1imt Culturt' Mnki11g (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004)~ SC'e also D. Borarin. Dyi11gfor God: Mart)'rdom tmd thr Maki11g ofChri!ti,mit)• amijudaism (Sranford: Stanford Univctsity Prc:ss, 1999). m M .M . Mitchell. "The Emergence of the \'(fritten Record." in M .t\'L Micchdl ~ nd F.i'vf. Young (t.XIs.). Cambridg~ HiHOJ:'f of Christiani~y: l11l 1: Origins to Comtnmiur (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). pp. 449·86.
101
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU' SCJHPTURJ::S •
179
a tive for Gibbon, and for many before and since, between "literal" and "allegorical" readings, can not be used u ncritically by scholars as t hough the two tcnns represent strictly analytical, rathe r than polemical. categories, 12 This language, I a rgue, is itself part of the rhetorical encoding by which various interpreters serve up o r sdf~serve their intc:rprcta# t ions, most of which arc some m ix of the accual word ing of the text a nd wider literary and historical comcxtualizatio ns and coordinations they wish to make in o rder to b ring an ancient text into their present cir# cumstanccs.u My cent ral contentio n is that muc h of early C hristian biblical interpretation {with extension to the present, I would argue, but that is another paper) is fundamentally agonistic-that is, it is grounded in the p ri nciples for how to deal with written evidence as
F.M. Young. Bibliml E'
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
180
MARGARE'r M. MITCHELL
taught in the rhetorical schools fo r fo re nsic legal cases. The early C hristian elite aut hors shared among themselves and with their no n-C hristian contemporaries in the same pnideia, which led them from the grammarian to the rhetorician, and social ized them into the world of words. In this c urriculum they were not taught an exclusive allegiance to either <' literal" o r ''allcgorkal/figurativc" imcrprctation, 14 but instead a set of strategic commonp lac.c arguments preserved in the rhetorical handbooks of Aristotle, C icero a nd Q ui ntilian, for example, that one should deftly employ when seeking to adapt and adopt textual evidence to suit the case at hand, whether prosecution or dd(nsc.•:> C icero's youthful work Dr bwrntione is very valuable o n this point, because it is highly conservative, a nd hence rcprc.scntativc of the artrs rbrtoriate of h is day and of the centuries tha t surround h im, since he is a bridge bttwccn Aristotle a nd Quintilian. C icero says that cont ro versies which turn o n texts (in s.cripto versdrur t:onrroversia) do so for five reasons: ambiguity (ambiguum), "letter and intcnr" 16 (scriptum, et smtentia), contrary laws (comrnrine leges). "reasoning by a nalogy" (mtio-
1
See th e full« argument and o:emplificnion of this point in my essay. "P.ltTistic Rhetoric on Allegory: O rigen and Eust:u hius Put I Kingdom$ 28 on Trial," in ItA. Gree-r and i\·LM. Mirchdl, 7h~ ''Br/1)'-J\J;'tlm·,. ofEudor: lmrrprrtatiom of 1 Kingdom; 28 in tl!~ E·u1y CiJIIrch {\'<'r itings from the Greco-Rom.Jn World 16; Adanta: Socie-ty ofBibliCJJ Liter.nure. 2007). pp. lxxxv-cxxiv. l \l Karhy Eden, in a n degam, insightful rrc:umem, has emphasized rhe roots of modern hermeneutical d iscourse in the cbssical rhC'torical tradition, and noted its imp3ct on such writcrs as Basil and Augustine (H~nnmmtiN nnd tl~ RJJ(forical ];adition: C!Japun iu t!Jt" Ant"imt LtgiUJ and iu Humaniu Rraprion (Yale' Studies in HermenC'utics: New Haven: YaJe University Pros. 19971). Her own constructive position (based upon Aristotle) on n~quirlll ("equity") and oikouomin ("'accommodation") as the goal of interpretation lc-.ads her to downplay a bit the agonistic, combative aspect.s of early Christian b iblical henneneutics, though she astutely acknowledges at the outset that this is b uilt into the syste-m ("'the fundamentally advers.1.rial nature of gr-.ammatical ••
mg.,;s" fp. 21 J). 161
H.M. Hubbell's rr.anslation in LCL H ow we mnslate the tcnns of course matters a lot. I fi nd it quite curio u.s. for instance, thar H.E. Butler in his LCL translation of Quintilian (but. 7 .6, etc.) renders rhC' contrast stTipmmlvolunuu as "'lettC'r and spirit,,. d earlr a Chrisriani'l3rion (de-pending upon 2 Cor. 3:6 and thC' historr of it'S inAuence) of the caugories letter .,_nd immt.
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU' SCJHPTURJ::S •
18 1
cinntio), and definitio n (drjinitio)." He recommends advice for the rhcto r in each situation. l'irst, he" who defends the letter should deny ambiguity at all costs, pushing for a dear meaning- his meaning. Common arguments by which to do this ind udc appealing to everyday speech, to literary context, to the life, character and other writings of
the author (hence, historical context), to the effect of the reading (the o pponentS reading being undesirable because impossiblt-. inconvenient, dishonest o r unnecessary and oneS own the o pposite). and rephrasing
the text to show how it would have been written if the o pponent's reading were the dear o nc. 19 Such appeals should always be buttressed by such loci o r topoi as praise of the author, plea to the judge to stand by what i.s written, concinualty reciting the text to reinforce its diff<.-rcncc fro m the o pponent's interpretation. saying the text is d ear (npertum) and hence docs not require interpretatio n (non inurpretari legem oportrre), appealing to the slippery slope of consequences if we depart fro m the written word (ut ab scripto recedntur), say that we should learn [he author's imcm from his own words, not from our own feelings (sed t!muesticis suspicionibus perscrotetu.r).::o The one who attacks the letter of the law (qui contra scriptum dicet) has a parallel set of appeals," which involve a complex play on ambiguity in hl\'or of a position of his own that he will ultimately claim is "dear." He will argue against a so-called literal reading (i.e., the reading of his opp<>nent), by appealing to the figurative qualities in speech (if we took everything literally, we couldn't get through the day}. Like his o ppo nent, he will pay much attention to the authorofthc text, saying that, if he rose fro m the dead, he would agree with this reading of his text, o r, using the ''urbanity topos,"" he will chide that the author didn't expect his readers just to recite it (as a child would do) but, knowing them to be of high quality, to usc their mind (cogitntio) and interpret his intent (11olrmt11tem interpretdri) . He will aver that, while the m
D~lnwmiMt'2.40.1 1 6.
1~
Dt' lnwmhme 2.40.116-4 1.121. Dr lnwmiom 2.43.125-44.128. Dr htw mhuu 2.47.138-48.143. See n. 59 below.
*'1 I reft"r to theor.uor as "he,.. in line with Cicero's assumption that rhetoricians arc men. ~ l l> l!)
182
MARGARE'r M. MITC H ELL
text doesn't say cw:rything (that is, not exactly what he wants it to say}, it implies dear th ings (perspicua) in tacit ways (tflcita), and he will insist t hat the law is actually not to be fo und in words, but in meanings (ut ~d ·vidntl7tr in sen.tentiis. non in verbis comisure). The ap peal fo r h is mean .. ings may be made on ethical grounds (the consequences of his interp retation as more possible, convcnicm, ho nest and necessary th an that of h is o pponent), or exegetical o nes. Here he meets the s trategy of the self~styled ''literal" interp reter, a nd engages in a dose reading of this (or
other) texts in o rder ''convert something in the text to his own argu# mcnt" (ex ipsa scriptum ali.lju.id ad sU/Im causmn COIWtrti'rr.) . The whole point of this fOre nsic exercise is to force ten s to yidd a single, d esired meaning, and to massage t he ambiguity/clarity dynam ic in such a way that o ne's own readi ng of t he text seems th e o nly possib le one. It is the b inary construction of mean ing as either literal o r allcgori .. cal that gives away the roots of th is way of ap proaching literary texts, fo r the w idc.r rhetorical education and literary criticism of which it was part taught srudcnts aU manne r of sryliSLic com positional tropes and figu re.s, a mong which "allegory" was jus t one. The reduction of
linguistic anifacrs to only two possible meanings, therefore, is rooted in this courtroom hermeneutic by which tcxts arc either true o r f:1l.sc, word or intention, evidence o r countcr~cvidcncc. \'\lh ile the customary narrative of early C hristian exegesis. an d even some rC"ccnt revisions of it, have sought to argue that there arc two discrete ''schools.. of early C hristian exegesis- sober Ant iochene literalists and lofty Alexandrine
al1egorists- rhis can be seen as a reAcction of modern historicaJ..criti· c isms self-interest in ground ing its purported practices of literal reading in antiqu ity {and hence painting the Antiochenes in their image),
a marriage of convenience also with Reformation polemics agai nst alleged Catholic allegory coming o ut of th e medieval world.'-' The labels
!31 The other ';ln'a in which this is fdc is the modern construction of "rypology" (the
te rm firsl appc.1.rs in the 19'" cemury) as an exegetical mon· l hat is sep.1rate and separ.lble fro m "allegoty,.; l hi.s i.s a w.1y to ha\'C' a Christian reading of the "O ld Testament" while s~king to maintain clai m~ o f historicity. Rcce:ntly the suic-.ability of chis caregorie1l distinction to ancient exegesis has bttn queslioned, e .g., by Peter Manens ("Revisiting the Allegory/Typology D istinction: The Case o f O rigen,..JECS 16 r200SJ, pp. 283-3 17). who shows that O rigen did not distinguish typoi from aJiegories. In the
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU' SCJHPTURJ::S •
183
''literal,. an d "allc.gorical." in sum, arc '' figh t ing words,'• te rms meant ro justify o ne's own read ing an d den igrate that of t he orhcr; 24 it perhaps is worth emphasizing that it takes two to tango, an d hence the polemics o f t he usc o f th ese terms arc fou nd on both sides: t he sdf-stylcd lite ralist inveighs against the allcgorist's fictio nalized flights of fancy. The allcgorist complains that the literalist is as ear th-bound as a lumbering cow. seeing no further than t he next blade of grass for its c ud and missing the world of mysteries that swirls around its head. Implicit in these a rgume nts arc also class d istinctions; rhc educated know an allegory when t hey sec one (because t hey arc better read), b u t silly rubes have o nly one: hermeneutica l gc.ar in their pick~up truck's man ual transm is... sion: nai\'c. and simplistic literalism. The allcgorisrs.• in turn, can be branded elitist snobs. It i.s my contention that scholars too often parrot t hese rhetorical designations as though they constituted description o r analysis. In this paper I would like to explore the specific q uestion of how t he rhetorics ofliteral and allegorical interp retations of Scripture fu nction in the constructed d iscourse of early C hristian martyrdom. Through two (all too b rief) case stud ics- Tcrtu llian at Carthage and Origcn at Cacsarca-1 hope to show how t he literaliallcgorical d ich otomy is defied by actual texts " which p romiscuously and paradoxically interm ix these
mod«n period, while prominent voices such -as James B:trr h:wc dar«! to name mod· ern theological commentary a form of allegory Q. lh rr, ..Th< Liteul, the AllcgoriCll,
and Modl Scholarship," }SOT44 [ 1989[, pp. 3-17), on th< who!< th<sdfdraping mamlc of the "'liter.1J imcrprc.-ters'" has stuck, c·•..-e n as it has (:unaz.ingly, to my mind} in modern American culture and m«
184
MARGARE'r M. MITCHELL
supposedly polar commit ments to where truth is to be found- i n the "dialect of t he holy Script ures.""·
Tertullian of Carthage Tertullian, famo us for t he botanical bon mot, "the blood [of the ma r· tyrs) is the seed of t he Christians (Apol. 50. 13: semen m sanguis (/;ristianorum) 127 was t he autho r of several works o n martyrdom,:!3 but I shall focus attention here o n one t hat is perhaps lesser known, Scor· pincr, ''ant idocc against the scorpio n." 29 Jn t his work compos-ed perhaps in c• 203/204, maybe a decade late r,»Terrullian inveighs against ''oppo· ncn rs of martyrdom" (mdrt)lriorum rifrttgatores)J 1 who, as he puts it m idway th rough, refuse to accept the "literal" sense o f biblical passages t hat he presents as manifestly, d early, a nd unamb iguously calling fo r Christians to be martyred rather than acquiesce w hen judicially fo rced to perform certain fu nct io ns related to civic. cult. Jo in ing Jesus in the douds at h is second coming docs not, in fact, p lay much of a role in t h is text at all. Focusing h is argument on a pre-selection of passages dis· posed to his case, Terrullian a t o ne point casts the problem as one of b ib lical hermeneutics: it is the allegorical method , he im plies, t hat leads Valcntinians to de ny the p lain sense of the b ib lical record (ch. 11). But he also, invC'rscly, roms their q uest fo r a n allegorical reading o f some
Th< quotation, fro m Origcn, will be explained below. m O n which sec." the insightful discussion of B. Lcycrfe. '"Blood is Seed."JRS I (200 1}. pp. 26-48. !fll The most famous (unless he is indeed t he .-.uthor or t he Passio Prrpmuu t't Faicitatis) is an exhonation Ad Marrynu, perhaps daring ro Cf. 197. !~J 1 eire the text from J. \'\f:uzink, Trrtul!iani oprm {2 vols.~ CCSL 2; 1Urnholt: Brepols. !l.l
1954), vol. 2. pp. I 067-97: the tramlations art' mine. JOl
T.D. Barnes puts it in 203/4 ("'l Cnullian•s 'scorpiace'," JTS n.s. 20 11969),
pp. 105 32). as against the traditional dating in 213 (e.g., Johannes Qwsten, Patrology 12 vols.; Utrechr: Spc<:trum, 19531. vol. 2, p. 282}. "" mnp. 1.5; cf. 1.13: qui manpiit rrfragamur. For other excoriations by '"onhodox,. authors in l ;~te antiquity against "Gnostics" (Basilide-.uu, Valeminians, others) for not ac<epting mart}'rdom. a nd ror some eviden ce that th is was not a .sole or consistent ..G nostic" position, se< B.A. PeJ.rson. GJJIJJticism, judaism and Egypthm Chrisr.ianil) 4
(Ph;laddphia: Fortr= Press, 2006), pp. I89-90.
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU ' SCJHPTURJ::S •
185
passages (such as their transference of"confcssing Jc.sus" to heaven from earth) in a kind of extreme literalism when it comes to others. Because of it, these "hcmics" put in jeopardy the very character of God; if texts such as "precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his own holy o nes" (i's . 116: 15) arc taken literally, they aver, Cod is a m urderer (7. 1: lncu.#nt ad/me scorphrs homicidnm. drum urntilam .. .), and the Chris.. tian cult a Jimesra rrligio ("deadly religio n") (7.7)." To this, Tenullian ups the ante by saying, "yes," in the words of Prov. 9:2, " Wisdom has slain her own children" (7. 1-2}, but then provides the interpretive key: ''they understand a word not by its sound alo ne. but also its sense; not by hearing it with cars alone, but also with the m ind" (7 .5). ( V.rbo 11011 sono solo sapiunt. sed rt semu, nee nuribus tffntummodo audirnda sun.t, sed t't mentibtts). Strategic variance. to be sure, but surely not a firm methodological
Tcrtullian's treatise adopts the fo rm of a classical deliberative speech, which urges a course of action o n a public audience
by reference to
a standard set of rhetorical hcads--<:hicAy, ho nor and advantage (honestas, utilitas [Cicero, De l11vmtione 2.52)}. But he also plays with the form by declari ng at the outset that h< will not prove that martyrdom is good o r advantageous (bommt, utilitrts) befo re h<shows it to be a d uty (debitum) and necessity (nrmsitrls) (and hme< beyond the fretwill of the hearer to ado pt o r no t ado pt that is the logical precondition for a deliberative argument) (2. 1). Indeed, in just that spirit Tertullian states that htretics should be compelled (comprUi) to this "duty" (officium) rather than enticed (inliCI); obstinacy should be conquered (uincmda} not persuaded (s11r1denda}. That leaves the non-heretics, Tcnullians construct of his audience, to whom he extends rhetoric rathe r than vio#
lence, proffering a spoonful of pot
m The other items in the list are htgubrt'f rirm, am rogrn 3Jld po/!incttJTrs sacadott'f (funC'rJJ rites, an altar pyre and undcrtlkcr priests). HC'rc lenullian has allied fhC' "'bl:uphcmy.. of (he Gnostics with a charact<'rizarion of"'p;l&~n" rults.
186
MARGARE'r M. MITCHELL
The arrangement (dispositio) of th e argument proving th is proposit io n is quite straigh tforwa rd,'' as "TCrtullian marches out h is scriptural p roofs scqucmially fOr maximum rhetorical cffec.t. The ancicm law shows that a.primordio God willed the C hristian to be martyred rather
than commit idolatry; more recent times, those of the IJOtl itrts Chris~ tianrt in the Cospds, arc no diffCrent from that ancient tradition. Jn each corpus a lawgiver voic.cs d ivine pmecept.tf (Moses, Jc.sus)~ wh ich a follow-up squad (prophets, apostles) confirms by exemplnand exegesis. When citing the praeuptn ofTorah against idolatry. Tcrtull ian serves as a megaphone amplifYing the d ivine imperative: "you shall have no other gods besides me. You shall not make a likeness of things which arc in
heaven, and which arc o n the earth bdov~·t and which arc in the sea below the earth. You shall not worship them nor serve them (Noll adorabis ea, nequeJamufaberis eis)" (Exod. 20:2). O ne of t he ironies oflitcralism (then and now) is its felt need to produce multiple p roofs, when, t heoretically, the presence of a single statement in holy Scripture should be enough to discern the d ivine will. But in an argument (especially where th ere are d iffcrcnc readings o n t he table), amassing evidence mat.. tcrs, so Tcrtullian, greatly aided by the compositional processes underlying the Pentateuch of which he was happily u naware but rhetorically rcsourced, is a ble to c ite f(mhc.r laws against idolatry, both in Exodus
HI
My analysis of {hC' disposition of the argument may be b id out in briC'f. as fol-
lows:
Exordium 1. 1- 13 Prop01itio aud Di11isio 2.1-2a (weighing o f ddibcr.1tive hc.lds an d promise of scripruraJ proofs, wirh law 6rst. and Gospds later) Probatio 2.2h- 15.6. arrJnged as promised, in two s«tions: with fllltiquitas., i.e., Law/ OT (pram·pta 2.2-14;. exempla 3. I-8.8) and then uovilflJ CiJrisri:ma. the Gospd s (pmrupta 9. 1- 11.3: pnuupm become: pnudimra 11.4-8; t'Xrmplil of mululla scripummtm 12. 1-14..3; exemp/a invC'rsion from lcttC"rs to li"-cs of the ChriHi uho/n I5. 1-6) Pmm11io 15.7
My compositional outline" varies from that offi.red by Barnes ("TerttJllian's 'scorpiace'... pp. 108- 10), parcirularfr in the proof s('('fion. I SC'C'k co replic:uc the oven dues Tertulli:.ln pro\·ides ;1long the way about the d isposition, which unfolds precisely a.s he promises, with a few (planned!) surprise moves. & rncs' analysis \'aluably highlights the objections fO which Tenullian responds throughout the argument: I agree that rhis is import:un, but I do not think it is the structural principle on which the work is designed.
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU' SCJHPTURJ::S •
187
and in their rewriting in Deuteronomy (the "second law") (Exod. 20:22; Deut. 6:41; 11:27f; 12:2; 12:30). Thclegal codes also provide, in Deutero nomy 13, a prophetic fo reshadowing of the scorpion himself, a false prophet or even a member of o ne's own household, who tries to lure
people into idolatry. Te.rrullian ominously repeats the LordS verdict: "you shall stone him, and he will die" (Dcut. 13: I 0; sc01p. 2.1 0) ."' Citing Deut. 13:16ff. and 27:15, Tertullian calls down the precedent of divine de-struction on full cities of idolators, and rc:~acrivatcs by rcci# ta[io n scriptural curses on those who make o r worship them. Further support fro m Leviticus (lev. 19:4; 25:55; 26: 1) and "other passages" (Pss. 135:15f. 11 5:4) follows, with an interpretive bridge: thc.sc things were spoken first by the l ord thro ugh Moses, but they arc pertinent for all later generatio ns (ad OJIIIIN utiqur pertillmtia) who have been led by God from the metaphorical "Egypt" of a most superstitious world and home of human slavery (dr Aegypco sttpmtitiosissimi samdi el dr domo bumanae srruitutis rduxait (2.1 3]). God 's word to Moses also receives fUnhc:-r confirmation, Tcrtullian argues, by every prophet who followed and served as divine mouth piece; he is careful to insist that this involved no change in the precept (once stated it needed no change), ju.st repetition and renewal (the ultimate literalist hnmencutic). 1crtullian will follow the same pattern when it comes to the New "Jc.s tamcnt, first dealing sarcastically with the o bjection that maybe the "novitas Christiau«" is new in precisely this re.spcct-maybc in Jesus God o pposed his own code of rules and now called a halt to the command to be: martyred? 'TO overturn this obje.ccion Tertullian turns first1 not to parousiacclouds, bur to the mountain of the Beatitudes: "blc.sscd arc those who arc persecuted for righteousne-ss sake, for to them belongs the kingdom of the heavens" (Matt. 5:10). As in the case oflorah, a series of gospd praerepllllmandata follow, all emphasizing that the Christ-bdicvcr will, even must, encounter suffering fo r the faith ("Watch o ut for people, for they will hand you over into sanhedri ns and will whip you in the synagogues and you will be led before governors and king; fo r my sake, as a testimony against them and the gcntilc.s" [Matt. I 0: 17 )). An ingenious move allows Tcrtullian to transfer to Christians I cannot he~ cntC'r into the issues involved in lCrruUian's biblic:tl text; I citC' the- ..-crsific:uion .-.ccording fO the Vulgare. despite diffc:~nccs in textual reading. }<)
188
MARGARE'r M. MITC H ELL
of h is day words Jesus ad dressed to the twelve d isciples in t he "missio n d iscourse" (ch. 10): since the text goes o n to say t hat "brother will hand b rother over to d eath, and a fa ther his child ," etc. (Matt. 10:2 1), bu t in f:tct none of t he apostles was handed over by a broth er, so Jesus must have had a wider au dience in vkw (a context ual exegesis beyond the literal). That is us, Tcrrullian tells his readers, "discip les by inheritance, shoots of the a postolic seed " (9.3: ur in hereditarios discipulos et apos-
toiici snninisJruticrs). 'TI'c key passage for t he martyrdom debate is not Matthew 24, bu t Matt. 10:32: "Anyone who will confiss in me before men, I, too, will conftss in him. before my farhc r who is in the heavens. And anyone who drnies me before men, I, too, will deny him before my Farhcr, who is in heave n." For Tertullian th is saying points indisputably to the need to conf~ss C hrist in the courtroom by saying " Christian us sum." H is oppo .. ncn ts emphasize that t h is phrase is not t here, and they seize o n t he lack of parallelism in the two clauses (in mf! conjfssus fiterit, a vestigial Scm .. itism in t he Old Latin, versus mr negdutrit).J:O an ambiguity that allows for diffe rent meanings of the two act ions (confession a nd den ial) and thc.ir relat io n ro one anochcr. Tntullian's first recourse is a fam iliar l ie~ eralism topos: t he text actually is perfectly clear (even if not as clear as he wished it wcrd). H e asserts: /V/aniftstll. ur opinor. dejinitio l't rn.tio rst tam confrssionis quam negationis. t>tsi Jjspositio diu-l!rsa est (9.8) (''the ter.. minology a nd rationale fo r confession and fo r de n ial arc utterly clear, in my view, although the a rrangement of terms is d iffere nt"). Bur Tcrtullian has a problem, both wit h the lack of parallelism between qui i11 me conftssusJueritand qui me negnul'rit, and the: fact that C1JristirtJuts"thc name" which is the basis of judicial confessio n and condcmnation-'6-docs not ap pear in ch is text. \XIh at docs it mean to confess to be " in Christ"? In order co demonstrate [ha[ "confessing in C hrist.. is t he same as saying C1Jristilmus sum. Tertullian resorts to syllogistic logic. This is :t "literal,. translation of the G reek O!IOAoyi\Ott tlv i:~ol. BO AC. 708: BDF W.O. O:t\·ics and D.C. Allison, Critical and txtgrtirnl co1mnmuny on du Gosp~:l naording to Saim .~fatrlmo (3 \•ols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. C brk, 1988), vol. 2, p. 215 n. 9, for hOdJ/, ~(compare I Kgs. 8:33. 35. with simple dative) . ji;! As F.tmously argued in hisApolog
220~
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU' SCJHPTURJ::S •
189
He who confes.scs that he is 01 Christian testifies rlut he bdongs to Christ; the o ne
who is Christ's is by necessity ..in Christ."' If he is ..in C hrist," certainly he "confesses in Christ" when he confesgs that he is a C hristian. For he is not able to be this unless he is "in Christ... Morro\·er, b}' confessing "'in Christ"' he also confes$es Christ; the one who is i n him, inasmuch as Christ himsdfis in him. is, naturally, a Christian.
Then he embellishes th e modus ponws with a meta pho rical plea for the literal reality of the term t hat is actually not there: For if rou will say "da)~"
}'OU
h;lve also shown t he reality (m) of light which
furnishes the-- day, ('VC'Il though you h:t\"C' not s.1id (the word) "light." In rhe same w.ay, even if Jesus did not d irccdy dedare "t hC' one who will confess. me,,. t he act o f confession in t his life (i.e., Cl!risriauus sum) i$ not d iffere nt fro m t he me:l.ning of t he l ord's declaration (m:m est diuams ... a semu dominicac pnmumiationis)
(9.9).
Hence the: "litcrar sense is appC3.lcd to,. even fOr a word not in the tcxt.37 Logical consistency docs not hold Tertullian back from later t urning o n the opponents and saying, if Jesus mcanc confession in heaven why he d idn't say this mani/Nte "openly an d d early," so as to avoid all m isu nderstand ing? (10.4). The hemic's effort to move "co nfe.ssing in m e" fro m earth to heaven is, in 1c rtullian's eyes, a grossly inapp ropriate allegorical eleva tion. because, far from sa nit iz.ing the affair, it would requi re t ransporting t he entire a pparatus of state. p<:rsecution into heav<:n: betrayers, magi.snates, p risons, and racks. As he excoriates th is idea "lcrtullian goes fo r lowball comed ic rd ief (/udimrm), conced ing t hat there: might be some conven iences in t his change of ve nue fo r the p ros_,. ecution, fo r t he heavens come prc:~stocked with instruments of to rture: hailstones for stoning, thu nderbolts for burning, O rion's sword fo r d ismemberment, and ad bmitts punishme nts read ily staffed by t he constellations Ursa Maior, Minor and friends l eo an d Taurus (I 0.9-12). No , Tertullian will go on to argue, Jesus' calls to withstand persecut ion a nd make confession- "'The one who finds h is life will lose it, and t he o ne who loses it fo r my sa ke will fi nd it" (Ma tt. 10:39, quoted in srorp. m lCnullia n adds 'J further explanation: that Jesus phrased t he .second cla use as he did ("deny me,.. r..uhcr than "'d eny in me") because he foresaw what fo rm the judicial persecutions would t.lke.
190
MARGARE'r M. MITCHELL
11.1)-sou nd just like they mea n; they a te not, he avers, allegories, parab les o r enigmas, which by definition a rc forms that say one thing and mean an other( .. . rt aliud i11uodbus erit, aliutl in semibus, ut aile~ gorin,, m parrtbolne, ut amigmatn 111.4): "there will be one t hing in words, and anothe r in meani ngs, as with alle.gorics, parables and enigmas"). They cannot be allegorized away as a figurative e.xprcssion of commirmcm, or of the ascent of rh c soul. Applying a common invcc-· rive again.st allegorizing, Tcrtullian says t hat where his opponents e ngage in windy speculation (the m ixed metapho r has the scorpion trimming a sailboat!) to avoid and distort th e dear sense of such passages, he offers h is audie nce a close read ing and secure f."ts. He-unlike they-docs not seck to create an alternate meaning for the text; he seals the argu· mcnt with the coup de grace o fl itcralism topoi- the slippery slope-as h is "chief line of defense." Once o ne separates lite ral text from literal reality, all hell will b reak lose.'' Tcrt ullian has the scriptural p rophecy and its fulfillment (the scriptum and m) locked in a tautological tango: This is wlut rhe lord dedarcd (Sic Mmim1s rdixir)f' If he declared these things otht'nvisc (nliur), then why do rhcy not h~ppen otherwise than how he declared it, which is in the W:l}' he declared~ And yet they do not happen otherwise than he declared. Therefore just as they happen, so he decl\l.rtd, an d just as he ded an-d, so tht')' happen. For the)' would not h;lVe b~n allow<'d to happen otheJWi.sc than he declared. nor would he for h is part have declared orhetwise than he had wished to happen. So, these Scripture passages will not mean anything other than what we recognize' fro m actual facts (Ita IIIJII n/ir,dsignifimlnmr. scripmrM istllt' quam in ubus n'toguosrimus (11 .5-71).
11d ip.ws r($ prouorabumm; a!l Jt'amdum J.(Tiptunu muuigmuur. Siquidnn tuur nliud signijicahimr i11 scriptr~ris, si mm id iptum rrprriatur i11 rrbus. Quod mim scriprum tst, INX rtunin· oporttbit. Porro tunr rumit't quod m J('riptum, Ji 11011 .1/itt'r mmirt ("'a chai-
J8'1
IC"nge will be issued to the ~·ents rhemseh·cs, as to wh<'thC'r they ha\·e rmnspircd according co the Scriprures. Then it is rhe ase that anothC'r reality will he de-signatcxl in the Scriptures, if that very o ne is not fo und in the C"\o·ems. For it will be necC'ssary that that which is writtC'n come to pass. Moreover, \',:Jut is written will come to JXlSS, if somerh ing dsC' will not" 111 .4-5)). J'>! rdict'rt', "proclaim"' (as magistrates), "se:.1te p ublicly," "declare" (OLD, s.v.,
pp. 585·86).
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU' SCJHPTURJ::S •
19 1
\Xih ile he rhetorically takes the earthly, lite ral road in this treatise, we must observe t hat the d.iscoursc of marty rdom t hat Tcrtullian constr ucts a nd defends is itself ultimately and acutely allegorical: t hat is. it sup-
pLies dJJ rtfternnte set ofrifrrents fOr a sn ofdctiom nnd rvords. He docs not call it allegorical, but h is language, already in the exordium, catches him out. Thc:rc Tcrtullian c:.xcoriatcd his o pponents fo r reversing the patterns of allc.gorical mapping t hat his martyrological discourse had so carefully maintained: the .,enemies of martyrdom, arc the ones, he accuses, who tu rn salvation into destruction , the sweet into b itccrncss, light into darkness, the future life into t his p resent life (1 . 13). This is a n allegorical full Nelson. of course, since t he martyrological logic had already made this same set of transpositions in the opposite din:ction. turning the bitterness of real judicial death into the sweetness of ctcr~ nal lifc, t he destructio n of the body into the salvation of th e soul, etc. Like wrestlers on a mat Tcrtullian and h is "scorpio n" flip each other fro m o ne back to anothcr-_you arc the allcgorist1 no you arc! Pots, kettles a nd everyone in t he kitchen is t-ailing everyone else black. The remarkable task Tcrtullian takes upon himself is to defend t his ultimately allegorical mindsct by a purportedly literalist hermeneutic."' Yct, indeed, Tcrtullian's cxc.gcsis of Matt. I 0 :32 itself depends, not on a simple single literal meaning, but on the tumble mtendre of the t
One of the most strident modern critics of allegory, R.P.C. Hanson, to his relief found c:nough literJJism in Tcrtullian's biblic:~J interpretation to satisfy him: .. But though l~rtullian is rcadr to acknowledge as legitimarc the practice of .-.Jiegori:ting
Scripture in the Church of his day. and will occasionall}' ha\'C recourse to it himsdf, he oftC'n rejects the pr.lcticc ':lnd his writings lea,·c a gC"ner.-.J improsion that he was suspicious of alkgory ... l nd~d Tcrtullian's intcrprc:r.uion of Scripture, where he is not using any and evC'ry argument in order to indulge in speci\11 pleading. lcav~ a ''C't)'
favourable imprcssion on the modcrn re"Jdcr. Its charJctc-ristics 01~ common scnsc, re.1J· ism, and rC'Str:tint" ("Notes on Tcrtulli:m's Approach to Scripttlre,,. JTS n.s. 22 f 1961J, pp. 273·279 (274·275]}. Whifc Hanson herc tacitl)' concede'S rhetorically vari.ability in 1Cnulli.an, he thinks it .:an be' SC't asidc "JS an exception to a more genC"r.tl pn£ercncc for the literal. Although Hanson cite.s scorpinrr 11.4 "JS evide-nce ofTcrtullian's rejection of allcgory, as we see, f!Wn in this trc.atisc he demonstrates a flexible, strate-gic approach to textual imcrprtt..nion. •I) This is a word play th:u Tertulli.an had used to de"'<'Olst:u:ing sarcastic effect in h is Apolognicum (ch. 2: you torturt othC"r criminals to get them to admit. but us to gct us to de-ny).
192
MARGARE'r M. MITC H ELL
the Torah, divine law can also functio n prophetically: the pnucepta of C hrist about his followers meeting persecutio n become praedicnta (things "announced" in Scripture about the fu ture). This is how Tcrtullian forms a transitio n to the apostolic. exmrp!d that will confirm the laws ofJesus. Tcrtullian now turns to the apostolic letters of Peter, John ( 12) and then Paul (13-14), in order to show that they, as authors of the Christi scho/a {the "school of C hrist"), were literal interpreters of Jesus, as well as compositio nal literalists themselves who urged martyr· dom o n their own readers. Peter, John and Paul. he argues, would have been the first to know if C hrist had given his prnecepta as ftgura vocis sune; afte r all, he disclosed to them effigies g/orinulllle ( 12. 1)! So the apostolic letters become crucial attestatio ns of the litem/ truth of the Gospel promises. TcrtullianS rhetorical question characterizes the apo.s .. tics as compositional literalists who do not "write something other than what they think," "teachers of tr uth, not deceit" (A,. et iUi aliter, quam srntirmt. scribunt, foi/acirte magisrri. 11011 ueritn'tis?} (1 2. 1). In the final chapter Tcrtull ian pulls o ut what this consum mate rhct· orician presents as his most unchallengeable argument. In a surprising about face Tcrtullian now apparently undercuts the confidence in the textual evidence he so painstakingly assembled up until this point. Tcrtullian allows (for argument's sake) that the words of the apostolic cpisrlcs he has jusr q uoted arc malleable (Num ergo
tics, "written in their blood" (ipsomm snnguine scripta su.nt [ 15.2]), supc· rior, concrete and unmanipulablc proof of the duty of martyrdom for the. Christian. Here he invokes the succession of imprisonments, b.:.at#
ings, whippings and harassments in the Acts of the Apostles and other works which, he says, using the last recourse of all self- professed liter· alists, have no need of interpretation (interp"tem non hnbent). Forget their words and just gaze at their deeds as proof of the necessity and utility of martyrdo m, he appeals. But Tcrtullian knows better than to saw off the literal limb on which he stands: he comes full circ.Jc by join· ing the deaths of the apostles with the author/authority topos to say that
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU' SCJHPTURJ::S •
193
both joined together arc "teachers of martyrdom."" This brings to a dose an argument Tcrrullian introduced earlier, that the apostles, as the Christi scbo/11, ("school of Christ"}, know how to plum b to the very marrow of the Scriptures (medulln scripturttrum). lf jcsus had said these things in the veil of allegory (figurn vocis mile) the apostles would have known it, told it, and not gone to their deaths for it ( 12.1). But finding their intent in the: meaning of their lives (an argument fOr a non# literal intention by an appeal to context) dcmonstratc.s precisely the limits of the literal sense- the words themselves- to carry the day. The conclusio n to t he work calls on the readers to drink his "antidote"; hardly a simple literalistic recall of apocalyptic scenarios, Tertullian's literary argument, based on biblical excmpla, is wrapped in a metaphorical conceit that renders the whole purportedly literal argument agai nst "gnostic" allcgorists itself an c.xcrcisc in figurative speech.
Origen of Caesarea Less than 25 years after Tcrtullian. o n the eastern shore of the Mcditcrracan at Cacsarca, Origcn composed a JtPOtP£1ntK0~ (A6yo;), "pro-m~ptic speech," of a fOrm normally used to entice converts to a particular philosophical school (Ar istotle's was the most famous in antiquity, but there arc many others). O rigen, no mean philosophe.r himself, wrote his 1lil01Ptntll(O:; tl:; ~o:pr\Jptov; rather than calling fo r conversio n to the Peripatetic School, the Academy, that ofStoics, Cynics or others, or even to Christian doctri nes and away from ''paganism.. (as did Clement o r Tatian, fo r instance), O rigcn urges two educated men who arc already Christian, Ambrosius and Proroctcnus, and orhcr readers through them, to accept a judicial death under Maximinus Thrax (reg. 235-238)" he terms a "testimonial act" (JIO:PTUPIOv}. According Hau ubit'IJmqu~ iam /~g~ro, pati diKo; ~~~~- umt imrrcu~ quo; Mquar mar9•rii magif tros, Mmusur n11 exitus npotUJi4mm, mii quod et mutts i11 exiribus r~rognosro (1 5.4). •J> EusC"bius, h. ~. 6.28 (pC"rhaps I"C'Iying on trJditions rh.-.t go lxlck ro Firmilian of Canho~gc's correspondC"ncc with Origcn; sec P. Naurin, Origh1r !Paris: Bcauch ~ n c, 19771. pp. 72-7'3). places Origen's exlwrtmio ad lllllrl)'rium in the reign of Maximi nus, and S3)'S of this p
4
4
194
M ARGARE'r M. MITC H ELL
to Eusebius' biograp hical account of O rigcn, th is was in fact h is sec.o nd attempt at the genre, t he first being in an epistolary exhortat io n wrincn when he was a me re boy to his own fa ther in pri.son (OtcxnSIJnetCU t~> 1ltttj)t nj)Otj)£nttKrotthqv nep\ ~a.pn>p(ou tn~enoAftv), urging him nor to falte r fro m martyrdo m b("c.ausc of concern fo r his son . Lconidcs was killed (Eusebius, lu . 6 .2.6). In h is own nj)Otj)£nttK~ O rigen will cite two b ib lical protreptic precedents, Isaiah and Jesus (34), as one of the ways he unites h is hybrid c ultu ral inheritance a nd harmonizes h is own exhortation into t he biblical record . This lo ng and complicated G ree.k text has the same subject a nd purpose as Tertullian's, a nd to a large degree t he same cho ice of prooffro m Scripture, b ut a very d iffe rem fed -less edgy a nd more lyrical, less sar<:astic and more seductive, O rigcn's text is a scriptural tour de force with frcc· han d nco.-Platonic inte rludes that swell like waves a mo ng the scriptural sailboats he launches o ne after a nothe r in an effort to sup port the call to accept the fate of ma rty rdo m. The usc of Script ure here, too, is m uch more complex.• artistic and hence pe rsuasively power ful than mere literalism (or even allegory) as a label can capt ure. As with 'TCnullian's scorpincr, O rigcn's l'xbortatio docs not begin wit h Jesus com ing o n the clouds, o r wit h some myth ical scenario dangled befo re the eyes of h is c red ulous audito rs, nor with an ap peal to take things literally o r at f."e value. In /act.• the o pe ning gambit appeals d irectly beyond t he literal, beyond the surface, to superio r knowledge accessible to t hose who have left in /ant ile simp licity behind: Those who h:1ve been wean ed fro m mother's m ilk. chose who have been drawn away from the brC':Ist, ncapt {sing.} affiicrion upon a fR icrion, neap: hope upon hope, for still a little while, by rhe d isparagement o f lips. through an alien tongue. tvforeO\o'Cf, you (pl.). roo, most godl}' religious Ambrosius a nd most goodly
AJexander Severus (222-23)), who (EusC'bius cxagger.ates) had mosdy C hrist-believers in his hou.sc-hold. and 2) was resrrictcd to church lc.1ders (ot tOOv thn\'ArtOtCiw O.pzovtr.~ !l6vot}. Eusebius pms Ambrosius o1nd Proux:renus in Caesarca {the former Origen•s litC'rary patron, the l:mer the presbyter there ref. mart. 421). It must be admiued. however, th:Jt Maximinus docs not receive mention in rh e work itself; rhe key piece of evidc:nce for the modern o1cceptancc: of Eusebius' tr.:~dition is §A I, v,:hich mentions persecution in Germany. where Maximinus was victorious in 235. whc:r<:'as Decius \\~J.s never in Ge rmany {Nautin, Orightr, 76).
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU' SCJHPTURJ::S •
195
religious Protocccnus. in accordance with Isaiah, since you arc no longer fleshly nor babies in Christ but, having advanced in maturity of intellect, no longer
luving n«d of milk, but of solid food, he.u (pl.). like those who have btt-n weaned from motherS m ilk a nd drawn away from the b~:tSt. how not simply affl iction, but afHiction upon affiiction, is prophesied for those who .u\" weaned, as in the case of :nhlctcs. And the o ne who docs not reject t he affiiccion upon affliction, but accC'pts it like a noble :athlete immedi3td y accepts -aJso hope upon hope. which he will receive not long aftcr the affiiction upon affliction. For that is what "still a
little while,. mc.Jns.44
The opening quotation from !sa. 28:9- 11 is meant as a captntio bmevolentinr of chc rccipicms, who are described as mature and beyond need ofbaby food, since they arc not fleshly men b ut intdlcctuals; concerned with spiritual realities, they surdy will not choose t he route of saving th e flesh. Ambrosius. it bears noting~ was a fo rme r Valentinian intellectual" whom O rigcn had brought into t he "orthodox" fold; Origcn pitches his a rgument, as a rhctor should, to the lcvd of his a udience, b ut in this case he m ust tread the line between orthodoxy and gnosis rathe r carefully. Setting forth from h is choice inaugural quotatio n fro m Isaiah, O rigcn knits, term by term, h is exegesis of this Isaiah text into Pau line arguments ( 1 Cor. 3:1 ; Hcb. 5: 12) which both employ the baby food topos, and set affliction a nd hope into a contrasting yet mucual relationship. \XIh at we have at the outset (to cast it in a musical metaphor) is a lovdy antiphonal duct between Isaiah and Paul, each popping in with fugue notes to balance the other. The author Paul is not introduced by name u m il sc.veral of h is utteran ces have already entered th e choral play. But the reader who satisfies the first condition-ironically that first m in motion by Paul h imsdfin 1 Corinthia ns ~fbeing a mature in itiate, has heard the Pauline fugue line much earlie r. The savvy hearer already is in o n the game-the b ib lic
Origen,!lwrt. I (text ed. P. Kocuchau. GCS (lcipz.ig: Hinrichs, 18991~ my translation, :u throughom this css:~y) . 4S> According to Euscbius,/u. 6 .28. 1, he is one of ol O.rtO Jt(( I~Ela; ('those who have received an education"). 4t)
196
MARGARE'r M. MITC H ELL
tA.n i> ("hope") (cf. Rom. 5:3 -5) . In the second c hapter of the exhortJ~ tio Origcn explains the hcrmcncurical pre-u nderstandings of h is own work. He skillfully plays on Isa iah's depictio n of the persecutors as people of"anothcr tongue" (i n his case, Assyrians). by recasting t hem as th ird.. ccnt ury comcmporarics whom Origcn labds "fOreigners co the dialect of the holy Scriptures" (ol a/..AOtplOl tii> Kttt&.t&., ayitt> ypttq>&., OtttAEK10U}.'" The d ivision forefronts the form of proofO rigen will use in t his argu ment: to demonstrate th at "the dialect o f the holy Scriptures" speaks with a d ear and unanimous voice calling the committed C hris· tian to martyrdom. His own exhortation is emp hat ically not a Berlitz... course in that d ialccti it is insiderS rhetoric chat both presumes knowledge of th e web of scrip tu ral inter-texts a nd is meant to deepen and channel the hearer's interp retation of them to a pa rticular end . Origen ho pes to p lant chosen Scriptures (along wit h his interpretat io n of them) in the minds of his readers, for activatio n by their memories when t he right time comes. Bur this technique o f hyperbolic citation is also, q u ire intentionally, meam to render Origc:n's discou rse actually not Origcn's, such th at he serves as the ventriloqu ist for the sacred Scrip· tures. He is like. t he magical conductor in D isney's Famnsin who b rings the visions to life. To give you a sense of how Origen cedes h is voice to this "dialect of t he holy Scrip tu res," I have tried to fash ion a visual rep· rcscntat io n .
pi
OltoyqiiMKTIOp&\101 no yciMKt:O(;,orcJrq:onao~\101 no !JUOTOU, OM tv (til eAr FPooSixov, ttpoo&:xo!:!iMEJ_&a in' thni6t, €t:l pucm i g ~tKeOv. &Ji! qxxuAto}!·v ~tU 81Ct y.\WOOJlt; iti~ Kai UltEic; rolvuv Kar« -rOv 'Hoa'io:v W<; oVKEn ~KlVO oV&t iv. ~~.YtjtUO! fte2K9 ~ ( ft vo~fi.~!JY.tKiq: 'A~p6ou:_ ~oot:~OTatt Kal npw t6Ktrjtt ti>aEpiotatE, Kai .. 11Kin ,;!)(:toV lx~_c; y'aliKTOI) d:llli OiEpEiit; ~
Origcn, man. I
The sheer a mount of real c:st:ate givC'n over here to "the dialect of the holy Scriptures (quote.s and allusions in gray scale) is extraord inary, ~lSI 111/IY/,
2.
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU' SCJHPTURJ::S •
197
and constitutes a fo rcc-fidd, or perhaps spider's web, in which the hearer i-s caught, to the inevitable end (indeed, their own two names arc embedded in white right in the middle). Those "white passagcs"- i.c., Origen's own prose style-arc the white caps of which I spoke earlier, his diction contrasting markedly with the more simple Septuagintal style, even as latc.r it is Aavorcd with a conspicuously Platonizing accent. And yet this image docs not fully capture the artisrry involved in Origen's appropriation of Scripture to his protreptic ends. O n the following illustration, the individual scriptural voices arc given a diftCrcm hue.
Although it is no substitute for actually reading the text, of course, this synesthetic. exercise (of seeing rather than hearing scriptural "echoes") can provide a shorthand appreciation of how the Christian o rator has fashio ned a scriptural brocade which is meant both to blanket the recipients in the ineluctable divine speech and soothingly block any alternative lfom view. Isaiah (28:9- 11, gray as above) is the melod y line, Paul comes in ( I Cor. 3: I; Heb. 5:12, in lighter shade), joining Isaiah with a fi::w notes from Luke (2:52, npOK01jiO:Vt£<; ev t j\ ... iJAIIcl'l' even lighter) and 4 Mace (6: I 0, lightc.st). The darkest shading is where Isaiah and Paul sing in concert (fo r 9/.!'l'tS sec 2 Cor. 4: 17; Rom. 5:3-5; 2 Cor. 1-4, etc.; for npooli£xto9o:t e1>.nllio: sec T it. 2: 13). Hermeneutically, for O rigcn, Scripture is both uniform (first illustration) and a choral harmony (second illustration) and he varies the template as useful for his argument. And what is the argument wrapped in these poetics? Thro ugh dense and quite diverse appeals, Origcn seeks to show that the affliction of present martyrdom is not to be avoided, since it brings the promise of immortality and final reward. Martyrdom is defined as the way to "love
198
MARGARE'r M. MITC H ELL
God with one's whole IJrtlXll ("soul," "Iii<:") (Dcut. 6:4; Matt. 22:37 and par.), and the way to return proper recompense to God {l's. 115:3) . Like ' lcrtullian, Origen turns to the Sermon o n the Mount and the Beatitude, "blessed arc those who arc persecuted fo r the sake of justice [ev£Kev OtKatoouv~~) (Matt. 5:10), the authority being the words of Jesus, as backed up by the behavior of the apostles in Acts 5:4 1, who rejoiced at being disho nored im€p tOU OVOf.!<XtO~. After some advice that d raws upon both biblical ideas, like the "mind of Christ" (l Cor. 2: 16; mort. 4), exhortations to courage !Tom the Psalms {Ps. 41), and nco- Platonic ones about how to calm the terror in o ne's soul {i.e ... insis.. renee that one focus on -cO it'(fJ.lOVttC6v1 ~'the governing principle:"), Ori ..
gcn finds a somewhat fo rced analogy for death, which depends on a " " Iand ,'"'carth ." " Itwas c Iunky wo rd pIay on two se nses o f.t hc word Yll• once said to Abraham by God, 'come o ut from your land' (i'E,ei,9e tK Tii> Yii> oou). And it will be said to us soon, in short o rder, 'come out !Tom the whole ear th'" (€E,€1..9ete &.no tii>OAtiSyij<;) . What lies o n the other side is the promise of a di,•ine tour of the kingdom of heaven {a return to the first Beatitude in Matt. 5:3). Now Origcn seeks to anchor the call to suffer martyrdom for justice's sake into the history of Greek ethical thought. O ne can look around and sec people {he has Greek philosophers in mind) who have contested fo r each of the four cardinal virtues: <JO><j>POoU\O), &.vlipeia, -:pp6v1101c;, and even On:vll ('(moderation, courage, practical wis .. dom, justice") ...' But, Origcn insists, it is only among "the elect nation, the holy priesthood, the holy natio n, the people of special possession" (l Pet. 2:9) that one finds those who have contested for euoe~W'.<, a term wh ich is meant to embrace and su persede them all. ei>ai~eta-. a
word both biblical and secular, means "piety," but also comes to be used mctonym ically for "religion" ("pious cult affiliation")." Accused of atheism by those who appear to be polytheists but arc actually atheists
.~ ~, 111/IY/,
5.
5« A. StandhO.ninger, "EUSEBEIA in den Pastoralbric.fen: Ein Beirr-.tg zum einAuss rOmis.c-hen Denkens auf das entstehende Christcmum,.. NvvT 48 (2006).
.OS'!
pp. ; 1-82. on the term in the S<'cond-crntury imperial context; in the New Testament the word is round in later works (I Tim. 2:2: 3:6; 4:7, 8; 6:3. ) , 6; 2 Tim. 3:5:Tic I: 1;
2 Pct. I:3, 6; 3: II ; Am 3: 12).
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU' SCJHPTURJ::S •
199
(oi npo<paott t0ii dvttt noJ,.u9tot ovrts a 9tot), as Origcn paronomastically puts it, the Christians by maki ng their public confessio n arc the all-star team of ei>ai~eux. This is the term by which O rigen presents his two recipients with a stark choice: one either dic.s o n behalf of religion (euai~wx) o r lives with irreligio n (cioi~wx): "they offer themselves on behalf of religion, because they place a higher value on dying a death with religion than living with irreligio n" (npori9evrcxt t>ntp £UO£~£tClS ano9v(laKetv 1tPOTlf.100VT£S tOV f.l£t' £UO£~elClS 9civtttOv t oii f.ltta aae~eicx~ ~ijv).49 Given that Origcn had at the outset of his discourse addressed Ambrosius and Protoctcnus as 9toae~€orttt£ and euae~€ortttt, respectively, he had already skillfully allied them with this predetermined choice, their identity and their fate incxombly determined from the opening paragraph. In defining their choic.c, Origen was also defining religion or piety as o ne thing. and o nly one thingpious subm issio n to a vio lcm death in face: of pcrsccution.)6
Like Tcrtullian, Origcn grounds his argument in biblical law and Jesus Wgia. Here he can ac times be strikingly literal. Fo r insmncc, in deali ng with the first commandment in E.xod. 20:5, which says of idols "you shall not bow down to them, nor should you worship them." Origcn combats a reading thar dilfc.rcntiatcs the two verbs JtPOGK'Uvelv and AcnpsUtlv, in order to claim that worship rcquin:s a certai n mental dis~ position, such that o ne could accommodate by npoaK\lvtlv ("bowing down"), but not thereby i.cxrpei>ttv. They call this O'>f.17t£Pt<popa ("accommodatio n"): O rigcn terms it oetA.icx ("cowardice") ." O rigcn docs not like it, but he docs not dispute the possibility of this reading (even offering Num. 25:2-3 and E.xod. 32:8 in corroboration of considering npoa•"t>Velv as different from worshipping}. nor docs he chal-
mart. 5. As the argument procetds. Origen will cominue to de6ne martyrdom with orh« biblical identifications: this is what it means to "love fhc- Lord with )'OUr whole- soul" (Dem. 6:5; M
iO>)
200
MARGARE'r M. MITC H ELL
lenge the appeal to th e "exact word ing" o n which it is based" (mnrt. 6) . But (he loudly says in mnrt. 7) the issue is not the bowing d own, it is the verbal proclamation, the oath by the fortunchux'l (of t he empe ro r). He re ou tright prohib it io ns on oaths from Jesus (Matt. 5:34), and attri· b urions of such trickery to Satan (Deut. 17:3; 4: 19; c( Rom. 1:25) a rc given, along with h is own piece o f heavenly comic rd ief to match Tertullian's: a personified speech of t he sun, who c ites the first commandment, and rejects worsh ip with the words ofJesus in Mark 10:18: "why do you call me good? No one is good b ut G od"! later in t he work'> O rigcn will fo r strategic. pu rpose.s employ a commonplace c ritique of allegorical exegesis'' by rofuting t hose who say the oath docs not mat· tc r bcc.aus~ they suppose t hat "words/names a re a rb itrary an d have no natu ral connection to the underlying rcalit ic.s of which they arc the
names" (UnoA.a!Jj}avovtb.; tt vt; 9£ot t elvat ti:t 6v6jlO.t<X Kal oUOtJ.iiItOK£ip.eva, OOv iattv Ov6JJ<Xt a).>> The severi ng o f names a nd realit ies is of course t he agc~old complaint about allegorical cxcc.sscs, as we have seen. He re O rigcn takes what seems the more literalist linc1 fo r in rhis context he wanes to main tain that oaths and acclamations to "pagan.. gods o r imperial figures arc effective, and involve t rafficking with the devil. He firmly believes names can summon d emonic beings, through the power of syllabic sounds, and will not allcgoriu: a confessio n or oath directed to "the fi rst god," o r Zeus, or t he sun , o r Apollo, etc., as c.ithcr rca1ly referring to God, o r as sim.p ly a speech -act without meaning. Iro nically. while here d enying the possibility oflinguiscic rc..signific.at ion. he p resents [he more. essential .. He uses two literalism t11poi in expounding th is argument: an app~al to the 0:3Ct phrasing (yt'ypa»«Xl -· a\nc6;; A.t;eoL\•). and a rC'\vording o f th e text 3S it tiJould h~we bcxn wriuen if d1e opponent i.s right (._"'(X\ rtO:(>C(t~P£1 0-n oU.. ei'PntO.t . ..).
Ul
man. 46. )4• As is us~ against O rigen by Eustathius of Antioch, de mg.mrimytbos 1.3 (GI'C'er and rvfitchdJ. "&l/y-J\1.ytht'r" of Emlor, p. 62). who complains that he teaches people to attend to ~·6!1Ctt«, r.l ther than nPl The- antithesis 8iO£llq'IU<Ju, ""O.rbittary" versus "'natural,.. is a philosophical one fou nd in Epicurus, C hrysippus, e-tc. (as documented in LSJ, $.V., gloss 3). O n O rigen's knowledge and use of Stoic linguistic theory, see the keen e:xposition of C.M. C hin, ..O rigen 3nd C hristian Naming; Textual Exhaustion and rhc- Boundaries of Gentiliry ;n Comm
4
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU' SCJHPTURJ::S •
20 1
ist {or literalist} theory oflinguistic referentiality he offers at this moment as a kind of allegorical mystery: "the matter of name.s/words is very deep and reclusive .. . • (Eon to<; KCd 1t£j)l OVO~CXt(J)V npet VJ1ii.w eU;o: i~q").~
O rigen is not merely speaking about their opinion of his literary efforts {though the convention of authorial modesty is not unexpected). Here he. is alluding to an earlier argument, in which he had called on them as men who love learning {cptAO~a9oiivte.;}, who seck to unpack the deeper sense of scriptural riddles (aiv(y!lata), and urged that precisely that impulse should lead them to wish to leave this life of partial allegorical tutelage. In t he next life, O rigen insists, one c~n have friendship with God and Christ, which changes completely the hermeneutical basis for religious knowledge: "for friends do not learn in enigmas (oi> Ot' alvtwchrov)" but in a visible form {tv ti:Ott) and a wisdom stripped bare: of language, words, symbols and exempla {yu~vft oocp(~ cpro,•ii>v Kat i~£~£(.1)v Ked crup~6A(l)v Kal t\m(l)\').', Jn this topsy.. rurvcy reckoning by t he moSI infamous of C hristian allegorists, he~ven is to be desired because it is the place of true understanding that surpasses the mere ~ mart.
51.
Or ..allegories'" (for the place of a1vt·uco: in ancient literary poc:ric.s, $('(' P.T. Struck. BirtiJ of tlu S)'lllbol· Andrm &n.d~n at the Limier of 17xir 7-rxr.s £Princcton: Princt'ton UnivC"rsity PR:ss, 2004)).
.,7)
202
M ARGARE'r M. MITC H ELL
allegorical glimpses of the mu nda ne in which one sees "through a mir· ror'' a nd "in an enigma {as Paul pu t it in I Cor. 13:8· 13) (mtfrt. 13). He re t he allegorical is the no rmal, even in nately earthly herme neu tic, nor literal ism; a nd yet heaven is to be sought after, fo r there tcxtuality itself will he o blitera ted , in fitvo r o f d irect, "naked ," f:, ce to face (su pra· literal) communica tion with t he d ivine {cf. 1 Cor. 13 : 12 ; N um. 12:8) . This is t he pro mise that shou ld entice t he wou ld .be ma rtyr.
Conclusions and Implications 1 have sought to show th ro ugh these two b rief analyses that th e d is· course of early Christian martyrdo m, as exe mplified in t hese two works by 'lcrtu llian and O rigen, is indeed fitste ned on Scrip ture as its major sou rce o f justification , b ut on neith er t he expected passages (of Jesus coming o n t he clouds) nor with the expected meth od-a literal read· ing, as convent io nal wisdom has it. The b iblical proofs in these two arguments dance in the air above and around the putative d ivide between t he literal a nd t he a llegorical senses of t he scriptural text, even as t hey invoke th e wcll~worn rhetorical justificat ions a nd a llegat io ns of each. The d iscourse o f martyrd om is d angerously poised between two lin· gu i.stically amb iguous texts: the variegated words o f Scrip ture a nd the words o f the oath of allegiance to the emperor. Each <.. n be, and was, strategically app ro priated by C hristian aut ho rs for d esired effect. W hat arc the implications o f these cond usions fOr the topic of our confap cnce on sacred viol~ncc in an cient 1v1cd icerran c.an religio n? I.
2.
First. schobr1y >ln :llysis of religious pht"nomc:n:t nec:ds to be .-.nalycically precise: it cannot just mirror the polc:mic.aJ c.atcgories in \',:hi ell they are thC"m· selves presented. The d iscourse o f mon yrdom is :t sculpn 1rcd and rhctoriolly p:td::aged aJfair.:i11 (We m.-.y wish to talk furth er about the problems o( reconstructing individuals' own motivations and expectarion.s.)
A starring point for ddxue o n rh i.s point is rhe argument by J.A. McGuckin , "Manyr Oc\·ocion in the Alexandrian School: O rigt'n to Athanasius,'" in D iana Wood (eeL), Martyn and Mtlrtyrologit:s (O xford: Oxford University Press.. 1993). pp. 35-46, that rhc discourse is elite, while o n the ground more humble d uistians were, in his opinion, \'cry m uch involved in the production o( the cult o( the martyrs.
181
•LHAl.ECT Of THI! tlOU' SCJH PTURJ::S • 3.
203
The discou~ of martyrdom. as a complc:x cultural construct. cannot lx-
cavalierly dismissed. There is a need for comprehension of how this discourse' Yio rks both by t hOSC' who treasure and t hose who repudiate it. The central point is that the ed ifi ce will not stand o r &IJ o n any single hermcnC'u tic:.ll method (litem! or allegorical), nor will it bow brfore well worn cliches about 4.
rubes and literati ( not matter how much head shaking :mends). \\1 Those who inherit these Scriptures, as cultural or rdigious inheriranccgivcn that the)' h:wc he-en the basis of martyrological discours~n not e.uil)' :t\·oid this dialecr. But, if we grant the constructed natu rc of arguments like those "'-c have surveyed here, it may not be t he .sole vernacular t h>1 t can
be fou nd in the Scriptures, despite O rigen•s claim th:u the "dialect of the holr scriptures,. speaks with one voice to this effect.
Who knows?
""'> fn ancient texts (Christian and non C hristian)
Y.'C' fi nd stereorypicaJ besmirching of o ne•s o pponents as poorl)' educated and poorly rc:.td. I call this the "urbanity ropos" (s~ M.M. Mitchell, "Rhetorical Handbooks in Service of Exegesis: Eusrothius ofA.nri och Takes Origen Back to School," in John Fotopoulos jed.l. 11Jr Nnv Tm.unmt auJ FArly Christia11 LiumJUI~ in Grrco-Roman Comcxt: Studirs i11 Honor ofDaviJ E. Amtt' fNovTSup 122: Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 349-67). 4
4
Immolating Emperors: Spectacles oflmperial Suffering and the Making of a Jewish Minority Culture in Late Antiquity Racanan S. Bou.stan Univmit] ofCalifomid, Los Augr!t"s
Introduction People in the la te Roman world were no more prone to conju ring up lavish visions of retributive justice than othc.rs who have lived a t other times or in other places, induding us moderns.' Indeed, the fan tasy th at the dominant willlx subjected to vengeful violence at the hands of those they have subordinated o r oppressed-in some cases, suffering precisely the same forms of pain and degradatio n t hat they themselves inAictcd- is hardly unique to a ncient Mediterranean cultures. James C. Scott has argued th at such fan tasies arc found cross-cultu rally. as a rccurrc.nt trope. within rhc. "hid den tran scripts.. of t he d iscm# powered in numerous d iverse historical comc.xts.2 But Scott also stresses rh at, despite their pervasiveness, t he twin themes of inversio n and revenge manifest rhcmsdvc.s in distincti ve ways in specific cultural set· rings, depending o n th e pa rticular natu re of a given political and economic. system and its cuJtu raJ conventions. By paying careful attent io n 11
This essay devdops :t line of inquiry 6rst suggested to me by Peter Brown in 200 I• during the early Sf'JSC'S of my dissert.lrion r~search ~r Princeton University. I hope that this bd:ned effort to realiU' .some of his intuitions docs them a modicum of justice. O f course, a ny ddicicncics in the ex«l.nion rest with me. On the problematic historiogr:tphic tendency to rrear late :.nrique society as especially prone to violence, see H.A. Drake, "lmroducrion: Gaugin g Violence in Lare Antiquity... in H.A. Drnke (ed.), Violmce in LnM Antiquiry (Aidc.rshot: Ashg;ne. 2006), pp. 1-11 . :I J.C. Scott, Domination and rl~ Arts of&sisr:mu: Hiddm Tmnscriprs (New Haven: Y:tle University Press, 1990), pp. 5--10,36-44, and passim.
IMMOLA.rlNG
EMI~HRO RS
205
to the vengeful fantasies of the (relatively or self-perceived) powerless. we can gain a more precise and nuanced unde.rstanding of the distri~ bution of power among r ival, though always interdependent, social g roups within a given socic.ty. Over the past decade, a number ofscholars have productively applied Scott's distinctio n between "hidden" and "public" transcripts to the strategies by which late antiq ue rabbis appro priated, subverted, and inevitably also re-inscribed dements of the dominant Roman (and Christian) culture within Jewish le.gal and narrative traditions/ Moreover. this scholarship has shown that, at the same time that Chri.stians were exerting great dfort to conceptualize and enact a viable accom modation between C hurch and Empire, Jewish writers increasingly sought to articulate their distinctiveness within and perhaps also alienation from this emergent politico.. rcligious o rder:' The primarily literary.. e.xegetical and cultural anthropological methodologies of these studies have thus complemented n:cent social-historical accounts of the emergence ofJews as a distinctive religious minority within an increasingly Christiani·zcd sodery.1 This paper seeks to advance the insights of this scholarship concerning the paradoxical impact of religious competition and, at times, \•iolencc o n late antique Judaism by tracing the historical development of Jewish fantasies of revenge directed at Ro man im perial power, in particular as it was embodied in the person of the Roman emperor o r the imperial household. It will be my contentio n that, despite significa nt
Most norahly, B.A. Berkowitz. Excmlionand bwmtiou: fknth Pmn/ry DiuoJtrJt' i11 &zr/y Rabbinic }1ulnism rmd Cilrisr.iau GtltriTt!l (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). pp. 10-1 1. I 53-79: J. Levinson, "Tragedies Nann'.lll)' Performed: Fat:tl Charades, Parodin Sitcrn, and th e.' Death of Titus," in R.. Kalm in and S. Schw·. urz (c.'ds.). jrwi1h Cul111rr a11d Sociny Undrr silt' CIJristinn &mnn EmpitY (Lcu.,' en: Peeters, 2003}. pp. 349-82; J. Levinson, "The Athlete ofPicry: Fatal Fictions in Rabbinic Liter:lturc" (Hebrew), Tnrbiz 68 ( 1999), pp. 6J.S6; D. Boyarin, D)'i~
206
1
RA ANAN S . 60USTAN
continu ities between Christian an d Jewish tradit io ns of divine rctribu .. tio n, it is o nly in the early Byzant ine period {circa 450- 700 C E) that Jewish writers began to genera te tableaux of gmphic violence d ire.c tcd specifically at the figure of the Roman empero r. Moreove.r, I will a rgue t hat thc.sc.cxprc.ssio ns of profou nd antagonism toward the empe ror nor only redeployed specific clem ents of Roman impe.r ial ideology a nd p ractice, b ut also inre.r nalizcd the' increasingly common stereo type' of Jews as viole nt trou blemakers fo u nd in sixth - and especially seventh -century C hristian sources. In a tte.m p ting to assert some measure o f control over th e ,,.symbo lic weapons of religious vio lc.ncc" a t play in their society/' th e creators o f th is vivid discourse of retributive justice t hus colluded with their C hristian cou n terparts in con.suucting the Jew as a member o f an o ppositional an d even dan ge rous rdigious m inority. The theme of ve.n gcance presents a part icu larly useful lens t hrough which to view the. historical fo rmatio n-and subsequent transforma· tion~fJe.w ish iden tity over the cou rse of Late.Antiqu ity. as th e recent work o f Israel Yuval has well illustrated.' Pa rticularly instructive. in Yuval's an alysis of a Jewish "theology o f vengeance" is t he stress he places o n t he gap be tween representation a nd social real ity. In his vic.w, c:.xc.. gctical.• lirurgical, and narrat ive.evidence fo r th e inte nse and o ften oppo~ sitional dialogue in which Jews a nd Christians have so long e ngaged sho uld not be read as evidence of social and cultural separation, bu t rather as traces of their p rofoundly intertwined and mutually-constituting h istories. t\ •ly an alysis of late antiq ue Jewish discourses of retributive justice emphasizes the gene rat ive role that contemporan eous shifts in imperial institu tions and ideology played in shaping Jewish c ulture.. In so doing, l intend to he~d t he a ppeal recently articulated by a n umber of Roman historians fo r greater attent io n to the '(o rganic connectio n a mong pol~ P. Boudietl, '"Legitimation and Structured Interests in Wd xr's SocioJog}' of Religion." inS. L:t.sh and S. Whimstcr ( I.J. Yu\~.tl, Ttw Nations in ~11r \flomb: Ptraptions ofJnvs ami Clmi1imu in Lau AnriquiiJ anJ rhr Middl~ Ago- (tr:1ns. B. H:.rshav :md J. Chipm.1n; Bcrkdey: Uni'l\:r-
# The phr:ISC' is from
sity of Californi:. Press, 2006) : I.J. Yuv.al. "'Vengeance and Damnation, Blood "Ond Defamation: f rom Jewish Man yrdom to Blood libd Accusations" (Hebrew), Zian 58 (1993). pp. 33-90.
I MMOLA.rlNG
EMI~HRO RS
207
itics, econom ics, and c.ulturc across the Mediterranean" that condi~
tioned both stability and change. in this period .' The evolution oflate antique Judaism- like that ofother lo ngstanding religious and cultural fOrms- is rightly characterized as a process ofgradt~al transfOrmation. Historians must ncvcrthde.ss ask whether the.re were significant juncr
tures at which changes in the structure and ideology of the Roman state impinged directly o n Jewish cultural productio n.
Punishment of the Wicked Ruler in Early Jewish and Christian Sources
In this section, I analrLC the topos of the punishment of the wicked ruler o r tyrant in early Jewish and Christian writings produced before the late fou rth and early fifth centuries. The notion of retributive justice colored Jewish and Christian representations of the tyrant's this-worldly death, his post-mortem suffering in the afterlife, and his ultimate defeat and punishment at the e.nd .. time.1 l argue, however, that there is a clear
difference between the historiographic and apocalyptic genres in their treatment of this theme. Historiographic sources generally apply the no tion of retributive justice to the physical death of a specific histori· cal actor who plays a central ro le in the narrative. By contrast, apoca~ lyptic lite.rature tends to avoid topical or contemporary references in
such descriptions; instead, these sources ado pt typological language, describing in generic and genre-specific terms the. forms of punishments to be meted out to broad classes of evil or corrupt political or religious authorities. When apocalyptic texts do describe the punishment of spe.· cilic rulers, these figures arc typically drawn from the legendary past (e.g .• Pharaoh or Nebucha
1~'~
C. :\ndo, "D«line. FaJI, and Transformation,.. jounldJ of Lar~ AmiquiiJ I (2008). pp. 3 1-60 (48); also C.R. \'\'hittakcr, '"Jmperialism and Culrurc: llu.· Roman l niti J~ tive,'" in D.J. ~+artingly (eel.), Dialogrm in Roman lmprrialism: Pou~r, Discourw.. rmd Disc-rrpdllt E'
Roman Archarology, 1997), pp. 143-63. 1 " O n the dynamic rdationship am ong these th~c types of eschatolog)~ sec C.\'(f. Bynum and P. Freedman (cds.). Last 71Jings: Dmtl1 and six Apomljptt' iu sl1r Middlt' Agn (Philadelphia: Uni.,.rrsity ofPcmnsyl\'ania Press. 2000). pp. 1-9.
1
208
RA ANAN S . 60USTAN
torical pr<sent. The figu re of the first-century empero r Nero, whose presence is fdt in a number of apocalyptic. texts~ represents a significam e.xccptio n to this pattern. But.• by and large, neither Jews no r Chris· tians, prior to the fifth century, produced detailed accounts of the post· mon c.m or c nd ..of..timc suffering of Roman cmpc.rors. Their reticence is somewhat surprising in light o f the rich litc.rary resources at their
command as well as the contentious historical circumstance's that might have led both Jews and Christians to do so. This pattern sets in relief the distinctiveness and even novelty of the increasingly o ppositional anti-Roman discourse that was later adopted by B)'lantine Jews in their visions of imperial suffc.ring. D uring the first millennium ofthe Common Era-
such early Jewish writings as the book of Esther, Daniel 1-6, and I and 2 Maccabcos, a wide range ofhistoriographic, prophetic, and apocalyptic sources shared by Jews and Christians likewise contributed to the develo pment of this long-lived and rather colo rful literary traditio n ofimag· incd violence.•• Such well-known apocalypses as lhe Book of the lflatrhm and Daniel 7- 12, written in the late-third to mid-second ce.n · turics
HCE.
arc perhaps the earliest texts to rcAcct rhc e mergent notio n
of individ ual eschatology in which the righteous and the wic.kcd arc destined fo r separate and C\'Cn diametrically opposed post-mortem hltcs." As Dan. 12:2-3 fiunously has it, "Many of those that sleep in 101
On rite sh"red vocabulary and gC'n cric conventions of retriburive justice in Jewish and Chri.srian accounts of the' afterlife, see M. Himmdf.ub, Toun of Hrll· A11 Apomljptic Form i11 Jrwisil and Chrislim1 Liumtur~ {Philaddphia: University of Penns}~\':1nia Pre$$. 1983}. to which this JXlpcr is dec-ply indebted. t h On the impact of apoCJlyptic litC'ro uurc- on early Jewish notions of the afterlife, see the dassic es.s:JY of J.J. CoiJins, "ApoCJJ)'ptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death." CBQ 36 ( 1974), pp. 2 1-43: repr. in Xrn, Sibyls, aud Sages in HrllmitticRom(l!l judaism (JSJSup 54; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 75-97: also M. Himmdf.ub, Atmu 111 Hmvm in Jewish and Cilrist;au Apornlj'jlsrs {NC'W York: Oxford University Press. 1993), pp. 47-7 1.
I MMOLA.rlNG
EMI~HRO RS
209
the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence. And the knowledgeable wiJJ be radiant like the bright expanse of sky, and those who lead the. many to righ tcou,;. ness will be like the stars forever and ever" (N RSV). Th is model of eschatological justice had a profound impact o n Jewish responses to the "Antiochan persecutions of the mid-second century. although it likely predated these events and cannot be explai ned solely as a response to this or any specific religious o r political conflict." Thus, in 2 Maccabees, the mother and her seven sons both anticipate posthumo us vindication as reward fo r their noble deaths and call down vengeance upon their tormentor Antioch us JV and his <~esccn dants (7: 14- 16. 19, 3 1-36), a fate that their tormentor in fact suffers several chapters later (9:1-28)." The direct link that the text draws between the death of the martyrs and the victory O\'er o r redemption from the. c:.nemy or persecutor represc.nts an important theme in apo-calyptic literature as well as in o ther gcnre.s. 14 In the c.laborated version of this narrative in 4 Maccabcc.s, the retri-
bution that Antiochus IV is destined to suffer in this life is also compounded by the eternal punishment awaiting him after death: "For we shall have the prize of virtue; but you because of your bloodthirstiness will deservedly undergo from the divine justice eternal torment by fire" (4 Mac. 9:9). And the theme of post-mortem suffering is echoed throughout the remainder of the text, ITe.q uently in the speeches of the martyrs.n The notion that a pe.rsecuting ruler is dc.stined to face postmortem punishment-and. in particular, by means of fire-already
G.W.E. Nickdsburg, Rrsurm:tiou, lmmonr1iil); nnd Eurnn/. Lift;, lmcrtCJhmuuMI judnism (Ex:pJndcd
4
4
1
210
RA ANAN S. 60USTAN
existed in the first o r early second ccmury,u' although, as we shall see, it did not init ially c.xcrt a strong influe nce on Jewish representations o f Roman imperial authorit ies. The toposof t he post-mortem punishment o f th e wicked tyran t found in such h istoriographic narrat ives as 2 and 4 Maccabees has irs counterpa rt in ea rly Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. Martha H immdfarb convincingly argues that Jewish and Christian descript ions of post-mortem punishment de,•clopcd with in the parameters o f the apocalyptic genre, sharing high ly p recise literary convent io ns a nd, indc.ed, concrc.re. textual content.17 In part icu lar, Hi mmdfarb shows th at the apocalyptic "tour" genre, which is ch aracterized by the "demonstrat ive explanations" of the otherworldly terrain by a n otherworld ly gu ide to a huma n visio nary, lent t his material its distinctive a nd cndu r.-. ing literary form." As we shall sec, the imme nse. stability and lo ngevity of this form were largely resistant to the processes o f d iffere nt iat io n that occurred as Jews and Christians negotiated their differences from each other as wdl as their d istinctive relationships to the Roman state. Jewish and C hristian ''tours of hell" describe the post-mortem suffc.r ing of numerous classes o f sinners. Operating in acco rdance with the measure-for-measure logic of t he /,x 111/ionis, these texts carefully construct a world in which the pu n ishment fics rhe crime.~!' Thus, for exam~ p ic, men who indulged in the p leasures offood and drink in t his world The daring of 4 Maco bC"c:s remajns uncC"nain, but the scholarly consensus is dm the text belongs to 6m or. at the latest, early second-century diaspora Judaism. For a judicious review of the reiC"vant scholarship. see van HentC"n. Mnccnlxan Mnnyrs, pp. 73-81, which argues for a date afrc-r the destruction o f rhe Jerusalem Temple in 70 C£ and tennuivd y SU£gtsts th.lt the author was a JC"w from Asi-'1 Minor acti\•e around 100 C£. m See especiaJiy HimmdF.n b, 7inm of Hdl. For a complementary asse.ssmC"nt o f this mate.rial, S<'C' R. Bauckham, 7Jlt' Fntc of rhr lXad: Studiu 011 thr }rtvi!h nnd Chris 1i.w Apom/yp!cs (NovTSup 93: Lc-iden: Brill, 1998). Both Himmdfarb and Bauckh.1.m build upon thC' foundationrcl work in S. Lieberman. "On Sins and Their Punishments," in kxts andStudit'J(New York: KT.A.V. 1974}. pp. 29 51; S. Lieberman, ..Some AspC'C'lS of After Life in Early ~bh inic Liurature," in Uxrs and Studies, pp. 23 5-72. t 8l Himmdf.ub, Tuurso.fHcU.pp.4 1-67. 11 " See d iscussion o f 1he transformation of the notion of rcu.lia1or)' justice in the d)~ng pr:tyC"rs of Jesus and Suphen in Sh('ll)' Matthews' papC"r in rhis issue. h'>l
4
4
4
I MMOLA"rlNG
EMI~HRO RS
2I I
while neglecting the poor, hunger and thirst in the next; and women who have committed infanticide arc hung from their nipplcs. 10
While the "tours of hell" arc principally occupied with the. f." c of the normal sinner, they also regularly imagine the punishments that await corrupt, hypocritical, or wicked figures of authority. O ne of the earliest examples of chis notio n is found in the sccond~cc:ntury Ct: Apo~
calypse ofPeta, which speaks in rather general terms of the sufferi ngs in Gchcnna of "the persecutors and betrayers of my righteous ones" (9:2) ." Ncar these agents of persecution the visio nary beholds the torments of"thosc who put to death the mar tyrs (with) a lie" (9:4)." Thus. like 2 and 4 /vlaccabec.s, the Apocab'f'se ofPeter seems to draw a direct link between the context of rdigious persecution and rc.rributivc. jus..
ticc exacted upon the persecutors and their collabo rators. The text docs not, however, idcnti~· the pc.rsecurors with a specific. political power o r institutional posicion.
Other apocalyptic texts do add somewhat more specificity to such descriptions. In the V;sio/1 of&.ra, we find the following report: "And he (Ezra) saw visions o f a furnace, against thcscrtingsun. burning with great fire. into which were se.n t many kings and princes of this worldt
and many thousands of poor people were accusing them and saying, 'They, through their power, wounded us and dragged /Tee men into scrvitu
~
Himmdfarb. Tow-s ofHrU, pp. 68- 105~ se-c also Lieberman, "'On Sins,• pp. 48-49. l l) Translation of the Erhiopic and versification from D.O. Buchholz. Your Eps \Vii/Bt' Opmed: A Ssud)· ofrhr Grtrk (Eihiopic) Apomlypsr ofPnrr (SBLDS 97; Atl:uua: Schol· ars r ..... 19881, p. 209. 1~ Buchholz, YoJtr Eps Will & Opmul. p. 211. lJ) Transl:ttion from J . Mueller and C. Robbins (tr:tns.), "'Vision of EU:t," in J.H. Ch;1rleswonh (ed.). 7hr Old ftmmmll Pmtdrpigmpha (2 vols.; G.-.rden Ciry, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983-1985), vol. I. pp. 581·90 (574). U } Himmdfarh. Tours of Hdl. pp. 123-25. Himmdf.ub dr:t\..'S her conclusions fiom the following sources: Ethiopic Apqcn&fJJt' of Mnry 64;. Etiliopic Apoca/yp:tr of &mel!
212
1
RA ANAN S. 6 0USTAN
And even when some texts do identifY the wicked ruler with a spe· cific figure, this figure invariably functio ns as a typological embodiment of evil. Thus, in a brief medieval Hebrew visio n of hd l known as the " Isaiah fragment," the legendary prophet is said to have "entered the fifth court, and fou nd it full of smoke. There were all the governors and the chiefs, and wicked Pharaoh presiding over them and watching over the gate of Gehcnna. And he (Pharaoh) says to them, 'Why did you not learn from me when 1 was in Egypt?' Thus he sits there and watches at the gate house of hdl.''" This passage is scarcely more specific. Pharaoh, lUng of Egypt. fu nctio ns merely as a general paradigm fo r the wicked foreign ruler. And. as in numerous similar Hebrew versions of this maccrial, the characterization o f the ruling powers remain srcrco·
typed. Early rabbinic sources (from the third and forth centuries c•) likewise conform to the general pattern we have found in early Jewish and C hristian apocalyptic literature. Although rabbinic literature (in contrast to apocalyptic te.xts) is relatively restrai ned in its depictio ns of the f." cs of the dead, the rabbinic authors did explicitly address in some derail the questio n of the post-mortem punishment of wicked rulers in Gehhmom (i.e., he.ll)." The standard idiom used in these sources to refer to the evil powers of this world is "those who raised their hands agai nst the Sanctuary."" This phrase may have fu nctioned as a kind of code for 72-73: Etl,iopic Apom/y'jJM ofGorgari111 86: Ln:i11 Ap4m/ypst' ofElijniJ: joslma IJ.m Lt:vi frngmmr. For full ciution of the editiolts and rransl:uions of rhese source's, see Himmdf.ub. limn ofHell. pp. 175-82. For historical introductions to each, sec Himmdf.ub, Tou" ofH,/1, pp. 19·21 (Mary). 2 1-23 (B.1ruch), 23 (Gorgorios), 32·33 Qoshua b. levi), and 34-36 (Elijah). ~Sl I ho~ slighdy modi6ed the translation in M.E. Stone and J. Strugndl, 1h~ Books of Elijah, Rrrtt I d- 2 (Text.s and Traml:uions 18; Pscudepigrapha Series 8: Mi.ssoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979). p. 22. Uil Liehcmlan, "Some Aspects of After Life," p. 236. for general discussion of rabbinic notions o f post-moncm r~rd.. and punishmC'nt, see E. E. Urbach, 7h~ Sages: llk'ir Gmapu aud Brliqi {tran s. I. AbrJhams; Jt-rusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), pp. 436-44, ;09-11. !11 Sec C. Milikowsky, Sdrr 0/am: A Rabbinic Chronogrt~phy (PhD di.sscrt:ation, Y;tle UnivC'.rsity. 1981), pp. 231-32 (Hebrew original), 458 (English u:mslation). Compare the \':trious versions of this tradition: Tosefra Sanhedrin 13:4-5: PT (PJlesrinian T3lmud) fkrakhot 9. 1 (13b): Genesis R.1bbah 26:2; BT (Babyloni:m Talmud) Rosh
I MMOLA.rlNG
EMI~HRO RS
213
the Romans. But it is interesting that the fou rth~century Palestinian
Talmud specifically discusses this tradition concerning Gehinnom when trying to determine whether the soldiers of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnemu, destroyer of the First Temple, would be punished in the afterlife fo r participating in the Destruction (PT Berakhot 9.1 [13bj). Like the comparable units of tradition in apocalyptic sources, rabbinic teachings o n the fate of Lsrad's enemies display a highly stereotyped quality. Indeed.• the idioms used in early rabbinic sources to describe the postmortem punishment o f o ppressive foreign rulers re maine.d in circula~ tio n in Jewish literary culture, largely unchanged, for generations. Thus,
for example, although the post-talmudic cosmological treatise Seder Rnbbah de-&mhit synthesizes the diverse traditio ns regarding postmortem reward and punishment found in classical rabbinic literature into a novel systematic statement o n the fate of the. dead, the creators
of this work did not sec a need for greater historical specificity."' In describing the punishment of the wicked in 6ehinnom, the treatise largely builds upon the traditio nal material fo und in Tosclta Sanhedrin 13:4-5.29 Whc.rc Seder Rnbbnh de-Bemhitdoes expand upon rhe phrase "those who raised their hands against the Sanctuary," it employs equally generic terms to refer to [he w ickt>d tyrants who "destroyed my Ho use
and burned my Temple and exiled my children among the nations of the world.""' The text prefers typological discourse to historical o r political specificity.
ha-Shan-:th 17-:t. For discussion of these sources and their relationship ro Seder 'Oiam, sec C. t>.·filikowsky. "Gchenna and rhe 'Sinners of lsrad' in Light of ~du '0/am..' (Hdmw). Tarbiz 55 ( I986). pp. 3 I I -43 (3 I I- I2). l f) On the rdarionship of this work to ancient Jewish cosmologiC:JJ speculation, especially its rabbinic source-nutC'rials. stt P. Schifer. "In He.wC'n as it is in Hdl: The Cosmology of Sedrr R:1bbnh di-BnrsiJit,"' in R.S. Boustan and A. Y. Reed (eds.), Ht>.111t'n&· Rmfmt aud EartMy Rtn!itit'f iu Lau A11tique &ligiom (New York: Gun bridge Univ
214
1
RA ANAN S . 6 0USTA N
A n u mber ofla te an t iq ue C hristian "tours of hell" d id, however, d abo rate the mo tif of th e p un ishme nt o f t he wicked ru ler in nm•cl d irect io ns. This is pa rticularly true for t hose compo sit io ns that fo llow the h igh ly in Huential Apocalypsr ofPatd (third to fourth century CE)." Yet, in t h is b ranch o f t he literary tradition , instead o fkings o r princes who occupy the u nenviab le place of t he suffe ring powerful in hdl, it is internal c.ccle-.siastical au tho rit ies who have become the focus of mo ral cc:n .. sure. Thus, the Apocalypse of Paul chap ters 34-36 imagines in vivid detail t he post-mo rtem s u fferi ng ofsinfu l an d c orrup t presbyters, b ish o ps. deacons, an d lectors.' 1 But it was not u nt il the middle Byzantine period, in n inth-to eleventh-centu ry apocalyptic works such as th e Apocalypse oft!Je 7heotokos and the Apocalypse ofAnasras;a, that t his in t
as such.>.} A small numbe r of the "tour" texts th at depict th e post-mortem p un ish ment of an evil king d o refer to s pecific. historical perso nages, though we w ill sec that these c.xcept ions prove t he rule. The Apoctt~'fJS< ofEzra, chapter 4 , repo rts that the visionary "saw a fiery throne and an o ld m an .seated o n it, a nd h is pu nishment was me rciless. And I sa id to the an gels, 'Who is this and what is h is sin?' And they said to me, 'This is Herod, J h Scholars disagree on the date of the text, some preferring 01 0 e.uf)' third century dare, whi.le others credit rhe so-called Tarsus incroduc:cion, which dates the te>:t to 388 C£.. I follow P. Piovandli, " Les origines de l'ApD
pp. 23-49. n, H. Duensing and A. De Samos O tero (tl'. lns.}, "'Apocalypse of Paul," in E. Hennecke and\'(~ Schncemd chcr (cds.), Nt'w TfSralllt'IIIAptJnypl~a (cr-.lns. R.!vfd . \X'ilson; 2 vols.: Louisville: Wcsrminstcr/j ohn Knox Press. 199 1), \'OI. 2, pp. 755-803 (73 1-32). J.fl SeC' J. Baun, ,.Middle B)7.antinc 'Tours of Hdl': O utsider Theodicy?" in D.C. Smythe (cd.). Smmgas to 1/umsri~JtS: 1/u Byzamint' Ouaidl'r (Burlington, Vt.: As:hgate/ Variorum. 2000), pp. 47-60: and, more IUllr. J. Baun, Tale! from A11o11!a Byuwtir~m: Ulminl joumq nnd Local Ommumif:}' i11 Ml'dironl Grl'l'k Apoayph.·1 (
,J,,.
I MMOLA.rlNG
EMI~HRO RS
215
who was king for a time, and he commanded to kill the infants two years old o r under.' And I said, 'Woe upon his soul!"'" However, within the context of the Apocalypse of Ezm, the. allusion to King Herod and his murder of the. innocents lacks the immediacy o f historical narration
and instead capitalizes o n the legendary dimensions that this figure had achieved in literary tradition. Moreo1•cr, while Herod here possesses some.of the attributes of a pe rsecuting monarch. he remains an ambig~ uous figure, s imultaneously native and fore ign. He thus occupies a mid~
point between the corrupt church officials who abuse the power granted them by their community in the Apocalyp" of Paul and such paradigmatic foreign tyrants as Antiochus IV. Perhaps the most s ignificant e.xc.eption to this general pattern is the
complex of traditions regarding the return of the Roman emperor Nero (a.k.a. rediiJivmor redux), current among first- and second-century Jews and Christians.~' This figure is distinct from. though in some cases has attribute.s of, the csc.hatological antagonist or Antichrist, who is like....
wise characterized by his role as the. persecutor of God's people.'• The Nero rediiJivtls legend presents the Roman emperor as the embodiment ofevil (Be liar, Antichrist, etc.) who will return~ftc.n from the abyssto wage war against the. righteous. A versio n of this narrative tradi tion
is incorporated at the end of the. "tours of hd l" section in the secondcentury Apocalypse ofPet.er. Following Peter's vision of the judgments ofhd l, Jesus tells the.Apostle that he should seck execution at the hands of the Roman empero r in the capital city of Rome and reassures him that his martyrdom at the hands of the empero r will set in motion the destructio n of his imperial pe rsecuto r. Be-hold. I (Jesus) h3'A:' shown JJI these things to you. Peur, and ha'A:' expounded rhem. Now, go to the city that rules o~r the we.st (Rome?). and drink the cup th'lt I have promised you. :u the lt.1.nds of the son of rhe one who is in HJdcs (t-11 ~> Mueller and Rohhin.s. Q,Vision ofEzr.1," p. 574. 'n Sec e,spcciallr J.W. van HentC'n. "'Nero Redivivus Demolished: The Cohere,nce of the Nero Tr.1dirions in 'he Sibylline Or.1des," JSP 21 (2000). pp. 3- 17; D.E. Aunc. Rt't.Yiation 6-16 (World Biblical Commentary 526: N3shville: Thomas Ndson Publishers. 1998), pp. 737-40; L. Kreine,r. "Hadrian and the Nero Redivivu.s i\,{yth," ZNW79 (1988), pp. 92-1 1). ·~ Aune, &ve!atitJII6-J6. pp. 751-55.
216
1
RA ANAN S. 60USTAN
cbriroi11 Irc-..1d: chrniu) toulmiou /IJJI Hnidou), so that his d isappc:mmcc ( llltfiJJt I:Ji apiJatu·ia) may havt' a beginni•tg.r
Although t his passage is cryptic, the phrase "the son of h im who is in H ades" a ppears to be a reAex of a widely disseminated set of narrative t raditions concerning Nero in h is capacity as persecutor of t he early C hristian movement.'~ The narrative of NcroS defeat and punishment did not have a perceptible impact on the "tours of hdl" tradition. The various sources that allude to o r de,•dop this t heme presume t hat the wicked emperor is destined to be defe.ated in the grand final battle between good and e\•il. They do not, however, explore his individ ual eschatological o r post.. mortem suffering. \XIe will sec below that the treatment of Nero in Jewish and C hristian sources from the fi rst to fo urth cent ury comes closest to the vio · lent fo rms of anti-imperial rhetoric th at we.re produced by Jewish writers in th e early Brtantine period . Indeed, the Nero redivivus t rad itio n would remain vibrant for centuries, rc::pcatcd and expanded again and again by C hristian writers th roughout late. Antiq u ity.''' Bur what is particularly striking, I think, is how rarely Jewish and Christian sources address the post- mortem o r end-of-rime. punishments to be suffered by the ideological embodiment of Roman power, the Roman emperor. C hristian hiswriographic writings offer an instructive. cont rast to the reticence of a pocalyptic literatu re to apply its discourse of retributive justice to specific historical comc:xts. The. writings of the prc·Constan~ tinian C hristian historian and po lemicist Lactantius exemplifY the.nature of the impact that t his discourse of divi ne retrib ution had on expressions of anri~Roman se ntime nt. Lactantius. who composed his h istory of the Great Persecution (303-3 11 C£} o n the eve of Constantine's new
m I follow the ten and tr:a.nslation of fhe Gr«k Rai ner frngment of fhi.s p.usage in M .R. j.1mes, '"The Rainer Fragment of the ApO.1ge is Asc. lw. 4:2- 14 (an interpoluC"d .section often called the 'Ustilmmt ofHrukiah), which predicts that on< of the Twdve Apostlt"S. probably Peter, would b< "ddi\'eted into the hand" ofBdiar, presumably to be identified as
*'"'
N
C ( Commodian. lnsmtctioun 4 I; Augustine.~ Civitatr Dti 20. I 9.
I MMOLA"rlNG
EMI~HRO RS
21 7
dispensation, described the death of Galcrius in the highly stylized terms drawn directly from earlier scrip tural models. His account q uite consciously recycles t he. central plo t dements of the ghastly
Dt- mortibus prrs«lltontm 33·35. For t~t and tl".mslation, see J.L Cr«d (ed.). Lac· umrius: Dt' Mdnibus PerMmtorum (O lCford: Clarendon Press. 1984)) pp. 50·55. O n the 41»
F.tr·rt':tch ing dependence of this account on 2 t-..f:tcabees, see J .-D. G';luger, "Ocr 'Tod des VC.rfolgers•: O~rlegungen T-ur H istori'z.it:it e ines Topos,.. JSJ 33 (2002), pp. -42-64 (6 1-62). Compare the more ahbrevi:tted <1ccount ofG-alerius' de.nh in Eusebius, HE 8 .16.3-5. 41> Su, most notably, the ct~ lminati on o f (he Divin~ lmtit«t~s (7.26.7), where in h is l't'\'iew o f rhc ultimate fate of the righreous a nd the wicked, l.acmntius conjures up an image of the '"lord" (dominus) of the impious burning togetht"r with his st"r\'ants "for their sins for ever with perpNual fire in the sight o f the angels and the just (pro suis
focinoribm iu Cdnspecru augclomm 111(/tl~ iutwrum pt'Tprtllo igni crmmbiutr in tUU'T· mmt) (S. Br.lndt fed.) , LActmJtitu, Oprm omnia ICSEL 19: Vienna: F. Tempsky. I 890}, pp. 666-67). For compr<:hensive d iscussion of the sources o f L:tcramius) millen::arian· ism, see H. W.A. V".ln Rooijen-Dijkman. D,· &alii Vilfl: lxt uvmd~ botk '""' d~ DiiJinn~ lmtirmionrs lliill Lnrrmuim. Annb•M miJroJmmoudflZIN~' (Asst"n: \'an Gorcum, 1967)) pp. 93-1 48; also 0. Nicholson, ..The Source of the Dates in Llct:uuiul Divine bmi· Jutrt." }7>36 ( 1985), pp. 29 1-3 10 (295-96).
218
1
RA ANAN S. 6 0USTA N
Jews on Fire: The Figure of tbe Jew as Troublemaker in Early By-Lalltioe Literature By t he. sixth cent ury. C hristians had grown apprehensive at what they perceived, not without reason, as t he ill-will t hat Jews harbored against th e C hristia n C hurch or th e Roman state. Such concerns arc already reAectcd in the legislatio n passed in 408 CE against th e. alleged Jewish p ractice of burning H aman in effigy on "a fo rm made to resemble. the sainted cross.. d uring the fes tival of Purim, w hich the authorities sus.. pccted was a gesture o f rid icule aimed at the Savior himsdf (Codex 1heodosillmts 16: 18: 18).' 2 And, indeed, a verse parody in Jewish Asamaic ITom fifth-century Palestine, which featu res Jesus C hrist amid a host of lsrad's enemies from b ib lical history justifYing the punishment of H aman and bewailing their own crud fates, may suggest that th e dim view of Purim taken by the C hristian au thorities was far fro m baselc:.ss.0 Nevenhdcss, it appears t hat the figure of t he Jew underwent a palpable shift in Christian d iscourse d uring the fifth, sixth, an d e.specially seven th centuries. Jews were increasingly cast as a disruptive and even dangerous p resence within Christian society and p ublic life, although the rdationship between this literary topos and social reality remains a
~!l
The text and rr.msl:uion appc-Jr in A. Linder (td.). 17N J~ws in !«mum /m~rin/ L~gislmion (De-troit: Wayne State Uni,·ersity Pr~. 1987). p. 237. For anai)'Sis, see A.M. Rabdlo, "'La premiere loi de Theodose II. C.Th. XVI, S, 18, et b fCcede Pourim,.. Rnfllt /,israriqut' dr draitfirmrnit d hnmga 55 ( 1977), pp. 545 58. "~ The poem i.s number 33 in M. Sokoloff and J. Yahalom (ed.),jewis.IJ Rtlmininn Arn mnic Potrry from Ldu Anriq11i1] (Jerusalt'm: lsrad Acadt'm)' of Sciences <1nd Humanities, 1999). pp. 204- 19 (Jesus speaks ;lt lines 85--90}. The relationship bt'tWCt"n such poetic compositions and the Theodosian legislation was first suggeste-d in J . Yahalom, ""Angels Do Not Understand Ar.1maic: On the Liter-.uy Uses of Jewish Pabtinian Aramaic in Lone Antiquity,... JJS 47 (1996), pp. 33-44 (41-4-4); see ... !so the penetraring re.1ding of this poem in Ophir Miin:t Manor, "Othc.-r Voices: Haman, Jesus and the Representations of the Othc.-r in Purim Poc.-ms from Byzantine RaJestine,. (Ht'brew), in Y. Shapir.1. 0. Hc.-rwg. and T.S. Hess (eds.). Populnr and Cn11oJJiml· Liumry Din Iogue! {Td Aviv: Resling. 2007), pp. 69-79, 211 17. O n Purim as a locus for Jewish violc.-ncc. from late Antiquity to the.- pr('~nt, sc(' E. Horowia, &ck/m Rius: Purim 1md tlx Ugncy ofjrwish Violma {Princc.-ron: Princnon U ni ~"C.rsity Prc.-ss, 2006). 4
4
4
4
4
IMMOLA.rlNG
EMI~HRO RS
219
vexed question in mod<:rn historiography.44 Avc.ril Cameron as we.ll as Gilbert Dagron a nd Vincent Deroche have stressed the degree to which the image or th e Jew as t roublemaker spilled over th e. bou ndar ies o r the literary Forms t raditionally d edicated to anti-Jewish polemic, penetrating more deeply than before into h istoriographic, chronographic, and legal sources as well.4 ' Thus. for example, the incorporation of anti ..Jewish trope.s within Justinian's fa mous Novella 146 sugge.sts just how pen'<>· sivc, across a wide ra nge o f gen res and disciplines • .such negative stcrc~ types had become by the sixth century.'6 This process appears to have gone hand-in-ha nd with the deteriorating condition ofJews in Roman c ivil law in the sixth century.•'
~)
For critical :useJ:Sment of modcrn historiography on Jewish ~ lui-Christian \'iolencc in this period. see E. Horowitz.. ....Thc Venge.ln ce of the Jcws Was Strongcr Than Their Av-.uicc•: Modcrn Historians and the ))crsian Conquest of Jcrusalem in 614,.. jnttisiJ
Soria/ Studi" 4 (1998), pp. I· 39. <~n
A. V. Came ron, .. Byumines and Jl!".vs: Some Rccrnt Work o n f.:;uly Byumium." BJ•zaminr tmd Modrm Gruk Studies26 ( 1996). pp. 249-74 (249): -aJso A.V. Ctm eron.
" Disputations. Polcmic-.1l Litcr:uurt'. ;1n d the Formmion of Opinion in Early Bp.1ntine Licc r:u urc." in G.J. Reinink and H.J.l. Vanstiphout (eds.), Ditpuu P«ms and Dialogurs in du· Ancimt and :WdietNII Nmr Ea.'Ot (O riemalia Lovanicnsia Analecta 42; Lem·en: Pect«s. 1991). pp. 9 1-IOS; G. Dagron and V Deroche in "Juifsc-t Chreriens dans I'Oricm du VUC siede." Tnwaux et Mfmoirrs II ( I 991), pp. 17·273, e.spociallr the general historic-..1! introd uction h)' Dagron (pp. I7-46): V. Deroche, .. La polemique anti-juda'ique au VI• n au VII~ .si«fc. un mCmC'nto inedit, les K~piMiaia," Trmltlttx tr. Mlmoirrs I I (199 1}. pp. 27)-3 11. The fullest treatment in English of the im:.ge ol the Jew in e.uly Bp..;llltine .sources remains D.M . O lstcr, Roma11 Ekfitll, Christian Rtspons~, and :hr Liumry Commtaion ofrhcJ~w (Philadelphia.: Uni\-crsit)' ofPennsylv.mi.-. Press. 1994). But see the c ritic.tl :u:se.ssmems o f OJ seer's work in V. DCroc~-!e. " PoiCmique mttijudaJque n Cmergence de l'lsbm (7'-8' si«les)," Rrvur dt'f ltud byL~~minrs 57 (I 999). pp. 14 I-61, 01nd Cameron, "Byzantines a nd Jews... ~ LV. Rutgers, "Justinian•s Novella 146: Bctween Jews and Christians." in R. Kalmin a nd S. Schwartz (eds.), JrwtiiJ Cultttrr and Sodny Jmd¥r the Chrisrinn Roman Empill' (~uvcn: PC'C"tcrs. 2003), pp. 385·407 (388-90). The text of the law is found in Linder. Jnvs i11 Romm1lmperinl Legislation, pp. 405·10. '1> A.M. Rabdlo. "Ci\'il Jewish Jurisdiction in the Days of Emperor Justinian (527565): Codrx jusri11innus 1.9.8," lsmrl Law Rrview 33 ( 1999), pp. 51-66, rcpr. in A.(\,f. Rahello, 7ht•}nus i11 thr Rom:m Empirr: Uga/ Problt'lns, from Hrrod f/J Justini.an
(Aidrc. 2000).
220
1
RA ANAN S . 60USTAN
It is worth noting that the image of the Jews as "the religious o utsider par rxcr0e'!lce"4'1. within late Roman/Byzantine society was not solely the product of the seventh-century m ilitary crises created by the Persian and then Arab >vars, in which the Jews of the Empi re w
C hristians felt themselves to be in consrant conAict. including Jc.ws.'19 The punctuatc.d episodes of actual anti-Jewish violence that began in th is period reAect the far-reaching changes under way in this period in the organization of religious identity in the late Roman world, as Jews came to be marked out as an increasingly marginalized (but still protected) minority.:.o The disrupti\•e presence of Jewish populations within the cit ies of the. eastern Empire is a recurrent image in Byzantine historiographic
and chronographic sources. In his wcll .. known account of the civic vio .. lcncc. that erupted in Antioch in 486 CE d uring the reign of the emperor Zeno (r. 474-49 I C E), the sixth-century chronicler John Malalas imputes to the cmpc.ror the following ironic aside concerning [he Jewish targc:[s of f.K tio nal violence: The Greens were responsible tor many rior.s and murders at that time in Antioch. They murdered Jews, it is said, sparing no one ....1bc impious anions of the Greens ag;tinst rhe Jews were reported to the emperor Zeno. He bC'Clme angry
~~~ P. Fredriksen and 0 . lrshai. "'Christian Anti Judaism: Polemics and Policies," in S.T. Katz {ed.). 71N Camhridgt' Hi!IO')' ofjudaitm, vol. 4: 71N i..AJt Rmllilii RI1bbiuir P,•riod(Cambridge: Gmbr;dg< Un;vcrs;
4
4
IMMOLA.rlNG
EMI~HRORS
221
with the Cri."Cn.s in Antioch, asking ""\'(fhy d id rhey burn only the corpses of the Jews? They ought to havt' burned live Jews too... 'i 1
Burning Jews, if not an actual event, dearly represented a pmcnt lire.r # ary trope. In his now classic book on the history of the circus factions in the Roman and Byzantine periods, Alan Came.ron has argued against the notio n that t he Jewish populations of the empire were aligned with the Blue f.,ctio n agai nst t he G reen and has, in general, debunked the suppositio n t hat the F.tctions possessed distinct c::.thnic or religious pro~ files.}.t And it is nm mv ai m here to revive the notio n that such accounts of ami~Jewish violcn~e, so frequent in Byzantine sources, demonsuatc that the Jews live.d undc.r conditions of unrdenting "anti· Scmitic,. o pp ression. J..">ar from it: after nearly a centu ry o f archaeological work o n sites th roughout the Levant as well as a profound historiographic. shift in attitudes concerning the place ofJews in t he late Roman world in general, we arc in a good position to appreciate. the vibrancy and d ynamism of Byzantine Jewish c.ult urc and institutionsY Nevertheless, I would argue that the unapologetic antipathy toward the Jews captured so vividly in Malalas' report reflects a palpable change of register in Christian attitudes toward Jews and Judaism in this period. In some cases, t he literary proce.ss by which representations of Jews came to be crystallized within the Byzantine historiographic traditionand t hus also historical memory-reveals the power t hat anti-Jewish discourse had to shape o r reshape the figu re of the Jew as a social actor. One such notable episode, in which the Jews act as t he perpetrators of fiery violence rat her than its victims, is t he. accou nt regarding t he murder of the Chalcedonian Pat riarch of Antioch, Anastasi us II, in t he year 608/9 C£. According to the Chronicle of the ninth-century monk Theophanes the Confessor (c. 8 10 -8 15 C£), "the Jews of Antioch, bccomTranslated in E. Jeffreys, M. Jcffreys, <1n d R. Scott ( ~nuts.), 7JJt' Clmmiclc ofjolm M.1/a/as (B.,-zantina Ausrr.tlicltsia 4; 1\·ldbournc: Australian Association for Br1...1nrine . Srud;.,, 1986), pp. 218- 19. $~ Cim# Fncriom: Blues m1d Gn:ms fll Rome ttnd By.umtium (Oxford: Clarendon PrC'SS, 1976), pp. 149-).l. "'' Sec especially L l. Levine. 71Jc Am·irm SpmgtJgue: 7hc Fim 7Jxmsand *an (2nd edn.; New Ha\'C'O: Yale Unin ·rsity Press, 200)}, pp. 2 I0-49: Schw.uu., !mpainlism :uuljnvi1h StXit:IJ'• pp. 203-74. S l)
.
1
222
RA ANAN S . 60USTAN
ing disorderly, staged an uprising against the Christians and murdered Anastasius.• the great Patriarch of Antioch, whose. genitals they put in his mouth. After this, they d ragged him along the main street and killed many landowners and burnt them."' ' This relatively brief notice has been central to modern historical accounts of the central role that the Jewish communities of the empire played in the political and social instability of the early seventh century.'' I. for one:, have no desire either to indict or c.xoncrate the Jews of Antioch~>r. fo r that matter, of the empire more generally. Neverthe· less, the historicity ofTheophanes' account of this p1111iwfar episode can be called into question quite persuasively, since. the more conrc.mpora .. nco us rcporr concerning the Patriarch's death found in the .scvcmh~cc.n .. tury 01ronicon Paschal, makes absolutely no mention of Jews, but instead places the blame squarely on the shoulders of a group of unruly imperial soldiers."' Several decades ago, J.D. Frendo sought to explain the literary dynamics by which the Jews might have become associated within the chronographic record with an event in which they had not earlier been implicated.'' He argued that Theophanes' account of the death of Anastasi us has striki ng thematic and even verbal affinities with reports concerning the execution of t he. emperor Phocas by Heradius in 609110 c~ fo und both within the Chroni& itself and in other sources.' ' Frendo, therefore, posited that the mutilatio n of the l'atri· arch by the.Jews, as described by Theophanes, resulted from a complex process of interpolation, which was significantly inflected by the anti· Jewish bias of the chronicler himself. We need not follow Frendo in all the.particulars of his rather convoluted source--critical argument to doubt ~"
The text is found at C. de Boor (cd.). 71xopl}(mis Clmmogmphia (2 vols.; leip:tig, 1883), \'OI. I, p. 296. Tr.mslatcd in C. Mango and R. Scon (trans.), 71" Clmmd~ of 1bt'op1Nmt'l shr Confmor (Oxford: Cl:u'C'ndon Pr('S$, 1997}. p. 425. )~l On 1he trC"Jtment of this episode in modern hisroriogr.1phy, see Horowir.t, "Vengeance of the jews," pp. 14-16. 51il M . Whirhy and "·L Whitby (trans.). Clmmiam l?ucfmlr 28.f-628 AD ( Liverpool: Li.,.-erpool Uni.,-ersity PrC'SS, 1989). p. 150. so J.D. Fr:'ho Killed Anasc•sius n; }QR 72 ( 1982), pp. 202-4. 58"! De Boor, Clmmogmphin. vol. 1. pp. 298 99. Translated at Mango and Scott. Clmmiclr of 1htophnnn. p. 428. Comp.ue the p.lr.llld .-.ccounts at Nikephoros. Clmmogmp/,ikou 1.35 50: Clmmiam Au(-haft.. pp. 699-70 1. 4
4
I MMO LA"rlNG
E M I~ HRO RS
223
the reliability of lheophanes' report, with its stark d ivergence from its parallel in the Chronicon Prtscha/,,>' Certainly. Byzantine chronographcrs played an active compositio nal ro le as they redacted d ossiers o f earlier sources into their large-scale chronog raphic projccts.<-11 It would seem that. over time, Jews in Byzantinc.. Christian sources tended to atuacr. as it were, acts of violence against imperial o r e.cd csiasrical authorities that in earlier sources had been imputed to others. The fact that anti-Jewish attitudes profoundly shapc.d the processes of compositio n and redactio n in which Byzantincliterary d itcs engaged d ocs not, of course, mean that Jews d id not engage in violent speech and acts. O n the contrary: in the Jewish sources from this period, we likC\vi.se detect a mo re confrontacional attitude toward the Roman# Byzantine state. articulated most vividly in violent fantasies directed at the figu re that embod ied most full y its power and authority, the empero r himself. I will suggest that the adoption by Byzantine Jews of this discourse of violent retrib utio n reAcct.s their metical dc.ploymc.n t-and perhaps internalization-of the trope of the violent Jew that was so pervasive in Bylan tinc..Christian literar y cultu re.
The Eschatological Fate o f the Emperor io Rabbinic and Related
Sources, 4;(}...700 CE A wide range.o f Jewish sources from the early- By-Lantine period-from liturgical poetry to a new spate o f apocalypses written in Hebrewattest an intensification of anti.. Ro man sentiment amo ng B)rtantinc Jews." This heightened level of antipathy is best exemplified by a ~
D.M. O lsrer. 77N Politic; of Umrpntion in 1/n- Sc~m/, Cmmry: R!lt'lorir auJ Revolution in Byzdmium {Amsterdam: :\dolf M. Hakkc.-rt, 1993), pp. 117-38. 001 \X'illiam Adler, Timl' /mmmrorial: An:lmic History nud lis Sources in Chri.sti.a11 Chro11ogmphy from julius Aftimmu 10 George S.rucrllus (DOS 26: Was.hingron, D.C.: Dumb:mon 0.1ks Research Library and Collc."Ction. 1989), pp. 132-234. 61) Su, e.g.• \X'.j. van Ekkkum. '·Ami-Christian Polemics in HC'hrew Liturgical Poetry of the' Sixth and Seventh Unturies,.. in J. OC'n Bod~- and A. Hilhorst (cds.). F.nr&· Christian Poetry (LC'iden: Brill. 1993). pp. 297-308: J .C. R«:vC'S, Tmjectories i11 Ntilr En..stn·n Apomlypm: A PoitmbbinicJrruisl! Apom&tm· Rmdt>r (Atlant.l: Society of Biblical Liter.lture. 200)). On the re-c.-mc.-rgC'nce of Jewish apocalyptic writing within the context of Byzantine C hristian culture, see A.Y. Reed, Fall.m Angl'lr and t.lx History of
224
1
RA ANAN S . 60USTAN
nu mlxr of texts that describe in graphic detail the eschatological suffe ring of the Roman emperor. which mirrors mcasurc~for~mcasurc his oppressive deeds. 1 will argue. here that Jewish writers in the early Brv amine period en hanced the more convc.n tional critique of Rome as a wicked kingdom with vivid depictions of Roman emperors beingsubjcc.t ro rc.tribmivc punishment. ~4orcovcr, thc.sc literary spectacles of imperial suffering arc distinctive for their concerted usc of language and imagery drawn fro m Jewish eschatological traditions describing the post-mortem o r end-of-time pu nishment of the wicked. The famo us and widcly~attcstcd rabbinic narrative that recounts the suffering inflicted by God on the empero r Titus for his role in the destruction of the Second Temple offers a notable e.xample of the novel incorporation of eschatological imagery into Jc·wish and~ Roman dis.course.'"' In b rief, the narrativ~t least in its more fully realized fo rms-reports t hat 1!tus, after having destroyed and despoiled the Jerusalem Temple, was torme.nted for seven years by a gnat (1Ull1') that cntc.rcd hi.s head upon his return to Rome. Various versions of thenarrative stress the public and humiliating nature of Titus' suffering, as various specialists are brought in to treat t he cmpc.ror. Indeed, whc:n T itus discovers that only the banging of a blacksmith's hamme.r can b ri ng him temporary rd ief from the gnat's merciless banging, he. pays a number ofblacksmiths fo r t heir t herapeutic services. But if the blacksmit h happened to be a Jew, the Romans wit hheld payment since they deemed it sufficient that the blacksmith should "se.e the suffering of Ihis] enemy" (1NJO:J n'ln Ni'"l 1~no•o)."' When Titus at long last mer· cifully passc:s away, his Roman cou rtiers pe.r form an autopsy o n the empero r and d iscover that the gnat has grown to the size of a large bird in his head. judaism and Cilristinnil): 'lht• Rrrrption of EntK!Jic- Liumturr (New York: D mbridge Univc.-rsity i>«'·SS. 2005}. pp. 233-72. and the.- previous liu:r.lture cited thc.-re. Olt The narr.lti\'C' appears in a numbcr of d istincf versions in Sifrei Deuterono my §328; Pesiqt.l dc.-·Rav Kahana 26: lc.-virjcus R.lhbah 20:5; Dnnc.-ronomy R.1bbah 21 ( LiebC'rman): 1-\\'0t de-Rabbi Natan A and B 7; Genesis Rabhah 10:7; levirirus Rabbah 22:3~ Ecclesiastes Rabb.1h 5:8: Tanhuma. Huq:n I: Tanhuma Bulxr, Huq.Jt I: Pesiqta de.R3bbi Elieur 48: Numbers R.lbbah 18:22; BT C ittin 56b. 6.ll O nly BT Girtin 56b provides this p:trticul3r narrati\'C' dctail, which C'Xplicitl)' the· matfzes the' act of vcngdUI "iewing h}' a j c."Wish spccrator.
IMMOLA.rlNG
EMI~HRO RS
225
Joshua Levinson has brilliantly de monstrated the ways in wh ich this intricate narrative tradition subversively m imics the Roman cu lture of spectacle.'" Levinson calls particular at tent ion to the deployment within the nar rative of mythic motifs d rawn from both Jewish and Roman cultu re-s as it crafts its own distinctively Jewish version of a ''faral charade" in which it is the imperial conqueror rat her than the conquered who suffers p ublic and humiliating death. Buildi ng o n Levinson's compelling reading of t his narrative, [ will here analyze th e belated integration of eschatological motifs into this narrati ve trad ition.• a proo:.ss th at occurred only in the fifth century and afte r. The earliest versio ns of t he story restrict themselves to a n c.xplora~ tion of the retribution suffered by T it us d uring his life time, ignoring h is post-morte m fate. This emphasis con forms to th e pattern 1 traced earlier in the paper regarding t he motif of the death of the tyrant in early Jewish an d C hristian sources. However, th e late Palestinian m idrash to Ecdesiastes, Qohclet Rabbah, adds a signific~nt final detail to one dominan t form of the narrative that was in circulat io n in Pale-stine in the fifth cent ury." This particular fo rm of th e narrative ends with a report by R. Elc..Lar b. R. Yosc that he was in Rome at t he time ofTitus' d eath and witnessed t he oversized gna t being weighe.d on a scale.(~~'• Accord ing to this tradition, Titus' soul tleparted his body at th e very moment [hat the gna t Aew away-a detail that Levinson convincingly interprecs as an allusion co the apotheosis of the empc.ror rhac was under~ stood to occur du ring imperial fu nerals upon the release of t he eaglc. 67
Levinson, ''Tr-.1gedie.s Naturally Pe-rformed." O n the narrative :LS <1nti-Christian polemic, SCC' Yuva.l. Tuft) Nations in Your \l"omb, pp. 146-48; I.J . Yuval, "Th< Lord \X' ill T.1.ke Vengeance, Vengeance for His Temple-Historia sine- ir-.1 et sn1d io" {Hebr('W), Zio11 59 {I994), pp. 351-414 (362-73). For a contrasting interpretation. see t-.·1. Kister, "Ugend.s of the Destruction of the l Crnplc- in Avot dl'·Rabbi Na111n,. (Hd>rew}. Tarbiz 6<)
67 ( 1998), pp. 483·529. Exemplific:d by Leviticus Rabhah 20:5-: Genesis Rabb..1h l0:7. ~ On the 'larious "eye· witness,. repons of wh:at R. Eleaz.ar b. R. Yose saw in Rome. sec- R.S. Boustan, "'The Spoils of the Jerus.llem Temple at Ro me and Constantinople: Jewish Coum « ·Geogl'.lphy in a Christiani:ting Empire,.. in G. Gardner and K. Oster· loh {~s.}. Antiq11ity ;, Amiquio·: Jnuish nnd Clm$tian Pa.m in :l!t' Grrco-&miin \'
(Tub;ng<ek, 2008), pp. 327-72. Levinson, "Tragedies N.-.turally PerformC'd,.. p. 380.
67l
226
1
RA ANAN S. 6 0USTAN
To this unit, the s. 88: 12 and one of the seven netherworld abysses in rabbinic cosmology,"' here displaces the somewhat more generic ''shame" (m~;n) of the biblical text. The ''erse fro m Daniel serves elsewhere in rabbinic so urces as a proo f text for the no tion that certain dasses of s inne rs. such as heretics and apostates as well as those who destroye.d the Tem ple, would face eternal dam nation.•' The Qohelet Rabbah version thus explicitly links the T itus narrative to the cosmological-eschatological traditio ns regarding the fare of the wicked i n G'rhimunn that we analyzed above. The impulse to explo re the post-mortem f:" 'e of'Titus is fu rther develo ped in the highly elaborate adaptation of the narrative that appears in the Babylonian Talmud in tractate Gittin. In this \'ersion, T itus gives the following instructions to his courtiers at the time of his death: " Burn m e and scatter my ashes over the seven seas so that the God of the Jews should not find me and bring m e to trial" (56b). Thccmperor is appar ently concerne.d lest God continue to alllict him in the afte rlife-and for good reason. The immediate.conrinuation of the Bavli passage prcs.enrs what is an o therwise unparalleled tradition regarding the post-mortem f., tc of three of Israel's most f., mo us enemies, Titus, Salaam, and Jesus. I cite only rhc section concc.rning Titus: O nqdos rhe son of Qalo niqos. rhc son of the sister ofTttus, \\~J.med. to convert to Judaism. He went and brought up Tirus out of his gta\'e by necromancy ':lnd asked him: "\X'ho is impo rtant in 'ch:n• world (i.e., the afterlife)?" He (Titus) answered: "' lsr::~d." He answered: "\X'hat then about joining them." "Their requirements are many. and you wiiJ not be ':lble to carry them out. Go and mtack them in 'that' world (i.e.• rhe world of the living} and you will be o n top. as it Sa)'S• Ha adwnarit:~ hnt·Y buomt' s.llt' IJrnd (lam. 1:5), (that is}. whoever hara..sses ls1"3d becomes head... "What is your punishment {in the afterlife)?" "'What I dccreed
681
O n Ar.wddon within lare antique Jewish c:osmologia l .specuJation conccrning the netherworld. s« Sc:h:ifer. '"In Heaven as it is in Hell." pp. 245-50. 6 1 " E.g.• Tosdia Sanhedrin 13:5: BT SJnhedrin J6b-J7a; Pcsiqt.l dc-Rav Kahana
24.3.
IMMOLA.rlNG
EMI~HRO RS
227
upon myself: E~ry day my ashes ar<" collected. and they p.1~ scntence o n mc, and I am burncd and my ashes are sc-.anC'red o~·er the SC'\'t'n seas (:11VN nuo1 ;1..:, 6p1 "'0')...1U
T itus' answer to his nephew Onqdos concerning his experience in chc afterlife--des pite his btst drorts to d ude the ret rib utive anger of God, his ashes ar< gather S. Price, "'From Noble Func-r.1J to Divinc Culr: 1bc- Apolhcosis of Roman Ern per· ors,,. in D. Can nadine and S. Price (cds-.), Rituals of Ro)'llfsy: Pou~r mul Ct'mnonin/ iu Tmditionn/ Societies (Olmbridgc: Cambridge University Press, 1987}. pp. 56-105 ':'0)
(93-1 03). ~ P. Schifer. Jrsus in the Tn/mud (Princeton: Princcton University Press, 2007).
1
pp. 82-94.
228
1
RA ANAN S . 6 0USTA N
t he Christian d iscours< of empire that emerged in this period was dependent upon t he p roductive fusio n of ecclesiastical autho rity and Roman imperial powcr,7.) the long·standing Jewish t raditions o f a nti..Roma n rhetoric could be retooled in t he sc.rvic.c o f c.xpn:.s.sing anti~Christian scn timc.nt. Yet, the intimate juxta position ofTit us and Jesus in hell in the G ittin passage is relatively unusual fo r t he way it updates a nd, implicitly, C hristianizes th e Jewish image o f imperial Rome. Otherwise, Jewish an ti.-Roman discourse in this period has a peculiarly time.. less q uality. The conscrvativism ofJewish anri.-Rorna n literary cxprc.ssion did not, however, p reclude q uite radical conceptual in novations in t he rcprcsc.n.tation of Roman authority. Perhaps the most fully realized-and violcnt-caricat urt of the Roman emperor a nd his imperial coun fOu nd in any b ranch oflate antiq ue Jewish literatu re appears in th e compositio n known as Heikbalot Rabbati." The creators of th is passage have imaginati,•dy adapted t he future-oriented idiom ofJewish a pocalyptic and man yrological literature. in o rder to fashion an account of the retribU[ivc justice visited upon an apparently fictional Roman emperor namc.d Lupinus and h is househo ld . This narrative"""' p roduced sometime afte r the middle o f the sixth century in either Palestine o r Mesopotamia, although an exact provenance has bee n-and will likdy remain- impossible to estab lish.
O n rhe devdopmem of a d istincti\'dy Bp..antine--Christian fonn o f imperial aurhorit)) see now Sarlota A. Tak:ics. 7Jx Ctmsrrttction ofAuthority in Aw:inu Rmt" ll!td B)'Z.amium: 7h~ Rlmoric o/Empirt (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009),
TS•
pp. 119-34. The passage ~ppcars in Sch!i.fer, Synopsr §§ 10'7- 12 1. For an O\'erview o f Heikh:alot lir<:r.lture. see R.S. Bousun, "The Smdy of He ikh;~.lot Liter..nurc-Bctw«'n Rdigious Experience ~n d Texw:aJ A.nifact,.. Cumnts in Bihlicnl &smrch 6 (2007). pp. 130·60; M. D. Swarn.. "Jewish Visionary Tr.1dition in R:tbbinic Lirerarure," in C. E. Fonrohett and t-.·I.S. Jaffee (eds.), 7/Jt Cttmbridgr Compmtiou to silt' Til/mud and Rttbbinir Lium· turr (New York: G unbridge University Press, 2007), pp. 198-22 1. On the historical de\'dopmcnt o f Heikhalot liter.u ur<: :tS a d istinct cb.s:s o f texts. ·S<'C' nl)' "The Emergence of P.seudonymous Attribution in HeikhaJm Liter:n ure: Empirical E\'idence fro m the Jew;sh 'M"S;car Corpora," JSQ 14 (2007), pp. 18-38. 141
I MMOLA.rlNG
EMI~HRO RS
229
A fe.w further words of introduction are necessary in o rder to place thi.scomple.x text in li terary and historical context.'' This passage, which
I will call the "martyr-narrative:' of Heikhafot Rnbbati, is a radical reworking of the post-talmudic martyrological anthology 71Je Story ofthe Trn Mdrtxrs.16 Whereas late Jewish martyrological literature is built around the notion of martyrdom as atoning communal sacrifice, Hrikhdlot Rnbbati transfers the redemptive power of the rabbinic martyrs, whose deaths ensure the salvation of Israel, to the ''mystical" visionaries of the Heikhalot corpus. who likewise intercede in their own lives, through
the process of heavenly ascent, between God and his peo ple. In th is adapted form of the martyrology, the ten rabbinic martyrs-here cast as members of a mystical fellowship-escape the death-sentence that ha.< been decreed against them . Their escape from death is achieved through a reversal of fo rtune in which the emperor dies instead of the sages. Indeed, beyond merely inverting the role of oppressor and victim, the narrative goes a step fu rther, radically destabilizing the boundary be tween and idcntitie$ of protagonist and antago nist in tragicomic
identity confusion. R. Hanina ben Tcradyon takes up the imperial crown and violently purges the emperor's household and army from withi n, while the emperor Lupin us is miraculously made to assume the appear· ancc- and crud f."c-of each of the ten rabbinic would-be martyrs (Sxnopse §§.1 20-12 1). The narrative itself is c:laborate and intricate and, fo r present pur# poses, I will restrict my analysis to o ne of its particularly rich sectio ns.
1hc narrative ope.ns with the martyr- rabbi R. Ishmael q uestioning whether it is God's will that he and his colleagues die a martyr's death. In the conventional martyrology. he learns that this is indeed the case. By contrast, in the versio n in Hrikhalot Rnbbdti, R. Ishmael is imme' diatdy treated to a vision of the divinely-sanctioned punishment inflicted o n the imperial household:
.,.,; For full discu.~i o n of the liter.u y development of this narrative, SC'e R.S. Boustan, From Martyr 10 Mptir: 1/Jtbbiflic Afnrtyrolcgy nud tlu Maki11g ofMn-km~t~h Mptirism (TSAJ 112: Tub;ng«:k, 2005), pp. 245-88. -:6,) This to:t is to he found in the immaculate synoptic edition of G. R« s (ed.) . Dir Gr.
230
1
RA ANAN S. 60USTAN
R. Ish mad said: ..W hat did the upper coun of justice do :u that hour? It ordered the angds of ruin to descend upon the Ernp
The creators of this narrative took great care to situate the scc.ne within the narrative present, signaling that the punishment of Rome is not contingent upo n o n the de3ths of the rabbinic martyrs and their fu ture retribution. This te.m poral shift transfo rms the predictions concerning the jiau.rt' punishment of the city of Rome in Tbe Story ofthe Ten Mar· tyrs into a talc of immediate re\'cngc against the Roman emperor. The talc, however. intentionally blurs the distinction among the. three primary types of c.schatologies- end oflife, post-mortem, and messianic. O n o ne. level, the execution of the empero r brings his life. to an end. At the same time, like Nc.ro redivivt1sor perhaps Titus in the. Babylonian Talmud, Lupinus docs not suffer death only once., but must rehc his humiliating defeat again and again. Finally, the so:ne draws on the messianic vision of redemption &om Rome: the calamity that befalls the imperial tyrant threatens to undermine Roman power and prosperity o nce and fo r all. 78 This picture of the imperial household in the grip of these chilling and bizarre events is painted with the iro nic brush of political parody. r! Sdt~fer. Synop!i' §§ I 12-ll3. The translation of the "'m:lrt)lf·narrativt',. in Heiklm lot Rabbmi primarily follows (he version in MS Dmpsie 436 bec-.JUSC' of it.s particular clarity in this portion of the text. ; 111 This more conventional escharologic:.1l perspective, in which Rome is destroyed at che end rime. is incorporoued into the "martyr namuivc" at Sp10p11: §§ I08-1 I0, but is here adapted to the realized cschmology of H~ikJJnlot Rnbbati {Boustan, From Mnr cyr co il-(ytcic, pp. I85-97). 4
4
IMMOLA.rlNG
EMI~HRO RS
231
I th ink it likely that the odd and otherwise unattested name of the Empe ro r, Lupinus, may be a verbal pun on the adjectival form of the Latin word for wolf {lupinus), the animal that according legend reared the founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus." According to this logic, the Empero r would be an embodime.n t of Roman power. And, in fact, later in the text, at§ 118. the angelic guide Suriya explains to R. Ishmael that t he power of wicked Lupinus derives from the fact that '' he comes from the line ofEsau, the wicked o ne. For this reason his heart is strong, powerful and crud." An extremely d ose parallel to th is b rand of polemic. is to be fo und in seventh-century apocalypse Sif.r Zembbabe4 with which the "martyr narrative.. shares a comparable hatred fo r Rome as well as a confidence in the ultimate downfall of the evil Empire. He re, as in numerous other sources~ the figure of the. Antichrist who reprc_.. scnts the demonic. power of Rome. bears the name Armilos, which is almost certain ly an adapted form of the name Romulus."' The "martyr-narrat ive" in Heikhalot Rnbbati thus appropriates Roman foundation myth in o rder to dramatrLC the archetypal conAict lxtwec n Rome a nd Israel. But, in the fu n-house mirro r of the narrative, myth is inverted a nd, along with it, relations of power-at least for the duratio n of the drama. The narrative makes explicit the causal logic behind the sufferi ng of Lupinus and his family (§§1 17- 119). With rare poetic justice, the stratagem planned by Lup in us against R. Han ina ben Teradyon and his wife a nd daughter serve.s as a n e.xact template fOr the devastation ofhis own The /oms ckwirusof the legend is livy 1..3-S. But for 3 useful collection of the man}' v.uiams of the' fegC"nd in dassial sources, SC'C' T.P. \X'isC'man, Rtmra: A Romnn M)•tl! (GmbridgC': Glmbridge University Press, 1995). pp. 160-68. See also J.N. Brem· mer and N.i\.1. H ors t~J I. "'Ro mulus, RC"mus. and the Foundation of Ro me,.. in &mum Myth nnd M)·tl!ogmpiiJ (london: Uniwrsity of london. Institute of dassic.-1J SwdiC'S, 1987), pp. 25-48. &» D. BergC"r, "'Three Typological Themes in f-1 rly Jewish i'vi:essi.;~ nism: i'vfessiah Son ofJosC'ph. Rabbinic Calculations, and the Figure of Armilus." AJS Rt>vinv 10 (1985). pp. 14 1-64 (I 55-62). argues that the name Armilos i.s not o nly associated with the Roman figure of Ro mulus but also simulr.meously with a number of other antagonistic figures from biblical hi.nory. For gener:.1l discu.$$ion of this figure, SC"( J. Dan, "Armi· Ius: The Jewish Ami-Chri.st .md the Origins and Dating of the &fir Zmrbhtwtl." in [~ SchiiJer and M. Cohen (c:ds.}. Toward thi' Millnmium: Mminuic Exp«rations from ''" Bib!r w \fflco (SHR 77: L,;d,n: Br;ll, 1998). pp. 73- 104. '"9)
232 impnial
1
RA ANAN S . 60USTAN
fitmily. 111 The mcasurc .. for~mcasurc principle that governs the
discourse of di,•inc retribution in Jewish and Christian eschatological speculation is thus realized in particularly graphic fo rm. Moreover, within the contc.x t ofHcikhalot literature, the parallelism between imperial persecutor and Jewish victim is placed within a sec#
ond frame of reference, the household of God. Philip Alexander has persuasively argued that the l atin loanword pffmib•a, which appears in the Hebrew phrase used in Hcikhalot literature describing God's heavenly e ntourage) is an allusion
to
the Roman's own designation fOr the
imperial family (firmi/;n Cffesads) ." The sufferi ng of Lupin us and his f.1mily thus fu nctio n o n both the horizontal and vcnical axes, as a defeated and humiliated Rome is subordinated to the would-be. rabbinic martyrs a.s wc.ll as to the. o ne. true sovcrc.ign of the cosmos, the
God of Israel. It is, of course.. notoriously difficult to idcnti~· with any certainty dircc.t relationships between litc.rary crcatio ns-.cspccially those as cthc..rcal as Hcikhalot tcxt.s-and political events or social conditions. How~ ever. the act of contemplating in such intricate detail the violent deaths
suffered by the cmpe.ror and his family is so bold and innovative that [ think it demands some. effort at historical comcxtualizatio n. Morton
Smith has proposed that the.descriptio n of the violence inAictcd on the imperial court in Hdkhalot Rabbfft; rcAects the political chaos of the th ird century."' Yet, Smith's faulty dating of the "inverted" martyrology is based solely on a generic and thus inconclusive reference to the
Palestinian city of Caesarca elsewhere in Hdkhfflot Rff.bbffri and docs not take into account its direct literttr)' depmdmce o n the fifth o r sixthcentury Story ofthe Ti-n Martyrs. 1would suggest instead that the "martyr narrative" of Hdkhfflot Rn.bbfft; rcAccts the. o ppositional stance taken by Jews toward Roman and " ' The humiliation and suffc.-ring ofR. Hanina.lxn Teradyon is rccounud dsewhc.-re in rabbinic liter.nur< (Sifrei lXutero nomy §307; BT 'A\·ocb.h Zlrah 17b- ISa) ;tS wd l as within various VC':rsions or 1bt> Story ofrht> Ti:n il1ariJI'$ ( I, Ill-VII, IX-XJS/40}. •.::J P.S. Alexander, "1l1e F.1mily or Caesar and the Family of God: The Image of the Emperor in the Heikh>~lot Lit
I MMOLA.rlNG
EMI~HRO RS
233
Roman~Christian power, at the time of their emergence as an inc.rc.as~
ingly marked religious m inority in the early Byzantine. In general terms, the image of Lupin us· gruesome. exec.ution may have de.rivc::d some of its cogency and fo rce for its Jewish audience from the profound polit· ical disruptions of in the early seventh·c
him as a holy warrior crusading o n behalf of a specifically Christian Roman Empire that exists under the aegis of a specifically Christian cosmocrator.~ But George goes further chan prior panegyrists of Roman imperial power by likening Heradius to the early C hristian martyrsand to Christ himself-as the empero r suffers and even bleeds to defend his empire from its (in this case, Sasanian) enemies." I would suggest that it is this distinctively seventh-century image of an embattled, yet sanctified emperor that lies behind the violent caricature ofLupinus in the "martyr narrative" of Hrikhalot Rabbati, albeit through many lay· ers of what appears to be a bitterly iro nic assessment o f the legitimacy-and justness-of Roman impe rial power.
Thus, just as the ideological legitimatio n of Roman imperial power in the ''public transcript evolved from the fourth to seventh centuries in constant dialogue with long~standing and venerable. traditions. so. too, Jewish responses to the Christian discourse o f empire that emerged
in this period remained rooted in centuries-old tropes. Yet, despite these George of Pisidia. Dt' t'."t'nim. esp. cantos L. lines 1-34; 3. lines 385399 (A. Penusi fed.j. Poemi Giorgio di PiJidia I: Pmugirici epici (Studia RltristiC3 et Bp.antina 7: Etu.l: Buc:h-Kunsrverlag. 19591. pp. 84-85. 133). On George's evolving I'C'presentarion of Her:tdius, see Mary 'Whitby. "'George of Pisidia's Pf'<'scm.ltion of the Emperor Her.Kiius and His CAmpaigns: Variety and Devdopment,.. in G.J. Reinink 3nd B.H. Stolte (eds.), Tht- &igu ofHrmcliru (610-641): Crisis aud Conftomnrioll (L.cuven: Peeters. 2002). pp. I57-74. an J. Trilling. .. f\·i)'th and Met:tphor :u fhe Br.L.lminc Court: A Literary Approoch w the David J>iates." 8;-zmu;ol/ 48 ( 1978), pp. 249-63 (259-60). SO)
234
1
RA ANAN S . 60USTAN
profound literary and cultural continuities, the d ramatically violent register that Jewish "Kaiserkritik" assumed in the early Byzantine period suggestS that the Mediterranean world that Jews and Christians shared had indeed changed in palpable ways.
Conclusion
De.s pite the shared genealogie.s of Jewish and Christian discourses of retributive' justk c, we have. scC'n that the progressive Christianizatio n of Roman political institutions and power gradually led these traditions along di verging trajcc.torics. This divergence. rcprcsent.s o ne small f:,cct of the much wider process thro ugh which Jews and C hristians in the post-Constantinian era gradually articulated their differences within often uncomfortably proximate social and cultural domains. I have argued that Byzantine Jewish sources !Tom the late fifth to early seventh centuries attc..st just such a shift in-or, perhaps better. intensificatio n of-negative Jewish attitudes toward the institutio ns of the Roman empire, precisely at a time whc.n Jews were being increasingly cast in Roman~Christian sources as a troublesome and vio lent minority. Rc.sistancc. to the new Christian o rder also entailed the integratio n and internalization of that o rder.
More interesting still, this image of the Jew seems to have exerted an equal, if paradoxical, infl uence on the e.volutio n of Jewish self-repre· scntatio n, as we have seen most d early in He;khnlot Rnbbati. This unset· d ing convergence in the Jewish and the Christian lite.rary cultures of the Byzantine period demonstrates the degree to which Jews and Chris· tians. though increasingly occupying distinctive. social positions. still share.d a common discursive landscape. I would even argue thac C hris·
tian fantasies of the violent Jew and Jewish fa ntasies of violent retribution could serve the mutual interests ofboth groups, namely, the process of communal differentiation. In imagining thcmsehres as a dissident counter--culture, Jews e mbraced a role that the Byz.antine .. Christians
authorities were more than happy to g rant them. The violent fan tasy of making the Roman empero r s life here o n earth a living hell, I would suggest, is o ne index of {he climate in which {he Jews were formedand formed themsclves- inco a minority culture.
Martyrdom, Jesus' Passion and Barbarism Jan Willeru van Henten Uuitvniuis wtn Amsurddm
Introduction The c.ross--culrural phenomenon of martyrdom is more than two millennia o ld, but. as rcccnc events cominuc to demonstrate, it is still a prominent featu re of contemporary cult ure .• Wh cth<'r one admires o r abhors martyrs, martyrdom appeals co the imagination of many, because it is a spectade, albeit with deadly consequences. Martyrdom is also a complex power game , which is already apparent from the agonistic vocabulary in several martyrdoms. Statements about martyrs in t hese writings suggest that t he martyrs' vio lent deaths imply t hat their opponent is defeated by them. f or examp le, 4 Mace. 17:1 1- 16 expresses the martyrs' triu mph over Antioch us IV with the imagery and vocabu lary of the arena. Whether such a triumph should be interpreted in a moral, spiritual, salvation-h istorical or political perspective-or all o f these-
its impact is more than a temporary reversal of the power relations at hand .' Moreover, t he hero ic death of t he martyrs remai ns powerful as long as it is commemorated by certain media, writings, a rtifacts, monumcncs, imcrnct, film ct cetera o r even rc~c:nactcd du ring community meetings and rit ual.> Another passage from 4 t'vlaccabces highlights t h is I) I warmly thank Jan G. van der \'(T,m {Pretoria), laur.l Copie-r an d Emma England
(Amsterdam) for their hdpful suggestions (and the latter also for improving my Eng-
lish). ~ See Mark Ju erge-nsmC')~r$ cha r;tcterization of the acr of terrorism as a temporary tl:'versal of the power reb tions between the "'terrorists" and their w.rgets, M. Juergensme)'et. Terror iu rbr .'\1iud ofGod: 1h~ Global Risr ofRrligious Violmu (BC'rkdcy: University of California Press, 3rd cdn , 2003), pp. 148-89. }) See E. Castelli, Martyrdom aud Mrmory: Early Chrisrinn Culturt Mnki!Jg(New York: Columbia Uni\·C'rsity Press, 2004).
236
JAN WlLLEM VAN HENTEN
point, and expresses at rhc same rime that rhc martyrs' act exemplifies the collective identity of their group. The fictitious epitaph in 4 Mace. I 7:9· I 0 reads: It would in flct be appropri~te to engrave o n that place near their tomb, as a memorial to those nu•mbers of o ur n~ltion, tht" following words: " Here lie buried
an aged priest, a respecc-.lble woman and her SC'\'CO .sons, through the \'ioiC'nce of a tyrant bent on destroying the war of litC {l«lAneia) of the Hehrtws. They \'indiatted their people, st;'lying F.tithful to God and enduring torments I!Vctl unto
de:n-h."
This epitaph keeps the memory of thc.se martyrs alive and also recalls the perceived victory ovc.r their o pponen t. Subsequently, the commcm.. oration of the martyrs brings the cmpowcrmcm of t he community wit h it. The martyrs nor only highlight the rd igious and political goals that arc important fo r rhc communities that support chcir cause, but also inspire these groups because they function as modds. They also lcgiti· marc the authority of the insider community, and disqualifY t he SO\'
MART'\' Rl>OM, Jt!SUS' PASSION AND BARBARlSM
237
exhaustive discussion of the connections b
The Concept of Barbarism The F..mous poem by the G reek poet Constantine [~ Cavafy (18641933), entitled "Waiting for the Barbarians" in English, ends with a paradoxical non~evcnt: the barbarians, whose arrival in an unidC"ntified city is awaited with great anxiety, never actually arrive.~ Some people who have returned from the border oven daim that there arc no longer any barbarians at all. Thus, the anxiously an ticipated interactio n of the civilized and the barbarians never takes place. But how docs th is •• j .\X( ·..-~ul HentC"n, "Jewish Martyrs -and the Lubn Passion Narrative Re>.·isitc-d," in R. Biering«. C. v.ln Bdle and J. Verhe}tden (C"ds.), Luk~ and his &n.das: Frsuchrifi A. Dmaux (BETL 132: Lcu\'cn: Pe
<m
238
JAN WlLLEM VAN HENT EN
non-arrival affect the ''u.s" in th e: poem, the non ..barbarians? The bar· barians t urn out to be a projection of the non ..barbarians. There is no meeting, no commu nication whatsoever between barbarians and non .. barbarians.6 And this commu nicat ion--or rath er non·communica .. tion-is exactly what barbarism is about. in mod ern times as wdl as in antiq uity. Ba rbarism is o riginally a G reek concept that highlights fo reignness by focusing u pon the language of the fo reigners. "Barbarians" do not speak G reek, o r t hey speak broken Greek. but arc not understood because of their language. A passage in Herodotus about th e o rigin of the O raclc.s of Dodo na in Greece a nd Ammon in Libya demonstrates th is core meani ng {Herod otus 2.54-57). As usual, H erodotus relates several tradit ions when he discusses the o rigin o f th ese o racles. In con· ncction with Dodona, he mentio ns that it was founded by a n Egyptian woman fro m Thebes, who was carried away by t he Phoenicians. But he also refers to the story about a dove conveying a divine instr uction to found t he o racle. H erodotus prefers th e first explan at ion and he explains the trad itio n about the dove as follows: Thl-" story which the people of Dodona tdl 'Olbom the doves came, 1 should say, fro m the fact dut the women were fore-igners (pcXpl}ccpol ~oav), whose language sounded to th em like the twiuerin.g o f birds; later o n the dove spoke with a human voice, bec:tuse by that rime the woman had stopped twittering ('ttu..; &f: iPapl}&pt~t:} and l~rned to t:~lk imdligibly (Herodotu5 2.57).7
This passage comb ines the ph rases ~6:p~cxpo:; ("not speaki ng G reek," "non-G rcck," "barbarian") and ~cxp~cxpii;O> ("speak non-G reek," "speak like a barbarian").• Passages in C lassical G reek writ ings show a sem antic d evelopment of the meaning of~O:p~apo:; fro m "not speaking G reek"
It is tempting to write "ci\·ilizcd." :u many scholars do. but Ca\':l(y never uses this word in h is poem. which triggerJ several questions: who arc the "'barbarians"' and the "-us" in the poem? If there arc no barbari:ms, what arc the implications for the non barbarians? Arc they identical with rhc barbarians~ 1) Herodotus. 7h~ Histon'e; {trans. A. de Silincourt~ rev. ed. A.R. Burn; Harmondsworrh: Penguin, 1972), p. 152. 19 LSJ306. Cf. the phrase l3o.pjk(p6~:wo.; ..speakjng a foreign language" in Homer. II. !>)
4
8.267, ond Sib. Or. 3.516: 3.)28.
MART'\'Rl>OM, Jt!SUS' PASSION AND BARBARlSM
239
into ''no n-G reek." The phrase ~ap~cxp~ ITcqucntly has a pejorative connotation, and "barbarism" often highlights the un-G rcckncss of fore igners wi[h a negative conno[ation. 9
Interestingly, several Hellenistic-Jewish authors usc phrases belong· ing to the semantic fid d of ~apj3ap~ and related words." A few of them also demonstrate that the concept of barbarism was broadened and re-interpreted, by re-defining the categories of the civilized and the barbarians.'' A note about a prayer by Judah the Maccabcc and his companio ns in 2 Maccabees I 0:4 offers a Aashback to the severe conflict between Jews and G reeks narrated in chapters 4-9. The prayer con nects this with an appeal to God. It refers to barbarians. clearly non-Jews, in irs final words: When they had done this, rhey fd.l prostrate and implored the Lord th:tt they might never ~gain f.11l imo such misfonunes. hut that, if they.should C'\'er sin. ther might be disc.iplined hr him with forbearance and not be h::andcd O\'er ro blasphemous and barbarous nations (JXxp~&.pol~ f:9vE:Gw).
At first glance, readers may conclude that this passage implies that Jews Uudah and his companio ns, and/or the cpitomist of 2 Maccabees) applied barbarism to no n-Jews" and, ironically, e\•cn to Greeks, but this is incorrect.'' The note implies a partial reversal of roles: Jews, Judah the Maccabcc and his supporters, arc constructed as the civil ized and the others, whether Greeks o r non-Greeks, arc at least potentially barE. l.C\•y. "'Nai.ss.1nce du conce-pt de b.ubare,.. Kt~ma9 {1984). pp. 5- 14. ~ S<pruagim: Ps. 113( 114): I: Ez
240
JAN WlLLEM VAN HENTEN
barians. The main point is that Jews as wdl as non-Jews can behave like a barbarian according to 2 Maccabees. Deeds, not language, arc dcc.j..
sive fo r the qualification "barbarian," as a passage about the wicked high pries t !vfcndaus dc:mo nstrarcs: "Afte r receiving the: king's o rders he returned, possessing no qualification fo r the high priesthood, bur having the hot ttmper of a crud tyrant and the rage of a barbarous beast (~llPOS ~cxpj3apou opy/ts ixrov, 2 Mace. 4:25)." 2 Maccabm shows, therefore, a third stratum of the semantic development of ~ap~cxpos and rdattd phrases: they indica« that barbarism is not o nly rdattd to language and identity but also to barbarous behavior." In short, in antiquity, barbarism seems to have bee n a mulri~appJi ..
cable construct highlighting the srrangene.s of the (barbarian) other (non.. Grcck, non#Jew etcetera), often in a negative context. Because of its o riginal focus o n language, barbarism fo regrounds the process of communication between G reeks (or other "civilized people) and barbarians. In the next section I will return co the nexus of communica ..
tion and barbarism, but before that I will brieRy survey more recent approaches to barbarism . In the recent period, the notion of barbarism has become well-known because two modern authors of fiction, Con.sraminc Cava~' and J.M.
Coetzee, have elaborated aspects of barbarism in a poem (1904) and a novd ( 1980), which are both called "Waiting fo r the Barbarians."" 1 have discussed Cavafy's poem above in some detail. Coeru:c's novd builds o n the poem not o nly by having the same tide, bur also by sharing important motifs with it. The novelS main character is a magistrate in one of the towns of an unspecified Empire. He is confronted by the scc.rct service because the barbarians arc o n the vc.rgc o f rebellion. An
expedition of the secret service, led by a Colonel Joll, leads to the arrest and pu nishment of some of the barbarians. The magistrate tries to stay away from the brutal me thods of the secret service. but he. is arreste d and tortured because of treason. The magistrate rc.scues a barbarian girl
and hdps her to recover, but he also sleeps with her. Another expeditio n into the land of the barbarians /ails; the barbarians remain and 1 ''
C( .-.Jso 2 t\hcc. 5:22: l 5:2:AriJt. 122; Sib.Or. 5.96: 5.132. Sec n. 5 .-.nd J.M. Cot't'.t«, Wniring for tiN' Barbarians (London: SC'ckct & Warburg. 1980). 1 ~1
MART'\' Rl>OM, Jt!SUS' PASSION AND BARBARlSM
241
may even strike back. Cocrtc:e's novel c:vokcs even more d isturbing q uestions than docs Cavaf).'s poem: the ro les of victims and perpetrators seem to overlap. It is difficult to say who the real barbarians arc. The power dynamics between "civilized" and "barbarians" show multiple corruptio ns b ut also reversals of power, and justice is not prcsent.u' Scholars, especially anth ropologists and philosophers of culture, have fu rther elaborated the concept of barbarism. while others have commented on the interactions between literary and scholarly u nderstand ings of the rc:-rm .17 ( usc three poin ts from these discussions in my subsequent intcrpr<:tation of martyrdom through the lens o f barbar ism. which arc drawn primarily from the work of Brett Neilson and Maria Boletsi. 13
1. Problematic Communicrttion Barbarism implies a lack of understanding between the civilized and the barbarians. The language of the other is perceived as meaningless sounds, an iterative disturbance that interrupts the usual lincar passage oflanguage. This can go hand in hand with an unwillingness to u nderstand the other's language and to make the encou nter with the other into a communicative occasion. 19
2. Change ofPowa Relatiom The failing communication destabilizes the positions of both sides and can lead to a change of the power relation between the civilized and the
D. :\tv.-ell, J.Af. C«tut: SoutiJ Africa nnd u)t" Politics o{\f!riti11g (Bc.-rkdey: Univcrsit)' of Glifornia Press, 1993); T James, "'loc:uing the Sacred: J .M. Coctzcc.-'s Waitiug for tiJt· Bm·b:triam." in J .S. Scou (cc:L), And rht Birds >m to Sing: Rt!igion a11d Liraaum• in Post-ro!Minl Gt!r.urt'f {Amstc.-rdam: Rodopi. 1996), pp. 141-49; S. VanZanten Gallaghc.-r, "-·ro rturc and the Novd: J.M. Coetzce•s \'C'aitingfor tl.~< Bnrbnriam." Gmr.:mpom~y u"mturr29 ( 1988). pp. 277-85. m Amhropologisu: Edward Bumeu Tylor and Marianna lOrgovnick; philosophc.-rs of culture: Walter Benjamin, '1l1c.-odor Adorno, Eric Hobshawm, Jc.-an -Fr.m~ois l yow.rd, Gilles Ddeuz.< and Fdix Gu:ntari; for rdcrencc.-.s, sec footnote 18. 1•) B. Neilson, "Barbarism/Modernity. Notes on Barbarism,.. Trxr.ual Pnutia 13 (1999), pp. 75-91: Bolc.-tsi, ..Barbaric Encounters" (s«> n. 5). I'J) Neilson, "Ba.rbarism/Modcmity." p. 83~ Bolc.-tsi, ..Barbaric Encounters," p. 68. l 6)
242
JAN WlLLEM VAN HENTEN
barbarians. This aspect of barbarism is articulated in various ways. According to Lyo tard's concept of the differmd, fo r example, barbarism would imply a situation in which the rc.gulation of a c.onAict between two parties fails hccausc of a mismatch of language: the regulation is fo rmulated in the idiom of one of the parties while the wrong suffered by the other cannot be expressed in that idiom. 10 This invalidates the other because he or she can never speak back and question his or her idcncity as constructed by the orhcr. 1 1
3. AmbiguQ/ts Roks and Identities The binary oppositio n between the civilized and the barbarians is disrupted by the f. iling communication because of barbarism. The confrontatio n with the barbarians affects the sdf-imagc and the roles of the civilized C"vcn if the barbarians do not communicate with the civilizcd:u The barbaric q ualities projected o n the (barbaric) other arc rcAccted in the id<."ntity construction of the civilized of rhcmsdves.:!J
Barbarism in 2 Maccabees 7 2 Maccabees 7 presumes a context that obliges Jews to participate in Gentile religious activities. Like the ninety year old scribe Eleazar, the anonymous mother and her seven sons arc forced to cat pork (2 Mace. 6: 18, 2 1; 7: I) d uring some sort of ritual meal (<mAayxvtcrllo;, 6:21; 7:42), which is part of the persecutio n by the. G reek king, Antioc.hus
1111
J.-F. Lyot:trd. lr dijftrmd (Paris: les Editions de Minuit, 1983}. pp. 9-55; Neilson,
"B:trbarism/lvlodernity,.. p. 84. m BoiC'tsi, "Barbaric Encounters,.. p. 68. See also G. Dd euze and F. Guattari, Amio~dipus: Cnpitr~lism and Schizophrmin (trans. R. Hurley. M. Seem and H.R.. lane; New York: The Viking PI'C'ss, 1982), pp. 192-21 7. They characterize barbarism :u a srsrc-m o f I'C'pre5entation that entails a rC'Org.lni.zation o f sociai i'C'ality because it organizes signif)·ing pracricC'5 into hierarchic structures of domination and subordination. Further discussion in Neilson "'Barbarism/Modernit)'•" pp. 86-87. ~ Boletsi, "Barbaric Encounters," p. 71. l.\l This is also the disturbing crux of Coettee's novel (see n. 15): The ""security officers" or the "col o ni :~l ists" of the empire' appear to be the "new b;uh:uians" (78, 8). 129); Boletsi, "'Barb:u-ic Encounters," pp. 7 1. n-80.
MART'\'Rl>OM, Jt!SUS' PASSION AND BARBARlSM
243
IV. The story offers litdc info rmation about the martyrs' arrest or the juridical proced ure. It focuses upon the antithesis of the martyrs and the king with his representatives in a repetitive way, with the dash bcrwcc:n the king and the youngest son as a dimax. 24 The ki ng tries to force the seven brothers to cat pork by using torture, but the martyrs refuse to comply and arc tortured to death. The first brother immediately sct.s rhc tone when the torture begins and says o n behalf of his brothers: "What do you intend to ask and learn from u.s? Since we arc ready to die and won·t transgress the ancestral laws" (7:2)." Two o bservations can be made in connection with this beginning of the martyrdom of the anonymous mother and her seven sons. fi rst. King Amiochus applies torture in an unusual way. He docs nor usc it as punishment or a means to find out the truth, but as a tool to demonstrate his power and to put pressure o n the martyrs to give in to him." Second, the king's attempt to make the boys obey by the usc of force fails ar the outset, as the first son's statement indicates. His fail~ urc to domesticate the boys enrages the king and urges him to order o utrageous tortures against rhe first martyr (7:3 .. )). The vcrsc.s about the first martyr already demonstrate that there is a power struggle going o n between king and martyrs. 27 This first failed commu.nic.arion also ~) See for a recent commentary D.R.. Schwartz, 77Jr Smnul BotJk ofMacrahm: lmrodu,·rion, Tmmlnrion and Commmrary(Jerll.S:llem: Yad Yicshaq Ben-Zvi, 2004) I Hebrew;
English translation Berlin: de Gruyter. 2008). For a discussion of the martyrdoms stt J.W. v.:tn Hemcn. 11Jr Maccahrun Manyrs at Savioun oftiN J~wi!h P~opk: A Srud)' of2 mul 4 Afaunbrn (lciden: Brill, 1997). .m Translation from J.W. \'om Henten a nd F. A'·emarie, Martyrdom nnd Noblr Dn11!J.· St'lmcd Tr.m.from Gnm:o-Roma11,jrwiJJ, and CiJrisrinn Antiqttit)' (london: Routledge.
2002), pp. 66-70. ~
C i. Hannah A~ndt•s instrumental .-.ppro:tch to \'iolence: Violence wiiJ ocrur when power is in danger, but violence cannot take place without a certain b.-.sis of power, even something like the St'Crtt police. H. Arendt, 011 Violmct (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. 1970). Tonurc was.-. common mc-.:tns of finding om the uuth d uring Greek a nd Roman trials, b ut, in princ iple, only sla\·es werc:- subjected to torrurc to ~ nd out the truth or to testifY: E. Peters, Tonm~ (Oxford: Bbck.,..,cJJ, 1985). pp. 11-36. In Coenee•s \flairi11gfor rh~ /Jarhm·inns, Capt-:.in Joll cxemplifle.s the connection bemttn the e>:enion of b rute tOrce and lr.ubarism, when he identi6es the screams o f torture victims as ''lxtrbarian language" ( 119). l 7> 4 Maccabcxs d abor:nes the power struggle between martyrs and the king with ath· letic vOClbular}' .-.n d meuphors. See V.C. Pfitzner, Prwl m:d ti.J.r AgM tl>forif Trudi·
244
JAN WlLLEM VAN HENTEN
highlights the two mutually exclusive views of king and martyrs. This pattern is repeated in the other comacts between the martyrs and the
king, or his representatives. The section about the second brother (7:7· 10) isshorter, but it high· lights three fu rther aspects of the interactions between martyr and oppo· ncnts. First, like the entire group at the beginning of the martyrdo m (7: 1), the second young man is already tortured befo re being asked whether he is willing to cat pork: "After the firs t one had q uitted life in this manner, they brought the second one to the place of mocking and tore the ski n off his head, along with his hair, while asking: '\Xi ill you cat, or rather have your body being punished limb by limb?'" (7:7; cf. 7:10, 13, 15). This detail matches my earlier observation about the pre· liminary torturing of the martyrs as a demonstration of the king's pow .. c.r.28 The king's represe-ntatives tonurc the second boy in an incredibly savage way- starting by taki ng his scalp-to display their power over this young jew who dared to challenge the king's command. In fact, all the tortures ordered by the king arc characterized by the text as outra· geous (7:3· 5, 7, 10, 39). But the excessiveness of his tortures actually highl ights rhc king's defeat, because all seven martyrs end ure rhc tor· turcs in an impressive way. This explains the king's great anger (7:3, 39). Second, the inte raction between marty rs and their o ppo nents turns into a sicuation of miscommunication when the second brother ans ..
wcrs the king's rc.p rc.scntativcs in his own ancestral language-: "Heanswered in his ancestral language and said to them: 'No"' (7:8). This answer basic
tio11ai AriJ/nic lmagny inthr Pauline LitmtriiJ't' {NovTSup 16; Lcidcn: Brill. 1967}. pp. 38 78; van He-nte-n, MawtbMn Mart)'rt. pp. 119w22. !IIJ for details concerning the tortures, S« \'an Hcnten, :11/aanbeau J \fhmyr;. pp. 1054
16.
MART'\'Rl>OM, Jt!SUS' PASSION AND BARBARlSM
245
cabccs and the king is associated with G reek language and cultural pmcticcs ..t9 The ancestral language of the martyrs is not made explicit, but certain details in 2 Maccabees re nder it plausible that it concerns
Hebrew."' Significantly, the barbarism involved in this passage again links communicatio n to power. The implication of the switch to the anC<."stral language is that the martyr refuses to communicate in G reek,
the language of the king, and in this way undermines the ki ng's authority and power. Ultimately, this behavior implies a reversal of the rolc.s. by which the king, as the supposed civil ized person, becomes the barbarian and the martyrs the civilized. The brief answer "no" in Hebrew (or Aramaic) implies a rejection of the king's authority by the second martyr. It ends the interaction with the king's representative.s and immc...
diatdy leads to the final tortures of this martyr." The motif of the refusal to communicate is elaborated in the finale of the narrative, when six martyrs have died and only the youngest remains (7:24-40). The king realizes that he has almost lost his battle against this Jewish F.tmily. He docs his utmost to persuade at least the youngest brother to give in to him. The narrator e mphasizes that the
speech of rhc mother had unnerved the ki ng precisely because she delivered it in her ancestral language (7:21-23; cf. 7:27). The king feels that he. has been treated with contempt and suspects rhat the mother is humiliating him (7:24). His frustration is logical: he simply could not understand what the martyrs were saying, and, apparently, thi.s was e xac-tly how the martyrs wanted it to be. The references to the language
of the martyrs help to articulate the power struggle that is going on between ki ng and martyr. They suggest that the power relations at the beginning of the martyrdom, with a trial and executio n scene that
immediately continues with tortures, should be radically re-interpreted . The ki ng is fully in control at the beginning, but the behavior and the statements of the martyrs imply that they do not acknowledge the king's
m
2 Mace. 4:9· 15: 6:1-11 . Se< Himmdfarb, "Judaism and HdJenism ... ))) j .\Y/. van Hemcn, "The Ancestral Language of the Jews in 2 M:tccab«s," in \'(~ Horbury (cd.), Htbmv Srudy ftom W
246
JAN WlLLEM VAN HENTEN
powa and auchority; rhc martyrs undermine the king's authority and principally abort communication with him. Their final stateme nts even
go o ne step further and call for a reversal of power, which leads to my th ird point. 2 t'vlaccabees 7:7-10 describes the last moments of the second martyr: "With his last gasp of breath he said: 'You wretch, you take life away from us now, but the Ki ng of the world will raise us, who d ie fo r his laws, up from the dead for an everlasting renewal of life"' (7:9). This statement puts the king in his place and indicates that G od will reward the martyrs posthumously for their absolute faithfulness to the Jewish laws.-" Other statements of the martyrs elaborate the king's fUtu re punishment (2 Mace.. 7: 11 -12, 14, 16-17, 18-19, 30-38). The martyrs' final statements add another dimension to the power game highlighted by the story. They suggest that the ki ng is subjected to divine authority and point out the rewards and punishment for the winners and the
loser of the power struggle of the martyrdom. The tensio n between the earthly authoritic:-s and the d ivine authority is a prominent motif in many marty r swrics. s tarting with Daniel 3 and 6. The vind ication of
the martyrs by God and the announcement of the divine punishment fo r the king, which comes true in chapter 9, is the finishing touch of the. discmpowerment of rhe ki ng."
Barbarism and the Pass-ion Narrath•es
The New 'l f:stamcnt Passion Narratives have been compared with ancient martyrdoms many times." Scholars have also applied Jewish martyrdoms as a modd for the reconstruction of the origin of the passion nar.. ~)
Concerning the vindic:u-ion of the martyrs. SC<' \ ...ln Hcnten, J\tlnaalxan ,\fnnyrs, pp. 162·86. l"ll The cohe-sion of the martyrdoms and rhe divine punishment of the king in Chapter 9 is strengthened hy the repetitions of the vocabulary that describes the punishment of the martyrs and the suffi.rings of the king: The divine illness nrikes Anriochus in his bowds (2 M.-.cc. 9:5), an afRiction rtminisccm of the ritual meal order<"7:21. 42). 2 Mace. 9:6 states that Anriochus' sufferings were just "for he had tonured the bowels of others with many and strange inAictions... See also 2 Mocc. 9:28-29. ~~1 Reccndy: \'incs ...The 'li·ial Scene• Chronorype... For funher refcrencxs, scc n. 4.
MART'\'Rl>OM, Jt!SUS' PASSION AND BARBARlSM
247
rativcs. It is1 of coursc1 impossible to offCr a full discussion of the Passion Narratives in tho context of this artido. 1 can o nly deal with a few aspects that may bo illuminat
'" Mark 14:53, 55-65: 15:1 -15: Mat<. 26:57. 59-68: 27: 1-2, 11-26: Luke 22:54, 63-71 ; 23:1-25: cf. John I8: 13-14. 19-24, 28-40: 19: 1- 16a. "' 2 Mace. 6:2 1-28: 7: 4 Mae<. 5: 6: 12-23: 8:1-9:9. Cf. D.1n. 3:13-18. .~ In connection w ith the Maccabean m:.nrrdoms, I suggested .-.J~ady th:u the pr<"liminary use o f torrure can be SCC'n :.s :.n aspect of barbarism. In the Passion Narrati'lcs, we flnd a similar use o ( ph)rsical punishment during the u i.al scenes, which goes hand in h:and wirh the mocking of Jerus (Mark 14:65; M:1tr. 26:67; Luke 22:63-65; 13: II;
John 18:22). See also Mark 15:1 6-20: Matt. 27:27-31: John 19:1-5 ond the other mockery scene when Jesus is hanging on (he cross (Mark 15:29-32: l\·fatt. 27:39··4:~> Luke 23:35-39). The idiom used in 2 f\·bcC3bees fo r making a fool of somebody by physical punishment or ton ure (cf. f.~RCUY!!6.; ""mocl.cry"' in 2 M:acc. 7:7 01nd iJ.tnc.tl~oo "'mock, make asport or in 2 i\·lacc. 7: LO) is sh"~d by the Synoptic passion narratives (i~n«(~oo. Mork 15:20, 31; Matt. 27:29, 3 1.41; luke 22:63: 23:11, 36) .
.u; Van H en ten, Marmlmm :\>fnrt)'J'S. pp. 125-269. )i) K. Berger, Fonng<St·!Ji
248
JAN WlLLEM VAN HENTEN
The high priest o r the Sanhed ri n and Pilate reveal through their q uestio ns the s ignificance of the person Jesus. 40
The perspective of barbarism helps to illuminate the peculiarities of Jesus· responses to the questio ns o f his opponents. There is, of course, a power dynamic. involved in the imcraction between Jesus and his o pponents and it is particularly noticeable that Jesus avoids engaging them in discussion. In Mark 14:61 -62, Jesus confirms the high priest's question concerning whether he is "the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed O ne?" (Mark 14:61) with "I am" (eyol ei~u)." but this very brief respo nse is immediately followed byJc.sus' puzzling statement "'you will sec the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power', and 'coming with the. d ouds of heaven."' (Mark I 4:62). This statement can be read as a threat, though, if it is intended as such, the high priest has, ironically, missed its thrust. Jesus· confession with the two words" l am" is all rhat matlcrcd to him and Jesus is q uickly condemned to death (Mark
14:63-65). It is significant that Jesus' brief affirmative answer to the high priest has been adapted by Mallhew and Luke, where Jesus responds in more evasive ways. In Man 26:63, the high priest first invokes the authority of God and then asks Jesus the crucial q uestion: " I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you arc the Messiah, the Son of God?" (Matt 26:63). Jesus' response ignores the pressure put o n him: " You have said so (cri> einaq. But I tellyou (nA.qv Uyro i>,.lv), From now o n you will sec the Son of Man seated at the right hand ofPowe.r and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matt 26:64: my emphasis). This brief dialogue d early builds on Mark 14:61-62, but there arc also small but significant differences between Matthew and Mark. From the perspcc4111
~questions conccrn Jesus bcing the' r-.·fcssiah, the Son of Cod (~t.uk 14:6 1;. M:ttt.
26:63: luke 12:67, 70), the IGng of rhe Jews (Marl< 15:2: MaN. 27: II : luke 23:3: John 18:33: cf. Mark 15:12, 18, 26. 32, 39 ond parallels; luke 23:37-38; john 19:3, 7-15, 19-22). Herod Anti pas' question in luke." 23:8-9 i.s not gi\·en. Dct::~ilcd discussion in R.E. Brown, 71J~ Dr.uh ofth~ .A1~ssinh. From Grt11J.t'111tlllt' ro rhr Gnu:t': A Commmrary 011 rhr Pmsion Namllillt'$ in tlu· Four Gos~ls (2 \'Ois.; London: Ch... pman, L994). pp. 461-968. m G.N. St:lnton, 7/Jt" G01prls ami Jrms (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1989). p. 223 suggests that the more:- ev:t.sive re.1ding "You h;m~· said rhJt I 'lm,. of codex Koriderhi :.nd SC\'tr:tl minuscuiC' manuscripts rna}' I'(Acct Jesus• 'lcmal response.
MART'\'Rl>OM, Jt!SUS' PASSION AND BARBARlSM
249
tive ofbarbarism it b<eomts u nderstandable why Jesus' response to the high p riest is evasive. Jesus rejects t he inferior power posit ion into which he has been put during h is interrogatio n. He avoids a d iscussio n on the terms of the high p riest and replies instead with a statement t hat expresses h is own a uthority (introduced by Aiyro Uf,l\v)." This implies a reversal of the power positions of the h igh priest and Jesus. This d isrupt ive commu nication process is even more explicit in the interaction between Jesus and th e Sanhedrin in Luke 22:67-70, which starts with the ques-tion of t he Sanhedrin: " If)'OU arc the Messiah, tdl us." He replied: "If I cdl you, you will not bc-lie\'e; and if I question )'OU, )'OU will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the powc:r of Cod." All of them asked, ..:\re you, then, the: Son o f Cod?., He said, "You say ' hat I am."
Appa rently, Jesus considers the d ialogue with the Sanhedrin hopeless from a murual perspective, as the reversal of roles in Luke 22:68 indicates: "and if I question you, you will not answer (£0..v 0£ ipoo·n)O(J) 1 oU )Ill cmoKpt9~te)." He therefore refuses to answer t he Sanhedrin. but doc:.s express an alternative powerful .statement a bout h imsdf as Son of Ma n, wh ich is also found in Mark 14:62 a nd Matt 26:64. The interact ion between Jc.sus and Pilate in Luke 23:3 e nds in a similar way. Pilate asks him: "Arc you the King of the Jews?" (cf. Mark 15:2 ; Matt 27: I I ; John 18:33. below) and jesus answers: "You say so." Herod Antipas. whose quc:.s tion i.s not given in Luke 23:8 ..9, docs not get any response from Jc.sus (23:9) ." As a matter of fact, Jesus' reactions to the questions of his opponents do not contradict what the questions imply." The point is that Jesus' responses in Matthew a nd Luke suggest that Jesus tries to avoid an elabo ra te communi<.-ation with h is opponem.s, or even blu ntly refuses to
'!)
Ekrger, Formgtscl!ir!Ju. p. 259.
' -'> C f. Luke 22:63-64 d uring the mockery lxforc- Jesus' imcnog;uion: no response to the question. Cf. also John 19:9- 10. 't) K.S. O'Brien, " Innocence and G uilt: Apologetic. Martyr Stories, and :\Jiusion in rhe rvlark:ln TriaJ Narratives," in G. \·an Oyen and T Shepherd (cds.), 71N Trill! mul IA1lfil ofJma: Essays 011 tlu Rmio11 Namuiw in Marlr ( Leu\·en: Pec:tC'rs, 2006), pp. 20)-28.
250
JAN WlLLEM VAN HENTEN
communicate with them, like rhe Maccalx:an martyrs do according to 2 Maccabees 7. The youngest .son, fo r example, fi rst rc:main.s silent in a self-assured way (2 Mace. 7:25)," but ultimately he speaks (7:30-38), just before h is death, expressing his superiority over the king and announcing God's judgment over him: "And through the verdict of God you will receive the right punishment for your arrogan ce ... I call upon God that .. . you will con fess lx:cause of trials and tortures that He alone is God" {7:36· 37).46 ln a d iffere nt way. the Passion Narrat ives also combine the motif of an interactio n that turns out to be a non.-d i.. alogue of two d iametrically opposed views and a reversal of the power relat io ns. Jesus ridicules h is interrogators in his rc.sponsc to the Sanhc· drin in Luke 22:68-70, a nd then identifies h imself as Son of Man, announcing with sovereign authority that th is Son ofMan will be se~tcd at the right hand of t he power of God "from now o n:'"'7 Here we see the second aspect of ba rbarism, the overlap or even change of roles of the civilized and the barbarians, and the consequent reversal of the power relat io ns. The morif of a reversal of power is especially prominent in John's Pas· sion Narrative, whcre the dialogues between Jesus and Pilate dominate the trial scenes.'" John elaborates u pon the motif of Jesus' being king, which is triggered by Pilate's questio n "Arc you the King of the Jews?" already transmitted in Mark 15:2 discussed earlier." jesus' response to Pilate in John 18:36 suggests t hat Jesus' kingdom is of a d ifFerent and superior nature t han the secular powers that dominate the human C( 4 Mace. 6:5, 9 -11 -and Babylonia n TaJmud BcrJkhot 61 b about the martyrdom of Rabbi Aqi\'3. $11! G.N. Stanton. Jesus ofNazamh ;, New Tmame111 Prr,uhi11g {Cambridge: Cambridge University Pr~. 1974), p. 34. rejects the analogy bccwec:n Jesus' rc-spon~s -and the reaction of the Jewish martyrs to their oppont'ftts. 471 M.L Soards, The Pmsion according to Lu/.:e: 7hr SptI
w.rk, 1996). "' john 18:33-37, 39; 19:3, 12, 15. 19·22; c( 1:49: 3:3. 5.
MART'\' Rl>OM, Jt!SUS' PASSION AND BARBARlSM
251
world."' The dialogues between Jesus and h is o ppo nen ts in Joh n not o nly express failed commu n ication t ime and again but also presuppose a principled antithesis lx:twccn t he eart hly powers and Jesus' au thority. They p resent Jesus as the au thoritat ive person d uring t he inte ract ions he has with h is o pponents. Jesus acts on th e basis of a superio r a ut hority, but he docs not exchange roles with his o pponents (John 18 : 19-23; 18:33-8; 19:9-1 1) ." In the first dialogue ( 18: 19-23) . Jesus a nswers t he high priest at length, b ut he docs not simp ly respond to the q uestion a bo ut his d isciples a nd h is teaching (18: 19-2 1).>' His answer includes a brief rhetorical question: "Wh y do you ask me? (tl 11e tp(l)t'}:<;; 18:21)," which is reminiscent of the response o f the 1v1accabcan martyrs to Anti# ochus JV's order to cat pork in 2 Mace. 7:2, which starts with "What do you intend to ask . .. (tl f.leAAet<; tprot&v;)?"" W hen Jesus is hit by
C.K. Barrt'tt, 11!~ GosfXInmmling to StJohn: An burrxlurthm with CoumtnltllYJ auJ Nott•s 011 tht Grnk Ti:xt ( London: S PCK, 2nd edn, 1978), p. 536; R.J. Cassidy, jolmf Go1ptl in Nerv Persprctiw: Cl!ris:ology•auJ thr Rrt~litit"; ofRtmum l'owt'r(Maryknoll, NY: Orb~, 1992), pp. 48-49 . .,,> C f. P.O. Duke, Iron)' in :hr Fqurth Glnf"/ (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1985). \o))
pp. 126-37, who argues that John IS:28-19:l6, 19-22 points to a doubft' downward movement that concerns Pilatt' and the Jews :ts wdl as co ..the ironic dev.ltion of Jesus to the office of King, Judge, and Son of God" ( 127). Also D.A. U rson, 1br Gosprl According UJ jolm: All lmrodu Many scholars inurprct Jesus' brief question in John 18:21a :ts" reflection of the r.tbbinic proscription against sdf-incrimination {see Babylonian T:tlmud S.1nhedrin 9b and !vlaimonides, M ishnc-h Torah,laws ofSanhedrin 18:6; I chank Ab: Jasscn, Minnropolis, for rhe.sc rd"crences) ; for example. Barrett, Gtnpr/ m:cording U1 St jo/,n, p. 528: R.E. Brown, 7hr Gospr!Arrordi,g to jolm: Introduction, Tmmlario11, nnd Nom (2 vols.;
AB 29; Nnv York; Doubleda)l 1966-1970), vol. 2, p. 826; Cor.;on, 71x Gotf1n offici:tl trial and the paralle-l of 2 Maccabees 7:2 implies that the question em also be interpreted se-nsibly in a nother W:ty.
252
JAN WlLLEM VAN HENT EN
o ne o f t he attendants because of his lack of rc.spcct for the h igh priest, he reacts by saying: "lfl have spoke n wrongly, test ify to t he wrong. Bu t if I have spoken rightly, why d o you strike me?" Thus, the attendant is sh ut up a nd d egraded , not Jesus. The b rief d ialogues with Pilate evolve around Jesus' kingd om, which is "not fro m this world" ( 18:34-37}, and, by way o f contrast, arou nd Pilate's power (£E,ouo la, 19: 10- I 1)." There is a fOIIow~up o f qucscions and a nswers in thc.s.c passages. b ut Jesus docs not really respond to Pilate's questions. The first dialogue between Jesus a nd Pilate, fo r exam ple, starts with Pilate's questio n "Arc you the king of the Jews?" (18:33), a nd Jesus answers: " Do you ask this on your own, o r d id o thers td l you about me?" (18:34), to which Pilate a nswers: " I am not a Jew, am I?" which is not a direct answer either.'"} In the sec.. o nd dialogue (19:9- I 1), Jesus d ocs not respond to Pilate's first q uestio n "Where arc you fro m?" But t he second q uestion trigge rs an elabo rate answer, which h ighlights the contrast between Pilate's power and that o f Jesus: .. Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to rdcase you, and powt'r to cruci~· you?" Jesus answered him, "You would h:wc no power O\'C'r me unless it lud becn givC'n to you from above; t herefore the one who handed me over to you i.s guilty of a grelter sin... Qohn 19: 10-ll)
The point fo r me in t h is co mp licated passage is that Pilate is pu t in h is place by Jesus' state men t and intend s to release h im (John 19: 12). The d ialogue contrasts Pilate's secular authority with Jesus' au thority, which derives !Tom God , and the implicat io n is that all hum an aut hority,
"'' The conn ection bC"twcen the rwo thcmes is stressed br BarrC'tt, Gosf"lnccording to StJolm, pp. 542-43. Compare nlso t he amithC'Sis of secular ruk and God$ powC'r that underlies t he court tales of Danid 3 and 6, the Maccabe.m martyrdoms as wdl :tS Josephus' story about the' demolition of H erod•s eagle Qosephus, lKitr 1.648-655: 2.5-7;
Am. 17. 148-164). on which sec \ ':tn HentC'n, MnrcabMJI Martyrs. pp. 10- 14: Idem . "Ruler or Cod? The OC'molition ofH«od's Engle'," in J. Fotopoulos (cd.), Nrw Tt-ltnmmr nn.d &rly Christiall Lirrratun: i11 Gr«o-Roma!l Gmuxr: Studies i11 Honor ofDavid E. Am.- (NovTSup 122; Lciden: Brill, 20061, pp. 257-86. ~"1 C f. similar "miscommunications,. in John I 8:35-36 (PibtC': "\'(that ha\'e you done?,.
Jesus: ..My kingdom is not from t his world ... j; 18:37-38: 19:9-10.
MART'\'Rl>OM, Jt!SUS' PASSION AND BARBARlSM
253
including Pilate's, ultimately derives from God." At least for the moment, Pilate goes along with th is rad ical redefinition of t he power relations involved.
Paradise Now ) will finish my d iscussion with.• perhaps, a rathe-r extreme come.mpo# rary document, the movie Pflmdise Ntnv (2006). l'dmdise Norv, by the Palestinian· Dutch d irector Hany Abu-Assad, is a movie about the final days of two young Palestinian males, Said (Kais Nash if) and Khaled (Ali Suliman ), who have been dose friends since their childhood." They have agreed to perform a suicide mission in Israel. The m ovie focus~s o n the martyrs' action, including the final preparations." Khaled decides at the very last moment to step out of the operation. Said, however. proceeds with h is mission and u ltimately b lows himself up on a b us in Tel Aviv, although the realization of this act and its deadly consequences arc not actually shown. The. movie is qu ite obviously cont roversial likely intentionally so. But it is ncvenh cle.ss an int riguing text. because1 astonishi ngly, it succeeds in creating some u nderstanding of th ese sui# c.ide bombers and their motives. At rhe same time, t he movie offers a rad ical criticism of this kind of self-sacrifice. It downplays t he ro le of religion -as motivation in several scenes, including a rid iculing of the martyrs' testam ent recorded on vidco."9 Their deed turns t hem into
~ BaJTC'tt. Gospel aft·ording to
5I jolm, pp. 542-43.
~ Augusrus Fil m. HaariC'mJWarnt'r l ndt'pendent Pictures, Burbank: 2006.
""'i { use the term "matt")'f,. here' bec.:msc the movie constructs Said and Khalcd as ma rt}'TS, but it is obvious that for many they ai"C' terro rists, not man yrs. This distinction depends upon tht' diffcTence herween "insidt't and "outsidC'r,. perspC'Cti.\·es and their respo::ti\'C' viC'ws concC'rning rht' nexus o f martyrdom and violcncC'. SC'C' my '"Inter· net Martyrs and. ViolencC': Victims and/or Perpetl".nors?,. in J.J. BC'kkenkamp and Y. ShC'rwood (cds.), SannifoJ Aggmsion: L~g,ui~s of Bihlical aud Post-Bibliml Vm-.1bu/arin of Violma (Tht' Biblt' in the Twenty First Ct'nnuy 3; London: Continuum,
1004). pp. 193-2 12. ""~ Two dialogues with dtt'ir ~cruiter also highlight tht' artificiality o f Islamic rdigion as the motiv.tting factor fo r th C' martyrs. In onC', thC' recruiter asks whcthC'r the mar· t)'TS are re.tdy fo r tht'"ir act; onC' martyr responds: "Yes, with God's hdp... The cam t'ra zooms in on the f.tcC' of tht'" r«ruiter, and h ighlights tht' man•s disbelief. Anotht'r d i:l·
254
JAN WlLLEM VAN HENTEN
barbarians fo r most, but still they are depicted as very human, with their fears, love and clumsiness. I will focus o n the beginning and the end of the movie, which together form a diptych because of the repetitions and analogies that can be illum inated with the help of the concept of barbarism."' The telling firs t scene of the movie takes lc.ss than ninety seconds. It shows how a fragile young Palestinian woman, Suha (Lubna Azabal), crossc.s a chcckpoinr before entering the Palestinian territoric.s. Later
on we learn that she is the daughter of a famous martyr. Suha approaches the checkpoint on foot and the camera dosdy follows her steps. When Suha approaches the officer who checks her identity card and luggage, the soldier watches her closely, keeping eye contact with her as much a.s possible. The next moments arc visualized alternating between medium dose-ups and dose-ups of Suha and the soldier, with doseups that focus on the ID and the luggage in between them.•• There is no music, nothing is said and the audience o nly hears the no ises made
by the wind or the pieces of Suhas luggage when they arc taken out. The series of alternating (medium) close-ups of both persons focusing on their minimal body language suggests that the soldier can make or break Suha. The soldier is fully in control: he has his weapon close at hand, while one of his comrades keeps Suha within firing-range throughout the entire interactio n.
Iogue concerns the question of what happens with the m:lrt)'I'S after their act, and the rcxruitcr says that two .,_ngds will come to fetch them and bring them to he.wcn. Said expresses his doubt.s ~bout this. ThC' most st"rious deconstruction o f the entire martrrdom ~\Ct comes fro m Said's girlfriend Suha. whose f.ltht'r Abu Azz:.1m i.s a f.lmous Pal· esrinian martyr, but who c.!e:trly states that there i.s no God and convincingly argues in a dialogue wirh Said that the suicide bombin~ are counter-productive to the Palestinian c-.ase. 6111 O n the beginnings and endings of movit"s, S{'(' E. Neupert, 7h~ Em/: Nnrmtion nnd Clomr~ in tlh" Cin~mn (Dt'troir: Wayne State University Press, 1995); D. Bordwell, 1ht \li'ny Hollywood Tr/ls It: Story and SfJ·I~ iu Modt'm Movi~s (Berkeley: University of Californ ia Press, 2006}. 411 :\ medium dose-up fr!lmes the human body from the cht"st up, a d~ up o f a hum:ln person focuses on the h(':ld or one o f the other mt'mlx-rs: D. Bordwell & K. Thompson, Film An: An bltrodiu·tiou (New YorJ.: fvfcGraw-Hill, 5th edn, 1997), p. 238.
MART'\'Rl>OM, Jt!SUS' PASSION AND BARBA RlSM
255
The c m ire c rossing is shown from Suha's pe rspective and the sold ier is ••the barbarian o thcr."6 :: The power dynamics involved in this border
crossing arc highlighted by the. f.tct that there is no dialogue between Suha and the soldier, who is constructed as the o ppressor. The crossing takes place in silence. This verbal non ..communication confirms noc o nly the binary o pposition lx:twccn Suha as a Palestinian woman and the sold ier as an Lsrad i, buc also their o pposite power positions as abs~
lutdy dominant and utterly dependent. Their roles, however, become slippery through the behavior of the soldier. The non-verbal communication is dear enough. It implies, in combination with the soldier's arrogant attitude, that it is problematic to sec the soldier as the repre...
scntativc of the civilized in this silent th•-lt-the. For the soldier, Suha must be the barbarian, be ing a Palestinian woman, but his behavior suggests othe rwise. "'fV.-o details are im portant in this connection. W hen
the soldier returns Suha's I D. the camera turns 90 degrees to the space between them so that the audience gets a close up of what happens with the ID. Suha tries to g rab her ID, but the soldier q uickly lifts his hand so that she misses it before he eventually lets her have it. This is humiliating fo r Suha and d early confirms the dominant position of the sold ier. Next, the two stare at each ocher again and we sec a close ..up of
the soldier's face. He docs not say anything, but suddenly nods his head in the direction of the territo ries. Now the audience scc.s the pcnctrat..
ing gaze of Suha, fixing her eyes on the soldier. and she seems to nod slightly in acknowledgement before she walks to her taxi. Suha undergoes the procedure of the crossing witho ut any comment.
She remains silent until she meets her fellow Palestinians. The taxi d river who asks whether she is traveling to Nablus is the first human voice we hear in the movie . There is no power reversal between the civilized and
the barbarian duringSuha's crossing, but one could argue that she gai ns a mo ral victory in this scene because of her dignified behavio r. However, from the soldier's perspective this would be ridiculous."
~
Suha is che so-CJJied "'foc.alizor" of chc: entire beginning of the movie:. For foc.ali:t..1tion. SCC' rvt Bal. Na"atology: burodstrrioJJ/(1/ht' Thtory ofNamlth't (lOromo: University ofToromo Press, 1985). pp. 100-15. '-» The sharp anti.thc:sis bc:twcen PJJcstinians and lsr:1dis in the movie implies th::at humani-x.ing the one automatically means dehumanizing chc other.
256
JAN WlLLEM VAN HENTEN
The movie's end suggests a reversal of its beginning through several analogies. It shows the final moments of Said, who becomes a martyr fo r his insider community by his sclf~sacrifice. Most people will con· sider hi m a brutal suicide bomber-and not a martyr at all. The per· sonal mocivcs that bring Said to his act of terror include compensatio n
fo r the disgrace of his fitthcr who collaborated with the Israelis and was executed. These reasons do add another clement to the barbarism dis· cussion,
but I want to focus o n the final scene. I inte rpret this sce-ne of
less than a minute again through the lens of barbarism, focusing upon the communication between Said and his victims and the power dynam~ ics involved.
The movie depicts Said sitting in a public bus, d riving through one ofTcl Aviv's streets. He sits o n the back of the bus in his black suit and white shirt, with a haircut and his beard shaven off. The clothing of Said and that of the other passengers contrast with each other. The other passengers arc clearly Israelis and wear colored clothes, which empha· sizes the opposition between Said and them. Said's clothes arc ambig· uous. They could be associated with the clothing of an ultra-orthodox o r o rthodox national ist Jcw.M At the sam e time, Said•s outfit can also
be interpreted as the suit of a wedding guest, which may itself carry a double meaning. O n the one hand, for the other passengers on the bus, Said could plausibly be a guest going to a wedding. hence explaining why they do not suspect any danger. For viewers who arc famil iar with the tro pes o f Is lamic martyrdom, the suit triggers associatio ns with the martyrs' immediate transfer to hc.avcn and the company of the houris, the heavenly maidcn 1 there.6 .,
Said is sitting o n the left side of the bus, surrounded by soldiers and o ne or two civilians. The communication process ind udcs verbal exc.hangc.s as wdl as body language and cons tructs another concrasc "'' This as.sociario n is supported by an earlier scene in the movie rh:n ind udes the remark "you look like a settler."' €.$1 E. Kohlberg. Mrdirun/ J\;fmlim Vii'WJ on A1nrtpJom (Amsterd':lm: Koninklijke Ncxlerland5e Akademie \...ln \'(fetensch:.ppen, 1997), pp. 14- 16. Th< martyrs• ple.uure with the hourit is mentioned twdve time.s in the short Spiritu:.J Manual of the 911 1 attackers; see H.G. Kippenberg <1ndT. Seidensricker (eds.). Tlu• 9111 Handbook: AIIIIO· taud Trnuslntion and lmrrpri'lluifJII ofrlu Atfd(kal Spirhual i\>lamuli (London: Equinox, 2006), pp. 15-16, 21, 31, 55, 74-77.
MART'\' Rl>OM, Jt!SUS' PASSION AND BARBARlSM
257
lx:twe
(.6}
258
JAN WlLLEM VAN HENTEN
scngcrs arc chatting am ong t hemselves, but we cannot hea r what th ey arc saying, a nd t hey do not talk to Said. Said remains silent and looks straight ahead of him. Both "sides," the refore, comp letely ignore each othe r; the martyr in spr n:mains passive a nd silent fOr t he moment, bu t the audkncc knows what is coming. Said remains staring during h is last seconds, which we, t he audience, share with him, b uc we do not hea r or sec what he thinks or feels wh ile his Israeli targets arc chatting around h im. Although t he very last moment, the explosion, is not shown, the fi nal scene suggests, ncvc.nhdcss, t hat Said succC"cds wit h his mission. The ga p of the blank a t the end of t he scene implies, from Said S perspective, that the roles of victims a nd pe rpetrators arc reversed by Said's act. Through h is self-sacrifice, Said fi nally t riumphs over h is Israeli enemies. It cannot be coincidence that almost all of th em a re sold iers!' The soldiers d ie together with h im an d become t he victims o f h is martyrdom. But this victory is dcconstructcd at the same time by the: movie: it is neither shown, nor i.s it cdebratcd . ln.stc.ad, there is just a blank, which can be interpreted in several ways. The ligh t of the b lank screen may allude to the martyr's transfe r to heaven, bu t t he audience knows because of previous scenes that Said himsdfdoubrs whether heaven exists.
C onclusion This article applies t he concept of barbarism to analyze th e power dynamics involved in the interactio ns between c-he martyrs and their o pponents in various con texts. I have attemp ted ro show rhat barba· ri.sm is a useful lens for illu minat ing t he commun ication- o r rather rniscommunication-bc rwce-n marty r an d oppon<:nt. Barbarism nor o nly h ighl ights the strangeness of rhe opponent, t he barbarian other, b ur also foc uses on rhc p rocess of comm u n icat ion between the sup~ posed civil ized and t he barbarians, and th ereby fo regrounds the powe r dynamics between the two grou ps.
The bus .sce-ne repeats an e3rlier scene when Said decid es to Ic-c :t bus pass bec-.1use there are children on board.
681
MART'\'Rl>OM, Jt!SUS' PASSION AND BARBARlSM
259
All three examples discussed in this contribution, the martyrdom of the Maccabcan mother and her seven sons, Jesus' passion, and the selfsacrifice of Said in Pnrddisr NOw, confirm that the nexus of commun ication and power dynamics is an important aspect of martyrdom, across
different cultural contexts and periods. Barbarism illuminates the particularities of the communicatio n process lx:-tween martyrs and their opponents, and points, in various ways, to a reversal of powe r between the two. The outcome of the interactio n process. with the reversal of the power relations, leads to the empowc.rment of the martyr, whether in the present, posthumously, or in the case of Jesus in the context of
an eschatological time-frame. The martyrs bri ng about a defeat of their o pponents. immediately o r in the anticipated future. Barbarism also
makes us aware of the fact that the roles and idcntitic.s of the martyrs and their opponents can become ambiguous during rhc martyrdoms: at the start, the martyrs arc constructed as the barbarian others from
the perspective of their opponents, but as victims of the barbarian oppressor /Tom the perspective of the martyrs' in-group. D uring the process of marty rdom, the multi~layercd contrast between ('the ch•i#
liu:d" and "the barbarians'' can become blurred, especially if the martyr resorts to violence. The vic.tims may ultimately become perpetrators
whose hands arc stai ned with blood like those of the. perceived oppressor, as Pnmdisr Noru shows. Pnmdisr Noru differs !Tom 2 Maccabees and the [>assion Narratives by presenting conflicting imerpretations of the
act of martyrdom . The blank scr<en at the end invites the audience to make up its mind about SaidS act. Barbarism invitc.s us to rethink mar# tyrdom.
Select Bibliography Ando, CliftOrd. !mprrial !dndogyo11d ProvillcinlLoJnley i11 tiN' Roman Empi~. Berkdey: Univctsity of California Press, 2000. Arendt, Hannah. On Violence. New York Harvesr, 1970 . Avalos, Hc:cfor. Fighting \VOn{.r. 1hr Origim oj'&ligious Violm«. Amherst: Prometheus, 2005. Barr, David l., cd. 7h~ R~n/iry• ofApomb'Psr: Rlmoric nnd !'t!litia iu tiN B(J()k ofRrwlntion. SBLSympS 39. Adanu: Society of Bibliatl Lircrarure, 2006. Bauer, \'<'.alter. " Das Gcbot dcr Feindesliebe und d ie alrcn C hristen." Pages 2.43--44 in Aufiiiru mrd klt'iur SrJ,rifrm. Edited b}' Georg Stre-cker. TUbingcn: f\·{ohr SiC'bcck, 1967. Rrpr. from Zl'itrrhriftfiir 71xologir mrd Kirch.t 27 (19L7). Baum an. Richard A. Crimt' and Prmislmum ;, Audrm Romr. London: Routledge, 1996. BC."k.kC'nkamp, Jonncke ~nd Yvonne ShC'rwood, eds. Smmificd Aggrmiou: Ugadrs of Bibliml a11d Pott Bi!Jii~td Vornbrtlarirs of Violma. JSOTSup 400. Bible in the Twenry-First Century 3. London: T. & T: Clark, 2003. Bd Jinger, Charles K. 9
St:.t.iiCr BJBLlOCRAI'HY
261
- - - . Apornlypridsm in tiJr Dt>ad Sra Sn·olls. london: Routledge, 1997. - - -.. "The Zeal of Phinehas. the Bible, and the legitimation of Violence." Jounw/ of Bibli
(2009), pp. 215-45. Fredriksen, Paula. a nd Oded lrshai. ..Christian Anti-Judaism: Polemics and Policies." Pages 977-1035 in 77Jt Gunbridgr History ofjudaism. \•ol. 4: 1hr Law Rommr-Rnbhinic Period. Edited h}' Stc\•en T Katz. Cambridge: Cambridge Unive-rsity Press, 1006. f riesen, Steven J. Imperial Cu/c; and ti~ Apoct~/ypst' ofjolm: &ading &wliltiou iu rht Ruins. New York: Oxford Univer.sit}' Press, 200 I. Frilingos. C hristopher A. Spt-
262
SELECT BIBLIOCRAl' li \'
Gagc.-r, John. Ki11gJom nnd Gmummit)'. Englewood Cliffs.. NJ: Prentice Hall, 1975. GaugC'r, J.-D . .,Ocr 'lOd des VC"riolgC'rs•: Obt"rlegungC'n zur Historizitit cines Topos,'" joumalfor tht> Sf11dy ofjudaimt 33 {2002): 42-64. Gibson, E. Leigh. and Shdly Matthews, C'ds. Violmc~ intht' Nrw 7i:stammr.. Edinburgh: T. & T Clark. 2005. Gillxn. Cary. .. Ronun Propaganda and Christian Idcmity." Pages 23.3-56 in Ctmuxtunlizing Aru: Lukau Nnmuiw and Grt'arRomau Disamru. EditC'd by l Odd 1\-nnC'r and Caroline V. Stichde. SBLSympS 20. Adanta: SociC'ty oi Biblical Liter:tturt', 2003. Gilmour. ?v1ichad J. "'Delighting in the Suffo-ing of O thers: E:trly Christi:m Schadm/mtdt'and the Fu nction of the Apom&pu ojPt'lt:r."' Bul/niu for Bib/iml R('Jcttrrb 16: I (2006}: 129-39. G underson, Erik "'The Ideology of the Arena." Classicnl Amiquisy 15 ( 1996): 113-5 1. H~un mt'rton- Kdly. Roben G., ed. lfiokm Origim: \V'alt..r Brtr!un) Rmr Girard, and jonatlum Z Smith 411 Ritual Killi11g and Culmml Fomuuio11. Stanford: St:.lnford University Press; 1987. Hanis. \'(filliam V. Restmini11g Ragr: 71" !tkolog)'O/AugrrComrol in Clas;ical Amiquity. Cambridge: Harvard Uni\'crs.ity Press, 2004. Himmdtarb, Manha. 70un ofHr/1: An Apocalyptir Form i11 jtutisl!nud Christian Litrm· un·~. Philaddphia: Univt"rsity of Pconns)'lvania Press, 1983. Homer-Dixon, Thom:u F. Environmmt, Smrdty, (llld Violmcr. Princeton: Princeton University Prt:ss, 1999. HorowirJ., Elliot. Rtcklns Rite~: Purim ami tlu Lrgary ofJnvis/, Violmrr. Princeton: Princeton Uni\·ersity Press, 2006. Ja.ssen, Alex P. .'\1tdiating rhr Divinr: Prophecy a11d Rewlation in six Dt:.ul Sea Scrolls nnd ~rOfld Ti:mplc judaism. STDJ 68. leiden: Brill, 2007. Ju('rgcnsmcycr, i\·fark Trrror in t/,e Mind of God: 71Jr Global Risr o/Rrligious Violmu. 3rd cd. B«kdcy: Uni\·crsit)' of Calitornia Press, 2003. Lccmans, John, Wendy i\·fa)'tr. J>auline AJicn. and Boudewijn Dchandschuttcr, cds. ...Lrt us Die rluu \\V "'")' Liw': Gr«k Homilirt OJI Chriuiau ,t-frmyrs from Asia Minor. Pidatinr and Syrin c. AD 350-AD .f50. london: Roudedgt", 2003. Levinson, Joshua. "Tht" Athlete of Piety: F.n.aJ Fictions in Rabbinic Literaru ~." Tnrhiz 68 (1999): 6 1-86 (liebo<w).
- - -. "Tragedit"S Natur-.tlly Pcrformt'd: Fatal Charadt"S, Parodia Sacm. and rhe Death ofTirus." Pages 349-92 in Jrwish Cu/um• and Soci~ty uudrr t!Jt' Cl!ristia11 Roman Empirr. Edited by Richard Kalmin and Seth Schwaro:. J..c.uven: Pet'ters, 2003. Licht, Jacob. "Taxo, o r the Apocalyptic Doctrine ofVeng(';lnce," ]o11mal ofjnvis!J Stll· dir; 12 (1961): 9>-103. Lincoln, Bruce. Hoi, Ti:mm: Thinki11gabom Rrligion afurS~ptrm~r 1I. Chicago: Unin•.rsit}' of Chicago, 2003. - - - , Am!Joril)•: Comrruction and Corrosion. Chicago: Uni\·crsity of C hic.1go Press. 1994. Marcus, Joe--l. "Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation." joumal of Bihliral Liumtw\' I25 (2006): 73- 87.
St:.t.iiCr BJBLlOCRAI'HY
263
tvlar.shall. John W. Pam bin o{\flttr. &nding jofJu}JrwisiJ Apocni:J'Pst'. Srudies in Christianity and Judaism/Etudes sur le chrisrianismc ct lc jud.aismc. Waterloo, Ont.: \'
1999. Schwarn, Regina. 11Jr Curu ofCain: 1hr Violmt Lrgmy of,\lollothrism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Schwartz, Seth. lmpaia/ism (IJidJrwi;h Sorirsy, 200 He£ I.IJ 640 u_ Princeton: Princeton Uni\•er.sity Press, 2001. Scott, James C. Domination and rhr Aru ofRNisuma: Hit!dm 71-imscripts. New Ha\'en: Yale Univcrsity Press, 1990. Shaw, Brem...Judicial Nightmares and Christi:lll Memory." JoumalofEnrly Christian Studirs I I (2003): 53:\-63. Solhuna, R:ljj .l. "'War and Violence in rhe Ideology of the Qumr.1n Community." P.1ges 34 1-.52 in Vrrbum rs Cnlnmus: Srmitir :md &lnudStut!i~s i11 Honour ofd,rSixtirth Birtlulay ofProjNsor 1i1pnni Hnrvi.dilrm. Edited by Hannu Juusola. Juha Laulainen and Heikki Paiva. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2004. Stcndahl. KristC'r. " Hate, Non-retaliation, and love: IQS x, 17-20 and Rom. 12: L9-
21.n HarvnrJ 1/Jt'o/ogiml Revirw 55 (1962): 337-55.
264
SELECT B IBLIOCRAl'li\'
Strarton, Kimberly. Naming thr \'<'i:ch: ..t1agic, /d,o/pg_y, and Su•rt'oty~ i11 the Ancimt \florid. New \Ork: Columbia Uni\·C'rsit}' Press, 2007. Sward ()~ Wilbrd 7\·t "War and Pcacc- in the Neo.•• Testament,.. in ANRW'2.26.3 ( 1996):
2298-2408. van Henten, Jan \'<'illem, and Friedrich :'wemarie. MariJrdom rmdNoblr DrlliiJ: Srluud U.ws from Gnuco-Roma11, JrrviJh, and Cl!ristilm Amiquil)•. london: Ro udedge, 2002.
van Henten, Jan Willem. "Jewish Martyrdom and Jesus' De:tth." Pages 139-68 in Dru:rmgm dt'$ JOt!~ jl'Su im l\'i:um Tmammt. Edited hy JOrg Frey and Jens SchrOtC'r. WUNT lS I TUbingcn: Mohr Sid xck, 2005. ---."Jewish Martyrs and the' Lukan P..usion Narrative Revisited." P.-.ges 32.5-44 in Lr,kr mul his &.1dm: FrtudJrifi A. Dnumx. Edited by Reimund Bieringer, G ilbert
van Belle, and Joscyh Verheyden. BEll.. 132; t.e.uvcn: Peeters, 200). - - -. 71u Marrnb,•il!J tl>fart)'TJ as Saviours of the J~rvish Pt•op/c A Study of2 a11d 4 Mamtl,us. JSJSup 57. Lcidcn: Brill. 1997. Yarbro Colli1ts, Adela. Cri1is and Guhm·sis: 77~ /'qu!fr oftlu· Ap«n/ypst'. Philadelphia: Wcsuninster, 1984. Yuval. Israd J."'Vcnge:.mcc and DJmnation. Blood and DeF.tmation: From jew"ish Marryrdom to Blood Libel AccUS3tions... Zion 58 ( 1993): 33-90 (Hcbrcw). - - - . Ttt!(} Nariom in Your \%mb: Pcrc~ptiom ofjnvs and ChriJtians in Lnfi' Amiquil) and thl' Midd/~ Ag()'. Trans. Barbara Harshav and Jonach::an Chipman. Berkeley: University of GaJifornia Press, 2006. 2'.<-rbc, Gordon M. Non -Rt'tn!iation i11 EArly J~wish and Nt!w T6tnmmt Ti:xts: Ethirnl 17Jmw inSo
Index of Ancient Sources
Hebrew Bible.
7:5
7:9
GC"nes-is
6 Exodus 15:3 15: 17-18 20:2 20:5 20:22 23:7 32:8 36: I 36:3 39:32
45
3 32 186, 187 199 187 154, 156
199 37n87 37n87 37n87
leviticus
4 IS 18:3 19:4 I9: I 5 I9: I6 19: 18 23:36 25:2-3 25:55 26: I
126 156-57 149, 150, 156-58, 159 187 I 54-56 167 159 60 199 187 187
Numbers
4:33 4:35 4:39 4:43
37n87 37n87 37n87 37n87
8:11 8:24 I2:8 15:22-3 1 18:4 I8:13 I8:2 I 18:33 19:9 19:35 25:2-3
37n87 37n87 37n87 37 202 126 37n87 168 37n87 37n87 37n87 60 199
OC'utcronomy
4:19 6:4 6:4f. 6:5 I I:27f. 12:2 12:30 13:10 13:16ff. 17:3 18:10-1 I 19 I9:15 20:15-18 23:2-3 27:15 3 1:10-13 Joshua 22:27
200 198 187 199n50 187 187 187 187 187 200 157 I55 153, 155, 156
4 35 187 61
37n87
266
JNOt!.X OF ANCIENT SOURC ES
31
87
Pro\·crbs 9:2 II : 13
2 S3mud 7: II
33
lamentations
I S:lmud
I Kings 8:33 8:35
188 188
185 167
I :5
226
Estht-r
208
D.mid ls.1.iah 22:37 24: 17 28:9- 11 33: 14 53 53:7 53: 12
127 28 195, 197 58 130 130 127, 128, 136
Ezcokid 40:3 40:5
163 163n31
Zechariah 2:5 14: I
25 30
162 62
MaJachi I: I0 Psalms 2: 1-2 41 69:9 88: 12 135: 15f. 11 5:3 11 5:4 116:1 5
6
208 236. 246 247 n36 236. 246
7:9
64
7-12 9 12:2 12:2-3
208 246 226 208-9
Ezra 7:25
6 1n53
Nehemiah
Habakkuk 1:5 2: 17
1-6 3 3:13-18
29
33 198 I I0 226 187 198, 199n50 187 185
8:1-8 10:30
61 37n87
I Chronicles 28:13 28:20 23:24 23:25 23:28 23:32 25:6
37n87 37n87 37n87 37n87 37n87 37n87 37n87
2 Chronicles 21:33 24:12 24:17-25 24:21 24:23-25 35:16 35:20
37n87 37n87 130
l:lO 131 37n87 37n87
267
JNOE.X 0 1: ANCI ENT SOURCES
Scptu-agi•tt (LXX)
7
Psalms 113( 11 4):1
239nl0
Isaiah 53: 12
127
Ezckid 21:31(36)
239nl0
Habakkuk
I:5
25n45
Hd>""' Bible Apocrypha & P.scudcpigtapha
I Enoch 27 27:3-4 37-71 48:9 56:8 90:28-29 9 1: 13
67 67 66 66,67 66 34n75 34n75
I Maccabcxs 1:24-27
208 16
2 Baruch 32:3-4
34n75
2 Macc3btts 2:2 1 4-9 4:9- 15 4:25 5:22 6-7 6: 1- 11 6:7 6: 18 6:2 1 6:2 1-28
211)...11 239nl0 239 245 239nl0, 240 239nl0,240nl4 236 245 246n33 242 242 247n36
7:1 7:2 7:3 7:'1-5 7:6 7:7 7:7-10 7:8 7:9 7:10 7:11-12 7:13 7:14 7:14-16 7:15 7:16-17 7:18-19 7:19 7:21 7:21-23 7:24 7:24-40 7:25 7:27 7:31)...38 7:31-36 7:36-37 7:39 7:42 9:1-28 9:5 9:6 9:28-29 I0:4 13:9 15:2 15:3
3 Maccabee.s 3:24
237. 242-46, 247n36, 250 242,244 243, 244. 151 244 243,244 130 244,247n37 244,246 244 246 244,247n37 246 244 130,246 209 244 246 246 130, 209 246n33 245 245 245 250 245 246,250 130,209 250 244 242, 246n33 209.217 246n33 246n33 246n33 239nl0 239nl0 239nl0 239nl0 239nl0
268 4 Maccabees
5 6:5 6: 10 6:9- 11 6: 12-23 8: 1-9:9 9:9 9:24 9:32 I0: II 10: 16 10:2 1 II :3 11 :23 12: 12 14: 12 14: IS 17:9- 10 17: 11-16 18:5 18:22
JNOt!.X OF ANCIENT SOURC ES
2 10- 11 247n36 250n45 197 250n45 247n36 247n36 130.209 209nl5 130,209n l5 130, 209n 15 209nl5 209nl5 130, 209n l5 130, 209n l5 130, 209n 15 209nl5 130. 209n l5 236 235 130, 209n 15 130
Apocalypse of Baruch (Erhiopic) 72-73 2 12-13n24 Apocalypse (Vision) of Ez.ra 2 11
4
2 14-15
2:45 2:4~7
2:154-173 2:174-175 2:252-310 2:286-296 2:312 2:444 35 3:36-74 3:516 3:528 5:28-34 5:96 5:132 Testamem of Moses
9:1-7
Tobit 14:5 Wisdom of Solomon I: 16-3:9 2 2:19 2:19-20
3 3.10-19
AscC'nsion of1sliah 4:2- 14
2 16n38
CD 34n75
L..ltin Apocalypse of Elijah
212n24
~ttcr of Arisrea.s
122
Sibylline Oracles 1-2 2
240nl4
53n30 53-57,59
209nl4
34n75
127 128, 130 127-28 129 128 130
Dead Sea Scrolls
Jubile<s 1:26-29
53n30 53n30 53n30 53n30 53n30 52 53n30 53n30 6n39 216n38 238n8 238nS 2 16n38 240nl4 240nl4
1:4-5 I :7 1:12-13 2:4-5 2:6-7 2:7-8 4:14-18 4:14-19 5:6 6:11-14
28-29, 30, 37, 39-40 40 40 40 40 40 40 28
33 28n58 29
269
JNOE.X 0 1: ANCI ENT SOURCES
IQS
CD Com.
6: 13-16 11: 18-2 1
28n58 29n61
15: 15-17 20:22-23
36 28n58
IQ32
32n68
IQM 1: 1-2
14n3,34. 36-3S 35 14n3 26 34 35n77 26n49 36 37
1:2
1:6-7 2:6 3: 11 4: 1-2 7:2-3 7:3-7 7:4 7:9- 15 7: 10- 11 7: 12 I I:7-8 12:7-8 16: II 16:15 17: I 17:9 IQpHob 2: 1-3 2:3-4 2:5-6 2:5- 10 2: 13 2:6-9 7: 1-5 7:5- 14 8:8- 13 I I:4-8 11:17-12:6 12:3-4 12:7- 10
35nn
37 37 37 25 37 34 34 34
34 23.25,29-30 25n46 25n47 25 2.1 25n47 25 23 41 29n58 27n52 30 30 29
I: 17-18 2:15 3:13-4:26 3:13-15 3:17-19 3:18 4:13-14 4:14 4:16-17 4:18-19 4:2D-22 5:7-13 5:11-12 8:4 8:4-10 9:6 I0:19 11 :8-9
22-23. 24. 4 1-42 34 24n42 24 41 41 40 24 26n49 41 41 42 22 24 34 31 31 43 31
IQS. I: 12-13 2:5-8
36-37
2Q24
32
4QI6 1
26 26
36 36
S-10 iii 1-13
4QI69
3-4;) 1-13
29n58
4QI7 1 1-10 ii 19
4QI74 I + 3 ii I 1-2-+21 1-2 + 21 1-2 + 21 1-2+21 1-2-+21
i2 i2 i4 i6 i 6-7
1-2+21 ; 18-19
34 3 1-36 33 32 32 35 32-33 32 33
270
JNOt!.X OF ANCIENT SOURC ES
4Ql77 5-63
34
4Q255-264
22
Classical Authors A~schylus
4Ql66-273
28
Agnmmnum
IIQI9 29:7-10
441~42
4Q266 8 i 6-9 4Ql71 5 i 12- 15 4QMMT B 1-2 c 10 c 10-11 c 11-16 c 17-18 C26-28 C30 4Q491 4Q5 11 35 35 2-5
36
AuIus Cdlius Attic NigiJts 1.26
32n6S
86
110
29n61 20-24,27-28, 30.39 21 2 1,39 24 23 24 39 39 37n88
Cicero lh iuvmtiotu rlmorica I 80--81
2.40.116 2.40.116~ 1. 1 21 2.43. 115~4. 1 28 2.47. 138~8. 1 43
181 nl 7 181 nl 9 181 n20 181 n21
2.52 185 Tmculmuu ditplltntitmes 2.41 46n3 HC"rodoms
2.57
238
HomC"r
36n80 31
4Q554 3 iii
35
4Q554-555
32n68
5QII
22
5QI2
28
5QI5
32
6QI5
28
IIQI8
32n68
!lind 8.267 JosC'phus Comm Apio11nn 1.58 1.116
238
239nl0 239nl0
Amiquitfltnjudaicae fJrwisiJ Antiquitin) 1.1 07 239nl0 4.12 239n 10 9.169 130n28 239nl2 15.30 15.136 239nl0 15.268 49n13 15.274-75 49n13 17.148-164 252n54 29n6 1 18. 18-19
271
JNOE.X 0 1: ANCI ENT SOURCES
Brllum judaimm (f~wis/, \YoUr)
1.648-6)) 2.5-7 2.;67 7. 132-157
252n54 252n54 l3nl 63n61
Livy
1.3-8 22.57 29. 10-11 29. 14
231n79 54n32 54n32 54n32
Minucius Fdix Onnvim
10.5
72
60
Scnce1 De clmmlfid
1.21.1 2.3.1
141 141
01: im
1.6.1 1.6.1-2
46n3 74n99
27
59
Tacirus Agricola
239nl0
Dr opijidq mundi
128
; 1.18
Sucronius Gnius
Philo Dt! mutrlliour nomimmr
36
Sailusc &llum raMiinar
30
86
Ammle-s
239nl0
1).44
74
Quod omuis prolms libtr sit
78
13nl
Plato Corgias
473c 477a
74n99 74n99
Laws
735d-736a
74n99
Pliny Namml Histqry
9.62
63n59
Plutarch M:m:~llm
3
54n32
Quintilian /mr.itutiq omtqrin
2. 15.7 7.6
91 180nl6
Nc.w Testament r-.·fanhcw
5:3 ) :10 ) :12 ) :28 5:34 5:38-42 5:38-48 10 I0:17 I0:21 10:32 10:34-37 10:39 13:41-42 13:49-50 18:23-35 18:41 22:13 22:37
198 187. 198 47 72 200 47 133 ISS 187 3. 188 188, 191 3 189 47 47 47 47 47 198, 199n)O
272
JNOt!.X OF ANCIENT SOURCES
.'\1arrhrtv Com.
24 26:39 26:53 26:57 26:59-68 26:6 1 26:6 1-62 26:63 26:64 26:67 27: 1-2 27: l l 27: l l-26 27:27-3 1 27:29 27:3 1 27:39-43 27:4 1
175, ISS 137 47 247n35 247n35 34n75 248 248 248,249 247n37 247n35 248n40, 249 247n35 247n37 247n37 247n37 247n37 247n37
M:uk
10: 18 13: l 14:32-42 14:53 14:55-65 14:58 14:6 1 14:6 1-62 14:62 14:6'!-65 14:65 15: 1-5 l 5:2 15: 12 15: 16-20 l 5: 18 15:20 15:26 15:29-32 l 5:3 1 15:32 15:39
200 10 l 94n42 247n35 247n35 34n75 248 248 248,249 248 247n37 247n35 248n40, 249, 250 248n40 247n37 248n40 247n37 248n40 247n37 247n37 248n40 248n40
luke 1:48 2:52 5:20 6:29-36 6:35-36 7:55 9:2'1-25 ll ll :47-48 ll :49-50 12: 10-12 12:51-53 12:52 22:18
22:25-30 22:54 22:63 22:63-65 22:63-71 22:67 22:67-70 22:68 22:68-70 22:69 22:70 23:1-25 23:3 23:8-9 23:9 23: ll 23:13 23:33 23:34 23:35-39 23:36 23:37-38 23:41-43 23:46 23:63-64
197 250n47 133 47 123 47 131 131-32 131 123, l24nll 3 250n47 250n47 250n47 247n35 247n37 247n37 247n35 248n40 249 249 250 I 21
248n40 247n35 24Sn40 248n40, 249 249 247n37 124 124 120-25, 127. 128, 135. 137. 138. 139 247n37 247n37 248n40 142 121 249n43
273
JNOE.X 0 1: ANCI ENT SOURCES
j ohn I:49 2: II 2: 13-22 2: 14- 15 2: 16- 17 2: 19
2:2 1-22 2:23 2:24 3:2 3:3 3:5 4:54 11:47-48 11:50 18: 13-14 18: 19-2 1 18: 19-23 18: 19-24 18:2 1 18:2 1a 18:22 18:28-40 18:28-19:16 18:33 18:33-37 18:33-38 18:34 18:34-37 18:3)-36 18:37 18:37-38 18:39 19: I 19: 1-5 19: 1- 16o 19:3 19:7- 15 19:9-10 19:9-11 19: 10-11
250n49 104 99 107 llln27 34n75, 113 llln27 Ill, 11 4n33 III III 250n49 250n49 II I 113 113 247n35 251 251 247n35 251 251n51 247n37 247n35 247n35.25 1n51 248n40, 249, 252 250n49 251 252 252 252n55 252 252n55 250n49 109 247n37 247n35 248n40,250n49 248n40 249n43,252n55 251,252 252
19:12 19:15 19:19-22
250n49 250n49 248n40, 250n49, 251n51
Act5
3:12 3:14-17 13:27 5:1-20 5:41 6-8 7:51-52 7:56 7:58-8: I 7:59 7:60 17:30-3 1 18:6 22: 19
198n48 122 122 47 198 13 1 13 1
121 132 121 11 7, 121. 138 123 250n47 132
Romans I:25 5:3-5 8:35 8:37 12 12:17-2 1 12:18-2 1 12:20 13:4
200 196. 197 78 78 134 135n35 85 85, 135 78
I Corinthians 2:2 2:16 3 3: I 5:1-5 8:4-13 13 13:8-13 13:12 15:26
97 198 195 195.197 85 65 85 202 202 85
274 1 Corinthiam Com. 15:32 15:54 15:54-55 15:55 15:57
16:22 2 Corinthians 1: 1-2:1 3 1-4
JNOt!.X OF ANCIENT SOURC ES
78 78 85 78 78 85
95, 97,98 197
2: I
97
2:4 2:5-10 2:6-10 2: 13 2: 14 2:24 3: 1- 18 3:6 4:7 4: 17 5 5:5 7:5 7:5-16 7:8 7: 12 I0: I 10: 1-6
78.95
10: 1- 13:10 10:2 10:2-6 10:3 10:4 10:4-5 10:6 10:8 10:9 10: I0 10: I I
97 97 85 78 78 88 176n6. 180n l6
92 197 84 84 78.85 95, 97,98 79,90 97 87,90 8, 78, 79. 80-81. 85,9 1,92 78, 84,85 88 79.89 80.88 88 88 88 90,97 79 78, so, 87,9194.97 90
:3 :4
:23 :6 :6-7 :12-2 1a :13-15 :21 :21h :21h-12: 10 :21h-12:13 :23 :23-29 :25 :26-29 :26-35 :29 :30 2:5 2:7 2:7-8 2:8-10 2:9 2:10 2:11-13:10 2:15 2:16-17 2: 17 2:19 2:21 3:1-2 13:2 13:3 13:4 13:9 13:10 14:8
97 97 97 78 78 91 97 93 91 80,91,97 93
n
94 87.92
92 93 93 93.94 93 78 94 94 93 93.95 95.97,98
96 95 95 95, 96.97 97
97 96 93 93 93 95. 96.98 78
Galati.ans
I :8 I :9 6:10 6:17
85 85 84 92-93
275
JNOE.X 0 1: ANCI ENT SOURC ES
I Th<ssaloni:tns
5:8
175 78
19:11-16 19:20 20:11-12
63 65 64
I Timothy
I:7 2:2 3:6 4:7 4:8 6:3 6:5 6:6
137 198n48 198n48 198n48 198n48 19Sn4S 198n48 198n48 19Sn48
Titus
I: I
198n48
Hebmv.s
5: 12
195, 197
I PetC'r
2:9
Apoc3l)'p« of P:tul
34-36
9:2 9:4 13 Rainer frJgmem
212n24 215 214 68-69 211 2I I
74 215-16
Othe-r Ancient & Medieval Christian Authors/W'orks Apoc3lypse of Gorgorios ( Erhiopic) 86 2 12n24 Augustine ConftJJiom
198n48 198n48 198n48
7.8
73
Comra rpittulam l~trmmiani
1.8.14 1.10.16
74 73
Dr civitmr Dri
Revelation
2: 14 2:20 2:23 6:8 8:9 9:7- 10 9: 15 13:11- 18 14: I0 14:14 16:1- 17 17:7- 14
74
198
2 PetC'r
1:3 1:6 3: II
Pseud
Apoc-.ll)'pse of Pc:tc-r 8
2 Timothy
3:5
Nc-.w Test:uuent Apocrypha &
65 65 70, 72 62 62 62 4 216n38 70 62 65 216n38
20.19
216n30
Dr diwrtis quMstionibm adSimpliriam""
53.2
74
Episrln
95.3 153.17
74 74
Commodian lmtmrr.ioJU!
41
216n30
276
JNOt!.X OF ANCI ENT SOURCES
C)•prian Dr bono patimtin~
16 Didascalin 6 25
134 136 125nl5, 136
Hippolyrus Dmumsrrntio a.dvmus }t~thtun 3.20.4 124n 14 Hisroria pmsionis Domi11i f. 55' 136n37 lrt'nac-us
Ephr<-m Ommlt'llltuy on Tiuia11i Diatrmmm 10. 15 121 2 1.3 12 1 2 1.1 8 12 1 Epiphanius Pnnariou 78. 14.6
Adl~rms haernrs
3.12.13 138 3.16.9 121. 138 3.18.) 121. 138 3.185 133-34 139n40 4.36.1 Epi&ixis tou aponolikost kirygmaws 69 139n40
138 Jerome
Euscbius Agttinst Hrrctirs
4 4.28.4
139 139
HisUJrin «rlniastim
2.23. 16 5.2.5 6.2.6 6.28 6.28. 1
121 138 194 193 195
Eust.nhius of An tioch
Dr mgtts!Yilll)'tiJOs 1.3
200n54
George.' of Pisidia Dr t'>:~ditiout' Pt'rsim
1.1 -34 3.385-399
Epist!r 120.8.2
136
John Mahhs ClmmogmpiJi,t 15.15
220-21
Justin Martyr
Smmd Apology 5 lactantius DitJinr lmriturt'/ £H monibus ~rwrutorum
45n2 217n40 217
Origcn
233n84 233n84
Homiliar iu Lt:t,ifimm
2.5
128
£o.:homuio nd marryHaimo of Auxcrrc Gmmmmzry· ou lwial!
53. 12
rmm
128n24
2 4 5 6
196--97 196n46 198 19Sn47, 199n49 199n50, 200
277
JNOE.X 0 1: ANCI ENT SOURCES
b:JJOrtatifJ ad mnro·riron Com.
7 13 28 41 42 46 )I
200 202 199n)O 194n43 194n43 200,20 1 20 1n56
Pni PnsciM
43.33-36
12)nl)
1.13 2.1 2.1-2.-. 2.2-14 2.21>-1).6 2.10 2.13 3.1-8.8 7.1 7.1-2
75 PolyCJrp Philippians
12.3
139
Sl~p!Jerd ofHemms
I: I
7l
1Cnullian Agnimt iWnrcion
4. 16.4 4.42.4
135 135n36
Apologetirrmr
2 2.4 22. 1- 12 23.5-6 )0. 13
191n41 18Sn36 45n2 45n2 184
Dr s~ctnculis I
46
4-6 7 14-15 16 21 26 27.3 29 30 30.1-3
4), )2n28
45 46 46 46 46 71 46 66 46
&orpi11a (Srorpioll)
1.1- 13 1.5
186n33 184n31
7.7 9.1-11.3 9.3 9.8 9.9 0.4 0.9-12 I 1.1 1.4 1.4-5 1.4-8 1.5-7 2 2.1 2.1-14.3 3-14 ) .1 ).1-6 ) .2
5.4 ).7
S4n3 1, 191 8) 86n33 86n33 86n33 87 87 86n33 8) 8) 8) 8) 86n33 88 88 89 89 89 84 89 89 90n38 86n33 90 92 92.193 86n33 92 92 86n33 92 93 86n33
Theophanes the Confessor C!Jronqgrnphia 22 1-23 298-299 Roman Law
Cod,.· 7h.-odm;anus
16:18: IS
218
Nowl!.tr ComtiiiJtionr:;Jusrininni
146
219
278
JNOt!.X OF ANCIENT SOURC ES
Rabbinic. literature Mishnah, Tosdta
& Talmuds Mishnah Eruvin 5:4
4,9 (46b) 162 165
Ketubbot 5:3 9:5 9:7-8 Naz.tr 7:4 San!Jtdri11 3:7 7:3 Ta'tmir 3:8
151 164n36. 165n37 164, 165n37 152nl8
;,4 (29d) Srmhrdrin 1.4 (19c) 3,11 (2 1d) 4, II (22b) 7.3 (24b) T./nnit 3,10 (67a) 4,5 (69b) 4.12 (6b)
167n41 54-55, 148-49 166n40
49,52n28 151 164n36
Nazir
152nl8 154n22 150 2 12n27, 2 13 226n69 158n26 158n26
Yr-vamot
8:7
166n40
PalestinianTalmud Brmk!Jot 9, 1 ( 13b) Eruvin 5.3 (22d)
166n40 147n9 152nl 9
Bah)'lonian Talmud 17b 4h &vn Bmm 54a 168b &wn 1'-'lrtz.ia 83b
145 232n81 147nS 166n40 166n40 166
&tMQpmmn
Shnhbm 6 7
166n40 167n4 1 154n22 150
Jb,'Of!.tl, Zaml!
Tosefi:t
5: I Sanhedri11 8:3 9: II 13:4-5 13:5
151 nl3
}hmiiOI
17 ~18a
AIXIdah Znmh 2:2 Krtubbot 5: 1 9:3
166n40
Knuhbos
Giniu
4:3
Gittin
99b &mk!JOt 19a 32b 56a 61b En11'i" 21b 39b 57b 58 a 6 Sa
167n4 1 166n40 147n8 166n40 250n45 166n40 166n40
130n27 162n30 166n40
Ginin
2 12n27, 2 13
35a 54b 56b
162n30
56~57a
165n38 166n40 224n62-63, 226 226-27
279
JNOE.X 0 1: ANCI ENT SOURCES
14a
147n9
Knubh(lt
30a 54a 84b 87a
147n8, J60n28 J66n40 J66n40 163
M<"gdlah
15b
J66n40 J66n40 J66n40
I ~J
HagignJJ
147n9
23a 24o }~vamot
63b
J66n40
Minor Tractates, Midrash, Hclkhalot Literature & Hcb«W Apocal)•p.ses
A.t.'Ot de-.!Wbbi M1tha11 A
Ntdarim
20b
224n62 J66n40 A.t.Y)t de·Rnbbi Nathan B
Pnahim
87b
J66n40
224n62
7
QidJruhi11
JOb lOb-I Ia ?Ia
151nl3 J68n43 J66n40
R(lsiJ ha·SIJa!laiJ
17a
DmWIWIOJII)'
Rabb,J,
21
224n62
Ecclrsinsw RnbhaiJ
213n27
5:8
224n62,225-26
Snnlmlriu
9b J6b- 17a 22b 29a 31a 37b 42a
42b 52b 56a 65b 93b I l ib 17a Sl11zhbm 67a-b
15ln53 226n69 J66n40 J67n41 167 147n8, 154n22, 155n23. J60n28, 161 147n9 147 161 147n8 J66n40 147n9 147n9 J66n40
Gmrsis RabbnJJ
158n26
}01hun bm Levi Fragmmt
10:7 22:9 26:2 54:21
HtikiHilor. Rahbati {Sch~ ter, Sy11opsc zur HeldJalot·Liwmmr)
§§107-121 §§108-110 §§ 11 2-1 13 §§ 11 7-119 § 11 8 §§12()-121
228-34 230n78 230 231-32 23 1 229
Isaiah Fragmtm
212n25
sJJ~vu'ot
34a
212n24 154n22
Sotah
Sb
Lrvitiau RahbaiJ
147n8, J60n28
Taimit
17a
224n62 75 213n27 147n9
J66n40
6:5 20:5 22:3
147n8 224n62, 225n65 224n62
280 Lantt'tlft~tions
JNOt!.X O F ANCI ENT SOURC ES
Rnbhnh
1: 16
Sifrr Dr'llfmmomy
130n27
Mrkbilta de-Rabbi Yislmultf Masckhto 1)3n2 1 de-Kaspa 20 Numbers Robbnh 18:22
224n62
&siqta de-Rahlti Efitur 48 224n62 Pesiqta &-Rav Knhmw 24:3 226n69 26 224n62 58 28:3 &drr '0/am Rahbah
2 12
S
S.ftr Zrmbbahrl
40 307 321 322 328
14)n2 232n8 1 147n9 166n40 224n62
Sifrt Numbrrs 117
150 l)l nl .l-14
Siftr Zt11n 6:12 11 :26
152nl 8 166n40
Song ofSougr Rahbah I
1)2nl 9
Srory oftlJt Ttw Marry•rs130-32 38/40 232n81 7imlnmut, Huqm I
224n62
7/mlmma BuiN:r, Huqnt I 224n62
23 1 Yalqur Sl!im imi
Sifm Ah.-uei Mot 9 Qcdoshim 2:4
§933 1)7n24 167
227n70
MediC"Val Jc·wish Authon l\·{aimonides Mi;/mdJ TtmtiJ LrtwsoJSanlmlrill 18:6
25 I n51
Index of Subjects
I E•uKh, 66-68 2 Corinthian•• 8. 77-98. 176n6. 180n 16, 197 2 Macab«s, 130.208-9 .217.236-3 7. 239-40, 242-46. 247~37. 2~0. 259 4 Maccabtts, 130, 140. 197. 209- 11 , 23>-36,24 3n27,247n36.250n45
9111, "'· 77 Abel, 74-76, I)I Acts of the Apo$dn (New TcstlJTicnt book). 9.47, 11 7-19, 121-26. 13 132. 138. 141 -42. 144. 192. 198, 250n47. Srt 11/Jo Luke. Gospel of .~eschylus, 86 Ag~inst M~t.l't'i.~t.
IJ5
allegory, 9-10. 79n8, 89. 174-203. !i« A1s8 hcflllCncucic(s) I 06 Qa also Nero Antioch. 182, 209, 220-22
Antioch"' IV Epipluna. 209.215,2 17, 235.242-4 3.246nJJ,2 51 anti-Jud.tism, 9, 122-23,21 9-23. !i« also :lnti·Scmic i1m anti-Semitism, ix. 22 1. Sa also anci· Judaism
Apocnlyp" of/h.,/, 214-15 Ap«a/ypvofJ>n,., 68-69.74.2 11 ;apocaJypcic litcntu" mel thoughc. 3-4. 4>-76. 193, 199n50. 207-16, 228: Byzantine c-na
J~ish. 223~
cognith·c
d issonancr- and. 47n8~ csch:trologic:ll
I"C\'cnge/judgmcnr in. 47, 70, 207-16: F.anusy of power :and violence in, 48, 68. 205, 234: holy v.·u- in. 80n8; nu.r· tyrdom :and, 209; origins of ...iolcMc in Ikad S
rijic texts arena(s). 7-8.45-76 .235. Su AHD sl>di.uon;; Ro.nu.n Empire, cutru~ of spec· uck of; \'O)'C'Uritm ARndt, H:tnn:ah, 82-84 Aristotle, 180, 193 Armilos, 231 Astcrius o( Ama~.a. 137-38 Augustine, 46n,l, 73-74. 79n6. ISOn I S•
216n39 Augustus. 49-50. 86n26, 87 ;uonemcm. 27nSl. 125n17.12 6. 128~
138 ll,,laam, 226-27 barl>arism, 10- 11 , 125nl6. 235-59 ll.u Kocnba r
cdibacy, 69-70 Cittro. 46n3. 181).81
Cla
11 8-20. 140-44
282
I NDEX OF SUBJ ECrS
Clement, 68n78, 193 c<>«c;on, 8, 62-65. 81-84, 9 I,
96
Cohen, Leonard, 174n 1 combat-.tm, I06 Constanrjne. 216-17.227
crucifixion, 46, 86, 92., 97, 99, I I4, 122-24, 136, 139. 142-43, 247n37,
252 culr(s), 55n32, 185, 198: of C hristian mo.rtyrs, 202n5S;. Chriscian rcfus..U • • • • • n » to JXl-M1C1patc m CI\'1C or pagan, 177-78, 184; impC"rial, 51-52,
64n62, IS4; of Jerusalem Tt'mple, 13. 15, 27-29, 36-37.6 1. I 14. Sual.w m:trtyr(.s) a nd martyrdom; sacriflcc; space (sacred); temple Cyn;c ph;losophy, 79, 86, 140. 193
Dead Sea Scrolls, 13-44,66-67, L35n35: 4QFiorilegium 14Q I74), 3 1-36: 4QIVHqsat Ma'asc Ha-l orah (4QMMT ), 20-24 .17-28,30,39: Damascus Document (CD), 28-29. 30, 37,39-40: Pesher Habakkuk ( IQpHab). 23-24.25, 29-30; Rule of the Community ( IQS), 22-23, 24,4 1-42; War Scroll IJQM), 14n3, 34, 36-38. S« also Q umran;
sectarianism
Did.ucali.1, I25, 136-38 disciplinary modd, 8, 8 1-82. 90-9 1, 96-98. Su a!J.IJ emancipator)' modd Egypt and Egypt;ans, 139, 156-57. 184n3 1. 187,212, 238 d oct o f God, 15, 38-4'\, 66, 68, 85. 198
Eliadc, Mircca, 100 El;;ah, 146, 212n24
t"mancipatory modd. 8, 82-&4, 92, 95. 97. Sl:t" also disciplinary modd C'mperor. S« Ro man empcror(s) cnC'mies: clemency toward one's, 144: in early Christia n litcr:uu~. 9, 63, 85,
106, 118-20; of God, 85; of" lsrad.'' 5. 13 1, 2 1), 2 I8, 224. 226-27; love of o ne's, 106, 13:~-36, 144; of mar·
tyrdom, 19 1: praycr of forgi\·eness lo r o n<'s, I 18-20, 127-28, 133-40; of Qumr.m community 14 n3, 16, 26, 27, 3 1, 33,40, 43-44; ofRome or Christian-Rome, 60n)O, 233:
retributive suffering of onC''s, 68, 85, 204-5,224-32, 258
Epiphanius, 138 eschatoLOS)'• 8, I95-96, 207 n9, 208-9, 21)-16: as colonial mimicry, 7-8, 10,45-76, 223-34; ;n D<Jd Sea
Scrolls. 7, 13-4-4~ and Jesus. 112, 134. 250n47, 259; in Lltc Antiquit)'•
10,217. 22~34. S~t>a/soAnrichrist; apocalyptic litC'rature and though~ hdl
Esscnes.. 13n I. 29n61 cx
exegesis. 5. 20, 23, 25, 148. 159, 173, 180n l5, 182, 186, 188, 19 1. 195, 200. Su abo hermcncurjc(s) lamasy, 47-48,55-56,66-68,75-76, 204-). 22;), 234. Stt a!Jq undn·
apocalypric litC'raturc an d thought: violence forgi\·cntss. &~ demenc)', Roman d iscourse of Gaius Caligula, 59 Grhnma or Gthim10m. Stt hdl GC'orgc of Pisidia, 133 Gcrh.s<mane, 136, 142 G;bbon, Ed""rd, 174-75, 179 Gibson, Md, 136 glad;ator(s), 4!)-50, 58, 60,6 1 Gregory I'll, Pope, 177n9
I NDEX OF SUHJ EC I'S
H:~m :m,
283
218. Srr a!Jo Purim Hnrris, Sam, 176 Hriklmlot Rabbnti, 228-34
132n30, 150-51, 152n l9, 156-57, 163, 213.218,226,229. 23 1 loudnioi. 9, 124-25, 132, 143
hdl, 52.68-69. 2 10-16,226. 228. 234. Su nlto eschatology
Jerome, 87, 136. 138
Herad iu.s, 222, 233 heretics:.nd hC'rcsy, 73, 76, 185, 189 .
226 hermencuric(s}, 2, 7, 176nS, 180nl ),
182-85, 196-97. 203: allegor;. cal, 175, 176n6. 176n8, 178-85, 189-9 1, 193, 194, 200-3:of H«ralism, 9-10, 174-203; rabbinic. 9-10,
145-73: of pass;v;ry, 9-10, 147-48, 158, 159, 162, 169, 171-73: of sectarian exclusivity. 2 1-26. ~e also allegory; exegesis~ PcshC'r litC'r.lture
Herod Ant;pas, 247, 248n40, 249 Herod rhe Great, 49n 13, 214-15, 239nl2 H itchC'n s, Christo ph«, 176 Holoc;au.st, 83. 145 Homer, 85-86
Jesus of Nazareth : acring in the name of. 85; :.scC'n sion of. 143n46; body of, 8, 112, 113, 11 4; compared with the' em~ror, 142; dying forgivcn<'S:S prayer of, 9, 11 7-44; marks o f. 93. 97-98; as modd of bC'havior, 92; muncction of. 85. I04, 113, 12.3; SC"Cond coming o r. 46, 174-75, 1S4,
187, 194, 202,248: rcach;ng< of, 3. 46-47,72, 132-36, 188, 189-90. 199-200: tempi<' in cident of. 8,
99-116: u;al of, 247-53 Judah ben Barcrah, 150-51, 157-58, 168-69 Judah ben Tabbo;, 153->6. 159-6 1, 169. 172 Jerusalem, I31 . Srr nlso undrr temple Ku Klux Klan IKKK), 83
idC'ntity. formation of. 5. 6-7, 15, 30,
40, 42-43, 65, 67, 139n39, 140, 206.220,236.242 imillltio Christi, 95, 133 imperial cult. Su undl.'r ruh
l..acrantius, 2 16-17 l..aw, the Qewish). Srr Tor:th In: talionis, 70,2 10 lo\'e: broth<'rly, I59: COC'rcion o r violence
impctialism: comempor.u y. 81. 83;
and, 78, 85, 95-97; God of, 117.
Roman, x, 9- 10, 17,45-76,86, 11 9, 125, 142-43.149,166, 172,205-6, 2 14-16,228, 230-3 1,233. S.ulso Roman Empire": Roman emperor(s} int<'rprc(ation. St't' hcnnenC'ut:ic(s) intifo1da, I 00 "'im roversionist ideology, 16, 22, 28, 40. Su also "rC"\rolutionist" ideology lrcn:.eus, 121, 133, 138-39 lsrJd (modern stateot), 5, II, 100.
253-58 Israel and lsrJdites (anciC'm ), x, ,3 • .5. 14.
28,3 1-33,39-40. 43,6 1n53,62,
I36: martyrdom :.s expression of. I97-98, 199n50: o f one's enemies.
85, 106. 11 7-20, 133-36, 139n39. 144; o f one's n<'ighbors, 106: in PolUJ's l cttr~. 78,85,95-97 lukr, Gospel of. 9, 11 7-44, 197, 247, 248-)0. S« nlso Act.s o f rhe AposdC'S
manHness, 8, 87-89,9 1,93-94, 110, 140 Marcion and marcionitism, 117. 118,
119n4,123, 135-36, 138 martyr(s) and martyrdom. :-:-xi. 72-73.
284 75. 11 7-18. 1.19-32. 145. 174-203. 211,21 5,2211-34. 23>-59: Christian, x, 9- 10, SJnJO, 72-73.7 5,98, 11 7- 18.125, 129. 132. 174- 203, 2 1I. 21 5-16.13 3: conrrmpor.uy,
IG-11 , 235, 25>-58. 259: cry of. 117-18, 129-32: cxhorut ion(s) to, 10, 178,1R4 n28, 193n4J, 194. 196, 198: Jslaoni<, II. 253-58, 259:Jesus as, 63, 129. 237, 246-53, 259: Jewish, 10, 11 7-18, 145. 209.228 -34. 23>-36. 246-47; Maeobean, 118. 130,209 . 211. 23>-37. 242-46, 247,250 , 251 .259: O dgen o n, 182-84, 193- 203: P«
I0, 47, 205-6. 120. 233-34
Mishnah , 54. 148-49, 151, I52n 18, 162. 164-66 motwlicism, 69-70 Moses, 126, 186-87
Necbuchadntzur. 207. 21 3 Nero, 74. 208. 215-16, 230. S.. •/so Antichrist
nonviolence, 39. 46, 106-7, 144 Oct.wian. StV- Augusrus Origen, 9-IO, 125. 128,182 -84, 193-203 othemess, 4, S 1-52. 67, 72, 8 1, 100-2, I 15, 241-42. 244. 255.258 -59
,..,.Jig Al>u•(film). 253-58 p.wi>i!J·· 9. 57. 134. 143-44. 14>-74, 258
P.tuion, the, 97. 114, 120,12S nl7. 126n20, 127- 28, 136, 142, 237. 246-53 .259 ll>ul ofTarsus, 8, 65. 78-98, 11 9, 122, 124. 129.134-35. 192. 19>-97, 202 JWX hmmkt, 86. 144 Pcshcr litcratuu , 2.}, 25-26, 29-30. Su a4o tJJTd(-r ~:ad Sc<.a Scrolls Phlll'.lOh. 207. 2 12 Pharisees, 105, 113. 132n30, 174 Pluwch , 110 pomognphy. 83. 98 postoJcrucnuulism. 81-83 pruyet(s) .3 1n65.94, IO!n5,2 01, 239: dominic:tl, 120. 122-23, 128. 137. IJ9. 144; of forgh-mess for t'n· <mics. 9. 11 7-44, 110nl9 . 118-20, 127-28. 133-40, S.. a/s•d<mency, Roman discourse of Purim, 218. Sr~a/JD Haman Q{U
Rabbi. s.. ;J>Mf- '""'"' R•bbi Aho, 58, 60-61 Rnbbi ElaLtt ben l>tr.lta, 1 45~6 Rnhbi Eleazar b. R. Yo.w:. 225
fUbbi Hanina ben 'fu~dyon, 173.229.
Ul-32 R"bbi lshnud. 229-3 1 Rabbi Joshua b<-n 1-'bn;,mi.lh, 162-63 R, bbi Judah. 148-SO, 153-54. 156. 158-59, 161, 167n40, 168-<)9, 17 1 Rabbi Mar, 157-58 Rabbi N..h,., 49-SO Rabbi Shimon b.u Yoh.t.i, 75-76 R:1hbi l 'Urfon, 152 Rng;an, Ron,)d, In n9 Rcn.., 231. S.. 4b. Rcnus retribution, 8. 10, 47, 56. 67. 85, 204-34. Su nlso vc.ngeancc-
INO~ Ofl SUBJECTS
Rcvdacion, Book oh 3--4, 45-76 "rc\•olucioni$t" idt'OIOS)'• 16-17,23, 26. 40, 43-44. S,t t~istf "'intro-.·c:nioniu" Kleology .Moric, 2, 16-17.44, 7)-76.. 78-79. 95,97,119 -20.129. 136, 139n39. 146, 148, 166, 170. 178-84, 185-87, 191-92. 196. 202,25 1; :.mti·Roman/imptrbl, 2 16, 22S; nurtUI, 8, 79. SOnS, 82-85, 88-91: of p,..;,;'J·· 9. 149nl0, 150-54. 163n61, 167, 169, 171-73: of.;.,. lencc, 7. II. 19, 23, 38,42, 44 RobertsOn, l'o11, 177n9 Roman Empire: -:~nimosity tow.u d. I0 , 26, 43-44, 53n30. 62n5<\, 208. 216. 223-24, 227-28. 230-34: culture of sp«=k of. 8. 4)-76.. 224-25; sov· emmml of. H-56.. 64, 160-61.166.. 172,207.2 10.2 19.228.24 3n26, 247: m;litot)' of. I 0, 14, 43-44, 51. 63, 68,70-71 , 86, 103, 107, I I), 124. 139.220: religious cn"ironmcnl of, 54n32, 177. 184,198-200; soc:i,l structuK within. S~52, 55-.59-60. 86.. 110, 183:-;ttue{s) of, 46n), 119. 128, 140-44. $tv alstt impcri~lism: Roman cmpc:J•or{s): Rome, city of Roman cmpci'Of($), x, 10. 46, 50-) 1, 59.62-65,7 0-71.75. 119, 140-43, 200.202.2 05-6. 208,2 14-17, 223-34. 5« •&•spmfic namn Rome. city of. 6}, 74, 141, 215, 224-25, 2,l0. 231 Romulus, 231. Srr also Remus
s,nhedrin, 11 3-14. 160, 187.247-5 0 ucrifice(s), 29n61. 31 n65. 45. 49, 54n32.65. 95. 101, 183n25.22 9. 5« •Is. cuh(s): manyrs md nurt)'l'• dom: temple "scarce roouroo" 1hc:or)'. 7, 15. 17-19, 27n52. 42-43
285
Scorpion (Srorpiau), 9. 184. 186n33. 191n40. 194 Scon,Jornes C.. 47nl3, 56-57.204 -5 scrib.lum. 19. 53. 120-23. 137-38 •ecurianum, 7. 13-44. 6'>-66.. 71. J32n30. s('(' .Jbo "imro\'C':rl:i oni.~l.. ideology, "~'olutionist'" ideology lrcn.eus, 121. U3. 138-39
sdf.-s;acri6cc. 5« m:myrs and nu.rtyrdom Sc:rmon on chc Mount. liS. 132-40.
198 Sermon on the Plain. Sr, Sermon on the
Mount SihJ·IIim o,.r/n. S>-59. 62 sbvery. 51, GO. 72, 74, 79,86-$7. 92, 109-10, 140-41. 150, 187, 24Jnl6. 5« .Is. R.onun Empire. soci.tl struc. ru~ "i.thin >J"'« (sacred), 27-38,99- 103. S" temple: sp«t:Jdc:. Su :m:n:l(s}: gbdi:ttor{sh Ro· man Empire, culn1rt' of spett.ade of Sccphen. 9, 117-44, 210nl9. S.t•ls• dcme'ncy. Rom;an cf&ounc of ncrcotyping. xi. 9-10, 148, 169~ 206. 212-13.21 9 Stoicism, xi, 79, 86. 140, 193. 200n55 su!fcring, 60. 67-68, 74, 87: of -.nl, 121. 130. StY Ah• crucifixion; nu.rtyrt and martyrdom; Pmion, the: Sukkot, 60-61 sword, 63, 64, 87. 145-49, 153-59, 1s9
•u•
or
m.
Tocirus, 74. 86 Talmud, U.b)ionian. 9. 130n27. 145-73.21 2.226-27, 230,250n45. 251 n53
286
I NDEX OF SUBJECrS
13Jmud, P.1lestinian, 15 Jnl 7. 150, 1)4,
159, 162-<S3, 163n31. 167-68, 172. 173,213 13tian. 12 1.193 temple: an:na o1s, 46; of Capitoline Jupiter, 5.3: destruction ofJems::l·
lem, 34, 53n30-31. 61, 100, 106, 114, 122, 131. 143, 159, 210nl 6, 2 13. 224-28; eschatological, 31-38:
Jmwlem (first), 130, 213: Jerusalem (second), 8, 13. 27-30.43. 53n30-3 1, 6 1, 101-3. 114-15, 159-60.224-27: Moumfharam
a/-;horif, 99-100; spirinulized, 30,32-33, 36. 38. Sunbo culc sacrificc(s); space (sacred) lCnullian, 9-10: on enemy love,
135-36.138; on martyrdom. 183,
184-93. 194. 198, 199-200, 202-3; on Roman g;tmes, 45-48. 49. 52n28.
117-19, 122, 124, 129-32, 134-38, 141. 204-<S, 209, 224n63, 230. S
fanrosics of. 47-48, 55-56, 66-68, 75-76.204-5,223,234: judicial, 62. 64. 153, 171 ; origins of, 17-19; legalir)' of. x. 9, 73, 147, 166n40, 173: lt"gitimation of, I, 2, II, 16, 43. 55. 67,73-74,76, 106-7: re.>l vs. mcraphoriol, 14, 17, 19,31, 103, 115-16; mob, 59n49, 121. 125, 126: rhetoric of. 7. II . 19, 23, 38. 41.
44: sacred space and. 27-38: ·S:liV>'l· tion and, 38-42: vC'rbal \'S. ph)'Sical,
83-84, 147 vorC'urism, 48, 66-7 1. S« alstJ arcna(s); Roman Empire, culturt" of sp«tadc of
59,66,71-72 T itus (Roman emperor), 61, 63,
war, x, 3. 7-8, I3n I, ISn I9. 62, 6,3, 68,
75.78-9 1.92.96. 99. 106, 113-14, 119, 141, 147.215-16.220,245:
224-28,230 Torah, 9, 21. 39.49nl5, 58,60-6 1, 126, 145-73. 186-87, 19 1-92 1oscfra, 49, 52n28, 55n35, 150-52, 154, 158n26, 163, 164n36, 165, 166n40, 168, 21 2n27, 213, 226n69
we.1pons. ix, 17, 65n66. SOnS, 8 1, 88,
totalitarianism. Srf' tyranny and t)'f:tnts Tr:tjan, I 4 1 tyranny and tyranu, x, 83, 130, 140-4 1,
\'(lisdom of Solomon, 127-30 womt"n, 69, 72, 87n27, 140-4 1,
t"schatological, 10, 14. 16-17, 19, 23,25-26, 3 1-44; rhetoric of. 8. 79,
SOnS. 82-85, 88-9 1; ofTo.ah, 147 93.95. 140,206,254
207, 21o, 213. 215. 225. 227. 230. 236, 240. 5« alto imperialism: Ro-
151-52, 157. 161-<>3. 165-66, 169-72,211 ,236. 238. 254-55;
man cmpcror(s)
traits ascribed to, 88-89. 92-93, 96
universalism, 81
Yohanan ben Bag Bag, 150-51. 168-<S9
vengeance, 10. 16, 43,47-48,51. 53n30,64,65,67-69, 75-76.90,
Zechariah, 130-32, 162-<S3 ZC'no, 220-2 1
