Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity

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»palcstin 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.

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 ' 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 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 Katact 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 SThe 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 peacllrnica ~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 hers. 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~ &roll. 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 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 natur1n 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 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 (' 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 p2 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':'!

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 Lincoln. Autlwriry, p. 78. 41»

(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"' 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 See 1~ A. Harl-and. A1soF: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'! 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 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. Niraul'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 ddihr, 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 Arendt. Hrmuw Gmdhi011. pp. 26·27. S<e also H:mssen. Critique

1

of Violma. p. 164. 2au 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 \V/.V.

90

CALVIN

J.

ROETZ.t:L

disciplinary mo

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 (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> ) 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

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

dfcnl 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 hat 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-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- 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

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 murdererbaum, imago Dri: Laurnnd Narratiw(HebrC'"W) Uerusalem: Schocken. 2004). pp. 170..38); D . Stc-inmert. "Crimes .,nd Punishments. Pan 1: i\·{itot B
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. 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 saraEpiotatE, Kai .. 11Kin ,;!)(:toV lx~_c; y'aliKTOI) d:llli OiEpEiit; ~<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'.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 Sai~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)

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.ii> 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 nP 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~:t to 388 C£.. I follow P. Piovandli, " Les origines de l'ApD 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 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 comprvars, in which the Jews of the Empi re wr. 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. Frr (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 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 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\'OM, Jt!SUS' PASSION AND BARBARlSM

237

exhaustive discussion of the connections bOM, 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 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
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·!JiOM, 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 communiOM, 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'}: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, \' 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.: \'-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 S6. 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: brothu•(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-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