Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Imperial Epithets and Functional Polytheism
The religio-cultural hybridity of euergetism underlies the contextual flexibility of gods’ and kings’ epithets. Indeed, Hellenistic and Roman imperial epithets were not a subjective or abstract ascription of divinized quality conferred on a ruler to make a statement about their ontological status. Rather, royal epithets were descriptors transferred from the gods to powerful benefactors to articulate the circumstances under which a hero, benefactor, governor or ruler is honored. But more importantly, the gods’ epithets were conferred on powerful humans to associate the benefactor with a god’s pragmatic function.126 As Nock writes in his seminal article on the subject: « [Soter] could be used of gods and men alike, and, when applied to the latter, it did not necessarily suggest that they belonged or approximated to the category of the former… But at all times it denoted a performance of a function and not membership of a class in the hierarchy of beings. »127 Even in cases when subjects assimilated a ruler to a god’s actual name, Duncan Fishwick observes that the act of identification « does not mean, surely in most cases, … that the ruler is thought literally to be a god incarnate or is worshipped in that capacity; only that he is conceived as exercising some of the functions or qualities of a god to whom he approximates by analogy. »128 The hermeneutical danger, therefore, is reading into imperial epithets a host of monotheistic concepts about divinity that stem from the Jewish-Christian tradition rather than the « functional polytheism » of Greco-Roman religion.
The functional purpose of the gods’ epithets surfaces in Cicero’s dialogue On the Nature of the Gods.129 Through the mouth of the character Balbus, Cicero discusses the personification of abstract ideas. According to this account, the Greeks named their gods based on « the benefits they bestow » (Cicero, Nat. d., II.60-2; trans. Beard, North and Price no. 2.3a). In correlation with the type and quality of benefit the object of power bestows, the deity is in turn given a descriptive epithet that reflects that quality of power. « So sometimes they called what was produced by a god by the name of the deity itself—as when we refer to ‘wheat’ as Ceres, or to ‘wine’ as ‘Liber' » (Cicero, Nat. d., II.60-2; trans. Beard, North and Price no. 2.3a). The epithets conferred on rulers followed a similar functional pattern. In Dio Chrysostom’s First Oration on Kingship, for example, Dio observes that the king « may be called by the title ‘Father’ of his people and his subjects, but he may justify the title by his deeds » (Or. 1.22). Dio further elucidates the relationship between a ruler’s deeds and their epithets when he suggests that the royal titles of Zeus Basileus are a pattern of descriptive functional qualities that the ideal ruler should emulate and conform to (Or. 1.37). According to Dio, rulers’ imitation of Zeus stems from Homer, who set in motion the notion of calling « true kings ‘Zeus nurtured’ and ‘like Zeus in counsel…' » (Or. 1.38; cf. Homer Il. 2.169, 196, 407).
Summary and Conclusion
Just as Roman religion did not have a systematic theology detailing the mechanics of ruler cults, it also did not have a systematic formula for understanding the relationship between gods and kings. As the epigraphic and literary sources examined heretofore indicate, this relationship was a variegated one. Notwithstanding this diversity, the preceding discussion has sought to show that the traditional gods provided the cosmic setting, theological framework and ritual infrastructure for the dissemination of deified rulers’ image and power across the Mediterranean.
The polytheistic system and anthropomorphic narrative of Greco-Roman religion provided the interpretive lens through which subjects made sense of powerful rulers. Despite Simon Price’s warning against « Christianizing » approaches to the interpretation of the imperial cults, the concept of « anti-imperial rhetoric » in the New Testament carries with it the inherent danger of reducing Roman polytheism to the thought world of Jewish-Christian monotheism.141 That is to say, to pit Jesus against Caesar—while turning a blind eye to the cosmic matrix of traditional gods in which Caesar was embedded—is, in effect, to falsely interpret the emperor as a standalone, monotheistic deity. Because of the Roman imperial cults’ local variation, we will evaluate the relationship between gods and kings in Athens in more detail in chapter six. But in order to further understand the referent and strategy of Paul’s polemic against idolatry, it is necessary that we evaluate the treasure chest out of which Luke crafted his historiographical narrative: the Septuagint and its strategies of resisting the idolatry of empire.
CHAPTER 1. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AND EMPIRE
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Research Problem: The Icon Parody, Allusive Referents and Hybrid Iconography
1.3 Research History
1.4 Methodological Considerations for Subversive Speech and Hidden Polemic
1.5 Thesis Stated
1.6 Outline of the Study
CHAPTER 2. THE MECHANICS OF RULER WORSHIP AND THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN TREATISES ON KINGSHIP
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Ruler Worship and the Traditional Gods
2.3 A New Kind of Power: The Hellenistic Cult of Rulers and Early Judaism
2.4 The Hellenistic and Roman Treatises on Kingship and the Traditional Gods
2.5 Summary and Conclusion
CHAPTER 3. THE RULING POWER AND THE TRADITIONAL GODS IN THE EPIGRAPHIC RECORD
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Gods and Kings in the Epigraphic Record
3.3 The Antigonids of Macedon and the Traditional Gods
3.4 The Ptolemies and the Traditional Greco-Egyptian Gods
3.5 The Seleucids and the Traditional Gods
3.6 The Attalids of Pergamon and the Traditional Gods
3.7 The Kingdom of Commagene and the Traditional Gods
3.8 The Roman Imperial Cults and the Traditional Gods
3.9 Summary and Conclusion
CHAPTER 4. POLITICAL IDOLOTRY AND GENTILE KINGSHIP
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Political Idolatry: Weapons, Wealth and Strange Gods
4.4 The Political Metaphor of Idolatry and Israelite Kingship
4.5 The Political Metaphor of Idolatry and Early Judaism
4.6 Summary and Conclusion
CHAPTER 5. THE JEWISH ICON PARODY AND THE ICONIC SPECTACLE OF GODS AND KINGS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Second Commandment, Empire and Idolatry
5.3 The Hellenistic- and Roman-Jewish Icon Parodies and the Iconography of Empire
5.4 Summary and Conclusion
CHAPTER 6. EARLY JUDAISM, RULER CULTS AND PAUL’S POLEMIC AGAINST IDOLS IN THE AREOPAGUS SPEECH
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Acts and the Roman Imperial Cults
6.3 The Roman Imperial Cults and Athens
6.4 Resisting Idolatry: The Wisdom of Solomon and the Areopagus Speech
6.5 Paul the Philosopher? Confronting Superstition and Figured Speech
6.6 Summary and Conclusion
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION: THE AREOPAGUS SPEECH AND POLITICAL IDOLATRY
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Synthesis: Idols, Cosmology and Resistance Literature
7.3 On Describing The Areopagus Speech’s Political Attitude
BIBLIOGRAPHY
