One striking quote she gave was from the 2nd-century CE writer, Aulius Gellius (Attic Nights, 17.17.1), who referred to a figure describing himself as having “three hearts”, each of which represented one of the linguistic/cultural forces that he owned (Greek, Oscan and Latin).  In Paul’s case too, she proposed, we appear to have a man who doggedly continued to affirm his Jewishness and Hebraic upbringing, who also obviously wrote passable Greek (but not in fact highly sophisticated or elegant Greek of the time), and who used a Latin name (“Paulus” = “small/little”, so would “shorty” do?). 

Contra some claims today, Paul does not show deep acquaintance with Greek philosophy or literature.  The only identifiable references or allusions he makes are to the Greek OT (although he seems to show an ability to make his own rendering of the Hebrew OT in some places).  He was well aware of his shortcomings as a speaker (e.g., 2 Cor 10:10) and rhetorician.  He remained convinced that he was the divinely appointed agent of the God of his (Jewish) ancestors, charged with enfranchising godless gentiles into obedience to this one true God. 

Ehrensperger’s presentation was an overture to a larger project on Paul that she is embarking on now.  I look forward to seeing the full harvest of her efforts.

Speaking Greek under Rome: Paul a hybrid Jew?

Friday 20th January, 9.30-11 in room 1.07 (New College). This will be followed by Prof Richard Hays’ seminar in the Martin Hall at 11.15. As always, all are welcome!

Perhaps the most significant is by Theodore S. de Bruyn and Jitse H. F. Diijkstra, “Greek Amulets and Formularies from Egypt Containing Christian Elements” (pp. 163-216).  The unassuming title masks a very important trove of data:  an up-to-date list of Greek and Latin amulets and formularies from Egypt that have “Christian elements.”  Their checklist includes “all texts that were written to convey in and of themselves–as well as in association with incantations and other actions–supernatural power for protective, beneficial, or antagonistic effect, and that appear to have been or were meant to have been worn on one’s body or fixed, displayed, or deposited at some place” (168).

After laying out the criteria by which items were identified as having “Christian elements”, the authors turn to “patterns in the evidence,” theological/religious, geographical, and chronological.  One interesting observation by way of illustration is that “on the whole amatory charms and maleficent spells are rarer in texts with Christian elements than in texts without Christian elements” (which suggests a certain effect of Christian faith upon the pattern of “magic” practiced).

The main cargo of the article, however, is the checklist itself, which includes 186 items with descriptions of their features.  We’ve known for some long time that “magic” was a major practice in the Roman world (especially, it seems in “late” antiquity), and that Christians engaged in these practices as well.  This checklist will be an essential reference for those who wish to study these matters.

McCabe (now Assistant Professor of New Testament in Bethel College, Indiana) subjects the Acts passage to a detailed analysis conducted with the aid of modern “speech-act theory”, proposing that the words of Peter in the passage that are portrayed as resulting in the death of Ananias and Sapphira can be seen as an example of “performative” speech, in which saying something causes the thing spoken about to happen. 

Congratulations to David on this publication!

Also, CSCO’s student representative, Frank Dicken, has launched the Centre’s Facebook page which will have updates on blogs and coming events.

Referring to “the view that most rural Galileans suffered severe economic turmoil under Antipas” as in some scholarly quarters “near orthodoxy,” Chancy proceeds to review a number of reasons why some other scholars question that view.  He alleges that the main bases for view that Galilee was a venue of economic turmoil are certain parables in the Gospels and certain anthropological theories, especially the notion that cities are parasitic on rural areas.  I’ll mention only a few of the matters that Chancy discusses.

On taxation:  Citing the study by Fabian E. Udoh, To Caesar What is Caesar’s:  Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine (63 BCE–70CE) (Providence:  Brown Judaic Studies, 2005), as “by far the most thorough treatment of the subject available,” Chancy judges that “the evidence for regular client king payments to Rome [by Antipas] was mostly lacking,” and so “The Bottom line is that the impact of Rome’s financial expecations of Antipas upon his subjects is extraordinarily difficult to calculate” (p. 60).

Chancy also points out that the heyday of major public building activity was in the second century CE, not the time of Jesus.   As to the makeup of Galilee, “Galilean Jews in the time of Jesus thus had a southern orientation that dated back to the arrival of Judea colonists under the Hasmoneans” (p. 62).  (This works against notions of some sort of serious social divide twixt Galileans and Judeans.)

On claims about monitization having a deleterious effect on Galilean peasants, Chancy concludes, “the suggestion that Antipas’s minting activities radically shifted the methods and amount of tax collection or the processes of debt creation appears inaccurate” (p. 63).

On land ownership, Chancy emphasizes that “the Galilean evidence is more ambiguous than is often acknowledged.”  Although he sees “ample [literary] evidence for large estates at various places throughout Palestine” in the first century CE, Chancy concludes that for Galilee and adjacent areas, “the evidence is more limited” (pp. 63-64).  “Despite the extensive archaeological work in Galilee in recent decades, however, no first-century CE large estates or rurual villas have been discovered there” (p. 65). 

Against assertions of a massive increase in “monocropping” (under pressure, supposedly, from wealthy landowners seeking to make profits), Chancy observes, “It is worth emphasizing that the primary source for the theory of extensive monocropping is neither archeological data nor ancient literary references but anthropological theory” (p. 65).  Granting liteary evidence of large estates, the urges that the same sources attest the continuation of small farms also.

His concluding observations from this survey are that many claims about the social and economic conditions of Galilee in Jesus’ time, which have been used as a basis then for positing what Jesus was really up to, are far less soundly based than supporters seem to realize.  He also warns about the use of anthropological or economic models as “proxy data” that can predetermine the interpretative outcome.  “For all we have learned about Galilee in the third quest [for the historical Jesus], economics and urban-rural relations still pose the most difficult quesetions to answer” (p. 67).

We used a special clicker voting system which allowed students to choose their favourite speaker. Jesus and St Paul made it through to the final, and the perhaps slightly surprising final outcome was a narrow win for St Paul. So, you heard it first on the CSCO website – St Paul founded Christianity!

Thanks to all those who took part!

(Helen Bond) After an interview process which attracted an incredibly high level of applicants, we are all very pleased to be able to announce our new Edinburgh colleague. Dr Matt Novenson will be joining us as lecturer in New Testament in January. I’ll let Matt introduce himself:

I am happy to be joining the excellent academic staff in Biblical Studies at New College. I hold the Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Princeton Theological Seminary, and I come to Edinburgh from Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, where I taught at North Carolina State University and Duke University Divinity School. My broad academic interest is the first century or so of Christianity, along with the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds of which it was part. My principal areas of research are the Pauline epistles and the Jewish contexts of early Christian Christology.

My first book, Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism, is due out from Oxford University Press in March 2012. My current book project is a study of the shared scriptural grammar of messianic movements in Judaism and Christianity in antiquity. I would welcome enquiries concerning supervision of postgraduate research in the areas of Pauline epistles, later Pauline traditions, early Jewish messianism and early Christian Christology, and early Jewish and Christian interpretation of scripture.