Early Christianity in the Lycus Valley Early Christianity in Asia Minor (ECAM)

Home , Adrasteia (Mysia), Anaua, Carura, Lycus (river of Phrygia), Trallians (tribe), William Hepburn Buckler

The subseries “Early Christianity in Asia Minor”, of which this is the rst volume to be published, is part of the series AJEC. It stands in the tradition of the work of Adolf von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christen- tums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Leipzig 41924. Each volume of ECAM will focus on the rise and expansion of Christianity in a speci c geographic region of Asia Minor up to the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. The mono- graphs endeavor to take into account all relevant literary and non-literary evidence, paying special attention to epigraphical and archaeological material, and to document the current state of research.

This rst volume deals with the rise and expansion of Christianity in the Lycus valley. A second volume on Lycaonian Christianity will follow soon. Volumes on Early Christianity in Phrygia, in Ionia, along the lower Meander and in Cilicia are in preparation.

Cilliers Breytenbach Martin Goodman Early Christianity in Asia Minor (ECAM)

Editors Cilliers Breytenbach (Berlin), Martin Goodman (Oxford), Christoph Markschies (Berlin), Stephen Mitchell (Exeter)

VOLUME 1 Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums

Founding Editor Martin Hengel† (Tübingen)

Executive Editors Cilliers Breytenbach (Berlin) Martin Goodman (Oxford)

Editorial Board John Barclay (Durham), Lutz Doering (Durham) Pieter W. van der Horst (Utrecht), Tal Ilan (Berlin), Tessa Rajak (Reading), Daniel R. Schwartz (Jerusalem), Seth Schwartz (New York)

VOLUME 85

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ajec Early Christianity in the Lycus Valley

By Ulrich Huttner

Translation by David Green

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Huttner, U. (Ulrich) Early Christianity in the Lycus Valley / by Ulrich Huttner ; translation by David Green. pages cm. – (Ancient Judaism and early Christianity, ISSN 1871-6636 ; Volume 85) (Early Christianity in Asia Minor (ECAM) ; Volume 1) Includes bibliographical references and indexes ISBN 978-90-04-26416-8 (hardback : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-90-04-26428-1 (e-book) 1. Church history–Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600. 2. Turkey–Church history. I. Title.

BR185.H8813 2013 275.6101–dc23 2013037605

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISSN 1871-6636 ISBN 978-90-04-26416-8 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-26428-1 (e-book)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. CONTENTS

Abbreviations...... xiii Translation of Source Texts ...... xv List of Illustrations ...... xvii Acknowledgments ...... xix

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Starting Points ...... 1 1.1.1 Sources and Chronological Framework ...... 1 1.1.2 Questions: Community Formation and the Search for a Position ...... 5 1.2 History of Research...... 8 1.2.1 Fundamentals, Surveys, Conclusions ...... 8 1.2.2 Epigraphy and Archaeology ...... 10 1.2.3 Archaeological Perspectives ...... 15 1.2.4 Theology ...... 17 1.3 Geography and Natural Resources ...... 17 1.3.1 Basic Geography ...... 17 1.3.2 Infrastructure ...... 18 1.3.3 Agriculture and Textile Production ...... 20 1.3.4 Building Trades and Technologies ...... 22 1.3.5 Settlement Geography I: Carura, Attouda, Trapezopolis, Tripolis ...... 23 1.3.6 Settlement Geography II: Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colossae...... 24

2 Historical Background ...... 27 2.1 Cultural and Social Background: Identities and Associations . . 27 2.2 Political Background ...... 31 2.2.1 Colossae in the “Early Period” ...... 31 2.2.2 The Lycus Valley in the Hellenistic Period: New Foundations and Political Changes ...... 33 2.2.3 Laodicea as a Central City of the Roman Province ...... 37 2.3 Indigenous and Greek Cults ...... 42 2.3.1 Cults of Zeus ...... 43 viii contents

2.3.2 Cults of Apollo ...... 44 2.3.3 The Sanctuary of Lairbenos ...... 48 2.3.4 Men...... 52 2.3.5 The Mother of the Gods ...... 53 2.3.6 The Hellenistic Ruler Cult...... 57 2.3.7 The Roman Emperor Cult ...... 59 2.4 Jewish Communities ...... 67 2.4.1 Judaism in the Lycus Valley: The Beginnings ...... 67 2.4.2 Laodicea as a Jewish Center ...... 70 2.4.3 Conicts between Jews and Greeks ...... 72 2.4.4 Symbiosis of Jews and Greeks in the Imperial Period . . . 75

3 Pauline Inuence: Philemon and Colossians ...... 81 3.1 Persons and Networks ...... 82 3.1.1 Paul’s Journeys in Asia Minor ...... 82 3.1.2 The Prosopography of Philemon and Colossians...... 83 3.1.3 The Network of Churches and the Epistle to the Laodiceans ...... 92 3.1.4 Nympha of Laodicea ...... 95 3.1.5 First Summary: Social Networks and Paul’s Authority. . . 97 3.2 The Epistle to Philemon...... 98 3.2.1 Date...... 98 3.2.2 The Social Status of Onesimus ...... 103 3.2.3 The Religious Service of Onesimus ...... 107 3.2.4 Second Summary: Symbiosis of Christians and Pagans...... 109 3.3 The Epistle to the Colossians ...... 110 3.3.1 The Pseudepigraphic Problem of Colossians ...... 110 3.2.2 Date...... 113 3.3.3 Addressee and Author ...... 114 3.3.4 Knowledge of Christ ...... 117 3.3.5 The Christological Hymn ...... 119 3.3.6 The Admonition against “Philosophy” ...... 122 3.3.7 Angel Worship ...... 126 3.3.8 Local Color in the Catalog of Vices ...... 131 3.3.9 Renewal and Liberation ...... 134 3.3.10 Liturgical Hymns ...... 137 3.3.11 The Domestic Code and Stabilization of the Social Order...... 141 3.3.12 Mission through Rhetoric ...... 147 contents ix

3.3.13 Third Summary: The Quest for a Christian Position in Colossians ...... 148 3.4 Summary Regarding the Pauline Epistles ...... 148

4 The Letter in the Apocalypse of John ...... 149 4.1 Context...... 149 4.1.1 Historical Imponderables ...... 149 4.1.2 Geographical Setting ...... 151 4.1.3 Philadelphia ...... 153 4.2 The Lukewarm Laodiceans ...... 154 4.3 Material Prosperity and Self-righteousness ...... 158 4.3.1 Pure Gold ...... 163 4.3.3 White Robes ...... 166 4.3.4 EyeSalve...... 170 4.4 Invitation to a Banquet ...... 177 4.5 Christian Participation in God’s Dominion ...... 180 4.6 Summary: Local Color and Open Questions ...... 182

5 Philip and His Daughters ...... 185 5.1 John and Philip: Apostolic Competition in the Lycus Valley? . . 185 5.1.1 Laodicea in the Acts of John ...... 185 5.1.2 Early References to Philip in Hierapolis ...... 190 5.2 The Daughters of Philip: Prophecies from Hierapolis ...... 195 5.2.1 Divergent Traditions ...... 195 5.2.2 The Prophetic Activity of the Daughters of Philip ...... 197 5.2.3 The Institutionalized Prophets of Apollo ...... 200 5.2.4 Competing Kinds of Prophecy? ...... 203 5.2.5 The Message of Philip’s Daughters: Miracle Stories . . . . . 204 5.2.6 Pagan Miracle Stories ...... 208 5.2.7 Rival Tombs ...... 210 5.3 Summary: Vague Memories of a Holy Family ...... 210

6 Papias and Apollinarius: Bishops in Hierapolis ...... 213 6.1 Bishop Papias: A Separate Christian Path? ...... 213 6.1.1 Historical Placement ...... 213 6.1.2 The Judas Tradition ...... 216 6.1.3 The Work and Its Sources ...... 219 6.1.4 The Problem of Oral Tradition ...... 224 6.1.5 Eschatology ...... 226 6.1.6 The Hebrew Ur-Matthew ...... 229 x contents

6.2 Bishop Apollinarius: Conict Resolution through Communication...... 231 6.2.1 The Rain and Lightning Miracle ...... 232 6.2.2 Chronological Placement and Catalog of Works ...... 237 6.2.3 The Apology ...... 239 6.2.4 Against the Hellenes ...... 242 6.2.5 Against the Jews ...... 244 6.2.6 On the Paschal Feast ...... 249 6.2.7 On Truth ...... 253 6.2.8 Against the Montanists ...... 256 6.2.9 The Plague ...... 266 6.3 Summary: De ning the Place of Papias and Apollinarius ...... 269

7 Institutionalization: Clerical O ces, Synods, and Councils ...... 273 7.1 Processes of Institutionalization ...... 273 7.1.1 Early Bishops and the Institutionalization of the Clergy ...... 273 7.1.2 The Potential for Communication in the Pre-Constantinian Era ...... 275 7.1.3 Administrative Consideration ...... 276 7.1.4 The Synod of Ancyra (314) ...... 279 7.2 The Council of Nicea ...... 284 7.2.1 The Participants...... 284 7.2.2 The Date of Easter...... 287 7.2.3 Metropolitan Privileges ...... 288 7.2.4 Christological Conicts after Nicea ...... 290 7.3 The Synod of Laodicea ...... 291 7.3.1 Province and Diocese ...... 291 7.3.2 The Date of the Synod...... 294 7.3.3 The Decisions ...... 297 7.4 The 5th-Century Councils ...... 314 7.4.1 The First Council of Ephesus (431) and the Competition between Laodicea and Hierapolis ...... 314 7.4.2 The Second Council of Ephesus (449)...... 316 7.4.3 The Council of Chalcedon ...... 322 7.5 Summary: Conict Resolution through Institutions ...... 328

8 Persecution and Legends ...... 331 8.1 Persecution in the Lycus Valley ...... 331 contents xi

8.1.1 Byzantine Accounts of Martyrdom in the Apostolic Age...... 331 8.1.2 Sagaris ...... 334 8.1.3 Christians or Crypto-Christians: Pre-Constantinian Inscriptions ...... 335 8.1.4 Persecutions and Lists of Martyrs ...... 340 8.2 The Legends of the Saints: Genesis and Impact ...... 343 8.2.1 Trophimus and Thallus ...... 343 8.2.2 Artemon: An Itinerant Legend ...... 346 8.2.3 The Acts of Philip ...... 355 8.2.4 The Legend of St. Michael from Colossae/Chonae ...... 372 8.2.5 Legend and Cult...... 377 8.3 Summary: Legends in Difering Contexts ...... 382

9 Conclusion: Communitization and the Search for a Standpoint . . . 385 9.1 Christian Communities in the Lycus Valley: Socialization and Communitization ...... 386 9.2 Search for a Standpoint ...... 388

Sources and Bibliography ...... 395 Sources...... 395 Bibliography ...... 397

INDEXES

Persons ...... 453 Places / Geographical Terms ...... 461 Subjects ...... 466 Passages ...... 473 Old Testament ...... 473 New Testament ...... 473 Apocryphal Works ...... 476 Talmud ...... 476 LegalTexts...... 476 Acts of Councils / Canon Law ...... 476 Ancient, Byzantine, and Medieval Authors and Works ...... 478 Inscriptions...... 485 Clergy and Functionaries (Prosopographic Index) ...... 491

ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used in the footnotes are based on the following sources: 1. Alexander, P.H. / J.F. Kutsko et al. (edd.): The SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies. Peabody 1999. 2. Lampe, G.W.H.: A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford 1961. 3. Liddell, H.G. / R. Scott / H.S. Jones: Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford 91940 / Suppl. 1996. (LSJ) 4. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Index 21990. (ThLL) Cf. also: AASS Acta Sanctorum, 1643–1925 DK Diels, H. / W.Kranz: Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols. Berlin 61951/52 M.Phil. Martyrium Philippi in the appendix to Acta Philippi The abbreviations of source texts appear also in the index of passages (pp. 473f.).

For epigraphic and numismatic sources, see especially the following abbreviations: Ala Roueché, C: Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity: The Late Roman and Byzantine Inscriptions, 2nd ed. 2004 (ala: http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/ala2004). BMC Catalogue of the Coins in the British Museum CIG Corpus inscriptionum Graecarum, 4 vols. Berlin 1828/77. CIL Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin 1863–. ETAM Ergänzungsbände to the Tituli Asiae Minoris. IAph Reynolds, J. / C. Roueché / G. Bodard: Inscriptions of Aphrodisias 2007 (http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/iaph2007/index.html) IG Inscriptiones Graecae IGR Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, 3 vols. Paris 1906/27. IGUR Moretti, L.: Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae, 4 vols. Rome 1968/91. ILS Dessau, H.: Inscriptiones Latinae selectae, 3 vols. Berlin 1892/1916. IvK Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien IvMilet Inschriften von Milet, 3 vols. Berlin / New York 1997/2006. IvP Die Inschriften von Pergamon, 3 vols. (Altertümer von Pergamon VIII) Berlin 1890/1969. IvPriene Hiller von Gaertringen, F.: Inschriften von Priene. Berlin 1906. MAMA Monumenta Asiae Minoris antiqua, 11 vols. 1928–. OGIS Dittenberger, W. (ed.): Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae, 2 vols. Leipzig 1903/05. RIC The Roman Imperial Coinage, 10 vols. London 1923–. xiv abbreviations

RPC Roman Provincial Coinage, 3 vols. 1992–, also http://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum SNG Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum The abbreviations in the bibliography are based on the following lists: 1. Schwertner, S.M.: Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete. Zeitschriften, Serien, Quellenwerke mit bibliographischen Anga- ben. Berlin / New York 21992. 2. L’Année Philologique 73 (2004), pp. XXI–XLIX. See also: AAA Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1891/1903 ANSMusN The American Numismatic Society. Museum Notes BHAC Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium BHG Halkin, F.: Bibliographia Hagiographica Graeca, 3 vols. and suppl. Brus- sels 1957/84. DK Diels, H. / W. Kranz (ed.): Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols. Hil- desheim 61951/52. FAZ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung HdAW Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaften LGPN A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, 5 vols. 1987– PIR Prosopographia Imperii Romani. Berlin / Leipzig 21933– PLRE The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, 3 vols. (1975/92) ThLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graeca (http://www.tlg.uci.edu/) ZNT Zeitschrift für Neues Testament TRANSLATION OF SOURCE TEXTS

Unless otherwise speci ed, the English translations of the source texts appearing throughout this study are based on the author’s own German translations. New Testament texts follow the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989) and are sometimes modi ed by the author.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1. View from Colossae over the gorge of the Lycus to the possible site of the Sanctuary of St. Michael ...... 333 2. Rock formation in the gorge of the Lycus, near Colossae ...... 376 3. Tomb of St. Philip, Hierapolis (with the permission of F. D’Andria, Missione Archeologica Italiana) ...... 379 4. Laodicea, Basilica: Sim¸ sek,¸ C.: Laodikeia (Laodicea ad Lycum). (Laodikeia Çalısmaları¸ 2) Istanbul 2013, res.455 (with the permission of C. Sim¸ sek)¸ ...... 381

Fig. 1–3: Photo U. Huttner (2012)

Map based on: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Belke, K./N. Mersich: Phrygien und Pisidien. (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 7) Vienna 1990, part...... xxi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Berlin Cluster of Excellence TOPOI (The Formation and Transformation of Space and Knowledge in Ancient Civilizations) created the basic conditions that made the present study possible. The project “The Expansion of Early Christianity in Asia Minor” enabled me to devote myself to the history of early Christianity in Asia Minor for several years without interruption; at the same time, it enabled me to pro t from the competence and intelli- gence of many colleagues engaged in research within TOPOI. In addressing the question of how a handful of Christian churches could make a home for themselves in a small valley in western Asia Minor between the 1st and 5th centuries, I received many thought-provoking suggestions from representatives of widely diverse disciplines. I am especially grateful to the members of the Institute of Christianity and Antiquity within the Faculty of Theology of the Humboldt University of Berlin who supported me. Many scholars have assisted me in my work by answering my questions, informing me on new discoveries, sharing stimulating new ideas, and keeping me from mistakes: Walter Ameling, Francesco D’Andria, Sabri Aydal, Ernst Baltrusch, Maximilian Johannes Benz, Jan Bremmer, Altay Ços-¸ kun, Sylvain Destephen, Gerhard Dobesch, Werner Eck, Alister Filippini, Josef Fischer, Klaus Geus, Rudolf Haensch, Klaus Hallof, Elke Hartmann, Matthäus Heil, Turhan Kaçar, Andreas Kohring, Tomas Lehmann, Carmen Marcks-Jacobs, Christoph Markschies, Matthias Müller, Wilfried Nippel, Jo- hannes Nollé, Unay O˘guzhano˘glu(as member of the excavating team in Laodikeia), Michael Rathmann, Tullia Ritti, Charlotte Roueché, Stephanie Schabow, Erkki Sironen, Celan Sim¸ sek,¸ Alexander Weiß, Nicola Zwingmann. I gratefully thank all of them. Christiane Zimmermann, Cilliers Breytenbach, and Stephen Mitchell have contributed their time and efort generously to my research. Their critical reading and constant availability for discussion have guided me in the right direction. They share the credit for the completion of this book. Thank you! At last thanks are due to the editors of the series for accepting my book, to Mattie Kuiper and Gera van Bedaf (Brill) for the well-organized cooperation, and to David Green for translating my German text into English.

Berlin, September 2013 Ulrich Huttner

The Lycus Valley, based on the map in Belke / Mersich 1990

chapter one

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Starting Points

1.1.1. Sources and Chronological Framework The historian must approach early Christianity in the Lycus Valley with very modest goals: not only has the source material been reduced to a few ves- tiges, as is generally true in the history of antiquity, it is also characterized by a special “grammar” shaped by Christianity, accessible to the classically trained historian only with di culty. A further problem is presented by the one-sided perspective of what little evidence there is, which distorts any external view, because the evidence itself is part of Christian culture. To compensate for this imbalance and illuminate the context in which the Christian communities emerged, interpretation of the relevant pagan evidence in this investigation represents a special challenge. The inscriptions in particular make an important contribution to a better understanding of the Christian sources, because they clarify factual connections and complexes of meaning, and because they uncover analogous connections and complexes. The problematic nature of the sources makes a satisfying answer to certain questions impossible. To use the Lycus Valley as an example to describe and illuminate the “mission and expansion of Christianity” in the rst centuries would be too ambitious. In the second part of Adolf von Harnack’s monumental treatment of that title, where he presented the source material encyclopedically, organized by region, and assembled the most important key words relating to the “spread of the Christian religion,” he limited his references to the Lycus Valley to ten lines of text.1 By itself this shows that a

1 Harnack 41924, 769f.: “Laodicea (Metropole; Paulus; der Epheserbrief = Laodiceerbrief; Ofenb. Joh.; Märtyrer, besonders berühmt der Bischof und Märtyrer Sagaris, s. Polycrates bei Euseb., h.e. V, 24; Streit über die Osterfrage daselbst; s. Melito bei Euseb., h.e. IV, 26, 3; die Inschrift des M. Julius Eugenius, die Ramsay entdeckt hat, gehört zur pisidischen Stadt Laodicea; Nicäa: der Bischof Nunechius). Hierapolis (Paulus; der Evangelist Philippus und seine Töchter, s. Zahn, Forsch. VI S. 158f.; Papias; Apollinaris von Hierapolis; Euseb. III, 31. 36. 39; IV, 26; V, 19. 24; Nicäa: der Bischof Flaccus). Colossae (Paulus).” 2 chapter one microstudy must address other questions than those examined in Harnack’s large-scale work.2 Reliable statistical data such as Harnack drew on in his presentation3 are lacking for the Lycus Valley, as is almost all evidence relevant to the mechanisms and results of missionary initiatives.4 Luke does not mention the churches of the Lycus Valley at all in his Acts of the Apostles. Furthermore the sources bearing on early Christianity in the Lycus Valley prove to be extremely heterogeneous if not totally disparate. It is signif- icant that no ancient historiographer, including the early church historians, devoted more than a few scattered comments to the Lycus Valley. This accounts for a major de ciency of the present study, namely the almost total absence of narrative passages.5 Historical interpretation must shift instead to evaluating the individual sources and subsequent analysis. An historical narrative on early Christianity in the Lycus Valley is impossible even in extracts.6 The earliest witness to Christianity in the Lycus Valley consists of New Testament texts whose literary and historical placement poses several problems: among the Pauline epistles, Philemon and Colossians; in the Apoca- lypse of John, the letter to the church in Laodicea. Each of these texts reects a conict whose nature we can determine only schematically; none of them can be dated with certainty. Colossians is among the Pseudepigrapha, works that were not written by the author they claim; any attempt at historical interpretation constantly runs the danger of getting lost in circular reason- ing. Papias and Apollinarius, two prominent representatives of the church in Hierapolis who held episcopal o ce in the second century emerge in their individuality, however fuzzy, only thanks to the enthusiasm for collecting and documentary scrupulosity of Eusebius of Caesarea, who included them as Christian authors in his church history and cited excerpts from their works or at least their titles.7 Despite the fragmentary evidence, it is worthwhile to try to locate the writings of these bishops in their relevant literary and cultural historical context and thus de ne their point of view. In addi-

2 On the perspectives of a regionally oriented history of ancient Christianity, see also Markschies 1997, pp. 32–37. 3 See for example in summary Harnack 41924, pp. 946f. 4 On this subject, see for example Harnack 41924, pp. 79–107. 5 Toward the end (pp. 331f.), at least a few episodes from legends of the local saints will be recounted. 6 On the contrast between narrative and analytic history, see Morley 1999, pp. 100–111. 7 On the dominance of documentary sources in Eusebius’s history, see Timpe 2000 (1989), pp. 316f.; Adler 2008, pp. 529f. introduction 3 tion, Eusebius provides the earliest and most important information about a certain Philip, who settled in Hierapolis in the 1st century along with his daughters, who had the gift of prophecy, thus constituting a central pillar of the bridge between the apostolic age and the nal institutionalization of the Christian churches in the Lycus Valley in the early 2nd century. This institutionalization spread geographically, nally leading to the structures of a hierarchically organized church extending beyond the Medi- terranean; one expression was the synods, assemblies of bishops assembled regionally or transregionally to reach consensus on disputed questions. The episcopal lists and synodal acta surviving from those sessions are of extraordinary documentary value, even though their manuscript tradition is usually highly complex and production of a critical text faces great dif- culties. The editorial work of Eduard Schwartz during the 1920s and 30s created an indispensable source for historians in the rst two volumes of the Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, subdivided into several sub-volumes (ACO I:1–5, ACO II:1–5), which attempt to chart a path through the innumerable, confusing sources for the great 5th-century councils (Ephesus I, Ephesus II, Chalcedon).8 Only recently have these conciliar acta been made available in English translation.9 From the ACO we can reconstruct the networks and positions of countless 5th century bishops; the metropolitan of Laodicea and his sufragans also appear repeatedly. Although quotations from the addresses of the bishop of Laodicea are minimal, the scanty entries permit some conclusions about his dominance in the ecclesiastical politics of the region and his place in various conicts within the larger church. Decades previously, in the 4th century, a regional synod had been held in Laodicea, from which an extensive list of decisions has survived, divided into 60 canons. There are several modern editions of this collection of canons, but it has never been subject to a thorough text-critical study. The most extensive texts available to us on early Christianity in the Lycus Valley are the product of hagiography. The most important are the Acts of Philip with its associated account of Philip’s martyrdom, the vita of Artemon of Laodicea, and the legend of the archangel Michael at Chonae, the Byzantine city that succeeded Colossae. The origin and genesis of these texts are obscure; in their present form, in any case, they were composed long after the Constantinian shift. The stories they tell speak of conicts

8 For further information on Schwartz’s editorial work, see Momigliano 1991 (1982), pp. 172 and 233 (with bibliography). A useful overview of the volumes of ACO I and II will be found in Millar 2006, pp. 242–247. 9 Price / Gaddis I–III (2005). 4 chapter one between pagans and Christians but do not automatically provide a concrete historical link with the repressive measures and persecutions the Christians in the Lycus Valley repeatedly faced in the pre-Constantinian period, as evidenced by Eusebius’s note concerning the martyr Sagaris of Laodicea and the brief entries in the lists of the early martyrologies. The stories of Philip of Hierapolis, Artemon of Laodicea, and the miracles at the church of Saint Michael in Chonae illustrate instead how history was constructed and identities were created in the churches of the Lycus Valley. The Christians seized the opportunity to nd orientation in the courageous representatives of their own local churches. At the same time, the memory and cult of the martyrs generated prestige that drew more than local attention and nally attracted pilgrims. In the future, we can expect the ndings of early Christian and Byzantine archaeology to make substantial contributions to our knowledge of early Christianity in the Lycus Valley. In this study, however, archaeological evidence can play only a secondary role, although a systematic analysis would be extraordinarily promising. On the one hand, the date of many monumental remains uncertain; on the other, excavations in Laodicea and Hierapolis are in full swing, and sensational discoveries in recent years have attracted great attention. A monumental basilica has been excavated in the center of Laodicea, which initial reports suggest could go back as far as the 4th century.10 The competing excavation in nearby Hierapolis also created a sensation: alongside the so-called Martyrium of Philip east of the city, which Paolo Verzone had begun to examine half a century ago, the archaeologists recently discovered a basilica with a striking house tomb in its interior, which is identi ed with the nal resting place of Saint Philip, buried in Hier- apolis.11 Of course it will be some time before the most recent excavations can be thoroughly evaluated; only then should historians draw on them for their analyses. As already suggested, the chronological framework for this study will extend beyond that of Harnack’s Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, which de ned its terminus as Constantine and the Council of Nicea. The Constantinian shift indisputably marked a major rst step in the history

10 See pp. 16 and 380f. below; also FAZ Feb. 1, 2011; more detailed preliminary information (in Turkish): http://laodikeia.pau.edu.tr/sayfa.aspx?id=Laodikeia_Kilisesi (Dec. 22, 2011). Per- sonal inspection spring of 2012. 11 See pp. 16 and 378f. below; also a lm broadcast over Tv2000 with commentary by Francesco D’Andria, the excavation director, accessible through YouTube: http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=biKwlrfW_oY (Dec. 22, 2011). Personal inspection spring of 2012. introduction 5 of early Christianity, but it is not an appropriate terminus for the history of Christianity in a small region like the Lycus Valley. The sources for the period before the shift, basically a few New Testament texts and a handful of notes in Eusebius’s ecclesiastical history, do not provide a coherent three- dimensional picture of the Christian communities, especially since their structure and potential do not emerge more clearly until we come to the sources relating to the post-Constantinian period, for instance the churches’ political hierarchies, the conicts over heretical movements in the acta of various synods, and the enormous appeal of the saints in hagiography. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 may not mark as clear a turning point in the development of the Christian church as the Council of Nicea, but by that time the church’s organizational structures had become rm enough that we can locate the metropolitan of Laodicea and his sufragans in the network of the larger church. Since Chalcedon can also be understood as an important threshold in the development of the Byzantine Church,12 the chronology of events in this presentation will take that council as it terminus.

1.1.2. Questions: Community Formation and the Search for a Position What questions can this smorgasbord of evidence, much of it fragmentary, be expected to answer? In any case, the fragmentary nature of the sources prevents reconstruction of a fairly cohesive development. Neverthe- less a few stages in the growing organization of the region’s churches can be identi ed, from the networks ultimately going back to Paul through the institutionalization of authorities to the establishment of a hierarchically organized clergy, so that at least one line of development can be charted in stages. Through formal organization, we can trace a speci cally Christian group formation, which produced its own social elite: the clergy.13 But the function of the Christian community is based not only on its organization but also on its identity, which rests on a shared system of values as well as on mutual trust or solidarity that embraces the members of the community,14 factors that contribute signi cantly to the emergence of a community. The sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855–1936) distinguished between

12 This assessment is reected both in the outline of church history in Markschies 2006, p. 189, and in the concise introductory text of Schatz 22008, pp. 71f. 13 On the connection between formal (i.e. institutionalized) organization and group formation, see Bahrdt 61994, p. 99; on the clergy as an elite, cf. Torjesen 2008, pp. 389f. 14 Rosa et al. 2010, pp. 91–110. 6 chapter one a “community” (Gemeinschaft) and a “society” (Gesellschaft) in order to dif- ferentiate organic, vital associations from arti cial, dead associations.15 The “communitization” of the Christians in the cities of the Lycus Valley was accordingly reected primarily in common traditions and actions in which the members of the community shared emotionally and actively. These traditions and actions included both common confession of faith and common rituals, the assurance of a common past and the veneration of local martyrs. Not the least important element of community formation, however, is shared debate over the fundamental principles of the community and above all a common posture in conicts with opponents who threaten (or appear to threaten) the community’s solidarity. A community can position itself only if it knows where it belongs. Besides organization and community building, this brings us to the second question to which the source material on early Christianity in the Lycus Valley promises to give informative and highly concrete answers: the question of the Christians’ position. In a microstudy limited to a small and well-de ned geographical area, such a position can obviously be described much more precisely than from a global perspective. The collective identity of Chris- tians must be de ned vis-à-vis the outside world: if it is clear who “we” are, it also becomes clear who “they” are, who do not belong to the community and may well turn out to be enemies.16 If we apply a spatial metaphor to the problem, the issue is to de ne “inside” and “outside” and thus x the boundaries of the space occupied by the Christian community.17 But it is by no means always clear who belongs and who does not. In his monumental study of the “last pagans of Rome,” Alan Cameron made an original suggestion: to subdivide both Christians and pagans into two groups and grade these groups internally, depending on how committed the members of the group were to their convictions. A fth group, in the middle, comprises those who cannot be classi ed unambiguously.18 In the light of this

15 See also Bahrdt 61994, pp. 97f.; Rosa et al., pp. 40f. In his interpretation of the same terms, Max Weber borrowed from Tönnies. Cf. Weber 51972, p. 22. 16 Following Hösle 1977, p. 349. 17 On the relevance of “social conceptions of space” in the investigation of early Chris- tianity, see Markschies 2011, p. 4. On the “boundaries” of the Pauline communities, see Dunn 2009, pp. 648–654. 18 Cameron 2011, pp. 176f. The result is a spectrum: “committed Christians”—“center- Christians”—“resist(ing) classi cation”—“center-pagans”—“committed pagans.” But cf. also Markschies 1997, pp. 67–69, on a “semi-Christianity” that engages in pagan practices, and also Boyarin 2004, pp. 25f., on degrees of a liation of Jews and Christians, resulting in vague boundaries. introduction 7 analysis, should a hesitant Christian who would never give up his beloved Homer be classi ed among the Christians rather than being assigned to the “neutral” middle group or even the pagan periphery? Within a small area, even within one and the same community, we should expect a wide variety of manifestations of Christianity, some of which contemporaries would have categorized as heretical.19 Naturally Christians are subject to outside inuences to which they open themselves to a greater or lesser degree. This very problem appears repeatedly in the sources relating to the Lycus Valley, whether it is Christians participating in the festivities of the Jews or the bishops of Hierapolis drawing on the rhetorical devices of Jewish or classical authors when composing their literary works. The authorities in the Christian communities strove repeatedly—both individually and in the setting of synods—to remind the members of the boundary between the Christian community and the pagan world and regulate its crossing: Jews, pagans, and heretics were seen as threats to the peace and safety of the community. The repeatedly expressed need for regulation itself shows that the boundaries were regularly crossed. This explains both the polemic of Apollinarius against the pagans (“Hel- lenes”) and the canons of the Synod of Laodicea condemning “Judaizing” Christians. Not only do the sources provide insight into the constant processes of self-assurance of the Christian authorities and the resulting def- inition of norms, which were then subverted in turn, they also reect the vagueness of many boundaries themselve. Epitaphs, for example, are sometime impossible to assign to a particular religion, since clear indicators are absent. Possibly many tomb occupants did not care whether the survivors associated them clearly with the Jews or Christians. In many cases, therefore, determination of a personal position is impossible, unless we create a new position somewhere between Jews and Christians. As already said, the communitization of Christians and the de nition of their position are closely related, since a community is always tied to its own “locus,” which need not be geographical; without this “locus,” the community loses its identity. In the Lycus Valley, the Christians rst had to join forces in establishing such a “locus” as a base; they needed, as it were, to create a space for themselves where they could put their ideas about realizing Jesus’ message into practice. This book will show how they succeeded in creating this space.

19 King 2008, pp. 66–81. 8 chapter one

1.2. History of Research

1.2.1. Fundamentals, Surveys, Conclusions There has been only one past attempt to present early Christianity in the Lycus Valley in its context, taking into account all the available source material: that of Victor Schultze, who was the incumbent of the chair of Christian archaeology and art history at Greifswald from 1883 to 1920.20 In his four-volume standard work Altchristliche Städte und Landschaften, which treats early Christianity in Constantinople, Asia Minor, and Antioch, he devotes barely 40 pages to the cities of the Lycus Valley.21 He places great emphasis on embedding the Christian evidence in its context in such a way as to present it as a socio-historical and religio-historical phenomenon. His discussion includes the archaeological legacy of the cities along with a brief assessment of coins and inscriptions. The geographical organization of the evidence, which is also reected in the sketch maps and plans, is based in large part on the research of William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939), whose intensive eld studies contributed greatly to our knowledge of the ancient and early Christian history of Anatolia.22 According to Schultze, it was Ramsay who “pioneered the historical geography of Asia Minor.”23 In his The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (1895), Ramsay had already dealt at length with the Lycus Valley, including the epigraphic material in his studies,24 but he refrained from a systematic assessment of the Chris- tian sources. He included episcopal lists for Laodicea and Hierapolis,25 but he did not investigate the Philip tradition or the publications of the Hier- apolitan bishops Papias and Apollinarius. He discussed the letter to the Laodiceans in the Apocalypse of John and the ecclesio-political structure of the province Phrygia Pacatiana in Late Antiquity later in a diferent context.26 Ramsay was aware of the de ciencies of his works on the Lycus

20 Biographical background in Zäh 2005. 21 Schultze 1922, pp. 410–450. 22 On Ramsay see for example the biographical sketch in Gasque 1966, pp. 13–22. 23 Schultze 1922, p. 61, on Ramsay 1890 (er habe der “historischen Geographie Kleinasiens die Bahn gebrochen”); also p. 397: “In mehr als einer Hinsicht hat er Phrygien für uns sozusagen wieder entdeckt.” 24 Ramsay 1895, pp. 1–121 and 208–234; also Ramsay 1897, pp. 542–553 (Christian inscriptions; on the problems involved, see p. 336 below). For a brief appreciation of Ramsay’s work in Laodicea, see Sperti 2000, p. 39. 25 Ramsay 1895, pp. 78f. and 120. 26 Ramsay 1904, pp. 413–430; Ramsay 1931. introduction 9

Valley, as he con rmed in a provisional appraisal of his research work written in 1897. He had always considered the region merely as a way station on the road to the Phrygian interior: “… so far as I may judge, the chapters of my ‘Cities and Bishoprics’ that describe the Lycus valley are the least satis- factory and the least complete.”27 Ramsay’s investigations of the historical geography of the Lycus Valley were continued by his student J.G.C. Ander- son (1870–1952).28 The epigraphic inventory of the region was continued by W.M. Calder and W.H. Buckler, who consciously followed in the tradition of Ramsay.29 Sketchy treatments based on the researches initiated by Ramsay were published in 1950 and 1984 by the theologians Sherman E. Johnson (1908– 1993) and Frederick Fyvie Bruce (1910–1990), both of whom traced a line from the urban foundations of the Seleucids through the Christian mission of the Pauline period and the bishops Papias and Apollinarius to the synods and councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. Far more than Bruce, Johnson attempted to correlate the material remains with the literary tradition.30 Generally speaking Bruce is guided primarily by the Judeo-Christian tradition, whereas Johnson views the development of Christianity in the Lycus Valley as being inuenced by external conditions as well, such as its role as a transportation hub. A few years ago, the theologian Mark Wilson drew up a brief summary of early Christianity in the Lycus Valley, with which he sought to establish the basis of modern pilgrim tourism, arguing that in Paul, John, and Philip three apostles had left their footprints in the region.31 Here Wilson runs the danger of placing his historical argumentation too greatly in the service of his idea of the importance of the Lycus Valley in the history

27 Ramsay 1897a, p. 88. 28 Anderson 1897 was a major contribution. 29 Their most important contribution was MAMA VI, nos. 1–86. See p. 13 below. 30 Bruce 1984, pp. 12f. nevertheless refers to the Canadian excavations in Laodicea (though not the Italian excavations in Hierapolis). In discussing Hierapolis, he refers on p. 10 to the Martyrium of Philip and the inscription of the archdeacon Eugenius, who was responsible for the church dedicated to Philip (p. 15, n. 37: tellingly cited not from the standard edition published by Judeich but from earlier editions). For a discussion of this inscription, see p. 370 below. Besides the works of Ramsay, Johnson 1950 cites the archaeological observations of Hamilton and the epigraphic publications of Judeich as well as Buckler and Calder (MAMA VI). In connection with the “Epaphras” of the Pauline tradition, Johnson cites the uncertain inscription MAMA VI, no. 1 (pp. 6f.); in connection with the “lukewarm Laodiceans” of the Apocalypse, he cites the remains of the water supply identi ed by Hamilton. On this issue, see pp. 156–158 below. 31 Wilson 2007. He ends his summary with Papias. 10 chapter one of Christian beginnings. His identi cation of Philip of Hierapolis with the apostle is symptomatic, as he marginalizes the identically named Philip in the book of Acts.32 The New Testament scholar Paul Trebilco recently tried an original but methodologically problematic approach to uncovering the historical details of Christianity in the Lycus Valley in the 1st and 2nd centuries: he takes as his basis the sources that primarily provide information about the Chris- tian community of Ephesus—Acts, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians—in order to reconstruct a form of Christianity typical of Western Asia Minor.33 He appeals to the close networking among the communities to justify his attempt to apply the results of his source analysis of one region to another, i.e. from the Aegean coast to southern Phrygia. By and large, the complexity, variety, and diversity, as well as the potential for conict in the Christian communities of the Lycus Valley as presented by Trebilco are con rmed by the sources that refer speci cally to the region. But quite a few details remain speculative, for example the association of the conict scenario with speci c groups like the Nicolaitans in Ephesus and Pergamum mentioned in the Apocalypse of John.34

1.2.2. Epigraphy and Archaeology As the works of Ramsay show, scholarship is indebted to epigraphy and archaeology for important insights into the history of the three cities of the Lycus Valley. In Hierapolis and more recently in Laodicea also, the analysis and publication of inscriptions and excavation ndings have made considerable progress; Colossae, however, still stands in the shadow of the other two. At the end of the 17th century, travelers were already visiting the classical remains of the Lycus Valley; Laodicea in particular aroused

32 Cf. Wilson 2007, p. 77, with the hypothesis that the apostle Philip could also have had daughters endowed with the gift of prophecy, resulting in confusion of the apostle with the other Philip (Acts 21:8–9). For clari cation of the problem, see pp. 190–211 below. 33 Trebilco 2011. On the methodological problem, see for example his discussion of how to use the Pastorals on p. 189: “But do the Pastorals help us in looking beyond Ephesus? Not directly, since 1 and 2Timothy are addressed to the Pauline community in Ephesus, Titus to the Pauline community in Crete. But if the sorts of things revealed by those texts can happen in one Pauline community in Western Asia Minor, perhaps they can also happen in others too.” At the same time, Trebilco rightly rejects speculations as to why neither Colossae nor Hierapolis appears among the churches addressed by John in his Apocalypse or Ignatius of Antioch. 34 On Rev. 2:6; 2:15, see Trebilco 2011, p. 192. Basically Trebilco is aware of the problematic nature of his ideas (p. 207: “somewhat speculative”). introduction 11 interest on account of its role in the Apocalypse of John.35 The geologist William John Hamilton (1805–1867), who published a detailed description of the Lycus Valley, was unimpressed by the dreary ruins of Laodicea, but he reminded himself of the signi cance of the city for early Christianity.36 Around 1700 the cleric Edmund Chishull (1671–1733) had already copied inscriptions in both Laodicea and Hierapolis, though without publishing his notes. Nevertheless his manuscripts preserved in the British Museum were used for the inscriptions published in the Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (CIG).37

1.2.2.1. Hierapolis Hierapolis38 acquired its own published corpus of inscriptions in 1898. With a travel grant from the German Archaeological Institute, the young Walter Judeich recorded the material during a 14-day stay in 1887, with the support of colleagues and under the direction of Carl Humann. The corpus includes quite a few Jewish inscriptions and a few Christian inscriptions, for instance the controversial stone from the pier basilica that mentions the archbishop and patriarch Gennaios.39 W.M. Ramsay, who had since become the recognized authority on Phrygia, openly criticized Judeich’s presentation, which he considered too super cial.40 The study of Christian Hierapolis received a new stimulus through an initiative of the Missioni Archeologiche Italiane, which began systematic excavation and restoration in 1957. Thanks to the preferences of Paolo

35 Cadwallader 2008, pp. 326–330. Sperti 2000, pp. 31–38 sketches the earlier history of discoveries regarding Laodicea from the 17th century on. 36 Hamilton 1842, p. 515: “Nothing can exceed the desolation and melancholy appearance of the site of Laodicea; no picturesque features in the nature of the ground on which it stands relieve the dull uniformity of its undulating and barren hills; and, with few exceptions, its grey and widely scattered ruins possess no architectural merit to attract the attention of the traveller. Yet it is impossible to view them without interest, when we consider what Laodicea once was, and how it is connected with the early history of Christianity—a reection which withdraws the mind from the gloomy scene presented to the eye, and leads it to meditate upon the past and the future.” German translation by O. Schomburgk in Hamilton 1843, p. 468. On Hamilton see Boulger / Thackray 2004, p. 933. 37 Corsten 1997, p. ix. For the Hierapolis inscription mentioning the patriarch Gennaios, see CIG, no. 8769 and Huttner, Bauinschrift (appearing shortly); also p. 311 below.On Chishull’s place in the history of epigraphy, see Larfeld 1914, p. 23. For more on his biography, see Gibson 2004, pp. 493f. 38 Silvestrelli 2000, pp. 396–471 provides an important summary of the history of archaeological research at Hierapolis. 39 No. 22; see note 37 above and p. 311 below. 40 Ramsay 1900. 12 chapter one

Verzone, the director of the excavations, who had been teaching architectural history at the Technical University of Istanbul, several Christian monuments were among the rst investigated. The focus of Verzone’s interest was on the octagonal building to the northeast of the city, which he had already identi ed with the Martyrium of Saint Philip,41 whereas its Chris- tian context had totally escaped Humann. The excavations associated with the Martyrium were not concluded until 1975. Meanwhile (1960) the study of the cathedral church in the northern part of the city near the Byzantine city wall had begun under the direction of the Christian archaeologist Mario Mirabella Roberti; this work likewise continued into the 1970s, concentrat- ing temporarily on the baptistery south of the structure. Only in recent years have archaeologists begun to explore the architectural and urban context of the cathedral church through excavations in its immediate vicinity;42 during the 1980s and early 90s, signi cant portions of the building stock from Late Antiquity and the Byzantine period in the vicinity of the Roman agora of the imperial period and the Frontinus road were excavated. During the 1960s, the theater was one of the central projects of the archaeologists; in 1969 they uncovered a small three-aisle church (the so-called Church above the Theater) atop a towering rock immediately to the east.43 Other early church buildings of the city still await intensive archaeological investigation, especially the monumental three-aisle pier basilica, whose dimensions far exceed those of the cathedral; it was clearly among the most prominent buildings in Hierapolis during Late Antiquity. The epigraphic exploration of Hierapolis was also spurred by the initiative of the Italians. The corpus of inscriptions published by Judeich was supplemented in 1966 by the Semitist Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti; since the 1980s, it has been supplemented continually by partial and selective editions produced by the epigrapher Tullia Ritti.44 The Jewish funerary inscriptions in particular make an important contribution to revealing the conditions confronting the Christian community in pre-Constantinian Hier- apolis. Elena Miranda (1999) and Walter Ameling (2004) have published

41 Verzone 1956, p. 45. 42 Arthur 2006, p. 138. 43 Arthur 2006, p. 152. 44 Pennacchietti 1966/1967. Ritti’s publications include the beautiful selective edition of 2006 and the museum catalog Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, which however includes only inscriptions from the vicinity of Hierapolis. For individual editions see pp. 435f. below. On the history of epigraphic research in Hierapolis, see Ritti / Miranda / Guizzi 2007, pp. 583– 587; briey Ritti 2004, p. 465; also Ritti 1985, pp. 49–54 (including numismatics). introduction 13 annotated editions of these texts.45 During the 1990s, the American church historian William Tabbernee sought to detect traces of Montanism in a few Christian inscriptions of the city.46 New epigraphic discoveries can still bring surprises, as shown for example by the monumental sarcophagus of a deacon found in the city’s northern necropolis.47

1.2.2.2. Laodicea Important stimulus for the exploration of Laodicea came from Georg Weber, professor at the Evangelical School in Smyrna, toward the end of the 19th century,48 who produced the plan of the ancient city and its immediate surroundings that was long authoritative and also studied its water supply system.49 The Christian history of Laodicea, however, played no role in Weber’s investigation; his scholarly interests were geographical and technological. The surveys that William Moir Calder and William Hepburn Buckler undertook in the Lycus Valley in 1933/1934, which were incorporated into the sixth volume of the Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua (MAMA),50 brought only a few Christian documents to light: only three Christian inscriptions from Attouda, high in the mountains west of Laodicea, were really relevant.51 The rst large-scale excavation in Laodicea, by a team from the Univer- sité Laval in Québec, which included scholars from France, Switzerland, and Denmark along with the Canadians, was also not concerned with the city’s Christian heritage; it concentrated on the Severan-era nymphaeum in the center of the city. The French epigrapher Louis Robert undertook the

45 Miranda 1999; Ameling 2004, pp. 398–440. 46 Tabbernee 1997, pp. 91–95 (no. 10–11) and 497–508 (no. 82–83); also Tabbernee 2009, pp. 281–285. 47 SEG 54 (2004), no. 1298. See p. 274 below. 48 For a brief appreciation of Weber, see Robert 1969, pp. 351f.; cf. Watzinger 1944, pp. 108f. (on cooperation with Wiegand in September of 1898 in preparation for the excavations in Miletus). Weber’s notes on Asia Minor are preserved in the archives of the German Archaeological Institute at Athens (cf. www.dainst.org/de/department/archiv-athen?ft=all; Aug 31, 2012). 49 See his two articles from 1898, his plan of the surrounds in JDAI 13 (1898), Taf. 3. See also Weber’s report of an inscription in MDAI (A) 22 (1897), pp. 485f. Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 29 erroneously dates Weber’s initiatives in the years 1833/1843 (confusing him with Arundell). Many later plans (including very recent ones) are based on Weber’s pioneering work; see for example Bean 21985, p. 263, g. 46; Dorl-Klingenschmid 2001, p. 153, Abb. 91. 50 See p. 9 above. 51 MAMA VI, no. 84–86; see p. 316 below. 14 chapter one publication of the inscriptions.52 The results of the excavations, which were begun in 1961 and concluded just two years later, were presented in a collective volume published in 1969.53 Evidence of the monumental splendor of Christian Laodicea could nevertheless be gleaned from the various alterations undertaken on the nymphaeum. The massive parapet panels decorated with huge Latin crosses clearly date from the 5th century,54 when the nymphaeum may have been used as a baptistery.55 Surveys initiated during the years around 1995 by archaeologists from Venice clari ed the topography of the urban region and also brought to light a series of early Byzantine churches.56 At the turn of the millennium, ambitious excavations directed by Celal Sim¸ sek¸ from the recently founded Pamukkale University (Denizli) began; each year has produced a wealth of nds.57 As dictated by modern excavation standards, the archaeologists devote equal attention to all eras, so that Late Antiquity and the Byzantine period have emerged from the shadow of the high Roman Empire. In the context of the inscriptions from Laodicea, Christianity has so far played only a minor role. Of the 141 numbers incorporated by Thomas Corsten into the rst volume of the inscriptions from Laodicea, only one can be tied to a Christian context with some certainty.58 The new Archaeological Museum of Denizli-Hierapolis houses a handful of Christian inscriptions from the 4th–6th centuries that were found in the region.59

1.2.2.3. Colossae Although Colossae plays a prominent role in the Pauline correspondence (Philemon, Colossians) and the hill on which the ancient city was situated has not been overbuilt in modern times, it has never been the target of a concentrated archaeological campaign.60 Francis Vyvyan Jago Arundell

52 Robert 1969. 53 Des Gagniers et al. 1969. 54 Dorl-Klingenschmid 2001, p. 212. 55 Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 163 with g. 58h. 56 Gelichi / Negrelli 2000, pp. 130–132; S. Gelichi in Bejor / Bonetto / Gelichi / Traversari 2004, pp. 209–213. See also Mitchell 2001, pp. 632f. 57 See http://laodikeia.pau.edu.tr (May 31, 2012). For an overview see Sim¸ sek¸ 2007 and above all Sim¸ sek¸ 2013. On the necropolis, see now the monumental volumes of Sim¸ sek¸ (ed.) 2011 (non vidi; kindly brought to my attention by Turhan Kaçar, Denizli). 58 Corsten 1997, pp. 189f., no. 108; see pp. 337f. below. Corsten’s documentation is based in part on new epigraphic discoveries that he recorded in Laodicea in 1994 (more than two dozen unpublished texts). 59 Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, no. 200–204. 60 See Bennett 2005, p. 15; Cadwallader / Trainor 2011, pp. 37–41 (including relatively introduction 15

(1780–1846), who held the position of chaplain to the British commercial settlement in Smyrna for several years, during which he tirelessly pursued his antiquarian interests, congratulated himself on having rediscovered the site during a research trip in 1833.61 A few years later, Hamilton described an expanse of ruins covered with impressive remains, including fragments of columns and architraves, the cavea of a theater, and a well-preserved necropolis.62 It appears that a large portion of the monumental remains were lost over the years that followed. Georg Weber was once more responsible for creating an important basis for the topographical exploration of the region around Colossae when he sketched a plan of the region based on plans developed by German railway engineers.63 Only very recently, at the initiative of Australian theologians, has investigation of ancient Colos- sae been intensi ed and a systematic approach to the historical and material evidence undertaken.64 Epigraphy has also pro ted from recent stimuli. After W.M. Calder and W.H. Bucker assembled a rst small corpus of Colossian inscriptions in the context of MAMA VI,65 Alan H. Cadwallader (Flinders) reexamined the epigraphic material during recent years.66

1.2.3. Archaeological Perspectives The intensive archaeological activity in the Lycus Valley, which is now beginning to extend to Tripolis and Trapezopolis as well as the major excavation sites,67 will give some new accents to the history of early Christianity in the region. The exciting discoveries in 2011, which have already been mentioned unproductive initiatives in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s); Duman / Konakçı 2011, pp. 249f. with reference to a Turkish excavation in the necropolis of Colossae in 1997. Also useful is the chronological overview of exploratory initiatives at Colossae in Cadwallader 2011, pp. 307–310. 61 Arundell 1834, vol. I, p. xi: “The writer may be permitted, that he succeeded in dis- covering the lake of Anava, described by Herodotus as between Colossae and Apamea; the important cities of Apamea and Sagalassos; and by the discovery of a river near the modern Chonas, precisely corresponding with the description of Herodotus, he almost, if not posi- tively, determined the ancient site of Colossae.” For more on Arundell, see Courtney / North 2004, pp. 574f. Hamilton 1843, p. 463 criticized Arundell’s location of the site. 62 Hamilton 1843, pp. 463–465. In the 19th century, Hamilton was considered the discov- erer of Colossae. Cf. Cadwallader / Trainor 2011, p. 35 with n. 108. 63 Weber 1891, p. 195. 64 Cadwallader / Trainor (eds.) 2011. 65 MAMA VI, no. 38–51. 66 Cadwallader 2006. Cf. Cadwallader 2007 and A.H. Cadwallader in Llewlyn / Harrison (eds.) 2012, pp. 110–113 (on the basis of the initial publication in Antichthon 46 [2012], non vidi). 67 On the ndings of the Tripolis excavations see Gider 2007; see also p. 24 below. On the archaeological probes in the necropolis of Trapezopolis, see Sim¸ sek¸ 2002a, pp. 6–15. 16 chapter one briey (see p. 4 above) and whose publication is awaited with great anticipa- tion, may suggest the importance of archaeological investigation for historical analysis. It’s a great pity that the newest results of excavation in Hierapo- lis an Laodicea have been published so late that they could not be exploited for this research in extenso.68 In Laodicea a magni cent basilica was uncovered in the immediate vicinity of an extensive temple complex.69 Its oor plan is unparalleled: an enormous rectangle anked by a series of apses on both side walls. The oor of the two anking aisles is covered by mosaics, while an ornamental arrangement of marble slabs decorates the central aisle. If this unique church should prove in fact to go back to the age of Constantine, suggesting that in Laodicea the new era was signaled by an immediate and conspicuous monumental building, we would have to posit a sizable Christian presence in the city as early as the tetrarchy. For now, however, interpretation of nd involves many uncertainties. In Hierapolis archaeologists have excavated a three-aisle basilica a few steps below the Martyrium of Philip; a house-like tomb is embedded in a lateral aisle. The front of the funerary monument, which can be dated to the high Roman Empire, bears inscriptions that document the veneration of the gure buried there.70 If it should turn out that a Christian cultic installation dedicated to Saint Philip was erected in the necropolis of Hierapolis as early as the 2nd or 3rd century, we could conclude that Christians were generally allowed to practice their religion in public unhindered. At roughly the same time, Apollinarius seized the initiative as bishop of the city to address an apology to the reigning emperor.71 One is induced to ask, if the completely untypic inscription at the left of the entrance to the funerary monument, mentioning only a person named Apollinarios without any further additions, has to do with the bishop of the city.72

68 Only after nishing the text and preparing it for print I got the chance to consult D’Andria 2011/12 about the new results of the excavations near the Martyrium of Philip and the great new book about Laodikeia by Sim¸ sek¸ (2013; with many additions compared with Sim¸ sek¸ 2007). Some details are mentioned below pp. 378–381. Further F. D’Andriawrote to me about the the Ploutonion of Hierapolis that has been located recently and will be presented in a rst publication soon. The reports in D’Andria,F. / M.P.Caggia / T. Ismaelli (edd.): Hierapolis di Frigia V. Le attività delle campagne di scavo e restauro 2004–2006. Istanbul 2012 I haven’t seen. 69 See pp. 380f. below. 70 See also p. 379 below. 71 See pp. 239–242 below. 72 The inscription is in the nominative: [᾽Α] πω εινάριος. Cf. T. Ritti in D’Andria 2011/12, ˙ ˙ introduction 17

1.2.4. Theology In contrast to the historical and archaeological contribution to the study of early Christianity in the Lycus Valley, theological analysis can hardly be overlooked, especially in the realm of exegesis, if only because its tradition goes back so far. The relevant letters from the Pauline corpus and the Apoca- lypse of John have been (and continue to be) the focus of scholarly attention, along with the bearing of Papias’s evidence on the formation of the New Testament canon. Striving for exhaustive bibliographies, not to mention a balanced discussion of previous research, would go beyond the limits of this section. Numerous bibliographical references will be found in the relevant chapters.73

1.3. Geography74 and Natural Resources

1.3.1. Basic Geography In its upper reaches, the Meander runs northward in a broad arc; not until it approaches Denizli does it bend to run in an east-west direction, nally owing into the Aegean after innumerable windings; the coast is about 200 kilometers away. In the vicinity of the bend, the Lycus (modern Turkish Çürüksu, “rotten water”) ows into the Meander. It forms an east-west valley some 50 kilometers long (elevation between 150 and 400 meters) that branches away from the valley of the Meander, enclosed by mountains to the north and south.75 To the north they rise to more than 1800 meters, to the south more than 2500; the southern mountains are dominated by the mas- sifs of Mount Salbacus (Baba Da˘gı,2306 meters) and Mount Cadmus (Honaz

p. 51f. and D’Andria2011/12, p. 36f. Above the entrance there was another inscription, of which are conserved only some unreadable traces. 73 Especially chapters 3–6. 74 Cartographic resources: The most accurate topographic information for Turkey is found in the maps made for the Soviet General Staf (scale 1:50,000) beginning in 1978: Denizli sheet, J-35-83 (Moscow 1990). See also the relatively detailed map of the Denizli region in De Planhol 1969, p. 392 (scale 1:266,666). A section (scale 1:25,000) taken from a topographical map covering the passage from Denizli through Mount Salbacus appears in in Sezgin / Okunak 2007, p. 123. For maps of the terrain around the excavations see Bejor / Bonetto / Gelichi / Traversari 2004, appendix (Laodicea), and D’Andria / Scardozzi / Spanò 2008, appendix and passim (Hierapolis). 75 For a detailed description of the topography, see Ramsay 1895, pp. 3–7; now also Soner 2000, pp. 51–54. Good pictures of the valley are in D. Müller 1997, pp. 171–175 (with additional bibliography). 18 chapter one

Da˘gı,2528 meters).76 The modern city of Denizli is located in the southern recess of the Lycus Valley; it is a rapidly growing metropolis with population of over half a million.77 Despite the proximity of the mountains, travelers in the valley do not feel con ned; the valley oor provides su cient space between the slopes (some 5 to 10 kilometers north to south), and the rise to the east is so gentle that it does not block the sight line, while to the west the descent toward the Meander opens the way to the coast. In the valley, the temperature rarely falls below freezing, but the mountains are covered with snow until well into spring.78 Like quite a few other regions in western Anatolia, the Lycus Valley is struck periodically by strong earthquakes;79 the geological faults are due to the pressure the Arabian plate is exerting on the Anatolian plate.80 Hierapolis lies directly atop such a fault zone.81 A number of watercourses ow into the Lycus; the southern tributaries were best known to contemporary geographers on account of their signi cance for ancient Laodicea. From west to east, these are the Asopus, the Caprus, and nally the Cadmus, which rises on the slopes of Mount Cad- mus and may in this period have been a tributary of the Caprus.82

1.3.2. Infrastructure A region’s geography and geology determine the infrastructure and resources available to its population. The Lycus was a lifeline, its abundant water of existential importance: aqueducts from the catchment area—from the rivulet Caprus to Laodicea and from the northern uplands to Hiera- polis—supplied drinking water83 while creating the necessary conditions for farming a rich agricultural area.84 Because of the special tectonic nature

76 See Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 43; also De Planhol 1969, pp. 391–393. For the mountains to the north, see Scardozzi 2007, pp. 331f., with a useful relief map. On Salbacus see Sö˘güt2007. 77 Wikipedia article on Denizli, Dec 1, 2009. 78 Naturally this refers particularly to the northern slopes of Cadmus and Salbacus. For a climate graph of Denizli see Çiçek / Çelik 2004, p. 128. 79 See the summary of ancient sources in Ritti 1985, pp. 23–26. On earthquakes in modern times, see Uluskan 2007. 80 Hütteroth / Höhfeld 2002, pp. 38–42. 81 Altunel 2000, pp. 299–301. On the earthquake ca. 60ce, see pp. 100–102 below. 82 See Weber 1898, pp. 183–192; N. Mersich in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 285; Huttner 1997, p. 94; Thonemann 2011, p. 78 n. 66. On these and other rivers, see also pp. 375–377 below. 83 On Laodicea see Weber 1898a, pp. 1–12; Sim¸ sek¸ / Büyükkolancı 2006; see also p. 157 below. On Hierapolis see D’Andria 2003, pp. 183f.; Scardozzi 2007, pp. 337–349. 84 It is also likely that shing played a role: according to the team excavating Laodicea, a newly discovered imperial letter from Hierapolis documents a conict over sheries in the Lycus Valley. introduction 19 of the region, there were several hot springs (not potable!),85 which could be used in the setting of thermal baths;86 in addition, on account of the alkalin- ity of the water, they provided ideal conditions for the bleaching of textiles and the bating of leather.87 The course of the Lycus also determined the route of the major highway that passed through the valley and was used intensively as one stage of a major long-distance route to the East as early as the period of Persian rule.88 Anyone wanting to go to Mesopotamia from the Aegean, e.g. from Miletus or Ephesus, could follow the road through the valley of the Meander and the Lycus basin, at whose eastern edge the road rises, reaching an altitude of some 900 meters,89 continue on via Sanaus to Apamea (at the source of the Meander) and Iconium, then go through the Cilician Gates (the pass through the Taurus Mountains) and nally reach Syria and the Euphrates. This route was joined from the north by the Hermus Valley route, which led to the Lycus basin from Smyrna (or Pergamum) through Sardis, Philadel- phia, and Tripolis and continued southeast through a pass (1250 meters) at the western foot of the Cadmus mountains, connecting with Cibyra and nally Attalea (modern Antalya) and Side on the southern coast.90 Under Roman rule, the upkeep of roads was a central concern from the very beginning. As soon as the province of Asia was erected in 129bce, construction of a network of roads began; the Lycus Valley represented an important hub.91 Two imperial-period milestones from the road linking Tripolis, Hierapolis, and Laodicea and a third from the road linking Tripolis and Philadelphia document the continuation of this commitment.92 The

85 Scardozzi 2007, pp. 337f. 86 For Carura, west of Laodicea (already in the valley of the Meander), see Ramsay 1895, pp. 170f.; for other details, see p. 23 below. Today the most important thermal sites in the Lycus Valley are Pamukkale, Akköy (slightly north of Pamukkale), and Sarayköy (along with Tekkeköy, identi able with Carura), west of Denizli. Cf. Eskikurt / Kapluhan 2007, pp. 620– 622. 87 Huttner 2009, pp. 145f.; Ru ng 2009, pp. 297f. 88 French 1998. See also pp. 32f. below. 89 Ramsay 1895, pp. 217f. 90 See De Planhol 1969, p. 391; Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 155; Kearsley 2011, pp. 130f.; also Cohen 1978, p. 15; Traversari 2000, pp. 9–11 (based on the Peutinger Map). On the strategic signi cance of the Laodicea-Attalea route, see Ferrary 1985, p. 445. It appears that tra c routes already converged in the Lycus Valley in prehistoric times. Cf. Kılıç 2007. 91 Mitchell 1999a, pp. 18–21. 92 Ritti 2002a, pp. 90–103; Ritti 2006, pp. 189–192, no. 46. The museum in Pamukkale also houses milestones of unknown provenance: Ritti / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 300–313. On the milestone west of Tripolis, see Anderson 1898, p. 86, no. 23. 20 chapter one potential of the Lycus Valley for communication and commerce is illustrated by the funerary inscription of the merchant Titus Flavius Zeuxis from Hier- apolis, dating from the end of the 1st century: he undertook the voyage to Italy past the southern tip of the Peloponnesus 72 times,93 although his home lay far from the Aegean coast. The roads over the passes south of Laodicea via Mount Salbacus to Heraclea Salbace (only 25 kilometers from Laodicea as the crow ies) and the other cities of the Tabae plateau, however, appear to have been relatively arduous.94 The tomb-lined road discovered south of Laodicea probably represents the link to these mountain routes.95 The Lycus Valley retained its strategic importance for communication in the Byzantine period. Pilgrims from afar thronged to the sanctuary of Saint Michael near ancient Colossae.96 During the Crusades, Laodicea served as an important staging area, for example at the beginning of 1148, when Louis VII and his French forces advanced up the Meander.97

1.3.3. Agriculture and Textile Production The Lycus and its tributaries ow through a hilly alluvial landscape, including some ravines, that allows the cultivation of several crops. Where cotton is the primary crop today, followed increasingly by wine,98 in antiquity it is clear that grain ourished along with fruits and vegetables, which were naturally irreplaceable as fundamental foodstufs,99 but also olive trees (probably

93 Judeich 1898, no. 51; see also Ritti 2004, pp. 573f., no. 7 and Ritti 2006, pp. 67–70, no. 9: [Τ]ίτος [Φλά]ουι{ι}ος Ζεῦξις ἐργαστὴς [π]λεύσας ὑπὲρ Μαλέον εἰς ᾽Ι[τ]αλίαν πλόας ἑβδοµήκοντα δύο,… 94 The passes are discussed in detail in Robert / Robert 1954, pp. 25–31, with a clear relief map by J. Bertin (pl. lxv). See now also Sezgin / Okunak 2007, p. 116, with an excellent map on p. 123 (remains of Hellenistic settlements). On Heraclea Salbace, see also Robert 1946a, pp. 5–31; Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 18–30; Thonemann 2011, pp. 218–227. 95 Cf. Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 307, although he prefers to identify this road with the road to Aphrodisias. 96 Thonemann 2011, pp. 125f. 97 EpistulaOdonis 6 (Waquet 1949, p. 66). See also Arthur 2006, pp. 22–24, and Thonemann 2011, pp. 7–9. 98 Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 243; see also Riza 1935, pp. 52–59 (cotton-growing in Turkey) and pp. 82– 86 (the beginnings of viticulture). Hamilton 1843, pp. 463 and 467, observed viticulture in the region as early as the 1830s. Agriculture in the Lycus Valley appears to have been somewhat more diversi ed even in the early 20th century; cf. Banse 21916, p. 123 “… dicht bepanzt mit Korn und Sesam, Tabak und Reben, Obsthainen und allerdings auch einigen Weideächen.” Johnson 1950, p. 3, lists olives, sesame, vegetables, fruit, and almonds, and points out that the land east of Laodicea is hardly suitable for agriculture. Today, however, many fruit trees ourish precisely in the vicinity of ancient Colossae. 99 Drexhage 2007, p. 131: “Man wird jedoch ungeachtet der Tatsache, dass Überschüsse introduction 21 mostly on the hillsides) and wine grapes, albeit without suggesting agricultural continuity.100 Vitruvius speaks in one place of the “gardens and vineyards” around Hierapolis.101 At higher elevations, especially on the hillsides to the north and south, we may assume that cattle and especially sheep were raised.102 The three pigs carved on a family gravestone from Colossae undoubtedly indicate the source of the livelihood of the head of the household.103 In Laodicea there is an imperial-period sepulchral inscription of Papias Klexos, who proudly records his occupation of shepherd (ποιµήν).104 The processing of sheep’s wool constituted the basis of a ourishing textile industry in the Lycus Val- ley. Imitation purple dye produced from local ora gave the cloth an attractive color and increased sales.105 A dyer’s workshop dating roughly from the 5th century has since been uncovered in Laodicea.106 During the high Empire, inuential trade associations were located in both Laodicea and Hierapolis, which provided an institutional basis for textile production and

an Getreide im Regelfall wohl nicht vorhanden waren, zunächst annehmen dürfen, dass alle damals gängigen Getreidearten nahezu überall in der Provinz Asia angebaut wurden.” On the abundance of grain produced by Phrygia, see Procop. Arc. 22.17. According to Hipponax frgm. 46 (Bergk PLG 31866, p. 765), the Phrygians were supplying Miletus with grain as early as the 6th century bce. 100 There are no explicit textual sources for oleiculture in the Lycus Valley, but see Mitchell 2005, pp. 84–93 (also regarding oleiculture in ancient Phrygia); Drexhage 2007, p. 136: “Insge- samt wird man also in weiten Teilen der Provinz Asia mit einem ausgedehnten Olivenanbau zu rechnen haben …” See also Thonemann 2011, pp. 53–56. Two olive presses from Hierapo- lis: Arthur 2006, p. 70. On viticulture see inscriptions from the area north of Hierapolis that deal with protecting vineyards from herds of cattle. For further discussion, see Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 68–73, no. 15; Thonemann 2011, pp. 193–195. See also Robert / Robert 1954, pp. 51f. On Laodicea see Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 295. Antiochus III also mentions viticulture in his letter to Zeuxis (cited p. 67 below). On viticulture in Phrygia, see also Waelkens 1977, pp. 278–283. 101 Vitr. 8.3.10 describes how the calciferous water builds up stony encrustations in the water-supply ditches: “Ad eundem modum Hierapoli Phrygiae efervet aquae calidae mul- titudo, e quibus circum hortos et vineas fossis ductis inmittitur; haec autem e citur post annum crusta lapidea.” The geological phenomenon described by Vitruvius still afects large areas of the Lycus Valley. 102 See Erdemir 2007; also Waelkens 1977, p. 286. 103 MAMA VI, no. 50; cf. Thonemann 2011, pp. 184f. In this context, it is worth noting that the city name Denizli derives from the Turkish word for “pig”; cf. Ba˘gdemir2007, pp. 322–334. In modern Turkish, domuz is the word for “pig.” 104 Corsten 1997, no. 112; see p. 160 below. 105 Huttner 2009, pp. 151–157; Erdemir 2011, pp. 108–123; also Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 285–289 and Ru ng 2009, pp. 297f. 106 Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 294–299. 22 chapter one trade.107 “Dyers” and “purple dyers” appear in numerous Hierapolis inscriptions.108 Various types of garments were produced for export; the products were obviously in demand throughout the Roman Empire.109 Leathercraft was a byproduct of cattle raising. A sepulchral inscription from Colossae mentions a leatherworker (διφθεροπύς) named Dion.110

1.3.4. Building Trades and Technologies Several quarries were available to the building trades in the region of the Lycus Valley, which had been covered by the sea in the Tertiary period. Limestone is the base mineral not only of the spectacular lime sinter terraces of Pamukkale111 but also of the various outcrops of travertine and marble.112 Travertine, a building material that is easy to work with, was used in all the cities of the Lycus Valley; several quarries have been identi ed.113 Above all, at the height of the Empire thousands of sarcophagi were made of travertine, many of which are found in the ancient necropolises of Hierapolis.114 High- quality marble was quarried primarily at two sites, the quarries of Domuz Deresi south of Laodicea at Mount Salbacus115 and the quarries of Thiounta (ancient name) north of Hierapolis.116 When the magni cent scenae frons of the theater in Hierapolis was built in the Severan period, the purple dyers, who paid for part of the architectural decoration, boasted in the associated inscription that they had used the renowned and particularly high-quality marble from Docimeion (some 200 kilometers northeast of the Lycus Valley);117 technical analysis of the material has shown, however, that

107 Pleket 1988, pp. 33–35; Labarre / Le Dinahet 1996, pp. 97–108; Ertekin 2007; see also pp. 166f. below. 108 Dittmann-Schöne 22010, pp. 234–243 (10 inscriptions). 109 See the references to Laodicea in Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices, esp. 19.25–40 and 63. See Huttner 2009, p. 139; cf. Thonemann 2011, p. 187. 110 MAMA VI, no. 44; cf. Cadwallader 2007, pp. 111f., no. 2. 111 Hütteroth / Höhfeld 2002, p. 67. 112 On the sedimentary rocks of the Lycus Valley, see Westaway 1993. On its marble, see Attanasio / Brilli / Ogle 2006, pp. 169–183. 113 See Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 329–332. One ancient quarry is also located beyond the Lycus north of the city mound of Colossae. The tracks left by the slabs as they were hauled away are still clearly visible in places. 114 Between 1986 and 1989, 1474travertine sarcophagi were counted in the north necropolis of Hierapolis. See Vanhaverbecke / Waelkens 2002, pp. 119f. 115 Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 332–339; Sö˘güt2007, p. 21. 116 For more on Thiounta, see Ritti 1985, pp. 21f.; Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, p. 18 (with bibliography). 117 Ritti 1985, p. 108: … λίθου ∆οκιµηνοῦ ἀπηρτισµένου … Cf. Ritti 2007, p. 407. introduction 23 a substantial portion of the marble (probably including the stone with the inscription) came from the quarries of Thiounta.118 The business establishments owed their economic success not only to natural resources but also to the technical expertise of the workers. In the dye-works, detailed instructions were passed on regarding various methods of using economical dyes to achieve the same color as the secretion of the costly purple dye murex.119 Technological progress also made work in the quarries easier: a water-powered stone sawmill is depicted on the 3rd-century sarcophagus of the Hierapolitan M. Aurelius Ammianos. In the associated inscription, the owner of the sarcophagus boasts of having built the machine with his own hands—his technical skill rivaled that of Daedalus.120

1.3.5. Settlement Geography I: Carura, Attouda, Trapezopolis, Tripolis The traveler approaching the Lycus basin from the valley of the Meander passes through a narrows behind Antioch, where the ranges to the south and north press closer to the river,121 and comes to a zone where warm springs issue from the hillsides, some of which were known and used in antiquity. Strabo reports that there—on the boundary between Caria and Phrygia— a village named Carura was located, where an inn near the hot springs invited the traveler to stop.122 On the slopes that rise to Mount Salbacus south and southeast of here, there are two small towns situated away from the main road through the valley: Attouda, especially high above the road and surrounded by ravines, and Trapezopolis, further toward Laodicea.123 The

118 Attanasio / Pensabene 2002: The portion of the material from Docimeion appears to be small; most came from Thiounta and Aphrodisias. 119 Huttner 2009, pp. 144–153. 120 SEG 57 (2007), no. 1375. Cf. Ritti 2007a; Grewe / Kessener 2007; Grewe 2010, pp. 37–39. 121 Here the small town of Cidramus was situated on the southern slopes: cf. Anderson 1897, pp. 396f. 122 Str. 12.8.17: ῞Οριον δέ ἐστι τῆς Φρυγίας καὶ τῆς Καρίας τὰ Κάρουρα· κώµη δ’ ἐστὶν αὕτη πανδοχεῖα ἔχουσα καὶ ζεστῶν ὑδάτων ἐκβολάς … On its location on the southern bank of the Meander near the village of Tekkeköy, see Ramsay 1895, pp. 2f., with an impressive description of the geographical surroundings, and Anderson 1897, p. 398; also Baysal 2000, p. 30. On a possible identi cation with Cydrara, see French 1998, p. 21 (on Cydrara see pp. 32f. below). On the modern thermal baths of Tekkeköy, see Eskikurt / Kapluhan 2007, p. 622. 123 For further discussion of these towns, see the entries in Belke / Mersich 1990, pp. 195f. and 407f. The investigations of Anderson 1897, pp. 398f. (Attouda) and 401f. (Trapezopolis) are fundamental. On the topography of Trapezopolis near the Turkish village of Bekirler, see Baysal 2000, pp. 32–36; Sim¸ sek¸ 2002a, pp. 3–5. See also MAMA VI, pp. xii–xiv (with a reference 24 chapter one two towns played a role as episcopal sees by the 5th century at the latest.124 About 10 kilometers north of Trapezopolis, the Lycus joins the Meander. If you follow the Meander upstream, you will come to Tripolis in a few kilometers, a signi cant strategic communications hub primarily because a bridge over the Meander at that points links the road from Sardis to the Lycus basin.125 The area enclosed by Byzantine defensive walls, where archaeologists have begun to excavate a colonnaded street dating from the period following the great earthquake ca. 60ce,126 rises up a broad slope, which opens on a view of the nearby Meander to the southeast and beyond it the Lycus Valley. In antiquity the city was usually assigned to the territory of Lydia. In the post-Constantinian period, it was an episcopal see.127 Recent and current excavations have also brought to light a series of early Byzantine nds.128

1.3.6. Settlement Geography II: Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colossae None of the major cities of the Lycus Valley was sited directly on the river. The danger of ooding and eforts to protect the fertile farmland next to the river induced the people to settle on the heights: Laodicea was built on a prominent hill rising some 280 meters above the valley south of the Lycus, whereas Hierapolis (some 12 kilometers away and visible from Laodicea) was built north of the river and about 350 meters above it.129 A stable bridge ensured a direct connection between the two cities.130 The coin nds in Hierapolis illustrate the active economic exchange: 69 coins were minted in Hierapolis itself, 37 in Laodicea, but only a few from centers of mintage like Ephesus (4) and Smyrna (3).131 Colossae lies some 15 kilometers upstream

to a road from Aphrodisias to Attouda). On Attouda (modern Hisarköy), see also Thonemann / Ertu˘grul2005, p. 77 and Thonemann 2011, pp. 228f., who calls attention to the vista from Attouda toward Hierapolis. 124 See p. 316 below. 125 On the location, see Ramsay 1895, p. 192; cf. MAMA VI, pp. xi–xii; Robert 1987, pp. 499f. On games in Tripolis, see the three inscriptions published by Tanrıver 2009. Insight into the town’s organization (including a phyle Attalis) is provided by additional inscriptions published by Dönmez-Öztürk 2009. 126 Gider 2007; also Ceylan 2000, pp. 69–75. 127 See p. 286 below. 128 Ceylan 2000, pp. 75–82 (necropolis west of Tripolis). Currently: http://tripoliskazisi .com/anasayfa.html (Dec 27, 2011). 129 Altitudes from Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 55; Arthur 2006, p. 13. 130 Anderson 1898, pp. 89f.; Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 91. 131 Travaglini / Camilleri 2010, p. 6 (table). introduction 25 from Laodicea, likewise on a clearly pronounced height, where the Lycus has carved a deep ravine into the limestone beds, separating the city from its necropolis on the north bank.132 The power of the watercourses in the region is reected in the legend of the sanctuary of Saint Michael: the archangel is reported to have averted a catastrophic ood.133 A strong walker could visit all three cities in the course of a one-day circular hike, and their territories bordered on each other;134 clearly it was not uncommon for them to be entangled in neighborhood conicts. During the imperial period, Colossae could no longer keep pace with the economic power of Laodicea and Hierapolis, but those two cities were rivals in the competition for precedence within the province. The oldest of the three cities was nevertheless Colossae, whose history can be traced back to the 5th century bce; Herodotus was the rst to mention it.135 As a way station on one of the most important east-west routes in Asia Minor, it repeatedly played a signi cant role. Laodicea and Hierapolis, by contrast, were founded by the Seleucids in the 3rd century bce. These two cities (with others) served as military strongholds securing the stability of Seleucid rule in western Asia Minor, not least against the Galatians in central Anatolia.136 In the mid-1st century ce, the cities of the Lycus Valley were almost totally destroyed by a severe earthquake; afterwards the urban centers were almost totally rebuilt, at least in Laodicea and Hierapolis; as a result, there are hardly any archaeological remains from the Hellenistic and early imperial periods. Nevertheless several tumuli in the necropolises of both cities can be assigned to those early centuries.137 The Hellenstic and early imperial inscriptions from the two cities are much scantier than later inscriptions.138 The uplands north of Hierapolis in the direction of the Meander contained a whole series of villages, the largest of which was Thiounta (some

132 Weber 1891, p. 196. On the site, see also Ramsay 1893, pp. 472–476; MAMA VI, p. xi. On the necropolis, see Sim¸ sek¸ 2002, pp. 10–12 (topographic map of Colossae and vicinity p. 5). The necropolis still contains rock-cut tombs, a tomb with a pitched roof, and several toppled massive steles from the imperial period (some with inscriptions; personal inspection April 2012). 133 See pp. 372–377 below. 134 Ritti 2002, p. 41 (starting from the territory of Hierapolis). 135 Hdt. 7.30. See also the illustrated geographical commentary of Müller 1997, pp. 163–165. For further detail, see pp. 31–33 below. 136 Mitchell 1993, I, p. 20. 137 D’Andria 2003, pp. 38f.; Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 302. 138 On Hierapolis see Ritti 2006, pp. 30f.; on Laodicea see the corpus of inscriptions in Corsten 1997. 26 chapter one

20 kilometers from Hierapolis);139 others included Motaleis and—a bit further east—Mossyna, which would become a major episcopal see in Late Antiquity. It has recently been located by an Italian survey near the village of Sazak in the high Çal basin some 25 kilometers northeast of Hierapolis.140 High above the Meander, nally, obviously outside the territory of Hierapo- lis and under control of the small city of Motella (later Metellopolis) on the other side of the river, there are the remains of the temple of Lairbenos, which enjoyed great local esteem.141

139 See N. Mersich in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 404. See also pp. 20–23 above. 140 On the region north of Hierapolis, see Ritti 2002, pp. 41–43 and 57–63 (Motaleis), with a schematic map p. 70. On Motaleis see also Schuler 1998, pp. 248f. and p. 305, no. 30. On Mossyna see (provisionally) Scardozzi, G. / L. Castrianni: “Mossyna: The Rediscovery of a ‘Lost City’ in the Territory of Hierapolis in Phrygia (Turkey),” 15th International Confer- ence on “Cultural Heritage and New Technologies,” Vienna 2010, pp. 616–633. http://www .stadtarchaeologie.at/wp-content/uploads/eBook_WS15_Part5_Postersession+Award.pdf (Dec 27, 2011). See also Thonemann 2011, p. 193. 141 Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, pp. 4 and 54f.; Dignas 2003, pp. 87f. On the northward extent of the territory of Hierapolis, see also Labarre 2005, pp. 123f. On the temple of Lairbenos, see pp. 48–52 below. chapter two

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In the Lycus Valley, Paul and his companions observed and promoted the birth of three Christian communities, which maintained contact and cooperated: in Colossae, Hierapolis, and Laodicea. They exchanged information and messages and turned to the same authorities. Epaphras, a close colleague of Paul who guided the spread of the gospel in the Lycus Valley, served as a key gure for all three communities.1 The communication network was tightly woven, the distances between the cities were short, and the cultural and political situation encouraged close cooperation.

2.1. Cultural and Social Background: Identities and Associations

The identity of individuals in the Lycus Valley—as elsewhere in ancient Greece—was de ned primarily by their ties to the cities where they lived, but other criteria also played a role: the watercourse that linked the cities was part of the Phrygian landscape, though the borders of Lydia and Caria were close by.2 The connection to Lydia was already described by Herodotus, who states that in 481 Xerxes crossed the border on his march from Cappado- cia to Sardis at a city named Cydrara in the Lycus Valley, where Croesus had already set up a pillar with an inscription to mark the crossing.3 Laodicea’s location on the border between Caria and Phrygia is illustrated clearly by a coin from the city from the time of Caracalla, on the verso of which the goddess of the city is enthroned between the personi cations of Phrygia and Caria.4 The presence of these personi cations on the coins is clear evidence that they played a role in the self-conception of the citizens.

1 Col. 4:13. 2 Waelkens 1986, p. 43. On the uncertainty regarding the assignment of Tripolis to the northwest and Blaundus to the north (Lydia or Phrygia?), see Herrmann 1991, esp. pp. 78 and 83. 3 Hdt. 7.30. See p. 32 below; cf. Debord 1999, p. 77. 4 BMC Phrygia, p. 317, no. 228. Cf. Vitale 2012, p. 81. 28 chapter two

Ethnically de ned identity, whether Phrygian, Carian, or Lydian, was overshadowed, however, by the intensive Hellenization of the Lycus Valley: the inscriptions are in Greek (rarely Latin);5 the holdings of the Archaeo- logical Museum of Pamukkale do not include a single epichoric text.6 The Neophrygian curse formulas that constantly reappear in central and eastern Phrygia are not found in the Lycus Valley.7 One inscription from Colos- sae suggests the existence of a local translation service: it honors a certain Marcus, the “chief translator of the Colossians.”8 Of course the presence of interpreters does not absolutely mean that an epichoric language group was experiencing communication problems, especially since it was also necessary to assure smooth contact with Latin-speaking o cials and institutions.9 Furthermore Roman citizens from Italy had taken residence in the cities of the Lycus Valley, as in other provincial cities; they organized themselves in their own separate associations (conventus).10 The self-image of this circle is revealed by the epitaph of M. Sertorius Valens, who had moved to Iconium from Laodicea:11 he describes himself as the son of M. Sertorius Antiochus and Arruntia Valentilla as well as the grandson of C. Arruntius Valens and Claudia Eupatra. Clearly the family was concerned to provide a genuinely Roman pedigree. There is some evidence that the rural population higher in the mountains still preserved the ancient languages12 or at least spoke a distinctive dialect.

5 Strelan 2011, pp. 77–83 nevertheless rightly cautions against drawing automatic conclusions about languages spoken from languages documented epigraphically. 6 T. Ritti in Ritti / Baysal / Miranda /Guizzi 2008, p. 8. 7 For more on the Neo-Phrygian texts, see Brixhe 2008, pp. 71f. Cf. Schmitt 1983, pp. 56f. and Mitchell 1993, I, p. 174. 8 Cadwallader 2007, pp. 112–118, no. 3: Mάρκωι Mάρκου / Κολοσσηνῶν / ἀρχερµηνεῖ / καὶ ἐξηγητῆ[ι] … . See also Strelan 2011, p. 91; Cadwallader 2011, pp. 170f. But cf. the suggestion of A. Chaniotis that Marcus might have exercised a religious function, e.g. as an interpreter of oracles: SEG 57 (2007), no. 1382. 9 Cf. Schmitt 1983, pp. 561–563. There is little literary evidence for interpreters and translators assisting communication between Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking groups. Cf. Biville 2002, pp. 84–86. 10 Ritti 2008, pp. 290f. Kirbihler 2007, p. 33 has an outline map showing the presence of associations of Roman citizens in Asia Minor. Ritti / Miranda / Guizzi 2007, p. 612 cites a Latin sarcophagus inscription from Hierapolis. Eck 2000 is a fundamental study of the presence of Latin inscriptions in Greek cities, using Perge as an example. Cf. also Eck 2009, 20–22 (statistics). 11 McLean 2002, pp. 29f., no. 75; see the discussion in Robert 1969, p. 360. 12 Strelan 2011, pp. 82–98 gives numerous arguments for the survival of Phrygian in the Lycus Valley. For sources of such linguistic enclaves elsewhere in Asia Minor, see Mitchell 1993, I, p. 172. Cf. also Brixhe 1987, p. 28 and Brixhe 2002, pp. 248–251. historical background 29

Outside the urban centers, in any case, it is clear that people had di culty writing correct Greek; in some inscriptions from the temple of Lairbenos some 40 kilometers north of the Lycus basin, we are confronted with a totally opaque syntax and anomalous orthography.13 Even though it would be wrong to conclude automatically that the population of Phrygia had been Hellenized only super cially,14 we should at least think in terms of linguistic idiosyncrasies possibly amounting to a distinct dialect.15 No typically Phrygian monumental form such as a funerary relief with a false door has been found in the Lycus Valley.16 The Phrygian (or pre-Greek) avor of the region is clearest in the context of various cults, especially in rural areas. In this context, the temples of Men Karou, Apollo Kareios, and Lairbenos deserve particular attention.17 That Laodicea and Hierapolis, the two cities founded by the Seleucids, should have extended their inuence as centers of Greek civilization into the surrounding territory is self-evident. It has been shown that Laodicea had both a Macedonian and an Ionian population;18 one Hellenistic inscription makes it clear that the city had a gymnasium at an early date, an institution that played a signi cant role in promoting Greek culture and civilization.19 A late Hellenistic list of names from Laodicea recently published includes more than 30 women together with their fathers or husbands; it may not be a representative cross-section of the urban population, but it is striking that almost none of the names can be assigned to a typically Anatolian context.20 Clearly the period of Persian rule also left little permanent impression, but we must allow for a cultural substrate, as illustrated by the Hellenistic tombstone of a certain

13 Brixhe 1987a, pp. 51–74 is fundamental. Cf. Mitchell 1993, I, pp. 193f.; also the peculiarities of these texts listed by Petzl 1994, pp. 163–167. 14 Brixhe 1987a, pp. 74f. 15 Brixhe 1987, pp. 15–29. Here, too, the pointed comment by Dignas 2002, pp. 68f. applies: “If we imagine a continuous process of change through the interaction of cultures in Asia Minor, certainly the line between ‘Greek’, ‘becoming Greek’, and ‘indigenous’ is drawn with great di culty.” 16 Cf. Waelkens 1986, pp. 13–15, with a distribution map in an appendix. 17 See pp. 47–53 below. 18 Robert 1969, pp. 328–333; Cohen 1978, pp. 9–11 (Macedonians in Seleucid colonies); Corsten 1997, p. 37. 19 The inscription is Corsten 1997, no. 7; see Delorme 1960, pp. 135f.; cf. Cohen 1978, p. 36 on gymnasia in Seleucid colonies. One illustration of the e cacy of gymnasium training is the enormous success of the pankratiast Heras from Laodicea in a whole series of contests in the early imperial period. Philip of Thessalonica celebrated him in an epigram: Anthologia Graeca 16.52. See also p. 31, n. 36 below. 20 Aytaçlar / Akıncı, pp. 113–116. 30 chapter two

Ariabazos from Laodicea found in Athens.21 Persian names of citizens of Laodicea are also documented in a few other inscriptions.22 During the Empire, a consciousness of Phrygian identity began to emerge more strongly. A whole series of military diplomas speak of the Phrygian origin of the soldiers who got Roman citizenship with their discharge.23 Among the numerous coins with which Hadrian digni ed the provinces and regions of the Empire, two types represent the territory of Phrygia: the female personi cation wears a “Phrygian cap,” familiar from Greek iconography of the barbarians, to suggest the traditional costume of the region.24 At the beginning of his Address to the Hellenes, Tatian paid his respects to the cultural achievements of the barbarians, among whom he included Carians, Phry- gians, and Isaurians.25 An administrative district called Phrygia had already been established within the boundaries of the province of Asia to optimize the province’s nancial organization.26 The Phrygian text formulas on tombstones mentioned above (p. 28) are clearly the most incontrovertible mark of that “epichoric renaissance.” Toward the end of the 4th century, the Gothic bishop Selenas is said to have preached in Phrygian, his mother tongue.27 The Laodicean city cap associated with the personi cations of Caria and Phrygia shows that the sense of Phrygian identity extended to the marginal region of the Lycus Valley.28 The readiness of individuals to form associations was deeply rooted in the Lycus Valley, as is apparent from the epigraphic evidence, which documents a dense concentration of trade associations, cultic communities, family associations, and hetairiai. During the high imperial period, trade associ-

21 IG II2, no. 9162: ᾽Αριάβαζος / ᾽Απο ωνίου / Λαοδικεύς. Cf. Sekunda 2011, pp. 60–62. The typically Greek name of the father (appropriate to the cult of Apollo in the Lycus Valley) is also striking. 22 Robert 1969, pp. 333f.; Sekunda 2011, pp. 67f. On Mardonius from the region of Apollonia (= Tripolis), see Robert 1987, pp. 347f. 23 CIL XVI, nos. 7 and 145; Scherrer 2008. I wish to express my thanks to Werner Eck for a useful survey of the military diplomas of soldiers from Asia Minor. 24 RIC II, p. 456, no. 905 and p. 467, nos. 962–964. See Birley 1997, pp. 223f.; Wolters 1999, pp. 301f. with g. 148; Zahrnt 2007, pp. 196f. and 211f. 25 Tat. Orat. 1. 26 See Bowersock 1995, pp. 94–98 and the corrections in Thonemann 2011, pp. 112–115, and now the thorough treatment in Vitale 2012, pp. 70–77. See also p. 243, n. 185 below. 27 Socr. H. e. 5.23.8: … καὶ Σεληνᾶς ὁ τῶν Γότθων ἐπίσκοπος, ἀνήρ ἐπίµικτον ἔχων τὸ γένος· Γότ- θος µὲν ἦν ἐκ πατρός, Φρὺξ δὲ κατὰ µητέρα, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀµφοτέραις ταῖς διαλέκτοις ἑτοίµως κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐδίδασκεν. According to Socrates, then, Selenas preached in both a Germanic language and Phrygian. See Holl 1928 (1908), pp. 243f.; Brixhe 2002, p. 252. 28 See p. 27 above and Vitale 2012, pp. 81f. historical background 31 ations, many involved in textile production, emerged as nancially powerful institutions,29 especially in Hierapolis. They are also attested in Laodicea.30 In the uplands north of Hierapolis, where the villages of Thiounta and Motaleis are located, there is evidence of hetairiai or phratries, comprising a dozen or two individuals, who maintained the cults of the gods.31 At Colossae it was once the ἑταῖροι, another time the συνγενικὸν νειώτερον that erected a tombstone.32 At Hierapolis, too, the ἑταῖροι were responsible for a burial site.33 At Laodicea the epitaph of a certain Meltine says that τὸ συνγενικόν erected the monument.34 Although most of these inscriptions date from the imperial period, the organizational structures probably went back to the Hellenistic period. Besides the Jewish synagogues in the Lycus Valley,35 several models were therefore available to serve as a precedent for the formation of the Christian congregations.36

2.2. Political Background

2.2.1. Colossae in the “Early Period” Settlement along the Lycus goes back to the 4th millennium bce. The earliest pottery discovered in the course of a surface survey of the city mound of Colossae dates from the Late Chalcolithic; the material dating from the Bronze Age (3rd/2nd millennium bce) is especially extensive.37

29 Ritti 1995, pp. 66–77; Dittmann-Schöne 22010, pp. 231–246. 30 Dittmann-Schöne 22010, pp. 247f.; for Laodicea see also the mention of a βαφέων τόπος on the Syrian Street (“dyers’ shop”): Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 123 with g. 47n. See also pp. 167f. below. 31 Robert 1983; Mitchell 1993 I, p. 187; Ritti 2002, pp. 47–52 and 57–63; Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, no. 43 (and 44). On such cultic associations in general see Harland 2003, pp. 44–52. See also p. 140 below. 32 MAMA VI, no. 47 = Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, no. 113; MAMA VI, no. 48 = Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, no. 73. Cf. Trainor 2008, pp. 16–19; Trainor 2011, pp. 241–243. 33 SEG 57 (2007), no. 1371 (dating from the late 2nd cent.): Οἱ ἑταῖροι ∆ιόκλειτον Μηνογένου ἀνέστησαν. ἥρως, χαῖρε. Ritti / Miranda / Guizzi 2007, p. 601 conjecture a group “di natura militare.” But a “family network” could also have been involved. Cf. Harland 2003, pp. 30–33 (“household connections”). 34 MAMA VI, no. 24 = Corsten 1997, pp. 187f., no. 105. The συµβιώσεις in Lydia played a similar role in the funerary cult. Cf. Naour 1981, pp. 31f. 35 See pp. 67–79 below. 36 For a thorough discussion of this issue, see Harland 2003, pp. 177–212 and Ascough 2006, pp. 149–155. The organization of the gymnasium could possibly also have provided a point of contact: a συνέδριον νέων is depicted on Laodicean coins; see Imhoof-Blumer 1901/1902, pp. 274f., nos. 52–54. 37 Duman / Konakçı 2011, pp. 254–275. 32 chapter two

The earliest historiographic account of the Lycus Valley is in Herodotus’s description of King Xerxes’ route through Asia Minor to Greece (480bce). It goes without saying that the Great King and his troops chose an improved road as their route to the sea. The Lycus Valley forms part of the leg from Celaenae to Sardis.38 Herodotus describes the route as follows: “He passed the city of the Phrygians named Anaua and a lake from which salt is har- vested and arrived at Colossae, a large city in Phrygia where the Lycus River plunges into a chasm and disappears. It reappears after a distance of ve stadia and also joins the Meander. Leaving Colossae, the army approached the border between the Phrygians and Lydians and arrived at the city of Cydrara …”39 The larger context shows that Cydrara was situated before the crossing of the Meander and must therefore be included in the Lycus Valley.40 The Persian army was following a route that had been one of the major arteries from the Anatolian interior to the Aegean coasts (and vice versa) for centuries.41 This means that the army descended the immense decliv- ity that terminates the eastern end of the Lycus Valley after passing the city of Anaua, later called Sanaus, beside the salt lake of the same name (modern Acıgöl, “bitter lake”).42 Today this stretch is traversed by one of the most important connecting roads of the region. Herodotus’s statement that the Lycus ran underground for a distance of about a kilometer cannot be veri ed, but it is true that near Colossae the river cuts through the major limestone strata in a deep gorge.43 Herodotus’s description of Colossae as “a large city in Phrygia,” where the Persian army obviously encamped, indicates its extraordinary importance. Xenophon con rms this assessment when he once more depicts the Lycus Valley as the route of a military advance two generations after Herodotus. Cyrus had mustered his troops on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor and in 401 launched a campaign against his brother Artaxerxes II, who had seized

38 Syme 1995, p. 20. 39 Hdt.7.30: ῎Αναυα δὲ καλεοµένην Φρυγῶν πόλιν παραµειβόµενος καὶ λίµνην ἐκ τῆς ἅλες γί- νονται, ἀπίκετο ἐς Κολοσσὰς πόλιν µεγάλην Φρυγίης, ἐν τῇ Λύκος ποταµὸς ἐς χάσµα γῆς ἐσβά ων ἀφανίζεται· ἔπειτα διὰ σταδίων ὡς πέντε µάλιστά κῃ ἀναφαινόµενος ἐκδιδοῖ καὶ οὗτος ἐς τὸν Μαί- ανδρον. ᾽Εκ δὲ Κολοσσέων ὁ στρατὸς ὁρµώµενος ἐπὶ τοὺς οὔρους τῶν Φρυγῶν τε καὶ Λυδῶν ἀπίκετο ἐς Κύδραρα πόλιν … 40 Müller 1997, pp. 168f. (identi cation with the village of Kavakbası).¸ But see also p. 23, n. 122 above. 41 See p. 19 above. 42 This area is discussed by Ramsay 1895, pp. 230f., and N. Mersich in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 371. 43 Cf. Weber 1891, pp. 194–197. historical background 33 the throne a few years before. He marched with his forces up the Hermus Valley through Sardis to the Meander, which he crossed with the aid of a pontoon bridge. “After crossing it, he advanced through Phrygia, one day’s march, eight parasangs, to Colossae, a large and prosperous populous city. There he stayed seven days.”44 The logistical potential in Colossae must have been huge, since provisioning an encamped army consumed enormous resources. It is uncertain whether the Cydrara mentioned by Herodotus still played a role in Xenophon’s time, but in any case the earliest literary sources indicate that by the 5th century the Lycus Valley was already a relatively densely settled region on one of the most important routes from the Aegean to Anatolia.45 Colossae served as its urban hub.46 From the 6th to the 4th century, the city was under Persian administration; from time to time, it also served as the o cial residence of high-ranking administrative o cials of the Persian satrapy.47 The college of strategoi in Colossae documented on coins from the period of Commodus may go back (as well as in neighboring cities) to earlier traditions of communal polity.48

2.2.2. The Lycus Valley in the Hellenistic Period: New Foundations and Political Changes Like many regions under Hellenistic rule, the Lycus Valley experienced massive urbanization in the period after Alexander the Great put an end to Persian rule. In Asia Minor, the Seleucids became ascendant in the course of the wars of the Diadochi. Both Laodicea and Hierapolis were founded by Seleucid kings.49 We have more exact information regarding Laodicea, since the Byzantine encyclopedists preserved the relevant traditions: under the lemma Λαοδίκεια, Stephanus of Byzantium summarized the essentials in

44 X. An. 1.2.6: τοῦτον διαβὰς ἐξελαύνει διὰ Φρυγίας σταθµὸν ἕνα παρασά ας ὀκτὼ εἰς Κολοσ- σάς, πόλιν οἰκουµένην καὶ εὐδαίµονα καὶ µεγάλην. ἐνταῦθα ἔµεινεν ἡµέρας ἑπτά. 45 Debord 1999, pp. 33–38. 46 Debord 1999, p. 157. 47 Ariaeus, whom Diodorus (14.80.8) calls satrap, was residing in Colossae in 396bce when Great King Artaxerxes ordered him to take the powerful Tissaphernes into custody. The most important source is Polyaen. Strat. 7.16; cf. Debord 1999, pp. 155–157 (on Ariaeus). Sekunda 2011, pp. 56f. identi es Ariaeus as a Persian “duke” with a power base in and around Colossae. 48 Coins in Aulock 1987, pp. 91f., nos. 566–577; on colleges of strategoi in Anatolian cities under the Attalids, see the exemplary treatment by Dreyer 2010, p. 356. See also pp. 35f. below. 49 Cohen 1995, pp. 305–311. 34 chapter two the transition from Syrian to Lydian (!) Laodicea: “But there is yet another [Laodicea] in Lydia, founded by Antiochus, the son of Stratonice. For his wife bore the name Laodice. His inspiration came from Zeus through Her- mes, a dream through the oracle of Apollo: To King Antiochus, Phoebus Apollo grants this oracle, to found an illustrious city, as commanded by Zeus thundering on high, who dispatched eet Hermes.”50 The oracle laid the sacral foundation of the new city; the signi cance of the cult of Zeus and Apollo in the city will be discussed later. Apollo also functioned as the tutelary deity of the Seleucid dynasty.51 The founder of the city must have been Antiochus II, who succeeded his father in 261bce and repudiated his wife Laodice in 253. If we accept the statement of Stephanus, the city must have been founded between 261 and 253.52 Stephanus is aware of another tradition, which he enters under the lemma ᾽Αντιόχεια, according to which Antiochus I (ruled 281–261bce) founded the city and named it after his sister. The surviving text is so confused at this point, however, that its actual value as a source can hardly be determined.53 Whether the hill of Laodicea was inhabited at the time the Seleucid king founded the city is unclear. In any case, there are traces of earlier settlement.54 The Laodiceans venerated Antiochus (II) as the founder of their city; a month of the calendar was named for the king, and every year the Antiochia

50 St. Byz. s.v. Λαοδίκεια: ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἑτέρα Λυδίας, ᾽Αντιόχου κτίσµα τοῦ παιδὸς τῆς Στρατονί- κης· τῇ γὰρ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ ὄνοµα Λαοδίκη. ∆ιὸς µήνυµα δι’ ῾Ερµοῦ, ὄναρ διὰ χρησµοῦ ᾽Από ωνος· ᾽Αντιόχῳ βασιλῆι τάδε χρᾷ Φοῖβος ᾽Από ων, κτιζέµεναι πτολιέθρον ἀγακλεές, ὡς ἐκέλευσεν Ζεὺς ὑψιβρεµέτης, πέµψας ἐριούνιον ῾Ερµῆν. 51 Taeger 1957, p. 279. See pp. 44–45 below. 52 Cf. Des Gagniers 1969, p. 2; Bejor 2000, pp. 15 and 19, with an attempt to narrow the range further (258–254). In his commentary on Dionysius Periegetes, Eustathius (12th cent.) calls Antiochus the son of Antiochus and grandson of Stratonice; this is probably an error or a corrupt tradition. Otherwise we would have to think of the city as having been founded by Antiochus Hierax, who came to the throne in 242/241bce. The text in Eustathius reads (915): ῎Εστι δὲ καὶ ἑτέρα Λαοδίκεια Λυδίας, ἣν ᾽Αντίοχος ἔκτισε, παῖς ᾽Αντιόχου τοῦ τῆς Στρατονίκης, χρησµοῦ δοθέντος ἐν ὀνείροις τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ ποιῆσαι τοῦτο. 53 Steph. Byz. s.v. ᾽Αντιόχεια (cf. Eustath. Comm. in Dion. Per. 918). Three women appeared in a dream to Antiochus, the son of Seleucus, and ordered him to found three cities in Caria; he named Laodicea after his sister, Nysa after his wife, and Antioch after his mother. Here we have a genealogy that runs counter to the historical evidence. 54 Turkish archaeologists are currently preparing a series of studies on the prehistory of Laodicea. Kindly brought to my attention by Unay O˘guzhano˘glu,who is investigating the 3rd millennium bce. Cf. also Kılıç 2007. historical background 35 were celebrated with athletic contests.55 Hellenistic inscriptions con rm that c. 200bce Laodicea had a fully functional administration typical of Hellenistic poleis: a council and popular assembly as centers of political decision-making, prytaneis constituting the executive committee of the council, and a college of strategoi constituting a central administration.56 The city was part of a dense network of political relationships: legations maintained contact with other Anatolian poleis. Through the mediation of the Seleucid administration, three experts from Priene were involved in resolving internal legal disputes in Laodicea.57 The Laodiceans maintained such close contact with another city (possibly Stratonicea) that they granted its citizens isopolity.58 Such decisions reect normal political practices in the mutual contacts of Hellenistic poleis. Here Laodicea was subject to more or less loose supervision by the Seleucid kings.59 The Hellenistic foundation had replaced Colossae as the central metropolis of the Lycus Valley;60 there can be no other explanation for why Achaeus, who as “governor general” representing Antiochus III in the east with his position in Asia Minor, chose to don the diadem in Laodicea in 220bce, thus claiming the royal dignity in opposition to his overlord.61 Un- doubtedly military forces were also involved in the ceremony; like Colossae under Persian rule, Laodicea now functioned as the logistical hub of the region.62 The extraordinary role still played by the city under Attalid rule (after 188bce) is demonstrated by the existence of a mint that—albeit not for long—minted Pergamenian cistophori and thus made its own contribution to supplying the kingdom with coins.63 Laodicea thus appears to have been the capital of a Pergamenian imperial province.64

55 Robert 1969, pp. 251f. For a general discussion of the cult of the rst Seleucids as city founders see Leschhorn 1984, pp. 232–240 (including Laodicea). 56 See the inscriptions Corsten 1997, nos. 2–5 and their discussion in Quass 1979, p. 37. 57 Corsten 1997, no. 5. 58 Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 42–47, no. 3. Interpretation is based on reconstructions, which await validation. 59 On the city’s status, see Ma 2000, pp. 158f. 60 See also Sekunda 2011, pp. 71f., with the sparse evidence bearing on Hellenistic Colossae. 61 Plb. 5.57.5. Cf. Schmitt 1964, pp. 164f.; Ritter 1965, pp. 131f.; also Mitchell 2001, p. 632. 62 Plb. 5.57.4 calls the troops an escort for Achaeus. 63 Kleiner / Noe 1977, pp. 97–99; Mørkholm 1979, pp. 58f.; Le Rider 1990, pp. 685f.; Drew- Bear / Le Rider 1991, p. 375; Corsten / Huttner 1996, p. 43, no. 1; Thonemann 2011, p. 171. It is not impossible, however, that the Laodicean cistophori were actually minted in Tralleis. 64 Mileta 1990, pp. 431f. 36 chapter two

There are even fewer sources for the history of Hellenistic Hierapolis than for Laodicea. Stephanus of Byzantium does mention its location between Phrygia and Lydia, its abundance of warm springs, and its multitude of temples, but he wastes no words on the city’s beginnings.65 Most of the names of the phylae found on seating steps of the imperial-era theater can be associated with the Hellenistic royal families to which the city was subject. The fact that the names are not limited to the Attalid dynasty of Pergamum but include names of the earlier Seleucids (Seleucus, Antiochus, Laodice) is proof enough that Hierapolis must have been founded before the rulers of Pergamum. Antiochus II cannot be ruled out as κτίστης, even though he brought neighboring Laodicea into being; it is more likely,though, that Antiochus I (reigned 281–261bce) was the founder.66 The political structures of Hierapolis are suggested in what is so far the earliest inscription from the city, a posthumous decree honoring Apollonis, the wife of Attalus I, the king of Pergamum, who died before the mid-2nd century bce.67 The request is made by three strategoi, obviously a high- ranking body if not the highest body in the city administration.68 That the council and people were the central decision makers is self-evident. The inscription reects the great political upheaval of 188bce: in the Treaty of Apamea, Rome removed Asia Minor from the rule of the Seleucid king and placed most of it under the Attalid king of Pergamum, bringing to an end some 80 years of competition between the two dynasties in Western Asia Minor.69 Attouda and Tripolis must also be included in the history of the Hel- lenistic poleis, although they were overshadowed by the larger cities. There is a great deal of relevant evidence from Attouda:70 in addition to silver and bronze coins, probably dating from the 1st century bce,71 there are epi-

65 St. Byz. s.v. ῾Ιεράπολις: Μεταξὺ Φρυγίας καὶ Λυδίας πόλις, θερµῶν ὑδάτων πο ῶν πλήθουσα, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱερὰ πο ὰ ἔχειν. 66 Kolb 1974, though he does rule out foundation by Antiochus II (p. 269); Ritti 1985, pp. 118–122. Also Ritti 2007, pp. 422–424. 67 Judeich 1898, no. 30 = OGIS, no. 308: γνώµη στρατηγῶν … On dating the death of Apollonis, see OGIS, no. 307 with commentary by W. Dittenberger. Cf. also Ritti / Miranda / Guizzi 2007, pp. 597f., with reference to additional Hellenistic inscriptions for Hierapolis, not yet published. 68 Ritti 2008, pp. 285f., also asking whether the college of strategoi went back to the Seleucid foundation or was an Attalid innovation. See also p. 35 above. 69 Marek 2010, pp. 269–272, 275–284, and 294–298. On Antiochus III see Schmitt 1964, pp. 262–278. 70 Thonemann / Ertu˘grul2005, p. 77, n. 6. 71 BMC Caria, p. 62, no. 1; Imhoof-Blumer 1901/1902, pp. 123f., nos. 1–5; cf. RPC I, p. 468. historical background 37 graphic documents, including what may be an Attalid royal letter,72 as well as honori c and funerary inscriptions.73 Tripolis is situated in the extended drainage basin of the Lycos Valley, a bit north of where the river joins the Meander; in the Hellenistic period, it was called Apollonia.74 This town also minted its own coins.75 Laodicea and Hierapolis, the new cities in the Lycus Valley founded by the Seleucids, were focal points of Greek culture in an environment shaped by Anatolian traditions.76 In addition they functioned as strategically located communications hubs on one of the pivotal stretches between the Aegean coast and the Anatolian plateau. Military security measures were required by the proximity of the Galatians, who established their settlements further east but repeatedly extended their expeditions and raids to include the territories around the Meander: as early as 267bce, before the foundation of Laodicea, Seleucid functionaries were honored in shrines on the soil of the later city because they had ransomed indigenous people from the hands of the Galatians.77 A recently published letter of King Eumenes II to the o cials of Tabae (beyond the mountains south of the Lycus Valley) shows that the Galatians had established a threatening position near Apamea at the source of the Meander, probably c. 168/166bce.78

2.2.3. Laodicea as a Central City of the Roman Province After the death of Attalus III, the last Pergamenian king, in 133bce and the consequent erection of the Roman province of Asia,79 Laodicea’s dominance in the Lycus Valley took on clearer contours: while the literary tradition does not even mention Hierapolis in connection with the history of the 1st century bce, Laodicea appears as a ourishing commercial and administrative

72 MAMA VI, no. 65; see Thonemann / Ertu˘grul2005, p. 77, n. 6. 73 MAMA VI, no. 68; Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 60–65, nos. 9–12. 74 Habicht 1975, pp. 83f.; Robert 1987, pp. 342–345; Erdo˘gan/ Çörtük 2007, p. 1 (followed by an excavation report dealing primarily with nds from Late Antiquity); Dönmez-Öztürk 2009, p. 165; also Ramsay 1895, pp. 192–194. See p. 24 above. 75 For further details see Cohen 1995, p. 199. 76 Mitchell 1993, I, p. 7; Cohen 1995, pp. 66–71. Cf. pp. 28–29 above. 77 Corsten 1997, no. 1. On this inscription, see also p. 42 below. 78 Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 50–57, no. 7. For further discussion of the historical context, see Thonemann 2011, pp. 172–174. 79 Wörrle 2000, pp. 565–568; Wesch-Klein 2008, pp. 267f. Phrygia was not part of the province of Asia from the outset; initially it was attached to the Pontic Kingdom. For a discussion of the problem, see Ferrary 2001, pp. 101f. 38 chapter two center, which unfortunately came under attack several time during the turbulent era of the civil wars. Strabo records that, after modest beginnings, Laodicea experienced a meteoric boom during those very decades.80 As an assize center established by the Roman administration, it regularly provided a rostrum for the Roman governor to decide lawsuits afecting people from the Lycus Valley and beyond.81 For a time (from 56 to 50bce), as part of Phrygia the Lycus Valley did not belong to the province of Asia but to the province of Cilicia,82 although the result was that geographically distant regions were joined in a single administrative unit. From the summer of 51bce, when Cicero took over as governor of the province for a year,83 Laodicea was one of his most important places of residence. At the very beginning of his term of o ce, he headquartered there for two days to hold assize. A few months later, he wrote to M. Porcius Cato from Tarsus: “When I arrived in the province on the last day of Quintilis and saw that on account of the time of year I must make all haste to the army, I stayed in Laodicea for two days and then four days in Apamea, three days in Synnada, and as many in Philomelium. There were extensive assizes in these cities, and I freed many towns from oppressive tributes, burdensome interest, and fraudulent debt.”84 Before Cicero met the troops under his command in Iconium, he used his jurisdictional obligations to present himself in the cities of Phrygia as their benefactor. During the following year, the governor found himself in Laodicea once more; this time he even chose the city for several months as the central assize city for the towns in the western portion of his province.85 The city’s location as a communications hub proved very useful, because as representative of the Roman state he was constantly receiving delegations. The ceremonies were especially elaborate when the Galatian king Deio- tarus was welcomed; he had supported Cicero militarily and was on friendly

80 Str. 12.8.16: … αὔξησιν ἔλαβεν ἐφ’ ἡµῶν καὶ τῶν ἡµετέρων πατέρων,… 81 On the assize cities in the province of Asia, see Mitchell 1999a, pp. 22–26; on Laodicea see Ameling 1988, pp. 18–24. Cf. also p. 276 below. 82 Habicht 1975, pp. 68f.; also Syme 1995, p. 119. 83 On his governorship, see Gelzer 1969, pp. 225–238; on his itinerary through Phrygia, see Hunter 1913, pp. 77–79. 84 Cic. Fam. 15.4.2: “Cum in provinciam pr. Kal. Sext. venissem et propter anni tempus ad exercitum mihi confestim esse eundum viderem, biduum Laodiceae fui, deinde Apameae quadriduum, triduum Synnadis, totidem dies Philomeli. Quibus in oppidis cum magni conventus fuissent, multas civitates acerbissimis tributis et gravissimis usuris et falso aere alieno liberavi.” Cf. Cic. Att. 5.20.1. 85 Cic. Att. 5.21.9; 6.2.4. Cf. Gelzer 1969, p. 233; Wesch-Klein 2008, p. 127. historical background 39 terms with him.86 The city had already provided the setting for royal cere- monial on an earlier occasion.87 Cicero reveals an interesting detail in connection with another visit: when the son of the ex-consul Hortensius visited Cicero and did not exactly conduct himself—according to Cicero—comme il faut, gladiatorial games were underway in Laodicea.88 Here we can see the cultural inuence that went hand in hand with Roman rule: the festival games in the Greek spirit with their competitions linked with the cult of the gods were invaded by the bloody gladiatorial games that catered to the public’s voyeuristic craving for sensation.89 In the context of the trials of Christians, this public would demand further tribute. As in most parts of Asia Minor, the ferocious turbulence of the Roman civil-war era also sometimes brought existential fear to the Lycus Valley. Laodicea in particular had to assert itself amid the rivalry of competing power interests. During the campaign of conquest throughout Asia Minor waged by Mithradates VI, the Pontic king, the Roman governor of Cilicia, Q. Oppius, entrenched himself in the city together with mercenary troops. Laodicea did not survive the siege by Mithradates unscathed,90 but the inhabitants were spared the worst when they handed over the Roman general.91 Mithradates kept control of Asia Minor for only a few years, but after 85bce, when the Romans regained control, many cities and towns of the region—undoubtedly including Laodicea, which had collaborated with the king—experienced evil times. Rome insisted on reparations for the dam- ages it had sufered during the preceding war, if necessary using military force to exact payment.92 From that point on, absolute loyalty to Rome was demanded of Laodicea, as is documented in an inscription in Latin and Greek from the late Republic in the Roman Capitol, which pays tribute to Rome’s great benevolence as protector of Laodicea: “The people of the Laodiceans on the Lycus [honor] the people of the Romans, who have

86 Cic. Att. 5.20.9. 87 See p. 35 above. 88 Cic. Att. 6.3.9: “Hortensius lius fuit Laodiceae gladiatoribus agitiose et turpiter.” Cf. Robert 1940, p. 33. 89 A few gladiatorial monuments from the imperial period have been found at Hier- apolis; see Ritti / Yilmaz 1998, also p. 66 below. Cf. also the imperial-period tombstone of a fallen gladiator in Tripolis: Robert 1940, pp. 164f., no. 146; Merkelbach / Stauber I 1998, p. 257, no. 02/10/02. For further examples (including some from Laodicea), see p. 66, n. 280 below. 90 Str. 12.8.16: … Λαοδίκεια … κακωθεῖσα ἐκ πολιορκίας ἐπὶ Μιθριδάτου τοῦ Εὐπάτορος. 91 App. Mith. 20. Cf. Bernhardt 1984, p. 50; Hind 1994, pp. 146f. 92 App. Mith. 62f. 40 chapter two proven to be their savior and benefactor through their active benevolence toward them.”93 At any event, the city could now count itself among the friends of Rome.94 Basically the density of urban settlement in the province of Asia, which included the Lycus Valley with brief interruptions,95 gave functionaries of the Roman state and military the opportunity to exploit the resources of the region rigorously.96 This was the case, for example, during the war between Caesar and Pompey, but also during the years after Caesar’s death (44bce), when Brutus used the province as a deployment zone to muster his troops against the triumvirs. After the defeat of Caesar’s assassins at Philippi (42bce), Antony emerged as the new strongman in the eastern part of the Empire. Under the leadership of Zenon, who had made a name for himself as an orator, Laodicea this time adjusted skillfully to the new political situation. When Q. Labienus, a former supporter of the assassins, joined with Parthian forces to overrun Asia Minor from east to west in 40bce,97 there was only localized resistance: Laodicea held out against the attack98 and could hope to enjoy the favor of Antony, who shortly afterwards regained control.99 During this period, the family of Zenon became a political force; their inuence nally extended to the eastern border of the Roman Empire and across the Hellespont into Europe.100 A rst step was taken in 39bce when Antony made Polemon, the son of Zenon, client king of a territory that extended from Iconium southeast as far as Cilicia;101 in a second step, two years later, this territory was exchanged for the kingdom of Pontus on the

93 IGUR, no. 6 = ILS, no. 33: “Populus Laodicensis af Lyco populum Romanum, quei sibei salutei fuit, bene ci ergo, quae sibei benigne fecit.—῾Ο δῆµος ὁ Λαοδικέων τῶν πρὸς τῶι Λύκωι τὸν δῆµον τὸν ῾Ρωµαίων γεγονότα ἑ[αυτῶι] σωτῆρα καὶ εὐεργέτην ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ εὐνοί[ας] τῆς εἰς ἑαυτόν.” Translation follows the Greek. For additional discussion, see Calabi Limentani 41991, p. 174, no. 13. 94 On the context of the inscription, see Behrwald 2000, pp. 111–113. 95 See p. 38 above. 96 Magie 1950, pp. 159–426; Marek 210, pp. 374–387. 97 Buchheim 1960, pp. 75 and 118, n. 188. 98 Str. 14.2.24. Cf. Robert 1969, p. 306f. For more on the resistance in Asia Minor, see Curran 2007, pp. 48f. 99 This is the context of a document from the archival wall of the theater in Aphrodisas: IAph 8.30 (Stephanus, a functionary of Antony, in Laodicea). Cf. Robert 1987, p. 350. App. BC 5.7 mentions that Laodicea received libertas and immunitas from Antony. But since Laodicea is mentioned in the same breath as Tarsus, identi cation with the Phrygian city is uncertain: Λαοδικέας δὲ καὶ Ταρσέας ἐλευθέρους ἠφίει καὶ ἀτελεῖς φόρων. 100 Buchheim 1960, pp. 51–53. 101 Mitchell 1993, I, p. 38; Syme 1995, pp. 218f.; Schrapel 1996, p. 102. historical background 41 eastern south coast of the Black Sea, to which Lesser Armenia was soon added.102 Polemon’s career did not come to a dead end with the death of Antony and the victory of the future Augustus in 31bce; he even was given a further testing ground in the Bosporan Kingdom north of the Black Sea.103 He thus opened new horizons and potential contacts for his home city, which could be exploited at the local level. Until well into the imperial period, representatives of the family also held positions of leadership in the political and sacral institutions of the city104 and set an example of large- scale urbanity for their fellow citizens. But Laodicea was not the only city in the Lycus Valley to pro t from Antony’s rule. In an Ephesian inscription from the Flavian period, which lists all the cities and towns of the province of Asia according to their conventus iuridicus, the entry for Tripolis reads: ᾽Αντωνιοπολεῖται νῦν δὲ Τριπο- λεῖται.105 In other words, the city had formerly been called Antoniopolis as an expression of its connection with the triumvirs, just as in earlier centuries a whole series of cities had been named for Hellenistic dynasts. It is reasonable to suggest a connection with the Parthian attack led by Labienus in this case as well. Perhaps Antony felt it necessary to refound the city.106 During the 1st century bce, much had been demanded of the cities of Asia Minor. The Lycus Valley had been directly afected by the wars and coups d’état; the various strongmen had repeatedly drained the region of its resources. The reign of Augustus nally brought peace (pax or εἰρήνη), which became a watchword through the province of Asia.107 The new gure of hope was also celebrated in the Lycus Valley;108 the veneration of his person found expression in religious rituals. Even more than the Hellenistic kings before him, he comported himself as “prince of peace.”109

102 Sullivan 1980, pp. 915–918; RPC I, pp. 567f. with nos. 3801f. 103 Braund 2005, pp. 253f. 104 Bowersock 1965, pp. 143f.; Thonemann 2004; see also pp. 61, 96f., and 203 below. 105 Habicht 1975, p. 65 II, lines 26f. See the similar statement in Plin. Nat. 5.111. Tripolis had initially been called Apollonia. See p. 37 above. 106 Note, however, that Eumeneia had probably already been renamed after Fulvia a few months previously. Cf. RPC I, p. 508. 107 IGR IV, no. 1173, from Myrina. Cf. Taeger 1960, p. 187. Cf. also p. 118 below. 108 See pp. 60–61 below. 109 For a general discussion, see Bleicken 1998, pp. 512–518. 42 chapter two

2.3. Indigenous and Greek Cults

The Christian communities emerged within and alongside a cosmos of religious a liations from which they isolated themselves but which they also sought to penetrate. The Jewish element played a special role in this process and so will receive a chapter of its own. Here our rst goal will be to bring some order into the pagan world of cults and rituals that Paul and his followers found in the Lycus Valley, in the face of which the congregations they founded had to establish their identity. The literary sources provide only a few incidental clues; inscriptions in particular and the coins minted in the cities make their own religio-historical contribution and highlight various cults of the region. None of our sources really stands outside the Greek cultural milieu, so that it is di cult to identify isolated pre-Greek or epichoric elements that had great local importance. The earliest hints of worship of Zeus in the Lycus Valley go back even before the Seleucid foundations: in describing the jurisdictions of the province of Asia, Pliny the Elder mentions Laodicea as the most prominent city of the Cibyratic assize district and states that initially it was called Diospolis and later Rhoas.110 The early prominence of the cult of Zeus is con rmed by the earliest known Greek inscription from the region, which dates from the period before the founding of Laodicea.111 It was discovered a little southwest of the ruins of Laodicea and records a decision of the people of two villages, Neonteichos (“New Fortress”) and Kiddioukome, dating from January, 267bce. It mentions a third village, named Babakome, home to a temple of Zeus (∆ιὸς ἱερόν) in which oxen were sacri ced.112 For Kiddioukome a sanctuary of Apollo is mentioned for which rams were slaughtered. In these villages, then, which lay within the territory of the later Laodicea, those deities were already being worshiped that were to play an important role in the religious life of the city. There is good reason to believe that behind Zeus and Apollo ancient deities of the indigenous (Phrygian) population lie concealed.113

110 Plin. Nat. 5.105: “appellata primo Diospolis, dein Rhoas.” Des Gagniers 1969, p. 1 suggests that the name Diospolis may be a conclusion from the cult of Zeus in Laodicea: “… mais ce nom pourrait simplement faire allusion à l’importance d’un culte de Zeus, …” 111 Wörrle 1997, pp. 59–61; Corsten 1997, no. 1. For further details on the inscription, see pp. 69–70 below. But see also p. 37 above. 112 According to Bejor 2000, p. 17 the toponym Diospolis cited by Pliny could be a translation of Babakome. 113 On such identi cations, see Schwabl 1993, pp. 329–331; Chiai 2009, pp. 74–76. historical background 43

2.3.1. Cults of Zeus The representation of Zeus on the imperial coins of Laodicea exhibits a few characteristic features: his upright stance and long robes, holding a scepter in his left hand and an eagle in his outstretched right hand. Scholars often speak of Zeus Laodiceus or Laodicenus.114 Further details are provided from imperial-period reliefs found in the extended environment of Laodicea— for example the god’s woolen undergarment.115 Two of these reliefs from Thiounta, in which Zeus is depicted in the company of Tyche and Hermes, document the activity of phratries celebrating an eight-day festival in honor of Zeus.116 The fact that the god on the homonoia coins represents the city emphasizes his prominence in Laodicea.117 The Deia dedicated to Zeus were among the games that brought Laodicea extensive fame.118 In Ephesus, for example, a boxer who had twice been victorious in those games was honored in the time of Marcus Aurelius.119 The recently published decree from the time of Hadrian honoring the priest of Zeus Ti. Iulius Myndios provides insight into the festal calendar of the cult of Zeus in Hierapolis; it shows that there, too, Deia were celebrated at the end of June, following a puri cation ceremony (λουτρόν) the day before.120 The coins of the city depict Zeus in much the same ways as in

114 E.g. BMC Phrygia, p. 300, no. 138; Ramsay 1895, pp. 50f. Zeus also appears in a similar pose elsewhere in Phrygia. Cf. a relief from Dorylaeum, Robert 1955, pp. 104–107 (Zeus Chryseos). 115 Three reliefs illustrated in Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, nos. 31–33. No. 32 corresponds to Corsten 1997, no. 63. One of the reliefs comes from Heraclea Salbace, two others possibly from Thiounta. Two reliefs discovered by Ramsay in Thiounta (1895, pp. 142– 144, nos. 30f.) were not documented photographically and are now lost; cf. the following note and p. 140 below. For other examples, see Ritti 2002, p. 52. Of the reliefs that were not found within the territory of Laodicea, Ritti rightly says: “È possibile quindi che si tratti di una divinità indigena venerata in un’ area abbastanza ampia e forse poi identi cata con lo Zeus di Laodicea.” Identi cation with the Zeus of Laodicea can therefore not be considered certain. 116 The two inscriptions were published by Ramsay 1895, pp. 142–144, nos. 30f. and repub- lished by Ritti 2002, pp. 48–51. One of the inscriptions calls the festival a παννυχίς, a nocturnal celebration. 117 Franke / Nollé 1997, pp. 107–127. See also the dedication to Zeus above the city gate: Corsten 1997, pp. 67–71, no. 24b (text on p. 161 below). 118 Robert 1969, p. 283. For an epigraphic example, see also pp. 139–140 below. 119 Iv Ephesos, no. 1605. 120 Ritti 2001, pp. 531–535 (SEG 51 [2001], no. 1783); cf. Ritti 2006, 159–165, no. 37. Cf. also the dedication of Ti. Iulius Myndios to Zeus in the theater (see Ritti 2007, pp. 393–399). Besides Zeus, the dedication is made to the gods of the city (θεοὶ πάτριοι) and the emperor Hadrian. 44 chapter two

Laodicea, with a scepter in his left hand and an eagle on his right hand.121 The same iconography appears also on 2nd-century coins from Colossae.122 The Zeus cult in Colossae is actually attested as early as the Hellenistic period: coins of the 2nd/1st centuries bce display the bearded head of the god on the obverse and a thunderbolt, his attribute, on the reverse.123 Pseudo- autonomous coins from Laodicea as well as Hierapolis make it clear that Zeus was worshiped under various epithets in the region: the obverse always presents the portrait of the bearded god, whose legend in Laodicea referred to him as Zeus Aseis and in Hierapolis sometimes as Zeus Troios, sometimes as Zeus Bozios.124 The Zeus cult in Laodicea found a purchase in local myths according to which the god rst beheld the light of the world in this region, presumably on Mount Cadmus. Two scenes from the mythological birth cycle associated with the baby Zeus in the arms of his nurse or mother appear on city coins from the time of Caracalla.125 It is possible that the embedding of the birth of the divine child in the corpus of Laodicean traditions inuenced the reception of the Christmas story in the Christian communities of the valley.

2.3.2. Cults of Apollo The worship of Apollo in the region also fed on both Greek and epichoric traditions. Representations of Apollo appear repeatedly in conventionally Greek iconography: he appears in long robes with a lyre on Hierapolitan coins,126 and in the time of Marcus Aurelius statues of Apollo were erected at the gates of the city, depicting him as an archer with bow and arrow.127 In addition Apollo gured as the most important tutelary deity of the Seleu-

121 E.g. BMC Phrygia, p. 248, no. 123. Cf. Weber 1913, pp. 156f. 122 Aulock 1987, nos. 547, 580, 588, 590 (also 544–536); RPC online, nos. temp. 1884 and 1889. 123 Cf. Aulock 1987, nos. 443–446. The inscription IGR IV, no. 868 must probably be excluded from the evidence for a cult of Zeus at Colossae. The reconstruction, which speaks of a priestess of the cult, appears to be incorrect. Cf. Robert 1969, pp. 278f. For the text of the inscription, see p. 85 below. 124 For more on Zeus Aseis in Laodicea, see Robert 1969, p. 359; Schwabl 1972, col. 280; on Hierapolis see BMC Phrygia, pp. 233–235, nos. 39–42 and 47; Weber 1913, pp. 25f., 28, and 157f. It would be worthwhile to test a connection with Zeus Trosou, who was worshiped in the region of the upper Meander. For more on Zeus Trosou, see Petzl 1994, pp. 1f. 125 Lindner 1994, pp. 176–182; Nollé 2003, pp. 636f. 126 E.g. BMC Phrygia, pp. 250f., nos. 134f. 127 For documentation see pp. 267–268 below; Ritti 2006, pp. 94–99, no. 16b (lines 18f.). historical background 45 cids, who founded Laodicea and Hierapolis.128 Festival games in honor of the god, held also in the surrounding towns, adopted the customs of the agonistic culture of the Greek homeland: since Severan times at the latest, Hierapo- lis itself held Pythian games, which were commemorated repeatedly on the city’s coins.129 In nearby Aphrodisias, a cithara player was honored who had successfully represented his discipline in those Pythian games.130 In Colos- sae Nea Olympia Apollonia were organized every four years;131 one of the few inscriptions from the small town of Trapezopolis documents the victory of a wrestler in the local Pythian games.132 The Letoeia Pythia, attested on the coins of Tripolis, were dedicated to the mother of Apollo.133 In the city on the Meander, the cult of Apollo was indigenous anyway; in the Hellenistic period, the city had been named for the God.134 Seeking advice from oracles was a ourishing activity; in Hierapolis and even more in Laodicea, the temple of Apollo in Clarus enjoyed great authority.135 During the high empire, Laodicea sent cultic embassies to the oracle every year. There is some reason to trace the worship of the “classical”

128 Kolb 1974, p. 268; see p. 34 above. The close relationship between the Seleucids and Apollo was also reected in the generosity of the kings toward the temple of Didyma; see for example Dignas 2002, pp. 40–43. 129 Ritti 1985, pp. 78–83; Ritti 2008, pp. 291–295. On the coins, see Papen 1908, pp. 161–167; Johnston 1984, pp. 55, 63, 70–73. The stage wall of the theater held a frieze depicting the family of Septimius Severus on the right alongside a monumental victor’s crown. To the left of the crown, a naked man leaning on a tripod stands alongside other individuals, so that we can see here a reference to the Pythian games. Added inscriptions con rm this connection. On the reliefs, see Ritti 1985, pp. 59–77; Çubuk 2008, pp. 72–77 (74f. identify the naked man with Apollo) and 146–149 (plates); also D’Andria in D’Andria / Ritti 1985, pp. 177f.; Ritti 2006/2007, pp. 288f. On the agonistic context of the reliefs, see Chuvin 1987, pp. 97–103; Salzmann 1998, pp. 94f. 130 IAph. 1.182. Cf. Roueché 1993, pp. 196–198, no. 69. The inscription probably dates only from the 3rd century. 131 An inscription honoring a victor: MAMA VI, no. 40. 132 MAMA VI, no. 61 = Merkelbach / Stauber I, 1998, p. 258, no. 02/11/01. 133 E.g. SNG von Aulock, no. 3328; cf. Robert 1987, p. 23. 134 See p. 37 above. The small town of Apollonoshieron was probably located near Tripolis. Cf. Ramsay 1895, pp. 194f.; RPC I, pp. 494f. (motifs of Apollo in the coinage of the early empire). 135 On Hierapolis see Rutherford 2007, pp. 452f., with the conjecture that there is little documentation of Hierapolis in the context of the cult at Clarus because it had its own cult of Apollo. See also pp. 46 and 266–268 below. On Laodicea and the cultic delegations sent to Clarus, see rst Robert 1969, pp. 299–303 (with a few relevant documents from Clarus); for further discussion, see pp. 139–140 and 201–203 below.—There is no reference, however, to an oracle of Apollo in Laodicea. Markschies 2007, p. 125 with n. 386 misunderstands Liv. 38.13.1, which refers to the oracle of Apollo at Hieracome south of the Meander between Magnesia and Antioch. On Hieracome see Welles 1934, p. 278. 46 chapter two oracular god in Hierapolis and Laodicea back to the religio-political inuences of their Seleucid founders.136 It is surely no accident that in the honori c decree for Apollonis, the deceased wife of the king of Pergamum, all three members of the college of strategoi making the overture bear theophorous names derived from Apollo.137 In Hierapolis this onomastic tradition can be traced well into the imperial period. The epigraphic material includes dozens of individuals with names like Apollinarius, Apollonides, and Apollonius.138 The bishop Claudius Apollinarius, who held o ce during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, is a representative of this tradition.139 There is a temple of Apollo in the center of Hierapolis surrounded on three sides by a colonnaded peribolos;140 it was laid out in the Julian and Claudian period and rebuilt in the 3rd century. On the wall of the cella of one of the sacral buildings (so-called building A)—albeit on a block of marble adapted from an earlier use—, several oracular texts were documented, including one from Clarus, at the command of the founding deity Apollo Archegetes, as the associated inscription reads.141 The temple is situated only a few steps from the theater that was dedicated in turn to Apollo Archegetes142 and decorated with extensive relief cycles narrating the mythological biographies of Apollo and Artemis. Here we also nd nativity scenes that can be associated with the Christian Christmas story. Otherwise the reliefs, which date from the Severan period, represent Apollo as the ideal of a comely youth, as found in innumerable representations since the period of Athenian classic.143

136 On Laodicea see Robert 1969, p. 295. 137 Judeich 1898, no. 30: γνώµη στρατηγῶν ᾽Απο ωνίου τοῦ Mάτρωνος, ᾽Απο ω{ι}νίο[υ] [τ]οῦ ῾Ερµογένου, ᾽Απο ωνίδου τοῦ Φαλα ίτου· … On the inscription, see also pp. 36 above and 58–59 below. 138 Judeich 1898, p. 188 (index); additional examples in Pennacchietti 1966/1967, e.g. p. 306, no. 25a, and in Ritti 2004, e.g. p. 590, nos. 33f. 139 See p. 231 below. 140 D’Andria 2008, pp. 136–139; Ismaelli 2009a, pp. 378–380; Berns 2011, p. 472 (on the peribolos). 141 Pugliese Carratelli 1963, p. 357, no. IIa; Merkelbach / Stauber I 1998, p. 259, nos. 02/12/01– 04; Ritti 2006, p. 94, no. 16a. See also Lane Fox 1986, pp. 234f., although he associates the oracle with Delphi rather than Clarus. For the argument in favor of Clarus, see Rutherford 2007, pp. 455f. On the worship of Apollo Archegetes in Hierapolis, who probably brought the city into being—presumably through an oracle—in a lost myth describing its foundation, see Leschhorn 1984, p. 361; cf. also the dedications SEG 57 (2007), nos. 1368f. 142 On the inscription, see Ritti 1985, pp. 108–113. 143 D’Andria in D’Andria / Ritti 1985, pp. 15–92. Cf. D’Andria 2003, pp. 161–182; Çubuk 2008, pp. 47–63 and 107–131. historical background 47

But nds from the temple area and its vicinity also show that autochthonous traditions lived on in the Hierapolitan cult of Apollo. A fragmentary statue from the theater represents the god in the traditional iconography of a youth with long hair wearing a short robe, but there is some evidence for the conjecture that he held a double-bladed ax as an attribute in his arms, which have been lost. The associated inscription describes him as Κάρειος ᾽Από ων, and a dedication to “Carian Apollo” was discovered near Güzelpınar, in the mountains some 10 kilometers northeast of Hierapolis, with an inscription dominated by a large double axe.144 Such axes also adorn other representations of Apollo found in the vicinity of the temple precincts of Hierapolis.145 That Apollo Kareios was worshiped as an oracular god is also shown by another inscription built into the foundation of the cella in the sacral structure mentioned above, with an alphabetic oracle: the verse associated with the letter sigma is informative, saying that Kareios will bring salvation with his oracles.146 Possibly there is a direct connection with a small monopteron that was constructed alongside building A as an architectural symbol marking a ssure beneath it. This monopteron could have functioned as a manteion,147 where people seeking advice received the oracle. The association of Apollo with the double axe appears frequently in Phrygia and demonstrates the integration of the Greek god into the local religious ideas.148 We know virtually nothing about the rites at the temple of Apollo of Hierapolis, where the indigenous Apollo Kareios was worshiped alongside the “classical” Apollo Archegetes:149 fragments of innumerable earthenware bowls (dating c. 150bce–50ce) suggest libation oferings;150 the many earthenware lamps (dating from the 1st centuries bce and ce) might suggest nocturnal ceremonies.151 At one point the temple even appears to

144 On the statue, see Ritti 1985, pp. 129f.; Ritti 2006, p. 172, no. 40; on the dedication from Güzelpınar, see Ceylan / Ritti 1997, pp. 57f.; Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, no. 41. 145 Ceylan / Ritti 1997, pp. 61f.; D’Andria 2003, p. 141. On the double axe as a motif in relief pottery, see Semeraro 2005, pp. 94f. 146 Pugliese Carratellli 1963, p. 353, no. I, line 18 (Ritti 1985, p. 132; Nollé 2007, p. 256): “Kareios, the king of the immortals, will save you with his oracles.”—σώσει σ’ ἀθανάτων βασιλεὺς χρησµοῖσι Κάρει[ος]. The fragment of another alphabetic oracle was used as a capital in the Martyrium of Philip; cf. Ismaelli 2009, p. 159. On alphabetical oracles, see Nollé 2007, pp. 253–265; see also p. 269 below. 147 Ismaelli 2009, esp. pp. 165f. 148 Leschhorn 1997, p. 53. 149 Ritti 1989, pp. 283–285; Ceylan / Ritti 1997, p. 59; Ru ng 2009, pp. 290f. 150 Semeraro 2005, pp. 84 and 96. 151 D’Andria 2003, p. 141. 48 chapter two have attracted the emperor’s attention: at least the Hierapolitans issued coins whose reverse show the emperor Heliogabalus ofering sacri ce in the temple of Apollo. Possibly he actually did reverence the god in 218/219 when he found himself on his way back to Rome from Syria.152

2.3.3. The Sanctuary of Lairbenos More clearly de ned religious concepts emerge from the sanctuary of Lair- benos, high above the Meander some 40 kilometers north of Hierapolis, since this site includes abundant epigraphic material. It is a cultic site set apart from population centers, which nevertheless was heavily frequented by worshipers from the surroundings. The center of the sanctuary was a rectangular building 27×12 meters; a smaller building was located nearby, from which portions of vaulting have survived.153 The juxtaposition of Greek and epichoric ideas is reected in the sculptural decoration of the monuments, where the lyre symbolizes the classical Musagetes and the double axe the Anatolian warrior.154 A large number of inscriptions from the high imperial period document an active cultic life: an especially large number of devotees who immortalized themselves epigraphically came from Motella (Metel- lopolis) beyond (i.e. north of) the Meander and quite a few from Hierapolis, but the home cities also included Laodicea and Tripolis.155 The orthography of the god’s name in the inscriptions is not uniform; the form Λαιρµηνός is common, but Λερβηνός and Λαµηνός are also found.156 On the obverse of pseudo-autonomous coins of the Antonine and Sev- eran period from Hierapolis, the god bears the name that has come into use in scholarly literature, although it appears in epigraphic material only once: Λαιρβηνός. The numismatic iconography is stereotyped: the portrait of a youthful god with long curly hair and the radiant crown of the sun god on his head.157 The reverse of quite a few Lairbenos coins displays other

152 Johnston 1984, pp. 56, 60, 64f., nos. 5–8; cf. Price 2005, pp. 123f. 153 On the descriptions in MAMA IV, pp. xiv–xv and 98f. (plans), see above all Strobel 1980, pp. 208–216 (important information on topography) and Ricl 1995, pp. 167–169. 154 Ricl 1995, pp. 167f. The decorations of a fragment of entablature associated directly with a building that was part of the sanctuary also include a double-headed axe (MAMA IV, no. 273). On the lyre, see Strobel 1980, p. 214, with pl. 23A; also Akıncı / Yıldız 2007, p. 100, with g. 5. 155 Brixhe 1987a, p. 49; Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, pp. 51f.; Dignas 2002, pp. 241f. 156 Ricl 1995, p. 169 and in detail Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, pp. 73f. Brixhe 1987a, p. 51: “Je croirais donc volontiers à l’existence de plusieurs variantes à partir d’une base anatolienne.” 157 Examples: BMC Phrygia, pp. 236–238, nos. 54–66; RPC online, nos. temp. 2070 and 9991– 9993. Cf. Weber 1913, pp. 6f. historical background 49 deities like Hygieia or Selene, but also Apollo in a long robe with his stringed instrument.158 The juxtaposition of Lairbenos and Apollo as musician is evidence that we must not automatically assume that the two gures are identical. The function of the sun god expressed in the radiant crown is verbalized in the inscriptions, where the god normally bears a threefold name: Lairmenos (or the like) Apollon Helios.159 In a whole series of mint- ings from Hierapolis we nd the youthful god with a double axe mounted on a horse, a common image in Anatolian iconography;160 if only because there is no radiant crown, it would be wrong simply to identify this gure with Lairbenos, although both undoubtedly come from a similar cultural milieu.161

The inscriptions from the sanctuary of Lairbenos can be assigned to three categories: (1) dedications, (2) so-called katagraphai, and (3) confessions. The dedications are composed within a conventional framework; they also include reliefs depicting the mounted god with a double axe.162 The text is formulated according to standard rules, with the name of the deity in the dative and that of the dedica- tor in the nominative. The gifts dedicated to the deity include sculptures as well as accessories to adorn the sanctuary and even an entire stoa. The katagraphai and confessions exhibit features speci c to the location. An example will illustrate the type of the katagraphai:163 I, Apphia, daughter of Glycon, from Hierapolis, domiciled in Mamakome [“Mamaville”], sign my children over [καταγράφω] to Apollon Lermenos in accordance with divine instruction in a dream—my children Demetrius and Rufus and Ru na. Should anyone prefer a charge, as penalty he shall pay 2500 denarii to the god and 2500 denarii to the scus.164

158 The Apollo coins: BMC Phrygia, p. 236, no. 54 (RPC online, no. temp. 9992) and p. 237, nos. 60f. 159 See the summary of occurrences in Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, p. 75. As an example see MAMA IV, no. 275A = Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, pp. 7f., D3: the dedication of a statue of Apollon Alexikakos to Helios Apollon Lairmenos in the year 165. 160 E.g. BMC Phrygia, p. 247, no. 114, from the time of Claudius. Cf. also the relief MAMA VI, no. 34 (Denizli). 161 Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, p. 3: “La tipologia religiosa di Helios Apollo Lairbenos rientra nell’ ambito delle divinità giovanili anatoliche, spesso, anche se non sempre, rappresentate a cavallo e caratterizzate da un abbigliamento simile ed assai frequentemente dall’insegna della bipenne.”—A votive relief from the Hierapolis region is preserved in Smyrna, in which a mounted god with a long lance is represented. See Robert 1955, pp. 13–15. The inscription is also in Judeich 1898, no. 25. 162 Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, pp. 7–19 (reliefs: pp. 10f., D12–14). 163 On the type of the katagraphai, see Dignas 2003, pp. 83–86. For new nds at the sanctuary, see Akıncı Öztürk / Tanrıver 2008; Akıncı Öztürk / Tanrıver 2009. 164 MAMA IV, no. 276, A III = Ricl 1995, p. 171, no. 4 = Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, p. 22, K4: 50 chapter two

A woman from a village located in the territory of Hierapolis signs her children over to the god of the sanctuary, who ordered her to do so in a dream, in a legal document called a καταγραφή,165 which is also documented in comparable inscriptions from the sanctuary of Ma in Macedonian Edessa.166 Through this action, she places her ofspring in the service of the temple. Only the god has a legal claim on them, and whoever impugns the claim must expect to pay a high penalty. We do not know what duties were entrusted to Demetrius, Rufus, and Ru na; possibly they joined the sacri cial attendants on festival days,167 or perhaps they helped manage the temple estates.168 But it was not just one’s own ofspring that could be placed in the service of the temple; the majority of the inscriptions have to do with so-called θρεπτοί (lit. “adoptees”), whose legal status is hard to de ne; clearly they belonged to a category inferior to free citizens.169 One text states explicitly that a (previous) θρεπτός (or in this case τεθρεµένος) is now “free” (ἐλεύθερος),170 while another expressly forbids keeping the τεθραµένη Epictesis as a slave girl.171 For the θρεπτοί dedicated to the god, the freedom gained in the sanctuary thus seems to have been a radical change in personal legal status. It would be wrong, however, to identify them all as former slaves: only in a handful of inscriptions, slaves (δοῦλοι) are explicitly signed over to Apollo Lairbenos and thus freed from the authority of their former masters.172 Anyone who is dedicated to the deity through a καταγραφή enjoys not only a new personal legal status but also a new sacral status: henceforth he or she shares in the aura of the sanctuary. Two texts explicitly refer to those who are dedicated to Lairbenos as ἱεροί.173 Lairbenos thus had servants at his sanctuary, many still children or youths,174 who had entered this service through the initiative of their parents or their former guardian or master. Undoubtedly this religious bond went hand in hand with heightened social status.175 Unlike the katagraphai, which are concentrated at the sanctuary of Lairbenos, the so-called confessions are scattered further abroad in the region, being found also in nearby Lydia, especially in the upper Hermus valley.176 Here we are always

᾽Αφφια Γλύκωνος ῾Ιεραπολε[ῖ]τις οἰκοῦσα ἐν Μαµακώµη καταγράφω τὰ τέκνα κατὰ θεῖον ὄνιρον ᾽Από ωνι Λερµηνῷ ∆ηµήτριον καὶ ῾Ροῦπον καὶ ῾Ρουπεῖναν τὰ τέκνα· εἴ τις ἐπενκαλέσει θήσει εἰς τὸν θεὸν προστείµου (δην.) ,βφ’ κὲ εἰς τὸν φίσκον (δην.) ,βφ᾽. 165 On the καταγραφή as a legal document, see Ricl 1995, pp. 187–195. 166 See Ricl 1995, p. 188. 167 As suggested by Ricl 1995, p. 195. 168 Mitchell 1993, I, p. 194. 169 Debord 1982, pp. 81–83; Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, pp. 59–62. See p. 108 below. 170 Ricl 1995, pp. 179f., no. 30 = Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, p. 28, K29. 171 Ricl 1995, p. 181, no. 32 = Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, p. 29, K31. For text see p. 108 below. 172 Above all Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, pp. 30f., K34–K37, with pp. 57f. Cf. Ricl 1995, pp. 194f. See also p. 105, n. 192 below. 173 Ricl 1995, pp. 179f., no. 30 = Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, p. 28, K29; Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, p. 39, K49. Cf. Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, pp. 62f. 174 Cf. Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, p. 62. 175 For further details, see pp. 107–109 below. 176 Mitchell 1993, I, pp. 190–194; Petzl 1994, p. I and the distribution chart in the appendix. historical background 51 dealing with documents of epichoric cults, for example the Great Mother Anaitis or Men Axiottenos. In a confessional inscription, an individual identi ed by name confesses having committed a sinful act and recounts his reconciliation with the ofended deity. As a rule, public confession, i.e. provision of the inscription, leads to mitigation of the divine displeasure. Probably the confessional inscriptions embody religious inuences from the Near East; the Jewish communities of the surrounding cities could have played a role here.177 A small stele from the Lairbenos sanctuary makes the mechanism clear: I, Sosandros of Hierapolis, perjured myself and entered the joint sanctuary in an unclean state. I was punished. I proclaim that none must despise Lair- menos, for he will have my stele before his eyes as a (cautionary) example.178 As is usual in the confessional inscriptions, the text is composed in clumsy Greek; at the same time—and this, too, is by no means exceptional at the Lairbenos sanctuary—it uses the Latinism ἔξενπλον (exemplum). Its use of the technical term σύνβωµος indicates that that Lairbenos was not the only deity worshiped in the sanctuary; as other examples show, the mother goddess Leto was also worshiped there. Sosandros had transgressed the sacral precepts by entering the sanctuary as a perjurer. His punishment by Lairbenos followed promptly, though in this case we never learn what it consisted of: he may have been struck by a disease or disaster. In any case, Sosandros felt compelled to announce his transgression publicly as well as the power of the god, who brooks no iniquity. Other ofenses could also arouse Lairbenos’s displeasure, including ofenses against ritual norms in the context of festivities at the sanctuary;179 in particular, sexual activities violating the sacral space were punished.180 The steles of “contrite sinners” served as deterrent examples, documenting how the god could display his power in individual lives.181

Lairbenos’s home was in a rural sanctuary apart from the bustle of the city, but his inuence extended throughout the entire region and was also noticeable in the Lycus Valley: in the inscriptions chosen for illustration, citizens of Hierapolis were expressing themselves. The power of the god was feared and sought by his devotees; in any case, it was respected and openly proclaimed. A rmation of this power is documented by inscriptions over many generations. Lairbenos determined the fate of entire families and

177 Versnel 2009, p. 31 with n. 46. 178 Petzl 1994, pp. 139f., no. 120: Σώσανδρος ῾Ιεραπολέτης ἐπιορκήσας καὶ ἄναγνος ἰσῆλθα ἰς τὸ σύνβωµον· ἐκολάσθην· παρανγέ ω µηδένα καταφρονεῖν τῷ Λαιρµηνῷ, ἐπεὶ ἕξει τὴν ἐµὴν στή ην ἔξενπλον. 179 E.g. Petzl 1994, p. 126, no. 108 and pp. 141f., no. 123. 180 Petzl 1994, pp. 128–131, nos. 110f. 181 See the conclusion of Ameling 2011a, p. 248: “Was wir in diesen Beichtinschriften sehen, ist die Sorge um eine Vergebung der Sünden und die preisende Proklamation der Größe eines Gottes. Beides gehört ganz sicher zu den Faktoren, die christliche Mission erfolgreich werden, d.h. auf fruchtbaren Boden fallen ließen.” 52 chapter two households, whether as a punitive authority or as a protector who accepted individual family members into his service. Subjection to divine authority intensi ed communication between the settlements and the sanctuary in the northern bend of the Meander. Thus the inscriptions map a sacral network.

2.3.4. Men The sanctuary of Men Karou was also not located in an urban center, but unlike the sanctuary of Lairbenos it was situated on a major arterial road, namely a little west of Laodicea on the road to Carura, probably near where the Lycus joins the Meander.182 Strabo reports that the sanctuary with its medical establishment enjoyed great prestige.183 There is reason for caution with regard to hasty syncretisms,184 but we should not rule out the possibility that devotees of the cult of Asclepius also made pilgrimages to the temple of Men Karou. Zeuxis Philalethes, director of the medical school in the Augustan period, had coins minted in Laodicea with the rod of Asclepius on the reverse.185 Of course there is no lack of coins from the region with conventional representations of Men, depicting the god with a Phrygian cap and a crescent moon behind his head. During the 1st century, pseudo-autonomous coins circulated in Laodicea with a head of Men on the obverse.186 One series, initiated in the time of Antoninus Pius by the prominent Laodicean P. Claudius Attalos, depicts Men with his left foot on a bucranium.187 The motif appears in the 3rd century on coins minted in Hierapolis,188 where a representation of the god also appears in a votive relief.189 The smaller towns in the immediate vicinity south of the Men Karou temple, Trapezopolis and Attouda, also minted coins depicting the deity.190 Some examples from Attouda explicitly

182 On Carura see pp. 23 above and 133 below. 183 Str. 12.8.20 (text see p. 171 below). 184 Cf. Robert 1969, pp. 290f. Lane 1976, p. 84 with n. 8 points out that association of Men with Asclepius was extremely rare. 185 RPC I, no. 2895 with a short commentary on p. 475. Later, too, Asclepius motifs appear on Laodicean coins, e.g. SNG Copenhagen, Phrygia, nos. 533 and 593. For detailed discussion of the medical schools, see pp. 170–177 below. 186 Lane 1975, pp. 67f.; RPC I, no. 2907; cf. Corsten / Huttner 1996, p. 49, no. 34. 187 Imhoof-Blumer 1901, p. 269, no. 34a; Lane 1975, p. 69; RPC online, no. temp. 2126. 188 Weber 1913, pp. 138f.; Johnston 1984, p. 77, no. 78. Cf. Lane 1975, pp. 59–82. 189 Lane 1986; Robert 1987, pp. 355–359. 190 On Trapezopolis see RPC I, no. 2851; RPC online, no. temp. 2416. Cf. Lane 1975, pp. 49–51. historical background 53 label the bust as Men Karou.191 Men, identi ed as a lunar god by his attribute, was worshiped with many epithets throughout Anatolia; he clearly had pretensions of universality, and his powers and responsibilities were mani- fold.192 The documents about the Men Karou sanctuary suggest that he was popular there primarily as a healing god.193

2.3.5. The Mother of the Gods In the everyday religious life of Attouda, the mother of the gods appears to have been even more prominent than Men. Quite a few coins from the small mountain town depict the goddess in her conventional guise: with a kalathos and accompanied by lions.194 Examples from the 3rd century show the goddess framed by temple architecture.195 There is epigraphic documentation for both a priest and a priestess of the Meter Adrastou in Attouda,196 as well as for Adrasteia, festivals in honor of the goddess.197 Onomastics shows how inuential the cult was in the region: personal names like Adrastos and Adrastilla are well attested not only in Attouda but also in Tripolis, Trapezopolis, Laodicea, and Hierapolis.198 An early reference to the cult of the Mother may refer to Colossae: the name of the city is derived from the Greek appellative κολοσσός, which means “statue,” by no means necessarily larger than life-size. Statues naturally took on a signi cant role in the cult of the gods, so that there could have

191 For additional details, see SNG Munich, Caria no. 185; Lane 1975, p. 48; Lane 1976, p. 68. Ramsay 1895, p. 167 concluded from this evidence that the Men Karou sanctuary might have been located within the territory of Attouda. Cf. p. 171 below. The reverse of the Men Karou coins from Attouda depicts a rural sanctuary: a broad plinth with pinecones and small round altars (the usual interpretation). 192 Mitchell 1993, II, pp. 24f.; Nollé / Nollé 1994, pp. 73–75 (with a selection of coins from Antioch and Sillyon); Horsley 2007, pp. 73–83, nos. 105–110 (with inscriptions from Pisidia). 193 On the function of Men as a healing god, see Hübner 2003, p. 192. 194 BMC Caria, p. 67, no. 30; SNG Munich, Caria, nos. 182, 189. 195 BMC Caria, p. 67, no. 29; SNG Munich, Caria, no. 188. 196 MAMA VI, nos. 74f.; cf. Thonemann / Ertu˘grul2005, pp. 79–81; van Bremen 2010, pp. 446 and 453; Thonemann 2011, p. 233. 197 MAMA VI, no. 81. 198 For Tripolis Tanrıver 2009, p. 81; for Attouda MAMA VI, nos. 73, 79, and 83; for Trape- zopolis BMC Caria, pp. 178f., nos. 5, 11, and 13; Aydas¸ 2004, p. 125, no. 7; on Laodicea see Robert 1969, pp. 299–301; Aytaçlar / Akıncı 2006, p. 15, n. 12. See also a sarcophagus from Hierapo- lis in which a Laodicean buried his mother Adrastilla (Judeich 1898, no. 93; some uncertain readings). The names Adrastos and Adrastilla appear more frequently in epigraphic material from Hierapolis (Judeich 1898, p. 187 with four clear examples in the index; cf. Ritti 2004, pp. 577f., no. 13 and p. 591, no. 35). Now also van Bremen 2010, p. 443 (Aphrodisias, Heraclea Salbace). 54 chapter two been a prominent cultic image in Colossae—perhaps several female images, if we may draw conclusions from the feminine plural form of the name.199 The toponym would then go back to a sanctuary of Anatolian mother goddesses. The example of Laodicea shows how di cult it is to force the Phrygian mother goddess (or goddesses) into a de ned schema. Hellenistic coins already display the head of a goddess with a mural crown,200 which does conform to the type of the city deity.201 An unambiguous attribute of the Ana- tolian mother goddess is the large tympanum with which she is depicted— along with her lions—on Laodicean coins from the time of Caracalla.202 Other female deities, unfortunately hard to identify or name unambiguously, appear on the coins with some frequency—for example in the Hel- lenistic period a goddess holding a dove in her hand203 and in the high imperial period various goddesses of destiny, including Tyche (steering oar and cornucopia) and Nemesis (with scales and wheel).204 The many coins minted at the behest of the aforementioned P. Claudius Attalos include many dis- playing Artemis of Ephesus in her typical habit, anked by two deer.205 Even if not every deity represented on coins necessarily corresponds to a cultic site in the city in question, sculptural nds in Laodicea indicate special veneration of the Ephesian Artemis there. Recently a statue of the goddess was discovered during excavations in one of the central sanctuaries (so-called Temple A) of the city, alongside the Syrian Street.206 The same archaeological context includes two columns from the period of the Tetrarchy, decorated with bas reliefs with Latin inscriptions: on one we see a bust of Apollo above a pair of gryphons, underneath it a bust of Fortuna with a mural crown, on the other a bust of Diana above two deer, underneath it a bust of personi-

199 Heubeck 1985, pp. 123–127. 200 BMC Phrygia, p. 278, no. 1 (cistophorus) and p. 283, no. 22 (Hellenistic bronze). 201 On the iconography of the city Tyche, see Meyer 2006, pp. 350–354. 202 BMC Phrygia, p. 319, no. 236. 203 BMC Phrygia, pp. 283f., nos. 25–30 (identi ed as Aphrodite). See also p. 58 below. 204 E.g. BMC Phrygia, p. 295, no. 107, p. 311, no. 205, p. 315, nos. 222–224, p. 318, no. 234, p. 323, nos. 256f. 205 Pseudo-autonomous coinages with the obverse reading ∆ῆµος Λαοδικέων and ῾Ιερὰ Σύνκλητος: BMC Phrygia, p. 295, no. 106; Imhoof-Blumer 1901, p. 270, no. 39; RPC online, no. temp. 9792. On the identi cation of the Ephesian Artemis with the Anatolian mother goddess, see Isık¸ 2008, pp. 55f. 206 Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 232; Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, p. 464. When a railroad was being built near the necropolis at the end of the 19th century, a marble jar with a representation of the Ephesian Artemis was reported to have been discovered: MDAI (A) 16 (1891), p. 137; cf. Fleischer 1973, p. 25. historical background 55

ed Laodicia, likewise with a mural crown.207 Here a whole series of female deities were brought together in a sculptural ensemble. There is evidence for a sanctuary of Artemis in Laodicea at an early date, in a decree from Priene from the early 2nd century bce: the Laodiceans honored three citizens of Priene; the honori c inscription was set up in Priene, and a tablet recording the resolution was deposited in the Laodicean treasury of Artemis.208 Whether the cultic statue in the sanctuary of Artemis was a representation of the Ephesian Artemis or a conventional gure of the goddess as a huntress is anyone’s guess.209 In the context of the Christian tradition, the vita of Artemon attests to the signi cance of the temple in Laodicea: Bishop Sisinnius and his presbyter Artemon vent their divine rage at the inventory of the temple of Artemis, at least in the most extensive version of the legend.210 The cult of the mother goddess in Hierapolis was marked by two distinctive features: the chthonic character of the cult was especially pronounced, and the cultic site—a subterranean ssure, which had generally been localized in immediate proximity to the central temple of Apollo but has now been shown by painstaking analysis of the archaeological evidence to have been located somewhat further away211—had already developed into a tourist attraction prior to the imperial period.212 Strabo was the rst to report the marvelous features of the sanctuary he called the Ploutonion: But the Ploutonion is a moderate-size opening below a small elevation in the mountainous country above it; it can accommodate a man, and it goes deep into the earth. Next to it is a rectangular enclosure with a circumference of half a plethrum. It is full of a smoke so dense that the ground is hardly visible. The air is harmless to anyone who approaches outside the rail, since the outside is free from that smoke when there is no wind, since it stays within the enclosure. But death comes immediately to any living creature that remains

207 Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 232; Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, pp. 464f. Today the columns lie in the basement of the cella, where they were found. 208 Corsten 1997, no. 5, line 36: ἐν τῶι ᾽Αρ[τέµιδο]ς θησαυρῶ[ι]. 209 Artemis does not appear as a huntress on coins from Laodicea,˙ but she is present in that guise in the iconographic stock of the city, for example in the panelling of Temple A: Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 232 with g. 79c. 210 See pp. 350f. below. 211 Ismaelli 2009, pp. 133 and 158f., with the suggestion that the conditions for the location of the Ploutonion were present immediately next to the nymphaeum of the sanctuary of Apollo.—The Ploutonion has now been discovered to the south of the sanctuary of Apollo (private communication Alister Filippini). See p. 16, n. 68 above. 212 Ru ng 2009, pp. 288f.; also Kreitzer 2007, pp. 45–50. 56 chapter two

inside. Even bulls that are shoved into it and collapse are pulled out dead. We have let sparrows loose, and they have fallen lifeless at once. But the castrated Galli pay no heed and are not harmed, so that they can even approach the opening, bend over it, and even enter it, to the extent that they can hold their breath (for we have seen on their faces the symptoms of a kind of painful sufocation)—whether all who are so mutilated have this immunity or only those in the vicinity of the sanctuary, or whether it comes through divine providence, as it is similarly enjoyed by those who are possessed by the deity, or after the receipt of powerful antidotes.213 The custom of committing defenseless animals to the noxious vapors of the Ploutonion continued to be immensely popular with travelers during the imperial period. The senator Cassius Dio carried out the “test” with birds when he visited Hierapolis toward the end of the 2nd century.214 The “castrated Galli” were the cultic personnel of the great Anatolian mother goddess, who irritated their Roman contemporaries more than a little.215 The pride felt by the Hierapolitan public in the cult of the Great Mother is exempli ed by the statue honoring M. Aurelius Eutychianos, who had served the goddess as archigallus.216 The bulls that Strabo says were shoved into the opening should probably be thought of as sacri cial animals. Schol- ars have often posited a link between the cult of the Great Mother and early forms and concepts of Christianity, especially Montanism.217 Such points of

213 Str. 13.4.14: τὸ δὲ Πλουτώνιον ὑπ’ ὀφρύι µικρᾷ τῆς ὑπερκειµένης ὀρεινῆς στόµιόν ἐστι σύµµε- τρον ὅσον ἄνθρωπον δέξασθαι δυνάµενον, βεβάθυνται δ’ ἐπὶ πολύ· πρόκειται δὲ τούτου δρυφάκτωµα τετράγωνον ὅσον ἡµιπλέθρου τὴν περίµετρον· τοῦτο δὲ πλῆρές ἐστιν ὁµιχλώδους παχείας ἀχλύος ὥστε µόγις τοὔδαφος καθορᾶν. Τοῖς µὲν οὖν κύκλῳ πλησιάζουσι πρὸς τὸν δρύφακτον ἄλυπός ἐστιν ὁ ἀήρ, καθαρεύων ἐκείνης τῆς ἀχλύος ἐν ταῖς νηνεµίαις· συµµένει γὰρ ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου· τῷ δ’ εἴσω παριόντι ζώῳ θάνατος παραχρῆµα ἀπαντᾷ· ταῦροι γοῦν εἰσαχθέντες πίπτουσι καὶ ἐξέλκονται νεκροί, ἡµεῖς δὲ στρουθία ἐπέµψαµεν καὶ ἔπεσεν εὐθὺς ἐκπνεύσαντα· οἱ δ’ ἀπόκοποι Γά οι παρί- ασιν ἀπαθεῖς, ὥστε καὶ µέχρι τοῦ στοµίου πλησιάζειν καὶ ἐγκύπτειν καὶ καταδύνειν µέχρι ποσοῦ συνέχοντας ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ τὸ πνεῦµα (ἑωρῶµεν γὰρ ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως ὡς ἂν πνιγώδους τινὸς πάθους ἔµφασιν), εἴτε πάντων οὕτω πεπηρωµένων τοῦτο, εἴτε µόνον τῶν περὶ τὸ ἱερόν, καὶ εἴτε θείᾳ προ- νοίᾳ, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐνθουσιασµῶν εἰκός, εἴτε ἀντιδότοις τισὶ δυνάµεσι τούτου συµβαίνοντος.A relatively early tradition is also found in Apul. Mund. 17; cf. [Aristot.] Mund. 4.395b (without mention of the name of the city: ἐν Φρυγίᾳ).—On the Ploutonion of Hierapolis, see Weber 1910, pp. 184–189; also Zwingmann 2011, p. 111. 214 Cassius Dio 68.27.3. On a possible chronological connection, see Millar 1964, p. 15. The literary sources on the Ploutonion are collected by Ritti 1985, pp. 7–12. See for example Amm. 23.6.18; see also p. 57 below. 215 See Turcan 1996, pp. 28–74 on the cult of the Great Mother in general. See also Catullus’s carmen 63, in which Attis emasculates himself, and the commentary by Syndikus 1990, pp. 76–99. 216 Judeich 1898, no. 33; cf. Ritti 2006, 130–133, no. 27. 217 For details see Hirschmann 2005, passim. historical background 57 contact and convergences notwithstanding, the cult of the mother goddess at the Ploutonion of Hierapolis remained very popular until well into the Christian era; the Neoplatonist Damascius made a pilgrimage to the sanctuary and experienced the sacral aura of the site in a dream in which he saw himself transformed into Attis.218 About 10 kilometers northwest of the city, there was a rural grotto where the mother goddess clearly was worshiped as well.219 At the Severan theater in Hierapolis, as part of the skene the visitor could admire a suite of reliefs depicting the abduction of Persephone by Hades and Demeter in their serpent-drawn chariot.220 Far more space on the platform of the skene was occupied, however, by the Artemis cycle, which depicts not only the story of the huntress from the moment of her birth but also the worship of the Ephesian goddess, whose characteristic cultic image is introduced twice.221 Thus in Hierapolis, too, the worship of the mother goddess could be associated with a variety of images and mindscapes.

2.3.6. The Hellenistic Ruler Cult Ever since the Hellenistic period, the structures of monarchy elicited strong responses in the religious mind: kings and queens grew into the role of deities; they enjoyed the same cultic veneration as the traditional gods. These responses were also noticeable in the Lycus Valley. Undoubtedly the two Seleucid royal foundations were in the vanguard of this development, as illustrated by the names of the phylae of both cities, which (with few exceptions) were derived from the names of gods and dynasts.222 In Hierapolis, where the inscriptions on the seats in the theater provide this information, besides the city god Apollo, the phylae took their names from the Seleu- cids Seleucus (I), Antiochus, and Laodice, as well as Eumenes, Attalus (I), and Stratonice of the Pergamenian dynasty.223 In Laodicea besides Apollo

218 Dam. Isid. 131. Cf. Robert 1987, p. 45; Athanassiadi 1993, p. 9; also Huttner 2011, p. 289. 219 Ramsay 1895, p. 89; see also p. 141, n. 447 below. 220 Çubuk 2008, pp. 64–67 and 132–137 (plates). On coins from Hierapolis depicting the abduction of Persephone (e.g. BMC Phrygia, p. 233, no. 38), see Kreitzer 2007, pp. 61–64. 221 D’Andria in D’Andria / Ritti 1985, pp. 93–171. Cf. D’Andria 2003, pp. 171–181; Çubuk 2008, pp. 29–44 and 89–106 (plates). 222 An exception in Hierapolis: Rhomais (cf. Kolb 1990, p. 204; Ritti 2006, p. 116); in Laodicea: Ias (cf. Robert 1969, pp. 325–332). 223 Kolb 1974, pp. 258–266; Ritti 2006, pp. 115–118, no. 23. This Stratonice need not have been the wife of the Pergamenian Eumenes II; she could also have been the wife of the Seleucid Antiochus I. The problem is treated by Kolb 1974, pp. 264f. and 267. 58 chapter two and Athena we nd the Seleucid Laodice and the Pergamenian king Attalus (I).224 An inscription discovered in Tripolis in 2002 con rms that there was also a phyle named Attalis in that city.225 Naming a phyle after a ruler placed him (or her) on a par with tutelary deities and founding heroes. It clearly reected the current political situation: when the Seleucids lost their dominant position to the Pergamenians in Asia Minor in the Treaty of Apamea (188bce), phylae ceased to be named after Seleucid rulers; now it was the turn of the Attalids. In Laodicea the role of Antiochus II as the city’s founder was memorialized in the month named for him and the annual games organized in his honor.226 The fact that Laodice, the wife of Antiochus II, was honored as divine in the city to which she gave her name may be reected in Hellenis- tic coinage: We repeatedly nd a female gure not further identi ed in a legend—a head with a mural crown,227 a head with a diadem,228 or (always on the reverse) a gure in a long robe with a dove in her hand.229 Louis Robert has conjectured that in these depictions the portrait of Queen Laodice has coalesced with the gure of the city goddess and Aphrodite.230 In any case, among contemporaries the interpretive spectrum of these images included a whole series of options. An explicit reference to the divinization of a Hellenistic king appears in the earliest inscription from Hierapolis, recording the petition of the college of strategoi (already mentioned) to honor the deceased queen Apollo- nis, mother of the reigning king Eumenes II (reigned to 159bce), posthu- mously.231 Two passages of the text make it clear that the Attalids were worshiped as gods after their death:232 one calls Attalus I, the husband of

224 Robert 1969, p. 377 (Index, s.v. Tribus); Corsten 1997, p. 224 (on p. 101 Corsten announces a chapter devoted to the phylae of Laodicea in volume two of the corpus of inscriptions). 225 Dönmez-Öztürk 2009, pp. 165f., no. 1. 226 See pp. 34–35 above. 227 BMC Phrygia, p. 283, nos. 22f.; also found as a mintmark on cistophori minted in Laodicea: BMC Phrygia, p. 278, no. 1; SNG von Aulock, no. 8404. 228 BMC Phrygia, pp. 284–286, nos. 31–47; SNG Munich, Phrygia, nos. 339–347; also as a mintmark on cistophors minted in Laodicea: BMC Phrygia, p. 278, no. 3; SNG von Aulock 3797. 229 BMC Phrygia, p. 284, nos. 27–30. Cf. p. 54 above. 230 Robert 1969, pp. 322f.: “Il me semble que nous avons là une gure qui est à la fois la reine eponyme Laodice, la personi cation de la ville de Laodicée Λαοδίκεια ou Πόλις, et sans doute aussi Aphrodite, à qui les reines hellénistiques … sont fréquemment identi ées.” 231 Judeich 1898, no. 30 = OGIS, no. 308; cf. pp. 36 and 46 above. 232 Further general discussion in Schmitt 2005, cols. 169f., with notes 3f. historical background 59

Apollonis (who had died in 197bce), θεός; the other describes Apollonis as having joined the gods (µεθέστηκεν εἰς θεούς). The fact that so far only the cult of deceased rulers of the Hellenistic period is attested explicitly is due to chance. We may assume that—as elsewhere in Asia Minor233—the Seleucid and Attalid dynasts received cultic worship during their lifetimes. Toward the end of the 2nd century bce, Antiochus III laid the groundwork for organizing such a cult throughout the empire by appointing an ἀρχιερεύς in Asia Minor with the corresponding responsibilities and powers; the Attalids adopted the ruler cult that had been thus institutionalized.234 Besides the dynastic cult, the poleis also established their own sites for the worship of rulers.

2.3.7. The Roman Emperor Cult The Kingdom of Pergamum, which included the Lycus Valley after 188bce, had long stood in the shadow of the Romans, who were expanding their inuence in Asia Minor, when the last king of Pergamum, Attalus III, be- queathed his kingdom to the Romans in 133bce. The political change was reected in the ruler cult, especially since the Hellenistic royal cult during the 2nd century bce found itself in competition with the cultic worship of personi ed Roma.235 A reex of these developments can be seen in Hier- apolis, where there is evidence for a cult of Θέα ῾Ρώµη and one of the phylae was called Rhomais. Even though the relevant documents date only from the imperial period, the cult probably was already in existence in the Hellenistic period.236 Even though it might run contrary to the egalitarian principles of the senatorial aristocracy, during the Roman Republic o cials from Rome occasionally received cultic worship in the Greek East.237 Among the phylae inscriptions in the Hierapolitan theater, one name can be reconstructed as Seilanias, reecting a Roman o cial named Silanus. We are probably dealing here with veneration of M. Iunius Silanus, who presumably

233 Price 1984, pp. 25–40; on the Attalids, see Michels 2011, pp. 117–124. 234 Müller 2000, pp. 526–542; Mileta 2009, pp. 180–182. In 209bce, when the rst ἀρχιερεύς was appointed in Asia Minor (named Nicanor; cf. SEG 37 [1987], no. 1010), the ruler cult was not among his responsibilities. See also Dignas 2002, pp. 45–56.—Schwarzer 2011, p. 110 recognizes neither a cult of the Attalids organized throughout the empire nor cultic worship of the Attalids during their lifetime. 235 Price 1984, p. 41. 236 Ritti 1979, pp. 184f. 237 Price 1984, pp. 42f. 60 chapter two administered the province of Asia as proconsul toward the end of the 20s bce.238 He is one of the small series of governors during the late Republic and the Augustan period who enjoyed such respect that the population of the province equated them with gods.239 To date no evidence of actual temples for governors has been found.240 In the light of the focus on the emperor that began with Augustus, the governor cults remained marginal in any case. By the year 9bce at the latest, when the calendar of the province of Asia was totally reconstituted on the initiative of the governor Fabius Maximus, to revolve around the birthday of the new savior on September 23, the people in Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis became conscious of the special (divine) quality of Augustus. The text of the relevant regulations could be read in ubiquitous inscriptions, fragmentary copies of which have been discovered.241 The absence of the cities of the Lycus Valley from the list of sites is due to chance. Especially in larger cities like Laodicea and Hierapolis, which produced large numbers of coins, the rule of the divine regent was immediately visible: the obverse of the coins, hitherto largely reserved for the heads of gods, now displayed the portrait of the youthful Augustus and later that of the other emperors. In Hierapolis, however, Augustus was placed alongside the proconsul Fabius Maximus, who had originally contributed so much to the cult of the emperor: during his year in o ce, the city issued coins with the portrait of the emperor on the larger face values, while the head of the governor adorned the smaller.242 Naturally such an exquisite honor paid to the governor remained an isolated episode. An initial focus of the emperor cult in the province of Asia was created in Pergamum, where the future Augustus approved the establishment of his cult in 29bce, whereupon a monumental temple of Roma and Augus-

238 Φύλης Σειλα[νιάδ]ος. Cf. Kolb 1990, passim; Ritti 2006, pp. 116–118; Ritti 2007, pp. 423 and 427, n. 59. St. Michell has pointed out to me that the individual probably cannot be the governor of the same name in 54ce, as had previously been suggested. For more on M. Iunius Silanus cos. 25bce see Eilers 2002, pp. 250f. C124. The governor in the year 76bce would be another possibility; on him see Eilers 2002, pp. 247f. C118. 239 Bowersock 1965, pp. 112–121 and 150f.; Bowersock 1978, pp. 397–402. In the imperial period, the cults of the governors were curbed: cf. Habicht 1973, pp. 48f. 240 Price 1984, p. 46. 241 La 1967, passim; briey Clauss 1999, p. 238; Schuol 2007, pp. 279f.; Ameling 2011, p. 19. For a German translation of the text see Bringmann / Schäfer 2002, pp. 334–338. For further details see p. 118 below. 242 On RPC I, nos. 2931–2942 see Woytek 2011. historical background 61 tus was erected.243 It was only natural that the cities of the Lycus Valley should participate in the provincial emperor cult; their participation is attested by a whole series of gures who functioned as archpriests of the province of Asia.244 The major families bene ted from this demonstration of the province’s loyalty to the imperial house, thus securing social status for future generations as well.245 This was true, for example, of the Aebutii in Hierapolis,246 the Antonii Zenones/Polemones in Laodicea,247 and nally the Carminii in small Attouda.248 The “provincial diet” to which the cities sent representatives repeatedly introduced initiatives supporting cultic veneration of the imperial house.249 Tacitus, for example, reports that the cities in the province of Asia had a temple built honoring Tiberius, Livia, and the Sen- ate after the criminal activities of an avaricious governor and a procurator who had exceeded the limits of his authority had been judicially punished.250 But the emperor cult was given an appropriate setting not just on the provincial level but also on the local level. There is a marble slab from Attouda that gives Livia, the wife of Augustus, the title of goddess;251 its original monumental context is uncertain, but it reects the atmosphere in which cultic activities ourished, while also documenting the role of individual initiatives in the divinization of the emperors. Some inscriptions from the larger nearby cities tell a similar story—for example the dedication of an altar to Caius Caesar and the goddess Roma by the Hierapolitan Zosimos, son of Menophantos, and the dedication of a statue to the divine emperors of the Flavian house and the demos of the city by Apphia, daughter of Zeuxis.252 To the left and right of an entrance to a house in Hierapolis stood

243 Habicht 1973, pp. 55f.; Müller 2011, p. 153. 244 E.g. Corsten 1997, no. 53. 245 Ameling 2011, pp. 35f. 246 Miranda 2002, pp. 40–42; also Ritti 2006, pp. 80f. (commentary on no. 11). On another family from Hierapolis, which produced the famous Sophist Antipater (see p. 244 below), see Campanile 1994, pp. 54f., no. 34. 247 Campanile 1994, pp. 36f., no. 11; Thonemann 2004, pp. 144–146; Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 134–138, no. 51f. 248 Campanile 1994, pp. 69f., no. 53; Thonemann / Ertu˘grul2005, pp. 75–79. On a provincial priest of the emperor from Tripolis, see Tanrıver 2009, p. 83. 249 Deininger 1965, pp. 53–55. 250 Tac. Ann. 4.15.3 for the year 23: “… decrevere Asiae urbes templum Tiberio matrique eius ac senatui.” 251 MAMA VI, no. 66: Λιβίαν θεάν, γυν[αῖκα Αὐτοκράτορος] Καίσαρος θεοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ Σεβα- στοῦ,] Τατιον ᾽Αριστονό[µου καθιέρωσεν]. Cf. Hahn 1994, p. 41. ˙ 252 Ritti 1983, p. 172, no. 1 and p. 175, no. 3. 62 chapter two two altars with the same inscription: “For Apollo Archegetes and the Lord Emperor.”253 Here the ruler stands alongside the traditional divine founder and protector of the city.254 A fragment from Laodicea from the high imperial period documents a comparable dedication to Zeus Soter and the divine emperors (Θεοὶ Σεβαστοί).255 In Hierapolis there were already games in honor of the emperor (ἀγῶνες τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ) at the time of Augustus;256 the phylae now came to include one bearing the name of Tiberius.257 In both Hierapolis and Laodicea, ambitious temple construction projects were initiated in the course of the 1st century to provide a monumental stage setting for the cities’ emperor cult, although the two temples are documented only on coins. Hierapolis was rst: the reverse of a coin minted under Claudius depicts a hexastyle temple façade on a low platform with the legend ΓΕΝΕΙ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΩΝ.258 Thus we are dealing here with a dynastic cult, honoring the entire Julian-Claudian imperial family; possibly traditions of the Seleucid ruler cult were making themselves felt. The imperial temple built in Laodicea under Domitian is depicted variously on the coins of the city:259 once hexastyle without a cultic statue, otherwise tetrastyle. One cultic statue represents the emperor dressed as a general; in another case, we see a male and a female gure together holding a small tropaion, obviously Domitian together with his wife Domitia. The cult of Domitian reected the emperor’s military victories on the Rhine, as is shown by the architrave inscription of one of the representations of the temple: ΕΠΙΝΕΙΚΙΟC. The damnatio memoriae decreed on Domitian after his death in 96 by no means sealed the fate of the cultic site, especially since it was still depicted on Laodicean coins issued under

253 ᾽Από ωνι ᾽Αρχηγέτηι καὶ τῶι κυρίωι Αὐτοκράτορι. Ritti 2006, pp. 88f., no. 14. Cf. Ritti / Miranda / Guizzi 2007, p. 591. 254 Cf. also the dedication of part of the Hierapolitan theater to Olympian Zeus, the gods of the city and the emperor Hadrian, the whole imperial household, and the demos of Hierapolis by Ti. Iulius Myndios: Ritti 2001, pp. 495f. Cf. also p. 43, n. 120 above. 255 Corsten 1997, no. 62A = Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 94f., no. 29. Corsten assumes that the expression Θεοὶ Σεβαστοί includes only the deceased emperors who have hence been consecrated o cially by the Senate (Divi Augusti). 256 Ritti 1979, pp. 186f. (SEG 29 [1979], no. 1404). The inscription names a public slave (δηµόσιος) who presided over these games; cf. Weiß 2004, p. 169. On this inscription, see also Ritti 1983, p. 172, no. 2 (with ills.); Ritti 1985, p. 78; Burrell 2004, p. 137 and Ru ng 2009, p. 295. 257 Kolb 1990, p. 205; Ritti 2006, p. 116. 258 RPC I, no. 2973; cf. Ritti 2003, p. 179. 259 RPC II, nos. 1281, 1284, 1286. Cf. Dräger 1993, pp. 207f. Cf. also pp. 180f. below (with further details on interpretation). historical background 63

Trajan.260 Here we should probably think in terms of a rededication of the temple and hence a redesign of the cultic statue:261 the discredited god was exchanged for another. Even though the evidence in the Lycus Valley is scanty, we may assume that the emperor was honored not just by the public at large but also within the circle of the family: small statues of the emperor were part of the household inventory, and occasionally altars of the emperor as well.262 The twin altars at the entrance to a house in a narrow side street of Hierapolis dedicated to Apollo and the emperor263 were naturally observed by passers- by and hence the general public, but undoubtedly they were installed where they were at the initiative of the head of the household. In any case, the sacrality of the emperor found its place also in a more or less intimate space. The cities of Asia Minor exploited the emperor cult to make a name for themselves nationally. It was a tried and true way to compete for the title of a neocoria, which allowed the city to sponsor emperor cult recognized not just locally but on the provincial level as well. The title neocorus implied a temple of the emperor cult known throughout the entire province.264 The fact that Laodicea and Hierpolis received the title neocorus long after the great cities of Pergamum, Smyrna, and Ephesus is an expression of hierarchical status within the province of Asia, but Sardis, in the neighboring Hermus valley, which even received the title twice around the mid-2nd century, also preceded the cities in the Lycus Valley.265 Laodicea’s hour did not come until the reign of Commodus (180–193). We know this thanks to Louis Robert, who identi ed an altered neocoria title in a fragmentary inscription discovered in the nymphaeum of Caracalla. The text, engraved during the reign of Commodus [ἡ νε]ωκόρος Λα[οδικέων ˙ πό]λις had been replaced by [ἡ φι]λοσέβαστος Λα[οδικέων πό]λις.266 What this discovery means is that the neocoria title bestowed on the city by Com- modus was withdrawn after the death of the emperor and the associated

260 SNG Copenhagen, Phrygia, no. 573; SNG Munich, Phrygia, no. 385. Price 1984, p. 264 also cites coins from the reign of Caracalla (e.g. Imhoof-Blumer 1901/1902, p. 273, no. 49). These coins, however, probably depict the neocoria of Laodicea. See p. 64 below. 261 On such redesigns, see Price 1984, p. 194. 262 Pekáry 1985, pp. 53f.; Ameling 2011, pp. 24–27. 263 See pp. 61f. above. 264 See for example Burrell 2004, p. 305; Heller 2006, p. 179. 265 On Sardis see Burrell 2004, pp. 100–103; on Pergamum see most recently Müller 2011, pp. 154–157. For a general discussion of competition for the necoria title in the province of Asia, see Heller 2006, pp. 241–282. 266 Robert 1969, pp. 282f.; cf. Corsten 1997, no. 45. 64 chapter two damnatio memoriae. Despite the episodic character of the neocoria, its efect was reected in the sources. The Deia, festival games organized in honor of Zeus as the city’s god, were given an additional name: Kommodeia. An inscription from Tralleis honors a trumpeter who was able to celebrate his success at many festival games in Asia Minor, including the rst ∆εῖα Κοµµόδεια held in Laodicea.267 Of course the games lost their “epithet” with the damnatio memoriae of the emperor, albeit only briey, since Commodus was quickly rehabilitated under Septimius Severus.268 The neocoria of Laodicea was nally restored under Caracalla, the son of Semptimius Severus, probably in 213/214.269 This grant of the neocoria title went hand in hand with at least one project for building a temple, as is illustrated by the coins from the reign of Caracalla and the years that followed, which depict one, two, or even three temples; it is quite certain that in the 3rd century there was both a necoria temple of Commodus and another for Caracalla.270 The festival games also experienced an unparalleled heyday,271 although it is di cult for a historian to make sense out of the multiplicity of names: at least it is clear that besides the Deia Kommod- eia there were games devoted to Caracalla (= M. Aurelius Antoninus), which included Antonia or Antonina as an element of their name.272 These games may have had their roots in the Antonia Geteia Olympia mentioned in an inscription from Laodicea and dedicated to Geta as well as Caracalla, until 211 when Geta fell victim to his brother’s unscrupulousness and was ostra- cized in a damnatio memoriae.273 In all likelihood, the games in honor of Asclepius, the god of healing, were also associated with the person of Cara- calla, who frequently sought the god’s help during his reign in hopes of a cure.274

267 IvTralles, no. 135. Cf. Robert 1969, pp. 283f. 268 Cf. SNG Munich, Phrygia, no. 397, with a mention of the games (∆ΕΙΑ ΚΟΜΟ∆ΙΑ) on a coin with the portrait of Geta Caesar (197–209). See Leschhorn 1998, p. 37. For other examples see Burrell 2004, p. 120, n. 12. 269 Burrell 2004, p. 120. Cf. also Ritti 2003, p. 181. 270 For details see Burrell 2004, pp. 120–123. 271 On the explosive development of the festival games in Asia Minor during the Severan period, see Mitchell 1990, pp. 190f. The contemporary role played by these games in 2nd- and 3rd-century Asia Minor is discussed recently by Ziegler 2009. 272 On the numismatic evidence, see Robert 1969, p. 293; Klose / Stumpf 1996, pp. 124f.; Burrell 2004, p. 121. 273 Corsten 1997, no. 60; cf. Robert 1969, p. 285 with n. 5; most recently Strasser 2004 (reconstruction of the fragmentary rst line and dating of the inscription in the reign of Septimius Severus). 274 Robert 1969, pp. 292–294. See also Klose 2005, pp. 129 and 132 (on SNG von Aulock, historical background 65

The institutions of the emperor cult were not exposed to as much turbulence in Hierapolis as in Laodicea, which attracted the emperor’s attention more strongly. Hierapolis obviously received its rst (and only) neocoria under Caracalla, as the epigraphic evidence suggests.275 A sanctuary was erected in honor of the emperor, which appears on coins—one example, as in Laodicea, in the context of a whole ensemble of three temples.276 The festival games were also commemorated repeatedly on coins on the occasion of the neocoria, for example the Actia, which clearly established a connection with the cult of Augustus.277 The disappearance of the neocoria from coins for some decades after the reign of Heliogabalus (after 222) might be due in this case as well to regulations issued by Rome.278 The emperor cult embodies a series of features characteristic of antique religion, although it would be wrong to overlook its diferences from conventional cults.279 The festivals gave the cultic community, in the rst instance identical with the urban population, an opportunity to test and experience its shared identity. In processions, sacri cial celebrations, and contests, the participants not only recognized a kind of worship but experienced immense pleasure with many components: seeing and being seen, shared meals and conversation, music and entertainment, performances and applause. Everything took place within a sacral framework; in particular the cultic actions in the realm of the temple were strictly regulated. The emperor cult and the neocorias above all attracted the attention of the whole province and occasionally even Rome. The festivities were attended by

no. 8414). Probably Caracalla passed through the Lycus Valley on his way to the East in 214/215; cf. Ritti 2003 pp. 200–202. 275 Ritti 2003, with extensive argumentation. The most important argument is the tribute to C. Memmius Eutychos from the time of Caracalla, which was initiated by the νεωκόρος βουλή and the πατρίς. Cf. also Ritti 2004a, pp. 298f., n. 6. Burrell 2004, pp. 135–138, unfamiliar with Ritti’s contribution and drawing on the numismatic evidence, argues that Hierapolis did not have a neocoria until the reign of Heliogabalus. 276 Burrell 2004, pp. 135f.; also Ritti 2003, pp. 187f. 277 Klose / Stumpf 1996, pp. 123f.; Burrell 2004, pp. 136f. Cf. von Papen 1908, pp. 177–181; Johnston 1984, p. 59; Ru ng 2009, p. 295 with thoughts on a connection between the Actia and ἀγῶνες τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ. Ritti 2003, pp. 188–190 and Ritti 2006/2007, p. 289 conjectures that the Actia were not instituted until Hierapolis received the neocoria (under Caracalla). 278 Johnston 1984, pp. 53f.; Ritti 2003, pp. 184–186; Burrell 2004, pp. 138f. Ritti 2003, p. 194 cites a tribute to Iulia Mamaea from the reign of Severus Alexander, which mentions the νεωκόρος βουλή as well as the demos. Numismatic evidence for the neocoria title reappears under Valerian and Gallienus on homonoia coins from Hierapolis along with Ephesus, Sardis, and Smyrna. Cf. Weber 1912, pp. 74 and 88f.; Franke / Nollé 1997, pp. 75–79, 84–86, and 89–91. 279 On this problem see Chaniotis 2003, examining ritual transfer and the recursiveness of rituals in the emperor cult. 66 chapter two delegations from other cities; athletes and artists from near and far competed in the contests. Gladiatorial games and animal hunts were an exclusive feature of the emperor cult;280 amphitheaters and stadiums like that in Laodicea provided the architectural framework but were not absolutely necessary for staging these bloody contents.281 Obviously the festivities also enlivened the local marketplace; the multitudes of guests needed food and lodging and wanted to bring home beautiful souvenirs (including devotional objects). Every city endeavored to draw attention to itself through its elaborate cultic practice. It was in competition with other cities—for the most magni cent temples, the most spectacular games, and naturally for the most neocoria titles. Therefore these motifs appear repeatedly on the coins issued by the cities. Unlike the conventional cults, the emperor cult often lacked continuity. The Zeus of Laodicea always remained the same; his rigid attitude, visible on innumerable coins, was a guarantee of reliability. His was a primordial cult, observed in Laodicea generation after generation. In the emperor cult, however, the gods constantly acquired new faces, and it was particularly fatal when a damnatio memoriae even meant that the images had to be destroyed. The temple for the imperial line and above all the neocoria temple for Caracalla in Hierapolis were much later than the original grotto of the Great Mother; in the eyes of contemporaries, the age of an institution provided a clue to its value. The theory that the very virulence of the emperor cult in Laodicea and Hierapolis, which difered little from its virulence in the other major cities of the Greek East, substantially inuenced the pagan population in its hostility toward the Christians is questionable, especially since the conventional cults had at least equal bonding force and Christian derogation of them probably aroused even greater resentment.282 These remarks do not provide a complete picture of the religious environment in which Christianity spread in the Lycus Valley: the early Christians found a major reference point in the Jewish communities that had been integrated into the cities for centuries, or were at least tolerated.

280 On the monuments to gladiators in Hierapolis, see the fundamental study Ritti / Yılmaz 1998 (including pp. 461–465 on the bull ghts typical of Hierapolis). Cf. Ritti 1985, pp. 97–103; Ritti 2006, pp. 85–87, no. 13 and pp. 185–188, no. 45. On gladiatorial inscriptions from Laodicea, see Corsten 1997, pp. 145–149, nos. 73–78. Cf. also Robert 1940, pp. 151–156. On a Laodicean gladiator in Cyzicus, see p. 316, n. 257 below. Cf. also p. 69 above. 281 Robert 1940, pp. 33–36; Ameling 2011, p. 40. Laodicea was also one of the sites of the festival games of the provincial assembly of Asia. For further discussion, see Heller 2006, pp. 185f. 282 Millar 1973, pp. 149–154. historical background 67

2.4. Jewish Communities

2.4.1. Judaism in the Lycus Valley: The Beginnings The inscriptions of the Roman imperial period, especially of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, document the presence of many Jews in Hierapolis in particular. The roots of the Jewish presence went back to the settlement policies of the Seleucid kings, who counted on the Jews for military support. Far in the East between 212 and 205bce, Antiochus III had to defend his territorial claims against Parthians, Bactrians, and Indians; Zeuxis as viceroy represented Seleucid interests in Asia Minor. If we are to believe the account of Flavius Josephus, he received a letter containing instructions through which Antiochus sought contribute to putting down an uprising in Phrygia and Lydia:283 King Antiochus to father Zeuxis, greetings. If you are well, that is good; I for my part am in good health. I have learned that people in Lydia and Phrygia are rebelling and have concluded that I must make a serious response. I took counsel with friends concerning what to do, and decided to settle 2000 families with their possessions to the forti ed communities and most important places—Jews from Mesopotamia and Babylonia. For I am convinced that they will be loyal guardians of our possessions on account of their devotion to God, and am well aware that our forefathers attest to their reliability and readiness to help. Although the resettlement is di cult, it is my will that they undertake this, though continuing to observe their own laws. When you bring them to the designated locations, give each of them a place to build a house and land for agriculture and viticulture; grant them ten years’ exemption from taxes for their crops. As they are not yet able to harvest the produce of the earth, provide them with grain in the amount necessary for the servants. And those who render services to them should also be provided with what they need, in order that when they experience our kindness they will meet our needs more eagerly. And give as much support as you are able to these people, so that none may harass them.284

283 Josephus Ant. 12.147: … νεωτερίζοντα τὰ κατὰ τὴν Φρυγίαν … καὶ Λυδίαν … 284 Josephus Ant. 12.148–153: Βασιλεὺς ᾽Αντίοχος Ζεύξιδι τῷ πατρὶ χαίρειν. εἰ ἔρρωσαι, εὖ ἂν ἔχοι, ὑγιαίνω δὲ καὶ αὐτός. πυνθανόµενος τοὺς ἐν Λυδίᾳ καὶ Φρυγίᾳ νεωτερίζοντας µεγάλης ἐπι- στροφῆς ἡγησάµην τοῦτό µοι δεῖσθαι, καὶ βουλευσαµένῳ µοι µετὰ τῶν φίλων, τί δεῖ ποιεῖν, ἔδοξεν εἰς τὰ φρούρια καὶ τοὺς ἀναγκαιοτάτους τόπους τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Μεσοποταµίας καὶ Βαβυλωνίας ᾽Ιου- δαίων οἴκους δισχιλίους σὺν ἐπισκευῇ µεταγαγεῖν. πέπεισµαι γὰρ εὔνους αὐτοὺς ἔσεσθαι τῶν ἡµε- τέρων φύλακας διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσέβειαν, καὶ µαρτυρουµένους δ’ αὐτοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν προγόνων εἰς πίστιν οἶδα καὶ προθυµίαν εἰς ἃ παρακαλοῦνται. βούλοµαι τοίνυν καίπερ ἐργώδους ὄντος τοῦ µεταγαγεῖν ὑποσχοµένους νόµοις αὐτοὺς χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἰδίοις. ὅταν δ’ αὐτοὺς ἀγάγῇς εἰς τοὺς προει- ρηµένους τόπους, εἴς τ’ οἰκοδοµίας οἰκιῶν αὐτοῖς δώσεις τόπον ἑκάστῳ καὶ χώραν εἰς γεωργίαν καὶ 68 chapter two

Undoubtedly Josephus had an apologetic agenda in the literal reproduc- tion of such a document, especially since it appears in a series of three letters of the Seleucids in which the deserts and privileges of the Jews are con rmed by royal authority. Josephus’s obvious agenda has caused many to doubt the authenticity of these letters, arguing that documents were invented, in whole or in part, to advance Jewish interests.285 Jörg- Dieter Gauger, who lists a series of formal criteria that argue against the letter’s authenticity—including the epiclesis of Zeuxis as father, the salutation (formula valetudinis), which does not appear in analogous letters of Antiochus III, the use of the singular instead of the plural typical of royal correspondence—, expressly calls the letter a “Jewish forgery.”286 If the wording of the letter should prove to be a ction, that in itself would not prove that its content is ctional. Be that as it may, it is consonant with the measures taken by Antiochus III to attempt to secure the western portion of his kingdom;287 the emphasis on agriculture and viticulture also provides local color.288 The complex problems presented by the source make it impossible to draw statistical conclusions from the text of the letter. But the 2000 Jew- ish households that found a new home in Lydia and Phrygia may never-

φυτείαν ἀµπέλων, καὶ ἀτελεῖς τῶν ἐκ τῆς γῆς καρπῶν ἀνήσεις ἐπὶ ἔτη δέκα. µετρείσθωσαν δὲ καὶ ἄχρις ἂν τοὺς παρὰ τῆς γῆς καρποὺς λαµβάνωσιν σῖτον εἰς τὰς τῶν θεραπόντων διατροφάς. διδόσθω δὲ καὶ τοῖς εἰς τὰς χρείας ὑπηρετοῦσιν τὸ αὔταρκες, ἵνα τῆς παρ’ ἡµῶν τυγχάνοντες φιλανθρωπί- ας προθυµοτέρους παρέχωσιν αὑτοὺς περὶ τὰ ἡµέτερα. πρόνοιαν δὲ ποιοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἔθνους κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν, ὅπως ὑπὸ µηδενὸς ἐνοχλῆται. 285 Cf. Gauger 1990, pp. 150f., who concentrates on the second letter cited by Josephus. The letter to Zeuxis is the third of the series. Schmitt 1964, p. 104, is also skeptical: “Die Ansiedlung von 2000 jüdischen Familien aus Babylonien in Phrygien, die Antiochos III. in einem bei Josephus überlieferten Brief an den kleinasiatischen Statthalter Zeuxis angeordnet haben soll, ist möglicherweise nicht historisch; die Echtheit des Königsbriefes ist jedenfalls fragwürdig.” Fischer 1980, p. 6 supports its authenticity. Bringmann 2005, pp. 92f. maintains that it is undoubtedly authentic. 286 Cf. Gauger 1993, esp. p. 66. Gauger’s detailed study does more justice to the text provided by Josephus than does Trebilico’s misleading sweeping statement: “… the letter is in keeping with the conventional Hellenistic form employed by a king writing to an individual and conforms stylistically to Seleucid documents of the period” (Trebilco 1991, p. 5). But cf. also Ameling 1996, pp. 32f. and Ma 2000, p. 267, who attempts to rebut Gauger’s formal objections by identifying the author of the letter as Antiochus, the son of Antiochus III, who served as his father’s coregent in the years c. 200bce. 287 See Schmitt 1964, pp. 104f. 288 On agriculture in the Lycus Valley, see pp. 20f. above. Recent scholarship largely considers the letter authentic. For further discussion, see Barclay 1996, pp. 261f.; Schuol 2007, pp. 35f. with n. 35. Cf. also note 286 above. historical background 69 theless have represented a total of 10,000 individuals.289 The “settlements” appear to have been villages of moderate size provided with forti cations, “Wehrdörfer, in denen militärische und zivile Funktionen verschmolzen.”290 Such a forti ed village had been present in the Lycus Valley even before the founding of Laodicea, as shown by the name of the village Neonteichos documented in an inscription.291 We cannot prove that the Lycus Valley was also afected by the settlement program of Antiochus III, but its strategic military position supports the idea, as does the substantial presence of Jews in later centuries.292 The fact that the Hellenistic king is said to have granted the Jews a series of privileges is the heart of the message Josephus intended to convey. Following the Maccabean uprisings, the Jews became assets of Roman foreign policy; increasingly they enjoyed the protection of the power in the West. The Jews in the territory of Attalus II, for example, were guaranteed protection against abuses in a letter issued by the consul, probably in 142bce.293 Thus the Jews of the Lycus Valley came to the knowledge of Rome. How alien the Jewish settlers were in their new environment in the Lycus Valley is hard to judge, since a wide array of cultural traditions encountered each other in the region. Furthermore the Jews themselves came from a Diaspora in Mesopotamia, where they had made use of Aramaic.294 Thanks to the two centuries of rule by the Persians, who had conducted o cial business in Aramaic (“Imperial Aramaic”),295 the language in the Lycus Val- ley was not totally unfamiliar. Even during the early days of Seleucid rule, there still appear to have been points of contact with Semitic culture: in 267bce, the steward of Achaeus was honored by two villages for his contributions in the struggle against the Galatians. His name Banabelos (Βανάβη- λος) can be assigned to a Semitic language (probably West Aramaic or even Hebrew). He remained in the memory of the citizens not only because an inscription commemorated his achievements but also because homage was paid him “for all time” (εἰς πάντα τὸν χρόνον) in celebrations and even cultic

289 Trebilco 1991, p. 6; also Gruen 2002, p. 17. On the problem of numerical data in Josephus, see McGing 2002, pp. 94–97. 290 Schuler 1998, p. 51. 291 See the citation on p. 42 above, and p. 70, n. 296 below. 292 See also Fano Santi 2000, p. 25. 293 1Macc 15:16–24. Cf. Gruen 1984, pp. 748f. 294 Bringmann 2005, p. 60. 295 Folmer 2009, p. 105. 70 chapter two sacri ces.296 Of course Banabelos was not a Jew, but he may have made a contribution that helped the Jews who settled in the Lycus Valley decades later feel a bit more at home.

2.4.2. Laodicea as a Jewish Center Cicero provides the earliest explicit reference to a Jewish presence in the Lycus Valley, in his speech delivered in 59bce in defense of L. Valerius Flaccus. In 62/61bce, Flaccus had taken over the province of Asia as pro- praetor; he pursued such a rigorous program with respect to the provincial population that two years later he found himself involved in a quaestio de repetundis, a tribunal to punish the extortive measures of the governor.297 Cicero was bound to Flaccus by ties of political friendship and therefore undertook his defense. One charge (among many) was that Flaccus had forbidden the Jews in Asia to send gold to the temple in Jerusalem and had con scated it. Cicero’s concern was to show that Flaccus had not misappro- priated the gold but had followed the rules in diverting it to the treasury. The governor and his agents, he argued, had ordered it to be weighed out accurately in the individual depots: In Apamea a scant 100 pounds of gold was con scated in plain sight and weighed out before the feet of the praetor in the agora; this was done by Sextus Caesius, a Roman equestrian, a man of total probity and integrity; in Laodicea the amount was a bit over 20 pounds, and it was weighed out there by Lucius Peducaeus, our sworn agent; in Adramyttium the amount was … and it was weighed out by the legate Cnaeus Domitius; in Pergamum there was just a bit. The inventory is correct, and the gold is in the public treasury.298 The Jews in the Diaspora demonstrated their ties to Jerusalem by sending a portion of their wealth to the temple every year;299 in the time of Josephus, they paid two drachmas annually.300 The statement by Josephus has led to calculations intended to associate the numbers given by Cicero with

296 Corsten 1997, no. 1, line 22, with commentary on p. 14 (analysis of the name Banabelos). On the inscription, see also p. 37 above. 297 On the background of the proceedings against Flaccus, see Erkelenz 1999, pp. 43f. 298 Cic. Flacc. 68f.: “Apameae manifesto comprehensum ante pedes praetoris in foro ex- pensum est auri pondo C paulo minus per Sex. Caesium, equitem Romanum, castissimum hominem atque integerrimum, Laodiceae XX pondo paulo amplius per hunc L. Peducaeum, iudicem nostrum, Adramyttii … per Cn. Domitium legatum, Pergami non multum. Auri ratio constat, aurum in aerario est; …” 299 Gruen 2002, pp. 243–247; Schuol 2007, pp. 80–84. 300 Josephus Bell. 7.218. historical background 71 concrete quantities. The value of the Greek drachma has generally been equated with that of the Roman denarius; since the Augustan monetary system set 1000 denarii as equivalent to one pound of gold, the 20 pounds of gold stockpiled in Laodicea could be interpreted as the contribution sent annually to Jerusalem by 10,000 Jews. Obviously these calculations involve too many uncertainties to provide a valid basis for further extrapolations,301 for example to the number of Jewish families in the region. Furthermore, the area covered by the Jewish collection in Laodicea is not even roughly known—quite apart from the fact that the tradition of the passage from Cicero is clearly corrupt.302 Despite these quali cations, Cicero’s defense of Flaccus provides illuminating information about the history of the Jewish Diaspora in the Lycus Valley: the assize cities of the province of Asia, including Laodicea, not only served as Roman administrative centers but also made their logistical potential available to the Jews;303 the Jewish depots were well lled. Such depots could be set up only if the Jews were sure of their status. Clearly they had not counted on the regulations issued by the governor; Flaccus’s decrees took them by surprise, even though the Senate had already denounced the export of gold several times in previous years.304 The gold of the Jews in Laodicea amounts to only about a fth of what was collected in Apamea; this may be due in part to the diferent areas from which the two assize cities collected the Jewish contributions, but it also signalizes the increasing concentration of the Jewish population in the upper Meander valley. Cicero assumed that the Jews of Asia Minor could count on the support of the Jews in the city of Rome: he wanted to moderate his tone because he feared demonstrations by the Jewish public witnessing the tribunal.305 Cicero may also have had tactical rhetorical reasons for presenting the Jews as conspiratorial bands,306 but it is possible that there

301 Also Marshall 1975, pp. 146f., who assumes that the amount of gold given by Cicero actually represents Jewish contributions over many years. Trebilco 1991, p. 14 takes a similar position. 302 See the critical apparatus in the edition of Clark 1909, pp. 231.27–232.4. In any case, however, the words “Laodiceae XX pondo paulo amplius” are clearly attested. 303 Ameling 1988, pp. 11–14. 304 On Cic. Flacc. 67, see Marshall 1975, p. 145. 305 Cic. Flacc. 66. Gruen 2002, p. 244 underlines this viewpoint with particular emphasis: “And, what is most revealing, Cicero’s speech, however embellished and overblown, shows that the plight of Asian Jews who were prevented from making their accustomed contributions to the Temple stirred the passions of their compatriots far of in Rome and provoked impressively noisy demonstrations on their behalf.” 306 Marshall 1975, pp. 141f. 72 chapter two are hints of elements of a network that bound the provincial Jews to the Jews in Rome. The early Christians in the Lycus Valley also maintained close contacts with Rome, clearly independent of the o cial delegations and correspondence of the towns.

2.4.3. Conlicts between Jews and Greeks Interference with the Jews in observing their religious norms and rituals on the part of Roman o cials was probably the exception. A more threatening potential for conict arose in direct confrontation with the public in the cities and towns, especially since Jews’ separate religious path involved privileges that most were reluctant to grant the minority.307 These privileges aroused resentment among many Greeks; they had a hard time sympathiz- ing with the purity laws and Sabbath observance of their Jewish neighbors. In such cases, the Jews turned repeatedly to the authority of the Roman state to gain the local support they needed. These mechanisms are documented in a whole series of examples that Josephus incorporated into his Antiquities to demonstrate the φιλανθρωπία of the Romans toward the Jews.308 Caesar’s concern for his support in Judea and the active engagement of the Judean high priest Hyrcanus II on behalf of the Diaspora resulted in repeated o cial statements granting privileges to the Jews. The Jewish communities in the cities of Asia Minor were particularly favored in the dossier assembled by Josephus, even before Caesar had seized power in the region. Between a law promulgated by the governor exempting the Jews of Ephesus who had Roman citizenship from military service and another that guaranteed the Jews in Miletus unimpeded observance of their rituals,309 there is a letter addressed to the current governor by the Laodicean authorities: The Laodicean authorities bring greetings to Caius Rabillius, son of Caius, consul. Sopatros, the envoy of the high priest Hyrcanus, delivered to us your letter in which you informed us that people had come from Hyrcanus the high priest of the Jews with letters having to do with their people, that they were allowed to observe the Sabbath and observe the other rituals in accordance

307 On the legal status of the Jewish communities in the Greek poleis, see Ameling 1996, pp. 34–37. 308 Josephus Ant. 14.267. See also Gruen 2002, pp. 84–86. On the authenticity of the underlying documents, see the fundamental study of Pucci Ben Zeev 1998, pp. 25–373; also Schuol 2007, pp. 66–144. 309 Josephus Ant. 14.237–240 and 244–246. historical background 73

with the laws of their fathers, and that no one was allowed to issue regulations governing them, because they are our friends and allies, and that no one in our province is allowed to do them wrong; and when the Trallians objected personally to you that they were not in agreement with the decisions reached concerning them, you issued a regulation that it should be so. But you have also been besought to inform us, too, in writing of the matters concerning them. Hence we followed your instructions; we have received the letter that was sent us and placed it in our public archives. In the other matters regarding which you have given us instructions, we shall be careful to be blameless.310 The letter of the Laodicean o cials to the governor builds on a web of correspondence and interactions that must rst be unraveled.311 The rst point that stands out is the enormous inuence of Hyrcanus, whose appointment as high priest had been con rmed by Pompey. Hyrcanus was also on friendly terms with Caesar.312 During the ugly conicts in Alexandria in 47bce, he had supported Caesar with 3000 troops and consequently could count on the support of the dictator.313 Thus when Hyrcanus championed the Jewish communities in the Diaspora, he dealt with the Roman o cials and the Greek cities on an equal footing.314 Possibly he was able to make use of contacts and diplomatic channels that had already been put in place by his grandfather, Hyrcanus I (high priest 135–104bce), who had already used his friendship with Rome to promote the interests of the Jews. Against this background, the Pergamenians had sent a letter to Hyrcanus I assuring him of their friendship.315 When Hyrcanus II began to worry about the Jews in Laodicea, he cooperated closely with the Roman provincial administration. Sopatros, the envoy of the high priest, even undertook to carry the letter that the governor

310 Josephus Ant. 14.241–243: Λαοδικέων ἄρχοντες Γαίῳ ῾Ραβι ίῳ Γαίου υἱῷ ὑπάτῳ χαίρειν. Σώπατρος ῾Υρκανοῦ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως πρεσβευτὴς ἀπέδωκεν ἡµῖν τὴν παρὰ σοῦ ἐπιστολήν, δι’ ἧς ἐδήλου ἡµῖν παρὰ ῾Υρκανοῦ τοῦ ᾽Ιουδαίων ἀρχιερέως ἐληλυθότας τινὰς γράµµατα κοµίσαι περὶ τοῦ ἔθνους αὐτῶν γεγραµµένα, ἵνα τά τε σάββατα αὐτοῖς ἐξῇ ἄγειν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἱερὰ ἐπιτελεῖν κατὰ τοὺς πατρίους νόµους, ὅπως τε µηδεὶς αὐτοῖς ἐπιτάσσῃ διὰ τὸ φίλους αὐτοὺς ἡµετέρους εἶναι καὶ συµµάχους, ἀδικήσῃ τε µηδεὶς αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἡµετέρᾳ ἐπαρχίᾳ, ὡς Τρα ιανῶν τε ἀντειπόντων κατὰ πρόσωπον µὴ ἀρέσκεσθαι τοῖς περὶ αὐτῶν δεδογµένοις ἐπέταξας ταῦτα οὕτως γίνεσθαι· παρακεκλῆσθαι δέ σε, ὥστε καὶ ἡµῖν ταῦτα γράψαι περὶ αὐτῶν. ἡµεῖς οὖν κατακολουθοῦντες τοῖς ἐπεσταλµένοις ὑπὸ σοῦ, τήν τε ἐπιστολὴν τὴν ἀποδοθεῖσαν ἐδεξάµεθα καὶ κατεχωρίσαµεν εἰς τὰ δηµόσια ἡµῶν γράµµατα, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄ ων ὧν ἐπέσταλκας προνοήσοµεν ὥστε µηδὲν µεµφθῆναι. See the detailed commentary of Pucci Ben Zeev 1998, pp. 192–198. 311 See also Pucci Ben Zeev 1998, pp. 196–198; Rajak 2001 (1984), pp. 322f. 312 Schürer / Vermes / Millar I 21973, pp. 270f.; also Schuol 2007, p. 255. 313 For further discussion, see Gelzer 61960, pp. 231f. and 238f.; Baumann 1983, pp. 90–93. 314 Rajak 2001, pp. 319f.; Gruen 2002, p. 88. 315 Josephus Ant. 14.247–255; cf. Trebilco 1991, pp. 7f.; Barclay 1996, p. 264. 74 chapter two addressed to the Laodiceans. Clearly Hyrcanus had informed the governor previously that the situation of the Jews in the cities of the province was precarious and asked him for his help: Jews were being prevented from observing their rituals; in particular the sanctity of the Sabbath was not being ensured. The fact that orthodox Jews who insisted on Sabbath rest impeded the everyday work of the city week in and week out probably aroused indignation in some, especially in regions where the Jewish population and hence their share of the economic pie was relatively large. In Tralleis, a good 100 kilometers west of the Lycus Valley, the governor had to intervene forcefully to enforce the Jewish privilege of ritual and Sabbath observance.316 The Laodiceans were clearly more perceptive and immediately sent a message of loyalty to the governor: the Jews of Laodicea would have no cause for complaint. It would appear unlikely, of course, that Roman intervention could assuage the animosities between Jews and Greeks over the long haul. On the one hand, the Greek authorities in the poleis were not happy about submitting to Roman interference; on the other, even under Augustus the Roman representatives—especially Agrippa—found themselves repeatedly required to curb conicts in the Anatolian cities.317 Dating the Laodiceans’ letter to the governor is di cult because the identity of the addressee has been obscured in the course of transmission. The name Rabillius recorded in the manuscripts has no place in Roman onomastics; the title consul also makes no sense: as the context shows, the letter is addressed to the provincial governor of Asia, a proconsul.318 The path to a solution is indicated by the pedestal of a statue from the island of Delos dedicated to a proconsul named Caius Rabirius, whose father was also called Caius.319 Prosopographic studies make it plausible that this latter Caius Rabirius served as governor in Asia in 47bce and that it was he to whom the Laodiceans addressed the letter preserved by Josephus.320

316 Schuol 2007, pp. 47f. and 84–86. 317 Schuol 2007, pp. 259–263. On the involvement of Herod, see Günther 2005, pp. 206–208; Baltrusch 2012, pp. 207–215. 318 Stumpf 1991, pp. 35–40 discusses the predecessor of Rabirius as governor, C. Fannius, whom provincial coins called pr(aetor) although he was a praetorian. 319 Durrbach 1921/1922, pp. 257f., no. 167: [C. Rabirio, C. f.] pro co(n)s(uli)—Γάϊον ῾Ραβήριον, Γαίου υἱὸν, ἀνθύπατον ῾Ρωµαίων. CIL I2, no. 773 with Addenda˙ ˙ CIL I2, no. 2965 for a dating in 47bce. 320 Homolle 1882; also Vonder Mühll 1914, col. 27; Schürer / Vermes / Millar / Goodman III.1 21986, p. 116, n. 37; Broughton 1986, p. 181; Pucci Ben Zeev 1998, p. 194. historical background 75

2.4.4. Symbiosis of Jews and Greeks in the Imperial Period The letter of the Laodicean authorities to Caius Rabirius documents the strong support the Jews enjoyed among the Roman authorities—similar to that enjoyed by the technitai of Dionysus, who had much deeper roots in the cities and towns.321 At the same time, it bears witness to the need for control that arose from local conicts. Rome’s readiness to accept the separate path of the Diaspora Jews remained intact even in the Neronian- Flavian period and again under Hadrian, when Judea was wracked by bloody wars of rebellion.322 The special tax levied on the Jews by Vespasian to the cult of Jupiter on the Capitoline, which went into the so-called s- cus Iudaicus, did, however, also burden the Jewish communities in Asia Minor.323 Probably there were still animosities wherever Jews happened to live: although the Greek cities readily brought various religious traditions under a single roof, a certain minimum degree of conformity was expected. Nevertheless the epigraphic evidence from Hierapolis shows that on the whole the symbiosis of Jews and Greek during the high Empire clearly functioned:324 of the hundreds of sepulchral inscriptions, more than 20 are of Jewish provenance.325 Most of the Jewish burial sites were integrated into the necropolis on the road leading to Tripolis, without any efort at maintaining separation.326 The Jews buried in Hierapolis normally did nd it important to identify themselves as “Jews” (᾽Ιουδαῖος) in their epitaphs,327 but only in a few cases can the Jews be identi ed through signi cant personal names; most had the same names as their pagan neighbors.328

One example will illustrate how individual Jews even participated actively in Greek cultural activities. The sarcophagus of a certain Hikesios stood on the left as one left the city through the Frontinus Gate, headed north; its inscription reads as follows:

321 Schuol 2007, pp. 139f. The technitai of Dionysus are also attested in Hierapolis and Laodicea during the high Empire (Hierapolis: Miranda 2003, p. 167; Laodicea: Huttner 1997a). 322 Schuol 2007, pp. 297–304. 323 Nerva sought to mitigate the burden of this tax; cf. Gri n 2000, pp. 74f. 324 For Asia Minor in general, see Ameling 1996, pp. 50–53. 325 Miranda 1999, pp. 114–132 counts 23 Jewish inscriptions. An additional Jewish sepulchral inscription is recorded in Ritti / Miranda / Guizzi 2007, p. 606 (ibid. p. 587 on the total number of sepulchral inscriptions from Hierapolis). 326 Ilan 2006, p. 73; in general: Rebillard 2009 (2003), pp. 20–22. 327 Williams 1997, pp. 255f. 328 Ameling 2009, p. 215 (the Diaspora in Asia Minor in general). 76 chapter two

This sarcophagus and ancestral burial site belong to Hikesios, who is also called Judas [perhaps also: who is a Jew], son of Theon, the greatly renowned victor in sacred games, who was often triumphant. Hikesios will be buried here along with his wife Olympias, the daughter of Thyokritos. Their children Antoninos and Hikesios have authority over the site; no one else is allowed to bury someone. Anyone who does must pay a ne of 2000 denarii to the Gerousia. A copy of this inscription rests in the archives.329 The formulary of this text conforms to that of innumerable other sepulchral inscriptions from Hierapolis;330 its standard parts include clari cation of ownership and burial rights, the names of those who are buried, and the express imposition of a monetary penalty on anyone who disobeys. The family of the Jew Hikesios con- formed to these conventions and cooperated in this context with the municipal institutions of the Gerousia and the communal archives.331 Hikesios’s victorious participation in the games is surprising, because it would have brought him into close contact with Greek cults that provided the background of the contests. The openness of individual Jews to the achievements of Greek culture is exempli ed in the person of Philo of Alexandria, who impresses us not only through his erudition but also through his familiarity with the operation of the gymnasium; he followed the athletic contests with great involvement.332 It is obvious that in many places in Asia Minor Jews were active in the gymnasium; a list of ephebi from Iasos includes a certain Ioudas among the members.333 Active participation of a Jew in an agon is attested only in Hierapolis, however; orthodox Jews probably did not approve of such conduct.334 Nevertheless the Jewish inscriptions of Hierapolis also bear witness to a diferent concept of Jewish life, with more emphasis on separation: the sarcophagus of Aurelia Augusta stands further from the city than that of Hikesios, but on the same side of the road. Its epigraphic formulary is exceptional for naming Jewish rather than civil authorities: The sarcophagus and the land surrounding it belong to Aurelia Augusta, the daughter of Zotikos; she will be buried in it along with her husband Glykonianos with the byname Hagnos and their children. But if someone

329 Miranda 1999, p. 114, no. 1 = Ameling 2004, pp. 402f., no. 189: ῾Η σορὸς καὶ τὸ ἡρῶον προγονικὸν ῾Ικεσίου τοῦ [καὶ] ᾽Ιούδα τοῦ Θέωνος [ἐνδ]ο[ξο]τάτου ἱερονίκου πλιστονίκου, ἐν ᾗ κηδευθήσεται ῾Ικέσιος καὶ ᾽Ολυµπιὰς˙ Θυοκρίτου ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ· ἕξουσι ἧς ἐξουσίαν τὰ τέκνα [α]ὐτῶν ᾽Αντωνῖνος καὶ ῾Ικέσιος, ἄ ῳ δὲ οὐκ ἐξέσται κηδεῦσέ τινα ἢ ἀποτίσι προστίµου τ[ῇ] γερουσίᾳ (δηνάρια),β. Ταύτης ἐπιγραφῆς ἀντίγραφον κ[εῖται ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις]. The uncertainty in translating Hikesios’s byname or epiclesis is due to an uncertainty in the reading. Despite this uncertainty, it is clear that Hikesios was a Jew. 330 For a detailed discussion of the formulary of the Hierapolitan sepulchral inscriptions, see Ritti 2004, pp. 466–569. Cf. also Ameling 2009, pp. 207f. For further details, see pp. 244f. below. 331 On the archives of Hierapolis, see Ritti 2001, pp. 523–525. 332 Gruen 2002, pp. 124f. 333 Ameling 2004, pp. 129–131, no. 22, with commentary. 334 On the Torah’s prohibition of visiting a stadium, see Miranda 1999, p. 115, n. 55. historical background 77

else buries (someone), he shall pay a ne of 300 denarii to the settlement of the Jews living in Hierapolis and 100 denarii to whoever undertook the investigation. A copy has been deposited in the archives of the Jews.335 The κατοικία of the Jews is named as the recipient of the burial penalty. Even though the term does not suggest speci c conclusions and a speci c organizational form or legal structure of the Jewish community in Hierapolis,336 it does suggest a kind of association or society—in any event, an institutional form. Here the Jews stick together; not even the archival registration of the conditions in the sepulchral inscription needs external organization, since the Jewish community has its own archives.337 But of course we see here only a tendential separation of Aurelia Augusta and her family, since her tomb—like the other Jewish tombs—did not stand in isolation.338 Payment of a burial ne to the Jewish community is provided for on two other tombstones from Hierapolis, although the speci c formulation varies: in one case, the λαὸς τῶν ᾽Ιουδαίων is the bene ciary,339 in the other—the inscription may date from as late as the 4th century—the ἁγιωτάτη συναγωγή.340 In most cases, the Jewish tomb owners name the imperial treasury as the bene ciary of the nancial penalties.341

The Jewish communities in Asia Minor were already permitted by the Ro- man authorities to erect synagogues (προσευχαί: literally “places of prayer”) in the 1st century bce.342 Whether or when the Jewish community in Hier- apolis succeeded in monumentalizing their religious entitlement by building an assembly hall is unclear,343 especially since the “synagogue” mentioned in the inscription in question is not a building but an institution, and there is no relevant archaeological evidence. The great variety of forms synagogues could take in Anatolian cities is illustrated at one extreme by the private house converted into a modest gathering place in Priene and at

335 Miranda 1999, pp. 125f., no. 16 = Ameling 2004, pp. 432–435, no. 205: ἡ σορὸς καὶ ὁ περὶ αὐτhὴiν τόπος Αὐρ. Αὐγούστας Ζωτικοῦ ἐν ᾗ κηδευθήσεται αὐτὴ καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ τῆς, Γλυκωνιανὸς ὁ καὶ ῞Αγνος, καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν· εἰ δὲ {ετε} ἕτερος κηδευθήσει, δώσει τῇ κατοικίᾳ τῶν ἐν ῾Ιεραπόλει κατοικούντων ᾽Ιουδαίων προστείµου (δηνάρια) τ’ καὶ τῷ ἐκζητήσαντι (δηνάρια) ρ’. ἀντίγραφον ἀπετέθη ἐν τῷ ἀρχίῳ τῶν ᾽Ιουδαίων. 336 Cf. the discussion in Ameling 2004, pp. 433–435. 337 On these Jewish archives, see Ameling 2009, pp. 210f. 338 See the site plan in Miranda 1999, p. 156. 339 Miranda 1999, pp. 118f., no. 5 = Ameling 2004, pp. 436f., no. 206. 340 Miranda 1999, pp. 124f., no. 14b (suggesting a date in the second half of the 3rd century) = Ameling 2004, pp. 406–408, no. 191 B. 341 Miranda 1999, p. 148. 342 Josephus Ant. 14.258. For further detail, see Schuol 2007, pp. 86f. But cf. the objections by Claußen 2002, pp. 115–117, who interprets the προσευχαί as prayer services. 343 Cf. Miranda 1999, pp. 151f. 78 chapter two the other by the magni cent hall in Sardis incorporated into the city’s gymnasium complex, which could accommodate 1000 visitors.344 Both were in use during Late Antiquity; whether they also reect the situation during the high Empire is unclear. The late antique Jewish sepulchral inscription that has the burial ne paid to the “most holy synagogue” can also be cited as evidence of how uid the community boundaries were in the Lycus Valley. The owner of the tomb was a certain Aurelius Heortasios Iulianus, a Tripolitanian Jew, “now dwelling in Hierapolis.”345 He moved there from nearby Tripolis (some 20 kilometers away) without giving up his rights of citizenship in the latter city.346 How completely at home he felt in his new community is shown both by his burial place and the regulation of burial ne. The interchange among the Jewish communities spotlighted by this inscription nds its equivalent in the close cooperation among the Christian “churches” of the Pauline period. Nevertheless the importance of the phenomenon should not be exaggerated, especially since the pagan burial of a Tripolitanian in Hierapolis is also documented.347 Because of their relative proximity, the cities of the Lycus Valley provided the conditions for a closely woven communications network. The fact that the Jewish community of the high Empire is represented so clearly in the epigraphic material from Hierapolis is due to the speci c nature of the record: the ensemble of the necropolises is better preserved than in almost any other Anatolian city, and the corpus of inscriptions is correspondingly extensive. The inscriptions in Laodicea are less rewarding, to say nothing of Colossae. But the situation of the Jewish communities in the other cities of the Lycus Valley did not difer much from that in Hierapo- lis.348 There, too, the Jewish burial sites were probably located among the others; there, too, there was probably little fear of contact. To date, however, there is only one known sepulchral inscription from Laodicea that might be assigned to a Jewish context. The sarcophagus of L. Nonius Glykon was found at Gümüsler/Gümü¸ sçay¸ (today a suburb of

344 On Priene see Schultze 1926, pp. 135–137; Trebilco 1991, pp. 55f.; Rumscheid 1998, pp. 91– 93 (dating in the 3rd or 4th century); Ameling 2004, pp. 172–174 (criticizes the late dating by archeologists); on Sardis see Trebilco 1991, pp. 40–43; Claußen 2002, pp. 202–206. 345 ἡ σορὸς καὶ ὁ περὶ αὐτὴν τόπος Αὐρ. ῾Εορτασίου ᾽Ιουλιανοῦ Τριπολείτου ᾽Ιουδέου, νοῖν οἰκοhῦiντ[ος] ἐν Εἱεραπόλι … . Cf. p. 77, n. 340 above. 346 Miranda 1999, pp. 153f.; cautiously Ameling 2004, p. 407: “Heortasios wird das dortige Bürgerrecht besessen haben, doch geht es hier eher um die Betonung seiner Herkunft …” 347 Pennachietti 1966, p. 304, no. 22. 348 Cf. Ameling 2004, p. 443 with n. 251. historical background 79

Denizli), eight kilometers southwest of Laodicea. The inscription, which will be discussed in detail later (see pp. 247–249 below), contains a burial curse from Deuteronomy. In interpreting the text, we must assume that the Pentateuch was familiar to extensive circles, especially Christians.349 The religious classi cation of the owner of the tomb is less clear than it appears at rst glance. All in all, we can assume a signi cant presence of Jews in the cities of the Lycus Valley during the imperial period well into Late Antiquity, a conclusion con rmed by the Christian sources. Though they may have constituted less than 5% of the total population,350 many belonged to the upper classes. Their ability to aford elaborate burial sites speaks for itself, as does their casual intercourse with the nancially powerful trade associations.351 Difer- ing blueprints of Jewish life can be identi ed, varying from marked openness to urbane standards to emphatic focus on Jewish traditions. Never, however, does it seem to have reached the point of total separation. As seen by the Jews, the region lay in both light and shadow. The Talmud’s tractate on the Sabbath includes a warning that the wine and baths of Phrygia had been the ruin of the the 10 tribes of Israel.352 By contrast the tractate Bava Metsia describes Laodicea as a refuge for Jews who could no longer get along with the authoritarian king.353

349 On the material from Acmoneia, see for example Horsley 1981, p. 101; Ameling 2004, p. 367; on the inscription from Laodicea, see Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 296f. 350 On the percentage of Jewish inscriptions in the epigraphic material in Hierapolis, see p. 75 above; also Huttner 2011, pp. 281f. On the percentage of Jews in the population of Asia Minor, see Schuol 2007, pp. 37–43. For the post-Constantinian period, see pp. 298f. below. 351 See p. 252 below. 352 Rabbi Chelbo (c. 300), Shab 22.5.6 (147b). Cf. Goldschmidt I 1929/1930 (1996), p. 906. See Strack / Billerbeck 1924, p. 270. 353 BM 83b–84a; cf. Steinsaltz 1992, p. 119.

chapter three

PAULINE INFLUENCE: PHILEMON AND COLOSSIANS

It is generally assumed that two epistles of the Pauline corpus were addressed to Colossae, namely the Epistle to Philemon and the Epistle to the Colossians. The church in Colossae is mentioned (alongside Laodicea and Hierapolis) only in Colossians; there is no place name in Philemon, but the epistle mentions a whole series of people who also appear in Colossians.1 In addition, the commentary of Theodoret on the Epistle to Philemon points to a living tradition in Late Antiquity that localized Philemon in Colossae: his house could even still be seen there.2 Initially, then, there can hardly be any doubt that Philemon lived in Colossae.3 Nevertheless the observation that Pauline authorship of Colossians must be rejected on the basis of numerous philological and theological arguments creates a delicate problem.4 This problem goes hand in hand with the di culty of determining the Sitz im Leben of Colossians and using it in turn to determine the position of the Epistle to Philemon. Quite recently, furthermore, Günther Schwab’s dissertation has challenged the consensus of New Testament scholarship, using detailed analysis of the Greek of the Pauline corpus to emphasize the insu cient evidence for the authenticity of the Epistle to Philemon and even raising the possibility of its dependence on Colossians.5 But there is no cogent historical explanation for the background or cui bono of a ctive Epistle to Philemon,6 so that it probably retains its place among the proto-Paulines.

1 Lohse 21977, pp. 246–248. 2 PG 82, 872A: Τῶν πεπιστευκότων ὁ Φιλήµων ἐτύγχανεν ὤν· πόλιν δὲ εἶχε τὰς Κολασσάς. Καὶ ἡ οἰκία δὲ αὐτοῦ µέχρι τοῦ παρόντος µεµένηκε. Cf. also Cadwallader 2011, p. 169. 3 But consider the skepticism expressed by Arzt-Grabner 2003, pp. 80f., who assumes that the pseudonymity of Colossians rules it out as evidence and also conjectures that Philemon’s home was near Ephesus. Johnson 1950, pp. 9f. considers associating Philemon with the church in Laodicea an attractive hypothesis. 4 For the moment, Schnelle 82013, pp. 361–367. For further details, see pp. 110–112 below. 5 Schwab 2011, pp. 87–199. 6 Schwab 2011, pp. 152–156 suggests reading the epistle as an exhortation to wealthy members of the Christian community to lend support (including material support) to the 82 chapter three

3.1. Persons and Networks

3.1.1. Paul’s Journeys in Asia Minor Paul’s de ning role for early Christianity in Asia Minor is undisputed. Whether he ever visited the Lycus Valley personally is ultimately uncertain:7 Acts does not mention any of the cities in that area. A visit during the rst missionary journey (c. 46–48) is out of the question, since it concentrated on Pisidia and Lycaonia.8 During his second journey, Paul and his companions traversed Asia Minor roughly from south to north (c. 49): starting from Iconium “they went through the Phrygian and Galatian region and were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the word in Asia.”9 This route brought him to Mysia.10 If we assume that Luke used Asia to mean the Roman province of that name,11 Paul, Silas, and Timothy went far to the east as they traveled northwards. Nevertheless the author’s usage shows that he could also use Asia as a collective term for the cities located directly on the Aegean coast.12 This interpretation should be considered here, since Mysia—as part of the province of Asia13—is named explicitly as the end of Paul’s itinerary. But even on this premise the sequence of regions named ( rst Phrygia, then Galatia) suggests a leg from southwest to northeast and hence a broad arc along the eastern border of the province of Asia,14 so that contact with Lycus Valley is also ruled out during the second missionary journey.

church authorities. But the case of Onesimus is a challenge to historical analysis precisely because the concrete background was familiar to the addressees. It cannot serve as an illustration bearing on a general problem. 7 See also p. 123 below, where I argue for a stay in Colossae and Laodicea but not in Hierapolis. 8 Aharoni / Avi-Yonah / Rainey / Safrai 42002, p. 183. On the chronology of Paul’s journeys, see briey Lohse 1996, pp. 53–57. A chronological anchor point is Paul’s meeting with L. Iunius Gallio Annaeanus, the proconsul of Achaea, in Corinth in 51/52 (during his second missionary journey). See Eck 1999, col. 67; Corsten 2011, p. 128; also Mitchell 1993, II, p. 5. 9 Acts 16:6: ∆ιῆλθον δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν κωλυθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος λαλῆσαι τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ ᾽Ασίᾳ.—Φρυγίαν is probably an adjective. Cf. Breytenbach 1996, pp. 113f. 10 Acts 16:7f. 11 As suggested, for example, by French 1994, p. 53. 12 Trebilco 1994, p. 302, citing Acts 2:9–11. 13 Cf. Jones 1937, p. 85. 14 Lüdemann 1987, p. 184 speaks of a “zigzag route”; tentative reconstruction of the itinerary in Breytenbach 1996, pp. 117f.; Breytenbach 2004, pp. 166–168. Cf. also Sänger 2010, pp. 30f., and the reconstruction in Aharoni / Avi-Yonah / Rainey / Safrai 42002, p. 184. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 83

During his third missionary journey, Paul could have passed through the Lycus Valley around the year 52 before arriving in Ephesus, where he stayed for two years. Luke reports that Paul then “went sequentially to the Galatian region and Phrygia,” and nally “passed through the upper regions and thence came to Ephesus.”15 These two pieces of information regarding Paul’s route, which Luke separates with an excursus, belong together and suggest a general course from east to west, from the Anatolian high plateau to the Aegean coast. One conceivable route would be from Iconium through Antioch, Apamea, Laodicea, and the Meander valley to Ephesus.16 But a northern route through Philοmelium and Sardis would also have ofered an appropriate connection with the capital of the province of Asia.17 Since Philemon and Colossians suggest a certain familiarity with members of the Christian communities in the Lycus Valley, there is reason to think that Paul was personally familiar with the region.18 It is also possible that he might have taken a side trip or two during his long stay in Ephesus.19 He would have had to allow about 10 days for the round trip to the Lycus Valley, a good hundred miles.20

3.1.2. The Prosopography of Philemon and Colossians To recover the historical context of the two epistles, we shall rst clarify the prosopography and analyze the social network that linked the authors of the epistles to the Lycus Valley,21 taking Philemon, the earlier text, as a basis. The following table will facilitate access to the references and illustrate their distribution in the two epistles.

15 Acts 18:23 (departing from Antioch in Syria): Καὶ ποιήσας χρόνον τινὰ ἐξῆλθεν διερχόµενος καθεξῆς τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν, ἐπιστηρίζων πάντας τοὺς µαθητάς. Acts 19:1: ᾽Εγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ τὸν ᾽Απο ῶ εἶναι ἐν Κορίνθῳ Παῦλον διελθόντα τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ µέρη κατελθεῖν εἰς ῎Εφεσον καὶ εὑρεῖν τινας µαθητὰς …. 16 Johnson 1950, pp. 4f.; Breytenbach 1996, pp. 118f.; Aharoni / Avi-Yonah / Rainey / Safrai 42002, p. 184. 17 On this alternative route, see also Ramsay 1893, pp. 90–96, though he considers the southern route more plausible. 18 See p. 123 below. 19 Trebilco 2011, pp. 181–185 suggests instead that Epaphras and other companions of Paul founded the Christian community in Colossae while Paul was staying in Ephesus. Cf. also Breytenbach 2004, pp. 163f. 20 An average speed of 20 miles per day for a traveler on foot: see Kolb 2000, pp. 310f.; see also the ORBIS project (Stanford University) developed by W. Scheidel: http://orbis.stanford .edu/# (5.7 days for the stretch from Laodicea to Ephesus). 21 See the important observations in Trainor 2008. 84 chapter three

Philemon Colossians Timothy 1 1:1 Philemon 1 - Apphia 2 - Archippus 2 4:17 Onesimus 10–18 4:9 Epaphras 23 1:7–8; 4:12–13 Mark 24 4:10 Aristarchus 24 4:10 Demas 24 4:14 Luke 24 4:14 Tychicus - 4:7 Jesus Justus - 4:11 Nympha - 4:15

The rst addressee of the Epistle to Philemon is Philemon,22 who must have enjoyed a certain prosperity,23 since the Christian community (of Colossae) gathered in his house,24 and also because Onesimus, who is central to the entire epistle, was a dependent. The name Philemon was relatively common; there are some two dozen epigraphic occurrences in western Asia Minor alone.25 The name also appears in the Lycus Valley, in a bilingual inscription honoring a certain M. Sestius Philemon, which was set up in Laodicea in the 1st century ce or a bit earlier,26 and also in an inscription from Limyra, where Philemon, the son of a certain Heliodorus (or Diodorus), was a citizen not only of the Lycian city but also of Laodicea on the Lycus.27 Two additional addressees are named alongside Philemon: Apphia and Archippus. Whether they were members of Philemon’s family, possibly his wife and son, is anyone’s guess.28 Apphia’s name is not Greek but has Anato-

22 The list of addressees reads (Phlm 1–2): … Φιλήµονι τῷ ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ ἡµῶν καὶ ᾽Απφίᾳ τῇ ἀδελφῇ καὶ ᾽Αρχίππῳ τῷ συστρατιώτῃ ἡµῶν καὶ τῇ κατ’ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ … 23 Schnelle 82013, p. 175 assumes that Philemon “can be categorized as a middle-class (“Mittelschicht”) craftsman or merchant.” Here the term middle-class (“Mittelschicht”) may suggest misleading associations. 24 Phlm 2: … καὶ τῇ κατ’ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ. 25 LGPN V A, p. 442. For additional instances, including examples from papyri, see Arzt- Grabner 2003, pp. 78–80. Schwab 2011, pp. 170f. argues that the names Philemon (“Obliging”) and Onesimus (“Useful”) should be interpreted allegorically. 26 Corsten 1997, pp. 99–101, no. 48. 27 Petersen / von Luschan 1889, p. 74, no. 157; see Robert 1969, p. 358, n. 5. 28 Schnelle 82013, p. 175 argues that Paul could not speak of the church “in your [singular] house” if he was thinking of the whole family, but it must be remembered that Philemon pauline influence: philemon and colossians 85 lian roots; it appears frequently in inscriptions from Caria, Lydia, and Phry- gia.29 We also know of other persons with this name in the Lycus Valley: in 129/130 (proconsulate of Iuventius Celsus), the children taking part in the traditional pilgrimage procession from Laodicea to Clarus to honor Apollo included a girl named Apphia.30 The epigraphic material from Hierapolis provides several examples. During the Flavian period, Apphia the daughter of Zeuxis initiated a series of dedications.31 In an epitaph from the high imperial period, Apphia the daughter of Glykon appears as owner of a sarcophagus.32 In the Jewish community of the city we nd two individuals named Apphia around the year 200.33 For Colossae the commentaries on Philemon cite a sepulchral inscription from the Cibyratis,34 although strictly speaking the inscription names an Apphias (not an Apphia); the dead woman is explicitly called a Colossian.35 Meanwhile an inscription from the immediate neighborhood of Colossae has gone unremarked: an inscription of a certain Apphia dedicated to the emperor Trajan.36 Generally speaking, the epigraphic evidence indicates that Apphia was also a name for wealthy women.

was certainly the head of the household. Arzt-Grabner 2003, pp. 82f. considers it likely that Apphia was Philemon’s wife but prefers to leave open the question whether Archippus was their son. Wolter 1993, p. 245 and Weima 2010, p. 38 take a similar position. 29 Zgusta 1964, pp. 75f. and Robert 1963, p. 348, who includes ᾽Απφια among the names with indigenous roots but adds that it should actually be treated as hypocoristic name with no ethnic connotations (“d’apparence internationale”). 30 Macridy 1905, p. 167. 31 Ritti 1983, p. 175 with reference to three relevant inscriptions. Cf. also SEG 47 (1997), no. 1730. See also p. 41 above. 32 Judeich 1898, no. 275; see Ritti 2004, p. 589, no. 32 (SEG 54 [2004], no. 1330). Ritti 2004, p. 473 calls attention to another sarcophagus whose owner was also called Apphia. For another example, from the sanctuary of Lairbenos, see pp. 49f. above. 33 Ameling 2004, nos. 191 A and 193. Ameling 2004, p. 411 suggests that the name may derive from Lat. Appia. 34 CIG III, no. 4380k3. Zahn 1906, p. 327; Bauer / Aland / Aland 61988, col. 207; Lohse 21977, p. 267, n. 7; Arzt-Grabner 2003, p. 82 (following Bauer). 35 ῾Ερµᾶς ᾽Α[π]φιάδι, τῇ ἰδίᾳ γυναικί, τῇ Τρύφωνος θυγατρί, γένει Κολοσσηνῇ,[µνήµ]ης ἕνεκα. Cf. Zgusta 1964, p. 77. 36 Clerc 1887, p. 354, no. 12 = IGR IV,no. 868: [Αὐτοκράτ]ορι Νέρουᾳ Τραιανῷ Καίσαρι ᾽Αρίστῳ Σεβαστῷ ᾽Απφία ῾Ηρακλέου τοῦ ∆ιὸς Κο[λοσσηνοῦ ἱέ]ρεια. Trajan was rst called Optimus in 114 (Kienast 21996, p. 123). The addendum saying that Apphia served as a priestess of Zeus is uncertain (including the facsimile provided by Clerc, which presupposes additional letters following -ρεια- at the end). See also p. 44 above (the cult of Zeus in Colossae). The inscription is mentioned in a diferent context by Wolter 1993, p. 35 (and erroneously interpreted as evidence for a cult of Heracles in Colossae). 86 chapter three

Archippus, whom Paul calls his “fellow soldier” (συστρατιῶτης) without implying more than that he is a colleague in the proclamation of the good news,37 bears an ordinary authentically Greek name, which appears relatively often, especially in the coastal regions of Asia Minor.38 Further inland it is less common; to date there is no epigraphic evidence in the Lycus Valley. Obviously this evidence is insu cient to identify Archippus as an immigrant from the west. He surfaces once more at the end of Colossians, this time with a special function: “And say to Archippus: See that you ful ll the o ce [the ‘diaconia’] that you have received in the Lord.”39 It would be wrong to assume that we have here an institutionalization of the community structure and view the “diaconia” given to Archippus as a forerunner of the later ecclesiastical o ce;40 the concern of the epistle’s author, who calls himself a διάκονος of the community chosen by God,41 is to confer on his fellow worker the Pauline task of communicating salvation.42 Whether this task relates to a particular Christian community, for example the group in Laodicea,43 as has been suggested, is unclear. Only later, in the 5th or 6th century, did a legendary tradition grow up around Archippus, making him a central gure of the early church in the Lycus Valley: a disciple of Jesus and martyr, the bishop of Laodicea, or even of Colossae itself.44 The focus of the Epistle to Philemon is the gure of Onesimus, the nature of whose dependency on the addressee needs to be clari ed. All that is clear from the start is that Paul would like to see him released from this dependency.45 Onesimus (literally: “Useful”) may be a typical name for a slave,46 but

37 Cf. Lohse 21977, p. 268. The term cannot be used as evidence that Archippus played an exceptional role in the Colossian church. In the subscriptio of the Epistle to Philemon, some manuscripts call Archippus a “deacon of the church in Colossae”: … πρὸς ῎Αρχιππον τὸν διάκονον τῆς ἐν Κολοσσαῖς ἐκκλησίας, clearly an addition based on Col. 4:17. See the following discussion. 38 LGPN V A. 39 Col. 4:17: καὶ εἴπατε ᾽Αρχίππῳ· βλέπε τὴν διακονίαν ἣν παρέλαβες ἐν κυρίῳ, ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖς. 40 See p. 122 below. 41 Col. 1:25. 42 Cf. Hentschel 2007, pp. 384–390; Frank 2009, pp. 77f. Röhser 2009, pp. 138f. sees the admonition to Archippus as clear evidence of the deutero-Pauline character of Colossians (citing 2Tim 3:14). 43 Pokorn ´y 21990, p. 165. 44 On this tradition, see Halkin 1970, pp. 576–579. Further details below, pp. 331f. 45 Phlm 13 and 16. 46 In Athens see Fragiadakis 1986, pp. 52 and 54; in Rome see the examples in Solin 22003, pp. 986–996 (many slaves and freedmen). Cf. Arzt-Grabner 2003, pp. 86f. and Arzt-Grabner 2010, p. 120. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 87 the 150 and more persons by this name documented in the northern and western coastal regions of Asia Minor include several free-born individuals.47 In some cases, we can even determine that they had a local upper-class background.48 Two imperial-period sarcophagus inscriptions from Hierapo- lis identify the owners as men named Onesimus.49 Onesimus is the only person mentioned in the Epistle to Philemon whose conversion to Chris- tianity is explicitly ascribed to Paul: shortly before he had “been begotten” by the apostle.50 In Colossians Onesimus appears in the company of the sender; he is to be sent to the city along with Tychicus to bring news. He therefore appears to have traveled extensively.51 A whole group of persons associated with Paul is listed at the end of the Epistle to Philemon, where they send greetings to Philemon: Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke. Only one of them clearly came from Colossae: Epaphras, who is characterized in greater detail in two passages in Colossians.52 He appears to have been assigned an extraordinary role in the Christian mission in the Lycus Valley; immediately after the death of Paul, the Christians looked primarily to him.53 The social status of this man is disputed. The name Epaphras was borne by both slaves and freeborn individuals;54 in Rome itself, a clear majority of the people named Epaphras were not free persons.55 The name is theophorous and derives from Aphrodite, although it does not automatically have a religious implication. No cultic tradition has been identi ed in Colossae, but the goddess is depicted on Laodicean coins.56 It is nevertheless su cient to recall the general popularity of the goddess of love throughout the Greek cultural sphere. The name is documented several times in inscriptions from Cibyra, about 70 kilometers to the south.57 From Laodicea in the high imperial period we know of a

47 Cf. LGPN V A. 48 Connolly 1987, p. 180. 49 Judeich 1898, nos. 126 and 174. 50 Philm 10; for further discussion, see p. 109 below. 51 See pp. 103–109 below. 52 Kreitzer 2007, pp. 34–41 assumes that Epaphras was among the evangelists named in Eph 4:11. This hypothesis rests on Kreitzer’s identi cation of the addressee of Ephesians with the Hierapolitan community. Cf. ibid., pp. 9–25. 53 Kiley 1986, p. 95: “a kind of mini-Paul”; Trainor 2008, pp. 94f.; also Trainor 2011, pp. 233f. 54 Trainor 2008, pp. 8f.; also Horsley 1987, pp. 22f. 55 Solin 22003, pp. 349–351. 56 RPC I, nos. 2904 and 2925. The latter is Neronian and hence contemporary with Epa- phras. On coins of the Hellenistic period, see p. 58 above. 57 Corsten 2002, p. 182, no. 175 and p. 249, no. 283. Cf. for example an inscription from Phrygian Nacolea: MAMA V, no. 276. 88 chapter three family active in the Apollo cult of Clarus, in which both the father and one of the sons bore the analogous name Epaphroditos.58 The same name was borne by a celebrated boxer from Tripolis, whose family was among the urban elite around 200.59 If we can believe the entry in the Suda, Epaphrodi- tus was also the name of Epictetus’s master;60 the latter entered the world in Hierapolis around the time when Epaphras was evangelizing in the Lycus Valley. The context of Colossians makes it clear that Epaphras had no Jewish background, for he is distinguished clearly from the associates of the sender who are “of the circumcision” (ἐκ περιτοµῆς).61 Thus one of the most prominent and active gures among the early Christians in the Lycus Valley did not have roots in local Judaism, which exercised considerable inuence. What that means for the emergence and development of the Christian communities in the region is hard to assess. His pagan background may even have enabled Epaphras to enjoy more relaxed converse with Jews than would have been possible for a convert from their own ranks. In the Epistle to Philemon, Paul expresses his close relationship with Epaphras by calling him “my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus.”62 At the end of Colossians, Epaphras appears in the group of people from whom the author sends greetings to Colossae, calling him explicitly “one of you”; in other words, his home is in that city, and his home community is of such concern to him that he prays constantly for their steadfastness.63 Here we catch a glimpse of Paul’s strategy of including representatives of diferent regions and local Christian communities in his inner circle, using them to ensure smooth communication. It is an open question where Epaphras had actually

58 SEG 37 (1987), no. 968 (from Clarus). For further discussion of the inscription, see pp. 139f. below.—In a Laodicean altar dedication to the oath gods, W.H. Buckler and W.M. Calder reconstruct the name [Epaph]ras, MAMA VI, no. 1 = Corsten 1997, no. 64: [᾽Επαφ]ρᾶς ∆εὶ Τ[------]µελει καὶ ῾Ερ[µεῖ]. ὁ θέλων ὁρκ[ίζειν] ἁγνῶς µείνας θύσει σφάγιον ὅρκhιiον. Other reconstructions are possible: [∆ιαγό]ρας,[˙Εὐπο]ρᾶς, etc. ˙ ˙ 59 Tanrıver 2009, pp. 84f. 60 Suidas E 2424: ᾽Επίκτητος, ῾Ιεραπόλεως τῆς Φρυγίας, φιλόσοφος, δοῦλος ᾽Επαφροδίτου, τῶν σωµατοφυλάκων τοῦ βασιλέως Νέρωνος. Clearly Epaphroditos has been confused with the famous freedman of Nero. Cf. PIR 2III E 69 and E 74.—Here we note also the Epaphrodi- tus who undertakes the task of a messenger in the Epistle to the Philippians (Phil 2:25; 4:18). 61 Col. 4:10–12; cf. Kreitzer 2007, p. 32. 62 Phlm 23: ᾽Επαφρᾶς ὁ συναιχµάλωτός µου ἐν Χριστῷ ᾽Ιησοῦ … 63 Col. 4:12: ἀσπάζεται ὑµᾶς ᾽Επαφρᾶς ὁ ἐξ ὑµῶν, δοῦλος Χριστοῦ ᾽Ιησοῦ, πάντοτε ἀγωνιζόµενος ὑπὲρ ὑµῶν ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς, ἵνα σταθῆτε τέλειοι καὶ πεπληροφορηµένοι ἐν παντὶ θελήµατι τοῦ θεοῦ. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 89 encountered Paul and been called to join him. The example of Timothy from Lystra suggests that Paul had been active locally.64 Epaphras functioned as a middleman; he was familiar with the Lycus Val- ley and the problems of the churches there and could inform Paul about the local situation. At the same time, he had become a major local gure and was recognized in the region as an authority on Christian teaching. This is clear from Colossians, where his function in this role is acknowledged in passing: the gospel took root in the community in Colossae after it had learned of the grace of God “as you learned from Epaphras, our beloved fellow servant, who is a faithful minister [‘deacon’!] of Christ for you.”65 Whether this is suf- cient evidence to call Epaphras the founder of the Christian community in Colossae66 is the question. It still remains unexplained who the source of the rst Christian stirrings in the Lycus Valley was and whether or not Paul was actually present there. In any case, Epaphras was “in at the creation,” a man ready to gain adherents in his home city for his newly acquired conviction and enter into close contact with Paul. He is also another example of the mobility of the Chris- tians surrounding Paul. The statement in Colossians that the boundaries of his home polis of Colossae did not play a de ning role for Epaphras in his engagement on behalf of the Christian cause is characteristic: “For I tes- tify for him [Epaphras] that he has worked hard for you and for those in Laodicea and those in Hierapolis.”67 This passage—also the only mention of Hierapolis in the Bible—makes it clear that one and the same authority g- ure felt responsible for the three neighboring poleis of the Lycus Valley. In Laodicea and Hierapolis—as in Colossae—independent “house churches” emerged that nevertheless did not keep themselves strictly separate and distinct. Possibly Epaphras even paved the way for a larger church embracing all three poleis. In the period of Paul and his companions, therefore, the Lycus Valley had the potential for a church organization extending beyond the boundaries de ned by settlement patterns and local politics.68

64 Cf. Acts 16:1–3. 65 Col. 1:7: καθὼς ἐµάθετε ἀπὸ ᾽Επαφρᾶ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ συνδούλου ἡµῶν, ὅς ἐστιν πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ὑµῶν διάκονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 66 As is vigorously argued by Trainor 2008, pp. 63f.; Kreitzer 2007, p. 33, and Trebilco 2011, pp. 181f. take a similar position. 67 Col. 4:13: µαρτυρῶ γὰρ αὐτῷ ὅτι ἔχει πολὺν πόνον ὑπὲρ ὑµῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ καὶ τῶν ἐν ῾Ιεραπόλει. 68 Cf. Harnack 41924, p. 770, n. 1: “Die drei Gemeinden zu Laodicea, Hierapolis und Colos- sae gehören ihrem Ursprunge nach eng zusammen (s. Coloss. 4,13).” 90 chapter three

At the end of the Epistle to Philemon, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke join Epaphras in sending their greetings; this is important, because it was in this way the social network involving the church of Colossae expanded. The individuals named are likewise “fellow workers” (συνεργοί) of Paul, like the addressee Philemon.69 All four appear again in the list of greetings in Colossians, with some additional details: Aristarchus (“of the circumcision”)70 is a “fellow prisoner” (συναιχµάλωτος) of the sender; Mark (likewise “of the circumcision”) is the cousin (or nephew? ἀνεψιός) of Barnabas and also a middleman, who will shortly visit the addressees; and nally Luke is a physician.71 Only about Demas we don’t get further information.72 Aristarchus also appears in Acts as a companion of Paul; he came from Thessalonica.73 Since Irenaeus of Lyon at the latest, attempts have been made to identify Luke the physician with the evangelist.74 Mark was already known personally to the Colossians, or at least from the Pauline correspondence. The Epistle to the Colossians says literally: “Mark greets you, the cousin [nephew?] of Barnabas, concerning whom you have already received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him.”75 Thus Mark’s name appeared at least three times in letters sent by Paul and his companions to the Colossians: in Philemon, in a lost letter in which the Colossians were given instructions regarding him, and nally in Colossians. Many scholars have identi ed the Mark of Philemon and Colossians with the John Mark of Acts,76 who is introduced along with Barnabas as a companion of Paul during his rst missionary journey. Unfortunately there was a falling out with Paul when John Mark left him in Perge, while the relationship between John Mark and Barnabas remained solid.77 Acts says nothing to con rm a kin- ship relationship between the two.78 Despite the widespread use of the name

69 Cf. Phlm 1 and 24. 70 Col. 4:11. 71 Col. 4:10 and 14. 72 The name Demas was common in western Asia Minor; see the 14 examples in LGPN V A. On the name, cf. also Horsely 1981, pp. 88f., no. 51. 73 Acts 20:4. For further discussion, see Lohse 21977, pp. 241f. 74 For further discussion, see Schnelle 82013, pp. 311f. 75 Col. 4:10: ᾽Ασπάζεται ὑµᾶς … Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ (περὶ οὗ ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς, ἐὰν ἔλθῃ πρὸς ὑµᾶς, δέξασθε αὐτόν) … . In this connection, however, Wolter 1993, p. 217 speaks of a “historicizing ction … intended to suggest authenticity.” 76 Cf. Lohse 21977, p. 242; Pokorn ´y 21990, p. 162. 77 Acts 13:13 and 15:37–39. 78 Cf. Frank 2009, p. 68. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 91

Mark (actually a Latin praenomen), which is also documented adequately in the Lycus Valley,79 the explicit reference to Barnabas in Colossians supports identi cation with the John Mark of Acts, whose home was the Hellenistic Jewish milieu of Jerusalem. Apart from Philemon and Apphia, all the individuals named in the Epis- tle to Philemon appear again in the Epistle to the Colossians. The list of persons sending greetings at the end even expands the circle: as already noted, Tychicus is expected to go to Colossae with Onesimus to share news and to bring encouragement.80 Acts mentions a Tychicus from Asia (᾽Ασια- νός) as a companion of Paul during his third missionary journey.81 The geographical context and the language of Acts make it likely that the reference is to the Roman province of Asia or western Asia Minor.82 It is impossible to be more precise. The name does appear in epigraphic material from Hierapolis,83 but since other deutero-Pauline epistles also mention Tychi- cus as a messenger of the sender84—once, in 2Timothy, with Ephesus as his destination—it is not absolutely necessary to look for his roots in the Lycus Valley. Tychicus was one of the most important middlemen among the companions of Paul in the Aegean region;85 like Onesimus, Epaphras, and Mark, he included Colossae in his areas of activity. The description of Tychicus’s assignment in Ephesians is striking, since it agrees with that in Colossians, in part word for word.86 The dependence of Ephesians on Colossians has also been demonstrated by numerous other points of agreement;87 given this clear literary tradition, it is di cult to provide a historical background for the statement in Ephesians. In any case, it appears precarious to appeal also to the Marcionite tradition, which locates the addressee

79 See the index of names in Corsten 1997, p. 223; Cadwallader 2007, pp. 112–118, no. 3. See also p. 28 above. 80 Col. 4:7: Τὰ κατ’ ἐµὲ πάντα γνωρίσει ὑµῖν Τύχικος ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος καὶ σύνδουλος ἐν κυρίῳ, ὃν ἔπεµψα πρὸς ὑµᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡµῶν καὶ παρακα- λέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑµῶν … . Cf. p. 87 above. 81 Acts 20:4. 82 On this general problem in Acts, see Trebilco 1994, pp. 300–302. See also p. 82 above. 83 Judeich 1898, no. 122. It occurs with particular frequency in inscriptions in Rome: cf. Horsley 1982, p. 109, no. 86. 84 Eph 6:21; 2Tim 4:12; Tit 3:12. Cf. Lohse 21977, p. 240. 85 Röhser 2009, p. 143 assumes that Tychicus plays a key role in Colossians as representative of the Pauline tradition. 86 See p. 114 below. 87 For further discussion, see Schnelle 82013, pp. 385f. and Hüneburg 2009, p. 388; also Dunn 1998, pp. 287f. 92 chapter three of Ephesians in Laodicea88 and thus assign Tychicus a very special involvement with the Lycus Valley.89 In the list of greetings in Colossians, after Aristarchus and Mark a third individual “of the circumcision” is named: Jesus, also called Justus.90 He is not mentioned elsewhere in the Pauline tradition, unless we accept Theodor Zahn’s conjecture that the list of persons sending greetings in Philemon must be expanded to include this Jesus.91 It was not rare for Jews to have a double name, of which one element was Jewish.92 We have already mentioned the sepulcher of Hikesios, also called Judas, son of Theon, from Hier- apolis.93

3.1.3. The Network of Churches and the Epistle to the Laodiceans The outstanding role of Epaphras for the Christian communities in the Lycus Valley has already been noted, in particular the fact that his activity extended beyond the limits of individual cities. A comparable “integrative” perspective also characterizes the author of Colossians when he emphasizes that he is struggling on behalf of the Christians in Laodicea as well as those in Colossae94 and when he includes in his list of greetings “the brethren in Laodicea and Nympha and the church in her house.”95 Since Epaphras has just been mentioned, who is engaged on behalf of Colossae and Laodicea as well as Hierapolis, it is natural to ask why the church in Hierapolis was not included in the list of greetings. Possibly the problems of the Christian community in Hierapolis were diferent in nature from those in the neigh-

88 See pp. 93f. below. 89 As suggested by Kreitzer 2007, pp. 10f. Cf. also p. 94 below. 90 Col. 4:11: ᾽Ιησοῦς ὁ λεγόµενος ᾽Ιοῦστος … . On the basis of Colossians, Röhser 2009, pp. 140f. argues that Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus constituted a distinct Jewish Chris- tian group among Paul’s colleagues. The Epistle to Philemon does not con rm this impression. 91 Zahn 31906, p. 321. For further discussion, see Lohse 21977, pp. 242 and 288. Pokorn ´y 21990, pp. 162f. also considers the conjecture likely. Instead of ᾽Ασπάζεταί σε ᾽Επαφρᾶς ὁ συναιχµάλωτός µου ἐν Χριστῷ ᾽Ιησοῦ, Μᾶρκος, ᾽Αρίσταρχος, ∆ηµᾶς, Λουκᾶς, οἱ συνεργοί µου Phlm 23f. would then read ᾽Ασπάζεταί σε ᾽Επαφρᾶς ὁ συναιχµάλωτός µου ἐν Χριστῷ, ᾽Ιησοῦς, Μᾶρκος, ᾽Αρίσταρχος, ∆ηµᾶς, Λουκᾶς, οἱ συνεργοί µου. 92 See the examples collected by Horsley 1981, pp. 92–96 and Ameling 2004, p. 103 with n. 147. 93 Miranda 1999, p. 114, no. 1 = Ameling 2004, pp. 402–404, no. 189. For further details on this inscription, see pp. 75f. above. 94 Col. 2:1: Θέλω γὰρ ὑµᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω ὑπὲρ ὑµῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ …. 95 Col. 4:15: ᾽Ασπάσασθε τοὺς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἀδελφοὺς καὶ Νύµφαν καὶ τὴν κατ’ οἶκον αὐτῆς ἐκκλησίαν. Cf. pp. 95f. below. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 93 boring communities: a separate letter written at the same time and later lost could have responded to the speci c situation in Hierapolis. It is also necessary to take the geographical setting into account, for Hierapolis lay across the Lycus and was at times—for example when the river was at ood—not directly accessible to its neighbors to the south.96 The author of Colossians further emphasizes the close ties between Colossae and Laodicea, adding to his greetings instructions to the Colossians to send the letter on to Laodicea and also to read the letter that had been sent to the church in Laodicea.97 Here we see the rudiments of a postal communication network. The letter- bearer of the Pauline circle served both Colossae and Laodicea, so that the two congregations could exchange letters; Hierapolis, across the Lycus, remained isolated. The letter addressed to Laodicea has not survived,98 although there were attempts as early as the 2nd century to ll out the Pauline epistolary corpus. As the Muratorian Canon shows, Marcion’s Bible included an Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans.99 Tertullian points out that Marcion wanted to identify the Epistle to the Ephesians, whose earliest versions obviously did not name its destination, as a letter of Paul to Laodicea.100 But the author of the Muratorian Canon obviously is describing something diferent from what Tertullian saw, since he also includes the Epistle to the Ephesians in his list of canonical books, in addition to the Marcionite Epistle to the Laodiceans.101

96 On the geography, see pp. 24f. above. 97 Col. 4:16: καὶ ὅταν ἀναγνωσθῇ παρ’ ὑµῖν ἡ ἐπιστολή, ποιήσατε ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωσθῇ, καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑµεῖς ἀναγνῶτε. 98 Boismard 1999, pp. 11–22 nevertheless attempts to reconstruct the Epistle to the Laodi- ceans on the basis of Colossians, assuming that passages from the Epistle to the Laodiceans had crept into the textual tradition of the Epistle to the Colossians. Such attempts at reconstruction are based on hypotheses so problematic as to be methodologically untenable. Lin- demann 1983, pp. 13 and 77 attempts to claim the whole of Colossians for the congregation in Laodicea. 99 Hahnemann 1992, p. 7, lines 63–65: “Fertur etiam ad Laudecenses alia ad alexandrinos Pauli nomine ncte ad heresem marcionis … .” Cf. ibid., pp. 196–200; also Sellin 1998, p. 174; Schneemelcher II 61999, p. 41; Verheyden 2003, pp. 539–541; C. Markschies in Markschies / Schröter 2012, pp. 64 and 120. 100 Tert. Adv. Marc. 5.17: “Ecclesiae quidem veritate Epistolam ad Ephesios habemus emis- sam, non ad Laodicenos; sed Marcion et titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator” (Ä. Kroymann, CSEL 47, 632, 9–12). Cf. 5.11 (CSEL 47, 614, 11–12). In a few important biblical manuscripts, the destination does not appear in Eph. 1:1: Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ ᾽Ιησοῦ διὰ θελήµατος θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν ᾽Εφέσῳ] καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾽Ιησοῦ … . See also Schnelle 82013, p. 382 and pp. 91f. above. 101 Hahnemann 1992, p. 7, line 51. Cf. Scheemelcher II 61999, p. 42; Burnet 2002, pp. 135f. 94 chapter three

Marcion’s opponents naturally branded him a forger. But the question remains whether Marcion might not have been able to draw on an earlier tradition, possibly local claims of Laodicean Christians, who could present the letter addressed to them in its full wording. Nevertheless the text of the—deutero-Pauline—Epistle to the Ephesians contains no speci c local references that might permit an unambiguous assignment;102 it is therefore not legitimate to try to use it as a source for early Christianity in the Lycus Valley, even though scholars have occasionally interpreted it as an epistle to the church of Laodicea.103 Its dependence on Colossians, however, and its conception of a church comprising both Gentile and Jewish Christians104 may still suggest placing Ephesians in the context of Asia Minor.105 The Epistle to the Laodiceans that appears in Latin biblical manuscripts and goes back to the period between the 2nd and 4th centuries makes no reference to geography and has no Sitz im Leben in the life of the Christians in Asia Minor. It is an arti cial construct put together from a series of clichés, mostly from Philippians, intended to provide a face for the Epistle to the Laodiceans presupposed in Colossians.106 That this was the intent behind the creation of the Latin Epistle to the Laodiceans is shown by the injunction that concludes it: “And see that the Epistle to the Colossians is read among you.”107 The reference to the analogous injunction in the Epistle to the Colos- sians is obvious.108 Despite the explicit address to the “brethren who are in Laodicea,” this text, too, is worthless for a “history of early Christianity in the Lycus Valley.” Most likely the Laodiceans themselves took hardly any notice of the text addressed to them.109 Whether the Epistle to the Laodiceans preserved in Latin has any connection with the Epistle to the Laodiceans mentioned in the Muratorian Canon along with an Epistle to the Alexandrians, declared a forgery of Marcionite provenance,110 is uncertain.111

102 Cf. Sellin 2009, pp. 166f., who would nevertheless associate Ephesians with the Lycus Valley (p. 163). 103 Cf. Röhser 2009, pp. 135f. 104 Eph 2:11–22. 105 Cf. Schnelle 82013, pp. 382f.; also Trebilco 2004a, p. 91. 106 Pink 1925, pp. 179–192 (with edition). Cf. Schneemelcher II 61999, pp. 42–44. 107 Pink 1925, p. 190 (20): “Et facite legi Colosensium vobis.” 108 Col. 4:16. 109 Pace Burnet 2002, p. 140, who argues that the epistle placed the church of Laodicea within a Pauline tradition and that the Laodiceans therefore (in competition with the Colos- sians) identi ed themselves with the text. 110 Cf. Hahnemann 1992, pp. 196f. See the discussion on p. 93 above. 111 Harnack 21924, pp. 134*–149* considers the Latin Epistle to the Laodiceans Marcionite. For the contrary view, see for example Schmid 1995, p. 286. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 95

3.1.4. Nympha of Laodicea The injunction to the Colossians to exchange letters with the Laodiceans is preceded by a greeting to them, speci cally to Nympha and the congregation in her house. This individual brings up a delicate text-critical problem of the Epistle to the Colossians, since it is not certain from the outset whether this person was female or possibly male. The vast majority of manuscripts present the following text: ᾽Ασπάσασθε τοὺς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἀδελφοὺς καὶ Νυµ- φᾶν καὶ τὴν κατ’ οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησίαν.112 Of course accents are not present in many early manuscripts.113 Nymphas was a man; the personal pronoun αὐτοῦ admits no doubt. Several manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus, leave the gender ambiguous: ᾽Ασπάσασθε τοὺς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἀδελφοὺς καὶ Νυµφαν καὶ τὴν κατ’ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαν. The personal pronoun refers collectively to the ἀδελφοί and the individual (masculine Nymphas or feminine Nympha). Only a very few textual witnesses—though these include the 4th-century Codex Vaticanus (B) from the Vatican Library—indicate a woman named Nympha: ᾽Ασπάσασθε τοὺς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἀδελφοὺς καὶ Νύµφαν καὶ τὴν κατ’ οἶ- κον αὐτῆς ἐκκλησίαν.114 Neither the masculine nor the feminine form of the name (which derives from the term for the water goddesses) is especially common; there are no examples from the Lycus Valley.115 There is undoubtedly much to suggest that in the original version of Colossians a woman named Nympha functioned as head of the house church in Laodicea and that later many in the Christian social order dominated by men took increasingly ofense at her prominence, so that her name was transformed into a masculine name through minor alterations in the text.116 Thus Nympha played a role in Laodicea like that played by Philemon

112 Col. 4:15. 113 See Schubart 1966, p. 172. Accents are not present in Codex Sinaiticus, for example. 114 The facts are twisted by Frank 2009, p. 75, n. 128: “Angesichts der besseren Bezeugung des nachfolgenden Possesivpronomens als femininum (αὐτῆς) ist die weibliche Zuschrei- bung (Nympha) mittlerweile unbestritten, wenngleich einige Textzeugen hier eine masku- line Possesivzuweisung vornehmen (αὐτοῦ) und damit eine männliche Referenz vorliegen sehen (Nymphas); …”—In the Latin text, neither the ending of the proper name provides evidence for gender (cf. Latin “poeta”), nor the possessive pronoun: “Salutate fratres, qui sunt Laodiciae, et Nympham et, quae in domo eius est, ecclesiam.” 115 Parker 2000, p. 78 points out that theophorous names derived from the nymphs are basically relatively rare. A man named Nymphas appears in Cibyra: Corsten 2002, p. 256, no. 293. 116 Lohse 21977, p. 245; Pokorn ´y 21990, pp. 164f. Zahn 31906, p. 324 still thought otherwise. Pokorn ´y,p. 165, n. 39 cites earlier literature showing that the feminine name Nympha had been more common. The form is important: Nymphe (Νύµφη) in fact appears more often than Nymphas (Νυµφᾶς), but not Nympha (Νύµφα). Cf. LGPN. 96 chapter three in Colossae at the same time or a bit earlier.117 Neither Philemon nor Nympha exercised clerical or apostolic functions in their respective churches. As owner of the central assembly place, however, Nympha did serve as one of the prominent pillars of her community. Clearly she came from a relatively wealthy family and was among the women—by no means rare in Asia Minor—who had more or less extensive assets at their disposal more or less independently.118 She was comparable to the women in Hierapolis named as owners of sarcophagi in their epitaphs,119 quite a few of whom belonged to Jewish families.120 One of the sarcophagi and its associated burial plot belonged, for example, to Aurelia Augusta, daughter of Zotikos; besides herself, only her husband and children were allowed to be buried there.121 Partic- ularly in Asia Minor, it was also possible for women in Jewish communities to rise to leadership positions in the synagogue.122 Among the early Chris- tians, Nympha was by no means unique in placing her personal property at the disposal of the church;123 other women also opened their doors to their Christian brothers and sisters, for example Lydia, a wealthy dealer in purple cloth from Thyatira, who had bought a house in Philippi where she hosted Paul and Silas.124

But Nympha, who may have been scarcely recognized as a self-con dent property owner outside the Christian community, was totally overshadowed by three much more prominent women (possibly sisters) who enjoyed enormous respect in Laodicea during the 1st century. All three—Julia Zenonis, Claudia Zenonis, and Antonia Zenonis—used their family’s potential and prestige to leave their mark on the city and the province; among their ancestors they counted the Laodicean Polemon I (son of Zenon), who had reigned as king in Pontus under Augustus and had fathered additional client dynasts.125 Two of these women, Julia Zenonis

117 Dassmann 1994 (1984), pp. 77–79. 118 On the mechanisms, see van Bremen 1996, pp. 205–296. 119 Ritti 2004, p. 486 counts some 30 examples in Hierapolis; cf. for example Judeich 1898, nos. 56, 64, and 87. Cf. also Domitia Tata from Laodicea, identi ed epigraphically as owner of a tomb: Corsten 1997, no. 84; cf. van Bremen 1996, p. 270. 120 Miranda 1999, pp. 125f., no. 16 = Ameling 2004, pp. 432–435, no. 205; Miranda 1999, pp. 118f., no. 5 = Ameling 2004, pp. 436f., no. 206; Miranda 1999, pp. 117f., no. 4 = Ameling 2004, pp. 437f., no. 207. None of these inscriptions, however, dates from the early imperial period; they were not contemporaries of Nympha. 121 Miranda 1999, pp. 125f., no. 16 = Ameling 2004, pp. 432–435, no. 205. For details of this inscription, see pp. 76f. above. 122 Trebilco 1991, pp. 104–113. 123 See the biblical references assembled by Llewelyn 2002, p. 50; also Dunn 2009, pp. 634f. 124 Acts 16:14f. and 16:40. 125 See pp. 40f. above; Sullivan 1979, pp. 203f. and 207–209. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 97 and Claudia Zenonis, issued city coins, one under Nero, including a coin honoring Poppaea (62),126 the other under Titus (79–81).127 We may assume that their husbands served as mint o cials at the time.128 As ᾽Αρχιέρεια τῆς ᾽Ασίας, Anto- nia Zenonis—probably alongside her father—held the o ce of priestess of the province’s emperor cult and also held priestly o ce on the city level.129 These three women show how high women could rise in Laodicea if their family background was suitable.130

3.1.5. First Summary: Social Networks and Paul’s Authority In Philemon and Colossians, we see traces of a social network that substantially inuenced or even guided the emergence of the Christian churches in the Lycus Valley.131 Two groups were involved: the authorities associated with Paul, who inuenced what was happening from a distance, and the rudi- mentarily structured local Christian communities, which gathered around the houses of particularly auent members. A few gures appear prominently as middlemen between the two groups, which were already linked by friendship, personal contact, and correspondence; these individuals either transferred the authority of the Pauline group to the Lycus Valley or vice versa informed the Pauline group about what was happening in the Lycus Valley.The authority gradient between the Pauline group and the addressees is reected in the tone Paul adopts toward Philemon: in fact he, Paul, had “the freedom in Christ” to “command” Philemon to act appropriately;132 he does not do so because action that springs from love cannot be commanded. Only here does the verb ἐπιτάσσειν occur in the Pauline corpus; it underlines the exposed position from which Paul intervenes with directives in the afairs of the local communities. Paul has his authority rooted in Christ, speaking of a παρρησία “in Christ.”133

126 RPC I, nos. 2924f. 127 RPC II, nos. 1273, 1275, 1277, 1279f. See p. 160 below. 128 Cf. RPC II, pp. 193f. 129 Corsten 1997, no. 53; Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, no. 52; see Thonemann 2004, pp. 145f.; Miranda 2005, p. 384; Kearsley 2011, pp. 145f. On the provincial priestesses of the emperor, see Herz 1992, pp. 100–112. 130 On this general topic, see Nollé 1994. 131 Trainor 2008 attempts to decipher this network in models. 132 Phlm 8: ∆ιὸ πο ὴν ἐν Χριστῷ παρρησίαν ἔχων ἐπιτάσσειν σοι τὸ ἀνῆκον … 133 Cf. Wolter 1993, p. 259; Arzt-Grabner 2003, pp. 199–201; Reinmuth 2006, pp. 32–34. 98 chapter three

3.2. The Epistle to Philemon

De ning the historical relationship of the Epistle to Philemon and the Epis- tle to the Colossians raises a host of substantial problem, involving external factors like chronology and the identity of the correspondents as well as the content and purpose of the texts. Since Colossians is a secondary document, most likely not written by Paul, it is reasonable to concentrate initially on the Epistle to Philemon.

3.2.1. Date In ve passages in the epistle, Paul indicates that he has been deprived of his freedom. In the opening salutation, he already calls himself a “prisoner of Christ”; he repeats this title shortly afterwards and in the body of the letter says that he “begot Onesimus during imprisonment,” who should thenceforth be of service to him “in the bonds of the gospel.” At the end of the epistle, nally, he characterizes Epaphras as his “fellow prisoner.”134 The attempt of Richard Reitzenstein to ground this expression in the thought of the mystery religions and understand it guratively135 has not been accepted by scholars.136 In this context, however, we need to note the analogous formulations in the deutero-Pauline Epistle to the Ephesians, where they would likewise have to suggest a real prison and a real location.137 In 2Corinthians (probably written at the end of 55),138 Paul states that he has been imprisoned more often than his competitors.139 Up to this point, only a single substantial period of imprisonment has been identi ed, namely in Ephesus, probably sometime between 53 and 55.140 Acts contains evidence for the apostle’s later imprisonments, in Caesarea (c. 56–58) and

134 Phlm 1 (Παῦλος δέσµιος Χριστοῦ ᾽Ιησοῦ), cf. Phlm 9; Phlm 10 (… ὃν ἐγέννησα ἐν τοῖς δεσµοῖς); Phlm 13 (ἐν τοῖς δεσµοῖς τοῦ εὐα ελίου); Phlm 23 (᾽Επαφρᾶς ὁ συναιχµάλωτός µου). Weima 2010, pp. 32–34 sees a rhetorical strategy intended to emphasize Paul’s authority behind the repeated references to imprisonment. 135 Reitzenstein 31927, pp. 213–215. 136 Cf. Lohse 21927, p. 266 with n. 3; Arzt-Grabner 2003, p. 71, n. 53. 137 Eph 3:1 (Παῦλος ὁ δέσµιος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾽Ιησοῦ); 4:1 (ὁ δέσµιος ἐν κυρίῳ). Another question that needs to be examined is how to understand the quotation from Paul by Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem in the reign of Caracalla (Eus. Hist. eccl. 7.11.5). 138 Schnelle 82013, p. 97. 139 2Cor 11:23: … ἐν φυλακαῖς περισσοτέρως …; cf. also 2Cor 6:5. 140 1Cor 15:32. Cf. Wolter 1993, pp. 237f.; Reinmuth 2006, pp. 17f. The most recent detailed study is that of Omerzu 2009. On a brief imprisonment in Philippi, see Acts 16:23–26. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 99

nally in Rome (c. 58–60).141 The majority of scholars lean toward Ephesus as the place where the epistle was written, since the mobility of Onesimus as a slave was limited; only the road between Colossae and Ephesus could be traversed without major problems.142 Nevertheless the other possibilities should also be considered. In the rst place, it is by no means certain that Onesimus was in fact a slave;143 furthermore resourceful slaves clearly had possibilities for pro ting from the privileges of the rich:144 in particular slaves to whom their masters assigned responsible activities145 had this opportunity; among them were individuals whose range of duties includes extensive travels, for example as messengers (often over great distances) and ships’ captains.146 In addition, from Cicero’s correspondence we know of a case where a fugitive slave claimed to be a freedman,147 which undoubtedly bene ted his freedom of movement. Paul’s statement that he was writing the letter as “an old man”148 may also help date the epistle; in antiquity this expression would commonly have meant someone at least 60 years old.149 We can only speculate about the year of Paul’s birth,150 and Paul’s various imprisonments are separated by only a few years; but this admission of his own age is unique: only here (or only now) does he really feel old. That would be an argument supporting a late date and hence imprisonment in Rome.151 Since Colossians continues the prison scenario of Philemon, this is a strong argument for bringing the

141 Acts 23:35; 24:23; 28:16; 28:30; cf. Lohse 1996, p. 57 (chronology) and pp. 261–266. 142 Arzt-Grabner 2003, S. 72f.; Reinmuth 2006, p. 18; Omerzu 2009, pp. 306f.; also Deiss- mann 1911, p. 12; Lohse 21977, p. 264; Wolter 1993, p. 238; Lohse 1996, p. 180. 143 See pp. 103–107 below. 144 Publilius Syrus (1st cent. bce), himself a former slave, put this in a nutshell in one of his maxims (596): “A savvy slave can share in dominance” (Qui docte servit partem dominatus tenet). 145 Nordling 2010, pp. 95–97 conjectures that Onesimus had been assigned managerial functions, citing several parallels in the gospels. 146 Examples of messengers include Acastus, in service to Cicero (Cic. Fam. 14.5.1: in Athens Acastus brings Cicero letters from Italy); for slaves serving as ships’ captains, see Gaius Inst. 4.71. On the general topic of slaves with responsible duties ( nancial transactions and business), see Schumacher 2001, pp. 163–180. 147 Cic. Fam. 13.77.3. 148 Phlm 9: πρεσβύτης. 149 For further discussion, see Brandt 2002, pp. 12f. The skepticism expressed by Omerzu 2009, p. 307 emphasizes how vague the term is. Schwab 2011, pp. 182–184 points out that πρεσβύτης can also be understood in the sense of “envoy.” 150 Schnelle 82013, p. 32, n. 1 suggests somewhere around 5ce. 151 Schnelle 82013, pp. 174. Wolter 1993, pp. 260f. rightly emphasizes, however, that Paul’s purpose is to accentuate his authority, which derives from his age. 100 chapter three two epistles as close together as possible chronologically.152 All the same, the conclusion of the Epistle to Philemon shows that Paul has not yet given up hope of release: he enjoins Philemon to prepare a guest room for him, since the prayers of the Colossians may enable a reunion.153 How can this encouraging appeal to his fellow believer in Colossae be reconciled with the scenario of an imperial remand in custody in the in nitely distant capital city? Neither individually nor collectively do the pieces of evidence cited permit an exact dating of the epistle. Nevertheless we can certainly assign it roughly to the 50s—possibly before the mid-50s, possibly afterwards. If we prefer to believe that it was written in Rome, the early 60s also are possible. It also remains an open question whether the epistle was written before or after the earthquake that seriously afected the Lycus Valley during that period. The earliest evidence of that catastrophe is provided by Tacitus, who casually mentions the destruction of Laodicea in 60ce: “In this year, Laodicea, one of the illustrious cities of Asia, was destroyed by an earthquake and rebuilt itself through its own resources, without help on our part.”154 For this statement, Tacitus, who composed his Annales more than two generations later, was able to draw on contemporary material: either one of the historical works of the Neronian period (Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus, Pliny the Elder) or—more likely—reports of events of public interest (acta diurna) archived in Rome as well as acts of the Senate.155 Nevertheless the records of Christian chronography raise doubts regarding the exact date Tacitus gives, even though almost all scholars identify 60ce as the year when catastrophe befell the Lycus Valley.156 The earliest traces of that chronography, which may go back to Julius Africanus, are found in the tradition of the chronicle of Eusebius, the Greek original of which has been lost, as is well known.157 In the Armenian translation, the year 63ce is associated with an entry stating that in that year an earthquake

152 Röhser 2009, p. 148; also Dunn 2009, p. 1031. 153 Phlm 22: ἅµα δὲ καὶ ἑτοίµαζέ µοι ξενίαν· ἐλπίζω γὰρ ὅτι διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν ὑµῶν χαρισθή- σοµαι ὑµῖν. 154 Tac. Ann. 14.27.1: “Eodem anno ex inlustribus Asiae urbibus Laodicea tremore terrae prolapsa, nullo a nobis remedio propriis opibus revaluit.” Cf. Waldherr 1997, p. 169; Traina 2002, p. 756. On the dating in the year 60, cf. Tac. Ann. 14.20.1. 155 On the sources used by Tacitus for the Neronian period, see Syme 1958, pp. 289–303. 156 E.g. Corsten 1997, p. 79; Altunel 2000, pp. 302 and 311; D’Andria 2003, p. 10; Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 36. 157 On the dependence of the chronography of Eusebius on that of Julius Africanus, see Wallraf / Roberto 2007, pp. XXXI–XXXIV. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 101 destroyed the three cities of Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae.158 Jerome’s Latin translation, however, dates the earthquake in 64ce, thus synchroniz- ing it with the catastrophic re that consumed Rome in the same year.159 This synchrony is also reected in the textual context of Syncellus (early 9th cent.).160 Orosius clearly drew from the same tradition albeit without concern for chronological sequence, since his primary interest was describing the disaster that Nero’s reign had brought on Rome and the Empire: the emperor, he argued, turned the burning of Rom into a spectacle; a large number of the senators and even his own kinsmen fell victim to him. He initiated a persecution of the Christians, and Rome sufered from a deadly plague. In Britain and the East, the Roman army had to accept catastrophic defeats.161 Thus Orosius waits until 65ce (the conspiracy of Piso, plague) to mention the earthquake in the Lycus Valley: “In Asia three cities—Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae—were destroyed by an earthquake.”162 This tradition, which builds on the Chronicle of Eusebius, quite certainly does not go back to Tacitus, as is shown by its inclusion of Hierapolis and Colossae, not mentioned in the Annales. Chronological study of the earthquake is further complicated by an additional entry in Syncellus. The date appearing here (am 5550 = 50 years after the Incarnation) certainly cannot be tied directly to the entry on the earthquake, but its assignment to the reign of Claudius (died 54) is clear: “At that time Laodicea and Hierapolis in Asia as well as other cities and Antioch were destroyed by earthquakes.”163 Antioch probably refers to the city on the Orontes, and the Chronographia of John Malalas does in fact indicate (albeit not speci cally) that under Claudius the city had been struck by earthquakes.164 It is di cult to untangle this network of sources, since the late chronographies in particular, though not notoriously unreliable, have repeatedly been distorted by errors. All that can be considered certain is that around 60ce the Lycus Valley was struck

158 Eus. Chron. (GCS 20, 215 Karst); the German translation in Karst’s edition reads: “Durch Erdbeben gingen 3 Städte zugrunde: Laodikia und Jerapolis und Kolusse.” 159 Hier. Chron. (GCS 47, 183, 21–22 Helm): “In Asia tres urbes terrae motu conciderunt, Laodicia Hierapolis Colossae.” 160 Syncellus 410 (Mosshammer): ᾽Εµπρησµοὶ γεγόνασι πο οὶ ἐν ῾Ρώµῃ, πόλεις τε τῆς ᾽Ασίας κατέπεσον τρεῖς Λαοδίκεια ῾Ιεράπολις καὶ Κολοσσαί. 161 Oros. Hist. 7.7.4–12. 162 Oros. Hist. 7.7.12: “In Asia tres urbes, hoc est Laudicia Hierapolis Colossae, terrae motu conciderunt.” 163 Syncellus 407 (Mosshammer): Τότε καὶ Λαοδίκεια καὶ ῾Ιεράπολις τῆς ᾽Ασίας καὶ ἄ αι πόλεις, ᾽Αντιόχειά τε κατεσείσθησαν. Mentioned by Ritti 1985, pp. 23 and 27; Levick 1990, p. 178. 164 Malalas 10.27 (CFHB 35, 188, 54 Thurn). 102 chapter three by an earthquake, which inicted great destruction. It is neither probable nor impossible that Tacitus assigned the quake to the wrong year;165 the possibility that two earthquakes might have shaken the Lycus Valley a few years apart must also be taken into account.

The archaeological evidence in Laodicea and Hierapolis con rms the catastrophe, since extensive building projects can be identi ed in both cities during the second half of the 1st century, but this provides only a very rough date. It is noteworthy, though, that the work extended over many years. Imposing buildings were not completed until the reigns of Titus and Domitian.166 Whether that is su cient evidence to prefer a later dating of the catastrophic earthquake is dubious, however. The coinage in Laodicea suggests that it was already being rebuilt under Nero: his portrait on the obverse of coins is identi ed not only by his name but also by the epiclesis ΘΕΟΣ; on the reverse, we nd Zeus in his garb typical of the city (a long robe) and also the name of the notable responsible for their issue: ΙΟΥΛΙΟΣ ΑΝ∆ΡΟΝΙΚΟΣ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΗΣ ΛΑΟ∆ΙΚΕIΩΝ. There is good reason to suppose that Julius Andronikos was expressly honored as “benefactor” (εὐεργέτης) of his fellow citizens because he provided the city with nancial resources after the seismic catastrophe.167 Colossae did not begin issuing coins again until the reign of Hadrian,168 but since the various issues of the cities’ coinage came at totally irregular intervals and were also sometimes interrupted by breaks of many years,169 it would be wrong to jump to quick conclusions. In any case, during the decades before the quake the city did not produce any coins. It is unclear how long it took Colossae to recover after the catastrophe. Possibly a recently published inscription that speaks of repairs to public baths dates from the recovery period.170 Anyway, it is impossible to say how the functioning of the Christian churches was afected by the earthquake.

Given the uncertainties that permit a precise dating of neither the Epistle to Philemon nor the earthquake, there can be no question of contextualiza-

165 On chronological “mistakes” in Tacitus, see Syme 1958, pp. 390–392. 166 For the stadion ampitheatron in Laodicea, see Corsten 1997, no. 15; for the “Syrian Gate,” see no. 24. For the Temple of Domitian, see RPC II, nos. 1281–1287. For the northern gate in Hierapolis, see De Bernardi Ferrero 2002, pp. 2–10 (on the architecture); Ritti 2006, pp. 73–77, no. 10 (on the epigraphic evidence). See also pp. 159f. below. 167 RPC I, no. 2923 (cf. also 2920–2922), interpreted on p. 476. Coins ascribed to Andronicus are also found in Laodicea in the early 70s: RPC II, nos. 1269f.; see Weiser 1992, p. 122. 168 Cf. von Aulock 1987, pp. 83 and 89; also RPC I Suppl., no. 2891 (no coinage between the Hellenistic period and Hadrian). On a Homonoia issue from Colossae with Aphrodisias from the period around 180, see MacDonald 1983. 169 Butcher 1988, p. 18. 170 A.H. Cadwallader in Llewelyn / Harrison 2012, pp. 110–113 (on the basis of the rst edition in Antichthon 46 [2012], non vidi). See also p. 115 below. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 103 tion. The same holds true for Colossians, although it must undoubtedly be dated after Philemon.171 The need of groups in a seismic region for special attention goes without saying. In any case, Paul clearly honors the deeply rooted and unwavering faith of Philemon: reference to a catastrophic situation is conceivable, but the polite formulas could also represent a captatio benevolentiae.172

3.2.2. The Social Status of Onesimus Despite great eforts, scholars have so far been unable to clarify the status of Onesimus and hence the actual agenda of the Epistle to Philemon.173 The traditional view that Onesimus was a fugitive slave174 has encountered doubts because the text never explicitly calls him one. Since Paul speaks of his “dear brother” in describing his close relationship both to Onesimus and to Philemon, a relationship manifested equally “in the esh and in the Lord,”175 it has recently been suggested that Onesimus be considered as Philemon’s biological brother.176 Such uncertainties make it desirable to extract the prosopographic core from the text of the epistle. The following features can be associated with the person of Onesimus: 1. Onesimus is staying with Paul, who very recently converted him to Christianity.177 2. Philemon has a claim to Onesimus’s service.178 3. It is possible that Onesimus has wronged Philemon.179 The terms Paul uses to describe Onesimus suggest slave status without making it explicit. Paul is clearest when he enjoins Philemon not to treat One- simus as a slave any longer: “For perhaps this is the reason he [Onesimus] was separated [from you] for a while, so that you might have him back

171 For proposed contextualizations, see Kreitzer 2007, pp. 93–106, with references to earlier literature. See also pp. 113f. below. 172 Phlm 5–7. On the politeness formulas, see also Wessels 2010, pp. 160f. 173 For a literature review for the past 30 years, see Tolmie 2010, pp. 2–6. Cf. also Bauer 2011, pp. 112–117. 174 A widespread belief; see e.g. Dunn 1998, pp. 286f.; Harrill 2006, pp. 6–16; see also p. 104 below. 175 Phlm 16. Cf. p. 104 below. 176 Callahan 1993, pp. 372–376. 177 Phlm 10f. and 13. 178 Phlm 11f. and 15f. 179 Phlm 18f.; cf. Nordling 2010, pp. 90f. and 98–104. 104 chapter three forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother— especially to me but how much more to you, both in the esh and in the Lord.”180 The term δοῦλος does unambiguously mean “slave,”181 but the context allows a little interpretive freedom, for Onesimus is not actually declared to be a δοῦλος but has been treated as (ὡς) one, and that can be said of a person of any status.182 As a rule, interpreters of the Epistle to Philemon reconstruct the situation as meaning that Onesimus, a slave, has run away from his master Philemon to seek protection with Paul and request a letter of recommendation.183 In the discussion that follows, a divergent interpretation will be considered, namely that Onesimus was a former slave who had been freed by Philemon. Several arguments support this theory: 1. The freedom of movement of a freedman was undoubtedly greater than that of a slave: Onesimus had already traveled a considerable distance (whether to Ephesus or to Rome); he also had had to gain admittance to a prison if he was to meet with Paul at all. 2. A freedman was required to continue to perform certain speci c tasks for his former master. The result was a more or less sharply de ned dependence. Not rarely Greek inscriptions documenting manumission—of which there are especially many in Delphi—contained a paramoné clause specifying that the freedman had to continue to stay with his former master and carry out his wishes.184 The Roman concept of manumission (which comes into play only to a limited extent in the communication between Paul and Philemon) provided for both legal

180 Phlm 15f.: Τάχα γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο ἐχωρίσθη πρὸς ὥραν, ἵνα αἰώνιον αὐτὸν ἀπέχῃς, οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον ἀ ’ ὑπὲρ δοῦλον, ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν, µάλιστα ἐµοί, πόσῳ δὲ µᾶ ον σοὶ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ἐν κυρίῳ. 181 Arzt-Grabner 2010, p. 120: “According to Phlm 16, Onesimus was the slave (δοῦλος) of Philemon.” 182 Callahan 1993, p. 362 makes the same observation (“… a virtual, not an actual, state of afairs”).—The opposite state of afairs with an analogous formulation occurs in Papyrus Lille 29 (3rd cent. bce), which deals with an action at law brought against a slave as though he were a freeman: ᾽Εὰν δέ τις περὶ ἀδικήµατος ἑ[τέ]ρο[υ] οἰκέτηι ὄντι δίκην γραψάµενος ὡς ἐλευθέρωι … Heinen 1977, p. 127 points out that the issue here probably involves the limited capacity of a slave to stand trial. 183 See the survey in Schnelle 82013, pp. 173–181. Barclay 1991, pp. 163–170 provides a parade example. From the perspective of ancient history, see for example Günther 1998, pp. 60f.; Herrmann-Otto 2009, p. 210. Cf. also Guyot / Klein 1994, pp. 310–312. 184 For a fundamental treatment, see Rädle 1969, pp. 134–152. Cf. Klafenbch 21966, pp. 89f.; for further details, see Gibson 1999, pp. 40–43; Weiler 2003, pp. 180–189, Herrmann-Otto 2009, pp. 100f. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 105

dependence (e.g. in the context of succession) and obligations of the former slaves, in part contractual, in part moral.185 3. Scholars have repeatedly seen parallels between the Epistle to Phile- mon and a letter of Pliny to Sabinianus,186 one of the high-ranking senator’s circle of friends,187 about whom nothing else is known.188 A slave freed by Sabinianus, who had committed an ofense and thus aroused the anger of his master, took refuge with Pliny and asked him to intercede. Pliny gave him a hearing and composed a letter (the surviving document) to Sabinianus in which he appealed to the latter’s compassion.189 The analogy would of course be closer if the social status of Onesimus paralleled that of the anonymous libertus in Pliny’s letter. In any case, Pliny’s letter illustrates how intensively the dependence of a freedman could be shaped: the potential for conict was great. And Pliny’s appeal did bear fruit: in a later letter he expresses his joy that Sabinianus did welcome his freedman back.190 4. The manumission of slaves was institutionalized at the sanctuary of Lairbenos some 40 kilometers north of Hierapolis. As inscriptions there show, beginning in the 2nd century,191 at the sanctuary it was possible to place slaves in the service of the god and thus release them from their earlier dependence.192 Given the conventions of Greek manumission, we must assume that the released were still at the

185 See Alföldy 31984, p. 120; Herrmann-Otto 2009, p. 201; relevant legal texts in Eck / Heinrichs 1993, pp. 193–196. 186 Good examples: Wolter 1993, pp. 230f.; Barclay 1997, pp. 104f. 187 Whether Sabinianus himself was a senator is uncertain; cf. Birley 2000, p. 86. 188 Plin. Epist. 9.21. 189 In this letter, Pliny generates a highly emotional atmosphere, as signaled by its very opening (9.21.1): “C. Plinius greets his Sabinianus. Your freedman with whom you are angry, as you said, came to me, threw himself at my feet as though at your, and lay there. He shed many tears, begged at length but also kept silent at length. All in all, he convinced me of his remorse. I truly believe that he is thoroughly reformed, because he is aware that he transgressed.”—“C. Plinius Sabiniano suo s. Libertus tuus, cui suscensere te dixeras, venit ad me advolutusque pedibus meis tamquam tuis haesit. Flevit multum, multum rogavit, multum etiam tacuit, in summa fecit mihi dem paenitentiae. Vere credo emendatum, quia deliquisse se sentit.” 190 Plin. Epist. 9.24. 191 On their dating, see Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, pp. 45–48. 192 Although the vast majority of the καταγραφή inscriptions refer to so-called θρεπτοί, who have sometimes been identi ed as slaves but whose legal status is ultimately unresolved, nevertheless at least four of the inscriptions have to do with slaves: Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, pp. 57–62; cf. now also Akıncı Öztürk / Tanrıver 2008, pp. 101f., nos. 13f. See pp. 50 above and 107f. below. 106 chapter three

disposition of their former masters in a relationship of παραµονή.193 This is not to suggest that the sanctuary of Lairbenos was an appropriate authority for the Christian Philemon, but the concepts and legal principles associated with manumission at the sanctuary clearly were current in the region.194—Possibly the Jews had a comparable model of manumission, taking those who had been freed into the service of their communities. In any case, 1st- and 2nd-century Jewish manumission inscriptions from the Bosporan Kingdom show that the freedom of movement enjoyed by emancipated slaves was limited only by their obligations to the house of prayer (προσευχή).195 5. Scholars have encountered problems trying to assign Onesimus’s behavior as a fugitive to a legal category. A servus fugitivus could not be expected to enter the house of his master again, the central argument runs, especially since the ofender had to fear draconian punishment.196 The category of the erro, “vagrant,” ts Onesimus better—an individual willing from the outset to return to his master.197 However one decides to categorize Onesimus here, uncertainties remain,198 not least because it is quite unclear to what extent the categories of the Roman jurists might be relevant to the dialogue between Paul and Philemon.199 There are thus signi cant arguments in favor of the theory that Onesimus should be categorized as a freedman rather than slave. For this reason, too, we must be careful not to derive fundamental views on the institution of

193 Cf. Hülsen 2007/2008, pp. 51–57. Nevertheless παραµονή is mentioned in only one of the Lairbenos inscriptions: Ricl 1995, p. 173, no. 9 (cf. p. 192); Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, p. 23 K9 (with doubts expressed on p. 60 regarding the slave status of the individual dedicated to the sanctuary). See also p. 104 above. 194 See Ricl 1995, pp. 192–195. 195 These obligations coalesce in the terms θωπεία and προσκαρτέρησις, which are di cult to interpret; cf. Gibson 1999, pp. 124–150. 196 Bellen 1971, p. 78; Lampe 1985, pp. 135f.; Rapske 1991, pp. 189–191. 197 Cf. Arzt-Grabner 2003, pp. 101–108; Arzt-Grabner 2010, pp. 133–135. For a diferent view, see Nordling 2010, passim. On the diference between fugitivus and erro, see Ulpian Dig. 21.1.17.13f. 198 Cf. Tolmie 2010, p. 6: “Indeed a confusing state of afairs!” 199 The methodological problem is analyzed by Harrill 2006, pp. 8–11. Analogous thoughts are stated by Barclay 1997, pp. 101f.: “Thus it is a moot point how much Roman law has to do with the social realities of social prejudice, especially (in this case) among ordinary provincials in Asia Minor”; also Nordling 2010, p. 90: “… one senses that Paul would not have been overly concerned about maintaining minute legal distinctions between two categories that seem easily to have coalesced, both in the legal codes and in practicality.” pauline influence: philemon and colossians 107 slavery from the Epistle to Philemon,200 quite apart from the fact that Paul sees himself in a concrete situation, without claiming that it represents a model.

3.2.3. The Religious Service of Onesimus In his epistle, Paul wants not only to gain Philemon’s support for Onesimus but also to suggest a new area of responsibility for the latter: Onesimus is to be employed in service to the gospel under the aegis of Paul. Now that he is a Christian, he has undergone a clear “upgrading”; he has earned the right to be accepted into the Christian community as a κοινωνός.201 “I wanted to keep him with me, so that he might be of service to me in your place in the fetters of the gospel.”202 Here we already see Paul’s enhanced appreciation of Onesimus: without any di culty, he can replace Philemon with Onesimus and have the latter take over Philemon’s assignment.203 A sacral service is substituted for his service to Philemon; in this new function, however, Ones- imus would not play the disdained role of slave, and for that reason, too, Philemon must not treat him as one.

A very similar conception lies behind the καταγραφαί documented in many inscriptions, in which slaves and more generally people enjoying fewer rights, but also children, are entrusted to the god Lairbenos.204 They experience a clear elevation in status, sometimes even attaining freedom. An inscription from Bahadınlar, a village very near the sanctuary of Lairbenos, illustrates the situation. The date at the beginning, based on the Sullan era starting with epochal year 85/84bce,205 shows that the text was written toward the end of 183: In the year 268, on the […]th day of the month of Audnaios. We, Alexandros and Grisphos [Crispus], sons of Apollonios, from Motella, sign our adoptee Apollonios over to the god Apollo Lairmenos, present in his manifestation; let him be consecrated and free, and let none have authority over Apollonios, because we have so determined. If anyone objects, he shall pay 2500 denarii to the god and likewise 2500 to the scus of the emperor.206

200 On such attempts, cf. Wessels 2010, p. 162. The church fathers already sometimes misused the epistle to legitimize the institution of slavery; see Bellen 1971, p. 79. 201 Phlm 17. 202 Phlm 13: ὅν ἐγὼ ἐβουλόµην πρὸς ἐµαυτὸν κατέχειν, ἵνα ὑπὲρ σοῦ µοι διακονῇ ἐν τοῖς δεσµοῖς τοῦ εὐα ελίου …. 203 Cf. Winter 1987, pp. 10–12; Reinmuth 2006, p. 44. 204 See pp. 49f. above. 205 See Leschhorn 1993, pp. 420–423. 206 Ricl 1995, pp. 179f., no. 30 = Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, p. 28, K29: ῎Ετους ΣΞΗ’, µη(νὸς) 108 chapter three

Alexandros and Crispus came from nearby Motella, across the Meander. In a formal act, a καταγραφή,207 they both transferred their rights to their τεθρεµένος Apollonios to the god. The lexeme τεθρεµένος or θρεπτός (found in comparable inscriptions) basically simply means someone adopted, but its use in contexts related to the law of persons suggests someone of inferior legal status, though not necessarily a slave in all cases.208 Since Apollonios is expressly declared “consecrated and free,” in this case it is reasonable to assume manumission of a slave.209 A few years later (186), a second inscription was added to the same stone, clearly describing an analogous situation: In the year 270, on the 16th day of month of Daisios. I Eutychis, adopted daughter of Gaios and birth daughter of Appous, the son of Papas, sign my adoptee Epiktesis over to the god Apollo Lairmenos, without giving anyone the opportunity to object to this record or to touch her like a slave; whoever outs anything of this action shall pay 1500 denarii to the god and another 1500 denarii to the scus. I Appous, son of Papas, gave my assent, the father.210 The text with which Epiktesis is protected from the greedy grasp of a potential slave- holder exhibits striking agreements in its wording with the Epistle to Philemon: Epiktesis must not be touched like a slave (ὡς δούλης), and Philemon cannot take Onesimus back like a slave (ὡς δούλον). As the inscriptions show, both Apollonius and Epiktesis were placed under the protection of the deity, and there is some reason to suppose that with their consecration they undertook obligations toward the deity and sanctuary, even though the Lairbenos inscriptions do not specify them.211

It is uncertain whether Paul was familiar with the sanctuary of Lairbenos and the practice of καταγραφή associated with it; Philemon was quite certainly familiar with it, even though there is no epigraphic documentation

Αὐδναίου [..᾽]. ᾽Αλέξανδρος κὲ Γρίσφος ᾽Α[πο] ωνίου, Μοτε ηνοὶ [κα]ταγράφοµεν ᾽Απο ώ- νιο[ν] τὸν ἑαυτῶν τεθρεµένον ἐπιφανεστάτῳ θεῷ ᾽Από[λ]λωνι Λαιρµηνῷ ἱερὸν κὲ ἐλε[ύθε]ρον, µηδινὸς ἔχοντος ἀν[θρώ]που ἐξουσίαν κατὰ τοῦ ᾽Α[πολ]ωνίου διὰ τὸ οὕτως ἡµ[ῖν] δεδόχθαι· εἴ τις δὲ ἐπενκα[λέ]σει, θήσει εἰς τὸν θεὸν (δην.),βφ᾽καὶ εἰς τὸν κυρίου φ[ίσ]κον (δην.) ,βφ᾽. 207 See Ricl 1995, p. 187. 208 See Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, pp. 59–62. On the θρεπτοί in the vicinity of Aizanoi, see B. Levick and S. Mitchell in MAMA IX, pp. LXIV–LXVI (1988). Θρεπτός in the sense of “slave” appears in Bosporan manumission inscriptions: Gibson 1999, pp. 104f. For a fundamental discussion of the problem of θρεπτοί, see Cameron 1939, and now Ricl 2009; further discussion in Chiai 2009, pp. 71f. with n. 43 (bibliography). See also p. 50 above. 209 Cf. Ricl 1995, pp. 192f. The association of manumission with consecration of the slave to a deity followed the practice of the mother country; cf. Rädle 1969, pp. 39–41. 210 Ricl 1995, p. 181, no. 32 = Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000, p. 29 K31: ῎Ετους ΣΟ’, µη(νὸς) ∆αισίου ςι’. Εὐτυχὶς Γαίου, φύσει δὲ ᾽Αππου Παπαδ[ο]ς, κατα{τα}γράφω τῷ θεῷ ᾽Α{ι}πό ωνι Λαιρµηνῷ τὴν ἐµαυτῆς˙ τεθραµένην ᾽Επίκτησιν, µηδενὸς ἔχοντος˙ ˙ ἐξουσίαν ἀντιπεῖν τῇ γραφῇ ταύτῃ ἢ ἐφάψασθαι ὡς˙ ˙ δούλης, ἐπεὶ ὁ παραβάς˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ τι τούτων ἀποτείσει εἰς τὸν θεὸν (δην.) ,αφ’ κὲ εἰς τὸν φίσκον˙ ἄ α (δην.) ,αφ’. ᾽Αππους˙ ˙ Παπα ἔδωκα τὴν γνώµην, ὁ πατήρ.—Cf. now also the similar text Akıncı Öztürk / Tanrıver 2008, p. 102 no. 14. 211 Cf. Ricl 1995, pp. 194f. See p. 50 above. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 109 for the 1st century. We cannot say whether the pagan concept of καταγραφή and the Pauline concept of the valorization of Onesimus in Christian service were related in the minds of contemporaries, hence whether Philemon could actually associate the one with the other. The structural analogies can only be brought to light retrospectively. Afterwards Onesimus stayed within the circle of Paul’s associates while maintaining contact with his home community in Colossae. This can probably be deduced from the Epistle to the Colossians, where the author appoints him along with Tychicus as a messenger to keep the Colossians current.212 Onesimus (like Epaphras) is expressly said to be “one of you.” A few decades later, an Onesimus appears in the epistle of Ignatius to the church of Ephesus, here functioning as a bishop.213 The identity of the Colossian Ones- imus with the bishop is quite uncertain, if only for chronological reasons and because of the commonness of the name.214 Also out of the question are broader speculations that Onesimus as bishop compiled a collection of Paul’s letters (naturally including the Epistle to Philemon and the Epistle to the Colossians) and composed the Epistle to the Ephesians himself under the alias of Paul.215

3.2.4. Second Summary: Symbiosis of Christians and Pagans Even though we cannot be totally sure of the status of Onesimus under the law of persons and hence of his relationship to Philemon, one fact is certain, which sheds light on the social and cultural position of the Christian community in Colossae: Paul emphasizes that he begot Onesimus in captivity,216 undoubtedly a periphrastic metaphor for conversion to Christianity.217 But this means that previously the Christian Philemon had been in contact with the non-Christian Onesimus and had seen no reason to win him to the Christian faith. We may even go a step further and conclude that Phile- mon, within whose walls the Christian community assembled, did not live in a purely Christian household. That there was also no fear of contact on

212 Col. 4:9: … σὺν ᾽Ονησίµῳ τῷ πιστῷ ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῷ, ὅς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑµῶν· … Ollrog 1979, pp. 101–106 sees Onesimus as a “community envoy.” 213 Ign. Eph. 1.3: … ἐν ᾽Ονησίµῳ …, ὑµῶν δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἐπισκόπῳ …; cf. 6.1–2. 214 Lohse 21977, p. 262, n. 1 also expresses skepticism. 215 See the criticism in Metzger 1993, p. 244 and Kreitzer 2007, pp. 4f. 216 Phlm 10: παρακαλῶ σε περὶ τοῦ ἐµοῦ τέκνου, ὃν ἐγέννησα ἐν τοῖς δεσµοῖς,…. 217 Paul uses the same wording in 1Cor 4:15. Cf. Gerber 2005, pp. 404–406; Reinmuth 2006, pp. 41f.; Gerber 2011, p. 51. 110 chapter three the other side is shown by the behavior of Onesimus, who found it natural to turn to the Christian Paul when he was in trouble. This conclusion is not surprising, considering that in 1Corinthians Paul was already dealing with the question of how to handle marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian218 and that such “mixed” marriages were not uncommon in early Christianity.219 In 1st-century Colossae, therefore, the Christians did not isolate themselves from pagan society; perhaps in this respect the local Jews provided a model.

3.3. The Epistle to the Colossians

3.3.1. The Pseudepigraphic Problem of Colossians The Epistle to the Colossians does not make things easy for anyone to place it in a historical context, although the opening appears to provide the essential information: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and brother Timothy, to the holy and faithful brothers in Christ in Colossae: grace and peace be with you from God our Father.”220 Given the parallels in 2Corinthians, Philippians, and also Philemon, it is not surprising that Timothy is named as a second author. With his letter to Philemon, the apostle had already signaled his interest in the Christian community in Colossae; now his concern is being reinforced. Since the 19th century, however, New Testament exegetes have presented several powerful arguments why Colossians cannot be considered a work written by Paul. In the rst place, its language and style do not match the genuine Pauline epistles; a number of hapax legomena and stylistic peculiarities as well as the associative train of thought are inconsistent with Paul.221 More important are the theological speci cs of Colossians:222 the pregnant Christology, which pointedly calls the Son of God the wellspring of creation and the head of the church; the transfer of salvation history to

218 1Cor 7:13–15: καὶ γυνὴ εἴ τις ἔχει ἄνδρα ἄπιστον … . The same situation is presupposed in 1 Petr 3:1, which is addressed to Christians in Asia Minor. See also Müller 2009 a, pp. 174f. 219 See Schöllgen 1990, pp. 349–354. 220 Col. 1:1–2: Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ ᾽Ιησοῦ διὰ θελήµατος θεοῦ καὶ Τιµόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῖς ἐν Κολοσσαῖς ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ, χάρις ὑµῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡµῶν. 221 The fundamental study of syntax and train of thought is Bujard 1973; cf. Schenk 1987, pp. 3327–3338; also Müller 1988, pp. 13–15; Schnelle 82013, pp. 361–363. 222 Cited from Schnelle 82013, pp. 363–366 (abridged); cf. also Lindemann 1979, pp. 114–122; Barclay 1997, pp. 25–28; Pizzuto 2006, pp. 37–57. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 111 the moment of baptism, i.e. the present reality of salvation, through which Christians in baptism participate already not only in the death of Christ but also in the resurrection; the valuation of the apostle of Christ as the bearer of the mystery he is charged with preaching, a de nition that leads to his special authorization; the rooting of the concept of faith (πίστις) in doctrine and tradition; and nally the marginalization of pneumatology. Especially in the German-speaking world, in light of these arguments few theologians still believe that it is possible to claim Paul as author of the text.223 The lack of clarity regarding authorship makes it all the more urgent to ask how to characterize the setting of Colossians in contemporary life. Does the pseudepigraphic nature of epistle have possible consequence for the identity of the addressee? Is the Epistle to the Colossians in fact a letter to the Colossians? An initial inventory of prosopography can point to details in Colossians that do not derive from the Epistle to Philemon.224 In addition it is impossible to deny the author rudimentary local knowledge, given that he at least knew the three most important cities of the Lycus Valley by name. Those cities do not serve as ctive stage furniture in a “spurious” text; they function as meaningful elements of a logical and original train of thought. The reception of the epistle shows that in the 4th and 5th centuries at the latest the local references played a role: at the synod in nearby Laodicea before 380, the Epistle to the Colossians was included in the acta without question as part of the New Testament canon,225 and in the introduction to his commentary on Colossians Theodoret dealt briey with the relationship of Paul to the churches in the Lycus Valley. Regarding Col. 2:18, he also provided the valuable information that in his day angels were still worshiped in Phrygia and Pisidia.226 Other epistles in the New Testament Pauline corpus are subject to the same quali cations as Colossians: Ephesians and 2Thessalonians (which is based on 1Thessalonians), 1 and 2Timothy, and Titus: each claims Paul as its author, and scienti c study has make it very likely that Paul could not have been their author; like Colossians, they belong to the deutero-Pauline

223 See the short overview in Schnelle 82013, p. 362, n. 23. Kreitzer 2007, p. 7 does consider Paul the author of Colossians. Dunn 1996, pp. 35–39 deliberately leaves the question open, but also exhibits sympathy toward the “secretary hypothesis,” which believes Timothy composed the epistle under Paul’s guidance. For discussion see p. 116 below. 224 See pp. 83–92 above. 225 CLaod. Can. 60 (Jonkers 1954, p. 96). The Apocalypse of John, by contrast, was not included in the “canon of Laodicea.” 226 PG 82, 591–593 and 613. Cf. pp. 128 and 303 below. 112 chapter three

Epistles.227 Strictly speaking these texts could be called literary forgeries, since the ctional sender is intended to heighten the authority of their message, not just to achieve an artistic efect,228 but its moral connotations make it misleading.229 The fact that Colossians concludes with a greeting written “with my own hand”230 echoes corresponding formulas in 1Corinthians, Galatians, and also Philemon,231 but it also conforms to the authenti cation topoi in forged documents of early Christianity.232 When the author at one point calls himself by his own name (ἐγὼ Παῦλος), he is adopting a formula from the authentic Pauline epistles.233 The suspicion that another author might be lurking behind a letter ascribed to Paul was already current among contemporaries.234 In 2Thessalonians, itself probably pseudepigraphic, we already nd a warning that the addressees should not be shaken or alarmed, “either by a spirit or by a word or by a letter, as though from us …”235 If the product of such a “copycat” was exposed, it lost all authority; the goal of enhanced authority intended by the pseudonym threatened to break down dramat- ically.236 Given this risk, it is unlikely that Colossians was composed long (possibly even years) after the death of Paul. The relatively dense communication structures assured that the church in Colossae was informed very quickly about the end of the revered apostle. If the news of Paul’s death had arrived before the Epistle to the Colossians was received, the acceptance of the epistle would have been endangered, unless it could be declared part of his apostolic legacy.

227 See Schnelle 82013, pp. 355–425. 228 On categorizing “pseudepigraphy” and the narrower term “forgery,” see Speyer 1971, pp. 13–21; also pp. 176–179 (basically categorizing Christian pseudepigrapha of the rst three centuries as forgeries). On reections regarding the desire for inuence in antiquity that produced the pseudepigrapha, see Janßen 2009, pp. 163–173. 229 Cf. Schnelle 82013, p. 360: “Die moralische Kategorie der Fälschung ist deshalb unge- eignet, die Zielsetzungen der Pseudepigraphie zu erfassen. Sachgemäßer ist von ‘entliehenen Verfasserangaben’ zu sprechen, bei denen die apostolische Autorität als Bürge für die Gültig- keit des Gesagten auftritt.” 230 Col. 4:18: ῾Ο ἀσπασµὸς τῇ ἐµῇ χειρὶ Παύλου. 231 1Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Phlm 19. Cf. Weima 2010, pp. 53f. 232 On this phenomenon, see Speyer 1971, pp. 58f. 233 On Col. 1:23, see Frank 2009, p. 90: e.g. Gal 5:2. 234 Speyer 1971, p. 180. 235 2Thess 2:1–2: ᾽Ερωτῶµεν δὲ ὑµᾶς … εἰς τὸ µὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ὑµᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νοὸς µηδὲ θροεῖσθαι, µήτε διὰ πνεύµατος µήτε διὰ λόγου µήτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δι’ ἡµῶν,…. 236 Tertullian’s comment about the Acts of Paul (Bapt. 17.5) shows that early Christianity rejected pseudepigraphic texts as soon as they were exposed as such. For further discussion, see Frenschkowski 2009, pp. 187–202. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 113

3.3.2. Date The chronology of the early reception of the Epistle to the Colossians is hard to ascertain, so that it does not provide a helpful terminus ante quem for the work’s origin. Irenaeus of Lyon is the earliest writer who had a comprehensive familiarity with Colossians and recognized it as a weighty authority.237 There are echoes in Ignatius of Antioch, but they cannot be ascribed with assurance to direct knowledge:238 the compound ὁρατά τε καὶ ἀόρατα, which Ignatius is fond of (in various cases),239 also appears already in the christological hymn,240 which of course may have been handed down independently of Colossians.241 In the course of the 2nd century at the latest, Colossians came to be included in the scriptural canon of the Catholic church, but Marcion also recognized it;242 it was also cited by authors of Gnostic background.243 In the Muratorian Canon, it is one of the seven canonical epistles of Paul to churches.244 Of course that is not evidence for the authenticity of Colossians, especially since the purpose was to establish an analogy to the seven letters to churches in the Apocalypse of John: the Muratorian Canon explicitly calls John the “predecessor” of Paul. But the reception of Colossians can be traced further back, into the 1st century, when the author of Ephesians used it as a model and even cited it literally in a few places.245 Especially striking are the agreements, some word-for-word, in the description of the assignment of Tychicus,246 whom the author appoints as a messenger. Colossians has this to say of him: “Concerning me, Tychicus will tell you everything, a beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow slave in the Lord; I have sent him to you for this

237 Pokorn ´y 21990, p. 167. 238 Cf. H. Löhr in Pratscher, ed., 2009, p. 115: the dependence of Ignatius on Colossians is still quite uncertain. Cf. Pizzuto 2006, p. 88 with the comment that Ephesians, which is dependent on Colossians, was clearly familiar to Ignatius. See also p. 114 below. 239 Ign. Trall. 5.2; Rom. 5.3; Smyrn. 6.1. 240 Col. 1:16. 241 Cf. Pokorn ´y 21990, p. 167. The christological hymn in Col. 1:15–20 is obviously a traditional text borrowed by the author of Colossians. See Frank 2009, pp. 126–159 (including discussion of possible redactional additions). See also pp. 119–122 below. 242 Tert. Adv. Marc. 5.19; see Harnack 21924, pp. 121*–124*; Schmid 1995, pp. 341f. 243 See Pokorny 21990, pp. 167f. 244 Hahnemann 1992, p. 7, lines 47–54 (Colossians in fourth position). Cf. Schneemelcher I 61999, p. 29. On the concept of the seven Pauline letters to churches, see Gamble 2009, pp. 334–339. 245 See Dunn 1998, pp. 287f.; Schnelle 82013, pp. 385f.; Hüneburg 2009, pp. 388 and 406; Sellin 2009, pp. 157–159 (with a tabular presentation of passages with identical wording). 246 See Kreitzer 2007, p. 5. On Tychicus see pp. 91f. above. 114 chapter three purpose, so that you may know about our concerns and that he may give comfort to your hearts.”247 The wording in Ephesians runs: “So that you may also be instructed concerning me and what I am doing, Tychicus will tell you everything, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord; I have sent him to you for this purpose, so that you may know about our concerns and that he may give comfort to your hearts.”248 We can assume with some certainty that Ephesians was familiar to Ignatius, who refers to it in his letter to Polycarp when he enjoins his addressee to preach the love of men for their wives.249 Thus Ephesians cannot under any circumstances be dated in the period after Trajan; there is some evidence favoring a date in the last decades of the 1st century.250 This con rms a rough assignment of Colossians to the period between the death of Paul and the end of the century. It has already been suggested—and further discussion will emphasize this—that the epistle was most likely written and published at the beginning of that period.251

3.3.3. Addressee and Author In dating Colossians, we begin with the prosopographic bracket that connects Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians:252 a few of the individuals mentioned in Philemon reappear in Colossians, and in both Colossians and Eph- esians Tychicus serves as a tireless messenger. The result is a personal continuity that makes a large chronological distance between the documents unlikely:253 there is no reason that the church in Colossae could not have read and heard the letter addressed to them as early as the 60s. Possibly it was a time of hardship and grief, since the earthquake had recently wreaked havoc in the Lycus Valley; possibly an inducement to reconstruction was

247 Col. 4:7–8: Τὰ κατ’ ἐµὲ πάντα γνωρίσει ὑµῖν Τύχικος ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διά- κονος καὶ σύνδουλος ἐν κυρίῳ, ὃν ἔπεµψα πρὸς ὑµᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡµῶν καὶ παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑµῶν,… 248 Eph 6:21–22: ῞Ινα δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑµεῖς τὰ κατ’ ἐµέ, τί πράσσω, πάντα γνωρίσει ὑµῖν Τύχικος ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος ἐν κυρίῳ, ὃν ἔπεµψα πρὸς ὑµᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡµῶν καὶ παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑµῶν. 249 Cf. Ign. Pol. 5.1 with Eph 5:15. For further references, see H. Löhr in Pratscher, ed., 2009, p. 115, who considers Ignatius’s familiarity with Ephesians “very probable.” See also Kreitzer 2007, pp. 26f. 250 Schnelle 82013, p. 382 considers a date between 80 and 90 probable. Cf. Trebilco 2004 a, p. 89 with n. 179. 251 See pp. 99f., 122 above and 115–117 below. 252 See Röhser 2009, pp. 132–136. 253 See Barclay 1997, pp. 23f. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 115 needed. To assume that the church in Colossae had vanished from the face of the earth and hence that the address to the Colossians was ctional254 would be to misunderstand the efect of the catastrophe.255 The Lycus Val- ley was anything but a blank slate after the earthquake, as shown not only by the ourishing neighboring cities of Hierapolis and Laodicea but also by the impressive coinage of Colossae in the period of the Five Good Emper- ors (2nd cent.),256 as well as individual epigraphic nds.257 The cities were no more wiped out than were the Christian communities—quite the contrary. Another even more weighty argument speaks against a ctional address of the epistle, as has repeatedly been advocated in recent literature:258 if the document was meant to have any concrete impact and claim apostolic authority, it would have been stripped of its impact and authority the moment a Colossian Christian from Paul’s circle challenged its authenticity.259 How, for example, would the kin of Epaphras react if a generation after the death of Paul a letter suddenly appeared purporting to have been composed by him, in which concrete roles and duties are assigned to friends and relatives from their home community and neighboring community (and above all Epaphras himself)? There are only two alternatives: either unmask

254 As argued by Schenk 1987, pp. 3334f., with the blunt summary: “Ein toter Paulus und ein zerstörter Ort waren ofenbar die gegebenen Voraussetzungen für diese älteste christliche Pseudepigraphie. Man hat also wohl davon auszugehen, daß die Schrift nicht nur pseudonym, sondern auch in ihrer Adresse ktiv ist.” See also Pokorn ´y 21990, p. 17; Frank 2009a, pp. 413f.; most recently Vegge 2011, p. 264, who uses the premise of a ctional addressee to show that the polemic component of Colossians is not primary. 255 Cadwallader 2011, pp. 157–159 shows how the misjudgment of the earthquake has led scholars to false conclusions: the destruction of the city by a natural catastrophe has been used to support both Pauline authorship and pseudepigraphy of Colossians, with diferent date. 256 Cf. von Aulock 1987, pp. 89–92 (also pp. 83–88 with the pseudo-autonomous coinages). See Cadwallader 2011, pp. 163f. See also p. 102 above. 257 Cadwallader 2007, p. 109 provides a survey of the epigraphic evidence in Colossae. The inscriptions are also mentioned by Wolter 1993, p. 35, who nevertheless believes the address to the Colossians to be a ction. On the most recent state of knowledge, see Cadwallader 2011, pp. 170–174. Especially important is his reference to a new discovery that speaks of repairing a public bath: … εἰς ἐπισκευὴν βαλαν[είου … . This may refer to reconstruction eforts after the earthquake. See A.H. Cadwallader in Llewelyn / Harrison, eds., 2012, pp. 110–113 (based on Antichthon 46 [2012], non vidi). Cf. also p. 102 above. 258 Standhartiger 1999, pp. 10–16 does not rule out the possibility that Colossae continued to exist after the earthquake but argues that the epistle contains too little local color to be associated with the city. Cf. Maisch 2003, p. 23; Frank 2009, pp. 39f. 259 This problem is also addressed by Röhser 2009, pp. 144–148. Röhser argues vigorously for recognizing the church of Colossae as the addressee of the Epistle to the Colossians. 116 chapter three the document as a forgery or see in it a reection of the history of their community and a rm its authenticity.260 In any case, a dispute over the authenticity of Colossians would have prevented its inclusion in the New Testament canon. About the true author of Colossians we can only speculate. As in the Epistle to Philemon and other epistles, Timothy joins Paul in the salutation. It is impossible, however, to detect the concrete inuence of Timothy, who came from Lycaonia261 and was undoubtedly familiar with the situation in Asia Minor,262 on the content of the text. Nevertheless many scholars have suggested assigning him the role of collaborator or secretary in the composition of Colossians.263 The prominent role assigned to Epaphras in Colossians has led others to see him as the author, seeking thus to secure his inuence on the churches in the Lycus Valley.264 Of course authorship could equally well be claimed for anyone else from Paul’s circle, including Tychicus265 or Archippus, who is admonished at the end of Colossians to complete his diakonia. It is hopeless to look for speci c responsibility here: the epistle must be left with its author unknown. In any case, the concrete references and the reception of Paul that shapes the form and content of Colossians mean that the author must be sought within the Pauline school.266 As a summary of the preceding reections on the general background of Colossians, the following scenario seems most likely: Relatively soon after Paul’s death, one of his disciples composed the Epistle to the Colossians,

260 Theißen 42010, p. 87 presents a similar argument. 261 Acts 16:1. 262 Cf. 1Tim 1:3, where Timothy functions as Paul’s agent in Ephesus. 263 See the references in Schnelle 82013, p. 362. Others include Ollrog 1979, p. 241; Dunn 1996, p. 38; Dunn 2009, pp. 1038–1040. Lohse 21977, p. 34 emphatically rejects the possibility that Timothy had a hand in the framing of the epistles. Cf. also the skepticism of Janßen 2009, p. 151: “Selbst wenn man in der Mitabsenderangabe in Kol 1,1 und IIThess 1,1 einen indirekten Hinweis auf den Sekretär und damit den realen Verfasser entdeckt, muss man erklären, warum gerade in diesen Schreiben der eigenständige Gruß des Paulus deutlich hervorgehoben wird (Kol 4,18; IIThess 3,17).” Geréb 2009, p. 35 and Trebilco 2011, p. 180, n. 2 instead advocate the “secretarial hypothesis.” See also pp. 110f. above. 264 Cf. Kiley 1986, pp. 95–97; Trainor 2008, pp. 3f. and pp. 97f., n. 4. 265 Against Tychicus see Röhser 2009, p. 145. 266 Ollrog 1979, pp. 227–231; Müller 1988, pp. 270–320. Cf. Barclay 1997, p. 35: “Whether by Paul, by a secretary, by an associate or by a pupil, Colossians is clearly a ‘Pauline’ letter.” Also Frank 2009, pp. 26–31, where we nd the original suggestion of considering a female disciple of Paul. Röhser 2009, pp. 144–149. The “Pauline school” does not suggest an institution or a clearly de ned doctrinal system; cf. Müller 2009 a. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 117 claiming Paul’s authority for his own concerns and using the ction of Pauline authorship. The addressees in Colossae assumed that the epistle actually was from Paul’s pen and hence part of the apostle’s legacy. Given this scenario, there is no reason not to use Colossians as a source for the history of early Christianity in the Lycus Valley.

3.3.4. Knowledge of Christ The Epistle to the Colossians is one of the “captivity epistles”; at its end, the ctive author Paul states explicitly that he is in chains on accounts of the “mystery of Christ.”267 Given the background of the epistle outlined above against which it reached its addressees, it is probable that this means Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. Paul has learned from Epaphras that the gospel is bearing fruit in the Colossian community;268 since then he has been praying unceasingly for the Colossians. The central element in Paul’s catalog of wishes for the church is that it be lled with the proper knowledge of God. This is how the author of Colossians formulates his desire: “For this reason, since the day we heard it, we have not ceased praying for you and asking that you may be lled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you may walk worthily of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, as you bear fruit in every good work and as you grow in the knowledge of God; and may you be strengthened by all power, because his glory is powerful to provide endurance and patience at all times.”269 This emphatic focus of the theme of knowledge is the rst signal of opposition to the opponents named later, who adhere to an unspeci ed “philosophy,”270 but it must also be read as a return to a Jewish conception that ful llment of God’s will depends on knowledge of that will; analogous concepts appear in the Qumran texts, for example.271 Echoes of authentic Pauline epistles—for example 1Corinthians, which speaks of σοφία and γνῶσις,272 or Philippians, in which Paul prays for his addressees that their

267 Col. 4:3: … τὸ µυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι’ ὃ καὶ δέδεµαι … 268 Col. 1:3–8. 269 Col. 1:9–11: ∆ιὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡµεῖς, ἀφ’ ἧς ἡµέρας ἠκούσαµεν, οὐ παυόµεθα ὑπὲρ ὑµῶν προσευχό- µενοι καὶ αἰτούµενοι, ἵνα πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελήµατος αὐτοῦ ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ συνέσει πνευµατικῇ, περιπατῆσαι ἀξίως τοῦ κυρίου εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρεσκείαν, ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ καρποφο- ροῦντες καὶ αὐξανόµενοι τῇ ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐν πάσῃ δυνάµει δυναµούµενοι κατὰ τὸ κράτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ εἰς πᾶσαν ὑποµονὴν καὶ µακροθυµίαν. 270 Col. 2:8. Cf. Wolter 1993, pp. 59f. 271 Lohse 21977, pp. 56–65. 272 1Cor 12:8. 118 chapter three love may increase “in knowledge”273—are too vague to require direct dependence.274 The author of Colossians proclaims one aspect of that knowledge in the following passage,275 where he calls for thanksgiving for the grace of God who has granted us entrance into the kingdom of his Son. For God the Father “rescued us from the power of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption and deliver- ance from sins.”276 This is the prelude to a hymn that explores the nature of the Son of God at length; here we already see adumbrated the christocentrism that turns out to inform the entire epistle: with the kingship of Christ, God has inaugurated a new era in which all who accept it share; that means the baptized, as the text of the epistle goes on to make clear. Here redemption invades the dimension of the present, while in the conception of the proto-Paulines it always remained a structural element of the future.277 A new era that was not only prognosticated but potentially immediately present was not a totally novel experience for contemporaries in Asia Minor, especially since the reign of Augustus was celebrated exuberantly in the province of Asia as the dawn of a new age. Afterwards (more precisely since 9bce), in the cities of the province the year began on September 23, the birthday of the emperor Augustus.278 In the resolution adopting this date, the provincial assembly declared that the birthday “of the god” (i.e. Augustus) had brought “messages of good news” (εὐανγέλια) to the world.279 Augustus is praised as bringer of peace by the epigraphic resolution in the same way the Son of God is praised in the Epistle to the Colossians.280 But the Christian message of salvation encounters the church in Colossae in a diferent guise: not only does the religious weight of apostolic authority

273 Phil 1:9: Καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχοµαι, ἵνα ἡ ἀγάπη ὑµῶν ἔτι µᾶ ον καὶ µᾶ ον περισσεύῃ ἐν ἐπιγνώσει καὶ πάσῃ αἰσθήσει … 274 Pace Frank 2009, pp. 50–54. 275 Cf. Pokorn ´y 21990, p. 39. 276 Col. 1:13–14: ὃς ἐρρύσατο ἡµᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους καὶ µετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἔχοµεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν· …. 277 Lohse 21977, pp. 74f.; Pokorn ´y 21990, pp. 44f.; Wolter 1993, pp. 67f. 278 Price 1984, pp. 54f.; Leschorn 1993, p. 215. See p. 60 above. 279 La 1967, p. 21 line 40: … ἤρξεν δὲ τῶι κόσµωι τῶν δι’ αὐτὸν εὐανγελί[ων ἡ γενέθλιος ἡµέ]ρα … . On the background of the concept of “good news” in comparison with the biblical tradition, see Dickson 2005, pp. 214f. The term also appears in an honori c inscription from the 1st or 2nd century from Laodicea: Corsten 1997, pp. 158–163, no. 82 (see p. 162 below). 280 Col. 1:20. The parallel is also pointed out by Standhartinger 2009, p. 16. On pp. 18–21, she also discusses imperial proclamations of hope (Spes on coins) that coincided with Col. 1:5. See also p. 41 above. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 119 present itself diferently than the representational function of the provincial assembly, inspired by political loyalties, but above all the connection with the concept of redemption and forgiveness of sins gives the Christian epoch its unique character.

3.3.5. The Christological Hymn The author of Colossians follows the proclamation of redemption with a description of Christ that clearly difers stylistically from its epistolary context, so that we must probably think in terms of a “fragment of tradition.” Although no one has yet succeeded assigning the passage to a speci c genre, most exegetes speak of a “christological hymn,” like the analogous passage in Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians.281 The christological hymn, which concludes with an obvious redactional addition in the explicit reference to the cruci xion,282 resulted in a clear christological emphasis, which could not help producing a responsive echo in Colossae. Of course this echo naturally depended also on the extent to which the author could assume that the addressees were familiar with the text, in other words whether the hymn might have played a role, say, in the liturgy of the Colossian community.283 Christ is assigned a central role in creation; as the image of God (εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ), he is the source, focus, and culmination of the whole cosmos; risen from the dead, Christ took on the function of cosmic recon- ciler. In light of the omnipresence of Christ in the creation and the history of the world, the Creator-Father as prototype of his Son remains face- less in the background: he is explicitly called the “invisible” God.284 God’s inconceivability is among the fundamental categories that obviously played a broader role in the theological concepts of Asia Minor, for instance in a famous oracle of Apollo of Clarus (3rd cent.) which answers the question who or what God actually is.285 It may be no accident that God is

281 Cf. Phil 2:6–11. On the problem of the christological hymn, see Frank 2009, pp. 126– 138 (history of scholarship); also Sánchez Bosch 2009, pp. 23–32. On the relationship to Hellenistic encomia, see Dormeyer 1993, pp. 133f. See also p. 113 above. 282 On Col. 1:20 (διὰ τοῦ αἵµατος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ), see Lohse 21977, p. 80; Barclay 1997, p. 62; Frank 2009, pp. 133f. For a diferent view, see Pizzuto 2006, pp. 182–265. 283 A liturgical function of the hymn has been considered but cannot be proved. Cf. Wolter 1993, p. 74. 284 Col. 1:15 (beginning of the description of Christ): ὅς ἐστιν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότο- κος πάσης κτίσεως …. 285 Cf. Merkelbach 1997, pp. 202–206 (originally 1996 with J. Stauber); also Mitchell 1999, pp. 81–92. Cf. also p. 129 below. 120 chapter three also called “invisible” in 1Timothy, which was intended speci cally for Eph- esus or the churches of Asia Minor in general.286 The focus of the hymn, as already said, is on Christ, in whom the creation culminates; all things are rooted in him—things in heaven or earth, visible and invisible, thrones and dominions, powers and authorities.287 Most exegetes believe the series of terms related to dominion (θρόνοι, κυριότητες, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι) refers to supernatural angelic powers,288 but given later statements in Colossians that speak twice more of power and authority, using the language of the hymn,289 we cannot rule out concrete political implications related to the immediate lifeworld of the addressees.290 Several arguments encourage associating these “dominion” terms also with the political power structures to which the church in Colossae was subject. First, the author of Colossians plays on central elements of Roman victory propaganda when he asserts that Christ “in himself disarmed the powers and authorities and made a public example of them and led them in his triumphal procession.”291 Second, in the context of the preamble to the letters to the seven churches of the province of Asia, the introduction of the Apocalypse of John contains a formula probably borrowed from Colossians, calling Christ “the rstborn of the dead and ruler over the kings of the earth.”292 Third, the addressees could easily associate the term ἀρχή with municipal o ces; in their world, the ἀρχαί were embodied in the rst instance by the dignitaries who guided the fate of the city.293

A later contemporary was Nikostratos, who displayed active involvement in the afairs of Laodicea, where Colossians likewise attracted attention: an inscription displayed later for his daughter speaks of the “o ces, liturgies, and construction

286 1Tim 1:17: Τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ µόνῳ θεῷ, τιµὴ καὶ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀµήν. Cf. Zimmermann 2009. 287 Col. 1:16: ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· … 288 Lohse 21977, pp. 90f.; Pokorn ´y 21990, p. 65; Yates 1991, pp. 580–583; Wolter 1993, p. 78. 289 Col. 2:10 and 2:15; see Frank 2009, pp. 192–197; also Maier 2011, pp. 215f. 290 It should also be noted that in Asia Minor the power of individual deities was not uncommonly characterized by epithets borrowed from the political realm. Cf. Chiai 2009, pp. 86–88. 291 Col. 2:15: ἀπεκδυσάµενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας ἐδειγµάτισεν ἐν παρρησίᾳ, θριαµβεύσας αὐτοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ. The connotations of θριαµβεύειν are analyzed by Yates 1991, pp. 574–580. 292 Rev 1:5: καὶ ἀπὸ ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ µάρτυς, ὁ πιστός, ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς (cf. Col. 1:18: πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν). 293 Cf. Quaß 1993, pp. 270–346. Sánchez Bosch 2009, pp. 24f. goes on to conjecture that in Col. 1:16 the words εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι were added by the author of the epistle. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 121 supervision” undertaken by her father.294 The Greek term meaning “o ces” is ἀρχαί. Apart from its use as an umbrella term that could cover a whole string of speci c functions, there is evidence in both Colossae and Hierapolis for a speci c “archon- tate,” which (at least in Hierapolis) could be lled by several dignitaries at the same time.295 There is also epigraphic evidence that leading functionaries in the Jewish synagogues were called archontes.296 No relevant inscriptions have been found in the Lycus Valley, but examples from Acmoneia and other cities in Asia Minor297 suggest analogous administrative structures.

If the addressees of Colossians associated the “powers” listed by the sender with their own high-ranking local o cial and municipal functionaries, they could not have avoided the idea of a political and perhaps also religious revo- lution: all these powers—according to the christological hymn—have their foundation in Christ and, as the remainder of the letter shows, are clearly subordinate to him, like pathetic barbarians in the triumphal procession of the emperor. Such a message shakes the foundations of the established political order.298 To describe the dominion of Christ, the hymn employs an old metaphor, also current in Hellenistic Judaism, based on the popular macrocosm/microcosm schema: Christ is the head of the body.299 The author of the epistle, however, expands this image with an interpretive addition (genitivus explicativus): Christ is the head of the body that is the church.300 The context suggests interpreting “church” in the rst instance on a cosmic scale, in the sense of a “universal church,”301 but we must not lose sight of the reference to the church of the Colossians (and Laodiceans) to which epistle is

294 Corsten 1997, p. 163, no. 83: … διά τε τ[ὰς τ]οῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς ἀρχάς τε καὶ λει[τ]ουργίας καὶ ἐργ[επι]στασίας … 295 In Colossae the archon Ti. Claudius Sacerdos appears on coins from the period of Antoninus Pius: von Aulock 1987, p. 27; in Hierapolis the archon Diphilos appears on a coin from the Augustan period: RPC I, no. 2955; ve archons are mentioned in a decree honoring Ti. Iulius Myndios from the Hadrianic period: Ritti 2001, pp. 519–522 (also identifying the archontes with the strategoi); Ritti 2006, pp. 159–165, no. 37. 296 See van der Horst 1991, pp. 89f.; Ameling 1996, pp. 38f.; Lichtenberger 1996, pp. 21f. (esp. in Rome); A. Angerstorfer in Dresken-Weiland / Angerstorfer / Merkt 2012, pp. 328f. (in Rome). 297 Ameling 2004, pp. 348–355, no. 168, and p. 601 (index s.v. ἄρχων). 298 Heininger 2009, pp. 77–80 sees the christological hymn of Colossians as an attack on the “legitimation of imperial power” (p. 79). 299 On the metaphor, see Heininger 2009, pp. 73–76. 300 Col. 1:18: καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώµατος τῆς ἐκκλησίας. Cf. Lohse 21977, pp. 93–96; Pokorn ´y 21990, pp. 50 and 68f.; Barclay 1997, p. 62; Roose 2005, p. 129, who here emphasizes the Pauline tradition. The image of the church as a body is taken up again in Col. 1:24. 301 Cf. Bauer / Aland / Aland 61988, cols. 485f.; also Lohse 21977, p. 96. 122 chapter three addressed. In the church of Colossae, therefore, the emphasis of the christological hymn corrects the existing hierarchies; Christ becomes the de nitive authority—naturally in accordance with God’s will, as is made clear at the end of the hymn, for it is God’s will that Christ undertakes the function of reconciling the world.302 Immediately afterwards the author of the epistle points out that this reconciling power has recently been bestowed on the Colossians as well, momentarily calling attention to the recent past: “And you, who were once estranged and hostile in mind in evil deeds, he has now reconciled in the body of his esh through death … .”303 The language is extreme; it has been explained by the assumption that the addressees must be former pagans: Jews have knowledge of God and could not be called “estranged”.304 This interpretation is con rmed shortly afterwards, when the author relates the mystery that is to be made known (the Christian message) to the Gen- tiles alone,305 seeing uncircumcision as a characteristic of his addressees.306 Whether we can conclude that the addressees of Colossians were exclusively Gentile Christians is dubious; given the high percentage of Jews in the over- all population of the Lycus Valley, it would be surprising. As a rule, though, exegetes assume that the primary audience addressed by the epistle should be looked for among the Gentile Christians.307

3.3.6. The Admonition against “Philosophy” Even though the author of Colossians expresses his joy over the steadfast faith of the addressees,308 he refuses to rest con dent; a di cult challenge still confronts him. As servant (διάκονος) of the gospel and the church, he has undertaken this task according to God’s plan.309 This self-description could be taken as evidence that there was not an established o ce of deacon in the churches of the Lycus Valley like that presupposed in 1Timothy (3:8– 13) a few decades later.310 In this context, the author repeats his name—

302 Col. 1:19–20. 303 Col. 1:21–22: Καὶ ὑµᾶς ποτε ὄντας ἀπη οτριωµένους καὶ ἐχθροὺς τῇ διανοίᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς, νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατή αξεν ἐν τῷ σώµατι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου …. 304 Cf. Lohse 21977, p. 105; Wolter 1993, p. 92. 305 Col. 1:27: … οἷς ἠθέλησεν ὁ θεὸς γνωρίσαι τί τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τοῦ µυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ὅ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑµῖν … . Cf. Pokorn ´y 21990, pp. 86f. 306 Col. 2:13: καὶ ὑµᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς παραπτώµασιν καὶ τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς … 307 Pokorn ´y 21990, pp. 16f.; Trebilco 2011, p. 187; Schnelle 82013, pp. 368f. 308 Col. 2:5: … χαίρων καὶ βλέπων ὑµῶν τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὸ στερέωµα τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὑµῶν. 309 Col. 1:23–29; cf. Geréb 2009, pp. 34–50. 310 Cf. also Geréb 2009, p. 36. See also p. 86 above. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 123

Paul—, thus directly confronting his audience once more with his apostolic authority. The ctive Paul thus prepares to do battle for the Colossians, the Laodiceans, and “all who have not yet seen my face in the esh.”311 This statement does not justify the conclusion that Paul had never been in the Lycus Valley312 but only that he had not personally met all Christians in the Lycus Valley. Since Hierapolis is not mentioned here,313 it is reasonable to conclude that he skipped that city during his missionary journeys. In his concern, “Paul” pursues the goal of seeing “the hearts” of his addressees “united [or: instructed]314 in love and encouraged, as well for the perfect wealth of assurance that lies in understanding, for knowledge of the mystery of God, that is, Christ, in whom lie hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”315 Here the author returns succinctly to the theme of knowledge already referred to in the passage introducing the christological hymn: using terms like σύνεσις, ἐπίγνωσις, σοφία, and γνῶσις, he stakes out the expectations of a philosopher. The root and object of that knowledge is Christ as the mystery of God.316 The image of a mystery was probably familiar to many contemporaries from philosophical discussion. Epictetus, who was then living as a slave in the neighboring city of Hierapolis, used the metaphor a few decades later to describe the instruction given by philosophers.317 The knowledge and revelation of the mystery,318 which go hand in hand with baptism319 and which the author so emphasizes in Colossians, thus appear not only to be inuenced by the “revelation schema” of the authentic Pauline epistles320 but also to comport with a common image of contemporary popular philosophy.

311 Col. 2:1: Θέλω γὰρ ὑµᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω ὑπὲρ ὑµῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ καὶ ὅσοι οὐκ ἐόρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν µου ἐν σαρκί …. 312 Pace Lohse 21977, pp. 27 and 126f. The conjunction καί distinguishes three separate groups. 313 Only manuscripts of marginal signi cance have added that city’s name here from Col. 4:13. See pp. 82f. above. 314 On the ambiguity of συµβιβάζειν see Wolter 1993, p. 110. 315 Col. 2:2–3: …, ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν συµβιβασθέντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ καὶ εἰς πᾶν πλοῦτος τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως, εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ µυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ, ἐν ᾧ εἰσιν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι. 316 Paul is accordingly the interpreter of the mystery, commissioned by God. Cf. Marguerat 2008, p. 328. 317 Arr. Epict. 3.21.13–17. 318 Cf. also Col. 1:26–27. 319 Cf. Col. 2:12. 320 Cf. 1Cor 2:6–10; Rom 16:25–26. See Geréb 2009, pp. 44–47; Frank 2010, pp. 101–103. 124 chapter three

The author of Colossians invokes the philosophical qualities of the Chris- tian creed in order to prepare an adequate arsenal to face down his opponents, who disappear behind the catchword philosophy: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ.”321 This is the only passage in the New Testament where the word philosophy appears, albeit, as the immediate context makes clear, with a pejorative undertone. What the author means by this philosophy and whether an actual group of people who thought of themselves as philosophers lies behind the term is disputed. The difuse description of the position of this philosophy makes interpretation di cult: it is based on “human tradition and the elements of the world.” Scholars have proposed a good dozen identi cations, from Jews through Gnostics to Pythagoreans.322 The earliest interpreter we can identify, Clement of Alexandria, assumed that the author had to mean the Epicureans.323 More recently scholars have abandoned the attempt to identify a concrete philosophical school on the basis of the vague terminology and trains of thought in Colossians.324 There is nevertheless good reason to associate this “philosophy” with Jewish traditions, especially since a corresponding self-conception can be assumed among educated Jews along with an analogous outsiders’ view among contemporaries,325 and because the epistle shortly afterwards po- lemicizes against several ritual requirements, which must be interpreted as part of the “philosophy” the author abominates, if we do not want to assume an all-embracing warning intended to deal wholesale with every possible

321 Col. 2:8: Βλέπετε µή τις ὑµᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν· …. 322 See the survey in Dunn 1996, pp. 24–35, who sees the synagogue as the home of this “philosophy” in Colossians; cf. Barclay 1997, pp. 39–48 and the comments of Frank 2009, pp. 206f. See also Dunn 1995 and Dunn 1998, p. 287: “The debate about the character of the teaching has been long and complex, but it is usually understood to be a form of syncretistic teaching, with elements from Judaism and early gnostic speculation mixed in.” See also Arnold 1995, pp. 204–207. 323 Clem. Str. 1.11.50.5–6. 324 Cf. Barclay 1997, pp. 52–54, who begins the chapter “Is the Puzzle Soluble?” by saying, “The methodological problems we have just considered should cause even the most con - dent sleuth to hesitate.” See also Frank 2009, pp. 215–218, who assumes that Colossians is warning very broadly against hostile false doctrine. Frank advocates this position primarily on the grounds that Colossians is doubly ctitious ( ctitious author, ctitious addressee) and therefore cannot be associated with the church in Colossae. Cf. also Müller 2009, pp. 375–377 and 388f. 325 See Lohse 21977, pp. 144f.; also van der Horst 1991, p. 133; Wolter 1993, pp. 120f. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 125 opposing movement: “Do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or in the question of festivals, a new moon, or a Sabbath.”326 In the author’s view, Christians in Colossae feel a misguided respect for those demanding observance of dietary laws and calendrical festivals. A few years previously, Paul had responded to a comparable conict in his Epistle to the Romans.327 Conicts had broken out in the church in Rome between the so- called weak and the so-called strong (ἀσθενεῖς, δυνατοί), who were feuding over ritual issues; each party treated the other with hostile arrogance. Paul’s concern in that situation was to underline the irrelevance of such questions given the fundamental principle of brotherly love,328 although he himself was among the “strong.” In Colossae, by contrast, the author does not try to mediate; he rigorously defends the position of those who declare the ritual straitjacket null and void.329 In a later passage, however, he describes ironically the nature and provenance of the condemned dietary laws: “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch all that is destined to perish by being consumed—according to commands and teachings issued by human beings, which bear the label of wisdom in self-imposed piety, in humility and ruthless treatment of the body, but are of no value and serve to satisfy the esh.”330 The polemic of this sequence is unmistakable; it appears to touch on two distinct aspects of the dietary laws: regulations governing purity and taboo (since of course all food is meant to be consumed and hence destroyed) and asceticism (which does not spare the body).331 It is impossible to associate these rules with speci c groups: asceticism and taboos were found among the Pythagoreans as well as Christian Encratites, among radical Stoics as well as devotees of mystery religions. Of course the accusations in Colossians could also be directed simply against the Jews or groups related to them. This identi cation might be con rmed in the second group of rules, which have to do not just with

326 Col. 2:16: Μὴ οὖν τις ὑµᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν µέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεοµηνίας ἢ σαββάτων· …. 327 Rom 14; cf. Schnelle 82013, pp. 149f. 328 Rom 14:17: οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις …; cf. the identical phrase in Col. 2:16. For a summary treatment of the religio-sociological context, see Gäckle 2004, pp. 509–518. 329 Cf. Frank 2009, pp. 227f. 330 Col. 2:21–23: µὴ ἅψῃ µηδὲ γεύσῃ µηδὲ θίγῃς, ἅ ἐστιν πάντα εἰς φθορὰν τῇ ἀποχρήσει, κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλµατα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἅτινά ἐστιν λόγον µὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας ἐν ἐθελοθρησκίᾳ καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ ἀφειδίᾳ σώµατος, οὐκ ἐν τιµῇ τινι πρὸς πλησµονὴν τῆς σαρκός. 331 Pokorn ´y 21990, pp. 128f. 126 chapter three food and drink but also with feasts, the new moon, and the Sabbath.332 In the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho from the pen of Justin (written around the mid-2nd century), Trypho counsels reection on the laws of the Jewish God: besides circumcision he lists observance of the Sabbath, festivals, and new moons.333 The combination of the three terms thus did reect a central feature of the Jewish way of life.334 Generally speaking, of course, a formal calendar of festivals is not unique to Judaism; it is typical of all ancient religions. In Hierapolis we nd dates from the festival calendar of the city’s Zeus cult, which are listed in a decree honoring the priest responsible, Tiberius Iulius Myndios (Hadrianic period):335 sacri ces were ofered annually on the 14th day of the 2nd month at the setting of the Pleiades, on the 18th day of the 8th month, on the Day of Augustus in the 10th month and the day following. These dates from the calendar of the province of Asia, which began on September 23, correspond to November 6, May 11, and June 24 and 25. The emphasis on new moon and Sabbath in Colossians, however, can only be explained on the basis of Jewish tradition: the new moon governed the Jewish calendar, whose fundamental structure difered substantially from the “modern” solar calendar used in the cities and towns of Asia Minor.336 The Jewish provenance of the Sabbath requires no discussion.

3.3.7. Angel Worship The Epistle to the Colossians fails to provide essential information that would be needed to identify the group within the Jewish tradition, which was immediately familiar to the addressees: what was the relationship of that group to the main Jewish communities in the Lycus Valley? Was it an inuential school or a splinter group? What methods did it use to attempt to inuence the Christian community? How did it attempt to persuade others? What was its attraction in the context of a strict body of ritual regulations?

332 Cf. Wolter 1993, p. 143, who points out that on the days named no dietary taboos are in efect, so that there is no direct connection with the mention of rules about “eating and drinking” (Col. 2:16). 333 Just. Dial. 8.4: … πρῶτον µὲν περιτεµοῦ, εἶτα φύλαξον, ὡς νενόµισται, τὸ σάββατον καὶ τὰς ἑορτὰς καὶ τὰς νουµηνίας τοῦ θεοῦ,… 334 Cf. Müller 2009, pp. 379f., with additional citations. 335 Ritti 2001, pp. 531–535 (SEG 51 [2001], no. 1783). Cf. Ritti 2006, pp. 159–165, no. 37. See also p. 43 above. 336 On the lunar calendar as a mark of Jewish identity in the 1st century ce, see Stern 2002, p. 114. Cf. also pp. 252f. below. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 127

The author of the epistle assigns the ritual requirements to the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου,337 using an expression that exegetes have debated vigorously, which Paul used in a similar context in Galatians.338 There, too, the issue is release of the addressees from the bondage of ritual regulations: they are no longer to be slaves to the stoicheia (“elements”) of the world.339 But Christians have left this world behind with the death of Jesus (i.e. with baptism), as Colossians expressly emphasizes: “If with Christ you died away from the elements of the world, why do you submit to regulations, like people still living in the world?”340 The author’s concern goes beyond simply drawing a boundary between the Jewish and the Christian community or isolating the Christians from the Jews, as is shown by his explicit reference to the worship of angels, which must have played a special role in the religion of his opponents: “Do not let anyone disqualify you who takes pleasure in a show of humility341 and the worship of angels, who pufs himself up without cause for what he saw at his initiation, on account of his eshly way of thinking.”342 Religio-historical interpretation of this admonition, which presumably emphasizes the local situation in the Lycus Valley, must focus on three questions: (1) What is the meaning of ταπεινοφροσύνη (here translated “show of humility”)? (2) What is the context of “worshiping angels”?343 (3) What role is played by visions and revelations rooted in the mystery cult?

337 Col. 2:8 and 2:20. 338 For further discussion, see Arnold 1995, pp. 183–194; Woyke 2008, pp. 221–225; also Frank 2009, pp. 225f. Cf. also Wolter 1993, pp. 122–124, who rules out the possibility that the στοιχεῖα could have been animate spirits. Recently Zimmermann 2013, pp. 94–101. 339 Gal 4:3. Paul admits to having been so enslaved himself: οὕτως καὶ ἡµεῖς, ὅτε ἦµεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου ἤµεθα δεδουλωµένοι· … 340 Col. 2:20: Εἰ ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσµου, τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσµῳ δογµατίζεσθε; 341 According to Lohse 21977, p. 174, ταπεινοφροσύνη has negative connotations. Wolter 1993, pp. 145f. modi es this view, assuming that ταπεινοφροσύνη is connected with observance of dietary taboos. Cf. the following discussion. 342 Col. 2:18: µηδεὶς ὑµᾶς καταβραβευέτω θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀ έλων, ἃ ἑόρακεν ἐµβατεύων, εἰκῇ φυσιούµενος ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, … .—Καταβραβεύειν is a New Testament hapax legomenon; it belongs to the metaphor of the athletic contest that is as typical of Colossians (e.g. 1:29: ἀγωνιζόµενος) as of the proto-Paulines. See Heininger 2009, pp. 65–73, who also cites analogous metaphors used by Epictetus. On agones in the Lycus Valley, see references in the subject index (11.3). 343 Zahn 1906, pp. 334 and 341 interprets θρησκεία τῶν ἀ έλων as a subjective genitive in the sense of angelic asceticism. Recent scholarship has adopted the same grammatical 128 chapter three

The lexeme ταπεινοφροσύνη appears in two other places in Colossians, once as a typically Christian virtue, to be adopted by the addressees alongside other qualities such as χρηστότης and µακροθυµία,344 another time once more as an attribute of the author’s opponents, alongside ἐθελοθρησκία and ἀφειδία σώµατος.345 Its association with “self-imposed piety” and “ruthless treatment of the body” signals the placement of ταπεινοφροσύνη in a context of religious ritual. Some evidence can be cited that ταπεινοφροσύνη means “fasting” in a narrower sense or eagerness for cultic service in a broader sense.346 The opponents of the Christians in Colossae are therefore distinguished not by their humble demeanor in their converse with their fellows but by their zeal in ritual matters. Given the polemic tenor of Colossians, the signi cance of θρησκεία τῶν ἀ έλων in the religious habitus of the opponents of the Christians here is hard to determine.347 In his commentary on Colossians, it is noteworthy that Theodoret was able to identify a local reference in this very passage, citing the worship of angels in the region in his own time: Those who championed the [Jewish ritual] law also induced them to worship the angels, on the grounds that the law had been given through them. This deplorable custom had a long life in Phrygia and Pisidia. Therefore the synod that met in Laodicea in Phrygia passed a law prohibiting the worship of angels. Shrines of Saint Michael are still to be seen among them and their neighbors.348 Theodoret was familiar with canon 35 of the 4th-century synod in Laodicea that vigorously opposed invocation of angels.349 Nevertheless some 300 years

interpretation but interprets the term as meaning “angelic liturgy.” See Kurek-Chomycz / Bieringer 2007, p. 348.—For more on θρησκεία in pagan contexts, see Robert 1946, pp. 132f. 344 Col. 3:12. 345 Col. 2:23; cf. p. 125 above. 346 Lohse 21977, p. 174; also Pokorn ´y 21990, p. 123. Müller 2009, p. 373 traces a direct line from “humility” to “angel worship.” 347 The fundamental treatments of this topic are Arnold 1995, pp. 8–102 and Stuckenbruck 1995, pp. 111–119. Cf. also Gal 4:14, where Paul praises the Galatians for receiving him “like an angel of God, like Christ Jesus”: … οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε, ἀ ὰ ὡς ἄ ελον θεοῦ ἐδέξασθέ µε, ὡς Χριστὸν ᾽Ιησοῦν. 348 Thdt. Interpretationes in Pauli epistulas (PG 82, 613 A–B): Οἱ τῷ νόµῳ συνηγοροῦντες, καὶ τοὺς ἀ έλους σέβειν αὐτοῖς εἰσηγοῦντο, διὰ τούτων λέγοντες δεδόσθαι τὸν νόµον. ῎Εµεινε δὲ τοῦτο τὸ πάθος ἐν τῇ Φρυγίᾳ καὶ Πισιδίᾳ µέχρι πο οῦ. Οὗ δὴ χάριν καὶ συνελθοῦσα σύνοδος ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ τῆς Φρυγίας, νόµῳ κεκώλυκε τὸ τοῖς ἀ έλοις προσεύχεσθαι· καὶ µέχρι δὲ τοῦ νῦν εὐκτήρια τοῦ ἁγίου Μιχαὴλ παρ’ ἐκείνοις καὶ τοῖς ὁµόροις ἐκείνων ἔστιν ἰδεῖν. On the cult of Saint Michael in Colossae, see pp. 372–377 and 381f. below. 349 The text of the canon is discussed in detail on pp. 301–304 below. Arnold 1995, p. 86 assumes that the reference is to invocation of angels in the setting of magical rituals. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 129 separate the two references to a cult of the angels in the Lycus Valley, Colossians and the documentation of the Synod of Laodicea, so that (unlike Theodoret) we cannot assume that the same phenomenon was involved. In addition it is quite unclear what forms the cult took, which in one place is described as θρησκεία τῶν ἀ έλων, in the other as ἀ έλους ὀνοµάζειν.

The notion of angels as intermediate beings is considered symptomatic of monothe- istic religions; Christian worship of angels is derived from Jewish traditions,350 but angelolatry also played a role in the pagan world: in Stratonicea in Caria, for example, an ἄ ελος (ἀγαθὸς or θεῖος) was worshiped cultically alongside Ζεὺς ῞Υψιστος.351 With both Jewish and Christian spokesmen, there was occasional discussion of the divinity of angels, or more accurately individual angels who emerge prominently in tradition.352 In his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, Justin cites several texts regarding angels to show that the Old Testament already embodied knowledge of Jesus Christ.353 In the famous 3rd-century inscription from Oinoanda, which reproduces an oracle of Apollo of Clarus that addresses the unfathomability of God, the angels call themselves a “small portion” of that God.354 We know nothing of a pagan cult of angels in the Lycus Valley, but Ramsay did see a fragment of an inscription near Laodicea attesting to the worship of the Theos Hypsistos.355 It is doubtful, however, that the presence of local varieties of a pagan monotheism justi es a conclusion that there was also a pagan cult of angels like that attested in Stratonicea. But a speci c worship of angels in a Jewish/Christian environment is attested by a sepulchral inscription from Eumeneia: “I, Aurelius Zotikos Lykidas, bring God as a witness that I prepared the tomb—while my brother Amianos remained indiferent—by my own eforts, and I prescribe that only my sisters Phronime and Maxima are to be buried [here]. If anyone lays someone else inside, he will answer to God and the angel of Roubes.”356 The somewhat clumsy

350 On the Jewish traditions of angel worship, see Williams 1909, pp. 414–435; Arnold 1995, pp. 32–60. 351 IvStratonikeia, nos. 1117f. and 1307f. An interesting new discovery has been published by Aydas¸ 2009, pp. 113f., no. 1. Cf. Sheppard 1980, pp. 78f.; Bowersock 1990, pp. 19f.; Arnold, 1995, pp. 70–75; Mitchell 1999, pp. 102f.; Wischmeyer 2005, pp. 155 and 165, nos. 69–71; Hirschmann 2007, pp. 142–144, applying Persian ideas of sacrality to the angel cult of Asia Minor; Chiai 2009, p. 93. 352 On the discussion of the angel Metatron among the Jews, see Schäfer 2010, pp. 97–132. Examples from a Christian context include Heb 1:5–14 and Rev 22:8–9. 353 55.10; 75.2; 76.3; 93.2. 354 µεικρὰ δὲ θεοῦ µερὶς ἄνγελοι ἡµεῖς. Cf. Arnold 1995, pp. 78f.; Merkelbach 1997, pp. 202f.; Mitchell 1999, p. 86. On the oracle˙ itself, see also p. 119 above. 355 Ramsay 1895, p. 78, no. 14; Corsten 1997, pp. 123f., no. 61: ------ς Θεῷ ῾Υψέστῳ εὐχήν. 356 Robert 1960, pp. 429–435; Sheppard 1979, pp. 175f.; Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 240–243, no. 153: [Α]ὐρ(ήλιος) Ζωτικὸς Λυκίδας µάρτυρα τὸν θεὸν δίδω ὅτι κατεσκεύασα τὸ ἡρῷον, νωθρῶς ἔχοντος ᾽Αµιανοῦ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ µου, ἀπὸ τῶν ἐµῶν καµάτων καὶ ἐντέ οµε Φρονίµη (!) καὶ Μάξιµαν τὰς ἀδελφάς µου τεθῆνε µόνας· εἴ τις δὲ ἕτερον θήσει, ἔστε αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τὸν ἄνγελον τὸν ῾Ρουβῆδος. 130 chapter three inscription, unconventional because of conict within the family, dates from the 3rd century. Whoever violates the tomb will be brought before two agents of judgment: God (as usual in the epigraphic formulary of the region, the so-called Eumenean formulas)357 and the angel of “Roubes.” Roubes also appears in another sepulchral inscription in the city, in which he is called µεγαλοίο Θεοῦ θεράπων; it also seems to bear traces of a christogram.358 The “angel of Roubes” could thus be a kind of guardian angel, as found in inscriptions from the Aegean islands, especially Thera;359 clearly he ensures the integrity of burial places.360 As an agent of judgment, in Eumeneia he clearly stands on a par with God; this does not absolutely imply the divinity of angels, but it is suggestive. The author of Colossians might have had in mind such a concept of the divinity of angels when he warned against θρησκεία τῶν ἀ έλων, but the concrete form taken by angel worship in the Lycus Valley can no longer be determined.361

The angel worshipers of Colossians brag about having seen something special,362 although the details are not clear. The author refers to it with a neuter relative pronoun (plural: ἃ) without a concrete antecedent. Even though this relative clause follows θρησκεία τῶν ἀ έλων, grammatical issues preclude any direct reference to the ἄ ελοι.363 Nevertheless we may assume that the angel worshipers were peddling their visionary experiences, which they labeled a mystery.364 This is suggested by the disputed participle ἐµβατεύων, which describes the visionary’s activity. Inscriptions make it clear that the word referred to the individuals who approached the oracle of Apollo at

357 See Trebilco 2004. 358 Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 248–251, no. 157, lines 13f.: σὺν ῾Ρούβῃ µεγάλοιο Θ[εο]ῦ θεράποντι … . In the photograph, however, the christogram does not seem absolutely clear. The mention of the ἀνάστασις in the inscription is not evidence that we are dealing here with a Christian inscription (pace Ameling 2004, p. 394, n. 146). On ἀνάστασις in Jewish inscriptions, see van der Horst 1991, pp. 119f. 359 Cf. Grégoire 1922, nos. 167–207 (primarily Thera) and 209 (Melos). In these inscriptions, the ἄ ελος is usually associated with a particular individual, e.g. no. 180: ῎Α ελος Μητροδώρο[υ]. On the Thera inscriptions, see Deissmann 41923, pp. 239f.; Dresken-Weiland 2007, pp. 663f. On the concept of guardian angels in antiquity, see Brown 1981, pp. 51– 53. 360 Arnold 1995, p. 81: “It is possible that the spirit of the deceased was believed to still inhabit or frequent the tomb (as in pagan belief) and therefore protect the grave.” 361 Wolter 1993, p. 160. 362 Markschies 2007, p. 135 sees a link between the visions of the Christians (!) in Colossae and the visions of the Montanists. 363 Col. 2:18 (text on p. 127 above). On the grammatical problem, see Wolter 1993, p. 147. The most plausible analysis, it seems to me, is to associate the relative clause with the following participle φυσιούµενος. 364 Cf. the “angelic visions” in the sepulchral inscription of the prophetess Nanas from northern Phrygia: Merkelbach / Stauber III 2001, pp. 349f., no. 16/41/15. See p. 302, n. 171 below. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 131

Clarus to seek the god’s counsel.365 An inscription dating from 131/132 speaks of two θεοπρόποι (“oracle envoys”) from Amisus, “who had been initiated [in Clarus] and then entered.”366 With the meaning of the word speci c to local usage, the passage in Colossians takes on an equivalent connotation, since in the Lycus Valley Clarus naturally was considered one of the de nitive sacral authorities: since the second half of the 2nd century, inscriptions in the local Apollo sanctuary of Hierapolis presented oracles from Clarus,367 and numerous texts from Clarus document the presence of Laodicean delegations in the 2nd century, who traveled there regularly to sing hymns in the sanctuary.368 If the author of Colossians adopted a technical terms from the sacral language of the region, this suggests convergences of religious concepts in Colossae, so that the encounters of pagans and Jews with the deity could be based on a common experience. Nevertheless it would be wrong to push the association with the oracle of Clarus or comparable cultic sites too far;369 possibly ἐµβατεύων in Colossians can also be interpreted without any local reference to the mysteries: that someone with a serious interest would draw near the object of that interest (e.g. a visionary approaching what he sees), i.e. “approach” it, is obvious. There is lexical evidence for a corresponding usage of the word.370

3.3.8. Local Color in the Catalog of Vices Thus the author of Colossians was opposing a competing concept, primarily of Jewish origin, circulating in the guise of a philosophy, reduced to crude angel worship, pointless self-morti cation, and pedantic observance of rules. But the difuse polemic blurs the contours of the advocates of this concept. The ritual laws are an earthly burden to be treated with contempt;371 the attention of the addressees must instead be focused on Christ, with

365 Arnold 1995, pp. 109–120. 366 IGR IV, no. 1586: … θεοπρόποι ἦλθον Κρῖσπος Τρύφωνος καὶ Π. Πούπιος Κα ικλῆς, οἵτινες µυηθέντες ἐνεβάτευσαν … . For other examples, see Merkelbach 1997, p. 164. 367 For further discussion, see Merkelbach 1997, pp. 167–173; Ritti 2006, pp. 93–99. See also p. 46 above and 266–268 below. 368 Robert 1969, pp. 299–304. See pp. 139f. below. 369 A connection between the “mystery terminology” of Colossians and the Dionysus cult in Hierapolis might also be tentatively suggested; the cult is attested by the dedication of a hierophant. Cf. Miranda 2003, pp. 165: Καθηγεµόνι ∆ιονύσῳ Γ. ᾽Αµβείβιος Φρουγιανὸς ἱεροφάντης ἀνέθηκεν. 370 E.g. 2Macc 2:31. Cf. Wolter 1993, pp. 147f.; Dunn 1995, pp. 177f. 371 Col. 2:23. 132 chapter three whom they have died and risen. They must seek the things that are above!372 Christians must turn their backs on everything earthly—speci cally fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, as well as anger, wrath, malice, slander, lthy language, and lying.373

This catalog of vices incorporates Hellenistic, Jewish, and now even Pauline traditions,374 but the conventional elements should not prevent us from rooting distinctive features in a local context. Within the catalog, αἰσχρολογία (“ lthy language”) stands out: not only is it a hapax legomenon within the New Testament, it also is unattested in the Jewish tradition. The singularity of the term in Colossians clearly underscores a fundamental concern of the author, who hunts repeatedly for adequate language.375 Before the era of the church fathers, neither the substantive αἰ- σχρολογία nor the verb αἰσχρολογεῖν was used frequently; it occurs only some three dozen times.376 Epictetus, who came from Hierapolis, is exceptional: the term occurs three times in his works, twice in Arrian’s transcripts of Epictetus’s Discourses and once in his Manual, likewise compiled by his disciple Arrian. No one should allow himself to be ofended by the αἰσχρολογία of others;377 at the same time, there is always the danger of being carried away and engaging in ofensive verbal assaults.378 Of course Epictetus left his native city early on; clearly it would be wrong simply to identify a local tradition of Hierapolis on the basis of his concerns, but it is impossible to deny a corresponding potential for interpretation. We cannot rule out the possibility that αἰσχρολογία (and βλασφηµία along with it) was a deplorable habit endemic in the Lycus Valley and correspondingly abominated by the moral authorities of the region.

Πορνεία and ἀκαθαρσία head the rst list of vices in Colossians, which focuses on sexual transgressions;379 the combination appears twice in the authentic Pauline epistles.380 Nevertheless we should also note sporadic accounts from the region that provide information about sexual practices tolerated

372 Col. 3:1–4. 373 Col. 3:5 and 8–9: Νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ µέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, πορνείαν ἀκαθαρσίαν πάθος ἐπιθυµίαν κακήν, καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν …. νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑµεῖς τὰ πάντα, ὀργήν, θυµόν, κακίαν, βλασφηµίαν, αἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ τοῦ στόµατος ὑµῶν· µὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀ ήλους … 374 Lohse 21977, pp. 199–201 (p. 109: “Die Aufzählung der Laster ist nicht durch die Situation veranlaßt, in der sich die angeredete Gemeinde be ndet, sondern in der Überlieferung vorgegeben.”) and pp. 202f.; Wolter 1993, p. 174. See the tabular survey of the New Testament catalogues of vices in Frank 2009, p. 256 with detailed commentary pp. 253–289. On Christian catalogues of vices outside the New Testament, see Ameling 2011 a, pp. 244f. 375 Cf. Frank 2009, p. 268. 376 In the textual corpus of the TLG. 377 Arr. Epict. 4.3.2; cf. 4.4.46. 378 Epict. Ench. 33.16: ἐπισφαλὲς δὲ καὶ τὸ εἰς αἰσχρολογίαν προελθεῖν. 379 Cf. Macdonald 2007, p. 101; Frank 2009, pp. 260f. with n. 153. 380 2Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 133 locally. Strabo reports that during an earthquake a pimp vanished from sight together with a large group of prostitutes in an inn at Carura, some 20 miles west of Laodicea.381 It is safe to assume that prostitutes and pimps regularly traveled to the major festivities and events to pro t from the crowds in the cities. Dio Chrysostom con rms such a scenario in his encomium of Apamea, where he describes how pimps enlivened the bustle in the city during the annual assizes of the governor.382 In antiquity the services of prostitutes were in heavy demand; only strict moralists among the Pythagoreans or Stoics found contact with them objectionable.383 From the apostle’s vigorous attacks on prostitution in 1Corinthians, however, it is safe to assume that he placed intercourse with prostitutes under the heading of fornication.384 Among pagans, by contrast, the notion of ritual impurity incurred by sexual activity was widespread.385 An impressive example comes from the sanctuary of Lairbenos. The stele in question, which has a phalloid engrav- ing on its lower edge,386 is a penitential inscription from the 3rd century; its unconventional Greek leaves a few details unclear, but there can be no doubt that it confesses a transgression of sacral law involving sexual behavior in the sanctuary: “I, Aurelius Soter(i)chos, son of Demostratos, from Motella have been punished by the god. I say publically to all not to go up to the site while impure, not to perjure themselves, and not to shake their testicles. I noodled Gaia at the site.”387 Aurelius Soterichos, who had received Roman citizenship and imperial gentilicity with the Constitutio Antoniniana of 212, came from the region; his home was in Motella immediately across the Meander. He had enjoyed himself with a woman named Gaia on the grounds of the sanctuary; on account of this transgression, he felt compelled to warn unclean individuals (ἄναγνοι) not to enter the temenos.

381 Str. 12.8.17: καὶ δή ποτέ φασι πορνοβοσκὸν αὐλισθέντα ἐν τοῖς πανδοχείοις σὺν πο ῷ πλήθει γυναικῶν, νύκτωρ γενοµένου σεισµοῦ, συναφανισθῆναι πάσαις. The distance is taken from the Peutinger Map. For more on this episode, see also Huttner 2012, p. 29. 382 D. Chr. 35.15 uses the term µαστροπός. 383 Stumpp 1998, pp. 271–286. 384 1Cor 6:12–19. See Schnabel 2006, pp. 327f. 385 Paoletti 2004, pp. 30–32. 386 According to Petzl 1994, p. 129 the carving could instead be “a crude representation of a double axe,” the attribute of Lairbenos. 387 Petzl 1994, pp. 128–130, no. 110: Αὐρήλιος Σωτήρχος ∆ηµοστράτου Μοτεληνὸς κολάθιν ἑπὸ τ¯o θεοῦ· παραγέλων πᾶσι µηδὲ ἄναγον˙ ἀναβῆτ ἐπὶ τὸ χωρίον, ἐπροκήσι ἢ κήνσετε τὸν ὄρχις· ἐγὼ Γέᾳ ἐκηνησάµην ἐπὶ τὸ χωρίον. ˙ ˙ ˙ 134 chapter three

There is nevertheless a fundamental diference between this and the Pauline/deutero-Pauline verdict on fornication: the transgression at the sanctuary of Lairbenos is explicitly associated with the site (the χωρίον is mentioned twice in the short text), while Colossians seeks to establish a general ethical rule. Here we see the diference between pagan ritual norms that apply only within a particular ambit and the universal ethics of Christianity.

3.3.9. Renewal and Liberation With a general reorientation and dismissal of the old vices, the author of Colossians seeks to establish a new society, based on a new type of humanity. The epistle visualizes the process of transformation using the metaphor of removing and putting on clothing, often used by Paul:388 “… you have stripped of the old human nature with its practices and have clothed yourselves with the new, which was renewed for knowledge, according to the image of its creator.”389 Investiture associated with renewal was an element of many ceremonies, including the mysteries,390 so that here the author devel- ops a scenario to compete with the angel worshipers and their visions. The culmination of the investiture in ἐπίγνωσις can probably be read as a conscious attack on the philosophical ambitions of the enemies in Colossae;391 the basis of this knowledge, of course, is to be found in the Logos of Christ, as the author makes clear a bit later.392 A Christian is clothed in the new garment of “compassion, kindness, humility, friendliness, patience,” mutual tolerance, readiness to forgive, and above all love.393 The catalog of virtues that introduces this passage in a series of nouns denoting values alludes to comparable catalogs in the proto-Paulines.394 The meek friendliness (πραΰ- της) appropriate to a person in authority395 appears already in 1Corinthians

388 See Wolter 1993, p. 179; Frank 2009, pp. 269–271. 389 Col. 3:9–10: … ἀπεκδυσάµενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθροπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνδυσάµε- νοι τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούµενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν,…. 390 Reitzenstein 31927, pp. 42f. and 179; Lohse 21977, pp. 204f. On the cult of Isis, see Merkelbach 22001, pp. 162f.; also Camporeale 2004, p. 60 (on white vestments of priests). 391 Pokorn ´y 21990, p. 143 (though less pointedly). 392 Col. 3:16: ῾Ο λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑµῖν πλουσίως, ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ διδάσκοντες καὶ νουθετοῦντες …. 393 Col. 3:12–14: ᾽Ενδύσασθε οὖν … σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρµοῦ χρηστότητα ταπεινοφροσύνην πραΰ- τητα µακροθυµίαν, ἀνεχόµενοι ἀ ήλων καὶ χαριζόµενοι ἑαυτοῖς ἐάν τις πρός τινα ἐχῃ µοµφήν· … ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις τὴν ἀγάπην …. 394 Cf. the table of passages in Frank 2009, p. 276. 395 See Judge 1987, p. 170. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 135 and Galatians.396 The active appreciation of this particular value among the early Christians is shown by epigraphic evidence from northern Lycaonia: three tombs of priests (from the post-Constantinian period) extol the πραΰ- της of the deceased.397 One consequence of the radical reorientation toward Christ is the elimination of all social and cultural barriers: “There are neither Greeks nor Jews, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, not barbarians, not Scythians, not slaves, not free, but Christ is all in all.”398 The series of antitheses (Greek/Jews, heightened by the contrast of the circumcision ritual; slave/free), already laid out in 1Corinthians and Galatians,399 can be interpreted naturally as reecting the composition of Christian communities in the Lycus valley. It is interrupted, however, by the juxtaposition of barbarian and Scythian.400 This dyad presents di culties,401 because instead of another antithesis it introduces terms from the same lexical eld into the series, unless we assume here an idealized image of the Scythians, associated with the sage Anachar- sis, an image that surfaced occasionally in cultured discussion402 and was borrowed later by Clement of Alexandria.403 This reading would turn Scythi- ans into civilized antibarbarians. There is an additional question: what associations did the Colossians have with the terms under discussion, and what were their notions of barbarians and Scythians?404 We know almost nothing about the symbiosis of the Greek and pre-Greek population in the Lycus Valley; probably it involved a contrast between urban and rural areas.405 It is uncertain whether a citizen of Colossae, Laodicea, or Hierapolis growing up in the Greek tradition would

396 1Cor 4:21; Gal 5:23; 6:1. 397 MAMA I, no. 237; MAMA VIII, no. 320; Cronin 1902, pp. 361f., no. 125. 398 Col. 3:11: ὅπου οὐκ ἔνι ῞Ε ην καὶ ᾽Ιουδαῖος, περιτοµὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία, βάρβαρος, Σκύθης, δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος, ἀ ὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν Χριστός. 399 1Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28. 400 Goldenberg 1998, pp. 96f. (citing rabbinic sources) and Bormann 2009, pp. 91f. and 96f. (citing Ptolemy) have attempted to identify here a contrast between geographical areas, south (barbarians) and northeast or north (Scythia). These attempts seem quite arbitrary to me. 401 Literature survey in Borman 2009, pp. 92–96. 402 See Weiß 2012. 403 Clem. Prot. 2.20 P (pp. 47f. Loeb). But Clement also associates the conventional image of barbarians with the Scythians (Prot. 5.56 P = p. 147 Loeb). 404 Maier 2005, pp. 390–397 calls attention to contemporay imagery that exploited the barbarians to symbolize the victories of the Roman emperor. Strelan 2011, pp. 98f. speculates on identifying the Scythians in Colossians with the Phrygian language group. 405 See pp. 27–30 above. 136 chapter three have viewed a peasant or herdsman from the mountainous hinterland who spoke Greek only haltingly and could not conceal his Phrygian idiom as a barbarian and called him one. To the Greek mind, which was dominated by types, the Phrygians certainly represented barbarians par excellence.406 Whether a memory of the Cimmerians survived in the Lycus Valley is likewise unknown; after the Scythians had driven them from their home north of the Black Sea, they penetrated as far as Phrygia in the 7th century bce and supposedly destroyed Gordion.407 In any case, tradition here preserves an episode that connects the Scythians with central Anatolia. As already stated, elimination of social and cultural barriers within the community of baptized Christians was also a concern of Paul; in his Epistle to the Romans, he implied equal treatment of Greeks and barbarians by declaring himself indebted equally to both groups,408 although he conceded the superior cultural standard of the Greeks. Before and in Christ all are equal; even the gulf between the high civilization of the Greeks and the rest of the uncivilized world is bridged. Of course this was not a new idea; in the 5th/4th century bce, Sophists like Antiphon and Alcidamas had already postulated the equality of all human beings regardless of their station or background.409 In the cult of Isis, we nd the idea that the goddess accepts the Greeks and the barbarians equally. In the Isis aretalogy, preserved in several witnesses, including an inscription from Cyme (probably 1st cent. bce), we read, “I have assigned the Greeks and barbarians their languages.”410 Symbols of Isis already played a role in the coinage of Laodicea in the early

406 An early example is Hipponax frgm. 46 (Bergk PLG 31866, p. 765); from the imperial period, there is Men. Rh. 354, which includes the Phrygians among the earliest barbarians; see also p. 30 above. Cf. also the representations of Midas on coins of the imperial period: Miller 1997, pp. 846f., nos. 2–6. On Phrygian slaves, see Mitchell 1993 I, p. 47. Φρύξ und Φρυγία were common names of slaves; cf. Fragiadakis 1986, pp. 17–20. On the Roman view of the Phrygian cult of the Great Mother, see Dauge 1981, p. 136. 407 For further discussion, see Marek 2010, pp. 151f.; also Strobel 2008, p. 137. 408 Rom 1:14: ῞Ε ησίν τε καὶ βαρβάροις, σοφοῖς τε καὶ ἀνοήτοις ὀφειλέτης εἰµί …. 409 Antiphon Soph. DK 87 [80] B44; on Alcidamas see Rabe, Comm. in Arist. Graeca 21.2 (1896), p. 74 on Arist. Rh. 1373 b 18. For other sources on the idea of the equality of all human beings, see Dihle 1994, pp. 143f., n. 39 and Speyer 2001, cols. 821–824. 410 IvKyme 41 §31: ᾽Εγῶ διαλέκτους ῞Ε ησι καὶ βαρβάροις ἔταξα. For more on the whole text, see Merkelbach 22001, pp. 113–119. Horsley 1981, pp. 10–21, no. 2 provides a useful survey of the Isis aretalogies, including an inscription from Maroneia (Macedonia) with a somewhat diferent thrust: Isis introduced the Greek and barbarian languages in order to impose a better structure on humankind beyond the separation of the sexes (αὕτη τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἷς µὲν βάρβαρον, οἷς δ’ ἑ ηνίδα διάλεκτον ἔστησεν ἵν’ ᾖ τὸ γένος δια άσον µὴ µόνον ἀνδράσιν πρὸς γυναῖκας ἀ ὰ καὶ πᾶσι πρὸς πάντας). In this context, Horsley (pp. 16f.) also cites Col. 3:11. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 137 imperial period;411 the other cities of the Lycus Valley followed.412 Possibly the crossing of boundaries proclaimed in the Epistle to the Colossians had an equivalent in the cultural substrates of the region. But they probably would have been glaringly at odds with the worldview of the urban majority.

3.3.10. Liturgical Hymns The radical change that gripped the Christian community occasioned a deep sense of gratitude,413 which was given voice through cultic music: “… with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, sing with thanksgiving in your hearts to God.”414 This call reappears in similar words in Ephesians (albeit coupled with the admonition not to get drunk with wine),415 so that here— after 1Cor 14:26—we have the earliest evidence of a communal liturgy involving music.416 How the singing was organized during worship services, what content was voiced by what singers, and more generally the role of singing in the setting of the liturgy all remain unclear.417 The words “psalms, hymns, and songs” obviously do not denote distinct categories of vocal music,418 especially since the close association of the terms is already adumbrated in the psalm texts of the Septuagint.419 The context shows clearly that the interest of the author of Colossians was in the parenetic impact he associated with singing: in this way, Christians should “teach and admonish one another in all wisdom.”420 Possibly the “christological hymn” in Col. 1:15–20 should also be understood as a “spiritual song” the Christians of Colossae were expected to sing.421

411 RPC I, nos. 2905, 2909. 412 Hierapolis: BMC Phrygia, p. 232, nos. 27–29; Weber 1913, p. 136; Colossae: von Aulock 1987, pp. 87–89, nos. 518–533 and 541f. 413 Col. 3:15: … καὶ εὐχάριστοι γίνεσθε. A New Testament hapax legomenon. 414 Col. 3:16: … ψαλµοῖς ὕµνοις ᾠδαῖς πνευµατικαῖς ἐν τῇ χάριτι ᾄδοντες ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑµῶν τῷ θεῷ· … . On the use of the adjective πνευµατικός in the Pauline epistles, see Barclay 2011, pp. 208–215. 415 Eph 5:18–19: καὶ µὴ µεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀ ὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύµατι, λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ψαλµοῖς καὶ ὕµνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευµατικαῖς, ᾄδοντες καὶ ψά οντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑµῶν τῷ κυρίῳ …. 416 Cf. Fürst 2008, p. 41. McKinnon 1987, pp. 12–17 brings together the New Testament texts involving musical praise of God. 417 On this source problem, see Mckinnon 21995, col. 908. 418 Wolter 1993, p. 190. 419 Ps 66:1 (Eng. heading): Εἰς τὸ τέλος, ἐν ὕµνοις· ψαλµὸς ᾠδῆς. 420 Col. 3:16 (on the text, see p. 134 above). Cf. Hengel 1987, pp. 389–393; Macdonald 1988, pp. 141f. 421 Cf. Lohse 21977, p. 217 with n. 4. Hengel 1987, p. 399 prefers to speak of a “christological 138 chapter three

The traditions of liturgical song in the Lycus Valley can be traced over several centuries. When Apollinarius, the bishop of Hierapolis during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, composed a text entitled Περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα, of which only two small fragments survive, he was following the tradition of Jewish hymnography, like his contemporary Melito of Sardis, whose paschal homily survives complete and was composed against the same background of conict as the work of Apollinarius.422 In the course of the excavations that revealed an insula between the temple of Apollo and the theater in Hierapo- lis, an inscription painted in red around the walls of a small room that was part of a 5th/6th-century house came to light,423 presenting the text of the Prayer of Manasseh, a penitential prayer composed in the centuries around the turn of the era. For liturgical reasons, the Prayer of Manasseh appears in some Bible manuscripts among the odes appended to the Psalms;424 in Con- stantinople it was an important part of the daily Mass from the 5th to the 7th century.425 Professional cantors rst appear among the clergy in the 4th century,426 and it may be no accident that it was the Synod of Laodicea that regulated liturgical singing by the laity: it was henceforth prohibited “that others should lead the singing in church than the canonical singers who go up to the ambo and sing from a codex.”427 This decree makes sense only if we assume that the region had a liturgy permeated with singing in which the congregation participated enthusiastically. At the same time, the synod fathers were concerned to keep heretical elements out of the liturgical songs: another canon decreed that only recognized psalms, i.e. the Psalms of David, be allowed, prohibiting new composition.428 It is safe to assume that hymnography was especially popular in heretical circles at an early date.429 psalm,” both on account of the tradition of psalmody in the Old Testament and Judaism and because the primary purpose is not to praise Christ but to describe his work of salvation. 422 On Melito see Wellesz 1943, pp. 45–48; Hengel 1987, p. 381; Stewart-Sykes 2001, pp. 15f. (hymnic style); on Apollinarius see pp. 231–266 below. Also Huttner 2011, pp. 273f. and 279f. 423 T. Ritti in D’Andria / Zaccaria Ruggiu / Ritti / Bazzana / Caccitti 2005, pp. 395–433; SEG 57 (2007), no. 1378. 424 See Schneider 1949, pp. 52–57; on the close connection between song and prayer in the odes appended to the Psalter, see Hengel 1987, pp. 363–365. 425 G.B. Bazzana in D’Andria/ Zaccaria Ruggiu / Ritti / Bazzana / Caccitti 2005, pp. 434–442; cf. Schneider 1949, pp. 248–252. 426 Hübner 2005, pp. 39–41. 427 For the Greek text of CLaod. Can. 15, see p. 313 below. 428 CLaod. Can. 59 (also canonizing the biblical Scriptures): ῞Οτι οὐ δεῖ ἰδιωτικοὺς ψαλµοὺς λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ οὐδὲ ἀκανόνιστα βιβλία ἀναγινώσκεσθαι, ἀ ὰ µόνα τὰ κανονικὰ τῆς Καινῆς καὶ Παλαιᾶς ∆ιαθήκης (Joannou 1962, p. 154). Cf. McKinnon 21995, cols. 912f. 429 Cf. Hengel 1987, pp. 366–368. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 139

Singing in the context of the Christian liturgy was obviously not peculiar to the churches of the Lycus Valley, as the account of Pliny from Pontus shows: the Christians assembled before daybreak and paid homage to Christ in antiphonal song.430 A musical component also played an important role in the pagan cults of the Lycus Valley. Singing and instrumental music had long been part of the xed repertoire of sacri cial ceremonies, especially evident in the Greek homeland.431 In the emperor cult of the province of Asia, choruses sang to honor the ruler;432 the hymnodists responsible, who had their own center in Pergamum, enjoyed great esteem throughout the region.433

In the 2nd century, the cities of the Lycus Valley sent delegations to Clarus to sing hymns in honor of Apollo. After a plague, a lengthy oracle found preserved in Hierapolis addressed the citizens: “Have boys and girls go together joyfully to Colophon as singers, with libations and hecatombs.”434 The children’s choruses from Laodicea are particularly well documented, because for many years, from the time of Hadrian to the early 3rd century, the personal makeup of the delegations was memorialized in inscriptions, more than 40 of which have survived in Clarus.435 A text from the year 146/147 may serve as an example:436 From Laodicea on the Lycus, during the 71st prytanis of Apollo, when Gaius Julius Zotichos was priest, when Magnus, the son of Hermogenes, was oracle singer [thespiode],437 when Pythion, son of Pythion and grandson of Arte- meisios, was prophet, the following sang: Gaius Claudius Sostratos, the prophet of Pythian Apollo and president [agonothete] of the games of Zeus [Deia], and together with him: Flavius Satorneinos, Glykon, son of Glykon, Italos and Apollonides, sons of Apollonides, Epaphrodeitos and Herakleides,

430 Plin. Epist. 10.96.7; cf. Hengel 1987, pp. 382–384. 431 Bremmer 1996, pp. 44f. (with additional bibliography); Sourvinou-Inwood 2003, pp. 145–149; Papadopulou 2004 (with numerous source and bibliographical references). See also Fuhrer 1998, cols. 788–790. Epigraphic citations (going beyond the Greek homeland) in Horsley 1981, pp. 71f. 432 Price 1984, p. 88; Chaniotis 2003, pp. 12–14. See for example IvSmyrna, no. 594.3, with commentary by G. Petzl. On municipal bodies, see Roueché 1993, p. 134. 433 IGR IV, no. 353; cf. Price 1984, p. 90; Müller 2011, p. 153. 434 R. Merkelbach / J. Stauber in Merkelbach 1997, pp. 167f., lines 22–24: … παῖδας παρθενι- κῇσιν ὁµοῦ Κολοφῶνα νεέσθαι µολποὶς σὺν λοιβῇσιν ἐφίεµαι ἠδ’ ἑκατόµβαις προφρονέως … . First published by Pugliese Carratelli 1963,˙ p. 360, with a brief˙ commentary˙ on choruses of children on p. 363. Cf. also Ritti 2006, pp. 94f., no. 16. For further details, see pp. 266–268 below. 435 L. Robert in Des Gagniers / Devambez / Kahil / Ginouvès 1969, pp. 298–303; Ferrary 2005, p. 729. Cf. pp. 201–203 below. 436 Date from Ferrary 2005, p. 750. 437 Thespiodes are unique to the Clarus oracle. Their concrete function in cooperation with the prophet of the sanctuary is unclear. Cf. Busine 2006, pp. 287–291. 140 chapter three

sons of Epaphrodeitos; girls: Claudia Ammo, Flavia Kypare, Claudia Euposia, Claudia Apollonis, Claudia Claudiane, Alexandra Theogenis. The leader was Permissos, son of Nothippos, hieronike; the assessor was Zosimos Enthrybon [Entryphon].438 The functions and functionaries mentioned in the introduction are associated with Colophon,439 where the duties of the prytanis were often undertaken by the sanctuary of Clarus and its treasury; the list of delegation members from Laodicea begins with Gaius Claudius Sostratos. Despite his expensive and prestigious duties as prophet of Apollo and agonothete of the games of Zeus, he belonged to the ranks of the city’s youth; he may have been little older than the six male and female singers, who likewise came from respected families. Permissos served as leader of the chorus; his title ἱερονείκης is a reminder that he had emerged victorious in an agon, probably a musical competition. Even his name is programmatic: it was obviously meant to recall the river Permessus, which rises at Helicon, the mountain of the Muses in Boeotia.440 The family tradition remained alive: a son of Permissos by the same name is likewise documented in Clarus, who was likewise engaged in leading the Laodicean choruses in honor of Apollo; his title was ποιητὴς παράδοξος διὰ βίου διδάσκαλος τῶν ὕµνων.441 Thus the younger Permissos functioned throughout his lifetime as a music teacher (literally a “hymn teacher”) and distinguished himself also as a successful poet; he probably wrote primarily hymns. Thus a strong musical tradition is documented in Laodicea in the context of the Apollo cult; it probably antedates the high imperial period. Naturally several other cities were also loyal devotees of the Clarus sanctuary; Chios likewise sent choral delegations, which are also documented in numerous inscriptions.442 Hymns to Apollo were rehearsed in many places. Two steles documented by Ramsay in Thiounta, north of Hierapolis, provide evidence that musical activities were not limited to the cult of Apollo. The reliefs depict named members of cultic associations (phratries); in the lowest register, each pictures a autist and an organist. The sculptures, probably dating from the 2nd century, are dominated by the divine triad of Tyche, Zeus, and Hermes.443

438 Sahin¸ 1987, p. 68, no. 19 = SEG 37 (1987) no. 968: Λαοδικέων πρὸς τῷ Λύκῳ, ἐπὶ πρυτάνεως ᾽Από ωνος τὸ οα ᾽, ἱερέως Γ. ᾽Ιουλίου Ζωτίχου, θεσπιωδοῦντος Μάγνου τοῦ ῾Ερµογένους, προφή- του Πυθίωνος β᾽ τοῦ ᾽Αρτεµεισίου, οἱ ὑµνήσαντες· Γ. Κλαύδιος Σώστρατος ὁ προφήτης τοῦ Πυθίου ᾽Από ωνος καὶ ἀγωνοθέτης τῶν ∆είων καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ· Φλ. Σατορνεῖνος, Γλύκων β ᾽, ᾽Ιταλὸς καὶ ᾽Απο ωνίδης οἱ ᾽Απο ωνίδου, ᾽Επαφρόδειτος καὶ ῾Ηρακλείδης οἱ ᾽Επαφροδείτου· παρθένοι δέ· Κλ. ᾽Αµµώ, Φλ. Κυπάρη, Κλ. Εὐποσία, Κλ. ᾽Απο ωνίς, Κλ. Κλαυδιανή, ᾽Αλεξάνδρα Θεογενίς, καθηγητὴς Πέρµισσος Νοθίππου ἱερονείκης, Ζώσιµος ᾽Ενθρύβων πάρεδρος. 439 Cf. Ferrary 2005, pp. 722f. On further details, see pp. 201f. below. 440 Robert 1969, p. 301. 441 Macridy 1912, p. 55, no. 29; for further documentation, see Robert 1969, p. 301 and Ferrary 2005, p. 755, n. 125. 442 Some 40 inscriptions from Clarus refer to Chios; see Ferrary 2005, p. 729. 443 On Ramsay 1895, pp. 142–144, nos. 30f., see Ramsay 21928, pp. 196f. (sketches); Ritti 2002, pp. 47–51 (with Ramsay’s sketches). The steles have not survived. On cultic associations, see p. 31 above; on the cult of Zeus, see pp. 43f. above. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 141

In the Lycus Valley, various musical schools were in competition; hymns played as great a role in the pagan cult of the gods as in Christian worship. Whether and how these schools inuenced each other is unclear. Given the scanty source material, the role of the Jewish synagogue in this competition must likewise be left an open question. The great foundation inscription from neighboring Aphrodisias speaks of a ψαλµο(λόγος?) named Ben- jamin,444 but this text from Late Antiquity does not automatically let us draw conclusions about the situation in the Jewish communities of Asia Minor during the 1st and 2nd centuries.445 In the Jerusalem temple, of course, psalmody was part of the traditional ritual.446

3.3.11. The Domestic Code and Stabilization of the Social Order The call to sing hymns in honor of God is followed by the fundamental command to do everything, whether done “in word or deed,” in the name of Jesus.447 At this point, the author moves on to the so-called Haustafel or domestic code,448 a catalog of duties arranged according to social groups, which stands in strange contrast to the elimination of all social barriers just proclaimed. This contrast can be explained in part as an attempt to stabilize the existing social order and thus help the Christian community adapt to its environment;449 at the same time, it constitutes a textually self-contained unit based on an existing formulaic structure.450 There is

444 Ameling 2004, p. 73, no. 14 A, l. 15. 445 Reynolds / Tannenbaum 1987, pp. 19–21 and p. 46 date the inscription c. 200 and nd no di culty placing the psalm singer in this period, but cf. the criticism in Ameling 2004, p. 97. On a Jewish ψαλµῳδός in Rome (3rd/4th cent.) see A. Angerstorfer in Dresken-Weiland / Angerstorfer / Merkt 2012, pp. 349f. On the problems presented by Jewish psalmody, see Horsley 1981, pp. 116f. For further discussion of Jewish hymns, see Charlesworth 1982, pp. 271– 285. 446 Schürer / Vermes / Millar / Black II 21979, p. 303; also Levin 42010, pp. 36–41. 447 Col. 3:17: καὶ πᾶν ὅ τι ἐὰν ποιῆτε ἐν λόγῳ ἢ ἐν ἔργῳ, πάντα ἐν ὀνόµατι κυρίου ᾽Ιησοῦ, εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ θεῷ πατρὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ. In the Pauline letters, gratitude to God is repeated formulated using the verb εὐχαριστεῖν. Cf. Bauer / Aland / Aland 61988, pp. 663f. Analogous expressions also appear in pagan inscriptions (cf. Robert 1955, pp. 55–58), as in a gra to dedicated to the Great Mother in a grotto some 10 kilometers northwest of Hierapolis: Φλαβιανὸς ὁ καὶ Μηνογένης (?) εὐχαριστῶν τῇ θεῷ. Ramsay 1895, p. 89 and p. 115 no. 17; Judeich 1898, p. 179 I 1 (appendix). Cf. p. 57 above. 448 Col. 3:18–4:1. On the coining of the traditional German term Haustafel by Martin Luther, see Wolter 1993, pp. 194f. 449 Cf. Macdonald 1988, pp. 108f.; Pokorn ´y 21990, p. 150. Urban 2011, p. 20 speaks of a “reactionary concept of the family.” 450 Cf. Barclay 1997, pp. 68f.; Frank 2009, p. 31 and pp. 290–296; Hellholm 2009, pp. 108–110; Barclay 2011, pp. 241f. 142 chapter three no parallel in the authentic epistles of Paul, but precepts addressed to diferent social groups appear repeatedly in the deutero-Pauline epistles.451 An analogous domestic code in Ephesians452 is dependent on Colossians, likewise listing the duties implied in the relationship between wife and husband, children and parents, and slaves and masters. These Haustafeln are obviously based on the concepts of Greek household theory,453 which began with Plato’s Laws and Xenophon’s Oikonomos and also found a place in Aristotle’s Politics.454 The author of Colossians reviews the social relationships involved in a household and gives instructions to each group of persons. Working in pairs, he regulates mutual relationships between wives and husbands, children and parents, and nally slaves and their masters. At the transition from fth to sixth position (slave-master/master-slave), the catalog of duties is interrupted by an emphatic statement of principle:455 interpersonal behavior must not be guided by the personal interests of those involved; it is about God, and service as a slave must be understood as service to Christ.456 To act otherwise has consequences, without regard to person. In Romans, the abrogation of προσωποληµψία still served to bridge the gulf between Jewish and Gentile Christians;457 in Colossians, however, it emphasizes the equal treatment of all the groups mentioned in the code, especially slaves and masters. The following discussion will use selected inscriptions to illustrate the domestic environment that served as the background for the Haustafel; it addresses a Christian audience but also presupposes a social structure that was common in the Lycus Valley and throughout the entire Greek cultural sphere.

451 E.g. 1Tim 2:8–15; Tit 2:1–10. Cf. Frank 2009, p. 294, pointing out that here and in other analogous passages the text does not envision a self-contained household. 452 Eph 5:21–6:9. Cf. Hering 2007, pp. 157–201; also Schnelle 82013, pp. 385f. On the topic of slavery, see Harrill 2006, pp. 90–92. 453 Frank 2009, pp. 291f. Wold 2008, pp. 297–299 emphasizes instead Jewish traditions behind the Haustafeln. 454 Cf. Wolter 1993, pp. 195–197; Hering 2007, pp. 203–260. On Roman concepts based on the notion of patria potestas, see Saller 1994, pp. 74–153. 455 Col. 3:23–25: ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐργάζεσθε ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις, εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπὸ κυρίου ἀπολήµψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονοµίας. τῷ κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε· ὁ γὰρ ἀδικῶν κοµίσεται ὃ ἠδίκησεν, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν προσωποληµψία. 456 On the christocentrism of the domestic code in Colossians, see also Barclay 2011, pp. 245–248. 457 Rom 2:11. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 143

The rst pair of precepts in the Colossian Haustafel reads as follows: “You wives, be subject to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord. You husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh to them.”458 This directive moves within the conventional structure of a patriarchal and patronal concept typical of families in antiquity459 and is reected in numerous sepulchral inscriptions in the region.460 As a rule, the epitaphs invoke the cohesion of families, setting forth the provisions made to safeguard their rights to the burial site. Here the close cooperation and mutual care of husband and wife play a special role. A succinctly formulated example from Hierapolis, probably dating from the 2nd century, will illustrate the principle: “The sarcophagus and the grounds surrounding it together with the stairway in front of it belong to Diophantos, the son of Attalos, called Trophimos, and Ammias, his wife; he himself will be buried in it and the aforementioned Ammias.”461 Diophantos and his wife with the Anatolian name Ammias462 oversee the burial site as joint proprietors; it is taken as self-evident that the husband is named rst. As a rule, children were an integral part of the family claiming the burial site, as exempli ed in a Jewish epitaph from Hierapolis dating from the second half of the 2nd century: “The substructure [bomos] and the sarcophagi upon it, of Docimenian marble, belong to the Jew Marcus Aurelius Aris- todemos Glykon; in them is also buried his wife Aurelia Quadratilla along with their children Stratoneike and Damiane.”463 Such inscriptions, which were meant not only to substantiate a legal claim but above all to preserve the memory of the deceased, convey only a pale reection of how families functioned and the body of underlying rules. In Colossians, by contrast, a

458 Col. 3:18–19: Αἱ γυναῖκες, ὑποτάσσεσθε τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ὡς ἀνῆκεν ἐν κυρίῳ. Οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ µὴ πικραίνεσθε πρὸς αὐτάς …. 459 Wolter 1993, pp. 198–200. 460 For a general treatment of this topic in ancient sepulchral inscriptions, see Lattimore 1942, pp. 275–280. 461 Judeich 1898, no. 86: ἡ σορὸς καὶ ὁ περὶ αὐτὴν τόπος σὺν τῷ προσόντι βαθρικῷ ∆ιοφάντου ᾽Αττάλου τοῦ καλουµένου Τροφίµου καὶ ᾽Αµµίας τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ, ἐν ᾗ κηδευθήσεται αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ προδηλουµένη ᾽Αµµιάς. On the meaning of βαθρικόν see Kubi ´nska1968, pp. 91f. 462 Zgusta 1964, pp. 63f. §57–23, where the inconsistent genitive construction in the inscription is pointed out. 463 Miranda 1999, pp. 122f., no. 11 = Ameling 2004, pp. 422f., no. 197: [ὁ βω]µὸς καὶ αἱ ἐπι- κείµεν[αι σ]οροὶ ∆οκιµηναὶ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ εἰσιν Μάρκου Αὐρ.[᾽Αρι]στοδήµου Γλύκωνος ᾽Ιουδαίου, ἐν αἷς κεκήδευται ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ Αὐρ. Κοδρατί α καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν Στρατονείκη καὶ ∆αµιανή. The Aurelian names may indicate that the inscription dates from the period after the Constitu- tio Antoniana (pace Miranda and Ameling). Cf. the epithaphs from family burial sites from Laodicea in Corsten 1997, pp. 178–180, no. 95 (probably 2nd cent.), pp. 181–183, no. 98 (probably 1st/2nd cent.). 144 chapter three hierarchy is established clearly dominated by the paterfamilias, to whom his wife must submit. Children stood another step below the wife but must be brought up by their parents with due restraint and consideration: “You children, obey your parents in everything, for that is pleasing in the Lord. You fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.”464 That this domestic structure is also supported by an emotionally stabi- lized communality is suggested by the reference to the Christian law of love (ἀγάπη) in the regulation of the relationship of the husband to his wife.465 The tombstones from the Lycus Valley employ a diferent vocabulary, but in them we also nd references to mutual love and respect among members of a family, who thus manifest their solidarity. An early 2nd-century sepulchral inscription from Hierapolis was composed by a father for his wife and their son (only the beginning of the text survives): “Pedia Tertia, who loved her husband and son, and Tiberius Claudius Gorgon Flavianus, who loved his mother, you dear departed, farewell. The sarcophagus and the memorial beneath it were fashioned by Tiberius Claudius Diadumenos …”466 Here the basis of the family ties is expressed in the adjectives φίλανδρος, φιλότε- κνος, and φιλοµήτωρ.467 The early Christians encountered this vocabulary, not at all rare in the epitaphs, also in their own world, as is shown by the Epistle to Titus, where—as in Colossians—women are charged to submit to their husbands but also to love their husbands and children.468 The Epis- tle to Titus was probably written a few decades after Colossians, presumably c. 100.469 A fragmentary epigram from the Pamukkale museum, probably dating previous to the period when a Christian community was beginning to form, laments the death of eleven-year-old Zosimos, a “beloved youth” (ἐρατὸς κοῦρος), who left his sorrowing parents: “My parents had hoped to sing the

464 Col. 3:20–21: Τὰ τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν κατὰ πάντα, τοῦτο γὰρ εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν κυρίῳ. Οἱ πατέρες, µὴ ἐρεθίζετε τὰ τέκνα ὑµῶν, ἵνα µὴ ἀθυµῶσιν. 465 Col. 3:19 (text: see p. 143 above). Cf. Lohse 21977, p. 225. 466 Ritti 2004, pp. 592f., no. 37 = SEG 54 (2004), no. 1335: Πεδία Τερτία φίλανδρος καὶ φιλό- τεκνος καὶ Τι. Κλ. Γόργων Φλαβιανὸς φιλοµήτωρ, ἥρωες χρηστοί, χαίρετε· τὴν σορὸν καὶ τὸ ὑπ’ αὐτὴν µνηµεῖον κατεσκεύασεν Τι. Κλ. ∆ιαδουµενός· µετὰ τὸ δὲ τεθῆναι—ζῇ—τὸν Κλ. ∆ιαδουµενόν [[------]]. 467 Cf. Grandinetti 2006, p. 36. 468 Tit 2:4–5: (The older women are to encourage the younger women to be reasonable) …, ἵνα σωφρονίζωσιν τὰς νέας φιλάνδρους εἶναι, φιλοτέκνους σώφρονας ἁγνὰς οἰκουργοὺς ἀγαθάς, ὑποτασσοµένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ἵνα µὴ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ βλασφηµῆται. Cf. J. Dresken-Weiland in Dresken-Weiland / Angerstorfer / Merkt 2012, p. 266. 469 Schnelle 82013, pp. 410f. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 145 wedding song to me and not to mourn and build a tomb.”470 This lament is typical of mortuary epigrams composed for those who died young;471 their function is to capture the family’s distress in words. In the ancient world, subordination of slaves to their masters was taken for granted. The author of Colossians underlines it with particular emphasis, as though he wanted to prevent any misunderstanding regarding the elimination of all social barriers stated earlier:472 “You slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not in outward servitude [lit. ‘servitude of the eyes’], in order to please others, but wholeheartedly, out of fear of the Lord.”473 What is demanded is not pro forma service, simply because it has to be, but a sincere and genuine attitude. The fact that slaves are addressed separately may suggest that they constituted a relatively large percentage of the Colossian community.474 In return masters are called on to treat their slaves justly, since they are themselves slaves of God: “You masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a master in heaven.”475 Whether the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus seen in the Epistle to Philemon can serve as a typical local example of these directives is unclear, since the status of Onesimus as a slave is anything but certain.476

That slaves could be placed in service to the sanctuary of Lairbenos is shown by the καταγραφή inscriptions;477 in the epitaphs in the Lycus Valley that systematically list all family members having a right to burial, however, they are rarely mentioned. There is also a lack of evidence of tombs provided for beloved slaves by their grieving

470 Corsten 1995, pp. 217f., no. 2 (SEG 45 [1995], no. 1754) = Merkelbach / Stauber I 1998, p. 272, no. 02/12/11 (origin Hierapolis) = Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2009, pp. 66f., no. 14: Πανδαµάτωρ φιλόκαινε [------] τίπτε µε ἑνδεχέτη παιδί[ον ------] Ζώσιµον οὔνοµ᾽· ῎Ατα τὸν ἐν ἐκκλ˙[------] εἰς ᾽Αΐδαν ἐρατὸν κοῦρον˙ [------] ἤλπιζον δ˙’ ἐπ’ ἐµοὶ γονέες ὑµέναι[ον ἀεῖσαι] οὐκ ἐπ’ ἐµοῖς˙ θρήνοις˙˙ τύµβον ἀνοικ[οδοµεῖν] … . The˙ origin˙ of the inscription is unknown, but it probably came˙ from the Lycus Valley or the surrounding region. The content is not peculiar to the region but is typical of Greek sepulchral poetry in general. 471 For more see Corsten 1995, p. 218. 472 See p. 135 above. 473 Col. 3:22: Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε κατὰ πάντα τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις, µὴ ἐν οφθαλµοδουλίᾳ ὡς ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, ἀ ’ ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας φοβούµενοι τὸν κύριον. 474 Pokorn ´y 21990, p. 154. 475 Col. 4:1: Οἱ κύριοι, τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν ἰσότητα τοῖς δούλοις παρέχεσθε, εἰδότες ὅτι καὶ ὑµεῖς ἔχετε κύριον ἐν οὐρανῷ. Macdonald 2007, pp. 100–105 interprets Col. 3:18–4:1 against the background of the sexual exploitation of slaves. Obviously that cannot be the only level of interpretation. 476 See pp. 103–107 above. 477 See pp. 107–109 above. 146 chapter three

masters, such as are well known in other regions.478 An exception seems to be Euplous, son of Zenon, who employed all the rules of (legal) art to assure the legally correct burial of his slave and steward Achilleus; the Hierapolitan inscription dates from c. 200. This sarcophagus and surrounding burial site belong to Euplous as proxy for Achilleus; Achilleus will be buried in the sarcophagus. No one else is permitted to bury anyone. Otherwise he will be held accountable for mali- cious behavior and will also pay 1000 denarii into the imperial scus. A copy of this has been deposited in the archives.—Sarcophagus of Achilleus, the steward at the Aphrodision.479 I Euplous, son of Zenon, conveyed to the secretaries—Neikomedes, son of Alkimos, Menandros, son of Diogenes, and Tiberius Claudius Zenon—the sum that I paid as wreath money, on the condition that every year on the 30th day of the 4th [?] month 2 denarii be dis- tributed at my tomb to all passers-by and to the secretaries 4 denarii, to the extent that they are concerned about hard cash.480 The procedure for establishing an endowment to secure care of a tomb and remembrance of the deceased, and especially to generate revenue for the wreath money (στεφανωτικόν) to pay for the funeral wreaths, is attested with some frequency in epitaphs in the Lycus Valley.481 In this case, however, the owner of the tomb undertakes all the legal steps and nancial transactions to secure and care for the burial site of a slave. Against the background of Colossians, his conduct is exemplary: he supplies the slave his due.

478 See Lattimore 1942, pp. 280–285; Schumacher 2001, pp. 248–250. 479 Possibly the name of an estate. It seems to me unlikely to be a personal name, because Achilleus clearly belongs to Euplous. 480 Judeich 1898, no. 270 = Ritti 2004, pp. 591f., no. 36 = SEG 54 (2004), no. 1334: ῾Η σορὸς καὶ ὁ τόπος ὁ πhεiρὶ αὐτὴν Εὐπλόhοiς λογισµοῦ ᾽Αχι έως, ἐν ᾗ σορῷ κηδευθήσεται ὁ ᾽Αχι εύς· ἑτέρῳ δὲ οὐδενὶ hἐiξέσται κηδεῦσαί τινα, εἰ δὲ µή, ἔνοχος ἔσται ἱεροσυλίᾳ καὶ πρhοiσαποτίσει τῷ ἱερωτάτῳ φίσκῳ δηνάρια χείλια· τούτου ἀντίγραφον ἀπετέθη εἰς τὰ ἀρχεῖα. ῾Η σορὸς ᾽Αχι έως πραγµατευ- τοῦ ᾽Αφροδεισί· ᾽Εδόθη ὑπὸ ἐµοῦ τοῦ Εὐπλόος Ζήνωνhοςi τοῖς γραµµατεῖσιν Νεικοµήδει ᾽Αλκίµου, Μενάνδρου ∆ιογένους καὶ Τι. Κλ. Ζήνωνι, ἅτινα ἔδωκα στεφανωτικὸν ἐφ’ ᾧ καθ’ ἕκαστον ἔτος, µη(νὸς) hδ’?i λ’ διανείµῃ ἐπὶ τὸ ἡρῷον µου πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐλθοῦσιν ἐξ· … β᾽, τοῖς [δὲ] γραµ[µ]α[τ]ῖσιν ἐφ’ ᾧ προνοοῦσιν τοῦ κέρµατος ἐξε· … δ’. Slaves often ful lled the duties of a πραγµατευτής. Cf. Robert 1987, p. 429, n. 13; G. Petzl in the commentary on TAM V 3, no. 1649. Ritti believes Euplous and Achilleus to be one and the same person. A nal assessment of the nd must wait until the inscriptions on the narrow ends of the sarcophagus have been published.— The sepulchral inscription SEG 54 (2004), no. 1329 may also have to do with a slave, since it mentions πραγµατευταί. 481 Cf. Ritti 1992/93, pp. 43–47; Ritti 2006, pp. 48–51, no. 1; Huttner 2011, p. 284 with n. 70. See also p. 252 below. pauline influence: philemon and colossians 147

3.3.12. Mission through Rhetoric The Haustafel of Colossians is followed by an exhortation to pray482 and guidelines for communication between Christians and non-Christians. The author’s repeated appeal to “wisdom” (σοφία) here at the end of the epistle should clearly be interpreted as an attack on the “philosophy” being debated in Colossae; in this passage, this wisdom can simply be identi ed with Jesus Christ:483 “Walk in wisdom to the outsiders, making the most of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt; you need to know how you must answer in every case.”484 These instructions reect a missionary strategy based on the principles argumentation and rhetoric employed in antiquity.The fact that the Lycus Valley ofered favorable conditions for rhetorical specialists became evident during the Second Sophistic, when Polemon of Laodicea and Antipater of Hierapolis made a name for themselves.485 Around the time when the Christian community in Colossae received the epistle, Epictetus was growing up in nearby Hierapolis; later he went on to establish himself as a successful teacher of philosophy, though the most important stages of his development took place in Italy under the aegis of Musonius.486 Clearly other rules apply in the debate between Christians and non- Christians than in debate among Christians. If we look at the Pauline and deutero-Pauline corpus, it is clear that these texts do not display the rhetorical nesse and persuasive artistry called for in Colossians. The Epistle to the Colossians itself lacks “salt.” The works of the 2nd-century apologists were the rst to ful ll such ambitions for a rhetorical design.487 Nevertheless the author of Colossians signals his readiness to share in the educational standard of the “others.” Initially the emphasis on rhetoric suggests a debate with the pagans, but the directive of Colossians probably has the Jews equally in mind, who developed their own unique style of debate, shaped by the rabbis, and especially the representatives of the “philosophy” opposition to which is one of the primary aims of the epistle.

482 Col. 4:2–4. 483 Col. 4:3; cf. Wolter, 1993, p. 212. 484 Col. 4:5–6: ᾽Εν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖτε πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόµενοι. ὁ λόγος ὑµῶν πάντοτε ἐν χάριτι, ἅλατι ἠρτυµένος, εἰδέναι πῶς δεῖ ὑµᾶς ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ ἀποκρίνεσθαι. The translation is not without its problems; see Lohse 21977, pp. 237–239; Wolter 1993, pp. 212f. 485 See pp. 208–210 and 244 below. 486 Hershbell 1989, pp. 2157–2159. 487 See also Deissmann 41923, pp. 208–213. 148 chapter three

3.3.13. Third Summary: The Quest for a Christian Position in Colossians The Epistle to the Colossians, composed shortly after the death of Paul by one of his disciples and addressed to the church in the Lycus Valley, attempts to communicate an autonomous Christian position without separating totally from the established structures and conventions of the social environment.488 Christ gures as the new dominant, who must subordinate all things to himself so radically that the new orientation takes on features that are partially revolutionary in its outing of traditional authorities. That subordination, however, nds expression in forms and images taken from an established repertoire, including the structure of the family based on the old hierarchies, and including songs that celebrate the God of the Christians in the manner of the Apollo of Clarus. The target of the polemic against “philosophy” is only partially clear, but polemic displays an intent to distance itself emphatically from groups and schools belonging to the world of the synagogue, which in the eyes of pagan contemporaries were not all that dif- ferent from Christians.

3.4. Summary Regarding the Pauline Epistles In the Lycus Valley as elsewhere in the Aegean world, Paul brought critical stimuli for consolidation of the Christian communities. But the contribution of others who surrounded him was at least as important—Epaphras, for example, and possibly also women like Nympha. They shared an agenda: to establish a foundation of norms totally centered on Jesus Christ, to de ne the contours of Christianity more clearly, to place any competitors on the defensive, and nally to make the cities so welcoming that the Christian communities could make a permanent home for themselves there. No systematic boundaries were drawn between Colossae, Hierapolis, and Laod- icea; the authorities in each sought to guarantee a vibrant exchange. Proba- bly the churches of the Lycus Valley were in turn the source of major stimuli for the spread of Christianity in the northern and northeastern areas of central Phrygia, where numerous 3rd-century Christian inscriptions have been found.489

488 Wischmeyer 1992, pp. 200–202 emphasizes the bipolarity of this mechanism in the 3rd century. 489 Cf. Calder 1922, pp. 316f. and 322: “Laodicean Christianity.” chapter four

THE LETTER IN THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN

4.1. Context

4.1.1. Historical Imponderables Numerous imponderables stand in the way of using the Apocalypse of John as a historical source: the identity of its author is as obscure as its cultural setting; its date and occasion are as obscure as the circles of addressees for whom it was intended.1 The hope for information bearing on early Christianity in the Lycus Valley arises because Laodicea is one of the seven churches to which John is said to have directed his letters.2 John sees himself standing in the tradition of the prophets, even though he never calls himself one.3 At the very outset, his words are called “prophecy.”4 Here we have a sense of the noun based on Jewish tradition, concen- trating on the message and God-given authority of the prophet, whereas pagan “prophecy,” as found for example in inscriptions, generally refers to the o ce or function of a prophet who communicates through an oracle.5 The delegations that made an annual pilgrimage from Laodicea to Clarus always included a prophet. A marble slab from Laodicea from a larger epigraphic context dates the associated documents “under the prophecy of

1 On “Traditions- und Quellenkritik,” see the literature survey in Bauer 2007, pp. 48–70. Witulski 2007, pp. 14–52 provides an overview of the traditional dates from the year of the four emperors (68/69) to the reign of Hadrian. Despite a wealth of arguments, his dating in the time of Hadrian, under whom the emperor cult ourished in the province of Asia, rests on shaky ground. On the problems facing the investigator, see also Böcher 21980 and Taeger 2006 (1984), pp. 38–41. 2 Rev 1:11. 3 Maier 2009, p, 86 emphasizes this point. 4 Rev 1:3: Μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας καὶ τηροῦν- τες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραµµένα, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐ ὺς. Also 22:10. Cf. VanderKam 1998, pp. 313f.; Schnelle 82013, pp. 597f. 5 Cf. Friedrich 1959, p. 830 on the meaning of προφητεία in the New Testament. On its meaning in (pagan) inscriptions, besides the example that follows see also OGIS, no. 494 (with additional references provided by W.Dittenberger in n. 4). See also Forbes 1995, pp. 188– 208. 150 chapter four

L(ucius) Antonius Zenon Aurelianus.”6 Some evidence suggests that pagans did not associate the same content with the term as Jews and Christians, because it denoted related but not identical phenomena. According to the tradition of Eusebius, John had personal contacts in the Lycus Valley: Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, is said to have listened to the words of the presbyter so as to obtain authentic information from the immediate circle of Jesus.7 Papias himself con rmed that he had received the words of the apostles through a “presbyter” named John,8 but the identi cation of this John with the author of the Apocalypse is a conclusion drawn by Eusebius or his source: there are two tombs of John in Ephesus, he says, and the second John, who is not identical with the apostle and evangelist, probably received the vision of the Apocalypse known by his name—unless it was the other one.9 Given the totally uncertain identity of the author of the Apocalypse and the many obscurities in the composition of Papias’s work, it would be wrong to give much weight to the hypothesis of Eusebius.10 The substantial role of the Lycus Valley in the geographical world of the Apocalypse of John is nevertheless illustrated by the series of seven letters, one of which is addressed to the “angel of the church in Laodicea.”11 Even though communis opinio favors a date in the last years of Domitian’s reign, following the dating of Irenaeus of Lyon,12 the date of composition of the Apocalypse is ultimately uncertain: there have been advocates of the

6 Corsten 1997, pp. 133f., no. 67. A christogram was later painted over the slab by Chris- tians. Cf. Robert 1969, pp. 289f., no. 6 (with pl. CV. 1). On details see pp. 200 and 348 below. 7 Eus. H.e. 3.39.7: … καὶ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου ᾽Ιωάννου αὐτήκοον ἑαυτόν φησι γενέσθαι. Marek 2010, p. 654 even suggests that Papias could have had a hand in editing and disseminating the Apocalypse. 8 See pp. 220–222 below. 9 Eusebius points out initially that Papias distinguishes two authorities named John: Eus. H.e. 3.39.5–6: ἔνθα καὶ ἐπιστῆσαι ἄξιον δὶς καταριθµοῦντι αὐτῷ τὸ ᾽Ιωάννου ὄνοµα, ὧν τὸν µὲν πρότερον Πέτρῳ καὶ ᾽Ιακώβῳ καὶ Ματθαίῳ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἀποστόλοις συγκαταλέγει, σαφῶς δηλῶν τὸν εὐα ελιστήν, τὸν δ’ ἕτερον ᾽Ιωάννην, διαστείλας τὸν λόγον, ἑτέροις παρὰ τὸν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀριθµὸν κατατάσσει, προτάξας αὐτοῦ τὸν ᾽Αριστίωνα, σαφῶς τε αὐτὸν πρεσβύτερον ὀνοµάζει· ὡς καὶ διὰ τούτων ἀποδείκνυσθαι τὴν ἱστορίαν ἀληθῆ τῶν δύο κατὰ τὴν ᾽Ασίαν ὁµωνυµίᾳ κεχρῆσθαι εἰρηκότων δύο τε ἐν ᾽Εφέσῳ γενέσθαι µνήµατα καὶ ἑκάτερον ᾽Ιωάννου ἔτι νῦν λέγεσθαι· οἷς καὶ ἀναγκαῖον προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν, εἰκὸς γὰρ τὸν δεύτερον, εἰ µή τις ἐθέλοι τὸν πρῶτον, τὴν ἐπ’ ὀνόµατος φεροµένην ᾽Ιωάννου ἀποκάλυψιν ἑορακέναι. Cf. Tóth 2006, pp. 48f. On the earlier statement of Papias, which Eusebius is interpreting, see p. 221 below. 10 Körtner 1983, pp. 123–129. See pp. 222–224 below. 11 Rev 3:14. 12 Iren. Haer. 5.30.3 (A. Rousseau / L. Doutreleau / Ch. Mercier, SC 153 [1969], pp. 384f.): πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς ∆οµιτιανοῦ ἀρχῆς. Cf. Riemer 1998, pp. 7f.; Schnelle 82013, pp. 602–605. the letter in the apocalypse of john 151

Neronian and post-Neronian period,13 while recently a date late in the reign of Hadrian has been suggested.14 The earliest reference to the Apocalypse appears shortly afterwards, in the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho from the pen of Justin.15 The uncertainty regarding the date of the document means that reconstruction of any developments in the churches of Asia Minor against the background of the situation reected in the New Testament Letters must remain provisional. We can be con dent, however, that the Apocalypse was composed substantially later than Colossians. Though isolated parallels can be identi ed in its text, above all the reference to Jesus as the “ rstborn of the dead,”16 we cannot conclude that John was familiar with Colossians.

4.1.2. Geographical Setting To evaluate the letter to Laodicea as a source for a history of early Christian- ity in the Lycus Valley, we must rst illuminate the geographical background against which John sets that text. He describes his own position as follows: “I, John, your brother and comrade in aiction and in the kingdom and in patient endurance in Jesus, came to the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.”17 In antiquity it was already assumed that John had been banished to the small island some 60 kilometers west of Miletus and a scant 40 kilometers southwest of Samos.18 The island is scarcely mentioned in classical literature; there is no evidence that it was a preferred place of exile.19 We may nevertheless assume that Patmos belonged to the Roman province of Asia;20 possibly it was the governor of this province who banished him to the island.21

13 Cf. Maier 2009, p. 16; Barnes 2010, pp. 37–39. 14 Witulski 2007, pp. 347–350 (summary). Cf. p. 149, n. 1 above. 15 Just. Dial. 81.4. Cf. p. 185 below with the text. 16 Cf. Rev 1:5 (ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν) with Col. 1:18 (πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν). See Hemer 1986, pp. 184f. and 275, with notes 27f.; Hemer thinks it very likely, however, that John was familiar with Colossians. Cf. also p. 120 above. 17 Rev 1:9: ᾽Εγὼ ᾽Ιωάννης, ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑµῶν καὶ συγκοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ θλίψει καὶ βασιλείᾳ καὶ ὑποµονῇ ἐν ᾽Ιησοῦ, ἐγενόµην ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ καλουµένῃ Πάτµῳ, διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν µαρτυρίαν ᾽Ιησοῦ. 18 Earliest witness: Tert. Praescr. 36.3 (“… in insulam relegatur”); cf. Clem. Q. d. s. 42.2. For further discussion, see Maier 2009, pp. 109f. 19 Cf. the literary sources in Schmidt 1949, cols. 2181–2183. Maier 2009, p. 110 erroneously cites Plin. Nat. 4.23 in this regard. 20 In the classical and Hellenistic period, Patmos belonged to the territory of Miletus. Cf. Thonemann 2011, pp. 283–286. 21 See Hemer 1986, pp. 27–29. 152 chapter four

From Patmos John directed his attention to the closest mainland; he explicitly addresses his letters “to the seven churches in Asia.”22 Whether the author was thinking of the Roman provincial structure or (following earlier tradition) meant the Aegean coast of Asia Minor and its interior,23 it is clear that all seven cities are located within the borders of the Roman province of Asia. Why he singled out the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea to receive his vision24 while leaving out other important cities like Magnesia is unclear. The construction ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ ᾽Ασίᾳ (Rev 1:4, with the de nite article) suggests that the seven churches were considered a self-contained group.25 John probably enjoyed a certain esteem there; otherwise the letters would have failed to accomplish their purpose.26 The three most important cities of the province, Ephesus, Smyrna, and Pergamum, were among the group; they were also the center of attention for the imperial administration, and the emperor cult was especially strong in them, thus creating the potential for religio-political conict: the apocalyptist does his part to focus on the primary enemy of his addressees in the gure of the whore of Babylon, easily identi able as a cipher for Rome.27 All seven cities could be reached comfortably over well-built roads.28 A messenger dispatched to the addressees of the Apocalypse could have carried out his mission in a round trip lasting several days:29 from Ephesus north by the coast road through Smyrna to Pergamum, then on the old overland route between Pergamum and the southern coast through Thyatira, Sardis,

22 Rev 1:4: ᾽Ιωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ ᾽Ασίᾳ· …. 23 Trebilco 1994, p. 302, n. 41: “Here ‘Asia’ seems to mean the Greek cities of the coast and the adjacent area, of which Laodicea was the most eastern.” On the meaning of the term Asia, see also p. 82 above. 24 Rev 1:11: ὃ βλέπεις γράψον εἰς βιβλίον καὶ πέµψον ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις, εἰς ῎Εφεσον καὶ εἰς Σµύρναν καὶ εἰς Πέργαµον καὶ εἰς Θυάτειρα καὶ εἰς Σάρδεις καὶ εἰς Φιλαδέλφειαν καὶ εἰς Λαοδίκειαν. 25 Hemer 1986, p. 219, n. 44. Cf. already Ramsay 1904, pp. 176–182, conjecturing that the seven churches represented the province of Asia and that the other churches of the province each were assigned to one of them; Laodicea, for example, represents Hierapolis and Colossae as well, having taken on a leadership role in the Lycus Valley. The number seven clearly has symbolic meaning in the Apocalypse of John; cf. for example Tavo 2005, pp. 65–67. 26 VanderKam 1998, p. 317. 27 Rev 17–18; cf. Böcher 21980, pp. 87–96; Giesen 1996, pp. 2584–2603; also Witulski 2007, p. 323. 28 For more on the road network in western Asia Minor, see French 1980; Mitchell 1999, pp. 17–21; Drexhage 2007, pp. 222–224; Marek 2010, p. 324 (the initiative of Manius Aquillius) and pp. 463–468. See also the relevant maps (esp. 56) in the Barrington Atlas. Now also French 2012, pp. 30–42 (on the republican milestones). Cf. pp. 19f. above. 29 On the tradition of this idea among scholars, see already Ramsay 1904, p. 183. the letter in the apocalypse of john 153 and Philadelphia to Laodicea,30 whence he could return easily to Ephesus through the valley of the Meander. Given its place in this transportation network and its location in the province of Asia, this Laodicea can only be the city in the Lycus Valley; Laodicea Combusta, which is much further inland and was then in the province of Galatia,31 is out the question as an addressee.

4.1.3. Philadelphia Philadelphia is next in line before John’s trumpet call dictates its message to the church in Laodicea. It is located some 80 kilometers from Laodicea as the crow ies, beyond the border between Phrygia and Lydia, where the valley of the Cogamus drops into the valley of the Hermus.32 The road undoubtedly fostered active interchange between the two cities, which also found expression in cooperation among the local elites, as attested by a series of Homonoia coinages from the time of Caracalla.33 There is no evidence for analogous contacts between the Jewish community in Philadelphia34 and the Jews of the Lycus valley, but their general mobility makes it safe to posit them. The letter in the Apocalypse and a letter of Ignatius of Antioch provide early evidence of a Christian community in Philadelphia; recently a Christian epitaph from the pre-Constantinian period was discovered among the inscriptions of the city.35 There may initially have been parallel developments among the Christians of Philadelphia and in the Lycus Valley. In a document by an anonymous anti-Montanist known to Eusebius, the daughters of Philip of Hierapolis and a certain Ammia from Philadelphia fall into the same category of prophetesses to be taken seriously and were therefore not appropriate as models of Montanist ecstasy.36

30 On this route, see Magie 1950, pp. 41f. and 798f. (including its use by the Persians and in Hellenism). 31 Mitchell 1993, I, pp. 95 and 99 (map). 32 On the geography, see Petzl 2007, p. IX. 33 Franke / Nollé 1997, pp. 175f., nos. 1732–1742 (on the reverse a table with two prize crowns, a reference to the provincial festival games and the Helios festival games of Philadel- phia). 34 Besides Rev 3:9, for evidence of a Jewish community in Philadelphia see Ameling 2004, pp. 202–208. 35 TAM V, 3 (Petzl 2007), no. 1840: ῎Ετhοiυς σξ ᾽, µη(νὸς) Παν[ή]µου γ ᾽. Αὐρ. Βάσσ[ον] κα ίτεκνὸhνi Χρει[σ]τιανὸν … . The era indicates a date of 229/230.˙ On the Actian era in Philadelphia, see˙ Leschhorn 1993, pp. 338–343. 36 Eus. H.e. 5.17.3. See the text in p. 262, n. 305 below. Ammia appears again in 5.17.4. See p. 199 below. 154 chapter four

The central message of the apocalyptist for Philadelphia is a warning against liars from the “synagogue of Satan” who falsely claim to be Jews37— a group he also mentions in connection with Smyrna.38 Identi cation of this group is di cult; and the question whether they were really Jews39 who from the Christian perspective either per se or through some misconduct did not deserve the name or people, possibly pagans, who wrongly claimed the name cannot be settled.40 In any case, the same tension between Jews and Christians is evident41 that lies behind the polemic of Colossians.

4.2. The Lukewarm Laodiceans

While the church in Philadelphia receives encouraging praise in the message addressed to it, because it has not denied the name of Jesus,42 the Laodiceans reap blunt criticism: “Thus says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God’s creation: ‘I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot—would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.’”43 This criticism is addressed rst to the representative of the church, ὁ ἄ ελος τῆς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἐκκλησίας, for whom John composes the text.44 Each of the seven churches has its own angel, and these angels are identi ed with the seven stars held by the trans gured Jesus in his right hand in John’s inaugu- ral vision.45 The ideas associated with this angelic conception can hardly be reconstructed.46 The author of Colossians had warned emphatically against people who enjoy worshiping angels.47 The Apocalypse, however, teems with

37 Rev 3:9: ἰδοὺ διδῶ ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τοῦ σατανᾶ τῶν λεγόντων ἑαυτοὺς ᾽Ιουδαίους εἶναι, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀ ὰ ψεύδονται. 38 Rev 2:9. 39 E.g. Giesen 1996, p. 2557; Giesen 1997, p. 107. 40 Cf. Ameling 2004, p. 203. 41 Cf. Trebilco 1991, p. 27. 42 Rev 3:8. 43 Rev 3:14–16: Τάδε λέγει ὁ ἀµήν, ὁ µάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ· οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα ὅτι οὔτε ψυχρὸς εἶ οὔτε ζεστός. ὄφελον ψυχρὸς ἦς ἢ ζεστός. οὕτως ὅτι χλιαρὸς εἶ καὶ οὔτε ζεστὸς οὔτε ψυχρός, µέ ω σε ἐµέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόµατός µου. 44 Cf. Rev 3:14. 45 Rev 1:20: τὸ µυστήριον τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀστέρων οὓς εἶδες ἐπὶ τῆς δεξιᾶς µου καὶ τὰς ἑπτὰ λυχνίας τὰς χρυσᾶς· οἱ ἑπτὰ ἀστέρες ἄ ελοι τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησιῶν εἰσιν καὶ αἱ λυχνίαι αἱ ἑπτὰ ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαι εἰσιν. 46 See for example the discussion in Stuckenbruck 1995, pp. 234–238. 47 See pp. 126–131 above. the letter in the apocalypse of john 155 angels, and it is therefore di cult to identify common references linking the texts, unless the criticism of Colossians was aimed speci cally at prophets like the apocalyptist John. Of course the ἄ ελος of the church of Laodicea could be interpreted naturally as just a human messenger; such a gure would t quite easily into the scenario of the letters: messengers from the seven churches wait to receive the letters written on Patmos by John and return to their homes with them. But that interpretation raises the question why a simple messenger should be likened to a star.48 To provide an adequate explanation of this honor paid to the ἄ ελος, identi cation with the most prominent representative of the church has been considered: the bishop of Laodicea. This would mean that the development of a hierarchical structure within the Christian churches of Asia Minor had gone that far by the time the Apocalypse was written.49 Even though this explanation has much to recommend it, and Ignatius of Antioch (in the time of Trajan) actually found an ἐπίσκοπος in Philadelphia and other churches of Asia Minor,50 other explanations should be considered as well, especially since the association of the term ἄ ελος with heavenly beings was rmly established in Jewish and Christian tradition, and the idea of angels informs other parts of the Apocalypse as well.51 In the context of Colossians, we have already seen that angels can appear and act as guardians of individuals or tombs.52 Here we must ask whether they also could support entire groups or communities. In the book of Daniel, a Jewish apocalypse that served as a model for the Apocalypse of John, in a vision the protagonist receives the message that “the great angel Michael” will arise to protect the Jewish people.53 Angels take on a similar function in the Shepherd of Hermas, where they hold the people of God together.54 They soon appeared also as guardians of a speci c church;55 nally, beginning in

48 Hemer 1986, p. 33 expresses such skepticism; cf. also Giesen 1997, p. 90. 49 Cf. Maier 2009, pp. 130f. 50 Cf. Ign. Phil. 1 and the comments of Rapp 2005, pp. 26f. It must be noted, of course, that the authenticity and date of the letters of Ignatius have not assured to the last iota. Cf. Löhr 2009, pp. 105–109. 51 See the fundamental discussion by Carrell 1997, who associates the angels of the seven churches with heavenly beings (p. 20). Cf. Hemer 1986, pp. 32f.; Prigent 2000, p. 111. 52 See pp. 129f. above. 53 Dan 12:1: Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄ ελος ὁ µέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου … . On the Jewish notion of the guardian angel of a people and Michael as the guardian angel of Israel, see Michl 1962, col. 75 and Hannah 2007, pp. 416–423. 54 Herm. Sim. 5.5.3: … οἱ ἅγιοι ἄ ελοι … τοῦ κυρίου οἱ συγκρατοῦντες τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ. 55 Cf. Michl 1962, col. 164. 156 chapter four the 4th century, they were worshiped cultically as patron saints of cities.56 Epigraphic evidence from Asia Minor dates from an even later period—for example the famous theater inscription, decorated with magical signs, in which the seven archangels appear as guardians of the polis of Miletus and its inhabitants,57 and the lintel of a church northeast of Iconium, which calls on the archangel Michael to help the village of Kapoumais.58 Even though this collective role of guardian angels does not appear sharply de ned in the context of the Greek poleis until relatively late, we should not rule out the possibility that contemporaries had already applied it to the ἄ ελοι of the seven letters.59 Whether the pointed reference to Jesus as “Amen” and “the origin of God’s creation” actually represents polemic against regional inuences of Jewish provenance that challenged Christ’s divine uniqueness and eternity must remain conjectural at best.60 Neither has there been a successful attempt to nd traces of Jewish or Gnostic speculation in the description of Jesus as ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ.61 It is clear, however, that the author of the letters is less interested in criticizing the beliefs of the addressees than their attitude, for that is what is at issue when he speaks of their “lukewarmness.”62 There is much to say in favor of the deliberate choice of temperature metaphors (cold, hot, lukewarm) to accommodate the personal experience of the church in the Lycus Valley, where there were numerous hot springs.63 Exegesis, however, has occasionally overemphasized the concrete reference of the letter to actual living conditions in Laodicea, suggesting for example that in antiquity the aqueducts, substantial remnants of which have survived among the ruins, brought lukewarm water into the city.64 Such a

56 See also Dagron / Feissel 1998, p. 196. 57 Grégoire 1922, no. 221 = IvMilet 2, no. 943a. The inscription concludes as follows: ᾽Αρχάγ- γελοι, φυλάσσεται ἡ πόλις Μιλησίων καὶ πάντες οἱ κατ[οικοῦντες]. Cf. also Schulze 1926, pp. 176f. See p. 304 below. 58 Ramsay 1931, p. 21: ᾽Αργάνγελε βοή[θι το]ῦ χωρίου Καπουµαῆς. Cf. Belke / Restle 1984, p. 220. 59 See also Hannah 2007, pp. 416–423. 60 As suggested by Hemer 1986, pp. 185f. Cf. also Col. 1:5: πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. 61 For further discussion, see Aune 1997, pp. 256f. Prigent 2000, pp. 163f. thinks of Gnostic inuences. 62 DeSilva 2008, p. 149 with n. 34 rightly cautions against speculative attempts to interpret the Laodiceans’ lukewarmness by appealing to conict scenarios that are concrete but ultimately not veri able. 63 Cf. Hemer 1986, pp. 186f. Koester 2003, pp. 409–416 disagrees. 64 First suggested by Rudwick / Green 1958, p. 177; seconded by Hemer 1986, p. 187 and following them Aune 1997, pp. 257f., then Maier 2009, p. 238. The criticism by Koester 2003, p. 410 is justi ed. the letter in the apocalypse of john 157 suggestion is untenable, however, especially since it has been clear since the end of the 19th century that the main aqueduct of Laodicea was fed by a spring in the territory of the later city of Denizli, namely the water park called Baspınar¸ eight kilometers south of the ancient city; this is also the source of the Caprus, one of Laodicea’s rivers.65 It is also important to note Strabo’s statement that the water of the rivers near Laodicea was potable.66 For the citizens of an urban center like Laodicea, a supply of cold fresh water was a matter of course. Given the warm springs in the immediate and more distant environment west, north, and east of the city, however, the slightly unpleasant taste of lukewarm water was probably familiar.67 The special problem posed by the temperature metaphors in this letter is due in large part to their singularity: the adjectives ζεστός and χλιαρός as well as the verb ἐµεῖν do not appear anywhere else in the New Testament. In the Greek language, furthermore, temperature adjectives are hardly ever used metaphorically to describe persons—especially the rare word χλια- ρός.68 They were associated most commonly with water (or other liquids like oil), as the lexical evidence shows.69 The specialized writings of physicians indicate that lukewarm water was among the common emetics used to induce vomiting.70 In the commentary from the pen of Victorinus of Pettau, the earliest extant commentary on the Apocalypse,71 the author interprets the temperature metaphor as referring to the intensity of the faith of the church in Laodicea: the “cold” are the nonbelievers, the “hot” the believers, and the lukewarm are simply indiferent (they are, he says, “everything regarding everyone”).72 Exegetes have rightly pointed out that against this background

65 Cf. Weber 1898a (including the important sketch map pl. 3); supplemented by Sim¸ sek¸ / Büyükkolancı 2006 and Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 72–81; on the special role of the Caprus for Laodicea’s water supply, see Huttner 1997, pp. 100f. 66 Str. 13.4.14 (quoted on p. 169 below). 67 It is noteworthy that no thermal springs have been discovered in the region where the water was collected that came to Laodicea by aqueduct. On the location of the thermal springs in the Lycus Valley, see Gökgöz 2007, p. 626 with map 1 on p. 632. 68 Rudwick / Green 1959, pp. 176f. 69 As found in TLG. 70 Galen De sanitate tuenda 6.3.7 (K. Koch, CMG V 4.2 [1923], p. 172, 16–17: … ἐκείνοις τῶν φιλοσόφων, ὅσοι κωλύουσι µετὰ τὰ γυµνάσια πρὸ τροφῆς ἀφ’ ὕδατος χλιαροῦ ἐµεῖν.) The efect could be enhanced by adding a little salt. Cf. Cels. 3.12.3 (“… dare oportet ei potui tepidam aquam subsalsam et vomere eum cogere”) and also Koester 2003, p. 415. 71 Cf. Veronese in Gonzato / Veronese 2002, p. 244. 72 Victorin. Poetov. In apoc. 3.3: “Et ideo ait ad illos neque frigidos neque calidos eos esse, id 158 chapter four it is puzzling how Jesus could say that the cold and the warm were always preferable in his eyes to the lukewarm: this would mean that pagans enjoyed God’s favor more than halearted Christians.73 But since logical inconsistencies are anything but rare in the Apocalypse,74 and that wish was expressed by Jesus with clear emotional emphasis, it is best simply to accept the inconsistency: the author’s aim was paint the Laodiceans a vivid picture of their reprehensible indecision and indiference. To free the author’s appeal from its inconsistency, some have undertaken to relate the assessment expressed through the temperature metaphor once more to the experience of the addressees with water at diferent temperatures, especially since both cold drinking water and hot medicinal springs were available in the Lycus Valley75 and thus explain the equivalence of “cold” and “hot” in the sense “equally useful.” More plausible is the recent suggestion of Clare K. Rothschild to view such an equivalence against the background of contemporary medical ideas, which included “cold” and “warm” among the really efective principles of nature, while the middle ground was judged to be inert and powerless.76 But this interpretation, too, does not remove every di culty, because in the vocabulary of magical texts ψυχρός implies absolute useless- ness.77

4.3. Material Prosperity and Self-Righteousness

The lukewarmness of the Laodiceans nds expression in unthinking self- righteousness: “For you say, ‘I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing,’ and you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.”78 Here and in what follows, the reader has to deal with a constant ambiguity of the author’s train of thought: on the one hand, the text is full of allusions to the material and ultimately economic situation of Laodicea

est neque incredibiles hneque delesi: ad omnes enim omnia sunt” (M. Dulaey, SC 423 [1997], p. 62). Cf. also Hier. Ep. 31.3. 73 Cf. Rudwick / Green 1958, p. 176; Giesen 1997, p. 140. 74 Biguzzi 2003, pp. 383–397. 75 Rudwick / Green 1958, p. 177; Hemer 1986, pp. 187f. 76 Rothschild 2012, pp. 270–290, while also citing the physiognomics of Polemon of Laod- icea. 77 Not uncommonly the purpose of a binding spell is to render an opponent “cold”; cf. Faraone 1991, p. 8. 78 Rev 3:17: ὅτι λέγεις ὅτι πλούσιός εἰµι καὶ πεπλούτηκα καὶ οὐδὲν χρείαν ἔχω, καὶ οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ἐλεεινὸς καὶ πτωχὸς καὶ τυφλὸς καὶ γυµνός,…. the letter in the apocalypse of john 159 at the end of the 1st or the beginning of the 2nd century;79 at the same time, it is naturally concerned with the spiritual and ethical state of the church, its riches in the Spirit. The material prosperity of Laodicea after the earthquake is beyond question; the city recovered without imperial assistance, triggering a huge building boom.80 The city’s economic potential appears to have been a household word for many Jews, especially since it is also mentioned in the fourth Sibylline Oracle, which prognosticates—obviously ex eventu and in any case after the eruption of Vesuvius in 7981—the destruction of a whole series of cities:82 “Stalwart Laodicea, a quake will one day topple and level you, but you will stand rebuilt as a polis.”83 A peculiarity in the series of catastrophes predicted in the oracle is that reconstruction after the disaster is envisioned.84 The exact date of the text, however, is much too uncertain to suggest concrete intertextual references between the Apocalypse of John and the Sibylline Oracle. The immense wealth invested in building projects after the earthquake, giving the city a totally new face, can be estimated from the archaeological evidence that has been uncovered and evaluated only recently. In the Fla- vian period, building was going on in every nook and cranny of Laodicea: the impressive city gates go back to the reign of Domitian,85 and possibly also building projects associated with the water supply.86 The stadium to the south of the city hill, 280 meters long and 70 meters wide (the only one in the

79 Koester 2003, pp. 416–420 thinks allusions to local conditions unlikely, arguing that these allusions could also relate to other major cities of the province. This may be true of particular motifs, but it is not true of their combination (prosperity + gold + textiles + eye salve). 80 Hemer 1986, pp. 192–196. See p. 102 above. 81 A date toward the end of the 1st century (possibly in the 80s) is suggested by Gauger 1998, pp. 452f. The eruption of Vesuvius is the terminus post quem (V. 130–134). Cf. Collins 1986, p. 427. 82 For more on the Jewish context of the fourth Sibylline Oracle, see Collins 1986, pp. 427– 429. 83 Sib. 4.107f.: τλῆµον Λαοδίκεια, σὲ δὲ στρώσει ποτὲ σεισµός / πρηνίξας, στήσῃ δὲ πάλιν πόλις ἱδρυνθεῖσα. That this refers to the earthquake around 60 is likely because verses 109–113 add a description of an earthquake in Lycia that can be dated with great assurance to the year 68. See Sahin¸ 2007, pp. 104–106. 84 Hemer 1986, p. 194: “The special importance of 4.107–108, however, is that it alludes to reconstruction. Why was this included in the Sibylline catalogue of woes, unless perhaps it had attracted special attention and was intended to authenticate the prophecy in the eyes of these who knew the actual sequel?” 85 Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 92–102. 86 Corsten 1997, pp. 47–49, nos. 13 and 14 (cf. p. 70). 160 chapter four

Lycus Valley), had been dedicated only a few years previously under Titus (79),87 nally making Laodicea the central showplace for games and other major events in the region. It is likely reected in the series of coins issued by Claudia, daughter of Zenon, the reverse of which depicts a semi-naked gure with patera and palm frond, at whose feet is a vessel, probably representing a ballot urn.88 Under Domitian a huge temple for the emperor cult was also built, as shown on coins,89 but the sacral structure itself has not yet been located by archaeologists. A public bath near the stadium and probably other impressive nearby buildings were built under Hadrian.90 Possibly the old theater, which had become too small, was supplemented about the same time by a larger one located close by.91 Two theaters in one and the same city illustrate the high—perhaps even overblown—ambitions of the Laodiceans in the realm of communal luxury, but at the same time they were a response to the obvious existence of two theaters in nearby Hierapolis since the Fla- vian period.92

In an easily accessible city like Laodicea, with many trade links, there were many opportunities to come into money. Papias Klexos, who proudly calls himself a “shepherd” in his epitaph and may have done nothing more than raise sheep on his property, was able to draw on substantial assets when he had his ne tombstone carved on a costly marble slab.93 The ourishing textile industry depended on men like Papias Klexos to ensure the supply of wool for fulling mills and dyeworks. Papias Klexos however did not belong to one of the extravagantly rich families that were constantly in the public eye. Here we shall draw on epigraphic evidence to introduce two representatives of the urban elite who constantly employed their wealth in the service of the city, which subsequently honored them. One of the gates built in the Domitianic period was the so-called Syrian Gate, where people left the city traveling toward the upper Lycus Valley in the direction of Colossae and further on Apamea. Above the gate was the following inscription:

87 Corsten 1997, pp. 51–53, no. 15; cf. Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 200–204. 88 RPC II, nos. 1273, 1275, 1277; see pp. 96f. above. 89 See pp. 62 above and 180f. below. 90 Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 187–193; see also the dedicatory inscription in Corsten 1997, pp. 50f., no. 14. Also Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 221–224 (bouleuterion by the south agora). 91 Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 207–220 (p. 219 discusses the architectural sculpture, probably Hadri- anic). 92 D’Andria2003, pp. 111f. (on the Hellenistic “suburban theater”) and p. 154 (on the Flavian predecessor of the Severan theater in the city center). On the Flavian predecessor see also Ritti 1983, pp. 174f. and De Bernardi Ferrero 2002, pp. 32–35. 93 Corsten 1997, pp. 194f., no. 112 (imperial, possible 2nd cent.); see Herz 2011, p. 67, n. 21, identifying Papias Klexos as an entrepreneur. Thonemann 2011, p. 190 assigns the pastoralists of the Lycus Valley “a higher social status.” the letter in the apocalypse of john 161

For Zeus the greatest savior and Imperator Domitianus Caesar Augustus Ger- manicus, pontifex maximus, invested for the fourth time with the tribuni- cian authority, consul for the twelfth time, father of the fatherland, Tiberius Claudius Tryphon, the freedman of the emperor, built the towers and the triple-arched gateway; Sextus Iulius Frontinus, the proconsul, dedicated the entire structure.94 Following the damnatio memoriae of Domitian, the emperor’s name was chiseled out. The date of the inscription is assured by the proconsulate of Frontinus (to whom we owe the well-known work on the Roman aqueducts), which fell in the year 84/85.95 The nancier of the project was a former slave of the emperor Claudius or perhaps of the young Nero (before he became emperor); his emancipation and con- comitant acquisition of Roman citizenship thus occurred at least 30 years before. Both his association with the imperial dynasty and his wealth gave him a prominent position in Laodicea, where he obviously had settled after his manumission.96 Travelers going through the Syrian Gate read the name of the generous benefactor. The fact that his given name (from τρυφή) appropriately suggested a luxurious lifestyle may be accidental. The fact that the second representative of the Laodicean elite, introduced next, was also a Roman citizen signalizes the enormous value of that legal status, but it should not be understood to mean that many others did not succeed in rising to the peak of the local community. The death of Quintus Pomponius Flaccus, who was buried in the necropolis of Laodicea in the 1st/2nd century struck a responsive chord far beyond Laodicea: the entire province of Asia was involved in honoring him. The inscription, on a block of marble integrated into his funerary monument, bears witness to his importance. The Romans and Greeks in the province of Asia and the people of the Laod- iceans have honored Quintus Pomponius Flaccus, the son of Quintus, from the Galeria tribe as a hero [= after his death]: he held the o ce of strategos by bene ting the city, and he supervised public revenue, and he was market inspector without regard to expense, and as rst and only provider he furnished fuel for both warm promenades, and on feast days he voluntarily provided oil month after month, and he was guardian of the law, a role in

94 Corsten 1997, pp. 67–71 no. 24b: ∆ιὶ Μεγίστωι Σωτῆρι καὶ Αὐτοκράτορι [[∆οµιτιανῶι]] Καίσαρι Σεβαστῶ[ι Γερµανικῶι, ἀρχιερεῖ µεγίστωι, δηµαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας τὸ δ᾽, ὑπάτω˙ ]ι τ[ὸ ιβ᾽˙ ˙ ], πατρὶ πατρίδος Τειβέριος Κλαύδιος Σεβαστοῦ ἀπελεύθερος Τρύφων τοὺς πύργ[ους καὶ τὸ τρίπυλον ἀνέθηκεν, Σέξτος ᾽Ιούλιος Φροντῖνος ἀνθύπατος τὸ σύµπ]αν ἔ[ργ]ον καθιέ[ρ]ω[σεν]. Apart from the number of years as consul, the reconstructions are reasonably certain,˙ since there was a second version of the inscription, fragments of which also survive (no. 24a); the inscriptions of the Frontinus Gate at Hierapolis (Ritti 2006, pp. 73–77, no. 10) also provide parallels. On the inscriptions at the Syrian Gate in Laodicea, now see also Kearsley 2011, pp. 132–138. Hemer 1986, p. 195 is outdated. 95 Stumpf 1991, pp. 226–228; Corsten 1997, pp. 69f.; also Eck / Pangerl 2003, p. 210. 96 Corsten 1997, p. 70 assumes that he was a citizen of the city. See also Kearsley 2011, pp. 132f. 162 chapter four

which he voluntarily took over disbursements for the administration; according to the law, he also served as night commander, and he voluntarily led a delegation to Rome on behalf of his home city, and for festivals celebrating good news he donated joyfully, and he voluntarily had the area before the temple [statue?] of Zeus paved with marble, and once again he voluntarily supplied the city with oil, one scoop [drakton] per man from the tub.—The monument was completed by Quintus Pomponius … and …, his brothers, … made … and shared in the expenses … his …97 Here the surviving text breaks of. The Laodiceans were indebted to Quintus Pom- ponius Flaccus for extraordinary political and material bene ts; he had taken over a whole series of municipal functions that required his nancial support but also brought him matching prestige. One passage expressly honors his πολυτέλεια, his readiness to spend a great amount of money, the very quality mentioned in a whole series of honors bestowed by various cities of Asia Minor in the context of the inspection of the market.98 In a parable from the Shepherd of Hermas, though, it is accepted as a worthy role for a Christian only if it is exercised in the service of God.99 Inscriptions like these, extolling the nancial commitment of citizens to their own cities, are found in all the cities of Asia Minor,100 including Philadelphia,101 even though it never attained the dynamism and economic power of Laodicea, and naturally Hierapolis.102 During the imperial period, however, only a few cities in Asia Minor minted as much local money as Laodicea; the variety of coin types from Laodicea is extraordinary.103

97 Corsten 1997, pp. 158–163 no. 82 (drawing in part on Corsten’s translation): οἱ ἐπὶ τῆς ᾽Ασίας ῾Ρωµαῖοι καὶ ῞Ε ηνες καὶ ὁ δῆµος ὁ Λαοδικέων ἐτείµησαν Κοίντον Ποµπώνιον Κοίντου υἱὸν Γαλερία Φλάκκον ἥρωα, στρατηγήσαντα τῆς πόλεως δηµhωiφελῶς καὶ γενόµενον ἐπὶ τῶν δηµοσίων προσόδων, ἀγορανοµήσαντά τε πολυτελῶς καὶ ἑκατέρους τοὺς θερµοὺς περιπάτους καύσαντ[α] πρῶτον καὶ µόνον, ἀλείψαντά τε ἐν ταῖς ἐπισήµοις ἡµέραις παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ κατὰ µῆνα καὶ νοµοφυλακήσαντά τε µετὰ τοῦ καὶ τὰς ὑπὲρ τῶν οἰκονοµηµάτων δαπάνας πεποιῆσθαι παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ στρατηγήσαντα διὰ νυκτὸς ν[ο]µίµως καὶ πρεσβεύσαντα εἰς ῾Ρώµην ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδ[ος] παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἐπιδιδόντα ἐν εὐανγελίοις εὐψύχω[ς] στρώσαντά τε παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ ἔνπροσθεν τοῦ ∆ιὸς [λευ]κολίθῳ καὶ ἀλείψαντα τὴν πόλιν πάλιν παρ’ ἑαυτο[ῦ] τοῖς κατ’ ἄνδρα δρακτοῖς ἐγ λουτήρων. τελ[ειωσάν]των τὸ µνηµῆον Κοΐντου Ποµπωνίου [- - -] τῶν ἀδε[λφ]ῶν αὐτοῦ, ποιησαµέν[ων - - -] ΤΥ[- - -]ης καὶ συνδαπ[ανησαντ --- α]ὐτοῦ ΚΟ[- - -]. 98 Found as a rule˙ only as an adjective or adverb. Cf. the citations in Robert 1969, p. 267 (commentary on the inscription of Pomponius Flaccus). 99 Herm. Sim. 1.10: Only in the polis of God, not it in the earthly city, is πολυτέλεια acceptable. 100 The fundamental study is Quaß 1993, especially pp. 196–352. 101 See the honori c inscriptions TAM V 3, nos. 1428–1495. The relevant corpus of inscription is slightly larger than the corpus from Laodicea. See also the dedicatory inscriptions nos. 1513–1526. 102 See e.g. Judeich 1898, no. 32. 103 See the relevant corpora of coins in BMCPhrygia, RPC I, and RPC II. For statistics relative to other cities of Asia Minor, see the summary in Johnston 1984a, p. 248. the letter in the apocalypse of john 163

As already suggested, however, the author of the Apocalypse (or Jesus, to whom he ascribes the message) is concerned with more than the material prosperity of the city;104 he confronts the church with its own wretchedness and poverty, which contradict the wealth it boasts of, and concretely criticizes its blindness and nakedness; these are de ciencies that delineate the spiritual state of the community.105 The message that follows ofers the Laodiceans three things to overcome their defects: they can act against their poverty, nakedness, and blindness with gold, clothing, and medicine from the storehouse of Jesus: “I counsel you to buy from me: gold re ned by re so that you may become rich, and white robes to put on and thus keep the shame of your nakedness from being seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see.”106 The 19th-century commentaries already saw in the goods ofered to the Laodiceans concrete allusions to their everyday life:107 precious metals, textiles, and eye salve played an outstanding role in the social and economic structure of Laodicea. In his 1986 commentary on the Apocalypse, replete with concrete detail, Colin J. Hemer underlines these references, illuminating the signi cance of the “eye salve” and “white robes” in particular for the Lycus Valley.108 Here we shall incorporate and supplement his observations.

4.3.1. Pure Gold The rst item that Jesus ofers to sell the Laodiceans is χρυσίον πεπυρωµένον ἐκ πυρός. The words suggest the technology used to recover and purify precious metals. In technical language, cupellation, for which lead is necessary, and cementation, in which salt is used to separate silver from gold, were the metallurgical processes already in use in antiquity to produce pure gold.109 One of the early centers of gold re ning was Sardis: the technological apparatus from the 6th century bce, the period of the Lydian kingdom, has now been documented archaeologically. The smelting furnaces in which the process of cementation took place maintained a temperature between 600 and

104 See pp. 158f. above. 105 Cf. Aune 1997, p. 259; Maier 2009, p. 240. 106 Rev 3:18: συµβουλεύω σοι ἀγοράσαι παρ’ ἐµοῦ χρυσίον πεπυρωµένον ἐκ πυρὸς ἵνα πλουτήσῃς, καὶ ἱµάτια λευκὰ ἵνα περιβάλῃ καὶ µὴ φανερωθῇ ἡ αἰσχύνη τῆς γυµνότητός σου, καὶ κο ύριον ἐγχρῖσαι τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς σου ἵνα βλέπῃς. 107 Trench 1863, pp. 267f.; cf. also Ramsay 1904, pp. 419–421 and 428f. But cf. also p. 159, n. 79 above. 108 Hemer 1986, pp. 196–201. 109 Moesta / Franke 1995, pp. 37–46 and 70–72. 164 chapter four

800 degrees Celsius. Sardis was predestined to be a center for this process, because the presence of electrum in the Pactolus River, which passes the city, provided a material basis.110 Nothing is known about analogous provisions from producing precious metal in Laodicea, but it is reasonable to posit the requisite technical knowledge, because the city was one of the centers of coinage in western Asia Minor. During the imperial period, the city coins issued by Laodicea were all bronze; the silver coins of the province, called cistophors in the tradition of the coinage of the Pergamum dynasty and also Roman denarii, were obviously produced in Pergamum or Ephesus.111 During the 2nd and 1st centuries bce, however, there was still an active mint in Laodicea producing cistophors, initially for a brief period under Pergamenian control, then under supervision of the Roman provincial authorities.112 The excavations in Laodicea did bring a few gold artifacts to light: a nger ring from the imperial period with a representation of two crossed hands, another ring with an embedded gemstone, and nally a piece of Byzantine gold glass.113 There is so far no evidence of goldsmithing located in Laodicea. Since we are dealing with scattered nds, however, these pieces signalize the ambition of wealthy Laodiceans to adorn their everyday lives with material objects. In the imperial period, the Jews in Laodicea may have recalled that Laodicea had formerly served as a supraregional gold depot for collecting and for- warding the temple tax.114

Among the early Christians, language speaking of “gold re ned by re” may have become a topical cliché, especially since 1Peter compares faith to gold tested by re;115 nevertheless technological associations in the minds of the addressees should

110 Ramage / Craddock 2000, passim (pp. 94–96 on a date prior to 550bce; pp. 205f. on the temperature range). 111 RPC I, pp. 376–380; RPC II, pp. 125–134 (including a few aurei of the Flavian period minted in Ephesus). 112 For an initial overview, see BMC Phrygia, pp. 278–282; Corsten / Huttner 1996, p. 43, no. 1; Huttner 1997, pp. 96f. with n. 24 (bibliography). On cistophors of the Pergamenian period, see p. 35 above; on cistophors from Laodicea with names of governors, see Stumpf 1991, pp. 19, 24, 36f. (C. Fannius 49/48bce in the chronological series, the last governor attested on Laodicean cistophors), 47f., 52f., 54f. (Cicero 51/50bce). 113 Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 110, g. 45j; p. 137, g. 51h; p. 366 g. 370. 114 See pp. 70–72 above.—An epigrammatic inscription describes nearby Hierapolis as χρυσόπολις. Cf. Merkelbach / Stauber I 1998, p. 265, no. 02/12/05; Ritti 2006, pp. 112–114, no. 21; Ritti 2007, pp. 390f. Whether besides the metaphorical content of this name there may be a concrete allusion to a lucrative trade in precious metal is unclear. On the Chrysorhoas River, see p. 375 below. 115 1 Petr 1:7; cf. Maier 2009, p. 241. the letter in the apocalypse of john 165 be considered, especially if they were also familiar with Jewish traditions. While it is true that the Old Testament also uses the metallurgical metaphor to symbolize purity and processes of puri cation, the metaphor is repeatedly enriched with details that exhibit basic familiarity with technology. Zech 13:9 is still relatively general when the prophet says that God will destroy two-thirds of the population in punishment, but the other third will be put into the re, “re ned like silver in the re, …, and tested for purity like gold.”116 In the prophecies of Ezekiel, however, we nd a whole series of metallurgical details that can be understood only in the context of cupellation:117 “Son of man, behold, in the house of Israel, all have mingled to me with copper and iron and tin and lead, mingled together with silver. Therefore I said: Thus says the Lord: Because you have all become one mixture, therefore I will gather you into Jerusalem. As silver and copper and iron and tin and lead are put in the smelter so that a re can be lit beneath them and thus start the smelting process, so I will gather you in my wrath and put you together and smelt you …”118 Given the numerous references to Ezekiel elsewhere in the Apocalypse of John,119 we can trace a literary tradition here.

Obviously the allusions to technological procedures do not constitute the core of the message; Jesus simply ofers the Laodiceans gold that is much purer and more precious than the gold the addressees are personally familiar with: the χρυσίον πεπυρωµένον ἐκ πυρὸς is an ethereal, spiritual gold, which gives the Laodiceans true riches.120 This is comparable to ideas current in Greek alchemy, which in turn drew in part on Jewish traditions teaching that material and spiritual puri cation go hand in hand.121 The aim of purifying gold is to purify the soul.

116 In the Septuagint: καὶ διάξω τὸ τρίτον διὰ πυρὸς καὶ πυρώσω αὐτούς, ὡς πυροῦται τὸ ἀργύριον, καὶ δοκιµῶ αὐτούς, ὡς δοκιµάζεται τὸ χρυσίον. 117 Cf. Moesta / Franke 1995, p. 71. 118 Ezek 22:18–20: Υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου, ἰδοὺ γεγόνασί µοι ὁ οἶκος Ισραηλ ἀναµεµειγµένοι πάντες χαλκῷ καὶ σιδήρῳ καὶ κασσιτέρῳ καὶ µολίβῳ, ἐν µέσῳ ἀργυρίου ἀναµεµειγµένος ἐστίν. διὰ τοῦτο εἰπόν· Τάδε λέγει κύριος· ᾽Ανθ’ ὧν ἐγένεσθε πάντες εἰς σύγκρασιν µίαν, διὰ τοῦτο ἐγὼ εἰσδέχοµαι ὑµᾶς εἰς µέσον Ιερουσαληµ. καθὼς εἰσδέχεται ἄργυρος καὶ χαλκὸς καὶ σίδηρος καὶ κασσίτερος καὶ µόλιβος εἰς µέσον καµίνου τοῦ ἐκφυσῆσαι εἰς αὐτὸ πῦρ τοῦ χωνευθῆναι, οὕτως εἰσδέξοµαι ὑµᾶς ἐν ὀργῇ µου καὶ συνάξω καὶ χωνεύσω ὑµᾶς …. 119 Cf. Hieke 2004, pp. 5–25. 120 Aune 1997, p. 259: “Obviously poverty, purchasing, and gold are used as metaphors.” 121 In the key document of Greek alchemy, the Φυσικὰ καὶ µυστικά (late Hellenistic) ascribed to Democritus, production of gold played a central role. Cf. chapters 4–18 (M. Berth- elot / C.-E. Ruelle, Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs, Paris 1888, pp. 43–49). See Halleux 1974, pp. 156–159. On the Jewish strain in Greek alchemy, particularly the traditions surrounding the Jewish alchemist Maria, see Patai 1994, pp. 50–91. 166 chapter four

4.3.2. White Robes The ἱµάτια λευκά, the second item Jesus ofers to sell to the angel of Laodicea, allude to a metaphor from Isaiah: sins like purple and crimson that God washes away to present pure white fabric.122 At the same time, they allude to the ourishing textile industry from which an array of occupational groups in Laodicea pro ted: wool growers and shepherds, owners of pasturage like Papias Klexos,123 dyers and fullers, who joined together to form inuential guilds, weavers and tailors, who put the nishing touches on the garments, and nally all the people who engaged in the transport and sale of the nished goods.

The craft guilds, however, are much more thoroughly documented epigraphically in nearby Hierapolis than in Laodicea.124 A text from Hierapolis, though it dates from the period after 212, emphasizes the close contacts between these guilds and the regional elites; the inscription honors one of the highest and most respected city functionaries: The most honorable guild of wool washers [honors] Tiberius Claudius Zotikos Boas, rst strategos and generous agonothete and secretary of the [emperor’s] temple in the province of Asia and illustrious legate and archpriest, benefactor of his native city. The erection [of the statue in his honor] was seen to by the men around Marcus Aurelius Apollonios, son and grandson of Pylonas the Younger; and Marcus Aurelius Ammianos, son of Ammianos, grandson and great-grandson of Glykon; and Marcus Aurelius Arruntianos, son of Her- mippos.125 Tiberius Claudius Zotikos Boas was rich, busy, and constantly in the public eye: he served as head of the college of strategoi (the highest executive body of the city) as well as sponsor of festival games,126 he was active in the emperor cult, and he maintained contact with the Roman administration as legate. Hierapolis pro ted from his generosity. Besides the tribute of the “wool washers,” the fact that the textile

122 Isa 1:18: … λέγει κύριος, καὶ ἐὰν ὦσιν αἱ ἁµαρτίαι ὑµῶν ὡς φοινικοῦν, ὡς χίονα λευκανῶ, ἐὰν δὲ ὦσιν ὡς κόκκινον, ὡς ἔριον λευκανῶ. Cf. also the quotation of this text in an inscription from Afyon, probably associated with an Early Byzantine church: Ramsay 1897, p. 740, no. 674. 123 See p. 160 above. 124 Ritti 1995, pp. 71–77; Dittmann-Schöne 22010, pp. 231–248. Cf. Ru ng 2009, pp. 297f., and also pp. 30f. above. 125 Ritti 2006, pp. 182f., no. 44: ῾Η σεµνοτάτη ἐργασία τῶν ἐριοπλυτῶν Τιβ. Κλ. Ζωτικὸ[ν] Βοᾶ, τὸν πρῶτον στρατηγὸ[ν] καὶ φιλότειµον ἀγhωiνοθέ(την), καὶ γραµατέα ναῶν τῶν ἐν ᾽Ασίᾳ καὶ πρεσβευτὴν ἔνδοξον, καὶ ἀρχιερέα, εὐεργέτην τῆς πατρίδο[ς], [πρ]ονοησάντων τῆς ἀναστάσε[ως τ]ῶν περὶ Μᾶρ. Αὐρ. ᾽Απο ώνιον δὶς Πυλωνᾶ ν(εώτερον), κ(αὶ) Μᾶρ. Αὐρ.[᾽Α]µµιανὸν ᾽Αµµιανοῦ δὶς τοῦ Γλύκωνος hκαὶi Μᾶρ. hΑὐρi Αὐρηλιανὸhνi ῾Ερµίππου [᾽Α]ρρουντιανόν. 126 He is probably also the subject of the epigram Merkelbach / Stauber I, p. 269, no. 02/12/07, which speaks of Ζωτικὸς εὐπατρίδης κλεινὸς ἀγωνοθέτης. the letter in the apocalypse of john 167 industry was among the greatest bene ciaries is shown by a second inscription for Zotikos, with the same text, erected by the guild of purple-dyers (ἐργασία τῶν πορφυραβάφων).127 In the process of textile manufacturing, we may assume that the wool-washers and purple dyers cooperated, since the former prepared the material that was processed by the latter. The purple dyers of Hierapolis also contributed to the nancing of the magni cent marble decoration of the theater built in the Severan period.128 A sepulchral inscription from Hierapolis, likewise dating from the period after 212, shows that Jews also cooperated with the corporations of the textile industry: the guilds of tapestry weavers (?) and purple dyers administered endowments that supported the care of a Jewish tomb.129

Explicit references to craft guilds in Laodicea are very sketchy: only three fragmentary inscriptions on the seating steps of the larger theater stating that the places were reserved for a συνεργασία. Although the fragments do not specify a particular corporation, a connection with the textile industry would be a reasonable supposition.130 The signi cance of Laodicea for the textile industry is nevertheless documented elsewhere, above all by a whole series of garment types in Laodicean style mentioned in the Edict on Maxi- mum Prices of Diocletian;131 a dye plant called ἄγχουσα λαδικηνή mentioned in Egyptian formulary papyri and alchemical treatises;132 and not least by the most recent excavations in Laodicea, where a dye works with a collection of basins and presses was discovered in the vicinity of the north necropolis.133 In addition the epigraphic material of the city has yielded two or three concrete references to the textile industry; the texts will be presented here.

The rst inscription is carved in a block of marble almost 1.5 meters high, occupying both front and back; it probably dates from the decades after 150. It was associated with a statue honoring Aelia Larcia D …, who belonged to an equestrian family: (a) “Gaius Iulius Paterc(u)lus, councilman and frequent victor in sacred games [honors] Aelia Larcia D …, a woman of the equestrian class, wife of the equestrian Statilius Critonianus, benefactress of her native city.” (b) “Sosthenes, son of Skymnos, cloth- ier, erected [the statue] at his own expense, including the base and the pedestal.”134

127 Ritti 2006, pp. 144–146, no. 32. 128 Ritti 2006, pp. 119–124, no. 24. 129 Cf. Ameling 2004, pp. 414–422, no. 196; Huttner 2011, p. 288. See also pp. 251–253 below. 130 Cf. Corsten 1997, pp. 76f., nos. 32f. On συνεργ]ασίας ΚΛ[Corsten suggests κα[ιροδα- πιστῶν] (tapestry weavers) as one possible reconstruction.˙ ˙ ˙ 131 For further details, see Huttner 2009, p. 139; see also p. 317 below. 132 For further details, see Huttner 2009, pp. 147–151. 133 Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 294–299. 134 Corsten 1997, pp. 104–107, no. 51 = Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2009, pp. 140–145, 168 chapter four

The woman honored was a citizen of the city but was also among the elite of the Empire; her husband was probably a descendent of Trajan’s personal physician.135 The two Laodiceans who joined together to honor the woman belonged to the local upper class: one was a councilman and former victor in competitions, the other a wealth tradesman, who nanced the monument. The occupational title εἱµατιοπώ- λης evokes the commendation in the Apocalypse, where ἱµάτια λευκά are ofered for sale. Possibly there is a second example among the Laodicean inscriptions, namely the fragmentary dedication of a statue of Heracles (and a second statue) to a 2nd- century imperial couple. The name of the person making the dedication can no longer be identi ed; his father’s name was Pythes, possibly a descendant of a Pythes whose name can be read on municipal coins of the early principate.136 His occupation is hidden behind the sequence of letters … τιοπώλης;137 the reconstruction ἱµατιοπώλης obviously has much to recommend it.138˙˙ The third inscription from Laodicea involves a site where fullers and an occupational group called “simple workers” traded; the text speaks of an emporion. Because the inscription mentions the neocoria, it cannot antedate Caracalla; it is so fragmentary that it is no longer possible to determine the role this site played in the context.139 It is possible that persons named in the inscription had somehow contributed to the market hall of the γναφεῖς and ἁπλουργοί. In any case, the reference must be to a prominent place in Laodicea, familiar to the readers of the inscription. Like the “wool-washers” of Hierapolis, the γναφεῖς (“fullers”) worked close to the beginning of the manufacturing process: they cleaned and fulled the raw wool to prepare it for dyeing. The concrete function of the ἁπλουργοί (a hapax legomenon) is not documented anywhere, but their association with the γναφεῖς suggests that they were also involved in the preparation of the wool.140

The Apocalypse ofers “white robes,” in contrast to the dyed goods normally produced in Laodicea, in large part purple textiles, which found their way throughout the world from the Lycus Valley. As a rule, the dye was not derived from the costly murex, a sea snail; the great distance from the

no. 56: (a) Αἰλ(ίαν) Λαρκίαν ∆[-] τὴν κρατίστη[ν γυναῖκα] τοῦ κρατίστου Στα[τιλίου] Κριτωνιανοῦ, Γ(άϊος) ᾽Ιούλι[ος] Πατέρκλος˙ βουλευ[τὴς] ἱερονείκης παράδο[ξος] τὴν εὐεργέτιν τῆς˙ [πα]τρίδος. (b) [Σ]ωσθ[ένης Σκ]ύµ[ν]ου εἱµατιοπώ[λ]ης ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων [ἀ]νέστησε σὺν τῇ [β]άσει καὶ τῷ βωµῷ. 135 Cf. Corsten 1997, p. 105; PIR VII 22 (2006),˙ p. 310, no. 824. ˙ 136 Cf. RPC I, p. 475. 137 On Corsten 1997, pp. 131–133, no. 66, cf. SEG 47 (1997), no. 1738. 138 Corsten 1997, p. 133 has reservations, unlike Pleket in SEG. Here we follow Corsten, with the reconstruction of the occupation: [------τοῖς Σε]βα[σ]τοῖς [------κ]αὶ τῷ δήµῳ τῷ Λαο[δικέων ----]Ιηρος Πύθο[υ] Λαο[δικεὺς—ἱµα]τιοπώλης ὑπὲρ˙ [-]˙τὸν ῾Ηρακλῆ καὶ [- σ]ὺν τῇ βάσει ἐκ τῶν [ἰδίων˙ ˙ ˙ ἀν]έθηκεν. ˙˙ 139 Corsten 1997, pp. 102–104, no. 50: IC[------] ἐνπορίου Ν[----] τῶν γναφέ[ων καὶ] ἁπλουρ- γωῶν [ἀνέσ]τησαν α[ἱ τῆς νε]ωκόρου [µητροπόλεως] τῆ[ς] ᾽Ασίας Λαοδηκαίων …. 140˙ Cf. Huttner 2009, pp. 141–143 contra Steigerwald 1990, pp. 253–258; Steigerwald suggests that the ἁπλουργοί were directly involved in the dyeing process (using a single dyestuf, hence “Schneckenpurpureinfachfärber” as a proposed translation). the letter in the apocalypse of john 169 coast would have driven up the price of the goods. It was based instead on the roots of dye plants that grew in the region, primarily Alkanna tinctoria (the ἄγχουσα λαδικηνή, “Laodicean anchusa,” already mentioned) and dyer’s madder (ἐρυθρόδανον).141 Strabo also calls attention to the importance of dye plants for the textile industry of the region; he also acknowledges the bene t of the local calciferous water for the trade. “It is reported that the watercourses of Laodicea can cake, although [unlike those in Hierapolis] one can drink from them. But the water in the vicinity of Hierapolis is wonderfully suited to dyeing wool, so that the goods died with roots can rival those dyed with kermes oak or marine purple.”142 It is clear from this description that dyeing with scar- let produced by the scale insect Kermes vermilio or with the pigment of the purple dye murex was considered the genuine original, whereas dyeing with root extracts was considered an imitation. Possibly the garments ofered in the Apocalypse reect such an assessment: the purple robes produced in Laodicea are dishonest products that belie their true nature. In another passage, Strabo refers to the quality of the lambs’ wool in the vicinity of Laodicea, saying that it is extraordinarily soft and is distinguished by its raven-black color, yielding additional revenue.143 Clearly Laodicea pro ted not only from textiles dyed with substitutes for marine purple but also from those left their natural black. Possibly we have here another point of contact with the Apocalypse, contrasting a pure snowy white and jet black.144 The white robes that Christ urges the angel of the Laodiceans to

141 Cf. Huttner 2009, pp. 147–156. See p. 167 above. It is likely that Lydia, the πορφυρόπωλις mentioned in Acts 16:14, dealt in cloth dyed with vegetal purple (pace Lang 2009, p. 32). 142 Str. 13.4.14: τὸ δὲ τῆς ἀπολιθώσεως καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ποταµῶν φασι συµβαίνειν, καίπερ ὄντων ποτίµων. ἔστι δὲ καὶ πρὸς βαφὴν ἐρίων θαυµαστῶς σύµµετρον τὸ κατὰ τὴν ῾Ιεράπολιν ὕδωρ, ὥστε τὰ ἐκ τῶν ῥιζῶν βαπτόµενα ἐνάµι α εἶναι τοῖς ἐκ τῆς κόκκου καὶ τοῖς ἁλουργέσιν. 143 Str. 12.8.16: φέρει δ’ ὁ περὶ τὴν Λαοδίκειαν τόπος προβάτων ἀρετὰς οὐκ εἰς µαλακότητα µόνον τῶν ἐρίων, …, ἀ ὰ καὶ εἰς τὴν κοραξὴν χρόαν, ὥστε καὶ προσοδεύονται λαµπρῶς ἀπ’ αὐτῶν. Strabo adds that the Colossians also pro ted from a special color, which was actually named for them: ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ Κολοσσηνοὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁµωνύµου χρώµατος πλησίον οἰκοῦντες. Cf. also Vitr. 8.3.14, who says that white sheep that drink from rivers near Laodicea bear dark-colored lambs, sometimes even black as a raven. Strabo’s meaning is not entirely clear. Hemer 1986, p. 200 assumes that there was a color of wool typical of Colossae (cf. Ritti 1995, p. 77). We learn from Pliny (Nat. 21.51) that Colossian wreaths made of cyclamen were a household word to the encyclopedists. Cf. König / Winkler 1985, p. 264. Strabo could also have been referring to the color of these wreaths. 144 Suggested also by Ramsay 1895, p. 42, who was able to see a few black sheep in the area. Ramsay’s observation was con rmed by Erdemir 2011, p. 109. In the spring of 2012, we saw in Tripolis large herds of goats and sheep in which most were black. 170 chapter four buy replace the makes whose sale brings the manufacturers and sellers their pro t: purity supersedes lth, simplicity luxury, honesty deceit. Christ outshines all the city’s petty commerce. That the white robes in the letter to the Laodiceans imply a special kind of purity is signalized by analogous metaphors in the letter addressed to Sardis, where as in Laodicea textiles were dyed on a large scale:145 “But you have few names in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes, and they will walk with me in white [robes], because they are worthy. He who conquers will be clothed like them in white robes, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life …”146 The soiled clothes symbolize a way of life contrary to God’s will; those who forsake this way of life will wear the white robe of the victor and receive a lasting place in the book of life.147 Undoubtedly these associations also resonate in the letter to the Laodiceans; the white robes convey the heavenly presence of Christ.148 In Mark ἱµάτια λευκά signalized the trans guration of the Lord to the chosen apostles Peter, James, and John: his raiment became so dazzling white that no γναφεύς on earth could have bleached them so.149

4.3.3. Eye Salve The third and nal product ofered for sale is salve to anoint the eyes so that they can see. Κο ύριον (or κο ούριον, as some manuscripts read) was one of the standard remedies used to treat eyes,150 as shown by a glance at the relevant chapter in Celsus, who composed an encyclopedia summarizing medical knowledge, probably during the reign of Tiberius, but at any rate before the middle of the 1st century. He lists a whole series of salves used to treat eye inammations.151 From the northwest of the Roman Empire,

145 Important references already in Aristophanes (Pax 1172–1178; Ach. 112); further discussion in Huttner 2009, pp. 143f. Hemer 1986, pp. 146f. expresses reservations: “Sardis, like Laodicea, had long been a famous centre of the clothing industry, especially for rich dyed fabrics. The signi cance of the symbol here however seems diferent from that in 3.18, and its reference to local industry less clear.” On the textile industry in Sardis, see also Labarre / Le Dinahet 1996, p. 50, with n. 7. 146 Rev 3:4–5: ἀ ὰ ἔχεις ὀλίγα ὀνόµατα ἐν Σάρδεσιν ἃ οὐκ ἐµόλυναν τὰ ἱµάτια αὐτῶν, καὶ περιπατήσουσιν µετ’ ἐµοῦ ἐν λευκοῖς, ὅτι ἄξιοί εἰσιν. ῾Ο νικῶν οὕτως περιβαλεῖται ἐν ἱµατίοις λευκοῖς καὶ οὐ µὴ ἐξαλείψω τὸ ὄνοµα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς …. 147 Cf. Maier 2009, pp. 212–214. 148 Cf. Michaelis 1935, pp. 253–256. 149 Mark 9:3: καὶ τὰ ἱµάτια αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο στίλβοντα λευκὰ λίαν, οἷα γναφεὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οὐ δύναται οὕτως λευκᾶναι. 150 The fundamental discussion is Hirschberg 1899, pp. 232–241. 151 Cels. 6.6.2–8. Celsus indicates that several collyria relieve eye inammations and that the letter in the apocalypse of john 171 some 300 so-called oculist stamps from the high Empire are known; they were used by eye doctors or producers of eye salve to identify their goods.152 There is much evidence that the Lycus Valley was a particular center of ophthalmology and that collyria from the region were in demand as medicinal compounds. W.M. Ramsay already called attention to some of this evidence.153 A medical center, more speci cally a school of medicine, was located west of Laodicea at the sanctuary of Men Karou. Since a bust of Men has the legend MHN KAPOV on coins from Attouda, the sanctuary is assumed to have been associated with that polis.154 Strabo provides the relevant medico- historical background. Between Laodicea and Carura lies the so-called sanctuary of Men Karou, which enjoys remarkable veneration. In our time, a great school of Herophil- ian medicine was established there, initially by Zeuxis, then by Alexandros Philalethes, as in the time of our fathers the school of the Erasistratians was established in Smyrna by Hikesios; now it is no longer as it used to be.155 The very juxtaposition of the two schools of medicine, each associated with one of the great Hellenistic physicians, signalizes the extraordinary status of the sanctuary of Men in the mediation of medical tradition. The medical tradition of antiquity provides no further information about the g- ure of Zeuxis mentioned by Strabo,156 but probably around 15bce he was responsible for the minting in Laodicea of the coins with the portrait of

new compounds can be produced without di culty. He describes the rst collyrium in his list as follows: “(Collyrium) of Philo, consisting of puri ed white lead, ashes (zinc oxide), and gum, 1 denarius weight of each; toasted poppy tears (opium) 2 denarii weight. Be aware that here, too, all the ingredients must rst be ground up separately and then mixed together, while water or some other liquid is added gradually.” “Multa autem multorumque auctorum collyria ad id apta sunt, novisque etiam nunc mixturis temperari possunt, cum lenia medicamenta et modice reprimentia facile et varie misceantur. Ego nobilissima exequar.—Est igi- tur Philonis, quod habet cerussae elotae, spodii, cummis, singulorum P. den. I; papaveris lacrimae conbustae P. den. II. Illud scire oportet, hic quoque omnia medicamenta singula primum per se teri, deinde mixta iterum adiecta paulatim vel aqua vel alio umore” (Cels. 6.6.2–3). 152 314 entries in Voinot 1999. Cf. K. Bergdolt in Leven 2005, cols. 125–127, s.v. Augen- heilkunde. 153 Ramsay 1895, p. 52; Ramsay 1904, p. 419. 154 SNG Munich, Caria, no. 185. Cf. Ramsay 1895, p. 167. Cf. pp. 52f. above. 155 Str. 12.8.20: Μεταξὺ δὲ τῆς Λαοδικείας καὶ τῶν Καρούρων ἱερόν ἐστι Μηνὸς Κάρου καλού- µενον, τιµώµενον ἀξιολόγως. συνέστηκε δὲ καθ’ ἡµᾶς διδασκαλεῖον ῾Ηροφιλείων ἰατρῶν µέγα ὑπὸ Ζεύξιδος, καὶ µετὰ ταῦτα ᾽Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ Φιλαλήθους, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν πατέρων τῶν ἡµετέρων ἐν Σµύρνῃ τὸ τῶν ᾽Ερασιστρατείων ὑπὸ ῾Ικεσίου, νῦν δ’ οὐχ ὁµοίως τι συµβαίνει. 156 Cf. von Staden 1989, pp. 529–531. 172 chapter four

Augustus on their face and on their reverse the name ΖΕΥΞΙΣ ΦΙΛΑΛΗ- ΘΗΣ (Zeuxis Philalethes).157 Two designs display the legend along with the Laodicean city god in his typical pose; another displays the rod of Ascle- pius entwined by a serpent.158 Clearly this image alludes to the profession of the master of the mint. Zeuxis’s successor Alexander Philalethes is better known,159 since he is mentioned several time in medical literature, for example by Soranus and Galen. One of his works dealt with gynecol- ogy.160 Galen records that Alexander in turn had a student named Demosthenes, who also bore the epithet Philalethes.161 Besides his studies of the pulse, he composed an inuential work entitled Ophthalmikos, which was eagerly read by specialists in ophthalmology until the late Middle Ages but is lost today.162 One writer who made use of his work was Aetius of Amida, who composed a medical encyclopedia in 16 books based on earlier specialized writings; its seventh book is dedicated to ophthalmology.163 In it he refers to Demosthenes Philalethes several times, for example when discussing painful accumulations of pus:164 About eyelid abscesses, according to Demosthenes. Eyelid abscesses are treated as follows: When they bulge inward, treat by lancing them and pressing the uid out. Then saltwater must be instilled; place wool soaked in egg white on the eye and bandage it. The next day, it must be fomented and rubbed with honey, then instill an astringent collyrium.—When they bulge outward, after lancing and removal of the uid, shavings soaked in honey must be placed on the eye, then it must be bandaged with wool.165

157 Benedum 1974, pp. 221–223; Nissen 2006, p. 472, no. 300. 158 RPC I, nos. 2893–2895. See p. 52 above. 159 The fundamental study is Staden 1989, pp. 532–539. 160 Sor. Gyn. 3.43.1 (J. Ilberg, CMG 4 [1927], p. 122.3). See also Nissen 2006, pp. 473f., no. 301. 161 Galen, De diferentia pulsuum 4 (Kühn 8, pp. 726–727) says that Demosthenes wrote three treatises on the pulse (περὶ σφυγµῶν). On Demosthenes Philalethes, see von Staden 1989, pp. 570–578. 162 Cf. Nissen 2006, pp. 477f., no. 303. Galen’s lost Τῶν ἐν ὀφθαλµοῖς παθῶν διάγνωσις probably went back to Demosthenes; it in turn inuenced the earliest work on ophthalmology that has survived complete, namely the ten treatises of Hunain Ibn Is-Hâq (9th cent.); see Meyerhof 1928, pp. XLII–XLIII. 163 For further discussion, see Garzya 2005, cols. 19f. 164 Text from A. Olivieri, CMG VIII 2 (1950), p. 329. Cf. Hirschberg 1899. 165 Aetius Medicus 7.81: Περὶ ἀποστήµατος ἐν βλεφάροις· ∆ηµοσθένους. Τὰ δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν βλεφά- ρων ἀποστήµατα θεραπευτέον, τὰ µὲν ἐντὸς ἀποκορυφοῦντα ἀποτοµίᾳ καὶ ἐκθλίψει τοῦ ὑγροῦ. εἶτα ἐγχυµατίζειν ἅλµῃ καὶ ἄνωθεν ἐπιθέντα ἔριον ὠοβραχὲς ἐπιδεῖν· τῇ δὲ ἑξῆς ἀποπυριᾶν καὶ µέλιτι ὑπαλείφειν καὶ τοῦ λοιποῦ τῷ σταλτικῷ κο υρίῳ ἐγχυµατίζειν. τὰ δὲ ἔξωθεν, µετὰ τὴν διαίρεσιν καὶ τὴν τοῦ ὑγροῦ κένωσιν ξύσµατα ἐπιτιθέντα διὰ µέλιτος καὶ ἔριον ἐπιδεῖν. the letter in the apocalypse of john 173

In the same chapter, Aetius goes on to discuss abscesses that attack carti- lage, listing the ingredients of the appropriate compound: copper ground to a powder, egg with wine and attar of roses, and honey, and again an astringent collyrium. Since Strabo counts Zeuxis and Alexander as his contemporaries, Demos- thenes can be dated roughly in the second quarter of the 1st century; he could have been contemporary with Paul. Probably Celsus was also familiar with the works of Demosthenes Philalethes on ophthalmology, since he reports on a compound for relief of pustules166 that was named after Phi- lalethes:167 That [collyrium] called ‘Philalethus’168 is also suitable for this purpose: myrrh and opium, a denarius weight each; puri ed lead, soil from Samos that is called ‘star,’ astragalus, 4 denarii weight each; boiled stibnite [antimony], starch, 6 denarii weight each; puri ed ashes, puri ed white lead, 8 denarii weight each. Mix all with rainwater. Apply the collyrium either with egg or with milk.169 The medical authority of the eye specialist Demosthenes Philalethes was thus recognized throughout the Empire; probably even the Apocalypse could not escape his inuence. Nothing is known about the subsequent history of the Herophilians in the Lycus Valley; possibly the catastrophic earthquake in the middle of the 1st century interrupted the tradition.170 During the high Empire (roughly the period from Trajan to Hadrian), however, the region was still producing inuential physicians such as the teacher Anti- ochus of Laodicea and his student Theodas,171 although they belonged to the Empirical school.

166 These pustules (“pusulae”) were probably associated with diseases of the cornea. Lim- mer / Krieglstein 1992, pp. 100f. 167 In his documentation on Demosthenes Philalethes, von Staden 1989, p. 578 includes the Celsus passage among the dubia, but on pp. 573f. he cites compounds to relieve eye diseases in the work of Demosthenes that are identi ed elsewhere. 168 Hirschberg 1899, p. 256 already pointed out that the manuscript evidence is not entirely secure. 169 Cels. 6.6.12: “Id quoque, quod Philalethus vocatur, huc aptum est: murrae, papaveris lacrimae, singulorum P. den. I; plumbi eloti; terrae Samiae, quae aster vocatur, tracanti, singulorum P. den. IIII; stibis cocti, amuli, singulorum P. den. VI; spodi eloti, cerussae elotae, singulorum P. den. VIII. Quae aqua pluvia[ti]li excipiuntur. Usus collyrii vel ex ovo vel ex lacte est.” On the individual ingredients, see Spencer 1938, pp. XV–XL; also Limmer / Krieglstein 1992, p. 102. 170 Also suggested by Benedum 1974, p. 231; on p. 229 he dates the end of Demosthenes Philalethes at the beginning of Nero’s reign. 171 D.L. 9.116; Benedum 1974, p. 226. For an assessment of the evidence regarding Theodas (esp. Galen), see Capelle 1934, cols. 1713f.; Perilli 2004, p. 234 (index s.v. Teoda). 174 chapter four

The Phrygian tradition of compounds for eye treatment can be traced even further back into the Hellenistic period. The pseudo-Aristotelian On Marvelous Things Heard (Περὶ θαυµασίων ἀκουσµάτων), which drew on sources that included the immense encyclopedias of Aristotle’s disciple Theophrastus,172 includes a reference to the medicinal bene t of copper for the eyes: “Those who dig for the ore [near the island of Demonesus ofshore from Chalcedon] become extraordinarily clear- sighted, and those who have no eyelashes gain them. Therefore physicians also use hair copper and Phrygian ashes for the eyes.”173 Galen, too, knew this formula, especially when he recommends collyrium of Phrygian stone as a medicine for the eyes. You will strengthen the eyes if you use a dry collyrium made from Phrygian stone; you must apply the probe to the eyelids in such a way as to avoid touching the inner skin in contact with the eye. Women do this every day when they apply make-up.174 It is noteworthy that immediately afterwards Galen refers to a medicine for the ear for which Laodicea was also famous. He continues as follows: To strengthen the ears, the only means is the secretion of hornpoppy, rubbed with vinegar with the aid of a whetstone; then it must be warmed and carefully instilled into the ear with a probe or with the popular instrument physicians call an otengchytes [‘ear dropper’]. When you have the impression that the ears have recovered su ciently, so that nothing more is owing in, you must regularly instill some of the best spike lavender oil; the high quality oil was formerly produced in Asia only in Laodicea, but now it is also made in other cities.175 From the context in Galen, Ramsay concluded that the Phrygian eye-powder also became known via Laodicea.176 Although the basis of this assumption is tenuous, there are several pieces of evidence that Laodicea played an outstanding role in the production of medicaments, not least because some of the technological knowhow

172 On the sources, see H. Flashar in Flashar / Klein 1972, pp. 39–41. 173 Aristot. Mir. 58: οἱ δὲ τὸν χαλκὸν ὀρύττοντες ὀξυδερκέστατοι γίνονται, καὶ οἱ βλεφαρίδας µὴ ἔχοντες φύουσι· παρὸ καὶ οἱ ἰατροὶ τῷ ἄνθει τοῦ χαλκοῦ καὶ τῇ τέφρᾳ τῇ Φρυγίᾳ χρῶνται πρὸς τοῦς ὀφθαλµούς. Here, too, the source is probably Theophrastus. Cf. Flashar in Flashar / Klein 1972, p. 94. 174 Galen De sanitate tuenda 6.12.3 (K. Koch, CMG V 4.2 [1923], p. 192, 29–32): ὀφθαλµοὺς δὲ τονώσεις τῷ διὰ τοῦ Φρυγίου λίθου χρώµενος ξηρῷ κο υρίῳ, τοῖς βλεφάροις ἐπάγων τὴν µήλην χωρὶς τοῦ προσάπτεσθαι τοῦ κατὰ τὸν ὀφθαλµὸν ἔνδον ὑµένος· οὕτως οὖν πράττουσιν ὁσηµέραι καὶ αἱ στιµµιζόµεναι αἱ γυναῖκες. 175 Galen De sanitate tuenda 6.12.4 (K. Koch, CMG V 4.2 [1923], pp. 192.32–193.3): εἰς δὲ τὴν τῶν ὤτων ῥώµην ἀπόχρη µὲν καὶ τὸ γλαύκιον µόνον, παρατριβόµενον ἐπ’ ἀκόνης σὺν ὄξει, κᾄπειτα διὰ µήλης ἐγχεόµενον ἀτρέµα χλιαρὸν, ἢ διὰ τούτου δὴ τοῦ συνήθους ὀργάνου, καλουµένου δὲ ὑπὸ ἰατρῶν “ὠτεγχύτου”· κἀπειδὰν ἤδη σοι δοκῇ τονοῦσθαι καλῶς, ὡς µηδὲν ἐπιρρεῖν αὐτοῖς, συνεχῶς ἐνστάξεις ναρδίνου µύρου τοῦ ἀρίστου, πρότερον µὲν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ µόνῃ τῆς ᾽Ασίας σκευαζοµένου κα ίστου, νυνὶ δὲ καὶ κατ’ ἄ ας πόλεις. 176 Ramsay 1904, p. 419; cf. also Hemer 1986, p. 197. the letter in the apocalypse of john 175 and raw materials from the dyeing industry could be utilized for pharmaceuticals.177 There are two other pieces of evidence that eye specialists and their collyria enjoyed an extraordinary reputation in the Lycus Valley. The term κο ύριον scarcely appears in Greek literature outside technical works on medicine.178 The fact that Epictetus, who came from Hierapolis, uses the term twice in his various works might indicate that he was familiar with the pharmaceutical industry in his old native city. In one place he discusses the usefulness of things, which he makes dependent on their applications and circumstances: collyria can clearly be useful when properly applied; the same is true, he argues, for soothing poultices or—in sports—for jumping weights. For one they are useful, for another not.179 In the second passage, he is trying to make clear to his audience that a teacher needs more than the knowledge he must convey, comparing the teacher to a physician who opens a practice without enormous preparation: But you open a practice and have nothing but pharmaceuticals; you know nothing of when and how to use them, nor have you concerned yourself with that. “Look, that one has collyria, and I have them also!” But do you have the skill to use them? Do you know when, how, and for whom to use them? Why do you turn such important matters into a crap shoot? …180 Epictetus clothes his metaphors in everyday experiences familiar to his listeners and readers, but it is signi cant that—far from home—he draws on ophthalmology for these metaphors. The medical and pharmaceutical traditions of the Lycus Valley are also reected in the Acts of Philip,181 a work that probably reached its nal form c. 400.182 It reports that the apostle Philip with his companions Mariamne and Bartholomew arrived in the city of Ophioryme, identi ed with Hierapolis, and set up a “medical practice” (ἰατρεῖον) to cure the sick in the city.183 The blind Stachys, formerly a vicious enemy of the Christians and high priest of the serpents that received cultic worship in the city, threw himself on his knees before the wonder-working apostles and told the story of his sickness:

177 See Huttner 2009, p. 157. Cf. also a dealer in ointments (µυροπώλης) from Hierapolis: Judeich 1898, no. 262; see also p. 263 below. 178 This is clear from a survey of the citations in TLG. As one would expect, however, the term appears repeated on oculist stamps. See Espérandieu 1905, p. 152 (index); Voinot 1999, pp. 44f. 179 Arr. Epict. 2.21.20: τὰ γὰρ κο ύρια οὐκ ἄχρηστα τοῖς ὅτε δεῖ καὶ ὡς δεῖ ἐγχριοµένοις, τὰ µαλάγµατα δ’ οὐκ ἄχρηστα, οἱ ἁλτῆρες οὐκ ἄχρηστοι, ἀ ὰ τισὶν ἄχρηστοι, τισὶν πάλιν χρήσιµοι. 180 Arr. Epict. 3.21.20–22: σὺ δ’ ἰατρεῖον ἀνοίγεις ἄ ο οὐδὲν ἔχων ἢ φάρµακα, ποῦ δὲ ἢ πῶς ἐπιτίθεται ταῦτα, µήτε εἰδὼς µήτε πολυπραγµονήσας.“ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖνος ταῦτα τὰ κο ύρια· κἀγὼ ἔχω.” µή τι οὖν καὶ τὴν δύναµιν τὴν χρηστικὴν αὐτοῖς; µή τι οἶδας καὶ πότε καὶ πῶς ὠφελήσει καὶ τίνα; τί οὖν κυβεύεις ἐν τοῖς µεγίστοις;…. 181 Amsler 1999, pp. 396–402 reconstructs a latent polemic against the sanctuary of Cybele in Hierapolis, where incubation was a common practice, but there is no explicit evidence of a healing cult at the sanctuary of Cybele. 182 For further discussion, see pp. 355–371 below. 183 A.Phil. 13.4 (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 313). 176 chapter four

I beseech you, strangers, who have certainly come to this city on account of me and my handicap, that I too may be healed. For behold, for three days I have been seeing unusual images in my dreams, though for 40 years I have not beheld the light of the sun … It came to pass, when I was lying on my bed, that I opened my eyes and looked at the ceiling of my bedchamber, and I saw serpent eggs, and from them crept out small serpents. Then my mind was moved, and I said, “Are those gods? I shall take a bit of the liquid of the serpent eggs and daub it on my eyes to see whether it has a healing virtue.”184 Thus Stachys, who was sufering from an unspeci ed eye disease, prepared a collyrium from serpent eggs so as to experience healing through it. Eggs were generally thought to have a healing virtue, as is shown by the formulas, including those of Demosthenes Philalethes to cure abscesses.185 But the serpent-egg collyrium of Stachys had no efect, and now his eyes were inamed as never before; his sufering stubbornly persisted and tortured him for ten years. His wife, who was then still alive, sought relief: “… she went into the mountains and brought me dew from plants and instilled it daily into my eyes, so that I gained relief.”186 But hope was short-lived, for during one of her excursions to gather herbs, his wife fell victim to a beast of prey and died. Thereafter Stachys had to forego his medicaments and became totally blind. Just as the mountains surrounding the Lycus Valley were home to dye plants used by artisans in the city, so they appear to have been home to the medicinal herbs used by the specialists in ophthalmology to compound their medicaments.187 Demosthenes Philalethes, for example, mentions—in connection with compound for abscesses cited above (p. 173)—“attar of roses” (ῥόδινον),188 which may be behind the δρόσος ἀπὸ βοτανῶν with which the wife of Stachys brought relief.189 In the Acts of Philip, the story

184 A.Phil. 14.2–3 (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, pp. 319–321): Παρακαλῶ ὑµᾶς τοὺς ξένους ἄνδρας τοῦς ἐλθόντας εἰς τὴν πόλιν ταύτην πάντως ἐµοῦ ἕνεκα καὶ διὰ τὴν πήρωσιν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν ἐµοί, ἵνα κἀγὼ ἰαθῶ. ἰδοὺ γὰρ τρεῖς ἡµέρας ἔχω ὀνείρους βλέπων παραδόξους, καὶ τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη µὴ θεασάµενος τὸ φῶς τοῦ ἡλίου … ἐγένετο δὲ ἐµοῦ ἀνακειµένου ἐπὶ τῆς κλίνης—εἶχον ἀνεῳγµένους τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς—καὶ βλέποντος εἰς τὴν στέγην τοῦ κοιτῶνός µου, καὶ εἶδον ᾠὰ ὄφεων, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐξεπήδων γεννήµατα ὄφεων. ἐκίνησεν δέ µου τὸ φρόνηµα καὶ εἶπον· “ἆρα θεοί εἰσιν οὗτοι; ἄρω µικρὸν χυλὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ᾠῶν τῶν ὄφεων καὶ βάλω ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς µου, ἵνα ἴδω εἰ ἔχουσίν τινα θεραπείαν.” 185 Cited p. 173 above. 186 A.Phil. 14.3 (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 321): … καὶ ἐπορεύετο εἰς τὸ ὄρος καὶ ἔφερέν µοι δρόσον ἀπὸ βοτανῶν καὶ ἔβα εν καθ’ ἑκάστην εἰς τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς µου, καὶ παρεµυθούµην. On the text, see also p. 358 below. 187 Since the reference to botanicals (βοτάναι) is formulated explicitly, the meaning of δρόσος cannot be reduced to “dew.” Nevertheless Greek popular belief ascribes a healing virtue to dew: see Bovon 1988, p. 4508 with n. 256 and Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 321, n. 9. 188 Aetius Medicus 7.81. 189 Note that Dioscurides refers expressly to the cooling efect of attar of roses. Dsc. 1.43.4: δύναµιν δὲ ἔχει … ψύχουσαν … . This efect corresponds to the δρόσος (“dew”) and thus agrees the letter in the apocalypse of john 177 of Stachys’s suferings naturally ends with his healing by the apostle, although Philip does not reduce Stachys’s blindness to a physical aiction but interprets it metaphorically as ignorance of the Christian message.190

The evidence and arguments converge on the conclusion that there was in fact a living tradition of eye treatment in the Lycus Valley, which John could draw on in the letter to the Laodiceans. When he composed the Apocalypse, the Ophthalmikos of Demosthenes Philalethes had long been in circulation, and the expertise of the eye specialists enjoyed an excellent reputation far beyond the region. Of course the aim of the apocalyptist was to underline the de cient nature of Laodicea’s resources, both material and technological. Like the apostle in the Acts of Philip, he made use of metaphorical language, albeit without explicating the metaphor. What was at issue for him was not the gold and robes and eye salves that underlay the everyday economic life of Laodicea but true values and, in the context of ophthalmology, the undistorted vision of Christ. But the local color is unmistakable in the sender’s oferings.

4.4. Invitation to a Banquet

When Jesus ofers to sell the Laodiceans true values, he does so knowing that the purchasers must rst be guided in the right way. Therefore he admonishes them nally to turn and repent, an injunction that runs like a golden thread through the letters.191 Nevertheless the Laodiceans can be assured of Jesus’ love, which is the source of his reproof.192 Jesus calls on his addressees to grant him entrance: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him and he with me.”193 Exegetes difer as to whether

with the vocabulary of the Acts of Philip. Roses grow abundantly in the vicinity of Denizli. Cf. Çiçek / Çelik 2004, pp. 131 and 141f. (highlands northeast of Hierapolis); also Semiz / Çelik 2005, pp. 207f. But cf. also pp. 358f. below. 190 A.Phil. 14.6–7 (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, pp. 327–329). For further discussion see pp. 359f. below (including loss of text). 191 Cf. Maier 2009, p. 245. 192 Rev 3:19: ἐγὼ ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω· ζήλευε οὖν καὶ µετανόησον. The rst clause clearly borrows from Prov 3:12. At issue is the relationship between father and son, a disciplinary measure. Cf. Aune 1997, p. 260; DeSilva 2008 a, p. 112. 193 Rev 3:20: ᾽Ιδοὺ ἕστηκα ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν καὶ κρούω· ἐάν τις ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς µου καὶ ἀνοίξῃ τὴν θύραν,[καὶ] εἰσελεύσοµαι πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ δειπνήσω µετ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς µετ’ ἐµοῦ. 178 chapter four the point is an urgent decision the addressees must make in their current circumstances or an eschatological prognosis.194 Be that as it may, the images used to describe the coming of Jesus were familiar to the addressees in Laodicea from their everyday lives: the structure of the chamber tombs in Hierapolis gives us an idea of how the entrances to contemporary houses looked.195 A whole series of epitaphs from Eumenea (some 75 kilometers northeast of Laodicea) refer expressly to the θύρα that gives access to the burial chamber,196 including the inscription for a presumably Christian lawyer named Gaius, which may go back to the 2nd century; here the door explicitly opens the way to Hades: “Here are the doors and ways to Hades, but the paths to light are irreversible.”197 The following verse goes on to speak of resurrection (ἀνάστασις). If we apply the Eumenian notion of a tomb door to the letter to the Laodiceans in the Apocalypse, it naturally raises the question on which side of the door Jesus is actually knocking. Whoever hears the voice of Jesus and opens the door to him will share a meal with him. Whatever meal this statement may mean—it is reasonable to think of the eschatological marriage supper of the Lamb, at which rejoic- ing over the fall of Babylon is heard, as described in a later passage in the Apocalypse198—, the addressees saw it against the background of their expe-

194 Cf. Maier 2009, pp. 245f., who argues for a presentist interpretation. Cf. also Hemer 1986, pp. 206f. For an eschatological interpretation, see for example Jeremias 1935, p. 178. 195 See Schneider Equini 1972, pp. 111–126; also Waelkens 1986, pp. 29f. On the road north of the Frontinus gate, there is a chamber tomb with a gable that was constructed in the 1st century; in its doorway there still stands the cruciform closure slab divided into four panels. For further examples see Schneider Equini 1972, pp. 121f. Cf. D’Andria 2003, pp. 66f. with gs. 41f. (p. 69). Cf. also Hierapolis 1987, p. 111 (below).—We are familiar with this con guration from innumerable door-stones, a form of memorial stele typical of Phrygia, although it is not actually found in the Lycus Valley. Cf. Waelkens 1986, esp. pl. 109 (distribution map). Cf. p. 29 above. Kelp 2008 places the door motif on Phrygian tombs in a larger context. Circu- lar knockers were repeatedly incorporated into Phrygian door stones. Hemer 1986, pp. 204f. conjectures that the addressees in Laodicea associated the door metaphor not only with the entrances to mausoleums but also with the monumental city gates. 196 Drew-Bear 1978, pp. 59–62; Waelkens 1986, p. 17. 197 Merkelbach / Stauber III 2001, pp. 176–178, no. 16/06/01 = Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2009, pp. 248–251, no. 157 (date!). The text in question is verses 22f. (iambs): θύραι µὲν ἔνθα κα[ὶ] πρὸς ᾽Αΐδαν ὁδοί· ἀνεξόδευτοι δ’ εἰσ[ὶν] ἐς φάος τρίβοι. 198 Rev 19:9: µακάριοι οἱ εἰς τὸ δεῖπνον τοῦ γάµου τοῦ ἀρνίου κεκληµένοι. Cf. Lohse 151993, p. 102, which links the two passages. For other possible interpretations of Rev 3:20, see Maier 2009, pp. 247f. On the complexity of the banquet motiv and table fellowship with Jesus in the gospels, see Bolyki 1998, pp. 13–176. the letter in the apocalypse of john 179 riences of celebrated hospitality and festival rituals that built community.199 Since time immemorial, an invitation to dine was one element of the o - cial honors shown to Greek guests of state. When the Laodiceans recognized the special status of the temple of Artemis Leucophryene at the end of the 3rd century bce, they also resolved to receive legates from Magnesia to dine with them in the Prytaneion (the central seat of government).200 In Aphro- disias, over the mountains to the southwest, the priest of Heracles Attalos Adrastos dedicated a sacred dining hall (θυηπολεῖον δειπνιστήριο[ν]) to the goddess Aphrodite during the 2nd century ce so that public authorities and fellow citizens could be entertained there.201 Since the Hellenistic period, banqueting scenes were among the most popular motifs in tombstone iconography, especially in the East Greek territories,202 although it is not always possible to determine what moment the scene represents—a meal of the departed during their lifetime, a meal of the dead in the afterlife, or a meal of the ofspring at the funeral ceremonies. More than a dozen funerary reliefs depicting such banquet scenes from the high imperial period are preserved in the Archaeological Museum of Pamukkale.203 For the most part, the exact provenance of the monuments is unknown; some may come from northern Caria,204 two in any case come from Colossae and one from Laodicea.205 The representations follow a conventional schema, with men lying on a couch, women sitting on armchairs along the sides, and small slaves acting as servers. Sometimes two or even more men lie side by side on a couch; it is unclear whether contemporary passers by would identify them as family members or guests (like Jesus coming from outside).

199 For a fundamental treatment of the Roman banquet, see Stein-Hölkeskamp 2005, which deals primarily with the late Roman Republic and the early principate. Many aspects can be transferred to Greek culture. 200 Unfortunately the relevant inscription from Magnesia is fragmentary at the critical point. Cf. Kern 1900, no. 59, lines 8–10. Here with the reconstructions of Corsten 1997, p. 24, no. 4a (drawing in part on L. Robert): … [τὰς δὲ συναρχ]ίας καλέσαι τοὺς πρεσβευτὰς [εἰς τὸ πρυταν]ε[ῖο]ν,[ἵν]α συνθύωσιν καὶ συνῶσι ἐν [e.g. τῶι δείπνωι]…. ˙ 201 IAph 12.26 d.˙ 202 Cf. Smith 1991, p. 190. On their interpretation, see Fabricius 1999, pp. 51–56, emphasizing the highly abstract nature of the reliefs. 203 Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2009, nos. 64–81. F. Guizzi, p. 158 dates most of the reliefs in the period c. 200. 204 Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2009, no. 68 (from Apollonia Salbace). 205 Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2009, nos. 73 and 80 (MAMA VI, nos. 48 and 50; see also Trainor 2008, pp. 17f. on MAMA VI, no. 48); Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2009, no. 70 (Corsten 1997, no. 74). The relief from Laodicea dates from the 1st/2nd century, earlier than the others. 180 chapter four

4.5. Christian Participation in God’s Dominion

The address to the Laodiceans closes with an imperial image—repeatedly evoked in the Apocalypse—that inevitably triggered political associations and threatened the position of the Roman emperor. Just as Jesus promises to share a meal with his welcoming host, so he grants to those who overcome evil a place on his divine throne: “If he conquers, I shall give him permission to sit on my throne together with me, for I, too, have conquered and sit together with my Father on his throne.”206 This builds on a notion from the annunciation scene in the Gospel of Luke: God will give Mary’s son the throne of his ancestor David.207 All Laodiceans who like Christ win the battle against evil and emerge as victors are to receive a share in the divine dominion. Day in and day out, they had before them the newly erected Temple of Domitian, which likewise proclaimed a divine reign. A series of coins initiated by an otherwise unknown Laodicean named Cornelius Dioscurides provides information about this temple. The temple façade, consisting of four or six columns depending on the format and style of the coins, rises above a ight of steps.208 One example is particularly informative:209 on its face, confronted busts of Domitian and his wife Domitia, the legend reads ∆ΟΜΙΤΙΑΝΟC ΚΑΙCΑΡ CΕΒΑCΤΟC ΓΕΡ- ΜΑΝΙΚΟC, ∆ΟΜΙΤΙΑ CΕΒΑΣΤΗ (Domitianus Caesar Augustus Germani- cus, Domitia Augusta). The coin must have been struck after the triumph of Domitian over the Chatti in 83, from which he took the title Germanicus commemorating his victory.210 The reverse presents two cultic statues in the temple façade: the cuirassed emperor with a statuette of Nike on his hand, and—probably—the empress. The legend not only names the authorities responsible for minting the coin (∆ΙΑ ΚΡ. ∆ΙΟCΚΟΥΡΙ∆ΟΥ, ΛΑΟ∆ΙΚΕΩΝ— by Cornelius Dioscurides, [coin] of the Laodiceans) but also describes the occupant of the temple on the architrave above the columns: ΕΠΙΝΕΙΚΙΟC.

206 Rev 3:21: ῾Ο νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι µετ’ ἐµοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ µου, ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα µετὰ τοῦ πατρός µου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ. On the pendant nominative at the beginning of the clause, see Aune 1997, p. CLXIX. 207 Luke 1:32: οὗτος ἔσται µέγας καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸν θρόνον ∆αυὶδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ …. 208 RPC II, nos. 2181, 1284, 1286f. On this series, see also Friesen 2001, pp. 61f. Cf. pp. 62f. above. 209 RPC II, no. 1284 (where p. 194 identi es the female cultic statue with Domitia). Cf. Dräger 1993, p. 207. 210 Cf. Kneissl 1969, pp. 43–48. the letter in the apocalypse of john 181

It is true that the adjective ἐπινίκιος usually does not describe persons (but festivals or songs),211 but on two altars to Zeus and Hermes from Corycus from the time of Septimius Severus the deities are given this epithet.212 There is no reasons not to associate the term on the architrave directly with Domitian, presenting him as victor.213 Military victory and divinity were therefore closely related at the Temple of Domitian in Laodicea. That the image of the divine throne was also present in the emperor cult of the Greek East is shown by the concept of the σύνθρονος (or σύνναος, who shares the throne / the temple), with which occasionally a ruler was integrated into a traditional cult and could thus be worshiped together with an “old” deity.214 In Pergamum Otacilia Faustina, daughter of an eminent family, was honored; she functioned as priestess of the city goddess Athena Nicephorus and Caligula’s sister Julia Livilla.215 In the inscription in question, Livilla is called the synthronos of Athena: the sister of the emperor could so to speak sit on the same throne as the venerable city goddess. Against the background of how the cult of the ruler was organized in Asia Minor, Jesus’ promise to bring the successful Christians of the Laodicean church to share his throne appears similar: as the emperor joins the deity’s honours, so does the victorious Christian. From the perspective of Jesus, of course, the emperor no longer plays any role; what matters is the dominion of God and his Son, in which the Christian is declared to share. At the expense of the Roman principate, Jesus produces within the Christian community an alternative if not competing dominion.216 It would be wrong, however, to exaggerate the political connotations of this apocalyptic promise, especially since there is a basis for understanding it apart from the imperial structures of Roman dominion. In the Greek notions of the afterlife reected in the funerary epigrams of Asia Minor

211 Roueché 1995, p. 48. 212 Dagron / Feissel 1987, pp. 44–46, nos. 16f. The inscription for Zeus reads as follows: ∆ιὶ Κωρυκίῳ ᾽Επινεικίῳ Τροπαιούχῳ ᾽Επικαρπίῳ ὑπὲρ εὐτεκνίας καὶ φιλαδελφίας τῶν Σεβαστῶν (with reference to Caracalla and Geta). ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ 213 Pace Dräger 1993, p. 207, who assumes that ἐπινείκιος stands for ἐπινείκιος ποµπή, tri- umphus. Having the adjective refer to the person is more appropriate to its position on the temple architrave. The translation “contentious, warlike” in Friesen 2001, p. 62 is also wrong. 214 Nock 1930, esp. pp. 24–26 and 34f. 215 IvP, no. 497 = IGR, no. IV 464: ἡ βουλὴ{ι} καὶ ὁ δῆµος ἐτίµ[ησαν] ᾽Οτακιλίαν Φαυστῖναν Γναίου ᾽Ο[τακιλίου] Φαύστου θυγατέρα, ἱέρειαν γε[νοµένην] τῆς Νικηφόρου καὶ Πολιάδος [᾽Αθη- νᾶς καὶ] ᾽Ιουλίας συνθρόνου, νέας Νικηφ[όρου, Γερµα˙ ]νικοῦ Καίσαρος θυγατρός, δ[ιά τε τὴν τῶν] γονέων αὐτῆς εἰς τὴν π[ατρίδα ἐν παντὶ τῶι˙ ] βίωι φιλοδοξίαhνi καὶ διὰ [τὴν τῆς ἱερωσύνης] ἀγωγὴν καὶ πρὸς τὰς θ[εὰς εὐσεβείας˙ ὑ]περβολήν. 216 Cf. Friesen˙ 2001, pp. 180f. ˙ 182 chapter four under the Empire, the departed individual is sometimes led into the realm of the blessed, where he sits on a throne and keeps company with the gods and the blessed.217 Seen in this light, Jesus’ proclamation takes on an additional eschatological accent; any political implications are blocked out, and the perspective includes only the relationship between the deity and those who place themselves in the deity’s hands.

4.6. Summary: Local Color and Open Questions

The conclusion of the letter to the Laodiceans resembles the conclusions of the other letters; it calls for the attention of an audience beyond the group speci cally addressed218 and recalls the source of the message: the prophetic Spirit of God, “who speaks in the words of John”:219 “Let anyone who has ears [lit.: an ear] hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches.”220 This message was nevertheless tailored speci cally to the church addressed, as has been demonstrated in the case of Laodicea through a whole series of details that are almost unmistakable as local color. The author of the Apocalypse did not close his eyes to regional traditions and conditions; despite all distancing, central elements of an economic and technological potential typical of the Lycus Valley are visible, providing further evidence that the Christians there did not isolate themselves in their churches, at least not to the extent that the author of the message directed to them would have liked to see. The actual nature of the problems of the church criticized in the letter is not really clear—what is meant by the “lukewarmness” of the Laodicean Christians. Neither can we determine whether afterwards a particular con-

217 This is especially vivid in the funerary epigram for a boy from Smyrna, who nally slips into the role of Ganymede: Merkelbach / Stauber I, p. 547, no. 05/01/64. The pertinent verses read: “Honor comes from Zeus together with the immortal gods through the words of Hermes. He took me by the hand and led me to heaven, he likewise honored me and gave me radiant fame, to dwell among the blessed in the starry heaven, where I sit in friendship on a golden throne. And while I enjoy the meal by tripods and holy tables, the gods look upon me as a friend …” (… τειµὴ δ’ ἐκ ∆ιός ἐστι σὺν ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι / ῾Ερµείαο λόγοις· ὅς µ’ οὐρανὸν ἤγαγε χειρῶν / αὐτίκα τειµήσας καί µοι κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἔδωκεν / οἰκεῖν ἐν µακάρεσσι κατ’ οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα,/ χρυσείοισι θρόνοισι παρήµενον ἐς φιλότητα,/ καί µε παρὰ τριπόδεσσι καὶ˙ ἀµβροσίῃσι τραπέζαι[ς]/ ἡδόµενον κατὰ δαῖτα θεοὶ φίλον εἰσορόωσιν / …). Cf. Merkelbach / Stauber I, pp. 518f., no. 05/01/30 (likewise from Smyrna: Anno as σύνθρονος of the εὐσεβεῖς); pp. 456f., no. 04/19/01 (from Lydia: Hades calls the departed to be σύνθρονος of the εὐσεβεῖς). Cf. also Peres 2003, pp. 235f. 218 DeSilva 2008 a, p. 110. 219 Lohse 151993, p. 27. 220 Rev 3:22: ῾Ο ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ πνεῦµα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. the letter in the apocalypse of john 183 sciousness developed among the churches addressed in response to the letters in the Apocalypse, a group identity or sense of solidarity. In any case, the Johannine church of Laodicea now directly confronted the old Pauline church of Colossae.

chapter five

PHILIP AND HIS DAUGHTERS

5.1. John and Philip: Apostolic Competition in the Lycus Valley?

5.1.1. Laodicea in the Acts of John The letter in the Apocalypse made John the sacral identifying gure of the Laodicean church. Soon after the publication of the Apocalypse, this John, who possibly had become acquainted with the seven churches as an itinerant prophet, has been identi ed with the apostle John. The rst witness is Justin’s Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, where the Christian names “a man among us” as the authority for the chiliastic conception, “who bears the name John and was one of the apostles of Christ.”1 Possibly Eusebius concluded from this passage that the dialogue had taken place in Ephesus;2 by the end of the 2nd century at the latest, it was assumed that the apostle John had composed the fourth gospel in Ephesus, as we learn from Irenaeus.3 The apocryphal Acts of John presupposes this Ephesus tradition, since it constitutes the geographical setting of the narrative; the author is remarkably well informed about several local peculiarities of the city and its Artemis cult.4 The date of the Acts of John cannot be determined precisely: the

1 Just. Dial. 81.4 (M. Marcovich [1997], 211, 28–30): καὶ ἔπειτα καὶ παρ’ ἡµῖν ἀνήρ τις, ᾧ ὄνοµα ᾽Ιωάννης, εἷς τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐν ἀποκαλύψει γενοµένῃ αὐτῷ χίλια ἔτη ποιήσειν ἐν ᾽Ιερουσαλὴµ τοὺς τῷ ἡµετέρῳ Χριστῷ πιστεύσαντες προεφήτευσε … Cf. Chapman 1911, pp. 49f.; Schnelle 82013, pp. 597f.; also Maier 2009, p. 24, who argues that the apostle composed the Apocalypse. 2 Eus. H.e. 4.18.6. 3 Iren. Haer. 3.1.1 (A. Rousseau / L. Doutreleau, SC 211 [1974], p. 24): ῎Επειτα ᾽Ιωάννης, ὁ µαθητὴς τοῦ Κυρίου, ὁ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ ἀναπεσών, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκεν τὸ εὐα έλιον, ἐν ᾽Εφέσῳ τῆς ᾽Ασίας διατρίβων. See also Hengel 1993, pp. 13–25; Schnelle 82013, pp. 516f. Boismard 1996, pp. 57f. cites the entry on the martyrdom of John and James in the Syriac Martyrologium (Nau 1912, p. 11 on December 27, albeit in Jerusalem), which draws on traditions from Asia Minor, and suggests that the martyrdom of John was recounted primarily in Asia Minor. On the Syriac Martyrologium as a source for the Lycus Valley, see pp. 341f. below. For a full treatment of the martyrdom of John, see Oberweis 1996, pp. 277–287. 4 Engelmann 1994, passim (with citations from the epigraphic material). Plümacher 186 chapter five earliest evidence of its reception—in the Coptic Manichean Psalter (so- called Pilgrim Psalms)—dates from toward the end of the 3rd century;5 possibly it was already circulating after the mid-2nd century.6 At least it is undisputed that by that time a speci cally Ephesian Johannine tradition was emerging.7 The Acts of John reports that under dramatic circumstances the apostle brought a dead man to life in Ephesus and then received envoys from Smyrna, who approached him with the following request: “We hear that the God you preach is free of envy and has charged you not to stay always in the same place. Now since you are the herald of such a God, come to Smyrna and the other cities, that we may know your God and, when we have come to know him, may place our hope in him.”8 There is much to suggest that Laodicea was one of the “other” cities that John was expected to visit in addition to Smyrna, since the name of the city is mentioned explicitly in two manuscripts that provide information about the continuation of the story of John. About the work of the apostle during his journey, we learn from an independent tradition only that he delivered twin brothers from demons in Smyrna,9 but the major strand of the narrative, though dis gured by large gaps, nevertheless touches on the nal stage of that journey, describing a farewell scene that must have taken place in Laodicea, if we follow the superscription in Codex Marcianus 363 (12th/13th cent.) and another manuscript from Ochrid (10th cent.).10 This superscription reads:

1978, cols. 18f. suggests that the Acts of John essentially originated in Asia Minor. There is evidence, however, that the Acts of John was inuenced by Syrian traditions: the earliest traces of its receptions appear in the Manichean Psalter. Cf. Schäferdiek 1983, esp. p. 255; also Schäferdiek in Schneemelcher 61999, p. 139. Klauck 2005, pp. 31f. questions Engelmann’s convincing conclusions. Junod / Kaestli 1983, pp. 689–694 and Bremmer 1995, pp. 54–56 argue for an Egyptian origin of the Acts of John.—Regardless of where it was redacted, the text can naturally preserve local traditions from Asia Minor. 5 For more on dating the Manichean Pilgrim Psalms, see Gnoli 2006, pp. 57f. 6 Hengel 1993, pp. 53–55; Klauck 2005, pp. 29–32. 7 Schäferdiek 1983, pp. 258–261. 8 A.Jo. 55 (E. Junod / J.-D. Kaestli, CCSA 1 [1983], 239): ᾽Ακούοµεν ὃν κηρύσσεις θεὸν hὅτιi ἄφθονός ἐστι καὶ διετάξατό σοι µὴ ἐµφιλοχωρεῖν ἐν ἑνὶ τόπῳ. ὡς οὖν θεοῦ τοιούτου κῆρυξ ὑπάρχων, ἐλθὲ εἰς τὴν Σµύρναν καὶ εἰς τὰς λοιπὰς πόλεις, ἵνα σου τὸν θεὸν ἐπιγνῶµεν, καὶ ἐπιγνόντες αὐτὸν ἐν αὐτῷ τὰς ἐλπίδας ἔχωµεν. On this passage see Plümacher 2004 (1994), pp. 210–225, who compares John’s role to that of a governor who has to visit the assize cities of his province. See also Plümacher 2004 (1997), pp. 236–240. 9 Cf. Klauck 2005, pp. 38f., with a reference to a subsequent episode (the “partridge episode”) that could have found a place in the setting of John’s journey through Asia Minor. 10 Cf. Junod / Kaestli 1974,p. 99, n. 18. On the manuscripts, see Junod / Kaestli I 1983, pp. 17f. philip and his daughters 187

“From Laodicea, in Ephesus for the second time.”11 The following episode is then described: When much time had passed and none of the brethren had ever been pained by John, they suddenly felt pain when he said, “Brethren, now it is time for me to go to Ephesus. For I so agreed with those who dwelt there, lest they grow careless, especially since they have long had no one to strengthen them. But you should all set your minds on God, who never forsakes us.” When the brethren heard this from him, they lamented because they had to part from him. And John said, “When I part from you, Christ always remains with you. If you love him with a pure heart, you will receive from him communion that will never cease. For if he is loved, he anticipates those who love him.” When he had so spoken and bidden them farewell, having left the brethren much money to distribute, he departed for Ephesus, while all the brothers lamented and sighed. And with him were Andronicus and Drusiane, who had left Ephesus with him, as well as the households of Lykomedes and Kleobius. And he was also followed by Aristobula, who had learned that her husband Tertullus had died on the way, and also Aristippus together with Xenophon, as well as the prudent prostitute, and others as well, whom he led to the Lord Jesus Christ from time to time and who were not yet willing to separate from him.12 The Laodicean Christians, who are all referred to as “brethren” in the Pauline tradition, could hardly get over the pain of separation;13 some of them even joined John: Aristobula, Aristippus, Xenophon, an unnamed prostitute, and more. This group appears only here in the tradition of the Acts of John. The names come from the standard stock of Greek onomastics; only Tertullus

11 A.Jo. 58 (Junod / Kaestli, CCSA 1 [1983], 243): ᾽Απὸ Λαοδικείας ἐν ᾽Εφέσῳ τὸ δεύτερον. Here, then, we learn of John’s second stay in Ephesus, during which he raised Drusiane from the dead, after she had died in the course of a dramatic love story. 12 A.Jo. 58f. (Junod / Kaestli, CCSA 1 [1983], 243–247): Χρόνου δὲ ἱκανοῦ διελθόντος καὶ µηδενὸς τῶν ἀδελφῶν λυπηθέντος ποτὲ ὑπὸ ᾽Ιωάννου, ἐλυπήθησαν τότε εἰρηκότος αὐτοῦ· ᾽Αδελφοί, ἤδη µε καιρὸς τὴν ῎Εφεσον καταλαβεῖν· συντίθεµαι γὰρ τοῖς ἐκεῖ µένουσι, µήπως ῥᾳθυµήσωσι πο ῷ χρόνῳ µὴ ἔχοντες ἄνθρωπον τὸν ἐπιστηρίζοντα αὐτούς· εἰς δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἔχειν ὑµᾶς πάντας τὸν νοῦν, τὸν µὴ ἀπολιµπανόµενον ἡµῶν. ᾽Ακούοντες δὲ ταῦτα παρ’ αὐτοῦ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ἐπένθουν, ὅτι αὐτοῦ ἐχωρίζοντο. ὁ δὲ ᾽Ιωάννης εἶπεν· Εἰ κἀγὼ χωρίζοµαι ὑµῶν, Χριστὸς σὺν ὑµῖν ἐστιν ἀεί· ὃν ἐὰν καθαρῶς φιλῆτε, ἀναπόλειπτον ἕξετε τὴν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ κοινωνίαν· φιλούµενος γὰρ φθάνει τοὺς φιλοῦντας αὐτόν. Καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν καὶ ἀποταξάµενος αὐτοῖς, καταλιπών τε πο ὰ χρήµατα εἰς διάδοσιν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, πενθούντων ἁπάντων τῶν ἀδελφῶν καὶ στεναζόντων ἐξῆλθεν εἰς τὴν ῎Εφεσον. συνῆσαν δὲ αὐτῷ οἱ καὶ ἐξερχοµένῳ ᾽Εφέσου συνόντες ᾽Ανδρόνικός τε καὶ ∆ρουσιανή, καὶ οἱ περὶ τὸν Λυκοµήδην καὶ Κλεόβιον. ἠκολούθησαν δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ᾽Αριστοβούλα, ἐγνωκυῖα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς Τέρτυ ον ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ τεθνάναι, ὁ ᾽Αρίστιππος δὲ ἅµα τῷ Ξενοφῶντι, καὶ ἡ σώφρων πόρνη, καὶ ἕτεροι πλείονες, οὓς ἑκάστοτε προέτρεπεν εἰς τὸν κύριον ᾽Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, οἳ οὐδὲ ἐβούλοντό ποτε χωρισθῆναι αὐτοῦ. 13 On the literary tradition of such farewell scenes in the Acta of the apostles see Junod / Kaestli 1983, p. 431, n. 1. 188 chapter five

(Tertyllos), the husband of Aristobula, has a Latin name, which did enjoy a degree of popularity in Asia Minor.14 The names are not peculiar to the region; they were common throughout the imperial period. It means little that they have so far not appeared in the onomastic corpus of Laodicea. It is hard to say, however, whether concrete memories or even family traditions were associated with persons bearing these names in the Laodicean church. In any case, it is safe to assume that there was additional information about them in a tradition, now lost, drawn on by the passage cited.15 Presumably that tradition also included the story of Tertyllos, concerning whose death there would otherwise be no clear information.16 Stories about prostitutes were generally current in the region, as we know from Strabo,17 but the extant text of the Acts of John gives no further information about the σώφρων πόρνη. Probably the group of Laodiceans associated with John continued to play a role even after his return to Ephesus, even though the relevant passage in the Acts of John has been lost. For the Manichean Psalm of Constancy, one of the “Pilgrim Psalms,” contains a long series of examples detailing the sufering and courageous constancy of holy individuals. Before it culminates in Mani, it mentions several women from the Acta of the apostles, rst Thecla from the Acts of Paul, then Drusiane, and nally Maximilla from the Acts of Andrew, and Aristobula. While we are told that Drusiane, like John, spent 14 days in prison—a detail not found in the extant text of the Acts of John—, about Aristobula we are merely told succinctly that she sufered great torment.18 Since she stands alongside Maximilla, whose fate is

14 LGPN V A (including various derivatives of the name). Cf. the instances of Tertullinos, Tertulla, and Tertullianos from Hierapolis: Judeich 1898, nos. 147, 152, 181. 15 Bremmer 1995, pp. 41f. 16 On various speculations, see Schäferdiek in Schneemelcher 61999, p. 178, n. 63. 17 Str. 12.8.17; see p. 133 above. 18 On this section of the psalm, see Schäferdiek in Schneemelcher 61999, p. 84: Thekla, die Gottliebende, ließ man das Feuer besteigen. Sie nahm das Zeichen des Kreuzes an, sie schritt ins Feuer freudig. Jedoch geriet sie nicht in Schande, entblößt inmitten der Menge. Sie ward den Bären vorgeworfen, die Löwen hetzte man auf sie. Bei den Stieren wurde sie gefesselt, man ließ die Robben auf sie los. Alle diese (Leiden) ertrug sie, nicht unterlag noch [wich?] sie ihnen. Ein Kranz ist’s, den sie wünscht; Reinheit ist’s, um die sie ringt. Ebenso die selige Drusiana, auch sie ertrug dergleichen, eingekerkert vierzehn Tage gleich ihrem Meister, ihrem Apostel. Maximilla und Aristobula—große Pein wurde über sie gebracht. Was ist der Nutzen, daß sie dies emp ngen? Reinheit ist’s, um die sie kämpfen. A translation of the two verses regarding Aristobula appears in Gnoli 2006, p. 74: philip and his daughters 189 known from the Acts of Andrew (she had refused the sexual advances of her husband the governor), it is reasonable to conclude that Aristobula played a comparable role in the Acts of John, where Drusiane also abjures sexual intercourse.19 Aristobula presumably did not attain the status of a martyr. The scanty source material makes it impossible to say what role if any her constancy played in the emergence of a speci cally Laodicean tradition. Even though details regarding these individuals are no longer discover- able, the fragmentary texts of the Acts of John show clearly that Laodicea was an integral part of the tradition about the apostle John, so that ultimately a connection could be made with the letter in the Apocalypse of John. In the missing sections of the Acts of John, the apostle probably followed precisely the route sketched out in the Apocalypse:20 Ephesus was the starting point; Smyrna is mentioned explicitly, and then—at least in two manuscripts— Laodicea is mentioned as the last station on the apostle’s journey. With the apostle’s visit in Laodicea, the Johannine tradition of the church, which had begun with the Apocalypse, took on a new accent. The Epistle to the Colos- sians had con rmed that Paul cared for the Christians of Laodicea and had addressed a letter to them; now it turned out that an apostle of the rst generation, in fact the disciple beloved by Jesus, had ministered personally in the city and proclaimed the good news there. With this tradition, Laodicea was in no way inferior to Colossae—quite the contrary! The tradition of John’s visit to Laodicea was probably in part responsible for the assignment of the apostle to a role—albeit subordinate—in the Acts of Philip, where the setting shifted to neighboring Hierapolis.21 The interest of the Laodiceans in cultivating the Johannine tradition may be attested in the Latin Passion of John, even though it does not go into the apostle’s journey from church to church but (together with his exile on Patmos) only on Ephesian episodes from his biography.22 According to the prologue, the author was “Melito, servant of Christ, bishop of Laodicea.”23

Massimilla e Aristobula, a loro fu initta una grande tortura. Per quale necessità esse hanno dovuto subire tali cose? È la purezza per cui hanno combattuto. 19 Cf. Bremmer 1995, pp. 41–44; also Junod / Kaestli 1983, p. 95; Nasrallah 1999, p. 237. 20 Cf. Schäferdiek 1983, p. 257; Schäferdiek in Schneemelcher 61999, p. 177. 21 See p. 365 below. 22 See the overview in Schäferdiek 1985, pp. 367–371; text in PG 5, 1239–1249 (in the appendix to Melito of Sardis). 23 “Melito servus Christi episcopus Laodiceae.” PG 5, 1239–1240 (also on the readings Miletus and Miro). 190 chapter five

The Greek original of the Passio was probably composed in the second half of the 5th century.24 Nothing more is known of a person by that name holding episcopal o ce in Laodicea in that period, however. The prologue goes on telling how the bishop targeted the errors of Leukios,25 who wrote Acta of the apostles in which he claimed them as authorities for a doctrine of two principles (principle of good vs. principle of evil). John, the author says, confuted him with the beginning of his gospel, where he locates the eternal verbum in a single principle.26

5.1.2. Early References to Philip in Hierapolis That the Christian church of Laodicea during the high Empire laid claim to its own apostolic tradition, emerges primarily against the background of the story of Philip circulating in the 2nd century at the latest; in it the Hierapolitans sought to reinforce their own signi cance, although it was by no means clear from the outset that this Philip was the apostle. The rst reference to an association of Philip and Hierapolis comes from Papias, who served as bishop of Hierapolis in the rst half of the 2nd century.27 In the third book of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius reports that the apostle Philip and his daughters were laid to rest in Hierapolis.28 A few chapters later, he uses this information to initiate an outline survey of miracle stories from the pen of Papias: “It has already been pointed out that the apostle Philip lived in Hierapolis along with his daughters. But it must now be revealed that Papias, their contemporary, comments that he has been told a wonderful story by the daughters of Philip …”29 A fragment from the church history of Philip Sidetes ( rst half of the 5th cent.), which includes additional details of that miracle tradition, con rms the statement of Eusebius.30

24 Schäferdiek 1985, p. 380. 25 On this obscure author of Acta of the apostles, see Schäferdiek in Schneemelcher 61999, pp. 81–93. 26 PG 5, 1239f.: “Volo sollicitam esse fraternitatem vestram de Leutio (Leucio) quodam, qui scripsit apostolorum Actus Joannis evangelistae et apostoli sancti Andreae et Tomae apostoli; qui de virtutibus quidem quas per eos Dominus fecit vera dixit, de doctrina vero eorum plurimum mentitus est. Dixit enim docuisse eos duo principia, quod exsecratur Ecclesia Christi, et cum ipse sanctus Joannes in capite Evangelii sui unum testetur principium, in quo fuerit verbum semper, per quod universa creata sunt visibilia et invisibilia, Leutius (Leucius) dicit eos docuisse duo principia boni et mali, et bona a bono, mala vero a malo principe substitisse … .” 27 On the date of Papias see pp. 214f. below. 28 Eus. H.e. 3.31.3f. 29 Eus. H.e. 3.39.9. For the text, see p. 205 below. 30 De Boor 1888, p. 170 frgm. 6: Παπίας ὁ εἰρηµένος ἱστόρησεν ὡς παραλαβὼν ἀπὸ τῶν philip and his daughters 191

We shall discuss the miracle stories in greater detail at a later point;31 here we are concerned only with the gure of Philip. While Eusebius admits no doubt regarding his identi cation with the apostle, the words of Papias clearly do not suggest such an identi cation: in the fragment, he neither calls Philip an apostle, nor could he have been unclear regarding the identity of the man32 as whose contemporary he lived in Hierapolis.33 The old man with whose daughters he conversed was not the disciple of Jesus but the preacher mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, who was among Stephen’s supporters; Luke identi ed him as an evangelist.34 The earliest evidence for an association of the apostle (!) Philip with Hier- apolis appears in a letter cited by Eusebius from Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus, to Victor, the bishop of Rome, whose episcopate ran approximately from 189 to 198.35 In it Polycrates defends the Quartodeciman rule for determining the date of Easter in common use in the province of Asia,36 and cites in support a whole series of authorities from the region, including the apostles Philip and John, who had been laid to rest in Hierapolis and Ephesus: For in Asia, too, great luminaries lie buried. They will rise on the day of the Lord’s appearance, when he comes in full glory from the heavens and seek out all the saints: Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who lies buried in Hierapolis, and his two daughters, who grew old as virgins, and his other daughter, who worked in the Holy Spirit and rests in Ephesus. Then also John, who reclined on the bosom of the Lord, who became a priest with the frontlet, a martyr, and a teacher. He lies buried in Ephesus …37

θυγατέρων Φιλίππου, ὅτι … . On placing Philip Sidetes, see Honigmann 1953, pp. 82–88. See pp. 205f. below. 31 See pp. 204–208 below. 32 See also the argumentation of Körtner 1983, p. 145. Chapman 1911, pp. 64–67 assumes instead that Papias believed Philip of Hierapolis was the apostle; similarly von Dobbeler 2000, p. 285. But the argumentation is not persuasive, since it relies on the list of apostles Philip Sidetes borrowed from Papias, in which Philip also appears. The list of apostles provided by Philip Sidetes is reputed to appear in the same context as his account (cited in n. 30) of Philip’s daughters. Cf. p. 223 below. 33 Note here the wording of Eusebius (H.e. 3.39.9: … κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ὁ Παπίας γενόµενος …), who does not use a feminine demonstrative pronoun, which would have included only Philip’s daughters, but a masculine pronoun, to include their father as well. But see Norelli 2005, pp. 287f., who argues that the text should be understood in the sense of κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους. 34 Acts 21:8. 35 See also Bauckham 2006, pp. 440–442, who assumes that Polycrates is drawing on a tradition of the church in Ephesus. 36 On the context, see Strobel 1977, pp. 30f. and Gerlach 1998, pp. 327–330. On Quartodec- imanism in the Lycus Valley, see pp. 249–251 below. 37 Eus. H.e. 5.24.2–4: καὶ γὰρ κατὰ ᾽Ασίαν µεγάλα στοιχεῖα κεκοίµηται· ἅτινα ἀναστήσεται τῇ 192 chapter five

Toward the end of the 2nd century, then, the tomb of the apostle Philip in Hierapolis was considered one of the central memorial sites of the Chris- tians in the province of Asia; the bishop of Ephesus cites it in his argument to impress his colleague in Rome. The two tombs of the apostles—Philip in Hierapolis and John in Ephesus—constitute the counterweight to the authority of Peter and Paul in Rome. At the same time, we see how meanwhile Hierapolis must have gained prestige among the churches of the Lycus Valley, for the tombs of the apostles of Colossae (Paul) and Laodicea (John) were far away. In contrast to Laodicea, the emergence of the tradition of the apostles in Hierapolis can be traced, at least in outline, since in Philip and his daughters we are dealing with historical gures, who attracted attention in Luke’s Acts of the Apostles.38 The link connecting the Acts of the Apostles and the Hierapolitan apostolic tradition is an episode at the end of Paul’s nal missionary journey, which suggests a date of 56.39 Paul and his companions had completed the nal stages by ship from Patara to Tyre and from Tyre to Ptolemais, in order to continue on to Caesarea: “The next day we left [Ptole- mais] and came to Caesarea, and came to the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the seven, and stayed with him. He had four daughters, virgins, who prophesied.”40 Though there are diferences regarding the number of Philip’s daughters—Polycrates speaks of three, in Acts there are four—,41 there is no doubt regarding the identi cation; Eusebius also cites the quotation from Acts to reinforce the Philip tradition of Hierapolis.42 Acts describes Philip as being one of the “seven”; in other words, he was one of the seven deacons associated with Stephen, who were appointed on the initiative of the twelve

ἡµέρᾳ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου, ἐν ᾗ ἔρχεται µετὰ δόξης ἐξ οὐρανῶν καὶ ἀναζητήσει πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, Φίλιππον τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων, ὃς κεκοίµηται ἐν ῾Ιεραπόλει καὶ δύο θυγατέρες αὐτοῦ γεγηρακυῖαι παρθένοι καὶ ἡ ἑτέρα αὐτοῦ θυγάτηρ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύµατι πολιτευσαµένη ἐν ᾽Εφέσῳ ἀναπαύεται· ἔτι δὲ καὶ ᾽Ιωάννης ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ κυρίου ἀναπεσών, ὃς ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον πεφορεκὼς καὶ µάρτυς καὶ διδάσκαλος· οὗτος ἐν ᾽Εφέσῳ κεκοίµηται … . An abbreviated text appears in 3.31.3. See also p. 196 below. 38 For a summary of Philip the “deacon” and “evangelist,” see Frenschkowski 1994, cols. 507–510. 39 For the date, see Lohse 1996, pp. 55–57; Schnelle 82013, pp. 43–47. 40 Acts 21:8–9: τῇ δὲ ἐπαύριον ἐξελθόντες ἤλθοµεν εἰς Καισάρειαν καὶ εἰσελθόντες εἰς τὸν οἶκον Φιλίππου τοῦ εὐα ελιστοῦ, ὄντος ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά, ἐµείναµεν παρ’ αὐτῷ. τούτῳ δὲ ἦσαν θυγατέρες τέσσαρες παρθένοι προφητεύουσαι. 41 See pp. 195–197 below. 42 Eus. H.e. 3.31.5. The problem is analyzed thoroughly by Amsler 1999, pp. 441–468. For a literature survey on the divergent traditions, see Norelli 2005, pp. 286f. philip and his daughters 193 apostles.43 This gives us an important chronological anchor, since the choice of the “seven” took place before the execution of Stephen and hence the conversion of Paul, which can be dated with some precision around 32/33.44 This date means that Philip could hardly have been born after 15ce. In any case, this estimate of Philip’s year of birth makes it possible that a meeting between the elderly Philip and the young bishop Papias would have been possible in the period around 100.45 After the death of Stephen, Philip went to Samaria to preach and to perform exorcisms and healings. While there he even cast his spell over Simon, a magician who had himself been on everyone’s lips as an object of fascination.46 Another location mentioned in Acts is the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, where Philip explained the prophet Isaiah to a eunuch from the Nubian royal court and nally baptized him.47 Thereupon we are told that Philip was transported by the Spirit to Azotus; he continued on from there (obviously traveling north) to preach the gospel in the cities and towns until he arrived in Caesarea.48 Thus before Philip settled in Caesarea, where he founded a household, he had been on the road for some time as an itinerant charismatic preacher, proclaiming the message of Jesus especially in the coastal regions of Palestine (on the route from Azotus to Caesarea). When Paul sought him out at his house in Caesarea, Philip would have been at least 40 years old but presumably several years younger than his guest.49 If Philip settled in Caesarea and started a family at the end of the 30s, his daughters would have been between 15 and 20 years old at the time of Paul’s visit. Given the numerous imponderables, these estimates of people’s ages must naturally remain hypothetical.

Reconstruction of a scenario that could explain the move of Philip’s family from Caesarea to Hierapolis must also be based on hypotheses. Possible the tense situation in the run-up to the Jewish War played a role.50 While Antonius Felix was governor, toward the end of the 50s, riots broke out in Caesarea, when the city’s Jews

43 Acts 6:1–5; see von Dobbeler 2000, pp. 249–282. 44 Assuming the late dating of the Apostolic Council (48). If an early dating (43/44) is posited, Gal 1:18 and 2:1 would require an earlier dating of Paul’s conversion as well. On the dating of the Apostolic Council in 48 and the conversion in 33, see Schnelle 82013, pp. 36–42; Lohse 1996, p. 57 argues for 32. 45 See p. 191 above. 46 Acts 8:5–13. 47 Acts 8:26–39; cf. von Dobbeler 2000, pp. 107–126. 48 Acts 8:40. 49 On the hypothetical year of Paul’s birth (c. 5ce), see p. 99 above. 50 See von Dobbeler 2000, pp. 247f. 194 chapter five put forward impassioned claims to communal privileges not enjoyed by non-Jews. The conicts led to open rioting in the streets, which the Roman military nally put a radical end to: many Jews went to their death, while others were imprisoned; the soldiers plundered Jewish houses.51 But it is also conceivable that private motives led Philip to pack up and leave. It is noteworthy that we hear repeatedly of his daughters but never of his wife. Possibly her death persuaded the family to seek consolation elsewhere.

No doubt we may assume that Philip had already established contacts in the Lycus Valley in advance: both the sizeable Jewish presence, particularly in Hierapolis, but above all the Pauline network and the active communication among the Christian churches encouraged making contacts. We must constantly also think of lines of communication that have left no traces in the fragmentary tradition, as illustrated by the extensive contacts of Polemon II of Pontus (reigned 38–64), descendant of the elderly Zenon of Laodicea,52 with the Roman imperial house and the Jewish royal house.53 A relative likewise named Polemon, to whom the Roman emperor had granted a kingship in Cilicia, even converted to Judaism when he married the notorious Jewish princess Berenice.54—Be that as it may, the path from Caesarea to Hier- apolis in Phrygia had been opened and Philip with his daughters found a new home there. It is unlikely that the Christians in Asia Minor would have confused him with the apostle during his lifetime. Probably this apostolic tradition arose when Philip’s daughters were dead and the family had died out, around the time of Hadrian. Now the tomb of the old Philip in Hierapolis rose to the status of an apostolic memorial and gave the city a central place in Christian tradition. One prerequisite for this identi cation was the fuzziness of the apostle Philip in the gospels. Each of the Synoptics mentions him only once, in the context of a list of apostles; only in John, which assigns him a role in four episodes,55 does he begin to come into focus. While the tomb of the apostle Philip was venerated in Hierapolis, in Caesarea the house of the evangelist Philip did not sink into oblivion: the letter of Jerome that describes the pilgrimage of Paula through the Holy Land, mentions in Caesarea not only the house of

51 Josephus Ant. 20.173–177; cf. Bringmann 2005, p. 244. 52 See pp. 40f. above; Sullivan 1980, pp. 925–930. 53 IGR IV, no. 145; RPC I, pp. 568f.; Josephus Ant. 19.338 (Polemon II as guest of Agrippa II). 54 Josephus Ant. 20.145f. On the identity and place of this Polemon, see Thonemann 2011, p. 209. Sullivan 1978, p. 312 instead identi es him with Polemon II of Pontus. 55 John 1:43–51; 6:5–7; 12:20–22; 14:8–10. philip and his daughters 195 the centurion Cornelius56 but also the modest accommodations of Philip, where the visitor could even view the room of the four virgins.57 It is unclear whether at that time the tradition was already current that this Philip ultimately served as bishop in Tralleis, as recorded in the Index discipulorum et apostolorum of pseudo-Epiphanius, written in the 8th century.58 Thus both Philip the evangelist and Philip the apostle found a home in Asia Minor: initially the tradition regarding the apostle dogged the footsteps of the evangelist; (much) later the tradition regarding the evangelist followed along. Whether in the end the Philip tradition of Hierapolis competed with that of Tralleis we do not know.

5.2. The Daughters of Philip: Prophecies from Hierapolis

5.2.1. Divergent Traditions We have already mentioned the divergent traditions regarding the daughters of Philip;59 by the end of the 2nd century, there was no longer any agreement about the number of prophetesses and the location of grave sites. Eusebius places the two traditions available to him side by side without further comment and supplements them with the pertinent statement from the Acts of the Apostles regarding the stay of Philip and his daughters in Caesarea.60 In addition he also knew of a comment of Papias, who possibly had personal contact with the women.61 Papias is thus our earliest witness to a local association of Philip’s daughters with Hierapolis. Although Papias himself is hard to pin down chronologically,62 we can conclude from his evidence that the daughters of Philip enjoyed a certain fame during the rst half of the 2nd century (perhaps not until close to 150).

56 Cf. Acts 10:1–33. 57 Hier. Ep. 108.8.2 (I. Hilberg, CSEL 55 [1996], p. 313): Mirata ruinas Dor, urbis quondam potentissimae; et versa vice, Stratonis turrim ab Herode rege Judaeae in honorem Caesaris Augusti Caesaream nuncupatam, in qua Cornelii domum, Christi vidit Ecclesiam, et Philippi aediculas, et cubicula quatuor virginum prophetarum … . 58 [Epiph.] Index discipulorum 7 (Schermann 1907, p. 119, 1–3): Φίλιππος ὁ καὶ αὐτὸς εἷς τῶν ἑπτά, ὁ καὶ Σίµωνα hκαὶi τὸν εὐνοῦχον βαπτίσας ἐν Τρά εσι τῆς ᾽Ασίας ἐπίσκοπος γέγονεν. On the date, see Winkelmann 1966, p. 48. 59 See p. 192 above. 60 Eus. H.e. 3.31.2–5; cf. pp. 196f. below. 61 Eus. H.e. 3.39.9; cf. p. 190 above. 62 See pp. 213–215 below. 196 chapter five

The two witnesses to the grave sites of Philip’s daughters are the Ephesian bishop Polycrates and the Montanist Proclus. As we have seen, Polycrates came to speak of the major authorities of the churches in the province of Asia, including Philip and his daughters, in a letter to his colleague Bishop Victor of Rome written around or shortly after 190, in which he defended the Quartodeciman position on the date of Easter. He speaks speci cally of “Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who lies buried in Hierapolis, and his two daughters who grew old as virgins, and his other daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and rests in Ephesus.”63 Like Papias several decades earlier, Polycrates can assume that the apostle’s virgin daughters were familiar to his addressee: their prophetic activity had since become known in the West as well. The second witness known to Eusebius, Proclus, is also hard to identify, because the bishop of Caesarea himself was not acquainted directly with the author’s work but knew it only from the anti-Montanist dialogue written against him by a certain Gaius, who was writing in Rome around or shortly after 200.64 Eusebius appends his quotation from Gaius to his quotation from Polycrates as follows: “And in the dialogue of Gaius …, Proclus, against whom the debate was written, speaks as follows, in agreement with the statements concerning the death of Philip and his daughters: ‘The time after him, in Hierapolis in Asia there were four prophetesses, daughters of Philip. Their tomb is found there, as well as that of their father.’”65 Why the daughters of Philip should play any role in the Montanist debate will be seen in due course (see p. 261–263 below). First, however, we must ask why contemporaries like Polycrates and Proclus difered regarding banal facts like how many daughters Philip had and where they were buried. If we take the text of Polycrates cited by Eusebius as our starting point, Philip had three daughters; this text contradicts not only the tradition of Proclus but also Acts 21:9;66 it is unlikely that copyists of the Eusebius text are to blame for this “mistake,” especially since Eusebius cites the passage

63 Eus. H.e. 5.24.2: … Φίλιππον τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων, ὃς κεκοίµηται ἐν ῾Ιεραπόλει καὶ δύο θυγατέρες αὐτοῦ γεγηρακυῖαι παρθένοι καὶ ἡ ἑτέρα αὐτοῦ θυγάτηρ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύµατι πολιτευσα- µένη ἐν ᾽Εφέσῳ ἀναπαύεται. Likewise H.e. 3.31.3. Cf. pp. 191f. above. 64 For more on Gaius, see Schmidt / Schulz-Flügel 1998, p. 245; Tabbernee 2007, pp. 68–70; Willing 2008, pp. 43f. 65 Eus. H.e. 3.31.4: καὶ ἐν τῷ Γαίου δὲ,… διαλόγῳ Πρόκλος, πρὸς ὃν ἐποιεῖτο τὴν ζήτησιν, περὶ τῆς Φιλίππου καὶ τῶν θυγατέρων αὐτοῦ τελευτῆς συνᾴδων τοῖς ἐκτεθεῖσιν, οὕτω φησίν· µετὰ τοῦτον προφήτιδες τέσσαρες αἱ Φιλίππου γεγένηνται ἐν ῾Ιεραπόλει τῇ κατὰ τὴν ᾽Ασίαν· ὁ τάφος αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἐκεῖ καὶ ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν. 66 See p. 192 above. philip and his daughters 197 from the letter of Polycrates at two diferent points without signi cant dif- ferences. There are, however, other possible explanations for the divergence. First, it is possible that a section has been lost from the text of Polycrates; the editor of the Eusebius text, Eduard Schwartz, pointed out himself that the phrase ἡ ἑτέρα αὐτοῦ θυγάτηρ (“the one / the other” of two) introducing the third daughter is unusual.67 Second, it should be noted that Polycrates speaks expressly of the apostle’s daughters, whereas Acts speaks of the daughters of the preacher Philip from the group of seven headed by Stephen. The existence of a separate tradition regarding the daughters of the apostle (!) Philip is con rmed by Clement, who says in his Stromata that they were married by their father.68 Third, as bishop of Ephesus Polycrates obviously was familiar with local tradition, which enabled him to diferentiate:69 possibly not all four daughters of Philip spoke as prophetesses but only three of them, as one shifted the focus of her activity to Ephesus.70 Fourth, it may be necessary to take into account proleptic topoi in Jewish tradition. For example the Tes- tament of Job, written in the 1st century bce or ce, names three daughters of the sufering Job who were endowed with the gift of prophecy.71

5.2.2. The Prophetic Activity of the Daughters of Philip More interesting than the question of how many daughters of Philip engaged actively in prophecy and were buried in Hierapolis is the analysis of their place and role in early Christian society in the Lycus Valley and the reception they found among contemporaries and in Christian tradition. Philip’s daughters were rst associated with the term prophecy in the Acts of

67 Schwartz 1932, p. 110 (critical apparatus); Amsler 1999, pp. 450f. 68 Clem. Str. 3.6.52.5 (O. Stählin / L. Früchtel / U. Treu, GCS, Clemens Alexandrinus 2 [21985], 220,15–16): Πέτρος µὲν γὰρ καὶ Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο· Φίλιππος δὲ καὶ τὰς θυγα- τέρας ἀνδράσιν ἐξέδωκεν. The larger context makes it clear that the reference to Philip has to do with the apostle. Eusebius cites the passage from the Stromata (H.e. 3.30.1). Von Dobbeler 2000, pp. 233–235 assumes instead that we are not dealing here with an independent tradition regarding the daughters of the apostle Philip, implying Clement’s “use of liation as a metaphor for discipleship.” For another view, see Corssen 1901, p. 296. 69 See also Amsler 1999, p. 452. 70 Strictly speaking, Polycrates ascribed the gift of prophecy to only one of Philip’s daughters, namely the daughter buried in Ephesus; see p. 196 above with note 63. 71 T.Job 1 and 48–50 (S.P. Brock 1967, 19 and 56,16–57,17). The daughters of Job were called: ῾Ηµέρα, Κασία, and ᾽Αµαλθείας Κέρας (the names already appear in Job 42:14 LXX). For further discussion, see Forbes 1995, pp. 183–185. On dating the work, see also Schaller 1979, pp. 311f.; Müller 31995, pp. 32–35 and 185f. (literature survey). See also Oberhänsli-Widmer 2007, pp. 316–318. 198 chapter five the Apostles,72 then by Proclus,73 in the general debate between Montanists and their opponents,74 and nally by Eusebius himself,75 while Polycrates of Ephesus stresses that one of the daughters had been possessed by the Holy Spirit.76 Luke in particular associates the gift of prophecy closely with the Pneuma.77 Against the background of the polemic debate in 1Corinthians, where Paul subjects prophetic speech to restrictions that are di cult to understand,78 the meaning and function of early Christian prophecy have been the subject of scholarly debate.79 On the basis of the evidence in the correspondence of Paul and in Acts, prophecy can be understood as the public declaration of divine revelation, in which the prophet is accorded the role of a medium.80 It is impossible to make any general statements about their concrete circumstances and content of prophecy. In any case, Philip’s daughters became recognized authorities in the proclamation of the Chris- tian message, famous far beyond the Lycus Valley. The individual with the gift of prophecy appears to have receded totally into the background behind the message: unlike elsewhere in early Christian prophecy, the names of the women were not recorded in the tradition;81 the daughters’ identity

72 Acts 21:9: παρθένοι προφητεύουσαι. 73 Eus. H.e. 3.31.4: προφήτιδες τέσσαρες. 74 Cf. the quotation in Eus. H.e. 5.17.3 from an anonymous anti-Montanist treatise, which emphasizes that none of the recognized prophets had been an ecstatic: cited on p. 262 below. Cf. Tabbernee 2007, pp. 139f. 75 Eus. H.e. 3.37.1, introducing the prophet Quadratus, who may possibly be identi ed with the well-known apologist: Τῶν δὲ κατὰ τούτους διαλαµψάντων καὶ Κοδράτος ἦν, ὃν ἅµα ταῖς Φιλίππου θυγατράσιν προφητικῷ χαρίσµατι λόγος ἔχει διαπρέψαι … . Cf. p. 262 below. 76 Cf. p. 196 above with n. 63. 77 Cf. Forbes 1995, pp. 252f. 78 1Cor 14. 79 See this discussion in Forbes 1995. 80 Cf. Forbes 1995, p. 229, with the following de nition: “We may summarise our understanding of Christian prophecy according to Acts and Paul as follows: prophecy is the reception and subsequent public declaration of (usually) verbal revelation. Such revelation is normally spontaneous (we have no clear examples of it happening in response to inquiries) and the subsequent declaration is normally immediate. Regardless of the novelty or familiarity of its content, the speaker conceives it to be revealed truth, rather than the results of his own thought process.” Clearly Forbes is concerned to bring out the diferences between Christian prophecy and pagan oracles. 81 In Ephesus, however, a daughter of Philip named Hermione was venerated; she is said to have been tortured under Trajan and martyred under Hadrian. But the only witnesses to the tradition in question, which also mentions her sister Eutychis, are late: Synax. Eccl. Const., cols. 14–15 (Sept 4); BHG, no. 2171; cf. Schultze 1922, p. 422; Foss 1979, p. 33, although he does philip and his daughters 199 derived from their father. Their prophecies appear not to have overstepped the boundary of what was generally accepted by the Christian churches; their inspiration was obviously not accompanied by irritating phenomena, such as the symptoms of ecstasy. In any case, the anonymous anti-Montanist cited by Eusebius expressly dissociates Philip’s daughters and other Chris- tian prophets from the loss of control of the (Montanist) pseudo-prophets, whose appearances regularly culminated in frenzy.82 That prophetesses were among the recognized functionaries of Christian churches since the apostolic period is shown by Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians that any woman praying or prophesying should veil her head.83 In the context of the presentation of Jesus in the temple, Luke speaks of the 80-year-old prophetess Hanna, who engaged in a strict program of prayer and fasting and now spoke of God to those awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem.84 When prophetesses were discredited, like Jezebel, the subject of a warning in the letter to Thyatira in the Apocalypse,85 it was because of their objectionable message, not their gender. Nevertheless Jezebel does clearly appear to have enjoyed respect in the church of Thyatira.86 Side by side with Philip’s daughters, the anonymous anti-Montanist speaks of a prophetess named Ammia from Philadelphia, some 80 kilometers distant.87 Whether or not there were personal contacts between the prophetesses from Hierapolis and Ammia (note that one of Philip’s daughters is said to have stayed in Ephesus) or Ammia was guided by her older sisters in the faith, prominent prophetesses played a major role in proclaiming Christian ideas in the region between the Hermus Valley and the Lycus Val- ley. That women in particular were inuential in the churches of the Lycus Valley is also clear from the Pauline correspondence, although at that time it was the social status of these women—or more precisely their wealth and resources—that played a decisive role, enabling them to provide a functioning infrastructure for worship, while meantime a concrete religious function was assigned to them. Nympha had opened her house to the assembled community; the daughters of Philip conveyed God’s message to it.

consider an earlier origin of the tradition (“Traditions associating these saints with Ephesus are ancient.”); Aubert 1993; also Foss 2002, p. 130. 82 Eus. H.e. 5.17.2–3; cf. pp. 153 above and 262 below. 83 1Cor 11:5; cf. Eisen 2000, p. 68. 84 Luke 2:36–38. 85 Rev 2:20. 86 Eisen 2000, pp. 69f. 87 Eus. H.e. 5.17.2–4, esp. 5.17.3 (see n. 82 above). Eisen 2000, p. 71 conjectures that Ammia prophesied in Philadelphia during the rst half of the 2nd century or around its middle. 200 chapter five

5.2.3. The Institutionalized Prophets of Apollo Even though the geographical proximity of Philip’s daughters and Ammia is striking, ultimately—despite the scanty sources—we are dealing with isolated cases. It is fundamentally impossible to speak of an institution in the context of early Christian prophecy;88 this holds true even more so in the case of prophetesses. It is nevertheless worthwhile to compare the prophecy of Philip’s daughters with a form of prophecy rmly rooted in Laodicea, associated with the cult of Apollo and documented in inscriptions of the high imperial period. One of these inscriptions (already cited pp. 149f. above) comes from Laodicea itself and was discovered in the course of the Canadian excavations of the Caracalla Nymphaeum, meaning that it obviously adorned a monument in the vicinity of the ancient city center. The text reads as follows: “Under the prophecy of L. Antonius Zenon Aure- lianus.”89 We can only speculate regarding the monumental context of the inscription. Possibly it introduced a documentation of oracles that were presented to the public on the wall of a public building.90 The excavation of the nymphaeum uncovered a few fragments of a metrical text91 that might possibly be identi ed as an oracle. Only a few words or sequences of words can be made out. The text speaks of “beauty,” of a man who distinguished himself as a splendid envoy, of a “shaded sanctuary,” and nally—in a separate fragment—of a “divinely inspired” being, who might possibly be the prophet responsible for the oracle,92 and of “longed-for children.” The term θεόπνους was probably familiar to the Christians of the city or would at least have reminded them of the related word θεόπνευστος found in 2Timothy, in which a writer of the Pauline school calls Holy Scripture “inspired by God.”93 In his

88 Cf. Forbes 1995, pp. 288f. Signs of institutionalization do appear, however, in the context of Montanist prophecy; see Markschies 2007, pp. 109–136. 89 Robert 1969, pp. 289f. no. 6; Corsten 1997, pp. 133f. no. 67; Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 104–106 no. 37: Προφητείας Λ(ουκίου) ᾽Αντωνίου Ζήνωνος Αὐρηλιανοῦ. See also p. 150 above. A similar dating appears in a dedication to Apollo from Aizanoi: MAMA IX, no. 60 (… ᾽Επικτήτου προφητεύσαντος). 90 As suggested˙ by Robert 1969, pp. 305 and 337. 91 Robert 1969, pp. 336f. no. 12 = Corsten 1997, pp. 134–136 no. 68 = Merkelbach / Stauber 1997 (1996), p. 191 no. 17: (a) κά ους ΑΓΕ[- - -] στάσατο ΧΑ[..]Σ ᾽Αβρόθ[εµ - - -] κῆνος ἀνή[ρ, ὃς] πρέσβυς ἀριστ[- - - Φοίβου˙ ᾽Από˙ ω]νος σκιόεν τέµ[ενος -˙ - -]ον˙ ἔνειµε˙ Τ[- - -]. (b)˙ [-˙ - -]ΡΟΙ [- - -]ς˙ θεόπνο[- - - τ]έκνα ποθεινὰ [- - -] … .˙ Merkelbach / Stauber express their doubt that we are˙ dealing with an oracle˙ here. 92 Cf. Robert 1969, p. 337. 93 2Tim 3:16: πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιµος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν … . Cf. Metzger 1993, p. 242. philip and his daughters 201 treatise Against the Pagans (Adversus Graecos, De universo), Hippolytus applies this epithet to the prophets collectively: if pagans “were to give ear to the prophets inspired by God and the explanations of the theologians, thus demonstrating their trust in God,” they could see the kingdom of heaven.94 It is conceivable that the daughters of Philip were honored with this epithet, especially since Polycrates called one of them ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύµατι πολιτευσαµένη.95 A lengthy series of inscriptions from Clarus, not yet fully published, provides information about the concrete function of the prophet L. Antonius Zenon Aurelianus. They document delegations from a wide range of cities and towns that came to Clarus year after year to pay homage to Apollo. A great many of these inscription, more than 40, concern Laodicea.96 The earliest delegation from Laodicea documented in these texts made its journey around 126/127;97 the inscription reads as follows: During the 60th prytany of Apollo, when Marcus Ulpius Artemidoros functioned as priest and prophet, when Soteles son of Pothoumenos and Ulpius Metrodoros held the position of secretary: Publius Claudius Dionysios Aelia- nus from Laodicea on the Lycus, prophet of Pythian Apollo, praised the god in the sanctuary of Apollo of Clarus with a hymn according to the oracle, and he added the names of the boys and girls who joined him in singing the hymn. At that time Marcus Acilius Paulinus was the educational director of the boys (paidonomos) for the fth time; Apollonios and Dionysios served as committee members. They were the following: Publius Claudius Dionysios Aelianus, Publius Claudius Attalos Philadelphos, P. Claudius Tatianos Aelianus, Skym- nos son of Skymnos, Kallinikos Silios, Claudianus son of Persikos, Claudia Attalis daughter of Salbios, Ammia daughter of Asklepiades, Ariste daughter of Aristokritos, Nikopolis daughter of Nikon, Tatia daughter of Nikon, Agelais daughter of Persikos. The hymn was led by … -os son of Zosimos.98

94 Hippolytus De universo fragment (Holl 1899, p. 143, 128–134): τούτοις ἐὰν πεισθέντες ῞Ε ηνες καταλείψετε τὴν µαταιότητα τῆς ἐπιγείου καὶ χρηµατεµπόρου σοφίας καὶ µὴ περὶ λέξεις ῥηµάτων ἀσχολούµενοι τὸν νοῦν εἰς πλάνην συνώσητε, ἀ ὰ τοῖς θεοπνεύστοις προφήταις καὶ θεολόγοις ἐξηγηταῖς ἐγχειρήσαντες τὰς ἀκοὰς θεῷ πιστεύσητε, ἔσεσθε καὶ τούτων κοινωνοὶ καὶ τῶν µε όντων τεύξεσθε ἀγαθῶν ἀµέτρου τε οὐρανοῦ ἀνάβασιν καὶ τὴν ἐκεῖ βασιλείαν ὄψεσθε. Markschies 2007, p. 24 assumes that the “prophets and theologians” spoken of are the prophets and psalmists of the Old Covenant. 95 See p. 196 above. 96 Ferrary 2005, p. 729; cf. pp. 139f. above. 97 Dating from Ferrary 2005, p. 736; cf. Robert 1969, p. 299. For another document from this dossier, see pp. 139f. above. 98 SEG 37 (1987), no. 961: ἐπὶ πρυτάνεως ᾽Α[πό ω]νος τὸ ξ ᾽, ἱερατεύοντος καὶ πρ[οφητεύ-] οντος Μ. Οὐλπίου ᾽Αρτεµιδ[ώρου], γραµµα[τ]εύοντος Σωτέλους Ποθουµενοῦ καὶ Οὐλπίου Μητρο- δώρου Π. Κλαύδιος ∆ιονύσιος Αἰλιανὸς Λαοδικεὺς ἀπὸ Λύκου, προφητεύων ᾽Από ωνος Πυθίου, Κλαρίῳ ᾽Από ωνι ὑµνήσας τὸν θεὸν κατὰ χρησµόν, τὰ τῶν συνυµνησάντων παίδων καὶ παρθένων 202 chapter five

In the introduction, which dates the inscription, the text presents the cultic personnel from Clarus: as occasionally elsewhere, the deity occupied the eponymous position;99 the priest M. Ulpius Artemidoros, who had clearly been made a Roman citizen not too long before (to say under Tra- jan),100 served as on-site prophet. The leader of the Laodicean delegation also bore the title prophet, although that referred concretely to the temple of Apollo Pythios in Laodicea: P. Claudius Dionysios Aelianus, who had scarcely outgrown childhood and undoubtedly belonged to one of the most respected families of Laodicea,101 appears however not to have performed his prophetic function at home but rather to have served as a link between his fellow citizens and the oracular god in Clarus.102 Unlike the case of Clarus itself (cf. the Marcus Ulpius Artemidoros mentioned in the inscription) and Didyma,103 Laodicean prophecy was not strictly tied to the local cult but was incorporated into the functions of the oracular sanctuary of Clarus. Possi- bly prophecy in Laodicea went back to the same oracle from Clarus that had given rise to the custom of annual hymnic delegations. In any case, the inscription ascribes the delegation to such an oracle (κατὰ χρησµόν). The actual spokesman and organizer of the delegation clearly must have been the son of Zosimos mentioned at the end of the text—possibly the only adult in the group, especially since the 12 children must have been ofered appropriate protection during their strenuous journey to the Aegean coast.

The prophet L. Antonius Zenon Aurelianus documented in Laodicea appears also in the delegation inscriptions from Clarus, speci cally in a text from the 67th prytany

ὀνόµατα ἀνέθηκεν, παιδονοµοῦντος Μ. ᾽Ακειλίου Παυλείνου τὸ ε ᾽, παρεδρευόντων ᾽Απο ωνίου καὶ ∆ιονυσίου· εἰσὶν δέ· Π. Κλαύδιος ∆ιονύσιος˙ ˙˙ Αἰλιανός, Π. Κλαύδιος ῎Ατταλος Φιλάδελφος, Π. Κλαύδιος Τατιανὸς Αἰλιανός, Σκύµνος β ᾽, Κα ίνικος Σείλιος, Κλαυδιανὸς Περσικοῦ, Κλαυδία ᾽Ατ- ταλὶς Σαλβίου, ᾽Αµµία ᾽Ασκληπιάδου, ᾽Αρίστη ᾽Αριστοκρίτου˙ ˙ , Νικόπολις Νίκωνος, Τατία Νίκωνος, ᾽Αγελαὶς Περσικοῦ,[κ]αθηγησαµένου τὸν ὕµνον […]ου Ζωσίµ[ου]. Cf. Robert 1969, p. 299 no. 1 (excerpt). ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ 99 Cf. Robert 1946, pp. 51–64; Sherk 1991, p. 241. Cf. p. 140 above. 100 On the social status of the prophets in Clarus, see Busine 2006, pp. 294f. 101 P. Claudius Dionysios Sabinianus, successful competitor in games and attested under Antoninus Pius as minter of a Laodicean coin series and chairman of a committee, could have been related to P. Claudius Dionysios Aelianus. Cf. Huttner 1997. 102 Cf. Robert 1969, pp. 304f.: “Nous voyons le jeune prophète et ses acolytes non point présider à des oracles dans le sanctuaire de son dieu Apollon Pythien, mais aller quérir régulièrement ceux de l’Apollon de Claros. Cela ne semble guère compatible avec la tenue régulière d’un oracle à Laodicée. Le prophète d’Apollon Pythien sert en somme d’intermé- diaire pour la divination; il va quérir, rapporter et communiquer les oracles d’Apollon Clar- ien.” 103 Cf. for example Forbes 1995, pp. 203–206. philip and his daughters 203 of Apollo, partially published by L. Robert: “From the Laodiceans on the Lycus: … the boys and girls who praised the gods with hymns according to the oracle: Lucius Antonius Zenon, the prophet of Pythian Apollo … Ulpius Antonius Alkimos, the prophet’s father, functioned as theopropos.”104 Why this delegation was also accompanied by a theopropos is unclear; possibly the father of L. Antonius Zenon bore the title only to emphasize his “o cial” function as part of the delegation, since theopropos was an established term for delegates to sanctuaries.105 From the context of the delegate inscriptions, we can conclude that the 67th prytany of Apollo corresponds to the year 141/142.106 L. Antonius Zenon (Aurelianus) was also among the notables of Laodicea; his name was programmatic: he was a scion of the famous Zenonids, a house that included client kings in Thrace, by the Black Sea, and eastern Anatolia; its network of relationships extended through the entire eastern Roman Empire and naturally reached Rome itself.107 When the young L. Antonius Zenon undertook the journey to the oracle of Clarus together with his father, his distant relative M. Antonius Polemon, one of the most famous orators of his period and then about 50 years old, was cultivating the best of relationships with the imperial house.108

5.2.4. Competing Kinds of Prophecy? Whether the young prophets from Laodicea and the aged prophetesses from Hierapolis ever met, whether they even knew of each other, is unclear, if only on chronological grounds. When P. Claudius Dionysios Aelianus, the earliest documented prophet from Laodicea, traveled to Clarus, the year of birth of Philip’s daughters lay about 90 years in the past. Speaking generally, the basic elements of regional communication are so obscure that it is almost impossible to say anything about how the urban elites and the Christian communities viewed each other. Even though it would be wrong to underestimate the ow of information in either direction, as has been con rmed repeatedly, there is no room for speculations regarding any

104 Robert 1969, p. 300 no. 8: Λαοδικέων πρὸς τῷ Λύκῳ … οἱ ὑµνήσαντες τοὺς θεοὺς κατὰ τὸν χρησµὸν κόροι καὶ κόραι· Λούκιος ᾽Αντώνιος Ζήνων ὁ προφήτης τοῦ Πυθίου ᾽Από ωνος … θεοπροποῦντος Οὐ(λπίου) ᾽Αν(τωνίου) ᾽Αλκίµου τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ προφήτου. See ibid. p. 309 with some further details on the inscription. 105 Forbes 1995, p. 203 with n. 37 (with the comment that there were formally installed θεοπρόποι in Didyma). C. also p. 131 above. 106 Ferrary 2005, p. 749; also Robert 1969, p. 309. 107 See pp. 194 above and 209 below. Probably M. Ulpius Tryphon Megas Antoninianus, son of a certain Zenon, also belonged to the family (cf. the name of the theopropos in the Clarus inscription); he is mentioned in an inscription from Themisonium southeast of Laodicea: Ramsay 1895, p. 271 no. 96; Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2009, pp. 138f. no. 53. 108 Gleason 1995, pp. 21–54; Birley 1997, pp. 159–174; Swain 2007, pp. 158–168; see also pp. 208–210 below. 204 chapter five mutual inuence between prophecy in Hierapolis and in Laodicea, which difered greatly. On the one side were singular women from one of the earliest Chris- tian families, with apostolic blessing, viewed as vehicles and heralds of the Christian message and respected by the Christian community, but possibly without any connection to the urban society in which they lived; on the other were youthful representatives of the social elites in constant rotation, maintaining contact in turns with one of the most eminent sanctuaries of the region, with no personal charisma but nevertheless representing an important family tradition, unde ned as mediators of divine messages but present in the consciousness of the local public as representatives of a cultic obligation and honor. The greatest diference from the institutionalized prophecy of Laodicea was that the women from Hierapolis were exceptional charismatic gures. Their graves were venerated; their memory created an anchor point of self-expression and generated authority; the prophetesses made history. Only for that reason were they mentioned by Eusebius.

5.2.5. The Message of Philip’s Daughters: Miracle Stories If we follow Luke’s account in Acts,109 Philip’s daughters had already engaged in prophecy in their original homeland, so that their activity also reects a Palestinian tradition. Celsus, whose anti-Christian polemic Origen rebutted in the early 3rd century, claims to have made the following observations in Phoenicia and Palestine during the Antonine period: There are many anonymous men who act as though they could prophesy with great facility and on the slightest occasion, both at sacred sites and apart from them, as well as others who go to beg in cities and encampments. The accustomed words come easily to the lips of all of them: “I am God or the Son of God or the Spirit of God. I have come because the world is already passing away, and you, you people, are perishing on account of your iniquities. But I wish to save you, and you will see me as I return with the power of heaven. Blessed is he who now reveres me …”110

109 See p. 192 above. 110 Orig. Cels. 7.9 (M. Marcovich 2001, 466, 8–16): Πο οί, φησί, καὶ ἀνώνυµοι ῥᾷστα ἐκ τῆς προστυχούσης αἰτίας καὶ ἐν ἱεροῖς καὶ ἔξω ἱερῶν, οἱ δὲ καὶ ἀγείροντες καὶ ἐπιφοιτῶντες πόλεσιν ἢ στρατοπέδοις, κινοῦνται δῆθεν ὡς θεσπίζοντες. Πρόχειρον δ’ ἑκάστῳ καὶ σύνηθες εἰπεῖν· ᾽Εγὼ ὁ θεός εἰµι ἢ θεοῦ παῖς ἢ πνεῦµα θεῖον. ῞Ηκω δέ· ἤδη γὰρ ὁ κόσµος ἀπό υται, καὶ ὑµεῖς, ὦ ἄνθρωποι, διὰ τὰς ἀδικίας οἴχεσθε. ᾽Εγὼ δὲ hὑµᾶςi σῶσαι θέλω· καὶ ὄψεσθέ µε αὖθις µετ’ οὐρανίου δυνάµεως ἐπανιόντα. Μακάριος ὁ νῦν µε θρησκεύσας …. philip and his daughters 205

Even though the context is heavily polemic, the text documents both the curiosity and the aversion that such prophets could generate among the Greeks, not only on account of their presumptuous behaviour but also, as Celsus goes on to say, on account of the irrationality of their message: When they have presented this message [regarding the end of the world], they immediately add incomprehensible, fanatical, and totally unintelligible words, which no one in his right mind can make anything of. For what they say is dark and meaningless, but it gives every fool or impostor occasion to apply them as he will.111 With this caricature, the attack of the philosopher illustrates the hostile atmosphere in which Philip’s daughters had to nd their place. In the Lycus Valley, too, there were enough traditionalists who found the message of the Christian sisters too alien to accept. The actual message of Philip’s daughters remains obscure; only the report of Papias, who served as bishop in Hierapolis during their lifetime,112 casts a ray of light on it. But even his witness cannot be readily reconstructed, since the relevant fragment has been preserved in two versions, which are not completely congruent. In his chapter on Papias, Eusebius briey discusses the latter’s relationship to Philip’s daughters: It has already been pointed out that the apostle Philip lived in Hierapolis along with his daughters. But it must now be shown that Papias, their contemporary, remarks that he heard a wonderful story from the daughters of Philip. He reports that in his lifetime a dead person was raised; he also reports another miracle that afected Justus surnamed Barsabas, who had drunk a poisonous concoction and through the Lord’s mercy sufered no ill efects.113 The details of Papias’s contact with Philip’s daughters and whether the bishop reverently joined the public that gathered around the prophetesses

111 Orig. Cels. 7.9 (M. Marcovich 2001, 466, 19–24): Ταῦτ’ ἐπανατεινάµενοι προστιθέασιν ἐφε- ξῆς ἄγνωστα καὶ πάροιστρα καὶ πάντῃ ἄδηλα, ὧν τὸ µὲν γνῶµα οὐδεὶς ἂν ἔχων νοῦν εὑρεῖν δύναιτο· ἀσαφῆ γὰρ καὶ τὸ µηδέν, ἀνοήτῳ δὲ ἢ γόητι παντὶ περὶ παντὸς ἀφορµὴν ἐνδίδωσιν, ὅπῃ βούλεται, τὸ λεχθὲν σφετερίζεσθαι. Cf. Lona 2005, pp. 393f., who argues that Celsus was criticizing a speci c form of ecstatic prophecy. 112 See pp. 214f. below. 113 Eus. H.e. 3.39.9: τὸ µὲν οὖν κατὰ τὴν ῾Ιεράπολιν Φίλιππον τὸν ἀπόστολον ἅµα ταῖς θυγατρά- σιν διατρῖψαι διὰ τῶν πρόσθεν δεδήλωται· ὡς δὲ κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ὁ Παπίας γενόµενος, διήγησιν παρειληφέναι θαυµασίαν ὑπὸ τῶν τοῦ Φιλίππου θυγατέρων µνηµονεύει, τὰ νῦν σηµειωτέον· νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνάστασιν κατ’ αὐτὸν γεγονυῖαν ἱστορεῖ καὶ αὖ πάλιν ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ ᾽Ιοῦστον τὸν ἐπι- κληθέντα Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονός, ὡς δηλητήριον φάρµακον ἐµπιόντος καὶ µηδὲν ἀηδὲς διὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου χάριν ὑποµείναντος. Cf. Kürzinger 1983, p. 100, frgm. 4; Körtner 1983, pp. 55f., frgm. 5; Körtner 1998, p. 56, frgm. 5. 206 chapter five remains unclear.114 The context in which the story of the miraculous raising of a dead man was shared is likewise not clear, nor does the text in Eusebius reveal anything about the connection of the miracle experienced by Justus Barsabas with the anonymous resurrection miracle. At least the last of these questions can be answered, however, on the basis of a parallel tradition found among the fragments of Philip Sidetes, who wrote a church history during the 5th century in which, like his predecessor Eusebius, he discussed Papias of Hierapolis:115 The aforementioned Papias reported that he had learned from the daughters of Philip that Barsabas bynamed Justus was put to the test by the unbelievers; he drank the venom of a serpent and was kept unharmed in the name of Christ. But he also reports of other miracles, and especially the miracle that the mother of Manaimos was raised from the dead.116 Philip of Side goes into greater detail than Eusebius, and so the latter could not have been his only source. It is unlikely, though, that Philip had access to the work of Papias.117 Philip’s evidence makes it clear that the miracle of Justus Barsabas and the venom goes back to the same account of the prophetesses as the resurrection miracle. It is reasonable to identify the resurrection miracles recorded by Eusebius and Philip Sidetes, so that Papias must likewise have learned the name—Manaimos—of the son of the woman restored to life from the story of Philip’s daughters. From the perspective of Papias, the miracles reported by the daughters of Philip were regarded as current events; Eusebius points out explicitly that the resurrection took place κατ’ αὐτὸν.118 This does not by itself de ne the geographical setting of those miracles. There are several arguments against its being a local tradition from the Lycus Valley: Justus Barsabas is also mentioned in Acts, speci cally as a candidate to take Judas’s place among

114 Corssen 1901, pp. 290f. believes that Papias never met Philip’s daughters personally. Against that view, see Körtner 1983, p. 145. 115 This fragment is discussed by Norelli 2005, pp. 366–368 (including the problem of ascription); see also p. 190 above. 116 Phil. Sid. (De Boor 1888, p. 170, frgm. 6): Παπίας ὁ εἰρηµένος ἱστόρησεν ὡς παραλαβὼν ἀπὸ τῶν θυγατέρων Φιλίππου, ὅτι Βαρσαβᾶς ὁ καὶ ᾽Ιοῦστος δοκιµαζόµενος ὑπὸ τῶν ἀπίστων ἰὸν ἐχίδνης πιὼν ἐν ὀνόµατι τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀπαθὴς διεφυλάχθη. ἱστορεῖ δὲ καὶ ἄ α θαύµατα καὶ µάλιστα τὸ κατὰ τὴν µητέρα Μαναίµου τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστᾶσαν· … . Also Kürzinger 1983, p. 116, frgm. 16; Körtner 1983, p. 63, frgm. 10; Körtner 1998, p. 62, frgm. 10. 117 See Körtner 1983, pp. 80f. and 146. 118 Norelli 2005, p. 289 nevertheless points out that κατ’ αὐτὸν could also refer to Philip. philip and his daughters 207 the apostles.119 This episode took place in Jerusalem120 and thus suggests that Justus Barsabas was active there, although it is not impossible that he— like Philip and his daughters—set out and traveled great distances. For in the Acts of Paul a high-ranking functionary named Barsabas Justus turns up at the court of Nero; he confesses Christ and has at feet.121 But there is no evidence that Barsabbas Justus ever came to Hierapolis and survived a trial by poison there. The raising of the dead woman obviously did not take place in the Lycus Valley as well. Her son was called Manaimos, a Hebrew name that also appears in the Septuagint:122 the Book of Kings speaks of a ruler of Israel with this name (Μαναηµ, Menahem).123 Among the rst Christians in Anti- och a “prophet and teacher” appeared prominently who likewise bore this name (Μαναήν) and had good contacts with the Herodians.124 Chronologi- cal issues, however, preclude identifying the Manaën from Antioch with the Manaimos in the story of Philip’s daughters.125 That Manaimos might have been a product of the Jewish community in Hierapolis appears unlikely, if only because Hebrew names were in fact rare in that milieu: the Jewish sepulchral inscriptions of the city scarcely contain a handful.126 Fundamen- tally what we see among the Jews of the Diaspora in Asia Minor is onomastic adaptation to their Hellenistic environment;127 the name Menachem (Manaimos) is common in Palestine but is not attested in Asia Minor.128 The examples from the Western Diaspora can be counted on the ngers of one hand.129

119 Acts 1:23 (“Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus”): Καὶ ἔστησαν δύο, ᾽Ιωσὴφ τὸν καλούµενον Βαρσαββᾶν ὃς ἐπεκλήθη ᾽Ιοῦστος, καὶ Μαθθίαν. The other candidate, Matthias, was chosen. 120 Acts 1:12. 121 A.Paul. (martyrdom: R.A. Lipsius, AAA I [1891], 108,13): Βαρσαβᾶς ᾽Ιοῦστος ὁ πλατύπους. 122 Cf. Bauer / Aland / Aland 61988, col. 994 (s.v. Μαναήν and Μανάϊµος). 123 2Kings 15:14–21. 124 According to Acts 13:1, he was brought up with Herod Antipas: … Μαναήν τε ῾Ηρῴδου τετραάρχου σύντροφος …. 125 As σύντροφος Manaën of Antioch was roughly the same age as Herod Antipas and thus about a generation older than Jesus, but it was the mother of Manaimos who was raised from the dead. See also Norelli 2005, pp. 382f. 126 Miranda 1999, p. 138, which treats 23 such inscriptions, has only two examples: Ioudas and Aphelias (both as surnames). 127 Cf. Ameling 2007, p. 276. 128 Ilan 2002, pp. 185–188 counts 46 occurrences in Palestine. See above all the epigraphic evidence from Jerusalem: Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae / Palaestinae I/1 (2010), nos. 183, 187, 318 (there also Greek, but without an ending: Μαναήµ). 129 Ilan 2008, pp. 135f. lists ve examples from the Western Diaspora (Gaul, Egypt, Rome?, Bosporan Kingdom). 208 chapter five

Apart from prosopographic and onomastic considerations, a further argument casts doubt on locating the miracle stories regarding Philip’s daughters in the Lycus Valley: why should Papias, whose roots in the region were much deeper than those of the immigrant family of Philip, cite the latter as the source of his account if it was a local tradition? In any event, we are not talking about specialized information associated with particular individuals but sensational events that quickly became the talk of the town. What Papias included in his work was not prophetic proclamations but simply stories of the much-traveled daughters of Philip from their old home. Papias came to know them not only as prophetesses but also as personal contacts with ties to Syria and Palestine. As was already true in the time of Paul, communication among the Christian churches depended on the eforts of travelers.

5.2.6. Pagan Miracle Stories Miracle stories were not the preserve of Christians; neither did they circulate only in uneducated circles. Apollonius of Tyana was an especially prominent healer; like Christ he brought a dead woman back to life.130 But miracles were also occasionally ascribed to emperors—for example Vespasian, who was said to have restored sight to a blind man in Alexandria by daubing spittle on his face.131 A young contemporary of Papias from the Lycus Valley, M. Anto- nius Polemon, reports with unconcealed skepticism on such a miraculous healer in his work on physiognomy. In his remarks on the physiognomic relevance of sparkling eyes, which suggest shamelessness, he inserts a tirade against his major rival among the rhetorical luminaries, Favorinus of Arelate, who exempli ed that physiognomic type because of a genital defect (he was said to have come into the world without testicles).132 In appearance, Pole- mon said, he resembled a woman, and he had extraordinary public appeal: “He was also an extremely cunning conjuror and performed juggleries in which he announced to the people that he could even restore the dead to life; he spoke so enticingly that huge crowds of women and men gathered around him.”133 Polemon’s purpose was of course to unmask Favorinus’s self-

130 Philostr. VA 4.45; cf. Weinreich 1909, pp. 171f. 131 Tac. Hist. 4.81. For further discussion, see Clauss 1999, pp. 346f.; Becker 2006, pp. 350– 354. 132 On this passage, see Gleason 1995, pp. 46–48. 133 G. Hofmann in Förster 1893, p. 162, 12–16. Here we cite only G. Hofmann’s Latin translation of the Arabic text: Insuper incantator astutissimus erat et praestigias protebatur, philip and his daughters 209 aggrandizement as charlatanry—not because he thought miraculous powers were absurd on their face, but because he refused to credit them to his decadent colleague from the land of the Gauls. Polemon, descendent of the great Zenon of Laodicea and a series of kings, was one of the most eloquent and inuential men in Asia Minor;134 even though he lived primarily in Smyrna, he had not forgotten his roots; he repeatedly visited his friends and family in Laodicea, where he nally also was laid to rest.135 By labeling his rival a magician, Polemon criminal- ized him,136 although it is not clear whether Favorinus was still alive when Polemon wrote his treatment of physiognomy. The Christians who related the episodes involving Justus Barsabas and the mother of Manaimos were clearly concerned to keep these miracles far distant from the forbidden domain of magic, ascribing them solely to the divine power of Christ.137 Pole- mon also expected such wonders—quite conventionally—from his own gods: once when he was sufering from pain in his limbs, he lay down to sleep in the Pergamenian temple of Asclepius, where the God appeared to him in a dream and gave him appropriate counsel.138 Stories of miracles like those circulated by the daughters of Philip in the Lycus Valley were nothing unusual in themselves, but the criteria used by contemporaries to assess them difered. We know almost nothing of the narrative context; the modalities of the raising of Manaimos’s mother remain obscure; in any case, nothing is said of a miracle worker such as an apostle channeling the power of Christ. Although the Christian miracle workers were equal to pagan gures like Apollonius and Vespasian in their function and power, they claimed legitimacy solely as instruments of Christ.139

hominibus praedicans se vivos facere et mortuos; qua re homines adeo inducebat ut multae mulierum et virorum turbae eum adirent. On the Arabic translation, see Förster 1893, p. 163. There is now a new edition by Hoyland 2007, pp. 376–379 (with English translation). The Greek original has been lost. 134 See p. 203 above. 135 On Philostr. VS 532 and 543, see Quet 2003, p. 431. See p. 210 below. 136 Brown 1986, pp. 53f. 137 On this conict, see Busch 2006, pp. 160–162. 138 Although Polemon made fun of the counsel of Asclepius: when advised not to drink cold water, the Sophist replied: “My dear fellow, what would you say if you had to heal a cow?” Philostr. VS 535: ἥκων ἐς τὸ Πέργαµον, ὅτε δὴ τὰ ἄρθρα ἐνόσει, κατέδαρθε µὲν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, ἐπιστάντος δὲ αὐτῷ τοῦ ᾽Ασκληπιοῦ καὶ προειπόντος ἀπέχεσθαι ψυχροῦ ποτοῦ ὁ Πολέµων “βέλτιστε,” εἶπεν “εἰ δὲ βοῦν ἐθεράπευες;” See also Gleason 1995, pp. 25f.; Quet 2003, pp. 410f. and nally also IvP III, no. 33, which tells how Polemon erected a statue of the orator Demosthenes in the Asclepium of Pergamum as advised in a dream. 139 Cf. Busch 2006, p. 164. 210 chapter five

5.2.7. Rival Tombs The daughters of Philip died one after the other during the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, c. 110 or 120. Their tombs, like that of Philip, were among the central memorials venerated by Christians. The signi cance of these tombs for the self-portrayal of the church in Hierapolis was so great that Ephesus became a rival, maintaining that one of the prophetesses was buried in its necropolis.140 Thus conict over the burial sites of prominent gures, which the cities of Asia Minor engaged in with great dedication, increased the tensions among the Christian churches. When M. Antonius Polemon passed away at age 56 during the reign of Antoninus Pius, he was buried by the Syrian Gate in Laodicea, the burial site of his family, passed by all travelers heading east from the city.141 Philostratus, writing scarcely a century later, notes that there were also tombs in Smyrna reputed to be Polemon’s.142 Both the cities and the Christian churches gloried in the memorials of their luminaries, on which their identity and prestige depended. But the tombs of the daughters of Philip, unlike that of their father, appear not to have maintained their attraction of long, just as the memory of the prophetesses itself quickly faded. Eusebius does mention their tombs, but no legends emerged around them: the daughters have no place in the multifaceted episodes of the Acts of Philip and the Martyrdom of Philip. It is possible that Montanist interests checked memory in the majority church; the Montanist Proclus, for example, referred explicitly to the nal resting place of the women in Hierapolis.143 The prophetesses appear not to have reemerged from the heretical sphere of inuence.144

5.3. Summary: Vague Memories of a Holy Family

During the 2nd century, the apostolic traditions were consolidated in the Lycus Valley. Against the background of the letter in the Apocalypse, the Pauline epistles to the church in Colossae were supplemented by the story of the visit to Laodicea of the apostle John and, building on the presence

140 See p. 196 above. 141 On the topography, see Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 101f. 142 Philostr. VS 543: Τάφος δὲ αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν Σµύρναν οὐδείς, εἰ καὶ πλείους λέγονται· … ἀ ’ ἐκεῖνα ἀληθέστερα, κεῖσθαι µὲν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ Λαοδικείᾳ παρὰ τὰς Συρίας πύλας, οὗ δὴ καὶ τῶν προγόνων αὐτοῦ θῆκαι … . Cf. Campanile 1999, pp. 305f.; Thonemann 2011, p. 212. 143 Cf. p. 196 above. 144 Cf. pp. 261–263 below. philip and his daughters 211 of the “evangelist” Philip and his daughters, the tradition of the ministry of the apostle Philip in Hierapolis, commemorated in a sepulchral monument. During the following centuries, the Philip tradition of Hierapolis was to have the most enduring impact, undoubtedly because of the tomb, which gave the apostle a palpable presence and attracted the devotion of Christians, nally drawing many pilgrims. The institutionalization of apostle’s cult is documented by an Early Byzantine inscription that speaks of an archdeacon charged with supervision of the sanctuary “of the holy and glorious apostle and theologian Philippos.”145 The cult of Philip gained an impressive monumental setting to the east of the city in the 5th century, when a large octagonal dome structure was erected, set in a square building complex with numerous rooms. Assessment of the latest excavations will show how far back the development of this sanctuary can be traced into the pre- Constantinian period.146 The memory of Philip’s daughters was already fading in the course of the 2nd century: It was not longer even clear whether there had been three or four prophetesses. Nevertheless the Christians in Asia Minor prided themselves for a while on the authority of these women, since with their origin and descent and their blessed message they constituted a link with Palestine and the immediate surroundings of Jesus. Unlike the prophets of Apollo in Laodicea, who exercised their o ce in rotation, they made an impression through their personal charisma. Nothing is known of the content of their divine message. The miracle stories from Palestine told by one of the daughters to Papias were certainly not a product of their gift of prophecy. Probably the claims of the Montanists were partially to blame for the fact in Late Antiquity the prophetesses came to be overshadowed by their father.

145 Judeich 1898, p. 76 no. 24; for the text, see p. 370 below. 146 See p. 378 below.

chapter six

PAPIAS AND APOLLINARIUS: BISHOPS IN HIERAPOLIS

6.1. Bishop Papias: A Separate Christian Path?1

6.1.1. Historical Placement Eusebius counts Papias among the outstanding church leaders of Asia Minor in the period around and after 100, ranking him alongside Polycarp of Smyr- na and Ignatius of Antioch: At that time [shortly before is mentioned the third year of Trajan’s reign],2 Polycarp came forward in Asia as a follower of the apostles, having taken over the episcopate in the church of Smyrna from the eyewitnesses and servants of the Lord. During that time, Papias became well known as bishop of the church of Hierapolis, as well as Ignatius, whose fame is still celebrated by many, who had succeeded as bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter.3 Even though Irenaeus of Lyon, the earliest witness to Papias (writing about 50 years later), knows nothing of an episcopate,4 the statement about Pa- pias’s episcopal dignity should not be rejected as an anachronism. Papias,

1 This section is based in large part on the fragments published in Körtner 1998 and 2009, along with Kürzinger 1983. To supplement them, I have drawn on the Loeb edition of Ehrmann 2003 (pp. 92–119) and the extensively annotated edition of Norelli 2005. 2 Eus. He. 3.34. 3 Eus. H.e. 3.36.1f.: ∆ιέπρεπέν γε µὴν κατὰ τούτους ἐπὶ τῆς ᾽Ασίας τῶν ἀποστόλων ὁµιλητὴς Πολύκαρπος, τῆς κατὰ Σµύρναν ἐκκλησίας πρὸς τῶν αὐτοπτῶν καὶ ὑπηρετῶν τοῦ κυρίου τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν ἐγκεχειρισµένος· καθ’ ὃν ἐγνωρίζετο Παπίας, τῆς ἐν ῾Ιεραπόλει παροικίας καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπίσκοπος, ὅ τε παρὰ πλείστοις εἰς ἔτι νῦν διαβόητος ᾽Ιγνάτιος, τῆς κατὰ ᾽Αντιόχειαν Πέτρου διαδοχῆς δεύτερος τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν κεκληρωµένος. Cf. also the entry for the third year of Trajan’s reign in Jerome’s Chronography: Hier. Chron. (R. Helm, GCS Eusebius 7 [21956], 193,23–194,2): Iohannem apostolum ad Traiani tempora Irenaeus episcopus permansisse scribit. Post quem auditores eius insignes fuerunt Papias Hierapolitanus episcopus et Polycarpus Zmyrnaeus et Ignatius Antiochenus. 4 Iren. Haer. 5.33.4 (A. Rousseau / L. Doutreleau / C. Mercier, SC 153 [1969], pp. 416f.) characterizes Papias as a “… disciple of John and companion of Polycarp, a man of the old school.” Besides the Latin translation, the Greek original of this passage has also survived, quoted by Eusebius H.e. 3.39.1: … Παπίας ὁ ᾽Ιωάννου µὲν ἀκουστής, Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονώς, ἀρχαῖος ἀνήρ … .—… Papias, Ioannis auditor, Polycarpi autem contubernalis, vetus homo … . Irenaeus had had personal contact with Polycarp when he was young (Haer. 3.3.4). 214 chapter six whose leading role in the church of Hierapolis is clear, undertook it at the precise moment when the hierarchization of the clergy was moving forward and the monarchic episcopate was becoming standard in western Asia Minor, as Ignatius of Antioch attests for a series of churches, including Philadelphia and Tralleis, only a few days’ journey from Hierapolis.5 A somewhat earlier spotlight on the development of this hierarchy is cast by 1Timothy, dating from c. 100, which targets the situation in Ephesus and lays out the moral demands on the episcopate.6 The precise chronological dating of Papias’s episcopate has always posed great problems.7 In the passage quoted, Eusebius dates him in the time of Trajan, placing Papias in a series that includes Ignatius and Polycarp, whose biographical data likewise remain obscure. His personal contact with the daughters of Philip,8 however, can be plausibly associated with the principate of Trajan, whereas the tradition recorded by Philip Sidetes (5th cent.) that he also lived to see the principate of Hadrian is disputed: Apart from the miracle stories told by the daughters of Philip, Papias also reports that those who had been raised from the dead by Christ lived to see Hadrian’s reign.9 Quadratus, who composed an apology that he delivered to Hadrian, takes up the same theme when he notes that Jesus’ power is so enduring that some of those healed and raised are still alive.10 It is reasonable to suspect Philip Sidetes of making an error and confusing Papias with Quadratus, especially since Eusebius’s Historia ecclesiastica provides no grounds for associating Papias with the reign of Hadrian;11 however, the statements by

5 Ign. Trall. 1 (a bishop named Polybius); Ign. Phil. 1. For further discussion, see Beyer / Karpp 1954, cols. 404–406; Dassmann 1994 (1974), pp. 50–59; Markschies 1997, pp. 215–218; Rapp 2005, pp. 26f. Note should be taken, however, of a recent tendency to date the letters of Ignatius in the late 2nd century; cf. Löhr 2009, p. 109. 6 1Tim 3:1–7: “Whoever aspires to the o ce of bishop [lit.: supervision] desires a noble task.”—Εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυµεῖ … . See Schnelle 82013, pp. 403–425 for more on 1Timothy. 7 For further discussion, see Yarbrough 1983; Schoedel 1992, pp. 236f. and 261f.; Körtner 1998, pp. 30f.; Körtner 2009, pp. 188f.; Norelli 2005, pp. 38–48. 8 See pp. 205f. above. 9 De Boor 1888, p. 170 frgm. 6 = Körtner 1998, p. 62 frgm. 10 (cf. Kürzinger 1983, pp. 116f. frgm. 16): ἱστορεῖ … περὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάντων, ὅτι ἕως ῾Αδριανοῦ ἔζων. 10 Hadrian is not mentioned explicitly in the text of Quadratus. Eus. H.e. 4.3.2 preserves the fragment from Quadratus: … οἱ θεραπευθέντες, οἱ ἀναστάντες ἐκ νεκρῶν, οἳ οὐκ ὤφθησαν µόνον θεραπευόµενοι καὶ ἀνιστάµενοι, ἀ ὰ καὶ ἀεὶ παρόντες, οὐδὲ ἐπιδηµοῦντος µόνον τοῦ σωτῆρος, ἀ ὰ καὶ ἀπα αγέντος ἦσαν ἐπὶ χρόνον ἱκανόν, ὥστε καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἡµετέρους χρόνους τινὲς αὐτῶν ἀφίκοντο.—“… so that some of them have lived until our day.” The fragment is also quoted by Ehrman 2003, pp. 118f. 11 Cf. here the argument of Körtner 1983, pp. 88–94 (with literature survey), which goes papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 215

Eusebius and Philip are not strictly mutually exclusive: Papias could easily have made a name for himself under Trajan and then completed his literary activities (from which Philip quotes) under Hadrian.12

The approximate time of Papias’s episcopate could be from 100 to 130, but it remains unclear whether he was still alive when Emperor Hadrian visited the Lycus Valley in the summer of 129.13 Neighboring Laodicea in particular celebrated the emperor’s stay, using it to establish a new era for dating o cial documents.14 Papias, however, was clearly aware of the honor shown Trajan, in which the city of Hierapolis displayed its political loyalty. Archaeologists discovered two statue pedestals near the temple of Apollo, one of them incorporated into the foundation of Building A; both bore the image of the emperor and were completed between 102 and 116.15 The associated texts follow the standard of imperial honori c inscriptions; one reads as follows: “[Honor to] Imperator Caesar Nerva Traianus Augustus, son of the god Nerva, victor over Germani and Dacians.”16 There is much to be said for the theory that the statues of the emperor stood in the temple of Apollo, as in many other Greek temple precincts.17 Trajan is introduced as (adopted) son of Nerva, who had been divinized by the Senate, and furnished with the standard imperial names and epithets, in particular with titles recalling his glorious victories in the wars against the Germans along the Rhine and the Dacians beyond the Danube.

Papias lived under the rule of one of the most successful generals in Roman history. Against the background of this peacekeeping power, constantly visible to all in the urban context, the aura of which no one living within the Roman Empire could escape, the bishop developed his own ideas concerning battle among the powers of heaven, comparable to the visions of the Apocalypse of John. Andrew of Caesarea, who wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse at the beginning of the 7th century,18 cites Papias at one point (on Rev 12:8f.): long ago angels sent by God ruled the earth, but their rule

into great detail but ultimately rests on an insecure foundation; also Yarbrough 1983, p. 185 (arguing for an early date, between 95 and 110) and Körtner 1998, pp. 30f. 12 Cf. Norelli 2005, pp. 38–40 and 383. 13 Ritti 2004 a, pp. 331–336 makes a good case for Hadrian’s visiting Hierapolis in 129, although only his stay in Laodicea is certainly attested. Cf. also Ritti 2003, p. 202. On Colossae cf. IGR IV, no. 869 with Cadwallader 2011, pp. 168f. On Hadrian’s journey to Asia Minor in 129, see Halfmann 1986, pp. 204–206; Jones 2009, pp. 457f.; also Witulski 2008, pp. 158–163. 14 See also Leschhorn 1993, pp. 382–385; Thonemann 2011, pp. 213f. 15 See Ritti 2006, pp. 100f. no. 17 (with a reference to an unpublished inscription). 16 Ritti 1983, p. 176: Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα, Θεοῦ Νέρουα υἱόν, Νέρουαν [Τρ]αιανὸν Σεβαστὸν Γε[ρµ]ανικὸν ∆[ακικ]όν. Cf. Ritti 2006, pp. 100f. no. 17 (with a good photo). 17 Cf. Price 1984, pp. 147–150; Pekáry 1985, pp. 55–65; Ando 2000, pp. 232f. 18 Hernández 2011, pp. 195f. points out that the use of patristic literature by Andrew has still not been adequately explored. 216 chapter six broke down through their disobedience and “came to naught.”19 With this myth, Papias recalls the fragility of earthly dominion; particularly against the background of the Apocalypse, these words would express doubts regarding the Roman Empire. Whether Papias’s critique had anything to do with the cult of angels chastised in Colossians can be left undecided. Papias clearly came from a family with deep roots in the region. That is the only possible explanation for his name, which was very common in Phry- gia and the surrounding regions and it is typical of Anatolian hypocoristic nicknames.20 A whole series of individuals called Papias has come to light in Hierapolis, a good handful from sepulchral inscriptions, two others from coins of the early principate.21 Thus the bishop’s name was typical of the region; it is reasonable to conclude that he and his family came from Hiera- polis.22 Thus this early church leader in Asia Minor takes on clearer shape; he gained his authority not as an itinerant preacher and organizer in the tradition of the apostles but as a local gure. Tradition does not mention any place associated with Papias other than Hierapolis. Thus Christianity in the Lycus Valley became increasingly autochthonous and possibly also increasingly attractive to the indigenous population.

6.1.2. The Judas Tradition Despite his indigenous roots, Papias naturally was open to cultural traditions from far beyond the Lycus Valley; as an example, we cite one of the longest text fragments from his literary works, preserved in a commentary on Matthew by Apollinarius of Laodicea (in Syria), itself fragmentary. In it Papias recounts the gruesome end of the traitor Judas:

19 Körtner 1998, p. 64 frgm. 12 (Kürzinger 1983, p. 112 frgm. 13 and Körtner 1983, p. 64 frgm. 12): Καὶ Παπίας δὲ οὕτως ἐπὶ λέξεως· ᾽Ενίοις δὲ αὐτῶν, δηλαδὴ τῶν πάλαι θείων ἀ έλων, καὶ τῆς περὶ τὴν γῆν διακοσµήσεως ἔδωκεν ἄρχειν καὶ καλῶς ἄρχειν παρη ύησεν. Καὶ ἑξῆς φησιν· Εἰς οὐδὲν δὲ συνέβη τελευτῆσαι τὴν τάξιν αὐτῶν. 20 Cf. Zgusta 1964, pp. 409f. §1199-5. For an impressive list with 128 examples from the northern and western coasts of Asia Minor, see LGPN V A. Of course the association of the name Papias with Phrygia and the surrounding regions has long been recognized; cf. e.g. Hatch 1911, p. 83. Robert 1963, p. 348 has modi ed this approach, assuming that in the case of hypocoristic names like Παπιας the indigenous origins have faded away. 21 Inscriptions: Judeich 1898, nos. 72, 76, 123, 250, 268, 276; possibly also Judeich, p. 180 no. 6 (Supplement). Coins: RPC I, no. 2943 (Augusteian), nos. 2976f. (Neronian). See also Leschhorn 2009, p. 745. See also two additional examples from the tier seats of the theater: Miranda 2007, p. 441 nos. 1 and 3. 22 Cf. Körtner 1983, p. 88; Körtner 1998, p. 28; Norelli 2005, p. 38; Körtner 2009, p. 187; also Schoedel 1992, p. 236. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 217

Judas wandered this earth as a great example of godlessness. His body was so bloated that it could not pass through places where even a chariot can pass, not even the bulk of his head. His eyelids are said to have been so engorged that he could no longer see the light, and his eyes could not be seen even with the speculum of a physician, so deep they lay beneath the outward surface. His genitals were more disgusting and larger than any monstrosity. A discharge of pus exuded from his whole body along with worms; the efect was hideous whenever he heeded nature’s call. When he died upon his piece of land, after much pain and torment, the very stench is said to have left the site empty and desolate, and to this day none can pass the site without holding his nose with his ngers. So great is the exhalation of his body over the earth.23 Here Papias paints a hideous caricature of Judas, which could not have been more repellent. The traditions behind this image are identi able only in part. Although Papias was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew, he did not adopt Matthew’s version, according to which Judas hanged himself.24 There are points of contact, however, with the Acts of the Apostles, where Peter describes the traitor’s end as follows: “… falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.”25 Here, too, we have a drastic image that arouses revulsion, but we must probably posit two distinct traditions: neither Luke nor Papias was familiar with the other’s

23 Körtner 1998, p. 60 frgm. 6 (Kürzinger 1983, p. 104 frgm. 5 and Körtner 1983, p. 60 frgm. 6): Μέγα δὲ ἀσεβείας ὑπόδειγµα ἐν τούτῳ τῷ κόσµῳ περιεπάτησεν ὁ ᾽Ιούδας πρησθεὶς ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον τὴν σάρκα, ὥστε µηδὲ ὁπόθεν ἅµαξα ῥᾳδίως διέρχεται ἐκεῖνον δύνασθαι διελθεῖν, ἀ ὰ µηδὲ αὐτὸν µόνον τὸν τῆς κεφαλῆς ὄγκον αὐτοῦ. τὰ µὲν γὰρ βλέφαρα τῶν ὀφθαλµῶν αὐτοῦ φασὶ τοσοῦτον ἐξοιδῆσαι, ὡς αὐτὸν µὲν καθόλου τὸ φῶς µὴ βλέπειν, τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς δὲ αὐτοῦ µηδὲ ὑπὸ ἰατροῦ διὰ διόπτρας ὀφθῆναι δύνασθαι· τοσοῦτον βάθος εἶχον ἀπὸ τῆς ἔξωθεν ἐπιφανείας. τὸ δὲ αἰδοῖον αὐτοῦ πάσης µὲν ἀσχηµοσύνης ἀηδέστερον καὶ µεῖζον φαίνεσθαι, φέρεσθαι δὲ δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐκ παντὸς τοῦ σώµατος συρρέοντας ἰχῶράς τε καὶ σκώληκας εἰς ὕβριν δι’ αὐτῶν µόνων τῶν ἀναγκαίων. µετὰ πο ὰς δὲ βασάνους καὶ τιµωρίας ἐν ἰδίῳ, φασί, χωρίῳ τελευτήσαντος, ἀπὸ τῆς ὀσµῆς (δυσωδίας) ἔρηµον καὶ ἀοίκητον τὸ χωρίον µέχρι τῆς νῦν γενέσθαι, ἀ ’ οὐδὲ µέχρι τῆς σήµερον δύνασθαί τινα ἐκεῖνον τὸν τόπον παρελθεῖν, ἐὰν µὴ τὰς ῥῖνας ταῖς χερσὶν ἐπιφράξῃ. τοσαύτη διὰ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔκρυσις ἐχώρησεν. Text also in Klauck 1987, pp. 110f. For a history of scholarship, see Schoedel 1992, p. 239. 24 Matt 27:5; cf. Klauck 1987, pp. 92–101. 25 Act 1,18: … καὶ πρηνὴς γενόµενος ἐλάκησεν µέσος καὶ ἐξεχύθη πάντα τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ· Note, however, that E. Nestle preferred a conjectural emendation based on Euthymius Ziga- benius (PG 129, 705D), reading πεπρησµένος instead of πρηνὴς γενόµενος (see the critical apparatus of Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed.); the basis for this conjecture, however, is too slight. Cf. Bauer / Aland / Aland 61988, col. 1404, s.v. πρηνής; also Körtner 1983, p. 140 und Klauck 1987, pp. 103f.—Most 2008, pp. 76f. explains πρηνὴς γενόµενος by appealing to the image of a serpent: Judas becomes a serpent and must die like a serpent. Lona 2007, pp. 27– 35 shows how both Matthew and Luke draw on Old Testament motifs in describing the end of Judas, summing up (p. 35): “Als Schlussfolgerung müssen wir feststellen, dass über das Ende des Judas keine zuverlässige Information vorliegt.” 218 chapter six tradition; instead it is likely that Papias incorporated oral traditions,26 which he generally preferred to written tradition.27 The worms that tormented Judas belong to a topos found also in Jew- ish and pagan literature, as well as later in Christian literature:28 the wicked receive a just punishment, perishing in misery. In 2Maccabees, Antiochus IV serves as a model of the pagan whose brutality is punished by God—with agonizing pains in his bowels, with worms crawling from his eyes, and nally with a stench that even the king himself could not bear.29 Whether Papias was familiar with 2Maccabees is unclear, as is whether he had read Jose- phus’s account of the end of Herod or Plutarch’s account of the agonizing death of Sulla.30 It was a common motif in biographical literature, as illustrated also by Lactantius’s graphic description of the death of the emperor Galerius with its unmatched wealth of revolting detail.31 Papias’s text is part of this network of traditions, in which it is di cult to identify speci c depen- dencies; the extent to which Papias composed the account of Judas’s death himself or simply presents material from others remains unclear.32 One detail, however, is not reected in contemporary accounts of the agonizing death of wicked men: the bloating that restricts Judas’s freedom of movement.33 In this connection, Ulrich H.J. Körtner has called attention to a psalm in which the psalmist prays that the curse will soak into the esh of his enemy like water or oil.34 Here dropsy serves as a drastic means of inicting deserved punishment on the psalmist’s adversary. Nevertheless the reception of the psalm does not by itself account for the description provided by Papias, which goes into repulsive detail.35 Hans-Josef Klauck

26 Cf. Körtner 1983, p. 143; Young 2011, p. 101 (“gossip-like embellishments”). 27 See pp. 220–226 below. 28 Cf. also Norelli 2005, pp. 348f. 29 2Macc 9:5–12. 30 Jos. Ant. 17.168f.; Bell. 1,656; Plu. Sull. 36 (with references to other gures said to have been eaten by worms, such as the mythical king Acastus, the poet Alcman, etc.) 31 Lact. Mort. pers. 33; see Arand 2002, pp. 171–173. On infestation with worms as God’s punishment, cf. also Philost. H.e. 7.10 and 13. 32 Van der Horst 1998 (1993), pp. 157–159 conjectures that on this Judas tradition are based the “Judas curses” in funerary inscriptions, threatening anyone desecrating the grave with the fate of Judas (e.g. IG II/III2, no. 13523). 33 In the case of Herod, the swelling is limited to his feet (Josephus Bell. 1.656). 34 Ps 109:18; see Körtner 1983, p. 142. 35 Neither does the parallel in Num 5:21 and 27 provide an explanation, where the water that brings the curse causes the body of the woman to swell up. Klauck 1987, pp. 112f., which cites this passage, actually connects Papias’s description with the tradition of Acts 1:18, suggesting that Papias derived the formula πρησθείς from the obscure expression πρηνὴς γενόµενος, a theory already rejected by Küchler 1979, pp. 399f. See also n. 25 above. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 219 cites instead the fanciful Ahiqar tradition, which, though of non-Jewish provenance, enjoyed great popularity among both Jews and Christians:36 the wicked Nadan deceived his wise uncle Ahiqar, whereupon he sufered his well-deserved punishment: he swelled up like a sack and died.37 It is not impossible that Papias was familiar with this tradition.38 But it is also possible that the environment of the Lycus Valley encouraged the author’s descriptive genius to concentrate on anatomical details. Since the beginning of the Hellenistic period, in their private homes urbanites delighted in bronze or terracotta statuettes representing deformed bodies: fat bellies, stumpy legs, hunchbacks, abby breasts, gigantic penises. Such gurines were especially widespread in Alexandria and Asia Minor; Smyrna appears to have been a production center.39 The crippled Judas of Papias ts well into this imagery. The bishop’s emphasis on Judas’s eye condition could be understood as an allusion to both the κο ύριον promised in the letter to the Laodiceans and the ophthalmological traditions of the Lycus Valley.40

6.1.3. The Work and Its Sources The two fragments of Papias discussed here, which can be augmented by some 20 additional fragments, belong to a work in ve books whose title allows so much room for interpretation that the author’s intentions can be de ned only broadly. Eusebius begins his chapter on the work of Papias by saying: “Five books by Papias have been preserved, which also bear the title ‘Explanations of Stories of the Lord.’”41 The λόγια κυριακά are not to be confused with λόγια τοῦ Κυρίου, words from the mouth of the Lord, an expression appearing for example in the Polycarp’s LettertothePhilippians;42 here they are λόγια concerning the Lord, i.e. traditions regarding the Lord, whether conveying his words or his deeds.43

36 Klauck 1987, p. 117. 37 According to the Syriac version, which is terse at this point; this version probably dates from the 2nd/3rd century (cf. Küchler 1979, pp. 351f.). The later Arabic version is more colorful, comparable to Papias’s story of Judas in its wealth of detail. On introductory issues, see Vanderkamp 1992, p. 119 and Schmitz 2004, pp. 21–23. A synopsis of texts in English translation: J.R. Harris / A.S. Lewis / F.C. Conybeare in APOT II (1913), p. 776. 38 Küchler 1979, p. 401, guardedly. 39 Zanker 1989, pp. 59–66. Examples: P sterer-Haas 1996, pp. 54f. On Smyrna as a production center, see Bartman 1992, 20f. and Langier 2009, pp. 170–173. 40 See pp. 170–177 above. 41 Eus. H.e. 3.39.1: τοῦ δὲ Παπία συ ράµµατα πέντε τὸν ἀριθµὸν φέρεται, ἃ καὶ ἐπιγέγραπται Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεως. For detailed discussion, see Norelli 2005, pp. 59–95. 42 Polyc. 7.1; cf. Bauer / Aland / Aland 61988, col. 967, s.v. λόγιον. 43 G. Kittel in ThWNT IV, pp. 144f.; Munck 1959, p. 228; Kürzinger 1983, pp. 71–75 (orig. 220 chapter six

One fundamental interest of Papias was clearly not only to collect this material but to systematize it; he wanted “to arrange it along with interpretations”; he was presumably also concerned to do justice to contemporary rhetorical standards.44 In another passage, Papias addresses his contemporaries’ critique of the Gospel of Mark: in his record of what was said or done by Christ, Mark was extremely thorough, but he was not interested in their proper order (τάξις).45 In his literary eforts, especially in presenting an appropriate and workmanlike arrangement of his material, Papias may have been inuenced by the beginnings of the Second Sophistic in Asia Minor, as represented by a gure like Polemon of Laodicea.46 A central question in our assessment of the Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις has to do with the sources used by Papias, who followed an unconventional path in collecting his material, clearly favoring oral tradition over written traditions.47 In doing so, he acceded to a demand repeatedly expressed in ancient historiography: the historian must question eyewitnesses in order to obtain information as authentic as possible; Thucydides, who had established the critical standards, frequently relied on interviews he conducted with people who had been personally involved in the war.48 Eusebius, however, points out that the informants of Papias did not include the most valuable witnesses, the apostles, but did include those who had known them personally.49 For con rmation he cites the original text from Papias:

1979); Körtner 1983, pp. 156–159; Hengel 1993, pp. 77f. With some modi cation and criticism of Kürzinger, Baum 2001, pp. 259–261: in the phrase λόγια κυριακά, the adjective is to be understood subjectively rather than objectively, but Papias was “secondarily” interested in Jesus’ deeds as well, though his emphasis was on the sayings of Jesus. 44 Eus. H.e. 3.39.3: … συγκατατάξαι ταῖς ἑρµηνείαις … . For the whole quotation p. 221 below, with n. 50. See Kürzinger 1983, pp. 79–81. 45 Eus. H.e. 3.39.15: Μάρκος µὲν ἑρµηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόµενος, ὅσα ἐµνηµόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ µέντοι τάξει τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. Cf. Körtner 1983, pp. 212f. 46 Using the excerpt from the proem cited p. 221 below (Eus. H.e. 3.39.3f.). Schwartz 1963 (1904), pp. 57f. demonstrates Papias’s rhetorical pro ciency; cf. also pp. 70f. But cf. also the more reserved assessment of Papias’s style by Norelli 2005, pp. 54–58 (p. 58: “Papia non si propone uno stile letterario elevato”). Brent 2006, pp. 309–311 and passim sees the Second Sophistic as the cultural background for understanding the work of Papias’s contemporary Ignatius of Antioch. 47 Cf. Wedderburn 2010, pp. 230–233. 48 Cf. Th. 1.22. Bauckham 2006, pp. 23–27 establishes the association between Papias’s approach and classical historiography. On interviews as a source used by classical historians, see Huttner 2011a, p. 10. On the problem of “oral history” in the context of modern historiography, see Sellin 1995, pp. 86f. 49 Eusebius (H.e. 3.39,2) cites the proem of Papias: αὐτός γε µὴν ὁ Παπίας κατὰ τὸ προοίµιον τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων ἀκροατὴν µὲν καὶ αὐτόπτην οὐδαµῶς ἑαυτὸν γενέσθαι τῶν ἱερῶν ἀποστόλων ἐµφαίνει, παρειληφέναι δὲ τὰ τῆς πίστεως παρὰ τῶν ἐκείνοις γνωρίµων διδάσκει …. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 221

I shall not hesitate arrange for you everything that I have learned reliably [lit.: well] from the presbyters and recorded reliably, along with interpretations of it; I vouch personally for its veracity. Unlike the multitude, I took no pleasure in those who talk about everything possible but rather those who teach the truth, not those who relate strange commandments but rather those who deliver commandments given by the Lord to faith, springing from the truth itself. If, then, anyone came to me who had followed the elders, I questioned him about the words of the elders, what Andrew or Peter had said, what was said by Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or another of the Lord’s disciples, or what Aristion and presbyter [“father”] John say, disciples of the Lord. For I thought that the content of books was less pro table to me than the words of a living, abiding voice.50 Apart from the fact that Papias limited his favored sources and named them by name, all in all he drew on a much more extensive circle of potential informants: those he talked with included chatterers as well as people whose stories had nothing to do with Jesus and simply led others astray. It is not clear whom he meant by those who “relate strange commandments,”51 but obviously Hierapolis was visited by preachers the Christians considered rivals. In any case, Papias rst had to screen his informants to nd a credible foundation for recording the λόγια κυριακά. To do so, he focused on the elders (or presbyters), as he himself con rms. But the vagueness of the term makes it hard to characterize the group he applies it to. The diction and grammar of the text even allow it to include the individually named apostles, although the author can hardly have intended this interpretation.52 The term is also bothersome because at the beginning of the 2nd century presbyters had established themselves as functionaries in the Christian churches of western Asia Minor; Ignatius of Antioch quite naturally places them in the clerical hierarchy between bishops and deacons.53 It is obvious that

50 Eus. H.e. 3.39.3f.: οὐκ ὀκνήσω δέ σοι καὶ ὅσα ποτὲ παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καλῶς ἔµαθον καὶ καλῶς ἐµνηµόνευσα, συγκατατάξαι ταῖς ἑρµηνείαις, διαβεβαιούµενος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀλήθειαν. οὐ γὰρ τοῖς τὰ πο ὰ λέγουσιν ἔχαιρον ὥσπερ οἱ πο οί, ἀ ὰ τοῖς τἀληθῆ διδάσκουσιν, οὐδὲ τοῖς τὰς ἀ οτρίας ἐντολὰς µνηµονεύουσιν, ἀ ὰ τοῖς τὰς παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου τῇ πίστει δεδοµένας καὶ ἀπ’ αὐτῆς παραγινοµένας τῆς ἀληθείας· εἰ δέ που καὶ παρηκολουθηκώς τις τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἔλθοι, τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀνέκρινον λόγους, τί ᾽Ανδρέας ἢ τί Πέτρος εἶπεν ἢ τί Φίλιππος ἢ τί Θωµᾶς ἢ ᾽Ιάκωβος ἢ τί ᾽Ιωάννης ἢ Ματθαῖος ἤ τις ἕτερος τῶν τοῦ κυρίου µαθητῶν ἅ τε ᾽Αριστίων καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ᾽Ιωάννης, τοῦ κυρίου µαθηταὶ, λέγουσιν. οὐ γὰρ τὰ ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων τοσοῦτόν µε ὠφελεῖν ὑπελάµβανον ὅσον τὰ παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ µενούσης. 51 On the theory that they were Gnostics, see Schwartz 1963 (1904), pp. 59f. Norelli 2005, pp. 97–101 is skeptical. 52 See Körtner 1983, p. 77; also Munck 1959, p. 236. 53 Ign. Smyrn. 8.1. For further discussion, see Saxer 2003, pp. 326–329. 1Peter, which was addressed to the provinces of Asia Minor during the last decades of the 1st century, 5:1–5 222 chapter six

Papias cultivated contacts with such presbyters from Hierapolis and the neighboring churches, though we may hardly assume that he viewed them as particular authorities in the transmission of authentic information about Jesus. But there is also evidence of a second group of “presbyters,” who apart from the function tailored to the life of the individual local church exercised a higher-level function in the dissemination and de nition of the Christian message, as teachers in succession to the apostles.54 In German they are often called Väter, in English elders.55 Irenaeus also appeals to their authority,56 for example when he assumes that Jesus was a mature man between 40 and 50 during his public ministry: for “all presbyters conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, attest that John conveyed that to them.”57 Apostolic succession—from Jesus through John to the presbyters in Asia Minor—, which is behind Irenaeus’s description of his sources, was already relevant to Papias: the presbyters shared with him knowledge of the statements made by the apostles, of whom he mentions several by name, including John. It is clear, however, that Papias had no direct personal contact with these presbyters;58 he relied on traveling go-betweens who visited him (presumably in Hierapolis). The chain of succession in which Papias places himself thus goes as follows: Jesus—apostles (particularly Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John,59 Matthew)—presbyters—disciples of presbyters (traveling go-betweens)—Papias. It is not impossible that despite his episcopal o ce in Hierapolis Papias also traveled about to discover the most authentic infor-

nevertheless suggests a “presbyterial polity” (Schnelle 82013, p. 482), even though here the connotation of “elders of the community” (πρεσβύτερος as indicating age) is clearly present as well. Cf. Schröger 1981, pp. 114–119 and Körtner 1983, pp. 119f. 54 Norelli 2005, pp. 543f. 55 Körtner 1983, pp. 116–118; Bauckham 2006, pp. 16f. 56 Munck 1959, pp. 232f., also emphasizing the importance of the presbyters in Clement of Alexandria; Bauckham 2006, p. 17, who considers it possible that Irenaeus was drawing on Papias in the passages in question. 57 Iren. Haer. 2.22.5 (A. Rousseau / L. Doutreleau, SC 294 [1982], p. 224): … etomnesseniores testantur, qui in Asia apud Iohannem discipulum Domini convenerunt, id ipsum tradidisse eis Iohannem. Eus. H.e. 3.23.3 cites the Greek original: καὶ πάντες οἱ πρεσβύτεροι µαρτυροῦσιν οἱ κατὰ τὴν ᾽Ασίαν ᾽Ιωάννῃ τῷ τοῦ κυρίου µαθητῇ συµβεβληκότες παραδεδωκέναι τὸν ᾽Ιωάννην. 58 Pace Munck 1959, pp. 236f. 59 In his second book, Papias reports that John and James had been killed by the Jews. De Boor 1888, p. 170 frgm. 6 = Körtner 1998, p. 62 frgm. 10 (text from Philip Sidetes): Παπίας ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ λέγει, ὅτι ᾽Ιωάννης ὁ θεόλογος καὶ ᾽Ιάκωβος ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ ᾽Ιουδαίων ἀνῃρέθησαν. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 223 mation about Jesus,60 but there is no reference to such travels in our scanty biographical information about Papias. The criteria Papias used in developing his list of apostles remain unclear, as is his reason for limiting it to seven instead of the canonical twelve (or eleven). He does not mention Bartholomew, who follows Philip in the lists of apostles in the Synoptics, though he probably was familiar with the lists in Matthew and Mark at least.61 By Philip he cannot mean the Philip who had settled in Hierapolis, with whose daughters he maintained contact: in this case, Papias was not dependent on presbyters and their disciples to gather information.62 Papias supplements his list of apostles with two additional names, Aris- tion and John; both are singled out as disciples of the Lord, and John is also called ὁ πρεσβύτερος. They obviously have the same status as the seven apostles named just before,63 although, as the change of tense suggests (εἶπεν– λέγουσιν), they were contemporaries of Papias.64 That Papias was correct in including them among the disciples (µαθηταί) of Jesus and hence contemporary witnesses to him is hardly possible chronologically,65 but obviously he granted them a special closeness to the events and hence special authority in de ning the Christian tradition. The fact that John is called πρεσβύτερος may

60 Munck 1959, pp. 229f. theorizes that Papias traveled about in his younger years; later, when he lived in Hierapolis, he no longer had direct contact with the presbyters and had to rely on go-betweens. 61 Matt 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19. On the lists of the twelve in the New Testament, see Rolof 1978, pp. 433f. On Papias’s list, see Körtner 1983, pp. 177–181; Hengel 1993, pp. 80–86. On the possibility that Papias might have reconstructed his list of apostles from the Gospel of John, see O’Connell 2010. Their sequence corresponds to the sequence in which they appear in John, although Matthew is not mentioned by John. 62 Cf. the accompanying arguments in Körtner 1983, pp. 145f. But see von Dobbeler 2000, p. 285, who points out that Philip Sidetes cites Papias’s list of apostles and the tradition that goes back to the daughters of Philip in the same context (cf. p. 191 above). Cf. the fragment De Boor 1888, p. 170 frgm. 6 (Kürzinger 1983, p. 116 frgm. 16; Körtner 1983, pp. 63f. frgm. 10; Körtner 1998, p. 62, frgm. 10). In fact the compiler of Philip Sidetes makes no distinction between Philip the apostle and Philip the father of the prophetesses. This lack of diferentiation, however, says more about the methodology of the excerpter than the perception of Papias. 63 Pace Blum 1978, p. 446, who numbers Aristion and John among the “disciples of the apostles.” 64 This is also the explanation of Körtner 1983, pp. 125f.; cf. Schnelle 2010, p. 6. Schwartz 1963 (1904), p. 58 instead interprets the shift from aorist to present as rhetorical variation. Blass / Debrunner / Rehkopf 171990, p. 265 §321 points out that the historical present is especially common with λέγειν and a change of tense would not be unparalleled. In John 1:15 there is a change from the historical present to the perfect. 65 Cf. Körtner 1983, pp. 126f. Bauckham 2006, p. 18 constructs a scenario that mitigates the chronological problems: around the year 90, Papias, then in his 20s, obtained information from John the Presbyter and Aristion, who must have been very old at the time. 224 chapter six have to do with this authority, coupled with his advanced age,66 but it also distinguishes him from the apostle John, who is also included in the list.67 In one place, Papias simply refers to “the presbyter” as his source, without mentioning his name.68 There is much to suggest that John the Presbyter is meant here as well, and that the same author also composed 2 and 3John, in which the author introduces himself simply as ὁ πρεσβύτερος.69 There are no parallel traditions regarding Aristion that would allow us to place him in his historical context.70 Eusebius emphasizes that Papias frequently and readily drew on the witness of John the Presbyter and Aristion for his work.71 Possi- bly they exerted their inuence particularly in the churches of Asia Minor and provided Papias an easily accessible point of contact.72

6.1.4. The Problem of Oral Tradition Papias was familiar with the gospels of both Mark and Matthew; he also drew occasionally on other written traditions that later were included in the canon of the New Testament: 1John and 1Peter,73 the Apocalypse of John,74 and perhaps others.75 Eusebius points out that Papias related the story of a

66 Hengel 1993, pp. 103–107. 67 Cf. Körtner 1983, p. 127; see Bauckham 2006, pp. 422f., who emphasizes the element of age. 68 Eus. H.e. 3.39.15: καὶ τοῦθ’ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγεν … . On the fragment see also pp. 220 above and 225 below. 69 2John 1; 3John 1. Cf. Hengel 1993, pp. 107–114; Bauckham 2006, pp. 421f.; Schnelle 2010, pp. 5–8; Schnelle 82013, pp. 523f.; but cf. the reservations of Klauck 1992, pp. 21f. 70 On speculations about Aristion, see Körtner 1983, p. 288, n. 12; on p. 125, he speaks of the “realm of pious legend.” 71 Eus. H.e. 3.39.7: ὀνοµαστὶ γοῦν πο άκις αὐτῶν µνηµονεύσας ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ συ ράµµασιν τίθησιν αὐτῶν παραδόσεις. According to Schwartz 1963 (1904), pp. 63f. it would be wrong to conclude that Papias had personal contact with Aristion and John the presbyter, although Eusebius draws this very conclusion from the proem to Papias, saying that Papias had heard Aristion and John the presbyter with his own ears (Eus. H.e. 3.39.7: ᾽Αριστίωνος δὲ καὶ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου ᾽Ιωάννου αὐτήκοον ἑαυτόν φησι γενέσθαι). Cf. also Schoedel 1992, p. 252. 72 This is the premise of Bauckham 2006, pp. 18f. 73 Eus. H.e. 3.39.17. 74 Körtner 1998, pp. 64f. frgm. 11 (Kürzinger 1983, pp. 110–112 frgm. 12 = Körtner 1983, p. 64 frgm. 11). Cf. also De Groote 2005, pp. 147f. 75 Körtner 2009, p. 180. On the Gospel of John, see Schwartz 1963 (1904), pp. 78–80, arguing that Papias considered the Gospel of John especially early; Hengel 1993, pp. 86f.; Bauckham 1993, pp. 44f.; also Mutschler 2004, pp. 159f.; Trebilco 2011, p. 200. Hill 1998, pp. 588–622 ascribes to Papias the anonymous report in Eus. H.e. 3.24.5–13 and attempts to use it to reconstruct Papias’s view of how the gospels (esp. the Gospel of John) came into being. Cf. the critical response of Bauckham 2006, pp. 433–437. On the gospels in general, see Schröter 2010, p. 57. For an overview of Papias’s written sources, see Norelli 2005, pp. 113–125. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 225 sinful woman that also appears in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.76 The wording of the text, however, does not suggest that Papias drew on that document himself, not is it even clear that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was already in existence during Papias’s lifetime.77 Although the record of Jesus took increasingly clear shape in the written tradition and a canon gradually developed, the bishop—at the last moment, so to speak—sought to go a step backwards and begin over again. He put aside the documents that were circulating and constructed his own picture of Jesus and his ministry on the basis of oral tradition. There was still a possibility of capturing the “living voice” of contemporary witnesses— indirectly of course, but without the danger of being captivated by the suggestive power of written Scripture. In doing so, Papias did not conceal his respect for the written tradition: although he chided Mark for his inadequate presentation of the material,78 he testi ed at the same to Mark’s utmost reliability, citing the observation of the “presbyter” (John): “For he [Mark] had one concern: not to omit anything of what he had heard or to disseminate any falsehoods.”79 Nevertheless Papias proved himself dissatis ed with the state of the tradition. It was not his purpose to controvert a gradually emerging legend—the veracity of the evangelist Mark as guarantor of the apostle Peter garnered particular praise. He sought both to provide a more living and hence more stable basis for this legend and to supplement and embellish it with additional elements. In this endeavor, Papias was negotiating precarious terrain; he was concerned to record oral traditions that had been circulating for some 80 years and thus came up against the very limit that research into the mechanisms of oral tradition sets to living memory. From the perspective of Papias, the time of Jesus constituted a hinge point between “oral history,” narrative convey by word of mouth, and tradition rooted in cultural memory, which is also articulated in myth.80 Papias was actually already too late on the scene to reduce the λόγια κυριακά to writing on the basis of oral reports. In

76 Eus. H.e. 3.39.17. 77 On the Gospel according to the Hebrews, see P. Vielhauer / G. Strecker in Schneemel- cher 61990, pp. 117 and 142–147 (dating in the rst half of the 2nd cent.); Klauck 2002, pp. 55–62; J. Frey in Markschies / Schröter 2012, pp. 593–606 (dating in the rst half of the 2nd cent.: p. 598). 78 See p. 220 above. 79 Eus. H.e. 3.39.15: ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ µηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παραλιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσα- σθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς. The presbyter stated out at the outset that it was Peter who instructed Mark. Cf. pp. 224 above and 229 below. 80 For further fundamental discussion, see Assmann 21999, pp. 48–51. Norelli 2005, pp. 139– 226 chapter six addition he had to run the danger of carelessly overextending his creative leeway working over the accounts of Jesus. The utilization and xation of “oral history” on the basis of interviews not uncommonly reects the interests of the interviewer more than those interviewed.81 Possibly it is because of these risks and de ciencies that Papias’s experiment ultimately failed, and his work found only a muted echo; Eusebius even accused him of intellectual narrowness.82 At about the same time as Papias, the evangelist John attempted to reconstruct the story of Jesus. But he understood how to give his account the stamp of authentic witness and enhance it by observance of historiographic standards;83 his gospel met with greater success. This may be in part because John had at least partial access to both Synoptic and non-Synoptic material in writing.84 Whether he can actually be identi ed with John “the presbyter,” as recent scholarship has claimed with a series of good arguments,85 will not be discussed further here.

6.1.5. Eschatology Eusebius based his criticism of Papias on the chiliastic notion86 that the resurrection of the dead will be followed by a 1000-year reign of Christ over this earth: Papias worked apostolic traditions into this concept without really understanding them.87 Ultimately chiliasm clearly derived from the

143 also connects with Assmann’s model. On the unreliability of Papias’s eyewitnesses, see also Claußen 2007, pp. 5f. 81 Vorländer 1990, pp. 18–20. 82 Eus. H.e. 3.39.13: σφόδρα γάρ τοι σµικρὸς ὢν τὸν νοῦν, ὡς ἂν ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων τεκµηρά- µενον εἰπεῖν, φαίνεται, … . His intellectual narrowness thus emerged from his own words. In context, the concrete problem was use of eschatological concepts that he understood only partially. Cf. Eus. H.e. 3.39.12 (text n. 87 below) and Mazzucco / Pietrella 1978, pp. 32f. 83 Cf. Bauckham 2006, pp. 384–411; on pp. 408f., he assumes that John actually wrote as an eyewitness (contra Schnelle 82013, p. 554); Bauckham 2007, pp. 17–36, assigning the Gospel of John its place in historiographic tradition. On strategies of authorial authentication in the Gospel of John (including with reference to the words of Jesus), see Scholtissek 2004, pp. 212– 224. 84 Cf. Schnelle 82013, pp. 573f. (Passion narrative); Siegert 2008, p. 101. On pre-Synoptic oral tradition, see Schröter 1997, pp. 462–467; Gerhardsson 2005, pp. 1–18. 85 Cf. especially Bauckam 1993, pp. 24–63; Siegert 2008, pp. 62–81. 86 See n. 82 above. 87 Eus. H.e. 3.39.12 (commenting on legendary traditions concerning Jesus that had found their way into the work of Papias): ἐν οἷς καὶ χιλιάδα τινά φησιν ἐτῶν ἔσεσθαι µετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, σωµατικῶς τῆς Χριστοῦ βασιλείας ἐπὶ ταυτησὶ τῆς γῆς ὑποστησοµένης· ἃ καὶ ἡγοῦµαι τὰς ἀποστολικὰς παρεκδεξάµενον διηγήσεις ὑπολαβεῖν, τὰ ἐν ὑποδείγµασι πρὸς αὐτῶν µυστικῶς εἰρηµένα µὴ συνεορακότα. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 227 traditions of Jewish apocalypticism.88 Jewish sources also cast light on that fragment of Papias, already attested in the work of Irenaeus of Lyon. To depict the blessings of the promised kingdom, Irenaeus goes back to the witness of the presbyters to whom the words of Jesus were communicated by John. Shortly afterwards he points out that this tradition also appears in Papias. In its context, quotation from Papias recorded by Irenaeus reads as follows: The days will come when vines will grow, each having 10,000 branches, and each branch 10,000 twigs, and each twig 10,000 shoots, and each shoot 10,000 clusters, and each cluster 10,000 grapes, and each grape will yield 25 amphoras when pressed. And when one of the saints lays hold of a cluster, another cluster will cry out, “I am better, take me, bless the Lord through me.” Similarly a grain of wheat will produce 10,000 ears, and each ear will have 10,000 grains, and each grain will yield ve double pounds of pure ne our; and all the rest, fruit trees, seeds, and grasses, will do the same, and all living creatures that eat these foods produced by the earth will treat each other peacefully and harmoniously, and be perfectly subject to humankind. … These things are credible to believers. And when the traitor Judas did not believe and asked, “How can such production be brought about by the Lord?” the Lord said, “Those who are to come there shall see it.”89 Individual motifs of this description appear in similar form in the Apoc- alypse of John, for example a 1000-year reign of Jesus, in which the martyrs and in fact all steadfast Christians share.90 “Trees of life,” which bear fruit twelve times, i.e. every month, do not characterize this millennium,

88 Cf. Hier. Vir. ill. 18 (on Papias): Hic dicitur mille annorum Iudaicam edidisse δευτέρωσιν. See Körtner 1983, pp. 106f. For a general treatment, see Bauer 1954, cols. 1074f. 89 Iren. Haer. 5.33.3f. (Kürzinger 1983, p. 94 frgm. 1; Körtner 1998, pp. 50–53 frgm. 1): “Venient dies, in quibus vineae nascentur, singulae decem millia palmitum habentes, et in uno palmite dena millia brachiorum, et in uno vero brachio dena millia agellorum, et in unoquoque agello dena millia botruum, et in unoquoque botro dena millia acinorum, et unumquodque acinum expressum dabit viginti quinque metretas vini. Et cum eorum apprehenderit aliquis sanctorum botrum, alius clamabit botrus: Ego melior sum, me sume, per me dominum benedic. Similiter et granum tritici decem millia spicarum generaturum, et unamquamque spicam habituram decem millia granorum, et unumquodque granum quinque bilibres similae dare mundae, et reliqua autem poma et semina et herbam secundum congruentiam his consequentem, et omnia animalia his cibis utentia, quae a terra accipiuntur, paci ca et consentanea invicem eri, subiecta hominibus cum omni subiec- tione. … Haec autem credibilia sunt credentibus. Et Iuda, inquit, proditore non credente et interrogante: Quomodo ergo tales geniturae a domino per cientur? dixisse dominum: Videbunt, qui venient in illa.” Cf. A. Rousseau / L. Doutreleau / C. Mercier, SC 153 (1969), pp. 414–416.—Myllykoski 2008, p. 242 includes this vision in the category of “mainstream Christianity.” 90 Rev 20:2–4. 228 chapter six however, but only the new and eternal Jerusalem.91 The parallels to the Jew- ish tradition are closer:92 the protagonist of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, for example, is told by God of the worldwide blessing to come at the end of time: “And the earth will bring forth her fruit 10,000-fold. One vine will produce 1000 branches and one branch 1000 clusters, and one cluster will yield a kor of wine.”93 The text of the Apocalypse of Baruch appears to have been composed around the lifetime of Papias,94 though there is no reason to posit literary borrowing by the bishop.95 In any case, the Jewish presence in Hierapolis was strong and inuential enough that a mutual dialogue is easily conceivable.

Such prophecy had also established a foothold in the pagan tradition long before. In Virgil’s fourth Eclogue, in which he greeted the birth of a prodigious child inau- gurating a golden age, he proclaimed boundless fertility in the elds and hillside vineyards along with peace in the animal kingdom, which would banish all fear.96 The era of peace and prosperity that dawns with that birth stands under the aegis of mighty Apollo.97 The poem was later exploited by Constantine in his Oratio ad sanctorum coetum98 to anchor the birth of Jesus in the classical tradition; it plays on

91 Rev 22:2. Cf. Körtner 1983, pp. 100f. Daley 1991, pp. 17f. relies on the similarity of such eschatological texts in positing a close contact of Papias with the church where the Johannine writings were produced. 92 Mazzucco / Pietrella 1978, pp. 35f. 93 SyrBar 29.5 (cited from Klijn 1976, pp. 141f.). One kor is equivalent to several hundred liters (further detail in Körtner 1983, p. 273, n. 35). 94 Klijn 1976, pp. 113f.: composed between 100 and 130 in Palestine. 95 Körtner 1983, pp. 102f. For a more detailed comparison of the two texts, see Bogaert 1969, pp. 63f. (with a survey of earlier literature). See also Bruce 2004, pp. 165f. and 182, n. 6 (with citation of rabbinic sources) and Young 2011, pp. 287–289. The Jewish traditions in the text of Papias are so emphasized by Gry 1943/1944, pp. 116–124 that he ascribes the work to a Jew with the same name as the bishop of Hierapolis. 96 Verg. Ecl. 4.28f.: “The eld gradually turns golden with the waving grain, and on wild brambles the purple grape will swell.” (“molli paulatim avescet campus arista / incultisque rubens pendebit sentibus uva”). On peace among animals, cf. Virg. Ecl. 4.22–25 (also 5.60f.). Very similar motifs are found in the description of the isle of the blessed in the 16th Epode of Horace (Epod. 16.41–52). Both Virgil’s Eclogue and Horace’s Epode transport readers yearning for peace during the civil war between Octavian and Antony. For a general treatment of peace in the animal kingdom in Virgil and Horace, see Buchheit 1986, pp. 145–153.—The motif of peace in the animal kingdom appears already in Isa 11:6–8 and 65:25. It can be traced back to the thought-world of Sumerian mythology. Cf. Römer 1993, p. 366 (description of the land of Tilmun). Wisskirchen 2009, pp. 143–155 provides a survey of the motif of peace among animals in early Christian mosaic oors (esp. in southern Turkey and northern Syria; see also Russell 1987, pp. 70–74). In her survey of the literary sources (pp. 155–162), Wisskirchen also touches on Iren. Haer. 5.33.4 (p. 159, n. 89), though without mentioning Papias. 97 Verg. Ecl. 4.10. 98 Const. Or. s. c. 19–21. For further discussion of the Oratio, see Lane Fox 1986, pp. 643–653; papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 229 the same hopes as the vision of Papias. How vivid these hopes were in the context of the Apollo cult of Hierapolis is shown by the majestic cycle of reliefs from the city’s theater, though it was not completed until the Severan period: two women marvel at the scene of Apollo’s birth, one with her back to the viewer and holding a luxuri- ant cluster of grapes in her hands;99 the birth of the god is thus associated with the promise of a prosperous fertile land.

Since grain elds and vineyards ourished in the Lycus Valley and constituted a major economic sector, the prophecy of Papias struck a sensitive nerve in his church. The hopeful promise was nevertheless embedded in a wide range of literary contexts and traditions; it would be a waste of time to seek to identify a speci c source of Papias’s text. Not just Jewish sources need to be considered.100 This is true also of individual motifs, such as the clusters that eagerly press themselves on the harvester. Speaking ora are among the typical motifs of Near Eastern fables, but they had long since in ltrated Greek literature.101

6.1.6. The Hebrew Ur-Matthew Despite all uncertainties regarding the source of Papias’s chiliastic vision, it is easy to demonstrate a particular a nity for Jewish tradition and culture. The very fact that he was the rst to claim that Matthew had originally composed his gospel in an early Hebrew version102 signalizes his interest in the Jewish penumbra in which Christianity developed.103 The relevant quotation from the work of Papias appears once more in the church history of Eusebius: “Matthew drafted the accounts in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he was able.”104 The theme of Matthew is

Seeliger 1998, p. 384 (with additional bibliography); Bleckmann 2006, pp. 22f.; Ziolkowski / Putnam 2008, pp. 491–496; additional bibliography also in Gauger 1998, p. 536. 99 Illustration of the relief in D’Andria 2003, p. 166; Çubuk 2008, p. 108. 100 On Christian traditions, see Young 2011, p. 289. 101 Cf. Luzzatto 1998, cols. 356f. Cf. for example the conversations among the trees in the Jotham fable in Judges (9:8–15) and in Callimachus (frgm. 194 = 154 Asper). 102 On knowledge of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in later tradition and its connection with the Ebionites, see Häkkinen 2008, pp. 261f. 103 Cf. also Papias’s statement that Mark had been the interpreter (ἑρµηνευτής) of Peter (Eus. H.e. 3.39.15; cf. p. 220, n. 45 above). Papias thus builds on a tradition that Peter spoke Aramaic and had only a smattering of Greek. See Schwartz 1963 (1904), pp. 73f.; Baum 2000, pp. 30–33. 104 Eus. H.e. 3.39.16: Ματθαῖος µὲν οὖν ῾Εβραίδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρµήνευσεν δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος. Note also the variants (in the edition of Schwartz): the Syriac version understands τὰ λόγια as “gospel.” Instead of συνετάξατο a few manuscripts read συνεγράψατο. 230 chapter six characterized by the same term as that of Papias; both have the same goal: to give literary form to the λόγια and hence the history of Jesus. Some have sought to mitigate the force of the Papias quotations by interpreting διάλεκτος as meaning a literary “style” rather than a “language,” in the sense that Matthew chose a form of expression for his work common among the Jews.105 Such an interpretation does not hold up under philological analysis, however;106 we must in fact assume the Papias was speaking of a Hebrew Ur-Matthew. Since the common everyday language of the Jews in Palestine during the early principate was Aramaic, which contemporaries classi ed as “Hebrew,” it is reasonable to interpret the quotation from Papias in that sense.107 Various (Greek) translators had their di culties with the Aramaic original; Papias suggests various attempts at translation, without necessarily implying that they were reduced to writing.108 How Papias came to know of this Aramaic gospel text is unclear. Possibly a Jewish Christian gospel actually written in Aramaic and borrowing heavily from the Gospel of Matthew was already circulating in his period.109 The notion that the “Aramaic Ur-Matthew” formed the basis of the liturgy in the churches of Asia Minor and was translated into Greek as necessary to be generally understood is an attractive explanation,110 though it presupposes specialists conversant in both languages.111 Among the Diaspora Jews in Asia Minor, especially in the early principate, knowledge of Hebrew appears not to have been widespread; epigraphic examples are rare.112 Although the

105 Kürzinger 1983, pp. 21f. (orig. 1960), followed by Luz 22002, pp. 85f. 106 Thorough discussion in Baum 2001, pp. 261–264. Körtner 1983, pp. 203f. and Bauckham 2006, pp. 222–225 also reject Kürzinger’s theory. 107 Cf. Baum 2001, p. 266. 108 Cf. Baum 2001, pp. 267–269. 109 On the complex question of Jewish Christian gospels, see P. Vielhauer / G. Strecker in Schneemelcher 61990, pp. 114–147; Klauck 2002, pp. 53–55; Frey 2010, pp. 98–122; now also J. Frey in Markschies / Schröter 2012, pp. 560–592. Eusebius (H.e. 4.22.8) makes the important comment that Hegesippus (2nd half of the 2nd cent.) quoted from both the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Syriac Gospel, particularly in the Hebrew language: … ἔκ τε τοῦ καθ’ ῾Εβραίους εὐα ελίου καὶ τοῦ Συριακοῦ καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς ῾Εβραίδος διαλέκτου τινὰ τίθησιν …. 110 Baum 2001, pp. 269f. (the expression “Aramaic Ur-Matthew” is taken from the title of his article). 111 See the criticism of Frey 2010, p. 99, n. 29: “Eine solche Schrift hätten die meisten Kleinasiaten wie auch Papias selbst wohl kaum lesen können.” 112 Cf. Trebilco 1991, p. 82 with 221, n. 119 (commenting on MAMA VI, no. 334, from Acmo- neia); Ameling 1996, p. 42 (“Da in den kleinasiatischen Gemeinden weder Hebräisch noch Aramäisch gesprochen wurde, …”); Ameling 2004, p. 13. On the extensive Hellenization of the Diaspora Jews in Phrygia and Lydia, see also Sheppard 1979, p. 169. As a general principle, consider the pointed comment of Cohen 1999, p. 133: “A Hellene had to speak papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 231

Jewish community in Hierapolis in particular attached great importance to maintaining certain aspects of their cultural identity and making their ties to Israel clear, for example by retaining their own calendar,113 among the multitude of Jewish inscriptions from the city, not one uses the Hebrew alphabet.114 Nevertheless it is likely that it was Papias’s contact with the Jews around him that persuaded him to emphasize the Aramaic original of the Gospel of Matthew. Obviously he did not consider it necessary to sever the Christian traditions from their Jewish roots. That said, whether we can use Papias’s statement as rm evidence for an Aramaic prototype of the canonical Gospel of Matthew remains an unresolved question.115

6.2. Bishop Apollinarius: Conflict Resolution through Communication

We do not know who succeeded Papias as bishop in Hierapolis; in the time of Marcus Aurelius, Claudius Apollinarius held the o ce. We know his Roman nomen gentile from a fragmentary letter of a younger contemporary, Sera- pion, bishop of Antioch.116 As a Roman citizen, Apollinarius was a member of the upper class of Hierapolis;117 ties to his native city found expression not least in his name, borrowed from the Apollo cult, which his parents had chosen for him.118 His status created the conditions that encouraged Apolli- narius to address an apology to the emperor: not just the rhetorical tools that

Greek, but a Judean did not have to speak Hebrew.” Strelan 2011, p. 100 gives a somewhat diferent assessment, considering the possibility that Aramaic was also spoken in the Jewish communities of the Lycus Valley. 113 Cf. Huttner 2011, pp. 285–288. 114 The epitaph in Ameling 2004, pp. 444–446, no. 212, a funerary inscription of a Jewish woman from Laodicea, found in Rome, with a Hebrew conclusion is not relevant (ἔνθα κῖτε ᾽Αµµιὰς ᾽Ιουδεα ἀπὸ Λαδικίας, ἥτις ἔζησεν ἔτη πε ᾽ …). The Hebrew “peace” formula also appears occasionally on other Jewish sepulchral inscriptions from Rome. Cf. A. Angerstorfer in Dresken-Weiland / Angerstorfer / Merkt 2012, p. 300. It is also not totally certain that Ammias was from Phrygian Laodicea. 115 Cf. Baltes 2011, pp. 144f. and 593f.; Schnelle 82013, pp. 288f. is skeptical. 116 Eus. H.e. 5.19.2 (cf. pp. 256f. below). Serapion began his career as bishop in Antioch in the 90s of the 2nd century; on him and this letter, see Fischer / Lumpe 1997, pp. 39–41. 117 For a general discussion of early Christians in the urban upper classes of Asia Minor, see Wischmeyer 1992, pp. 30–34; McKechnie 2009, pp. 6–11. 118 For further discussion, see Huttner 2011, p. 272. Markschies 1997, p. 69 points out that the name Apolinarios is not associated etymologically with the Greek god, but on the history of the Latin name see ThLL II, 248.16–67. The name Apollinarios appears with some frequency in the Hierapolitan inscriptions (Judeich 1898, p. 198 [Index]: 6 inscriptions). The names Apollonios and Apollonides are even commoner. See also p. 46 above. 232 chapter six the young man had acquired in the context of an intensive school curricu- lum, but also the network of connections that allowed members of the upper class occasional contact with the high (and highest) o ces of the imperial government. In addition Apollinarius followed the activities of the emperor alertly; he even took an interest in the campaigns of Marcus Aurelius along the far-of Danube. The bishop of Hierapolis was the rst author to take as his subject the rain miracle in the land of the Quadi, to which the emperor owed a decisive victory in battle.

6.2.1. The Rain and Lightning Miracle The Danube campaign, which Marcus Aurelius was directing from Carnun- tum near Vienna, had been going on for several years when units of his army found themselves in dire straits in a battle with the Quadi in hostile territory north of the river in the early 170s.119 The Roman troops found themselves surrounded by the Germanic combatants and cut of from supplies; the soldiers were on the point of dying of thirst. Suddenly a violent storm broke out with torrential rain; the Romans nally had water to drink, while lightning and hail struck the Quadi, and the battle was decided in favor of the Romans.120 The Roman report, including a letter from Marcus Aurelius to the senate, made propaganda of the victory by emphasizing the divine aid that had brought about the sudden change in the weather and granted the emperor success.121 Christians—Apollinarius, followed by Tertullian and Eusebius122—interpreted the miracle from a diferent perspective: Christian soldiers brought it about, they claimed, through their prayers; military victory had been vouchsafed by the God of the Christians. The place of Apollinarius in this line of tradition is suggested by Eusebius in his church history: There is a story about … the emperor Marcus Aurelius when he faced the Germans and Sarmatians. His army was tormented by thirst, and he was in dire straits. The soldiers of the so-called Melitenian Legion, which was and still is strengthened by the faith, knelt on the earth in battle order before the

119 The date (between 171 and 174) is disputed. Cf. Kienast 21996, p. 138. Birley 1968, pp. 316 and 430 vacillates between 172 and 173; cf. Birley 21987, pp. 251f.; also Birley 2010, pp. 39f.; likewise Alföldy 1974, p. 206. Sordi 2002 (1960), p. 69 argues for summer 174, Helgeland 1979, p. 772 for summer 1973. Kovács 2009, pp. 273–275 dates the battle in 171. 120 See the account in D.C. 71.8–9. 121 For further discussion, see Motschmann 2002, pp. 127–142. 122 Motschmann 2002, p. 130 assumes erroneously that Tertullian was the earliest Christian witness to the rain miracle. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 233

foe, as is our custom when we pray, and turned to God with their supplica- tions. While such a display caused the enemy to wonder, at the same time, the story goes, an even greater miracle took place: a thunderstorm put the enemy to ight and destruction, while the rain brought refreshment to the army of those who had called on the divine, although it was almost perishing with thirst. The story is also told by authors to whom our word is unknown but were concerned at that time to write it down, but it is also found in the works of our authors. Among the historians who do not belong to us and therefore are strangers to the faith, the miracle is recorded, but they do not admit that it was brought about by the prayers of our people. Among our people, however, who are friends of the truth, the event is handed down in a simple and undistorted manner. These probably also include Apolinarius, who says that ever since that time the legion that brought about the miracle through their prayers received from the emperor an appropriate epithet and has been called the “Hurling of Thunderbolts” in the language of the Romans.123 In this passage, Eusebius does not in fact say that Apollinarius was the bishop of Hierapolis, but since no other Apollinarius appears in the earlier books of his church history,124 the identi cation is certain.125 Of the writers reporting the rain miracle in the land of the Quadi,126 Apollinarius is the only contemporary witness,127 a fact that lends authenticity to his account of

123 Eus. H.e. 5.5.1–4: … Μάρκον Αὐρήλιον Καίσαρα λόγος ἔχει Γερµανοῖς καὶ Σαρµάταις ἀντι- παραταττόµενον µάχῃ, δίψει πιεζοµένης αὐτοῦ τῆς στρατιᾶς, ἐν ἀµηχανίᾳ γενέσθαι· τοὺς δ’ ἐπὶ τῆς Μελιτηνῆς οὕτω καλουµένης λεγεῶνος στρατιώτας διὰ πίστεως ἐξ ἐκείνου καὶ εἰς δεῦρο συνεστώ- σης ἐν τῇ πρὸς τοὺς πολεµίους παρατάξει γόνυ θέντας ἐπὶ γῆν κατὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον ἡµῖν τῶν εὐχῶν ἔθος ἐπὶ τὰς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἱκεσίας τραπέσθαι, παραδόξου δὲ τοῖς πολεµίοις τοῦ τοιούτου δὴ θεάµα- τος φανέντος, ἄ ο τι λόγος ἔχει παραδοξότερον ἐπικαταλαβεῖν αὐτίκα, σκηπτὸν µὲν εἰς φυγὴν καὶ ἀπώλειαν συνελαύνοντα τοὺς πολεµίους, ὄµβρον δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν τὸ θεῖον παρακεκληκότων στρατιάν, πᾶσαν αὐτὴν ἐκ τοῦ δίψους µέ ουσαν ὅσον οὔπω διαφθείρεσθαι ἀνακτώµενον. ἡ δ’ ἱστορία φέρε- ται µὲν καὶ παρὰ τοῖς πόρρω τοῦ καθ’ ἡµᾶς λόγου συ ραφεῦσιν οἷς µέλον γέγονεν τῆς κατὰ τοὺς δηλουµένους γραφῆς, δεδήλωται δὲ καὶ πρὸς τῶν ἡµετέρων. ἀ ὰ τοῖς µὲν ἔξωθεν ἱστορικοῖς, ἅτε τῆς πίστεως ἀνοικείοις, τέθειται µὲν τὸ παράδοξον, οὐ µὴν καὶ ταῖς τῶν ἡµετέρων εὐχαῖς τοῦθ’ ὡµο- λογήθη γεγονέναι· τοῖς δέ γε ἡµετέροις, ἅτε ἀληθείας φίλοις, ἁπλῷ καὶ ἀκακοήθει τρόπῳ τὸ πραχθὲν παραδέδοται. τούτων δ’ ἂν εἴη καὶ ᾽Απολινάριος, ἐξ ἐκείνου φήσας τὴν δι’ εὐχῆς τὸ παράδοξον πεποι- ηκυῖαν λεγεῶνα οἰκείαν τῷ γεγονότι πρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως εἰληφέναι προσηγορίαν, κεραυνοβόλον τῇ ῾Ρωµαίων ἐπικληθεῖσαν φωνῇ. 124 Eus. H.e. 4.21; 4.26.1 (with explicit reference to Hierapolis); 4.27. 125 Also Sage 1987, p. 110. 126 Especially important are Tertullian and Cassius Dio (Tert. Apol. 5.5; Scap. 4.7f.; D.C. 71.8). Klein 1991, pp. 122f. conjectures that Tertullian relied on the account of Apollinarius; Harnack 1894, p. 842 difers. 127 Cf. Mommsen 1906 (1895), pp. 511f.; Helgeland 1979, p. 766: “… Apollinaris of Hierapolis who wrote about the Thundering Legion about two or three years after the rainstorm incident … .” 234 chapter six the troops primarily involved in the miracle story:128 The unit involved was the Legio XII Fulminata, which had been based in Melitene in Cappadocia since the time of Vespasian.129 Here we will not discuss the percentage of Christians in that legion or the general likelihood that there were an appreciable number of Christians in the Roman army.130 For the history of Christianity in the Lycus Valley, the more important question is how Apollinarius received his information and how he dealt with it. The o cial news of the thunder and rain miracle was disseminated through a letter the emperor sent from the battle eld to the senate in Rome.131 It is unclear whether Apollinarius shared in this news;132 for his Christian interpretation of the events among the Quadi, he probably used other sources. The Lycus Valley lay on one of the major east-west routes through Asia Minor; troops on the march certainly passed through Hier- apolis, especially since Aulutrene, near the source of the Meander east of Apamea, was home to an important transit camp and supply base.133 The vexillationes of the Twelfth Legion returning to Melitene from the battle- elds on the Danube naturally had other routes available, for example east- southeast from Nicomedia, but as a rule the soldiers were divided among various routes during troop movements,134 so that Apollinarius presumably had an opportunity to hear at rst hand about the successful conclusion of the Danube campaign.

The sphere of inuence of the Twelfth Legion extended far into the western regions of Asia Minor, as shown by the involvement of legionaries in building the road between Eumeneia and Apamea.135 Soldiers of a division of the Twelfth Legion

128 Cf. Sordi 2002 (1960), pp. 65f. In his thorough study of the sources, Kovács 2009. pp. 23–93 marginalizes the role of Apollinarius, giving precedence to Tertullian. He treats Apollinarius in the context of the account of Eusebius (pp. 48–50). 129 Modern Malatya on the Euphrates. Cf. Ritterling 1925, cols. 1707f., who doubts that the legion played a decisive role in Danube wars; Bertrandy / Rémy 2000, pp. 254f. and 257; also Marek 2010, p. 474. 130 Harnack 1905, pp. 56f. assumes that there were numerous Christians living in the recruiting area of the Legio XII on the upper Euphrates. He believes there was a major Christian presence in that unit. Helgeland 1979, pp. 770–773 expresses a similar view. 131 D.C. 71.10.5. For further details, see Motschmann 2002, pp. 127–135. See p. 232 above. 132 Harnack 1894, p. 854, who presents a detailed analysis of the sources regarding the rain miracle, assumes that Apollinarius drew on the emperor’s letter to the senate. 133 Cf. Speidel 2010, pp. 135–137; Marek 2010, p. 476; Thonemann 2011, pp. 131–134. 134 By way of analogy, see the advance of Gordian III for the eastern campaign in 242. For further details, see Huttner 2008, pp. 185f. 135 On the milestone AE 1976, no. 658 see Bertrandy / Rémy 2000, p. 255; Thonemann 2011, papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 235 buried one of their comrades in Amorion.136 Generally speaking we may assume frequent contacts with soldiers stationed on the Euphrates, since the recruiting areas of the legions in question were mostly in Asia Minor.137 In addition it was typical of most Roman careers, whether in civil or military service, to require extraordinary mobility on the part of those completing them, so that former o cers of the Legio XII Fulminata were also found in the cities of western Asia Minor, as some inscriptions from Pisidian Antioch show: the sepulchral inscription of an optio of that legion,138 an honorary inscription for P. Anicius Maximus, former primus pilus in the Twelfth Legion, who occupied this position before the middle of the 1st century,139 and the tribute to P. Flavonius Paulinus, possibly even a contemporary of Apollinarius, who began the military portion of his senatorial career as a military tribune with the Twelfth Legion.140

In any case, the bishop of Hierapolis would have had an opportunity to get information about the miracle story from the land of the Quadi from authentic sources without undue efort. Whether or not he availed himself of the opportunity, it has long been noted that he made serious mistakes in recording the event.141 First, he chose the wrong Greek expression to translate the honori c Latin epithet Fulminata. Greek inscriptions show that the legion was called λεγεὼν ιβ’ Κεραυνοφόρος, not Κεραυνοβόλος.142 Furthermore the legion had had this epithet since the Augustan period.143 Lucius Anto- nius Zenon, who served as military tribune of the Legio XII Fulminata in the Augustan period, came from the family of the Zenonids from neighboring

pp. 151f. Eumenea was also the base of an auxiliary unit, in Apollinarius’s time presumably the cohors I Raetorum equitata. Cf. Ritterling 1927, pp. 31f. 136 CIL III, no. 353. Cf. Mitchell 1993, I, p. 121 with n. 23. On the presence of members of the legion in Ancyra, see Mitchell / French 2012, pp. 337f. (commentary on no. 158). 137 Speidel 1980, pp. 736f. That recruitment de nitely extended to the Lycus Valley is shown by the military diploma of M. Antonius Timi from Hierapolis dated 120: CIL XVI, no. 67. M. Antonius Timi performed his service in a cohort stationed in Macedonia. For supporting arguments, see Ritti 2008, pp. 301f. 138 Byrne / Labarre 2006, p. 102, no. 192. 139 ILS, no. 2696. 140 SEG 6 (1932), no. 555. See PIR 2III, pp. 193f., no. 448; Dabrowa˛ 1993, p. 61. Halfmann 1979, p. 81 assumes that P. Flavonius Paulinus was accepted into the senate under Marcus Aurelius or Commodus. Rémy 1989, pp. 272f., no. 225, however, cites some evidence (e.g. the term βιόκουρος for the o cial in charge of road maintenance) that suggests a date c. 250.—In Hierapolis itself, so far only the burial sites of soldiers and o cers from other units have been discovered; cited in Ritti 2008, p. 303. Cf. also the optio of a sixth legion (Judeich 1898, no. 324; by Ritterling 1925, col. 1594 associated with the legio VI ferrata). 141 Klein 1991, pp. 121f.; for speculations on the source of these errors, see Kovács 2009, pp. 49f. 142 Sage 1987, p. 111; Sordi 2002 (1960), p. 66, n. 39. 143 Ritterling 1925, cols. 1705f. 236 chapter six

Laodicea, as we know from an honori c inscription from Apollonia Salbace, across the mountains about 40 kilometers south of Hierapolis, where the title of the legion is recorded correctly.144 Apollinarius might have known better,145 but he was content with unver- i ed details; more careful research seemed superuous. This carelessness in preparing the material itself raises doubts about including the text in the apology addressed by Apollinarius to the emperor, even though it has found prominent defenders among scholars.146 Such obvious errors would have undermined the impact of the Apology, especially since the emperor took a highly personal interest in awarding honori c titles to his legions. Apollinarius’s primary interest, however, was not an accurate factual report of events but integration of the emperor and his army into a history governed by the Christian God. An imperial initiative counted for nothing and could not produce the outcome desired; even the ancient gods did not have such inuence. With the military victory, a central element was shifted from the responsibility of the emperor and his gods to the Christian God. Here Apollinarius made a far-reaching contribution to Christianizing the history and policies of the Roman emperor and establishing Christians as an autonomous force. The Christian God proved to be the military protector of the emperor, already assuming the same function he took on 140 years later at the Milvian bridge, when Constantine defeated Maxentius under the sign of the cross, and Lactantius and Eusebius served as publicists for the divinely favored emperor.147 It must remain an open question which of his

144 SEG 37 (1987) no. 855: Λούκιον ᾽Αντώνιον Μάρκου ᾽Αντω[νί]ου Πολέµωνος υἱὸν Ζήνωνα Μ[έ]γαν ᾽Αριστῆ, χιλιαρχήσαντα λεγ[ιῶ]νος ιβ’ Κεραυνοφόρου … . The most recent edition is that of Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2009, pp. 134–137, no. 51; see the prosopographic commentary of Thonemann 2004, pp. 144f.; also Thonemann 2011, pp. 209f. 145 Hence Harnack 1894, p. 858, n. 1 attempts to rescue Apollinarius’s credibility through a convoluted argument, suggesting that Apollinarius had misunderstood the Latin source text (the letter of Marcus Aurelius), or the emperor actually did give the legion its title on the basis of the thunderbolts in the land of the Quadi. Cf. also Sordi 2002 (1960), p. 66, n. 39, who assumes that the error crept in during the transmission of Apollinarius’s text (similarly Harnack 1894, p. 874, where he seeks to blame the error on Eusebius, who misunderstood Apollinarius). See also pp. 232–234 above. 146 Harnack 1894, p. 838, n. 1 does consider Πρὸς ῞Ε ηνας and Περὶ ἀληθείας as sources for the story of the rain miracle, but considers the Apology the most likely. Sordi 2002 (1963), p. 65 builds on Harnack, although she recognizes the problem: p. 66, n. 1: “Ma si può efetivamente attribuire ad un contemporaneo, e in uno scritto indirizzato all’imperatore, un errore o una falsi cazione così grossolani?”—Grant 1988, p. 83 assumes without further discussion that the story of the rain miracle comes from the Apology. 147 Girardet 2006 (1998), pp. 74–80; Drake 2006, pp. 113–116. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 237 writings Apollinarius integrated this new image of the emperor into. It may have found a suitable setting in the Πρὸς ῞Ε ηνας to underline the frailty of the traditional religious beliefs.148

6.2.2. Chronological Placement and Catalog of Works The instrumentalization of the thunder and lightning miracle allows us to conclude with assurance that Apollinarius was writing in the 70s of the 2nd century or shortly afterwards. This chronological placement is con rmed in other accounts of the bishop. We have only scanty information about the life and work of Apollinar- ius.149 The basic sources are laid out by Eusebius in his Chronography and especially in his church history, although in the latter he devotes much less space to the bishop of Hierapolis than to his contemporary Melito of Sardis, whom he treats in the same context.150 In his Chronography, Euse- bius assigns the high point of Apollinarius’s episcopate to the 10th regnal year of Marcus Aurelius or 170.151 Melito of Sardis had published his Apology previously; the high point of the Corinthian bishop Dionysius and the beginning of Montanism came afterwards. These statements by Eusebius provide nothing more than an approximate reference framework, as a glance at his church history shows, where he assigns Apollinarius vaguely to the reign of Marcus Aurelius.152

148 Such an association was already suggested by Harnack (see p. 236, n. 146 above). See also Sage 1987, p. 110. On the Πρὸς ῞Ε ηνας, see pp. 242–244 below. 149 The fundamental treatment is still Harnack 21958, pp. 243–246. 150 Eus. H.e. 4.26–27. 151 In the translation of Jerome Chron. (GCS 7 [1956], 206.4: Rudolf Helm): Apollinaris Asianus Hierapolitanus episcopus insignis habetur. The Armenian version difers by a year. 152 The initial anchor point is Eus. H.e. 4.14.10 (accession of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus). Apollinarius is rst mentioned in 4.21: “At that time there ourished in the church Hegesippus, whom we know from preceding remarks, and Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthi- ans, and Pinytus, another bishop, on Crete, and—at the same time—Philip and Apolinarius and Melito and Musanus and Modestus and above all Irenaeus; from them the orthodoxy of the correct faith has come down to us in written form from the tradition of the apostles.”— ῎Ηκµαζον δ’ ἐν τούτοις ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ῾Ηγήσιππός τε, ὃν ἴσµεν ἐκ τῶν προτέρων, καὶ ∆ιονύσιος Κορινθίων ἐπίσκοπος Πινυτός τε ἄ ος τῶν ἐπὶ Κρήτης ἐπίσκοπος Φίλιππός τε ἐπὶ τούτοις καὶ ᾽Απολινάριος καὶ Μελίτων Μουσανός τε καὶ Μόδεστος καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν Εἰρηναῖος, ὧν καὶ εἰς ἡµᾶς τῆς ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως ἡ τῆς ὑγιοῦς πίστεως ἔ ραφος κατῆλθεν ὀρθοδοξία.—He appears a second time in 4.26.1: “At that time, Melito, the bishop of the church in Sardis, and Apolinar- ius, bishop of the church in Hierapolis, enjoyed great distinction.”—᾽Επὶ τῶνδε καὶ Μελίτων τῆς ἐν Σάρεδσιν παροικίας ἐπίσκοπος ᾽Απολινάριός τε τῆς ἐν ῾Ιεραπόλει διαπρεπῶς ἤκµαζον …. There follow a relatively detailed chapter on Melito (4.26.1–14) and Eusebius’s comments on Apollinarius (cited p. 238, n. 153 below: 4.27). 238 chapter six

Concerning the literary legacy of the bishop, Eusebius has this to say: “Of the many works of Apolinarius preserved among many, the following have come into our hands: his discourse addressed to the above-mentioned emperor [Marcus Aurelius], and ve books ‘Against [or: to] the Hellenes [or: pagans]’, and ‘On Truth’ books one and two, and ‘Against [or: to] the Jews’ books one and two, and what he later wrote against the heresy of the Phrygians, which appeared shortly afterwards but was then beginning to emerge, when Montanus with his false prophetesses were still at the beginning of their errors.”153 Eusebius indicates that he was far from listing all of the works of Apollinarius that were still circulating; he was limiting himself to those he had personal access to.154 It is therefore not surprising to nd isolated references to other works in the tradition: the 7th-century Chronicon Paschale cites two fragments by Apollinarius associated with a work entitled On the Paschal Feast,155 while Photius, who praises the bishop’s excellent style, is also familiar with the title On Piety.156 In his history of heretics, Theodoret also notes that Apollinarius positioned himself against the supporters of Severus and thus set his sights on an Encratite group in the generation after Tatian.157 In principle, it would be wrong to rule out the possibility that these works for which there is only late evidence were excerpted from the work of Apollinarius long after and issued as special editions with their own titles.158 Apollinarius lived in a time of rapidly developing Christian literature, out- lining the religious position of Christianity with increasingly polished arguments and defending it against potential rivals:159 debate with pagans and Jews along with internal Christian controversies motivated individual writers to present ways to resolve these conicts in the literary arena, defensively and ofensively.The works of Apollinarius thus emerged in an atmosphere of literary ferment; the author was responding not only to speci c conicts but

153 Eus. H.e. 4.27: τοῦ δ’ ᾽Απολιναρίου πο ῶν παρὰ πο οῖς σῳζοµένων τὰ εἰς ἡµᾶς ἐλθόντα ἐστὶν τάδε· λόγος ὁ πρὸς τὸν προειρηµένον βασιλέα καὶ Πρὸς ῞Ε ηνας συ ράµµατα πέντε καὶ Περὶ ἀληθείας α’ β’ καὶ Πρὸς ᾽Ιουδαίους α’ β’ καὶ ἃ µετὰ ταῦτα συνέγραψε κατὰ τῆς τῶν Φρυγῶν αἱρέσεως, µετ’ οὐ πολὺν καινοτοµηθείσης χρόνον, τότε γε µὴν ὥσπερ ἐκφύειν ἀρχοµένης, ἔτι τοῦ Μοντανοῦ ἅµα ταῖς αὐτοῦ ψευδοπροφήτισιν ἀρχὰς τῆς παρεκτροπῆς ποιουµένου. 154 Carriker 2003, p. 275. 155 Περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα. PG 92, 80 C. 156 Phot. Bibliotheke 14 (Henry 1959, p. 11): Περὶ εὐσεβείας. 157 Thdt. Haer. 1.21. 158 Huttner 2011, p. 273. On the work against the Severians, see Harnack 21958, p. 244. 159 Brown 22008, p. XXXVIII emphatically underlines the involvement of Christians in the “religious intellectualism” of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 239 also to the pronouncements of colleagues. A close relationship obviously developed between Apollinarius of Hierapolis and Melito of Sardis; travel from the Lycus Valley over to the Hermus valley was encouraged by a well- developed road covering over 100 kilometers. Among the titles and topics of works that can be associated with both, three are identical: an apology to the emperor, On the Paschal Feast, and nally the pretentious title On Truth.160 The details of the rivalry between Melito and Apollinarius are unknown; the lists in Eusebius convey the impression that Melito was the more productive writer.

6.2.3. The Apology Both Melito and Apollinarius addressed an apology to Marcus Aurelius; Eusebius summarized the content as follows: “… writing independently, both addressed texts in defense of their faith to the mentioned emperor of the Romans reigning at the time.”161 The words chosen by Eusebius suggest direct contact between the apologists and the emperor: he uses the verb προσφωνεῖν, which literally implies a personal address.162 The chance for such a meeting was especially favorable in 175/176, when Marcus Aurelius together with his son and successor Commodus traveled to Syria, where he sought to bring the situation under control as quickly as possible after the rebellion of Avidius Cassius. On the way back to Rome, in the summer of 176 he took the time to visit a whole string of cities in Asia Minor.163 Since there is clear evidence that the emperor’s party stopped in Sardis,164 the Lycus Valley was probably on their route. In Smyrna, where he made a layover of several days, Marcus Aurelius met with the popular orator Aelius Aristides

160 On the works of Melito, see Eus. H.e. 4.26.2. In addition, Melito, like Apollinarius, appears also to have disputed with the Montanists; at least he also wrote a work On Prophecy. See p. 256 below. 161 Eus. H.e. 4.26.1 (immediately following the quotation p. 237, n. 152 above): … οἳ καὶ τῷ δηλωθέντι κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους ῾Ρωµαίων βασιλεῖ λόγους ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ἰδίως ἑκάτερος ἀπολογίας προσεφώνησαν. 162 But see the fundamentally skeptical comment of Millar 21992, p. 561 on the function (especially the formal address) of Christian apologies: “It should be stated at once that in the nature of the case we cannot determine with certainty whether such a work actually was presented, or sent, to the emperor named, or merely has the literary form of a work so presented. Later Christian sources, mainly Eusebius, invariably speak as if they were describing a genuine presentation, but this could of course be dismissed as a deduction from the texts of the works themselves.” 163 On his itinerary, see Halfmann 1986, pp. 213 and 215; von Saldern 2003, pp. 21–23. 164 Herrmann 1993, p. 258. 240 chapter six and together with him xed the date for a public rhetorical event.165 The Apologies of Melito and Apollinarius could t in an analogous setting, so that these “orations” have repeatedly been dated in the year 176, to coincide with the visit of the emperor to the province of Asia.166 Of course the great Sophists on a par with an Aelius Aristides enjoyed far greater renown among the elite than did the Christian bishops, so that there is reason to question whether the emperor was confronted personally with the spokesmen of the Christian churches and devoted any of his scarce time to them,167 quite apart from the precarious legal situation that any Christian confessor would nd himself in when facing the supreme representative of the Roman legal system. In addition the meaning of the verb προσφωνεῖν used by Eusebius extends to a general address that does not require the personal presence of the person addressed; the word could be used in book dedications, for example.168 In his church history, Eusebius quotes a passage from the work of Anatolius on the date of the Paschal feast, in which Anatolius mentions Aristobulus, who dedicated (προσεφώνησεν) his commentary on the law of Moses to the Ptolemaic kings.169 The use of the word in Eusebius’s church history thus suggests not a personal address of Apollinarius before Marcus Aurelius but rather a petition in the form of a letter, like many others received by the emperor.170 Submission of such a petition did not require the emperor’s presence in the immediate or more extended vicinity; Apollinarius could use the normal messenger system, which assured smooth communication between the provinces and the imperial government.171

165 Philostr. VS 582f.; cf. Birley 1968, pp. 351f.; Birley 21987, pp. 193f. 166 Cf. Sordi 1961, pp. 368f.; Birley 1968, p. 352, n. 39 (associated with the public appearance of Aelius Aristides); but on p. 434 criticizing Sordi’s proposed dating. Grant 1988, p. 65; Grant 1988 a, p. 5; Rhee 2005, p. 22. 167 Schoedel 1989, pp. 57–61 makes it clear that the works of the Christian apologists were too long to be delivered personally before the emperor. Birley 21987, p. 259 expresses doubt that the apologists spoke in public. 168 Liddell / Scott / Jones 1996, p. 1531, s.v. προσφωνέω II.1. 169 Eus. H.e. 7.32.16: … καὶ βίβλους ἐξηγητικὰς τοῦ Μωυσέως νόµου τοῖς αὐτοῖς προσεφώνησεν βασιλεῦσιν. 170 Justin signi cantly called his apology to Antoninus Pius a προσφώνησις καὶ ἔντευξις (Just. Apol. 1.1.1; Eus. H.e. 4.12), using a technical term found in the papyri. On ἔντευξις in papyri (“a submission to the regent or o cial”), see Preisigke 1925, col. 499. For examples of προσφώνησις in the sense of “letter,” see Lampe 91989, p. 1185, s.v. προσφώνησις 1. Lampe also refers to Eus. V.C. 2.71.4, where Constantine (implicitly) calls his own letter a προσφώνησις.—Another technical term is βιβλίδιον (Lat. libellus), which Justin also uses (Apol. 2.14.1). Cf. Millar 21992, p. 563. 171 Cf. Millar 21992, pp. 556–566, who points out, however, that such messages could also be delivered personally. In the case of the apology of Athenagoras addressed to Marcus Aurelius papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 241

When Apollinarius’s apology is separated from the emperor’s visit to Asia Minor, its chronological placement naturally loses its anchor point. Since the text of Eusebius mentions only one emperor, Marcus Aurelius, as the addressee of the apologies of Melito and Apollinarius,172 it is reasonable to limit its date to the period after the death of Lucius Verus in 169,173 though this does raise the question why his successor Commodus, who bore the title Caesar after 166 and was made Augustus in 177, does not also appear in the address of the apology.174 We know nothing of either the line of argument pursued by Apollinarius in his apology or of his motivation. Possibly he, too, was inuenced by the “new decrees” that Melito complained of in his apology, which the Chris- tians in the province of Asia felt were driving them into a corner.175 Possi- bly the proconsul had initiated pertinent measures with his accession to o ce in the province.176 In his apology, Apollinarius joined a literary tradition whose beginnings stretched back to the reign of Hadrian. The works of Quadratus (of whose apology only a single fragment has survived), Aristides, Justin, and Tatian had already set forth the central arguments a Christian could use to stand up for his religious confession: accentuating the convergences of Christianity with traditional philosophy along with polemic diatribes against pagan cults, praise of Christian morality and attacks on the unchastity of the pagans, encomia celebrating the power of Christian miracles and vili cation of witchcraft and magic.177 Given the historical dis- crepancies in Apollinarius’s account of the rain miracle in the land of the Quadi as related by Eusebius, he is unlikely to have employed it to persuade Marcus Aurelius of the power of the Christian God.178 But there is much to

and Commodus, Millar nds relatively cogent evidence; cf. also Kinzig 1989, p. 302. Schoedel 1989, 74f. expresses skepticism, suggesting at most an abbreviated version of the oration. 172 Eus. H.e. 4.26.1; 4.26.2 (with reference to Melito: τὸ Πρὸς ᾽Αντωνῖνον βιβλίδιον); 4.27. 173 Cf. Birley 1968, p. 434. 174 On the titles of Commodus, see Kienast 21996, p. 147; von Saldern 2003, pp. 11–13 and 27. Justin addressed his apology not only to Antoninus Pius but also to his two successors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (Just. Apol. 1.1.1; Eus. H.e. 4.12 and 4.18.2); see Munier 2006, pp. 24–28. 175 Eus. H.e. 4.26.5: … νῦν διώκεται τὸ τῶν θεοσεβῶν γένος καινοῖς ἐλαυνόµενον δόγµασιν κατὰ τὴν ᾽Ασίαν. 176 Barnes 1968, p. 39, followed by Birley 21987, p. 262. Motschmann 2002, pp. 256–260 disagrees, identifying the καινὰ δόγµατα mentioned by Melito with a resolution of the Senate reducing the costs of gladiators (ILS, no. 5163), as already suggested by Birley 1968, pp. 367f. See p. 335 below. 177 See Grant 1988, pp. 34–73; Fiedrowicsz 2000, pp. 37–54; Rhee 2005, pp. 50–71. 178 See pp. 235f. above. 242 chapter six suggest that he, like Melito,179assured the emperor of the Christians’ loyalty and appealed to his function as a political patron and protector.

6.2.4. Against the Hellenes It is also safe to assume an apologetic purpose for Apollinarius’s next work as well: a comprehensive examination of the Christian works with the title Πρὸς ῞Ε ηνας or Ad / Adversus nations / gentes shows that their content overlapped substantially with the apologies addressed to the emperor.180 Apollinarius was among the rst to publish a work by this title; presumably Justin preceded him, and Tatian’s work was probably earlier as well.181 The title, introduced by the preposition πρός, obviously looks back to earlier philosophical disputations, where the neutral πρός could also be replaced by the more polemic κατά (with the genitive).182 In the title of his works, Apollinarius could make a distinction if necessary, especially given that in his list of Apollinarius’s works Eusebius explicitly describes the anti- Montanist discourse as being directed κατὰ τῆς τῶν Φρυγῶν αἱρέσεως.183 The work of Apollinarius was therefore more like written “To the Hellenes” than “Against the Hellenes.” In this very period, the term Hellenes appears to have emerged among Christians as a collective term for the “pagans” in contrast to Jews and Christians.184 Whether Apollinarius’s pagan fellow citizens understood this connotation of the work’s title is questionable. The bishop presumably was

179 Eus. H.e. 4.26.6–11. 180 Kinzig 2000, p. 161 and Petersen 2008, p. 128. But cf. also McGehee 1993, pp. 145–158, who interprets Tatian’s Πρὸς ῞Ε ηνας not as an apology but as a protrepticus. 181 See the survey in Kinzig 2000, pp. 154f., who also places Miltiades (cf. Eus. H.e. 5.17.1 and 5) before Apollinarius. Grant 1988, pp. 90f. assumes instead that Miltiades and Apollinarius belong in the same context, as shown by the titles of his works: Against the Montanists, Against the Hellenes, Against the Jews (cf. pp. 245f. below). On pp. 113 he dates Tatian’s work in the years after 176. Marcovich 1995, pp. 1–3 dates it instead between 165 and 172. For an earlier date (160/165?), see further discussion in Kinzig 2000, p. 155, with n. 12. Justin’s works Πρὸς ῞Ε ηνας have obviously been lost; see Riedweg 1994, pp. 54–61. One work called Πρὸς ῞Ε ηνας has been preserved under Justin’s name, although he was clearly not its author and it was probably composed long after Apollinarius; see the thorough discussion by Riedweg 1994, with proposed dates between c. 300 and 340 (pp. 52f., 180f.); also Greschat / Tilly 2005, pp. 273–277. 182 See Kinzig 2000, pp. 162–164, who assumes that the two prepositions in the title of philosophical disputations both mean “against.” 183 Eus. H.e. 4.27. 184 Cf. Kinzig 2000, p. 169; Stenger 2009, pp. 23–25; Cameron 2011, p. 16. Bowersock 1990, pp. 9f. dates this development later, in the Constantinian period. On the complexity of the term Hellenes in Tatian, where religious connotations also are implicit, see Lössl 2007, passim. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 243 familiar with the honori c statue of P. Aelius Zeuxidemos Aristos Zenon, with which he was honored by the council and citizens of Hierapolis along with the “Hellenes in [the province of] Asia.”185 Here the “Hellenes” are the citizens of various poleis, whose representatives assembled in the κοινόν, the provincial diet.186 The proud self-designation, the product of an elitist cultural awareness, thus confronted the exclusionary conict etiquette of the Christians: the term might be the same, and the group of persons so labeled from two diferent perspectives was also more or less the same, but the connotations of the term arose from diferent worlds. Despite vigorous eforts to accentuate the vast distance separating them from their rivals, the authors of the treatises Πρὸς ῞Ε ηνας repeatedly slipped into their categories and drew on them.187 Tatian, for example, used every means at his disposal to expose Greek philosophy to ridicule and vil- ify its representatives as depraved voluptuaries, only to end up stylizing Moses as the archetypal philosopher and himself—cum grano salis—as the “philosopher of the barbarians” (i.e. Christians).188 Possibly we are seeing here a process of acculturation for which the groundwork had been laid by Hellenistic Judaism, which extended into the institutional and organizational spheres, especially since during these decades educated Christians, including Tatian, established schools in several places to instruct interested contemporaries in Christianity without turning their backs at all on philosophical attitudes.189 Whether we can picture Apollinarius also as director and teacher of a Christian school and Hierapolis as an early seedbed

185 Judeich 1898, no. 31 = IGR IV, no. 819: [ο]ἱ ἐπὶ τῆς ᾽Ασίας ῞Ε ηνες καὶ ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆµος Π(όπλιον) Αἴλιον Ζευξείδηµον ῎Αριστον Ζήνωνα,˙υἱὸν˙ ˙ Π˙(οπλίου) Αἰλίου Ζευ[ξε˙]ιδήµου Κασ[σι]ανοῦ ἀρχι[ε]ρέως ᾽Ασίας, συνήγορο[ν][τ]οῦ˙ ἐν Φρυγί[ᾳ][τ]αµιείου [καὶ] τοῦ ἐν ᾽Ασ[ίᾳ]. For˙ ˙ further discussion˙ of this inscription, which provides the earliest˙ ˙ documentation for the position of advocatus sci and probably honors the father of the Sophist Antipater, see Ritti 1988, pp. 81f.; Potter 1998, p. 271 (dating under Marcus Aurelius); Ritti 2006, pp. 142–144, no. 31. Ritti 2004 a, p. 300 also points out an decree of the κοινόν honoring Hadrian, found in the theater of Hierapolis. 186 See Kornemann 1924, cols. 934f.; Marek 2010, p. 518. In a few inscriptions, the Hellenes are also distinguished from those who enjoy Roman citizenship (῞Ε ηνες / ῾Ρωµαῖοι). Cf. Drew-Bear 1978, p. 13. Cf. also the honori c title ῾Ε ήνων πρώτιστος given a sprinter in an inscription from Synnada: SEG 56 (2006), no. 1687. 187 On this dichotomy, true of the apologists in general, see Dorival 1998, pp. 426–428. 188 Tat. Orat. 25 (Greek philosophers), 41.1 (Moses), 42.1 (ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανός). Cf. Elze 1960, pp. 19–27; Norelli 1998, pp. 82–85; Lössl 2007, pp. 138–151. 189 On the early centers in Athens, Rome, and Alexandria, see Ponderon 1998, pp. 243–254. Cf. McGehee 1993, pp. 154–157 (Tatian); Markschies 2007, pp. 88–91 (Justin and Tatian); also Kinzig 2000, p. 172; Brown 22008, pp. 104f. On the school of Valentinus, see Dunderberg 2008, pp. 71 and 93–95. 244 chapter six of Christian education must remain speculative. In any case, Apollinarius would have been fully up to the task; his literary style was shaped by the rhetoric of the Second Sophistic,190 and Theodoret later ascribed an above- average education to him, going beyond the content of the Christian tradition.191 He could pro t from the cultural ambience in Hierapolis like Antipa- ter a generation later, who was to count as one of the most prominent representatives of the Second Sophistic.192

6.2.5. Against the Jews When Apollinarius wrote against the Jews, many respected citizens of his native city could feel aggrieved:193 they were far better integrated into the community than most Christians. The bishop had to take this potential for conict into account. Perhaps for this reason, he struck a more conciliatory tone in his two books “Against the Jews,” especially in its title, which— like the title of his work addressed to the Hellenes—reads Πρὸς ᾽Ιουδαίους rather than Κατὰ ᾽Ιουδαίων. As already pointed out, the Jews in Hierapolis constituted a clearly recognizable group in public life. Despite their special religious status, they did not isolate themselves and to a certain extent participated in the cultural activities of the Greeks.194

The assimilation of Jews into urban society will be illustrated here on the basis of two sepulchral inscriptions, one pagan, the other Jewish. They are found on sarcophagi from the north necropolis of Hierapolis and were made around the time of Apollinarius. The inscription on the pagan sarcophagus reads: This sarcophagus and the base beneath it belong to Zeuxiane, the daughter of Theophilos. She will be buried in it herself and Aelius Kalliparthenos, her husband. No one else is permitted to bury anyone else in it. Otherwise whoever contravenes this provision shall pay 500 denarii to the scus and the

190 Huttner 2011, p. 280. 191 Thdt. Haer. 3.2 (PG 83, 404B): “Against them [= the Montanists] Apollinarius wrote, the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, a commendable man, who apart from his knowledge of divine matters acquired learning from without as well.”—Κατὰ τούτων συνέγραφεν ᾽Απολ- λινάριος, ὁ τῆς κατὰ Φρυγίαν ἱερᾶς πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος γεγονώς, ἀνὴρ ἀξιέπαινος, καὶ πρὸς τῇ γνῶσει τῶν θείων καὶ τὴν ἔξωθεν παιδείαν προσειληφώς. 192 On Antipater of Hierapolis, see Ritti 1988. Henderson 2010, pp. 168–181 attempts to interpret Melito’s Peri Pascha (see pp. 250f. below) in the context of the Second Sophistic. The rhetorician Menander of Laodicea (3rd cent.) also deserves a place in this local tradition; on his life and work, see Sofel 1974, pp. 90–103. 193 As a rule, the anti-Jewish works of the early Christians were written in regions with a large Jewish population. Cf. Carleton Paget 1997, pp. 220–223 (discussing Melito as well). 194 See pp. 75–79 above. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 245

individual who makes the complaint shall [likewise] receive 500 denarii. A copy has been deposited in the archives.195 The Jewish equivalent on another sarcophagus reads as follows: This sarcophagus and the place around it belong to Tatianos, the son of Neikanor, grandson of Meniskos, a Jew. Tatianos lies buried in it, the [actual] father of the aforementioned Tatianos; Tatianos will also be buried in it and his wife ..-antyche and his future children. But if another is buried, he shall pay 1000 denarii to the treasury (= scus) and 100 denarii to whoever brings complaint. A copy is in the archives.196 The two inscriptions difer only in detail, not in the general ductus of the formulary.197 Zeuxiane and Tatianos shared a single concern: to identify their burial site and protect it from encroachment, and they used the same means to pursue this concern. Both cooperated with the municipal archives, both counted on the support of their fellow citizens, and both made provision for the emperor’s treasury within the framework of their private interests.

Adolf von Harnack doubted that Apollinarius composed two books Πρὸς ᾽Ιουδαίους, since that title is not present in a portion of the Eusebian tradition.198 But text-critical studies of the text of Eusebius by Eduard Schwartz have shown that the grounds for Harnack’s reservations are not really cogent.199 Miltiades, a contemporary of Apollinarius who probably also belongs in the same geographical context, likewise composed two books entitled Πρὸς ᾽Ιουδαίους.200 It is true that the sources relating to Miltiades are scanty,

195 Judeich 1898, no. 100: ἡ σορὸς καὶ ὁ ὑποκείµενος βωµὸς Ζευξιανῆ[ς] Θεοφίλου, ἐν ᾗ κηδευθή- σεται αὐτὴ καὶ Αἴλιος Κα ιπάρθενος ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς· οὐδενὶ δὲ ἑτέρῳ ἐξέσται ἄ ον ἐν αὐτῇ κηδεῦσαι· εἰ δὲ µ[ή], ὃς ἂν παρὰ ταῦτα ποιήσῃ, ἀποδώσει τῷ φίσκῳ δηνά[ρι]α πεντακόσια, καὶ ὁ ἐκδικήσας λήψεται δηνάρια πεντακόσια. τούτου ἀντίγραφον ἀπετέθη εἰς˙ τὰ˙ ἀρχεῖα. The name Aelius shows that the inscription cannot date from before Hadrian. 196 Miranda 1999, p. 127 no. 18 = Ameling 2004, pp. 408f. no. 192: ἡ σορὸς καὶ ὁ περὶ αὐτὴν τόπος Τατιανοῦ τοῦ Νει[κ]άνορο[ς] τοῦ Μενίσκου ᾽Ιουδαίου, ἐν ᾗ κεκήδευται Τατιανός, ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ προδηλουµένου Τατιανοῦ, κηδευθήσεται δὲ ἐν αὐτῇ ὁ Τατιανὸς καὶ hἡ γiυνὴ αὐτοῦ [..]ΑΝΤΥΧΗ καὶ τὰ ἑσοµένα αὐτοῦ παιδία· εἰ δέ τις ἕτερος κηδευθῇ, θήσει εἰς τὸ ταµῖον (δηνάρια),α καὶ τῷ µηνύhσαiντι (δηνάρια) ρ ᾽. τούτου ἀντίγραφον ἐν τῷ ἀρχε[ίῳ]. The absence of an Aurelian name means that the inscription antedates the Constitutio Antoniniana. 197 On the basic structure of this formulary, see Ritti 2004, pp. 466–468. 198 Harnack 21958, p. 244. Kinzig 2000, p. 169, n. 92 also expresses doubts for the same reason, as does Hanig 1998, p. 41. For the text of the catalog of Apollinarius’s works, see p. 238, n. 153 above. 199 In Schwartz / Mommsen 1909, p. LXI (evaluation of the manuscripts) and CXXIX. 200 This is clear from Eus. H.e. 5.17.5. Eusebius reports that besides his work against the Montanists Miltiades bore witness to his commitment to the word of God, in part in his works against the Hellenes and against the Jews, to each of which he devoted two συ ράµµατα:… Μιλτιάδης καὶ ἄ ας ἡµῖν τῆς ἰδίας περὶ τὰ θεῖα λόγια σπουδῆς µνήµας καταλέλοιπεν ἔν τε οἷς πρὸς 246 chapter six but the identical titles of their works lead us to conclude a connection with Apollinarius.201 Although Apollinarius may even have been the rst to use the lapidary title Πρὸς ᾽Ιουδαίους for a polemic against the Jews, he was able to draw on earlier models in the substance of his polemic.202 The Epistle of Barnabas, which probably dates from the principate of Hadrian, claims the Jewish tradition in its entirety for Christ, arguing that the Jews themselves simply misunderstand this tradition. God disapproves the Jewish rituals; he attaches no importance to sacri ce and Sabbath; the ritual laws are to be understood spiritually rather than literally.203 A few decades later, Justin pro- ceeded somewhat less rigorously in his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho: he did contrast Jewish error and Christian truth and in some places even accused the Jews of falsifying their own tradition,204 but he nevertheless conceded them a chance to be converted. At the end of the Dialogue, the debaters bid each other a fond farewell.205 The extent to which Apollinarius adopted or modi ed this anti-Jewish polemic must remain unclear; it is likely, however, that he exchanged ideas with his colleague from Sardis, where there was also a substantial Jewish community and where the largest synagogue in the Diaspora would be built in Late Antiquity.206 In his Paschal Homily, Melito intensi es the reservations of Christians regarding the Jews going back to John: the Jews are isolated and branded as deicides.207 With his treatise Πρὸς ᾽Ιουδαίους, Apollinarius takes his place in a process of Christian emancipation that was soon to reach the Latin West with Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos and a work with the same title by another

῞Ε ηνας συνέταξε λόγοις καὶ τοῖς πρὸς ᾽Ιουδαίους, ἑκατέρᾳ ἰδίως ὑποθέσει ἐν δυσὶν ὑπαντήσας συ ράµµασιν …. 201 Grant 1988, pp. 90f. assumes such a connection. Cf. Grant 1988 a, p. 13. See p. 242, n. 181 above. 202 Cf. Hauses 2007, pp. 61–68. The dominance of stereotypes in this anti-Jewish literature and its dependence on traditional material is emphasized by Taylor 1995, pp. 22–25 and 122– 125. Cf. also Stroumsa 1996, pp. 20–24. 203 For example Barn. 2.4–6; see Schreckenberg 41999, pp. 174–178; Prostmeier 2002, pp. 46– 52; Prostmeier 2009, pp. 53–56. 204 Just. Dial. 68.8. 205 Just. Dial. 142. Cf. Wilson 1995, pp. 258–284; Schreckenberg 41999, pp. 182–200; Hauses 2007, pp. 65–68. 206 Ameling 2004, pp. 224–232; Wilson 2010, pp. 304–306. A bridge between the late Hel- lenistic documentation in Josephus and the archaeological evidence of Late Antiquity is constructed by Wischmeyer 2007, pp. 95–103. 207 Mel. Pass. 87–99; Wilson 1995, p. 244; Schreckenberg 41999, p. 203; see Stewart-Sykes 2001, pp. 25–27; also Huttner 2011, pp. 279f.; see also p. 251 below. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 247 author, identi ed erroneously with Cyprian in a few manuscripts.208 From the outset, the Christian spokesmen moved along a knife edge between a r- mation of the Jewish tradition and dissociation from their Jewish rivals; the desire of the Christian churches to assert their own identity engaged constantly in a search for the Christians’ own roots.209 What points Apollinarius emphasized in his work—vilifying Jewish ritual or Christian appropriation and reinterpretation of Jewish tradition—is as obscure as the answer to the question how the bishop charted the boundaries between the two religious communities. Among the Christians of the region, there was a powerful movement bent on preserving the Jewish rituals, as witness the decrees of the Synod of Laodicea as late as the 4th century, which forbade observing the Sabbath and eating unleavened bread.210

How difuse the light is that blurs the lines between Christians and Jews on the fringes of the cultic communities in the time of Apollinarius is illustrated by a sand- stone sarcophagus already mentioned, found a few kilometers from the excavations in Laodicea.211 The inscription on the front of the sarcophagus reads as follows: Lucius Nonius Glykon purchased this sarcophagus. After the burial of Glykon, no one else must be buried. But if someone has [the sarcophagus] opened to bury someone else or if he obliterates the inscription, the curses written in Deuteronomy will overtake him.212 As his triple name indicates, Lucius Nonius Glykon was a Roman citizen and hence moved in the “better circles” of Laodicea. The ductus of the inscription once again reects the standards of the 2nd and 3rd centuries; the precautions against misuse of the sarcophagus are also typical, but no ne is imposed, as in numerous other cases; instead the ofender is cursed. There are several pagan equivalents in the vicinity of Hierapolis: whoever defaces the rules on the tomb of Publius Aelius Apollinarios Makedon of Hierapolis will have no friends for the rest of his life, will

208 Tertullian is the most prominent representative in the early Latin West. Cf. Hauses 2007, p. 42f., with a date around 200. The work with the same title by Pseudo-Cyprian is likely even earlier. If we follow the analysis by van Damme 1969, pp. 87–89 (date soon after 175), it could even be contemporary with the work of Apollinarius. Cf. also Schreckenberg 41999, p. 237. 209 Cf. Freeman 2009, pp. 132–141, who also discusses Melito of Sardis in his chapter “Open Borders: the Overlapping Worlds of Christians and Jews.” 210 CLaod. Can. 29 and 38; see pp. 298f. below. The close ties between the anti-Jewish literature of Christians and the Judaizing groups among Christian is also emphasized by Carleton Paget 1997, pp. 208–211. 211 See p. 78 above. 212 Corsten 1997, pp. 192–193 no. 111 = Ameling 2004, pp. 446–447 no. 213 = Guizzi / Miranda 2004, pp. 642f. no. 12 = Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 294–297 no. 197: Τὴν σορὸν Λούκιος Νόνειος Γλύκων ὠνήσατο. µετὰ δὲ κηδευθῆναι τὸν Γλύκωνα µὴ ἐξέστω τινι ἄλῳ κηδευθῆναι. εἰ δέ τις ἀνύξει καὶ κηδεύσει τινα ἢ ἐκχαράξει τὰ γεγραµµένα, εἶναι{ν} αὐτῷ τὰς ἀρὰς τὰς γεγραµµένας ἐν τῷ ∆ευτερονοµίῳ. 248 chapter six remain childless and homeless, and will sufer untold agonies, and nally after death sufer the vengeance of the gods of the underworld.213 The curse in the inscription of L. Nonius Glykon, however, draws explicitly on a Jewish tradition recorded in Deuteronomy, where Moses threatens the chosen people with a long series of curses if they do not observe the commandments of the Lord: disaster, disease, crop failure, and every possible catastrophe will befall the Jews.214 God will not even allow proper burial of the dead: “Your corpses shall be food for all the birds of the sky and all the animals of the land, and no one will frighten them away.”215 So far this is the only sepulchral inscription from the Lycus Valley that refers explicitly to Deuteronomy, but three epitaphs from Acmoneia a good 100 kilometers to the northeast do so; two of them can be dated in the 240s from the speci cation of the era.216 Given the clear presence of Jews, evidenced in 1st-century Acmoneia even by the existence of a synagogue,217 there is naturally some reason to ascribe these inscriptions to Jewish families.218 It is true, though, that there is no explicit reference on these tombstones to the religious identity of the persons buried, whereas in the case of the Jewish tombs in Hierapolis it is very rare for there to be no corresponding identi cation; as a rule, the owner of the tomb is called ᾽Ιουδαῖος.219 In any case, it would be wrong to assign L. Nonius Glykon automatically to the Jewish community; ultimately all we can conclude from the inscription on his tomb is that he was familiar with Jewish tradition. How active the curses in Deuteronomy were in the Christian tradition is shown by quotations from Galatians.220 In addition the epigraphic material contains evidence that Christians generally sought to protect their tombs through curses.221 Possibly Nonius Glykon hesitated to place a clearer confession of Christianity on his tombstone to spare his family from

213 Judeich 1898, no. 339. Strubbe 1997, pp. 192–196 cites a further example from Hierapolis (Judeich no. 155) and two more from the region to the north (MAMA IV, no. 310; Ramsay 1886, p. 23). 214 Deut 28:16–44. 215 Deut 28:26 (following Luther’s translation). 216 Ameling 2004, pp. 362–370 nos. 172–174; see Trebilco 1991, pp. 60–69; also van der Horst 1991, pp. 56f. 217 Ameling 2004, pp. 348–355 no. 168. 218 As argued also by A. Angerstorfer in Dresken-Weiland / Angerstorfer / Merkt 2012, pp. 308–313. With a similar argument regarding the examples from Acmoneia, cf. Strubbe 1997, p. 160. Cf. also Corsten 1997, p. 193, on the inscription of L. Nonius Glykon: “Die vor- liegende Inschrift ist das bisher einzige sichere epigraphische Zeugnis für Juden in Laodikeia …” 219 Cf. Miranda 1999, pp. 133–136; also Ilan 2006, pp. 72–74. For an example, see p. 245 above. The inscription Miranda 1999, pp. 131f. no. 23 = Ameling 2004, pp. 414–422 no. 196 is a special case: see pp. 251–253 below. 220 Gal 3:10 (Deut 27:26); 3:13 (Deut 21:23). Horsley 1981, p. 101 calls attention to this circumstance in connection with the inscriptions from Acmoneia. Generally speaking, Deuteron- omy is among the Old Testament scriptures drawn on particularly intensively in the New Testament. Cf. Hengel / Deines 2002, pp. 106f. 221 Huttner 2012, p. 27; see also pp. 365f. below. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 249 reprisals: after all, there is evidence of a martyr from Laodicea during the reign of Marcus Aurelius.222 The tombstone of Nonius Glykon is a parade example of how di cult it was to de ne the line separating Jews and Christians in the eyes of out- siders223 and how cautious we must be in using a categorization that suggests rigid schematisms.

6.2.6. On the Paschal Feast Apollinarius also dealt with the distinction between Jewish and Christian religion in his treatise of the Paschal feast. Two fragments of that work, which may originally have been part of his Πρὸς ᾽Ιουδαίους, are preserved in the 7th-century Chronicon Paschale.224 One of Apollinarius’s concerns was counter the view of his rivals that Jesus celebrated Passover according to Jewish practice shortly before his death and ate the Passover lamb.225 The disagreement goes back to the Synoptic Gospels, where the Last Supper is identi ed with the Passover meal, while there is no trace of such an identi cation either in the institution narrative in 1Corinthians or in the Gospel of John.226 Though Apollinarius was able to separate Jesus from the ritual tradition of Judaism in this way, he sought at the same time to link up with that tradition by supporting Nisan 14 as the date for the Christian Easter feast, as is clear from the second fragment.227

222 On Sagaris see pp. 334f. below. 223 And in the end it is impossible to rule out a pagan context for Nonius Glykon entirely: cf. Ameling 2004, p. 367 (on Acmoneia). For a general treatment of the reception of the Septuagint in pagan culture, see Rajak 2009, pp. 258–277. 224 For further discussion, see Huttner 2011, pp. 272–281; also regarding what follows. 225 PG 5, 1297 A: “Now there are some who argue out of ignorance and hence become involved in a pardonable mistake; ignorance does not incur blame but requires instruction. And they say that on the 14th [day] the Lord ate the lamb together with his disciples and that he also sufered on the great day of unleavened bread. And they say that Matthew told it as they understood it. Therefore their understanding is contrary to the Law, and in their eyes there seems to be no unanimity in the gospels.”—Εἰσὶ τοίνυν οἳ δι’ ἄγνοιαν φιλονεικοῦσι περὶ τούτων, συ νωστὸν πρᾶγµα πεπονθότες· ἄγνοια γὰρ οὐ κατηγορίαν ἀναδέχεται, ἀ ὰ διδαχῆς προσδεῖται· καὶ λέγουσιν ὅτι τῇ ιδ’ τὸ πρόβατον µετὰ τῶν µαθητῶν ἔφαγεν ὁ Κύριος· τῇ δὲ µεγάλῃ ἡµέρᾳ τῶν ᾽Αζύµων αὐτὸς ἔπαθεν· καὶ διηγοῦνται Ματθαῖον οὕτω λέγειν ὡς νενοήκασιν· ὅθεν ἀσύµφωνος τε νόµῳ ἡ νόησις αὐτῶν· καὶ στασιάζειν δοκεῖ κατ’ αὐτοὺς τὰ Εὐα έλια.—The introductory leniency shown to the clueless appears in very similar form in Jul. Ep. 61c, 424 B (Weis 1973, Ep. 55). 226 Cf. auf der Maur 2003, pp. 37f. On the Gospel of John, see Felsch 2011, p. 257. 227 PG 5, 1297 A–1300 A: “The 14th [day], the true Paschal feast of the Lord, the great sacri cial feast, the Son of God in place of the lamb, the one bound who bound the strong one and who was condemned, the judge of the living and the dead; and who was delivered into the hands of sinners to be cruci ed, who was raised upon the horns of the wild unicorn [or: bull], whose holy side was pierced, who from his side poured forth the double puri cation, water 250 chapter six

The bishop thus also took a position in the debate of the correct date of Easter, which brought the churches of the province of Asia into conict during the second half of the 2nd century, especially with the bishop of Rome. The bishops of Asia Minor argued for celebrating Easter on Nisan 14 (“Quar- todecimans”), the traditional date of the Jewish Passover festival, while in other parts of the Greek East and in the Latin West the Sunday following Nisan 14 was favored.228 But the opponents attacked by Apollinarius in the rst fragment were Quartodecimans as well, so that it is reasonable to conclude that among the Quartodecimans of Asia Minor there were other disputes about the content and ritual of the Easter feast besides disagreement with the supporters of Sunday observance. This scenario of conict is con rmed in a comment made by Melito of Sardis in his two books OnthePaschalFeast, cited by Eusebius: “When Servil- ius Paulus was proconsul of Asia and Sagaris sufered martyrdom, there arose a great conict in Laodicea over the Paschal feast, which took place in those days, and the present work was written down.”229 Melito himself championed the position of the Quartodecimans and even before the end of the century was counted as one of their most important authorities by Polycrates of Ephesus;230 in the proem, he associates a ζήτησις with his work, which unfortunately cannot be dated more precisely on the basis of Euse- bius. There is no other record of a proconsul of Asia named Servilius Paulus, but the episcopate of the Roman bishop Soter (166–174?) establishes the chronological context of the church historian.231 Neither can the context of that ζήτησις be de ned; the spokesmen are not named. It is reasonable to conjecture that Laodicea was the gathering place of various church dignitaries from near and far and was the site of a heated debate, but the organizational structures of the church in Asia Minor appears not yet to have developed to the stage where this gathering could be included among the

and blood, word [Logos] and spirit. And he was buried on the day of the Paschal feast, and the stone was placed over the tomb.”—῾Η ιδ ᾽, τὸ ἀληθινὸν τοῦ Κυρίου Πάσχα, ἡ θυσία ἡ µεγάλη, ὁ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀµνοῦ Παῖς Θεοῦ, ὁ δεθείς, ὁ δήσας τὸν ἰσχυρόν, καὶ ὁ κριθεὶς κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν· καὶ ὁ παραδοθεὶς εἰς χεῖρας ἁµαρτωλῶν, ἵνα σταυρωθῇ, ὁ ὑψωθεὶς ἐπὶ κεράτων µονοκέρωτος, καὶ ὁ τὴν ἁγίαν πλευρὰν ἐκκεντηθείς, ὁ ἐκχέας ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς αὐτοῦ τὰ δύο πάλιν καθαρσία, ὕδωρ καὶ αἷµα, λόγον καὶ πνεῦµα· καὶ ὁ ταφεὶς ἐν ἡµέρᾳ τῇ τοῦ Πάσχα, ἐπιτεθέντος τῷ µνήµατι τοῦ λίθου. 228 For further discussion, see Fischer / Lumpe 1997, pp. 60–87. 229 Eus. H.e. 4.26.3: ᾽Επὶ Σερουι ίου Παύλου ἀνθυπάτου τῆς ᾽Ασίας, ᾧ Σάγαρις καιρῷ ἐµαρτύ- ρησεν, ἐγένετο ζήτησις πο ὴ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ περὶ τοῦ πάσχα ἐµπεσόντος κατὰ καιρὸν ἐν ἐκεῖναις ταῖς ἡµέραις, καὶ ἐγράφη ταῦτα. On Sagaris see pp. 334f. below. 230 Eus. H.e. 5.24.5. 231 On the questions regarding these dates, see Huttner 2011, pp. 278f. Cf. p. 334 below. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 251 synods. In addition Sagaris, the bishop of Laodicea, had just lost his life,232 so that there was no immediate authority present to convene a synod.233 Whatever course was taken by that ζήτησις in Laodicea, there is much to suggest that it ofered not only the bishop of Sardis but also the bishop of neighboring Hierapolis an opportunity to deal with the controversial problem in writing. There are also additional similarities in the literary output of Melito and Apollinarius; personal contacts between the two are likely, as well as an exchange of ideas. Apart from the introductory quotation, Melito’s two books On the Paschal Feast have been lost, but a hymnic homily on the same theme has been preserved, in which Melito walks a ne line: on the one hand, he underlines the ties of the Christian Easter feast to the Jew- ish Passover, thus making his Quartodeciman position clear; at the same time, he distances himself from the Jews to such an extent that in repeated acclamations he complains bitterly of Israel’s ingratitude and Jewish deicide (87–99).234 Given the fragmentary state of the tradition, it remains unclear whether in his Περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα Apollinarius let himself be carried away in voicing caustic attacks on the Jews like those of Melito, but the second fragment includes not only stylistic parallels to Melito’s homily but also literal echoes.235

In both fragments of Apollinarius, the celebration of Passover/Easter on 14 Nissan is discussed. In the calendar of the Greek cities of Asia Minor, this date is an anomaly, not least because it was not based on the solar year of the Greeks and Romans but was determined by the Jews on the basis of lunar calculations. This meant that the Jewish Passover shifted back and forth within the solar calendar of the province of Asia. The epigraphic material from Hierapolis shows, however, that it was by no means just the Jews and the Christians familiar with Jewish practice who were confronted with the problem. On the eastern slope above the city stood the travertine sarcophagus of P. Aelius Glykon and his family. At the end of its inscription, which dates from the rst decades of the 3rd century,236 and in which he asserted his legal claim to the burial place, Glykon placed a stipulation intended to assure long-term care for the sepulcher:

232 Called a bishop in Eus. H.e. 5.24.5. 233 As also argued by Fischer 1976, pp. 20f. and Fischer / Lumpe 1997, p. 66. 234 Standard edition Perler 1966; cf. Stewart-Sykes 2001 (English translation). For further discussion, see Huttner 2011, pp. 279f. Cf. also Kraabel 1992 (1971); MacLennan 1992; Satran 1996, pp. 51–55; Gerlach 1998, pp. 61–78; Knapp 2000, pp. 344–353; Leonhard 2006, pp. 42–55; Henderson 2010, pp. 168–181. 235 Cf. Huttner 2011, p. 280. 236 The wife of P. Aelius Glykon was named Aurelia Amia, and hence probably was granted Roman citizenship following the Constitutio Antoniniana of 212. 252 chapter six

And he left to the most reverend directorate of the purple-dyers 200 denarii as wreath money, so as to give each a portion from the interest in the seventh month, on the feast of unleavened bread. Likewise he left to the guild of tapestry weavers [?] 150 denarii as wreath money, from the interest on which they shall meet the expenses by dividing it into equal portions, one half on the feast of the kalends in the fourth month on the eighth day, the other half on the feast of the 50th day [Pentecost]. A copy of this inscription has been deposited in the archives.237 As was not uncommon in Hierapolis,238 the stephanotikon (“wreath money”) that Glykon left to the crafts guilds to be administered as endowment capital constituted the nancial basis to pay for the decoration of the tomb. Glykon speci ed three dates in each year on which the interest was to be paid to the survivors: in chronological order, the kalends of January, i.e. the Roman New Year’s Day,239 the Feast of Unleavened Bread, i.e. Passover, and nally Pentecost. Only the rst date is de ned precisely in the inscription and set in the calendar used in the province of Asia, which began the year on the birthday of the emperor Augustus, September 23. The other two dates, Passover and Pentecost 50 days later, remained unde ned because they could not be xed in the solar calendar.240 Nevertheless nancial o cers of the purple-dyers and the tapestry weavers had to act on the correct dates, although it would be wrong to assume that they were members of either the Jewish or the Christian community.241 Intercultural communication appears to have functioned so smoothly that there were no problems.242 Even though the inscription does not say so explicitly, Glykon was probably a member of the Jewish community of Hierapolis,243 which is documented by numerous other sepulchral inscriptions of the high imperial period. It is true that W.M.Ramsay made a case for placing Glykon in a Christian context, especially since the feasts mentioned in the text also shaped the Christian ritual.244 But this view

237 Miranda 1999, p. 131 no. 23 = Ameling 2004, pp. 414–416 no. 196; also Ritti 2006, pp. 127f. no. 26: … κατέλιψεν δὲ [κα]ὶ τῇ σεµνοτάτῃ προεδρίᾳ τῶν πορφυραβάφων στεφανωτικο[ῦ] (δηνάρια) διακόσια πρὸς τὸ δίδοσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν τόκων ἑκάστῳ τὸ αἱροῦν µη(νὸς) ζ’ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ τῶν ἀζύµων· ὁµοίως κατέλιπεν καὶ τῷ συνεδρίῳ τῶν ἀκαιροδhαiπισhτiῶν στεφανωτικοῦ (δηνάρια) ἑκα- τὸν πεντήκοντα ἅτινα καὶ αὐτοὶ δώσουσι ἐκ τοῦ τόκου διαµερίσαντες τὸ ἥµισυ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ τῶν καλανδῶν, µη(νὸς) δ ᾽, η ᾽, καὶ τὸ ἥµισυ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ πεντηκοστῆς· ταύτης τῆς ἐπιγραφῆς τὸ ἀν- τίγραφον ἀπεhτέiθη ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις. On questions of historical detail, see also Huttner 2011, pp. 282–287. 238 There are 10 occurrences in the epigraphic index of Judeich 1898, p. 198; see p. 146 above. 239 Herz 2003, p. 49 points out that January 1 was also observed as a holiday in Asia and Egypt, even though it did not begin the year in these provinces. 240 On this problem, see Stern 2002. 241 Cf. the rationale in Huttner 2011, p. 288. On the question, see Ritti 1992/1993, pp. 63–68; Ameling 2009, p. 213, with the comment that there is no evidence for membership of Jews in such associations. Rajak 2002, p. 34 assumes instead that the trade associations were Jewish. 242 This circumstance is also emphasized by Leonhard 2006, p. 54. 243 Vigorously argued by Schürer / Vermes / Millar / Goodman III, 12 1986, p. 27. 244 Ramsay 1897, p. 545. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 253 seems problematic— rst because the presence of Christians in Hierapolis before the Constantinian shift appears to have left scarcely any traces in the epigraphic material,245 and also because in the earliest sources the Christian Pentecost is clearly de ned not as the 50th day but as a period of 50 days after Easter.246 The question remains, however, whether Glykon and his provisions for his sepulcher can really be captured within the categories of conventional religious history: in a region where Christians were reminded repeatedly of their ties to Jewish tradition247 and where a largely frictionless symbiosis of Jews and Greeks is apparent, Glykon could also be assigned to the group of Greeks who were especially sympathetic to Judaism248 or the group of Christians with a special need for accommodation in light of their sometimes threatening environment.

6.2.7. On Truth The debate with the Jews shows how confusing the front lines could be behind which Apollinarius sought to establish his position. The ambitious title of another work, also divided into two books, suggests a clear fundamental position: Περὶ ἀληθείας. Here the course set by Apollinarius inter- sects once more with that of Melito of Sardis, whose catalog of works also includes the title Περὶ ἀληθείας. Unfortunately the tradition of this catalog, which appears in the manuscripts of Eusebius, has been partially distorted by corruptions; possibly, therefore, we are not dealing with an independent title but the second part of a compound title, so that Melito’s work might have been called Περὶ λουτροῦ καὶ ἀληθείας, On Baptism and Truth.249 The tradition of works On Truth goes back to the Athenian Sophists of the late 5th century bce, of whom Protagoras and Antiphon appear to have been

245 See pp. 247–249 above. The categorization of L. Nonius Glykon presents similar problems. See also pp. 335–340 below. 246 Cf. Leonhard 2006, pp. 159–188. A key passage is Tert. Bapt. 19.2, where Pentecoste is explicitly called a spatium. The period was broken up by the feast of µεσοπεντεκοστή, rst attested in the work of Amphilochius of Iconium in the 4th century. Cf. Holl 1904, pp. 105– 107. 247 See also pp. 298f. below. 248 This possibility has been brought up repeatedly in connection with the inscription. See for example Ritti 1992/1993, pp. 61–63; Ameling 2004, p. 422; or Ritti 2006, p. 129: Glykon might be assigned to the category of θεοσεβεῖς. On the methodology of using inscriptions of this sort as evidence for the history of the θεοσεβεῖς / god-fearers, see Wander 1998, pp. 132–137. 249 Eus. H.e. 4.26.2: … καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ὁ Περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώµατος ηνενοισ καὶ ὁ Περὶ λουτροῦ καὶ περὶ ἀληθείας καὶ περὶ πίστεως … . Some manuscripts read: Περὶ λουτροῦ καὶ ἀληθείας. See the critical apparatus in Schwartz / Mommsen / Winkelmann 21999, p. 382. Harnack 21958, pp. 247f. cites a fragment from Περὶ λουτροῦ and separates it from Περὶ ἀληθείας. Grant 1950, p. 33 lists On Truth also among the independent works of Melito. On the fragment from Περὶ λουτροῦ, see Hall 1979, pp. XIV and 70–73. In the manuscript tradition, the excerpt has the title Μελίτωνος ἐπισκόπου Σάρδεων Περὶ λουτροῦ. 254 chapter six the rst.250 The latter had published two books under this title251 and thus could have provided Apollinarius of Hierapolis a formal precedent. A few scanty fragments have survived: the largest, on a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus, talks about the author’s typically Sophist view of the discrepancy between human nature and human laws as well as between truth and justice.252 Plato viewed truth as being located in the soul;253 he would bring it into harmony once more with the interests and goals as well as the ethos of human beings,254 but the concept of truth continued to be under close scrutiny: the skeptic Carneades (c. 150bce), for example, questioned all criteria of truth, maintaing that truth is ultimately inaccessible to human beings.255 The grounding of ἀλήθεια in God appears already in the Septuagint, for example when Psalm 39[40]:12 (Eng. 40:11) says: “But you, O Lord, will not withhold your mercy from me; your steadfast love and your truth have constantly accepted me.”256 Here “truth” takes on a nuance from Hebrew, describing the fundamental principle of God’s treatment of his chosen people: an indissoluble bond of loyalty.257 The word acquired a new dimension through the identi cation of Jesus with truth in the Gospel of John, where Jesus seeks to assuage the doubts of the anxious apostles with the words “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”258 As we would expect, ἀλήθεια played an important role in the theoretical debates of the early Christians with their tradition. A survey of the works of Irenaeus against heresies reveals the eforts of both the Gnos- tics and the author to accommodate the term to their views of God and the world.259 For both Jews and Christians, a speci cally religious claim was fundamentally associated with the concept of truth, a claim unparalleled in the ancient world.260

250 On Protagoras see Pl. Tht. 161c. On Antiphon see the following. According to D.L. 2.124, Simmias of Thebes, a contemporary of Socrates, is said to have left a dialogue with the title Περὶ ἀληθείας. 251 See the fragments DK 87 [80] B 1–44. The exact title was ᾽Αλήθεια, not Περὶ ἀληθείας. Cf. B. Kerferd and H. Flashar in Flashar 1998, pp. 69–80 (p. 72 on the title of the work). 252 DK 87 [80] F 44. See the detailed commentary by Heinimann 1987 (1945), pp. 133–142. 253 Cf. Reale 1996, pp. 78f. 254 E.g. Pl. Phlb. 65a; cf. Szaif 1996, pp. 152–163. 255 Cf. Ricken 1994, pp. 55–59. 256 Ps 39 [40]:12: σὺ δέ, κύριε, µὴ µακρύνῃς τοὺς οἰκτιρµούς σου ἀπ’ ἐµοῦ· τὸ ἔλεός σου καὶ ἡ ἀλήθειά σου διὰ παντὸς ἀντελάβοντό µου. 257 Cf. Bultmann 1933, pp. 242f.; Beutler 32001, cols. 933f. 258 John 14:6: ἐγώ εἰµι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ µὴ δι’ ἐµοῦ. Cf. Bultmann 1933, pp. 247f.; Ibuki 1972, pp. 208–230; Böhm 2006, pp. 54f. 259 Cf. Osborn 2001, pp. 108f. and 237–239. 260 Cf. Stroumsa 2011, pp. 31f. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 255

How Melito and Apollinarius approached the concept of truth and to what extent philosophical and religious tradition played a role in their reections remains obscure.261 Contemporary controversies between Chris- tians and pagans reected in the polemic of Celsus against the Christians may at least have had some inuence. Celsus wrote his attack just when Apollinarius was bishop of Hierapolis.262 Whether the bishop was familiar with the author and his work is unclear, especially since Celsus was probably writing in Alexandria. His polemic, to which Origen was to reply in eight books during the principate of Philip the Arab, thus making it possible to reconstruct the lost work, bore the title ᾽Αληθὴς λόγος.263 Celsus borrowed the concept of the “true word” from the Platonic tradition264 to bathe the traditional doctrine of gods and religion, which he claimed had been falsi ed by Jews and Christians, in the light of philosophy. In his response, Origen referred often to the concept of “truth,” contrasting divine truth to the inadequate truth of Celsus:265 only someone who has internalized the Christian message has the greatness necessary to prove himself ready to ght “for truth.”266 The conict between Origen and Celsus is part of the same debate to which Apollinarius responded with his Περὶ ἀληθείας. Given the claim to truth of traditional philosophy, he was concerned to demonstrate the prior- ity of divine ἀλήθεια. Besides the debate with a truth grounded in philosophy, Apollinarius might also have entered into the conict with heretics such as the Montanists. In any case, it is striking that Eusebius pointedly describes the role of Apollinarius in the conict with the Montanists as a battle on behalf of truth: he positioned himself on the side of the power “that contends for the truth.”267

261 Here see also the investigations of Klibengajtis 2004 into the complex concept of truth in the works of Clement of Alexandria. 262 Some evidence supports dating Celsus’s work toward 180; cf. Grant 1988, p. 136 and Lona 2005, pp. 54f. 263 Eus. H.e. 6.36.2. 264 See Wifstrand 1942, pp. 6–11. On the Platonism of Celsus, see Lona 2005, pp. 42–50. 265 Cf. Fédou 1988, pp. 567–570. 266 Orig. Cels. 1.62: “Therefore those who hear the word proclaimed with power are lled with power, which they manifest by their conduct throughout their lives and ‘by contending for truth until death.’” ∆ιὰ τοῦτο δυνάµεως µὲν πληροῦνται οἱ λόγου τοῦ µετὰ δυνάµεως ἀπα ελ- λοµένου ἀκούοντες, ἣν ἐπιδείκνυνται τῇ τε διαθέσει καὶ τῷ βίῳ καὶ τῷ “ἕως θανάτου ἀγωνίζεσθαι περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας.” Quotation from Sir 4:28. 267 Eus. H.e. 5.16.1: … ἡ τῆς ἀληθείας ὑπέρµαχος ἀνίστη δύναµις. For the quotation in context, see p. 258 below. 256 chapter six

6.2.8. Against the Montanists The list of Apollinarius’s works in Eusebius’s church history presents his attack on the Montanists as his crowning achievement.268 Contemporaries had not yet labeled the heretical group with the name of the Phrygian prophet,269 so that the title of the polemic probably (on the basis of the wording in Eusebius) was Against the Heresy of the Phrygians (Κατὰ τῆς τῶν Φρυ- γῶν αἱρέσεως).270 Apollinarius could also have played a pioneering role with this work: alongside works of Miltiades and possibly also Melito of Sardis, knowledge of which we also owe to Eusebius,271 this is the earliest literary dispute with the Montanists.272 As already discussed,273 this constellation of three authors cannot be analyzed in detail, but their interests appear to have overlapped repeatedly; occasionally they may have been literary rivals. Apollinarius’s polemic found a positive response among sympathizers; it circulated far and wide and was recommended as a model for argument, as is shown by a letter of Serapion, who served as bishop of Antioch in the two decades around 200 (c. 190–211) and convoked a synod to combat the Mon- tanists.274 Eusebius quotes from Serapion’s letter to two otherwise unknown addressees named Caricus and Pontius, in which the bishop emphasizes the importance of Apollinarius in the dispute with the Montanists; this letter was undoubtedly widely read as an episcopal synodal letter. In context Euse- bius’s text reads as follows: Serapion, who is reported at that time to have become bishop of the church of the Antiochenes after Maximinus, mentions the works of Apollinarius against the above-mentioned heresy [the Montanists]. He mentions him in his letter to Caricus and Pontius, in which he himself rebukes that heresy and adds, “But that you may also know that revulsion is felt among all the brethren in the world before the onslaught of this band of falsehood, this so-called new prophecy, I have also sent you writings of Claudius Apolinarius, the bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, who has entered into perfect bliss.”275

268 See p. 238 above. 269 Cf. Marjanen 2008, p. 185. 270 Eus. H.e. 4.27. Cf. also Thdt. Haer. 3.2 (PG 83, 404 B), quoted p. 244, n. 191 above. 271 Eus. H.e. 5.17.1 on Miltiades; see the thorough discussion by Tabbernee 2007, pp. 12– 15. In a textually problematic passage in the catalog of the works of Melito of Sardis, Eus. H.e. 4.26.2 speaks of a λόγος αὐτοῦ προφητείας or λόγος αὐτοῦ περὶ προφητείας. Scholars have often assumed that this is associated with Montanist prophecy: e.g. Röwekamp 1998, p. 436; cautiously Strobel 1980, p. 55 and Tabbernee 2007, pp. 25–27. 272 Cf. Fischer / Lumpe 1997, pp. 30f. 273 See pp. 242 and 245 above. 274 Cf. Fischer / Lumpe 1997, pp. 39–41. 275 Eus. H.e. 5.19.1–2: Τῶν δὲ ᾽Απολιναρίου κατὰ τῆς δηλωθείσης αἱρέσεως µνήµην πεποίηται papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 257

The letter to Caricus and Pontius is also signed by other bishops who took part in the synod, one of them from far-of Deultum in Thrace.276 Serapion’s synodal letter indicates that Apollinarius had recently died,277 from which we can deduce that he died during the reign of Commodus or Septimius Severus (roughly between 180 and 200).278 The conict with the Montanists and the polemic in question contributed considerably to Apollinarius’s reputation after his death as a respected authority in many churches even outside Asia Minor: in the year 362, after the return of Athanasius, a small synod in Alexandria took up (among other things) the question whether Jesus was “ensouled” after his Incarnation;279 Apollinarius of Hierapolis was among the authorities cited to support the synod’s decision.280 It is noteworthy that the name of Apollinarius stands again here alongside that of Serapion of Antioch. It is therefore possible that Apollinarius expressed his views on christological questions in his anti-Montanist work. On the subject of the Montanists, Eusebius cites a work in three books extensively without saying anything about its author. The opening sentence shows that these books were dedicated to a certain Avircius (Aberkios?) Marcellus.281 Since Eusebius had just nished emphasizing the role of Apol- linarius in the campaign against Montanism, Meike Willing once more considers identifying the anonymous author with Apollinarius in her recent

Σεραπίων, ὃν ἐπὶ τῶν δηλουµένων χρόνων µετὰ Μαξιµῖνον ἐπίσκοπον τῆς ᾽Αντιοχέων ἐκκλησίας γενέσθαι κατέχει λόγος· µέµνηται δ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἰδίᾳ ἐπιστολῇ τῇ πρὸς Καρικὸν καὶ Πόντιον, ἐν ᾗ διευθύνων καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν αὐτὴν αἵρεσιν, ἐπιλέγει ταῦτα· “ὅπως δὲ καὶ τοῦτο εἰδῆτε ὅτι τῆς ψευδοῦς ταύτης τάξεως τῆς ἐπικαλουµένης νέας προφητείας ἐβδέλυκται ἡ ἐνέργεια παρὰ πάσῃ τῇ ἐν κόσµῳ ἀδελφότητι, πέποµφα ὑµῖν καὶ Κλαυδίου ᾽Απολιναρίου, τοῦ µακαριωτάτου γενοµένου ἐν ῾Ιεραπόλει τῆς ᾽Ασίας ἐπισκόπου, γράµµατα.” 276 Cf. Eus. H.e. 5.19.3–4. Tabbernee 2007, pp. 20 and 53f. interprets the signatures of the bishops not as belonging to Serapion’s letter but as part of the γράµµατα of Apollinarius, which should itself be interpreted as a kind of synodal letter. 277 This is the only possible interpretation of the statement that Apollinarius had become µακαριώτατος. The adjective µακάριος is one of the typical epithets found in Christian sepulchral inscriptions. Cf. Guarducci 1978, p. 306. 278 Sage 1987, p. 110 thinks of a date c. 190. 279 On the historical context, see Barnes 1993, pp. 155f. 280 Socr. H.e. 3.7.5: “For Irenaeus and Clement and Apolinarius of Hierapolis and Serapion, who presided over the church in Antioch, report in their several works that the Incarnate One had a soul, as though reporting a recognized belief.”—Καὶ γὰρ Εἰρεναῖός τε καὶ Κλήµης, ᾽Απολινάριός τε ὁ ῾Ιεραπολίτης καὶ Σαραπίων ὁ τῆς ἐν ᾽Αντιοχείᾳ προεστὼς ἐκκλησίας ἔµψυ- χον τὸν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα ἐν τοῖς πονηθεῖσιν αὐτοῖς λόγοις ὡς ὁµολογούµενον {αὐτοῖς} φάσκου- σιν. 281 Eus. H.e. 5.16.3–17.4. Cf. Tabbernee 2007, pp. 3–7 and 9–12. The identi cation of Avircius Marcellus with Abercius of Hieropolis, however, appears highly uncertain. 258 chapter six book on Eusebius.282 Ru nus had already adopted this approach in his Latin version of Eusebius’s church history,283 albeit without doing justice to the Greek original. Eusebius’s text reads as follows: Against the so-called Phrygian heresy, the power that contends for the truth raised up Apolinarius, of whom we have already spoken, in Hierapolis, and with him other wise men of ability as a strong and invincible bulwark; abundant material from their writings have survived for us as the basis for a historical work. At the beginning of his work against those people [the Montanists], one of these writers begins by stating that he had also contended against them verbally. In his introduction, he writes as follows …284 Eusebius goes on to quote from the writings of the unnamed author, in which he recounts the activities of Montanus and his supporters. Eusebius’s failure to name the author even though he has just been speaking of Apol- linarius shows his ignorance and makes all attempts to identify the anonymous author appear futile.285 Neither does it appear legitimate to locate the anonymous author in Hierapolis,286 especially since the location obviously refers only to Apollinarius and is also missing in one branch of the tradition.287

282 Willing 2008, pp. 29f. Cf. Hanig 1998, p. 35. Hefele / Leclercq 1907, p. 127 also assumes an identi cation of the anonymous author with Apollinarius. 283 Cf. also Bardenhewer 21913, p. 431. The text of Ru nus (Eus. H.e. GCS n.F. 6.1, 459,25– 463,3, Schwartz / Mommsen / Winkelmann): “Sed adversum haeresim Catafrygarum scutum validissimum protulit Apollinaris Hierapolites, de quo supra memoravimus, aliique quam plurimi ad id locorum eruditissimi viri adversum eos pro veritatis defensione certarunt, qui etiam nobis ad historiae textum monumenta validissima reliquierunt. Interim, ut dix- imus, Apollinaris scribens adversum hanc haeresim et designans in praefatione, quod per ecclesias Galatiae vicinarumque provinciarum digrediens et plurimos ab eis inretitos videns multosque quidem et coram disputando correxerit, rogatus tamen a fratribus etiam haec ad ipsos scripta transmiserit. In quibus post aliquanta, cum auctorem haeresis designasset, pro- grediens etiam haec addit: … .” There follows a word-for-word translation from the text of the anonymous author (Eus H.e. 5.16.6–10). The error inuenced larger circles; on the Synodicon Vetus, see p. 259, n. 289 below. 284 Eus. H.e. 5.16.1–2 (GCS n.F. 6.1, 458,28–460,6 Schwartz / Mommsen / Winkelmann): Πρὸς µὲν οὖν τὴν λεγοµένην κατὰ Φρύγας αἵρεσιν ὅπλον ἰσχυρὸν καὶ ἀκαταγώνιστον ἐπὶ τῆς ῾Ιεραπόλεως τὸν ᾽Απολινάριον, οὗ καὶ πρόσθεν µνήµην ὁ λόγος πεποίητο, ἄ ους τε σὺν αὐτῷ πλείους τῶν τηνικάδε λογίων ἀνδρῶν ἡ τῆς ἀληθείας ὑπέρµαχος ἀνίστη δύναµις. ἐξ ὧν καὶ ἡµῖν ἱστορίας πλείστη τις ὑπόθεσις καταλέλειπται. ἀρχόµενος γοῦν τῆς κατ’ αὐτῶν γραφῆς, τῶν εἰρηµένων δή τις πρῶτον ἐπισηµαίνεται ὡς καὶ ἀγράφοις τοῖς κατ’ αὐτῶν ἐπεξέλθοι ἐλέγχοις· προοιµιάζεται γοῦν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον …. 285 As rightly stated by Hanig 1998, p. 35. 286 The basic position of Willing 2008, p. 29: Eusebius “scheint den Verfasser nicht nament- lich zu kennen, weiß aber wohl, daß das Werk zu Hierapolis verfaßt wurde.” Cf. the attempt of Tabbernee 2007, p. 4 to locate the author in the Phrygian Pentapolis. 287 The words τῆς ἱεραπόλεως τὸν do not appear in one of the Paris manuscripts (B) (cf. the critical apparatus in GCS n.F. 6.1, 458,29 Schwartz / Mommsen / Winkelmann). papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 259

The Libellus Synodicus (also called Synodicon Vetus), which goes back to the 9th century and provides a sketchy schematic account of more than 150 synods,288 adds further detail concerning the active role of Apollinarius in the conict with the Montanists: the bishop is said to have convoked a synod in Hierapolis and had Montanus excommunicated. Before we examine the authenticity of the disputed texts, it should be quoted in extenso: A sacred and holy local synod was assembled in Hierapolis in Asia by Apoli- narius, the most holy bishop there, and 26 other bishops. It pronounced an anathema against Montanus and Maximilla, the false prophets, and excommunicated them. But they ended their lives … blasphemously, possessed by demons. Together with them, it [the synod] also condemned Theodotus the leather-worker.289 The method employed by the author of the Libellus Synodicus makes historical assessment fundamentally di cult, since at several points it ofers demonstrable ctions; although they are based on earlier sources like Euse- bius, they are embellished so as to maximize the number of synods and thus produce a dense, continuous synodal history.290 The Libellus thus transforms all possible meetings and other activities of bishops into regular synods, simulating a degree of ecclesiastical organization that cannot simply be taken for granted for the 2nd century. The gure of Theodotus raises further doubts regarding the authenticity of the anti-Montanist synod recorded in the Libellus. Eusebius does mention a prophet by this name active in Phrygia among the supporters of Montanus,291 but the anti-heretical literature speaks of a leather-worker named Theodotus in a diferent context: Bishop Victor of Rome (c. 189–198) is said to have excommunicated a Theodotus from Byzantium for denying the divinity of Christ.292 Further-

288 On its date, see Dufy / Parker 1978, p. XIII. 289 Synodicon Vetus 5 (Dufy / Parker 1979, p. 6): Σύνοδος θεία καὶ ἱερὰ τοπικὴ ἐν ῾Ιεραπόλει τῆς ᾽Ασίας συναθροισθεῖσα ὑπὸ ᾽Απολιναρίου, τοῦ ταύτης ὁσιωτάτου ἐπισκόπου, καὶ ἑτέρων εἴκοσι καὶ ἓξ ἐπισκόπων, ἀποκηρύξασά τε καὶ ἐκκόψασα Μοντανὸν καὶ Μαξιµί αν τοὺς ψευδοπροφήτας, οἳ καὶ βλασφήµως ἤτοι δαιµονιῶντες, καθώς φησιν ὁ αὐτὸς πατήρ,“τὸν βίον κατέστρεψαν”. Σὺν αὐτοῖς δὲ κατέκρινε καὶ Θεόδοτον τὸν σκυτέα. Cf. also the earlier edition Mansi I, col. 723. The author of the text inserted “as the father himself says,” signalizing a quotation. This quotation comes from the anonymous anti-Montanist author (Eus. H.e. 5.16.13), whom the compiler of the Synodicon Vetus obviously identi es with Apollinarius of Hierapolis (ὁ αὐτὸς πατήρ). 290 Cf. the exemplary analysis of Fischer / Lumpe 1997, pp. 96–104; cf. also Fischer 1977, pp. 241f. 291 Eus. H.e. 5.3.4; 5.16.14 (based on the anonymous anti-Montanist). 292 Eus. H.e. 5.28.6: … ὅτι Βίκτωρ Θεόδοτον τὸν σκυτέα … ἀπεκήρυξεν τῆς κοινωνίας … . On the placement of the passage, see Löhr 1996, pp. 101–105. On Theodotus see already Hipp. Haer. 7.35. 260 chapter six more the author of the Libellus Synodicus generally displays a predilection for that Theodotus, especially seeing that he is said to have been called to account at other 2nd-century synods that turn out to be ctional.293 The arguments against a synod’s having been convoked in Hierapolis appear convincing,294 but of course this does not rule out the possibility that Apolli- narius exchanged views with colleagues in other cities about the Montanist problem. The anonymous anti-Montanist speaks of numerous assemblies in Asia where the Montanists were condemned and excommunicated.295 It is unclear what grounds the Libellus Synodicus had for speaking of exactly 27 bishops attending the synod in Hierapolis. The province of Phrygia Paca- tiana, to which Hierapolis belonged in Late Antiquity, had about 40 episcopal sees.296 Though the administrative structures of the post-Constantinian church do not permit us to arrive at any direct conclusions about the 2nd century, the regional supply of bishops was surely not exhausted with 27. The sacral center of Montanism in the little Phrygian towns of Pepuza and Tymion, where Montanus sought to establish a new Jerusalem,297 has now been roughly localized, thanks to the discovery of an inscription in the museum in Usak¸ containing a fragmentary rescript of the emperor Septi- mius Severus to the coloni of Tymion and Simoe. The inscription comes from the region of Susuzören, a scant 20 kilometers south of Usak.¸ Some- what further to the south, in a canyon-like area on the Banaz, the remains of a Byzantine rock monastery have been discovered, which William Tab- bernee and Peter Lampe have good reason to identify with Pepuza.298 Pepuza therefore was located some 60 kilometers northeast of Hierapolis, beyond the sanctuary of Lairbenos and thus also across the Meander. Though the roads connecting Hierapolis and Pepuza were probably not the best, the inuence spread by the activities of the Phrygian prophets was undoubtedly

293 SynodiconVetus 3, 5, 6, 17, 19 (following the numbering of Dufy / Parker 1979). Cf. Fischer / Lumpe 1997, pp. 36f. and 98f. 294 Cf. Fischer / Lumpe 1997, p. 35: “Man wird die Synode als ein Phantasieprodukt bezeich- nen müssen.” In Huttner 2011, p. 277, n. 30 I still considered the convoking of a synod possible. Hefele / Leclercq 1907, pp. 128–130 also support the historicity of the synod. Mitchell 2005a, p. 210 also considers the synod historical. 295 Eus. H.e. 5.16.10: … τῶν γὰρ κατὰ τὴν ᾽Ασίαν πιστῶν πο άκις καὶ πο αχῇ τῆς ᾽Ασίας εἰς τοῦτο συνελθόντων καὶ τοὺς προσφάτους λόγους ἐξετασάντων καὶ βεβήλους ἀποφηνάντων καὶ ἀποδοκιµασάντων τὴν αἵρεσιν, οὕτω δὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐξεώσθησαν καὶ τῆς κοινωνίας εἴρχθησαν. 296 Van Dam 2011, p. 221. See also pp. 291f below. 297 Eus. H.e. 5.18.2. 298 Tabbernee / Lampe 2008, pp. 49–84 (on the inscription, with a useful outline map on p. 70) and 97–107 (on the location of Pepuza). papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 261 soon felt in the Lycus Valley, creating unrest among the Christian communities there. Apollinarius had every reason to speak out against the suspect ecstatics. Several attempts have been made to establish a nities between the Mon- tanist religion and Anatolian cults like those of the Great Mother and Lair- benos. The cultic prominence of women, the role of ecstasy in worship, and the high value placed on prophecy have been seen as central elements indicating a close connection.299 It is true that the cult of the Great Mother and the cult of Apollo/Lairbenos enjoyed high esteem in Hierapolis, with reso- nance far beyond the Lycus Valley, and may therefore have provided fertile soil for Montanism. But we know very little about the features of the cults speci c to Hierapolis, so that any concrete associations with Montanism must remain in the realm of speculation. By contrast the local Christian tradition in Hierapolis ofered the Mon- tanists a tangible and attractive point of contact, because the daughters of Philip with the gift of prophecy could serve as a foil to the closest collabora- tors with Montanus, Maximilla and Priscilla.300 In contemporary debates, we can identify an attempt of the Montanists to co-opt the daughters of Philip and even employ them to legitimize their rituals at two points.301 The Mon- tanists’ fundamental interest in the prophetesses of Hierapolis appears in the anti-Montanist dialogue of Gaius, written in Rome c. 200, in which he attacks the Montanist Proclus.302 It is Proclus who points out that the four prophetesses had lived in Hierapolis and that their tombs were still there as well as the tomb of their father Philip.303 The exploitation of Philip’s daughters is even clearer in the work of the anonymous anti-Montanist mentioned previously, composed toward the end of the 2nd century.304 In it the author contrasts the ecstatic prattling of Montanus with the messages of true prophets actually transported by the Spirit:

299 E.g. Schepelern 1929, pp. 130–159; Strobel 1980, pp. 274–284; Hirschmann 2005, pp. 139– 145. 300 On the Christian prophetesses, see also Hofmann 2000, pp. 286–300 (including discussion of the daughters of Philip as well as Ammia, Priscilla, and Maximilla). 301 On later sources, see Amsler 1999, pp. 459f. In the 3rd century, Origen speaks in his commentary on 1Corinthians of the association the Montanists made between the four daughters of Philip and their own prophetesses: Jenkins 1908, pp. 41f. Cf. also p. 262 below. 302 For more see Tabbernee 2007, pp. 68–70. 303 Eus. H.e. 3.31.4 (text on p. 196 above). 304 See pp. 257f above. 262 chapter six

The false prophet in his lunatic rapture, with foolhardy fearlessness close on its heels, especially when he begins with purposed stupidity and ends in involuntary madness of soul, as already said. They cannot point to a single prophet, either in the Old nor in the New Testament, who was transported by the Spirit in this way—not even Agabus, Judas, Silas, the daughters of Philip, Ammia in Philadelphia, Quadratus, even were they to boast of still others with whom they have nothing in common.305 Clearly the author here is drawing on a catalog of prophets from Montanist apologies, in which was set forth the prominent tradition into which the leaders of the “new prophecy” could nd their place:306 a Syro-Palestinian group already named in the Acts of the Apostles (Agabus, Judas, Silas)307 followed by a second group from Asia Minor.308 The continuation of the argument by the anonymous anti-Montanist makes it clear that the Montanists made use of regular chains of succession in which Montanus and his prophetesses succeeded Quadratus and Ammia.309 It is true that the daughters of Philip are not mentioned explicitly here a second time, but even so their role as Montanist authority gures is clear enough. The close connect with Ammia of Philadelphia, of whom nothing more is known, could mean that in the border region between Phry- gia and Lydia the passage from the Lycus basin to the upper valley of the Hermus or Cogamus we can see a region that was especially attractive to Montanists. An inscription from the vicinity of Philadelphia documents the existence of a Montanist community in the early 6th century; it marked the

305 Eus. H.e. 5.17.2f.: ἀ ’ ὅ γε ψευδοπροφήτης ἐν παρεκστάσει, ᾧ ἕπεται ἄδεια καὶ ἀφοβία, ἀρ- χοµένου µὲν ἐξ ἑκουσίου ἀµαθίας, καταστρέφοντος δὲ εἰς ἀκούσιον µανίαν ψυχῆς, ὡς προείρηται. τοῦτον δὲ τὸν τρόπον οὔτε τινὰ τῶν κατὰ τὴν παλαιὰν οὔτε τῶν κατὰ τὴν καινὴν πνευµατοφο- ρηθέντα προφήτην δεῖξαι δυνήσονται, οὔτε ῎Αγαβον οὔτε ᾽Ιούδαν οὔτε Σίλαν οὔτε τὰς Φιλίππου θυγατέρας, οὔτε τὴν ἐν Φιλαδελφίᾳ ᾽Αµµίαν οὔτε Κοδράτον, οὔτε εἰ δή τινας ἄ ους µηδὲν αὐτοῖς προσήκοντας καυχήσονται. 306 Similarly Tabbernee 2007, pp. 138–140. 307 Cf. Hahn / Klein 2011, pp. 62f. (summarizing). 308 Although the background of Quadratus is not stated explicitly, the context (cf. also Eus. H.e. 5.17.4) suggests Asia Minor. Eus. H.e. 3.37.1 also speaks of Quadratus in the same context as the daughters of Philip. Possibly this Quadratus is identical with the apologist of the same name in the Hadrianic period: cf. Parvis 2007, pp. 120–122; Pratscher 2009 pp. 193–196. Cf. p. 198, n. 75 above. 309 Eus. H.e. 5.17.4: “For if the women around Montanus received the prophetic gift, as they say, after Quadratus and Ammia in Philadelphia, then after Montanus and those women they should show us those who received it among them.”—εἰ γὰρ µετὰ Κοδράτον καὶ τὴν ἐν Φιλαδελφίᾳ ᾽Αµµίαν, ὥς φασιν, αἱ περὶ Μοντανὸν διεδέξαντο γυναῖκες τὸ προφητικὸν χάρισµα, τοὺς ἀπὸ Μοντανοῦ καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν τίνες παρ’ αὐτοῖς διεδέξαντο, δειξάτωσαν. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 263 tomb of a high-ranking cleric.310 We have no other concrete evidence that Montanists actually gained a foothold in any city in the region such as Tripo- lis or founded their own local churches. In Hierapolis, too, there is a dearth of relevant information. Apart from potential in ltration of his church, Apollinarius had to feel challenged by the Montanists on account of their cooptation of the daughters of Philip; undoubtedly he perceived the meddlesome appropriation of prominent traditional gures in the Hieropolitan Christian community by the sectarians as an afront.311 A comment by Epiphanius of Salamis indicates that two centuries later the Montanists were still appealing to the daughters of Philip.312

William Tabbernee has collected the epigraphic material bearing on the history of the Montanists and assessed it painstakingly. In his compilation of just under 100 inscriptions, there are four from Hierapolis.313 It would be easy to be led astray by this evidence, but Tabbernee places a question mark by each of these inscriptions: their assignment to a Montanist context remains uncertain and in some cases is even quite unlikely. One of the inscriptions probably dates from the period of Apollinarius and will therefore be examined more closely here. The text, on a travertine sarcophagus from the north necropolis of Hierapolis, reads as follows: The sarcophagus and the land where it stands and the surrounding land, as the measurement by the cubit is speci ed in the deed of purchase, belong to Ammianus Diokles, the son of Menandros, the unguent merchant; he will himself be buried in it and his wife Prophetilla, the daughter of Zosimus. A copy of this inscription has been deposited in the archives.314 As in many sepulchral inscriptions of the city, the purpose is to declare a claim of ownership and clarify the question of burial rights. The name of the woman is unique: Prophetilla.315 Despite orthographic peculiarities, it is reasonable to derive

310 See p. 265 below. Calder 1922, pp. 325–326 examines the letter to Philadelphia in the Apocalypse of John, the letter of Ignatius, and the Martyrdom of Polycarp to determine what criteria led to a convergence of the Christians in Philadelphia with the views of Montanism, arguing that the city provided fertile soil for Montanism. 311 Similarly Tabbernee 1997, p. 508. 312 Epiph. Haer. 49.2.2 (K. Holl / J. Dummer, GCS 31 [21980], p. 243.2–3): ἀ ὰ καί, φησί, τέσσαρες θυγατέρες ἦσαν τῷ Φιλίππῳ προφητεύουσαι. Cf. also Hier. Ep. 41.2. See also p. 261, n. 301 above. 313 Tabbernee 1997, pp. 91–95 nos. 10 and 11 and pp. 496–508 nos. 82 and 83. 314 Judeich 1898, no. 262 = Tabbernee 1997, pp. 93–95 no. 11 = Ritti 2004, p. 572 no. 5: ἡ σορὸς καὶ ὁ τόπος, καθ’ οὗ κεῖται, καὶ ὁ περὶ αὐτὴν τόπος, καθὼς ὁ πηχισµὸς διὰ τῆς κτήσεως δηλο[ῦ]ται, ᾽Αµµιανοῦ ∆ιοκλέους τοῦ Μενάνδρου µυροπώλου, ἐν ᾗ κηδευθήσεται αὐτός τε καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ Πρωφήτι α Ζωσίµου. τῆς ἐπιγραφῆς ταύτης ἀντίγραφον ἀπόκειται ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις. 315 There are occasional examples, however, of Προφήτης as a man’s name, e.g. LGPN II, p. 383 (from Athens); LGPN III A, p. 379 (from Herculaneum); SEG 56 (2006), no. 768 264 chapter six this woman’s name from the function and status of a prophet.316 But what prophet might that be? Ramsay proposed placing the wife of the unguent merchant in the tradition of the Christian and Montanist prophetesses of Asia Minor,317 i.e. women like the daughters of Philip, Ammia from Philadelphia, and Maximilla and Priscilla, the companions of Montanus. But the name Prophetilla also admits interpretations that do not imply either a Christian or a Montanist context: the role of prophets in the Apollo cult of Clarus has already been discussed; the inscriptions of the sanctuary document numerous young people called prophets who led delegations from their native city of Laodicea to Clarus.318 Particularly in the period of the Antonines, the ties between Hierapolis and the oracle of Clarus were greatly strengthened.319 Furthermore, the mythical seer Mopsus was greatly revered by the Hieropolitans in the same context: he was celebrated as their progenitor in a contemporary oracular inscription,320 and his image appeared (along with that of the mythical hero Torrhebus who founded the city) on the reverse of coins issued by the city with a bust of Apollo on their face.321 Against this background, the decision of Zosimus to name his daughter Prophetilla has a plausible explanation. In addition, we cannot rule out the possibility of interpreting it as a pet name; possibly the inarticulate cries of the baby led the family to draw far-reaching conclusions. If a connection is to be seen with Montanism, it cannot mean more than that the name of Prophetilla of Hierapolis, like the exuberant message of the Phrygian heresy, were the product of a religious tradition informed by prophets and prophecies, which had a strong foothold in western Asia Minor. A second inscription from Hierapolis that has been read in a Montanist con- text322 stands out because the individuals buried are included explicitly among the Christians.323 William Moir Calder, who continued Ramsay’s work in Asia Minor, studied the inscriptions, mostly from northern Phrygia, in which the formula “Chris-

(from Thessalonica). Nigdelis 2006, p. 196 with n. 302, in the context of the inscription from Thessalonica, emphasizes the rarity of the name and also makes reference to MAMA III, no. 364 (a Christian inscription from Corycus). 316 The name is written with an omega rather than an omicron (like προφήτης); pi and rho are combined as a ligature at the beginning of the name. See the photograph in Ritti 2004, p. 626, g. 3. 317 Ramsay 1895, p. 118 no. 27. Schultze 1922, pp. 427f. considers a connection with Mon- tanism. 318 See pp. 201–203 above. 319 See pp. 266–268 below. 320 Merkelbach / Stauber I 1998, p. 260 no. 02/12/01, line 17. Apollo speaks as an oracle: “For from me you are descended and from Mopsus, guardian of the city.”—ἐκ γὰρ ἐµεῦ γένος ἐστὲ πολισσούχοιό τε Μόψου. See also the commentary by Pugliese Carratelli 1963, pp. 364f. Cf. pp. 267f. below. 321 BMC Phrygia, p. 232 no. 32; Weber 1913, p. 140; RPC online no. 2041. For a general discussion of Mopsus as seer and founding hero in Asia Minor, see Scheer 1993, pp. 153–271. 322 Schultze 1922, p. 428. 323 Judeich 1898, no. 319 = Tabbernee 1997, pp. 91–93 no. 10. For further discussion, see pp. 338f. below. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 265 tians for Christians” (Χριστιανοὶ Χριστιανοῖς) conveys an undisguised profession of religious faith even before the Constantinian shift and associated them with the Montanists.324 But this categorization rests on an insecure foundation: an open or even bold confession of faith was not speci c to Montanists alone.325 It is uncertain, furthermore, whether the inscription from Hierapolis even dates from the pre-Constantinian period.326 Two late inscriptions from Hierapolis that Tabbernee likewise includes in his collection of “Montanist Inscriptions” t easily into the context of the orthodox church of the 4th–6th centuries. The sarcophagus inscription for the archdeacon of St. Philip can be explained within a Montanist context only if the prominent cult of the apostle in Hierapolis was partially in the hands of the Montanists.327 The dedicatory inscription of the pier church in Hierapolis does mention a patriarch named Gennaios, but not with reference to the highest Montanist cleric, who had his o - cial residence in Pepuza,328 but as an expression of the rivalry of the Hierapolitan bishop with the neighboring metropolitan of Laodicea.329 Such conicts between neighboring bishoprics are documented abundantly in the context of the Orthodox Church.

The inscriptions therefore do not constitute an independent witness that might help us describe the inuence of the Montanists on the Christian church of Hierapolis in greater detail. For the rural area northwest of Phil- adelphia, however, the previously (pp. 262f.) mentioned inscription from the year 515 (?) con rms the activity of a κοινωνός, a cleric in the Montanist hierarchy second only to the patriarch.330 The distance from the Montanist heartland around Pepuza to Philadelphia is about the same as to Hierapolis. To date there is no evidence that the Montanists tried to gain a foothold in the Lycus Valley, for example by establishing regular institutions. The sources likewise contain no evidence of an articulated resistance to the

324 E.g. Calder 1922, pp. 320–322; Calder 1923, pp. 62–65. For further discussion of research on these inscriptions, see Gibson 1978, pp. 131–135. 325 Cf. Gibson 1978, p. 144; also Tabbernee 1997, p. 166. 326 Tabbernee 1997, pp. 91f. argues for a date preceding the Constitutio Antoniniana, on the grounds that there is no Aurelian gentilic. On the problems posed by this argument, see p. 339 below. On p. 93 he considers a Montanist context possible but also points out that the argument is very shaky. 327 Judeich 1898, no. 24 = Tabbernee 1997, pp. 502–508 no. 83; on p. 508, Tabbernee assumes that the so-called Martyrium of Philip was a Montanist institution. Cf. pp. 211 above and 370 below. 328 Tabbernee 1997, p. 501, followed by Mitchell 2005 a, p. 219. 329 On this inscription, see Tabbernee 1997, pp. 497–502 no. 82; Tabbernee does not insist on a Montanist interpretation. Ritti 2006, pp. 136–138 no. 29; Huttner, “Bauinschrift” (appearing shortly); see also pp. 310f. below. 330 TAM V 3, no. 1882. Cf. Tabbernee 1997, pp. 509–513 no. 84. See also Mitchell 2005a, p. 214 who points out the uncertainty of the date. 266 chapter six

Montanists in the Lycus Valley after the episcopate of Apollinarius, except for the relevant canon of the 4th-century Synod of Laodicea,331 which dealt with problems afecting the entire Asia diocese and by no means reects just the situation in and around Laodicea.332 The rst synod in Asia Minor opposing the Montanists presumably took place in the 230s in Iconium.333 In the year 256, Bishop Firmilianus of Cae- sarea made reference to the synod in a letter to Cyprian in which he supported the latter’s rigorous invalidation of baptism by heretics: “That all this must be put into efect and championed against the heretics with full force we determined long ago in Iconium, a town in Phrygia, when we assembled from Galatia, Cilicia, and the other nearby regions, though many still expressed doubts.”334 This vague description of the participants naturally precludes any exact identi cation, but it is at least well within the realm of possibility that a delegation from the Lycus Valley attended the synod. The shortest route would have been via Apamea and Antioch.

6.2.9. The Plague Apollinarius was a contemporary witness to the worst catastrophe to befall the Roman Empire during the high imperial period: after 166, when the troops of Lucius Verus returned to the West from the victorious war against the Parthians, a plague introduced by sick soldiers spread in several waves and over the years claimed innumerable victims throughout the Empire.335 Western Asia was also grievously afected.336 Catastrophes present special challenges to religious institutions, since in existential crises the devotees of the cults seek sacral reassurance and ultimately a way of escaping the disaster. The citizens of Hierapolis entreated the oracle of Clarus for guid-

331 CLaod. Can. 8. On this synod, see pp. 291–314 below. 332 See below pp. 291–293. 333 Cf. [Cypr.] Ep. 75.7.2. For more on the Synod of Iconium, see Fischer / Lumpe 1997, pp. 52–56, who date the synod between 230 and 235 (on the grounds that Alexander Severus treated the Christians more generously than his successor Maximinus Thrax—an argument that attaches too much weight to the personality of the emperor). See also p. 276 below. 334 [Cypr.] Ep. 75.7.5: “Quod totum nos iam pridem in Iconio, qui Phrygiae locus est, collecti in unum convenientibus ex Galatia et Cilicia et ceteris proximis regionibus, con rmavimus tenendum contra haereticos rmiter et vindicandum, cum a quibusdam de ista re dubitare- tur.” See p. 276 below. 335 Cf. Duncan-Jones 1996, pp. 116–134 (with special attention to Egypt); Jones 2005, pp. 298–300. See the exemplary discussion by Strobel 1988, pp. 233f. (on the Danube basin); also Huttner 2008 a, pp. 325f. 336 Cf. Marek 2010, p. 434; also Lane Fox 1986, pp. 232f. papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 267 ance.337 A member of the delegation sent to Clarus had the oracle of Apollo that they brought back carved in stone in the vicinity of the city’s temple of Apollo. The hexameters give instructions on how to appease the wrath of the gods through ritual actions, sacri ces, and nancial contributions to the cults. The beginning and end of the inscription have been lost: … the sacred earth is angry [because of the serpent Python?], which my arrows slew. You are not alone in sufering the terrible disaster of the deadly plague; many cities and nations sufer pain through the anger of the gods. I instruct you to avert their painful wrath through libations, celebrations, and ofering of perfect hecatombs. First sacri ce a cow from the herd to Mother Gaia at the sanctuary with fourfold acreage [?] along with sweet-smelling incense and light it at the re. When the cow has been consumed by the ames, then pour libations of honeyed milk zealously upon the ground. Then sacri ce an undivided lamb [?] to the ether and the gods of the sky, all full of fragrance. Perform the regular sacri ces for Demeter and the chthonic gods with devout incense. And ofer the accustomed libations to the heroes beneath the earth, and think constantly of Carian Apollo. For you are the ofspring of me and Mopsus, protector of the city. At all the gates create a consecrated area with a sacred statue of Clarian Phoebus, who is noted for destroying diseases with his bow, as though he shot the sapless [?] plague into the far distance. When the gods [?] are gently minded and the specters of death have departed, then I ordain that boys and girls go to Colophon as singers, joyfully with libations and hecatombs; for truly I have saved you ever and again without receiving the portion of fat due to me. In addition you must not forget those individuals who have done good. If you do what devout men must do, then you will no longer commit grievous transgressions but instead … prosperous and healthy …338

337 Pace Lane Fox 1986, pp. 233–235, who looks to the oracle of Delphi as the source of the text. On the epigraphic evidence for oracles from Clarus associated with the plague, see Jones 2005, p. 298. 338 Pugliese Carratelli 1963, pp. 360–365 = Merkelbach / Stauber I 1998, pp. 259–261 no. 02/12/01 = Ritti 2006, pp. 94–99 no. 16 b: … χθὼν ἱερὴ κοτέουσ’ ὃν ἐµοὶ κατέπεφνον ὀιστοί. οὐ µοῦνοι λοιµοῖο δυσαλθέος οὐλοµένῃσιν κηραίνεσθε δυηπαθίαις, πο αὶ δὲ πόληες ἄχνυνται λαοί τε θεῶν ὀδυσηµοσύνῃσιν. ὧν ἀπαλεύασθαι κέλοµαι χόλον ἀλγινόεντα λοιβαῖς εἰλαπίναις τε τεληέσσαις θ’ ἑκατόµβαις. πρῶτα µὲν οὖν Γαίῃ παµµήτορι βοῦν ἀγελαίην ἐς µέγαρον τετράγυιον ἅµ’ εὐόδµοις θυέεσσιν ῥέξαντες πυρὶ δαίσατ’, ἐπὴν δέ µιν ἐξανύσῃ φλόξ, λοιβῇσίν τε µελικρήτοις χθονί τ’ ἀµφιχέασθε πασσυδίῃ· µετέπειτά τ’ ἀδαίετον Αἰθέρ[ι ἀµν]ὸν 268 chapter six

Despite the mannered diction in the Homeric tradition, which makes the text di cult to understand in a few places, the verses reect the religious impulse felt in Hierapolis during the plague. The city is all astir, the sacri cial sites are the scene of much activity, and a procession of children sets out for the coast to pay homage to the god in Clarus. Through all the verses of the text, we hear reection on religious norms and a fundamental godly attitude. Much the same holds for the astragal and alphabetic oracles employed by people in several cities of southern Asia Minor, especially in the 2nd century, seeking guidance in planning their everyday lives and information about their personal fate. In the astragal oracle, the knucklebone (astragal) of a goat or sheep was used as a die to roll ve numbers; the resulting combination of numbers would be associated with one of 56 adages listed in a publicly posted inscription. A fragment of such a text has been found in Laodicea, including the counsel associated with the one combination: “1–6– 6–6–4: 23 [sum]: [words] of Athena: ‘A one, but three sixes and as fth the four. Honor Pallas Athena, and all will turn out as you wish, and what you have resolved will be carried out. She will loose from fetters and heal the sick.’”339 This very oracle may have given comfort to those stricken by the plague.

ῥέξατ’ ἐπουρανίοις τε θεοῖς, τεθυωµένα πάντα. ∆ηοῖ δ’ ὡς ἔθος ὔµµιν ἐνερτερίοις τε θεοῖσιν ἱερὰ ποιήσασθε µετ’ εὐαγέεσσι θυηλαῖς, ἥρωσίν τε χοὰς χθονίοις κατὰ τεθµὰ χέασθε, Καρείου τε µέδεσθε διαµπερὲς ᾽Από ωνος· ἐκ γὰρ ἐµεῦ γένος ἐστὲ πολισσούχοιό τε Μόψου. πάσαις δ’ ἀµφὶ πύλαις Κλαρίου τεµενίξατε Φοίβου τόξοις ἱρὸν ἄγαλµα κεκασµένον ὠλεσινούσοις, οἷον ὀιστεύοντος ἀναρδέα τηλόσε λοιµόν. αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν µειλιξαµένων ἀπὸ κῆρες ἵκωνται, παῖδας παρθενικῇσιν ὁµοῦ Κολοφῶνα νέεσθαι µολποὺς σὺν λοιβῇσιν ἐφίεµαι ἠδ’ ἑκατόµβαις προφρονέως˙ , ἐπεὶ ἦ µάλα πο˙ ˙ άκις ὔµµε σαώσας οὔτινος ἐκ δηµοῖο λάχον µενοεικέος αἶσαν· χρὴ δ’ εὖ ῥεξάντων µηδ’ ἀνδρῶν λήσµονας˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ εἶναι. ἢν ἔρδηθ’ ὅσ’ ἔοικε θεουδέσιν ἀνδράσι τεύχειν, οὔποτ’ οἰζυρῇσιν ἐν ἀµπλακίῃσιν [ἔσεσθε], ἀ ’ ἀφνειότεροι καὶ σωότεροι νο...θ[-] κυ....οππο..ου...σ...[------] ˙ … ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ At several points the above translation is based on translations suggested by Merkelbach / Stauber and Ritti. 339 Nollé 2007, p. 32 (adage 47): papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 269

In Hierapolis two alphabetic oracles have been discovered, one, very fragmented, built into the Martyrium of Philip, the other, preserved almost complete, on a former statue pedestal that was reused in the foundation of the temple of Apollo.340 Each letter of the alphabet is associated with a verse addressed to the inquirer. Occasionally a god is mentioned by name— for example the archer Apollo, who bestows energy.341 In other verses, the deity remains anonymous, so that convergences with Jewish or Christian ideas easily can occur, as in the case of the letter chi: “The god protecting you will bring unexpected joy.”342 Jews and Christians also invoked the God who protects them, especially in the form of selected psalms that appear repeatedly in post-Constantinian Christian inscriptions.343 The appearance of knucklebone and alphabetical oracles at the same time as the great plague may be accidental, but in each case they also represent the religious impulses that were stirring the cities of Asia Minor in the second half of the 2nd century.344

6.3. Summary: Defining the Place of Papias and Apollinarius

Despite his epichoric name and his contacts with the daughters of Philip, the roots and activity of Papias in the region are hard to identify.345 From the scanty fragments available, however, we can conclude—with all due

·αςςςδ · κγ · [᾽Αθηνᾶς· [εἷς χ]εῖος, τρεῖς δ’ ἑξεῖτ[αι καὶ τέσσαρ’ ὁ πέµπτος·] [Παλ]λάδ’ ᾽Αθηναίην τε[ίµα· καὶ πάντα σοι ἔσται,] [ὅσσα] θέλεις, καί σοι τὰ [δεδογµένα πάντα τελεῖται·] [λύσει] δ’ ἐγ δεσµῶν κα[ὶ τὸν νοσέοντα δὲ σώσει.] The reconstructions are based on parallels from identical oracles found in other southern Anatolian cities. Cf. also the edition of Corsten 1997, pp. 136–139 no. 69. The fundamental treatment of the whole dossier is Nollé 2007, pp. 7–221. 340 Ritti 1989, pp. 247–250 and 253f.; Nollé 2007, pp. 253–256. See also p. 47 above. 341 Nollé 2007, p. 256 (line 9, associated with the letter I). 342 Nollé 2007, p. 256 (line 22, associated with the letter X): Χάρµα σοι ἀπροδίελπτον ἄγει θεός, ὅς σε φυλάσσει. P. 263: “Der Gott, ὅς σε φυλάσσει, ist nicht nur eine Vorstellung des Alten Testaments und der Christen, sondern auch der griechisch-römischen Religion.” 343 Cf. Breytenbach 2012, pp. 383–394. An example is an inscription from northern Lycao- nia, now in the Konya museum: McLean 2002, p. 73 no. 207 (MAMA VIII, no. 256). 344 Nollé 2007, pp. 288–293 interprets the oracle inscriptions as part of a religious renaissance, clearly directed against the Christians as well, a conclusion rejected by Naether 2010, pp. 326f. 345 The philologist Johannes Sykutris (1901–1937) sought to connect a rumor circulated by John Lydus (6th cent.) of a Janus tradition in his home city of Philadelphia with the work 270 chapter six caution—that the bishop was involved in the cultural currents at work in the Lycus Valley: he was familiar not only with portions of the Christian tradition that were crystallizing to form the canon but also with reports that were circulating among brothers and sisters in the faith from afar. He also clearly had insight into the Jewish tradition, not least thanks to the strong Jewish community in his native city, even though no Old Testament quotations have been identi ed in his works.346 In addition the conventions of contemporary pagan literature are reected in Papias’s work. All in all, the bishop of Hierapolis possessed decent quali cations to pioneer a new and original path to Jesus Christ. This path nevertheless led to a dead end,347 both because he diverged too much from the messages that were taking root and because his distance in time from Jesus Christ and the immediate circle of Jesus’ disciples had become too great. Papias did not become the fth evangelist. A few decades later, Apollinarius ful lled his guiding role on a more stable basis, since the tradition concerning Jesus was no longer open to negotia- tion. He is the only Christian writer from the Lycus Valley to cover a relatively broad spectrum of topics in his work. Nevertheless his writings constantly focused on the same question: how is the standpoint of the church of Hier- apolis to be de ned—and more generally, the standpoint of true Christians? This search for the correct position was sometimes expressed defensively, as in his apology to the emperor, sometimes ofensively, as in his campaign against the Montanists; the bishop did not go out of his way to avoid a ght. Here Apollinarius made a signi cant contribution to de ning the position of Christians more sharply and setting the limits that would give rise to conict if crossed. His voice was also heard beyond the Lycus Valley; his position as bishop and his Roman citizenship opened the necessary channels of communication. Even more than Papias, he pro ted from the cultural atmosphere of the cities of western Asia Minor. In addition he saw himself required to respond as a spokesman to the existential needs of his church. Possibly his publicistic activity, like that of Melito of Sardis, can be

of Papias, on the grounds that an encomium of Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus (1258– 1282) cites Papias as a source of additional information about the ancient Roman god Janus. On Lyd. Mens. 4.2, see Sykutris 1927, pp. 210f. Here, however, Sykutris confused the bishop of Hierapolis with an 11th-century lexicographer from Lombardy of the same name, who provided the Middle Ages with a much-used reference work in Latin. Cf. Goetz 1928, p. 348; Körtner 1983, p. 34. 346 The veri able references have been collected by Körtner 2009, p. 180. 347 Norelli 2005, p. 149 speaks of the “vicolo cieco di Papia.” papias and apollinarius: bishops in hierapolis 271 explained in part as resulting from the catastrophic plague. They were both concerned to assure themselves of the Christian mission, to overcome fears and anxieties, and to deploy their authority against all sources of uncertainty.

chapter seven

INSTITUTIONALIZATION: CLERICAL OFFICES, SYNODS, AND COUNCILS

7.1. Processes of Institutionalization

7.1.1. Early Bishops and the Institutionalization of the Clergy1 The formation of a diferentiated hierarchy of clerical functions gained a foothold in western Asia Minor relatively early, but the evidence for the episcopate among the disciples of Paul in the Lycus Valley is late. The Apostolic Constitutions, compiled in Syria toward the end of the 4th century, contain a list of bishops supposedly dating from the apostolic age, in which Archip- pus was ordained in Laodicea and Philemon in Colossae.2 According to the list of apostles preserved in a 10th-century Byzantine chronicle ascribed to Symeon Logothetes, however, Archippus held o ce in Colossae, while the episcopal see of Philemon was located in Gaza.3 A legend enshrined in 12th- century manuscripts that presents Archippus anachronistically as an orthodox preacher against Arians, Nestorians, and other heresies assumes that he had been appointed personally by the apostles as ἀρχιερεύς in Colossae.4 Institutionalization of the episcopate, however, did not begin until several decades after Paul. In his letters, Ignatius of Antioch presupposes an established hierarchy of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Papias of Hierapolis distinguished himself as the rst prominent episcopal gure of the Lycus Valley. A few decades

1 See the prosopographic list in the Appendix (pp. 491f.), with some new epigraphic results. 2 Const.App. 7.46.12 (Funk I 1905, p. 454; Metzger 1987, p. 110): Τῆς δὲ ἐν Φρυγίᾳ Λαοδικείας ῎Αρχιππος, Κολασσαέων δὲ Φιλήµων. On the date of the Apostolic Constitutions, see Metzger 1985, pp. 57–62. 3 Scherman 1907, p. 183 (Index apostolorum discipulorum 60–61): Φιλήµων, πρὸς ὃν καὶ ἐπιστολὴν ὁ ἀπόστολος Παῦλος ἔπεµψεν, ἐπίσκοπος Γάζης γέγονεν. ῎Αρχιππος, οὗ καὶ αὐτοῦ µέµνηται ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Φιλήµονα ἐπιστολῇ, ὃς γέγονεν ἐπίσκοπος ἐν Κολοσσαῖς. On the date, see ibid. pp. LIX–LX. 4 Halkin 1970, p. 578: … ἀρχιερεὺς Κολασαεῦσι ταῖς ἐκείνων [= τῶν πρώτων τῶν ἀποστόλων] χερσὶ τηνικαῦτα προβά εται. See p. 86 above. 274 chapter seven later, he was followed by Sagaris of Laodicea, who sufered martyrdom,5 and Apollinarius of Hierapolis. It is hard to say when coherent lines of succession developed in the historical memory of the church, with bishop succeeding bishop as laid out by Eusebius in his church history for the major centers like Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Sylvain Destephen has documented the bishops of the 4th and 5th centuries meticulously in his exemplary prosopography.6 Their participation in synods and councils will be discussed later. There is no early evidence for clergy below the rank of bishop in the Lycus Valley, especially since the “diaconate” of Archippus mentioned in Colossians cannot be understood as an institutionalized grade in a clerical hierarchy.7 The rst deacon mentioned by name in a historical context was called Euphronius; he came from Laodicea and ran errands at the second Council of Ephesus.8 Inscriptions also contribute to the prosopography of the diaconate, but dating them presents serious problems. A still unpublished marble slab from Hierapolis adorned the tomb of a certain Philippos whose father John held the post of a deacon.9 This John could have been a contemporary of the Euphronius of Laodicea mentioned above. Two fragmentary inscriptions from the Archaeological Museum of Pamukkale probably date from after the Council of Chalcedon.10 There is also the inscription from Hierapolis of an archdeacon of the apostle Philip named Eugenios11 and the sarcophagus of a deacon named Theodoros, from the family of a city councilman.12 Whether the tomb of Theodoros was laid out before the Con- stantinian shift is unclear; in her publication of the text, Tullia Ritti expresses doubts whether he was in fact a cleric.13 The mosaics in the grand basilica, recently excavated in Laodicea and probably dating from the 4th century,

5 See pp. 334f. below. 6 Destephen 2008. On the erstwhile Novatian bishop Theophilus, who sufered martyrdom in Laodicea, see pp. 341f. below. 7 See p. 86 above. 8 See pp. 317f. below. Only in the hagiographic tradition of Artemon of Laodicea is a deacon named Phileas mentioned as a contemporary of Diocletian; see p. 352 below. 9 Private communication from Tullia Ritti. 10 Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 288f. no. 191 (with the abbreviation [δι]ακο.); pp. 300f. no. 203 (… ὁ ἐλάχ(ιστος) διάκο(νος) Ε[----]). Both deacons remain anonymous. 11 See pp. 265 above and 370 below. 12 Ritti 2004, pp. 569f. no. 1 = SEG 54 (2004), no. 1298. 13 On the term deacon in pagan contexts, see Hentschel 2007, pp. 34–61 (with citations from literature). institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 275 mention two further members of the deaconry: the protodeacon Polycarp and the deacon Alexander.14

Three presbyters from the Lycus Valley are known by name:15 Diodorus of Laodicea, who fell victim to the Diocletianic persecution of Christians,16 Paul, who accompanied Bishop Venantius of Hierapolis to the rst Council of Ephesus,17 and nally Kyriakos, mentioned in the dedicatory inscription from the pier church in Hierapolis, probably dating from the 6th century.18

7.1.2. The Potential for Communication in the Pre-Constantinian Era Thanks to Paul and his companions, the churches of the Lycus Valley were linked in a network of contacts over great distances; they assured themselves a solid place in the nascent Church of the East, not least on the basis of apostolic tradition. Their long-distance inuence continued below the level of the organized clergy, as is illustrated by the fate of Aurelia Cyrilla of Laodicea, who married an architect and settled with her husband in Thrace, where her epitaph was found near ancient Philippopolis. Her Christian faith is mentioned only on the narrow edge of her tombstone, where it was added by a second hand; possibly the Christians of Philippopolis found themselves confronting danger or persecution at the time (3rd cent.).19 The prominence of the churches in the Lycus Valley and their orientation toward Antioch, which continued to be visible later, is exempli ed by the reception of the anti-Montanist writings of Apollinarius, who was highly honored by Bishop Serapion of Antioch.20 The fragmentary state of the

14 Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, pp. 354f. 15 There is also Artemon of Laodicea; on his lengthy legend, see pp. 346–355 below. 16 See p. 341 below. 17 See p. 315, n. 252 below. 18 Tabbernee 1997, pp. 497–499 no. 92 = Ritti 2006, pp. 136–138 no. 29; Huttner, Bauinschrift (appearing shortly). 19 The inscription (today in the archaeological museum in Plovdiv) is published in Beˇsev- liev 1964, pp. 151f. no. 220: Εἴ µε θέλις, ὦ ξεῖνε, δαήµενε / τίς πόθεν, Λαδικίης / πάτρις εἰµεί, τοὔνοµα Κυρί α / οἰκοδόµου ἄλοχος / Εὐκλαδίου, ὅς µε θανοῦσ/αν ἔκρυψεν ὁσί[ως· τ]οῖς / λοιποῖς […]. Narrow edge: Αὐρ(ελία) Κυρήλα χρηστιανὴ πιστὴ ἀείµνηστος.—“If you would learn, O stranger, who I am and whence I came: my native city is Laodicea, my name is Kyrilla, wife of the architect Eukladios, who buried me with dignity when I died. The rest … [?].—Aurelia Cyrilla, devout Christian, not forgotten.” The possibility cannot be ruled out that this Laodicea was not the Phrygian city.—A similar problem is presented by a Christian inscription from Tipasa on the Algerian coast: the departed Maxima comes from Tripolis, either in the Lycus Valley or in Phoenicia. On this inscription, see Robert 1934, pp. 52f. 20 See pp. 256f. above. 276 chapter seven tradition prevents us from even beginning to trace the supraregional activities of the bishops of the Lycus Valley, their position in theological conicts, their alliances and accords with colleagues, and even their participation in synods and councils; only a few highlights can be examined. To what extent, for example, they continued to speak out in the conict with Montanism in the decades after Apollinarius remains unclear. As already mentioned, Bishop Firmilianus of Caesarea addressed a letter to Cyprian in 256 in which he vehemently attacked the validity of baptism by heretics and recalled a synod that had taken place “a long time ago” (iam pridem)—perhaps in the 30s—in Iconium and had taken a position against the heretics.21 Given the presence of Montanists in the catchment area of the Lycus Valley, the participation of a bishop from the region would have been expected, but Firmilianus withholds an explicit reference.22

7.1.3. Administrative Considerations The fact that the bishop of Laodicea soon came to dominate his colleagues in the neighboring cities was due to the importance of the city in the government of the Roman provinces. We do not know for sure whether Laodicea asserted its role as a provincial assize city during the high imperial period and whether the city of Cibyra, further south, did not instead provide the governor a rostrum for tribunals,23 but Pliny, whose description of the assize system in Asia is responsible for the uncertainty, emphasizes that the most important city (celeberrima urbs) in the Cibyratic assize district was Laodicea.24 In any case, Laodicea reinforced its status as an administrative center when Diocletian’s administrative reform tripled the number of provinces: Laodicea served from then on as the governor’s residence of a Phrygian province.25 The Laterculus Veronensis, a list of provinces compiled under Diocletian or Constantine, reveals that the diocese of Asia—a mid-level administrative unit that covered western and southern Asia Minor—comprised nine

21 [Cypr.] Ep. 75.7.5; see p. 266 above with the complete text. 22 See p. 266 above. 23 Cf. Haensch 1997, p. 308, with good arguments for continuing to include Laodicea among the assize cities in the imperial period. See also Heller 2006, p. 127. Cf. pp. 37–41 above. Corsten 2007 has shown that Cibyra belonged to the province of Asia rather than Lycia. 24 Plin. Nat. 5.105: “Sed prius terga et mediterraneas iurisdictiones [interior assize districts] indicasse conveniat. Una appellatur Cibyratica; ipsum oppidum Phrygiae est. Conveniunt eo XXV civitates, celeberrima urbe Laodicea.” The demonstrative eo could also refer to Laodicea. 25 See p. 288 below on the unclear status of Laodicea between 250 and 343. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 277 provinces: Pamphylia, Phrygia Prima, Phrygia Secunda, Asia, Lydia, Caria, Insulae, Pisidia, and Hellespontus.26 The precise development within Phry- gia, however, is unclear, especially the date of its nal division into Phrygia Prima and Phrygia Secunda, with Laodicea as the administrative center of the former and Synnada as the administrative center of the latter. The list of participants at the Council of Nicea gives the impression that at that time there was only a single province of Phrygia, under the governance of Laodicea.27 In discussing the Council of Nicea, the church history ascribed to Gelasius of Cyzicus, written toward the end of the 5th century, assumes that there were two Phrygian provinces.28 During his exile in Phrygia, Hilary of Poitiers addressed his Epistula de synodis to the bishops of Gallia, Germania, and Britannia in the winter of 358/359; in it he con rms the division of the province of Phrygia in discussing the Synod of Serdica (343).29 Whether the division of Phrygia into two church provinces took place immediately at the time of the Diocletianic administrative reform or a few decades later30 makes little diference with regard to Laodicea’s privileged role. Possibly Laodicea’s role as provincial center can even be traced back to the period before Diocle- tian: even before 250, the double province of Phrygia et Caria was separated from the province of Asia;31 its governor resided in either Aphrodisias or Laodicea.32

26 Barnes 1982, p. 202: “Diocensis asiana. habet provincias supra scribtas VIIII. phan lia. frigia prima. frigia secunda. assa lidia. caria. insulae. pisidiae. ellespontus.” The list is not homogeneous; on its date, see Barnes 1982, pp. 203–205. Cf. also Kuhof 2011, pp. 358–361. On the subsequent development of the region, see pp. 292f. below. 27 Cf. p. 285 below. Barnes 1982, p. 215 assumes that there was an error in the lists of the council. Schwartz 1937, pp. 72 and 81 argues instead that Phrygia was divided between 328 and 337. 28 See p. 290 below. Ramsay 1895, pp. 82–84 identi es anachronisms in Gelasius’s history, but not in the case of Phrygia. 29 Hilar Syn. 33 (PL 10, 506f.): “Sancta synodus in Sardica congregata ex diversis provinciis Orientalium partium, Thebaida, Aegypto, Palaestina, Arabia, Phoenice, Syria Coele, Mesopo- tamia, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Ponto, Paphlagonia, Galatia, Bithynia, Hellesponto, Asia, Phrygiis duabus, Pisidia, Cycladum insularum, Pamphylia, Caria, Lydia, Europa, Thracia, Emimonto, Mysia, Pannoniis duabus, hanc exposuimus dem … .” On the Synod of Serdica and the letter of Hilary, see Barnes 1993, pp. 71–81 and 141f. For more on Hilary, see Durst 1998. 30 K. Belke in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 78 also suggests a temporary consolidation of the province that was divided during the tetrarchy. 31 Cf. Huttner 2008, p. 204; Gerhardt / Hartmann 2008, pp. 1164–1167; Vitale 2012, pp. 85–88. 32 For further discussion, see Haensch 1997, p. 297, with n. 199 (with arguments against Aphrodisias); Roueché 2004, Commentary, section I.5 (preference for Aphrodisias). Cf. also Glas / Hartmann 2008, p. 643. 278 chapter seven

The other cities of the Lycus Valley stood more or less in the shadow of Laodicea. The lists of cities in Pliny reveal a clear hierarchy: in the context of the Cibyratic assize district, he assigns Laodicea the status of celeberrima urbs, but in what follows he names only three others by name (out of a total of 25 cities in the district): Hydrela, Themisonium, and Hier- apolis.33 Not until later does he decide to add the names of other cities to Phrygia from an alphabetical list: “There are major cities there, besides those already mentioned: Ancyra, Andria, Celaenae, Colossae, Carina, Coti- aium, Ceraine, Conium, Midaium.”34 Pliny was not familiar with the situation in Asia Minor at rst hand, but his researches made it clear to him that Colossae—probably even before the catastrophic earthquake around 60— was among the also-rans, while Hierapolis seemed predestined to compete with Laodicea for rst place. Laodicea did not claim its rst-place status simply as an administrative center of the Roman government; it also owed its prestige to its importance in the koinon of the province of Asia, its cultic activity (especially in the emperor cult), its extensive festival program, including spectacular games, its economic power, and its magni cent monumental architecture. The fact that Laodicea, unlike Hierapolis, had a stadium speaks for itself.35 Today the archaeological heritage of Hierapolis may impress tourists more than the remains of Laodicea, but this diference could be redressed within a few years, given the intensive archaeological activity and impressive nds at the site of ancient Laodicea. Hierapolis was in constant competition with its neighbor across the Lycus, but it never caught up. The competition is illustrated by various honori c titles ultimately bestowed by the emperor, such as the title of neocoria, which Hierapolis achieved only some 30 years after Laodicea.36 The title of metropolis, the cause of repeated ecclesio-political

33 Plin. Nat. 5.105: “reliqui in eo conventu, quos nominare non pigeat, Hydrelitae, Themi- sones, Hierapolitae.” The location of Hydrela is totally uncertain. Jones 1937, pp. 51f. and 75 tentatively identi es Hydrela with Cydrara, on the border with Lydia, and conjectures that it was absorbed by Hierapolis over the course of time. Cf. already Ramsay 1895, pp. 172– 175.—Themisonium probably was located about 50 kilometers southeast of Laodicea in the Acıpayam plain. Cf. N. Mersich in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 403; Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 24f.; Nollé 2009, pp. 56–61. 34 Plin. Nat. 5.145: “oppida ibi celeberrima praeter iam dicta Ancyra, Andria, Celaenae, Colossae, Carina, Cotiaion, Ceraine, Conium, Midaium.” Sallmann 1971, pp. 201–207 assumes that alphabetical lists of cities like this come from the “Roman imperial archives” (p. 201). 35 See pp. 159f. above. 36 See pp. 63–66 above. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 279 conicts after the Constantinian shift, was already in use by Laodicea in the 3rd century,37 while it is rst attested for Hierapolis in the 4th century.38

7.1.4. The Synod of Ancyra (314) Not until the Constantinian shift do we nd documentation of the synods that allow reconstruction of lines of communication, alliances, and networks within the episcopate of Asia Minor based on prosopography.The role of the bishop of Laodicea in this mechanism was not outstanding but relatively constant. The earliest references come from accounts of the Synod of Ancyra, held shortly after the victory of Licinius over Maximinus Daia. Since Maximinus sufered his decisive defeat west of Byzantium in 313, followed by his death in Tarsus a few months later, and Licinius reached an accommodation with the Christians at the same time in the rst restitution measures, there are good arguments for dating the Synod of Ancyra, which also dealt with the consequences of the persecution under Maximinus, in the year 314.39 The tradition of the list of participants in the synod is confusing, especially because the names of the bishops in the Greek tradition appear only a single time; elsewhere they appear primarily in the Syriac and Latin translations of the canons of Ancyra.40 Scholars nevertheless assume that these translations reect an early state of the Greek original, so that basically the lists of names provide authentic material, even though later versions do contain entries that turn out to be ctional constructs when compared with other lists.41

37 For more on the title of metropolis in the high imperial period, which primarily signalized the role of a city as a religious center, see Heller 2006, pp. 197–210. 38 Corsten 1997, p. 87 (on the epigraphic nds in Laodicea); SEG 36 (1986), no. 1198 (Hierapolis); for more see Huttner, Bauinschrift (appearing shortly). 39 Nevertheless a somewhat later date, say 315 or 316, cannot be completely ruled out. In any case, the termini ante quos are the death of Vitalis of Antioch around 320 and the Council of Nicea in 325. On Maximinus Daia and Licinius, see Kuhof 2001, pp. 928–931; for a quick summary, see also Lenski 2006, pp. 72f. On the date of the Synod of Ancyra, see Fischer / Lumpe 1997, pp. 453f. 40 See Kauold 1993, pp. 23f. and 67 (evidence in the Greco-Syriac manuscript Mardin Orth. 309); Fischer / Lumpe 1997, pp. 455f.; on the Latin tradition, see Turner 1907, pp. 32 and 50f.; on the Syriac tradition, see Schwartz 1960 (1936), p. 175. 41 Cf. Fischer / Lumpe 1997, p. 456. Anachronisms can also be identi ed: in one of the Latin versions, the name of the bishop of Laodicea is followed by Phrygiae Pacatianae, the name of the sub-province that did not come into being until long after the Council of Nicea. Mansi II, p. 534 (translation of Isidore Mercator): “Nunechius Laodiceae Phrygiae Pacatianae.” The 280 chapter seven

The so-called Prisca, a Latin collection of canons compiled toward the end of the 5th century (probably under Pope Gelasius), as well as earlier Syriac translations of Greek canon collections, present a list of participants in the Synod of Ancyra that is presumably free of distortions:42 rst comes Vitalis of Antioch, who—naturally working closely with the host Marcellus of Ancyra—probably presided over the synod.43 Marcel- lus comes second in the list, followed by Agricolaus of Caesarea, Lupus of Tarsus, Basil of Amaseia, Philadelphius of Juliopolis (Galatia), Eustolius of Nicomedia, Heraclius of Zela, Peter of Iconium, Nunechius of Laodicea, Sergianus of Antioch (Pisidia), Epidaurus of Perge, and Narcissus of Nero- nias (Cilicia).44 Even though we cannot guarantee either the completeness or the statistical robustness of this list, it bears witness to a striking east- ward orientation: none of the colleagues of Nunechius came from the valley of the Meander or the Hermus and none from the Aegean coast. It looks toward central Anatolia and beyond toward Antioch, whose inuence as a center of gravity obviously extended far to the west. Antioch would not be replaced by Constantinople, the new imperial capital, until decades later.45 The name Nunechius borne by the bishop of Laodicea is good Greek (“one who has wisdom”), but relatively uncommon.46 Its appearance in a sepulchral inscription in nearby Hierapolis dating from the 3rd century47 is all the more striking. Possibly the bishop of Laodicea represented a local onomastic tradition that lasted for several generations within a family. That

name Pacatiana does not appear in literary sources until the second half of the 4th century. Cf. Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 49. On the formation of the province, see p. 277 above. 42 Vgl. Fischer / Lumpe 1997, S. 455. On the Prisca, cf. Schwartz 1960 (1936), pp. 257–269. In the Prisca the text reads as follows (Turner 1907, p. 32): “Et subscribserunt qui convenerant in synodo Ancyre civitatis: Vitalis anthiociae, Marcellus ancyrae, Agricolaus caesariae, Lupus tarsi, Basilius amesais, Philadelfus iuliopolis, Eustolus nicomediae, Heraclius zenon- iae, Petrus iconii, Nunechius laodiciae, Sergianus anthiociae pisidae, Epidaurus perges, Nar- cissus merodiades.” The text in the Greco-Syriac manuscript Mardin Orth. 309 basically agrees with the Latin text. Cf. Kauold 1993, p. 67. 43 Fischer / Lumpe 1997, pp. 460f. 44 On the prosopography, see Fischer / Lumpe 1997, pp. 456–460. 45 Cf. Dagron 21984, p. 415. But see also pp. 287f. below. 46 LGPN V A cites a single instance in the northern and western coastal regions of Asia minor (Νουνεχίς). 47 Judeich 1898, no. 81. There is also a Christian example from Aphrodisias: ala no. 91. The Christian use of the name has an echo in the adverb νουνεχῶς in Mark 12:34. For more on the difusion of the name among Christians in Late Antiquity, see Scheibelreiter 2006, p. 74, with n. 404. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 281 might explain why the bishop of Laodicea who took part in the Council of Chalcedon also bore this name.48 The Synod of Ancyra still stood in the shadow of the persecutions, which beset Asia Minor at special length on account of the rigorous policies of Maximinus Daia.49 Of the 25 canons that document the outcome of this synod, 10 afect the reincorporation of the lapsi into the churches.50 Canon 1 indicates that many presbyters had not only allowed themselves to be forced to ofer sacri ce to the gods but had also sought afterwards to hide their actions from their brothers and sisters in the faith by faking having been tortured.51 Basically all who had been forced to ofer sacri ce to the gods by physical duress were to be received back into the community. There was, however, a strictly regulated penitential procedure, as illustrated by canon 4: Whoever ofered sacri ce under duress and also partook of the sacri cial meal among the statues of the gods, if despite coercion he went with particularly cheerful demeanor and put on particularly splendid garments and partook of the meal provided with indiference, shall spend a year with the hearers and three years with the kneelers; then for two years he shall only share in the prayers, and then he shall be received into full communion.52 The provisions for restoration of the lapsi cannot be taken automatically as evidence that Nunechius in the Lycus Valley was also faced with the problem directly, even though the hagiographic tradition suggests that the Diocle- tianic persecution did not pass either Laodicea or Hierapolis by without a

48 We can rule out a doublet based on the list of the Chalcedonian participants, because there are no other agreements between the lists of Ancyra and Chalcedon. 49 Cf. Mitchell 1988, pp. 113–116. 50 Cf. Fischer / Lumpe 1997, p. 461. 51 CAnc. (314) Can. 1 (Jonkers 1954, p. 28): “Regarding the presbyters who ofered sacri ces and then returned to the fray, not out of cunning but with an honest attitude, and did not previously ensure through machinations and persuasion that they would gain renown through torture that was only seemingly inicted on them: they shall retain the dignity of their chair, but without ofering the oblation or preaching or performing any other sacerdotal functions.”—Πρεσβυτέρους τοὺς ἐπιθύσαντας, εἶτα ἐπαναπαλαίσαντας µήτε ἐξ µεθόδου τινός, ἀ ’ ἐξ ἀληθείας, µήτε προκατασκευάσαντας καὶ ἐπιτηδεύσαντας καὶ πείσαντας, ἵνα δόξωσι µὲν βασάνοις ὑποβά εσθαι, ταύτας δὲ τῷ δοκεῖν καὶ τῷ σχήµατι προσαχθῆναι, τούτους ἔδοξε τῆς µὲν τιµῆς τῆς κατὰ τὴν καθέδραν µετέχειν, προσφέρειν δὲ αὐτοὺς ἢ ὅµιλεῖν ἢ ὅλως λειτουργεῖν τι τῶν ἱερατικῶν λειτουργιῶν µὴ ἐξεῖναι. Cf. Joannou 1962, pp. 56f. 52 CAnc. (314) Can. 4 (Jonkers 1954, p. 30): Περὶ τῶν πρὸς βίαν θυσάντων, ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις καὶ τῶν δειπνησάντων εἰς τὰ εἴδωλα, ὅσοι µὲν ἀπαγόµενοι καὶ σχήµατι φαιδροτέρῳ ἀνῆλθον καὶ ἐσθῆτι ἐχρήσαντο πολυτελεστέρᾳ καὶ µετέσχον τοῦ παρασκευασθέντος δείπνου ἀδιαφόρως, ἔδοξεν ἐνιαυτὸν ἀκροᾶσθαι, ὑποπεσεῖν δὲ τρία ἔτη, εὐχῆς δὲ µόνης κοινωνῆσαι ἔτη δύο καὶ τότε ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸ τέλειον. Cf. Joannou 1962, p. 59f. 282 chapter seven trace.53 At the very least, the results of the persecution took on a signi cance in the bishop’s awareness of the problem simply through his participation in the synod that was probably not without repercussions in his home church. The same holds true for other provisions made at Ancyra, especially with regard to the various stages of penance in the canons that regulated the reincorporation of delinquents into the churches. Canon 16, for example, deals with sodomites (as does canon 17): As to those who have committed sodomy with creatures lacking reason or continue to do so, if they sinned before the age of 20, let them stay for 15 years among the kneelers and then participate in the prayer of the community, and when they have spent ve years in the community, then let them also touch the oblations. But their conduct of life among the kneelers must be subject to examination, and thus they shall come to enjoy humane indulgence …54 The strict gradation of the penitential process enshrined and solidi ed hierarchical structures in the consciousness of the Christian churches;55 these structures were already giving rise to a diferentiated order within the body of functionaries. Among the disciplinary regulations governing the clergy was one that reected the problem raised by the geography of settlement in central Ana- tolia: at issue were the so-called chorepiscopi, “rural bishops” not associated with urban episcopal sees. The ecclesio-political authority of the chorepiscopi relative to that of their urban episcopal brothers was disputed, as canon 13 of the Synod of Ancyra makes clear: “Chorepiscopi may not ordain presbyters or deacons, and de nitely not presbyters in a city, unless they receive permission from the bishop along with written approval in another parish.”56 Some details in the text of this canon are not entirely clear,57 but the subordination of the chorepiscopi to the urban bishops is clear: they are bishops enjoying the same clerical status, but their authority is clearly limited; in

53 See pp. 340–343 below. 54 CAnc. (314) Can.16 (Jonkers 1954, p. 33): Περὶ τῶν ἀλογευσαµένων ἢ ἀλογευοµένων, ὅσοι πρὶν εἰκοσαετεῖς γενέσθαι ἥµαρτον, πέντε καὶ δέκα ἔτεσιν ὑποπεσόντες κοινωνίας τυγχανέτωσαν τῆς εἰς τὰς προσευχὰς, εἶτα ἐν τῇ κοινωνίᾳ διατελέσαντες ἔτη πέντε, τότε καὶ τῆς προσφορᾶς ἐφαπτέσθωσαν. ᾽Εξεταζέσθω δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ ἐν τῇ ὑποπτώσει βίος καὶ οὕτως τυγχανέτωσαν τῆς φιλανθρωπίας. Cf. Joannou 1962, p. 67. 55 For more on the stages of penance, see Poschmann 1954. 56 CAnc. (314) Can.13 (Jonkers 1954, p. 32): Χωρεπισκόπους µὴ ἐξεῖναι πρεσβυτέρους ἢ διακό- νους χειροτονεῖν, ἀ ὰ µηδὲ πρεσβυτέρους πόλεως χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπιτραπῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου µετὰ γραµµάτων ἐν ἑτέρᾳ παροικίᾳ. Cf. Joannou 1962, p. 65. 57 See the detailed discussion in Fischer / Lumpe 1997, pp. 474f. on the second part of the canon. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 283 ordaining clergy, they are strictly dependent on their urban colleagues. The Synod of Laodicea attempted to eliminate the chorepiscopate entirely,58 so that we must assume that the institution was generally controversial in the Roman diocese of Asia. To what extent Nunechius of Laodicea was personally confronted with the problem remains unclear, particularly since the potential for conict with his brother bishops in the neighboring cities, especially Hierapolis, certainly proved to be greater. Chorepiscopi appear to have played no role in the Lycus Valley itself, although the situation may have difered in the barely urbanized hill country north of Hierapolis or in the border regions between Phrygia and Lydia.59 Shortly after the Synod of Ancyra and before the great Council of Nicea, yet another synod whose canons played an important role in the tradition of canon law was held in Asia Minor. It met in Neocaesarea on the Pontic river Lycus, in the recently established province of Pontus Polemoniacus. The problem of the lapsi was no longer pressing at Neocaesarea; in the 15 canons surviving from the synod, the persecutions of Christians no longer played any role. More at issue was regulation of the penitential system and the clergy.60 Chorepiscopi were also mentioned again: they were said to correspond to the 70 disciples in the Gospel of Luke whom Jesus sent out into the countryside before him and who naturally ranked below the apostles.61 Nunechius of Laodicea, whom we shall meet again at the Council of Nicea, probably did not participate in the Synod of Neocaesarea, which may have met without any representation from the Lycus Valley. Lists of names from this synod have also survived, especially in the Latin tradition, but without any indication of where the bishops came from.62 Although there are

58 CLaod. Can. 57 (Joannou 1962, p. 153); cf. Jonkers 1954, pp. 95f. On the historical context, see Hübner 2005, pp. 63f.; Destephen / Métivier 2007, pp. 343–347. 59 There is evidence of a chorepiscopus for the region around Laodicea Combusta, which was likewise barely urbanized. His name was Adelus, and he represented Messalinus of Laodicea at the Council of Chalcedon. Cf. Destephen 2008, p. 73. In this context, Hübner 2005, p. 65, n. 351 confuses Laodicea Combusta with Laodicea on the Lycus. 60 Cf. Fischer / Lumpe 1997, p. 493. 61 CNeocaes. Can.14: Because of their ministry to the poor, the chorepiscopi were allowed to ofer the eucharistic sacri ce just like urban bishops. Jonkers 1954, p. 38: Οἱ δὲ χωρεπίσκοποι εἰσὶ µὲν εἰς τύπον τῶν ἑβδοµήκοντα· ὡς δὲ συ ειτουργοὶ διὰ τὴν σπουδὴν εἰς τοὺς πτωχοὺς προσφέρουσι τιµώµενοι. 62 Turner 1907, pp. 32 and 52f. Here again in the version of the Prisca (Turner 1907, p. 32): “Et subscripserunt qui convenerant in synodo Neocaesariae: Vitalis, Lupus, Leontius, Basileus, Gregorius, Longinus, Heraclius, Amphidon, Sebius, Erytrius, Sanctus, Valentinus, Narcissus, Dicasius, Alphius, Germanus, Gerontius, Stephanus, Salaminos, Leontius.” 284 chapter seven striking points of agreement with the list of participants at Ancyra, including the appearance of Vitalis of Antioch at the head of the list, the name of Nunechius no longer appears.63 Attempts to assign names from this Neo- caesarea list that do not yet appear in the Ancyra list, such as Gerontius or Stephanus, to a see in the Lycus Valley, especially Hierapolis in its competition with Laodicea, remain hypothetical. The bishop of Hierapolis who was to participate in the Council of Nicea shortly afterwards was named Flac- cus.64 In the end, the state of the sources is too spotty to enable us to connect the Lycus Valley with the Synod of Neocaesarea.

7.2. The Council of Nicea

7.2.1. The Participants The Council of Nicea was beyond doubt a logistical feat that owed its success not only to the transportational support and organizational machinery of the imperial authorities but also to the tight structure of the clergy and the intact channels of communication that had developed into a tightly woven network since the early years of Christianity. It was clearly not a problem for Constantine to change his plans relatively quickly and shift the meeting place from Ancyra to Nicea.65 The number of bishops who took part in the council was set at the symbolic number of 318 by later tradition but was probably fewer. The earliest witness, Eusebius, assumes a total of more than 250.66 Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Arabic lists of participants appear in a multitude of versions in the canonical tradition, all going back to an original version from the late 4th century. The discussion of this list is complex and is still far from a nal conclusion.67

63 Kauold 1993, pp. 24–29. Fischer / Lumpe 1997, p. 492 assume that the Leontius who appears second in the list was the bishop of Cibyra, whose presence at the Council of Nicea is also documented, but the bishop of Cibyra who took part in the Council of Nicea was actually named Letodorus; cf. Gelzer / Hilgenfeld / Cuntz 1995, p. 224. There is therefore no need to consider whether the two neighboring bishops made an agreement, especially since by this time they belonged to diferent provinces (Laodicea in Phrygia, Cibyra in Caria). 64 See p. 285 below. 65 For more see Wohlmuth 32002, p. 1, with n. 1; Herrmann-Otto 2007, p. 122. Constantine’s letter moving the place of meeting to Nicea has survived in Syriac. Cf. Schwartz 1959 (1905), pp. 155f. (with a Greek translation). On the emperor’s presiding at the Council of Nicea, see Girardet 2001, pp. 243–245. 66 Eus. V.C. 3.8. For other early witnesses, see Gelzer / Hilgenfeld / Cuntz 1995, pp. XLV– XLVII. For more see C. Markschies in the afterword to this edition: pp. 271f. 67 See for example Honigmann 1939, pp. 27–65, Honigmann 1942/1943, pp. 20–28; Kauf- institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 285

In evaluating the lists for the Lycus Valley in the following discussion, we shall use as our primary source the register that Theodorus Lector appended to his Historia tripartita in the 5th/6th century;68 other lists will be cited to supplement it. The list in Theodorus’s history is convenient because it is arranged by provinces. Under the heading Phrygia, the following bishops are listed:69 “Nunechius of Laodicea, Flaccus of Sanaus, Procopius of Synnada, Pistus of Aizanoi, Athenodorus of Dorylaeum, Paul of Apamea, Eugenius of Eucarpeia, Flaccus of Hierapolis.”70 It is not entirely impossible that behind the second Flaccus bishop of Hierapolis there lurks the bishop of Hieropolis in the Pentapolis, and hence the neighbor of Eugenius of Eucarpeia, but it is unlikely for two reasons: rst, the Syriac list of participants clearly preserves the form Flaccus Hieraspoleos;71 thanks to the apostolic tradition of his city, furthermore, the bishop from the Lycus Valley clearly outranked his colleague from central Phrygia.72

hold 1993, pp. 7–22. For more see C. Markschies in Gelzer / Hilgenfeld / Cuntz 1995, pp. 272– 283. 68 Text of the list: Gelzer / Hilgenfeld / Cuntz 1995, pp. 61–70. Cf. Kauold 1993, p. 8. This is probably the original list of participants; it comprises 212 entries. 69 On the discrepancy with the list of provinces in the Laterculus Veronensis, see p. 277 above. 70 Gelzer / Hilgenfeld / Cuntz 1995, p. 67 (V 135–142): Φρυγίας· Νουνέχιος Λαοδικείας, Φλάκ- κος Συνάδων, Προκόπιος Συνάδος, Πιστὸς ᾽Αζανῶν, ᾽Αθηνόδωρος ∆ορυ έου, Παῦλος ᾽Απαµείας, Εὐγένιος Εὐκαρπίας, Φλάκκος ῾Ιεραπόλεως. Since a few toponyms are garbled, we shall cite here extracts from two Latin lists. Gelzer / Hilgenfeld / Cuntz 1995, p. 36 (I 139–146): “Provin- ciae Frigiae: Nunechios Laodicensis, Flaccus Sandu, Procopios Synodo, Pisticos Azanon, Athenodoros Dorileu, Paulus Apamenus, Eugenius Eucharpias, Flaccus Hieropolitanus.” Gel- zer / Hilgenfeld / Cuntz 1995, p. 37 (IV 127–133): “Provinciae Frygiae: Nonnichius Laodicia, Flaccus Sanao, Procopius Synnada, Pisticus Aiana, Athinodorus Dorilao, Eugenius Eucarpia, Flaccus Hierapoli.” Paul of Apamea is missing from this list. Honigmann 1939, p. 47 reconstructs the following archetype: ᾽Επαρχίας Φρυγίας· Νουνέχιος Λαοδικείας, Φλάκκος Σαναοῦ, Προκόπιος Συννάδων, Πιστικὸς Αἰζανῶν, ᾽Αθηνόδωρος ∆ορυλαίου, Εὐγένιος Εὐκαρπίας, Φλάκκος ῾Ιεραπόλεως. Cf. also the text in the Greek column of the Greco-Syriac manuscript Mardin Orth. 309 (8th/9th cent.) from Kauold 1993, p. 63: ΦΡΥΓΙΑ· [ΝΟΥ]ΝΕΧΙΟC ΛΑΟ∆ΙΚΕΙΑ, ΦΛΑΚΚΟC CANAOC, ΠΡΟΚΟΠΙΟCCΥΝΑ∆ΑΩ(Ν), ΠICTOC AZHNΩΝ˙ , ΑΘΗΝΟ∆ΩΡΟC ∆ΩΡΗ˙ ˙ ˙ C, EΥΓΕΝΕΙΟC EYΚΑΡΠΙΑ˙ ˙ , ΦΛΑΚΟC ΙΕΡΑΠΟΛΙ˙ C. 71 Cf. Gelzer / Hilgenfeld / Cuntz 1995, pp. 109 (VIII 145) and 240 (index). On coins from the imperial period, the city in the Pentapolis is always called Hieropolis; cf. BMC Phrygia, p. LXX and Leschhorn 2009, p. 114. Under the Empire, the distinction signaled by a single vowel between Hierapolis (southern Phrygia or Pacatiana) and Hieropolis (Salutaris) appears to have become well established, even though both cities were originally called Hierapolis. Cf. L. Robert in Dupont-Sommer / Robert 1964, pp. 19–22. This distinction, however, was not maintained consistently. 72 Pace Destephen 2008, p. 405, who leaves the question open. 286 chapter seven

Nunechius of Laodicea is the same Nunechius who had participated in the Synod of Ancyra a few years before. Now he had already been in o ce a decade or longer. It is not surprising that the representatives of Laodicea and Hierapolis set out for Nicea; they represented the most renowned episcopal sees in the Lycus Valley. They were also joined by a third colleague, Agogius of Tripolis, who was listed under the heading of the province of Lydia.73 Here we catch sight of a church in the Lycus Valley that has left no trace in the history of pre-Constantinian Christianity but whose organization had advanced to the point that sending a bishop to Nicea did not present any problems. Alongside growth in the centers of Christianity such as Laodicea and Hierapolis and the epigraphic discoveries in certain regions of Phrygia and Lycaonia, this provides further evidence that the structures of the churches and the clergy consolidated rapidly before and following the period of persecution. The canonical status of Agogius in 325 vis-à-vis his prominent colleagues from the neighboring province is unclear, as is any kind of subordination. The surviving lists of participants probably cannot claim completeness. But given the relative insigni cance of Colossae as a city, it is highly likely that the ancient Pauline church did not send a representative to Nicea. Despite its eminent apostolic tradition, the city had largely ceased to play any role in church politics.74 This makes the presence of a few neighbors at Nicea all the more striking—for example from Sanaus to the east, reached from the Lycus Valley by a mountain road, and from Apollonia to the south across the Cadmus, in the province of Caria.75 We know nothing about the activities of the delegates from the Lycus Val- ley at Nicea. Many bishops and members of their retinue probably used the opportunity to establish personal contact with the emperor. We do not know how the resolution of the christological debate and the condemnation of the Arian doctrine of subordination was received in the churches of the Lycus Valley, given the lack of relevant sources.76 For a while, there was an unmistakable hostility to the person and theology of Athanasius, which became increasingly evident during the reign of Constantius II. Flaccus of Hierapo-

73 Gelzer / Hilgenfeld / Cuntz 1995, p. 67 (V 130): ᾽Αγώγιος Τριπόλεως. 74 See p. 320 below (on Ephesus II). 75 The bishop of Apollonia was named Eugenius. Gelzer / Hilgenfeld / Cuntz 1995, p. 68 (V 166): Εὐγένιος ᾽Απο ωνιάδος. 76 The ability of the Arians to spark conicts in the churches is highlighted by a letter of Basil to the church of Sozopolis, 120 kilometers east of the Lycus Valley (Ep. 261). institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 287 lis embodied this trend and proved to be a turncoat.77 Probably, however, the churches were more interested in the liturgical and organizational decisions reached at Nicea. One of the fundamental concerns of the council was undoubtedly to achieve a radical harmonization of the church, which was being torn apart not only by theological conicts but also by liturgical dif- ferences. Therefore a uniform date of Easter was to be established at Nicea, after the Synod of Arles had already taken a rst step in that direction in 314.78

7.2.2. The Date of Easter In Asia Minor, it seemed that many were still maintaining the traditions of the Quartodecimans and thus close ties to the Jewish festal calendar.79 How pressing the question of Easter was in western Asia Minor would be seen shortly afterwards at the Synod of Laodicea, where the Quartodecimans were denounced explicitly as a heretical group.80 A letter sent by Constan- tine (according to Eusebius81) following the council to those who could not be present at Nicea, however, gives a diferent impression: only the churches of the East, i.e. Antioch and the Syrian provinces, needed to be brought into line.82 Asia Minor—the letter goes on—had been counted from the outset among the upstanding supporters of the regular Easter feast. From now on, all were to adopt the celebration of Easter decided at Nicea and maintain a corresponding separation from the Jewish festival of Passover. Since these regulations were decided upon to prevent having anything in common with that nation of patricides who slew the Lord, and since there is a proper arrangement that all the churches of the world observe in the west, south, and north as well as a few in the eastern territories, therefore at the present time all consider it only right—and I myself gave my word that you who are so sagacious would agree—that your discernment would gladly agree with what is now held in perfect unanimity in the city of the Romans, in Italy,

77 See p. 290 below. 78 CArel. Can. 1 (Jonkers 1954, p. 23): “Primo loco de observatione paschae Domini, ut uno die et uno tempore per omnem orbem a nobis observetur et iuxta consuetudinem literas ad omnes tu dirigas.” This opening canon should be read as a request to Bishop Sylvester of Rome. 79 Strobel 1977, pp. 389–392 emphasizes that the Easter legislation of Nicea was directed particularly against the Quartodecimans. 80 Cf. CLaod. Can. 7 (Jonkers 1954, p. 87; Joannou 1962, p. 133); see also pp. 300f. below. 81 Eus. V.C. 3.16. 82 Cf. Gerlach 1998, pp. 258–265. 288 chapter seven

in all Africa, in Egypt, in the provinces of Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Libya, in all of Greece, in the Asian and Pontic dioceses, as well as in Cilicia …83 Constantine explicitly mentions the diocese of Asia, which included Phrygia and the Lycus Valley, as one of the regions accepting the regular celebration of Easter. The apparent discrepancy with the Synod of Laodicea can be explained by the diferent perspectives of the two declarations: Constantine was thinking of the attitude of the authorities, essentially the bishops, but the bishops assembled in Laodicea were thinking basically of the Christian population in their charge. Neither Nunechius of Laodicea nor Flaccus of Hierapolis nor Agogius of Tripolis advocated the Quartodeciman Easter, but in the Lycus Valley there were probably still individual churches or groups that followed the local Jewish population in determining the date of Easter.

7.2.3. Metropolitan Privileges Besides the creed and the regulations concerning Easter, 20 canons of the Council of Nicea have been preserved. Two of them probably were of special interest in the Lycus Valley, because they dealt with the canonical authority associated with the title of metropolitan. Nunechius of Laodicea was constantly in competition with his neighbor in Hierapolis, although ultimately Laodicea as the residence of the governor was undoubtedly able to assert its well-founded claims. In the 3rd and 4th centuries, the administrative role of Laodicea for the province remained difuse on the whole. It used the title of a metropolis since the 3rd century at the latest, as the epigraphic evidence shows.84 Whether it served after c. 250 as the residence of the governor of the newly erected double province of Phrygia-Caria is unclear, as is whether the governor resided in Laodicea immediately after Diocletian’s reform of the provincial system or not until a few decades later. In any case, even before 350 we must think in terms of two Phrygian provinces with their administra-

83 Eus. V.C. 3.19.1 (F. Winkelmann, GCS Eusebius I2 1 [21991], 91.23–92.8): ῞Οθεν ἐπειδὴ τοῦτο οὕτως ἐπανορθοῦσθαι προσῆκεν, ὡς µηδὲν µετὰ τοῦ τῶν πατροκτόνων τε καὶ κυριοκτόνων ἐκείνων ἔθνους εἶναι κοινόν, ἔστι δὲ τάξις εὐπρεπής, ἣν πᾶσαι αἱ τῶν δυτικῶν τε καὶ µεσηµβρινῶν καὶ ἀρκτῴων τῆς οἰκουµένης µερῶν παραφυλάττουσιν ἐκκλησίαι καί τινες τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἑῴαν τόπων, οὗ ἕνεκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος καλῶς ἔχειν ἅπαντες ἡγήσαντο, καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ τῇ ὑµετέρᾳ ἀγχινοίᾳ ἀρέσειν ὑπεσχόµην, ἵν’ ὅπερ δ’ ἂν κατὰ τὴν ῾Ρωµαίων πόλιν ᾽Ιταλίαν τε καὶ ᾽Αφρικὴν ἅπασαν, Αἴγυπτον, Σπανίας, Γα ίας, Βρεττανίας, Λιβύας, ὅλην ῾Ε άδα, ᾽Ασιανήν τε διοίκησιν καὶ Ποντικὴν καὶ Κιλικίαν µιᾷ καὶ συµφώνῳ φυλάττεται γνώµῃ, ἀσµένως τοῦτο καὶ ἡ ὑµετέρα προσδέξηται σύνεσις … . Also Socr. H.e. 1.9.41f. 84 See Corsten 1997, p. 87; Huttner, Bauinschrift (appearing shortly); see also pp. 278f. above. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 289 tive centers in Synnada and Laodicea.85 The characteristic names of the two provinces, Salutaris and Pacatiana, came into general use only gradually.86 The status accorded to the administrative center of Pacatiana is illustrated not only by the Synod of Laodicea, which served as a conference center for bishops from the entire diocese of Asia,87 but also by Justinian’s administrative reforms of 535, when the functions of the vicarius of the diocese of Asia and those of the governor of Phrygia Pacatiana were o cially combined in a single person.88 Laodicea thus radiated power that spread throughout the entire diocese, beyond the borders of the province. It must be remembered, however, that the title metropolis was not awarded by the emperor only to cities distinguished by their special role in the provincial administration. Hierapolis, too, could boast of the title metropolis in the 4th century.89 Both canon 4 and canon 6 of the Council of Nicea a rm that ultimate power of decision regarding episcopal appointments rests with the metropolitan;90 this assumed that each province would in fact have no more than one metropolitan. Canon 4 deals with the formalities of an episcopal ordination: It would be best if a bishop would be ordained by all the bishops of a province. But if that is di cult on account of urgent necessity or great distances, in any case three are to assemble in one place, and when the assent of those absent has been obtained and presented in writing, they shall proceed with the choice [ordination]. The power of decision about the proceedings [the ordination] in each province shall rest with the metropolitan.91 This canon formulates the metropolitan’s power of decision in very general terms, referring simply to τὰ γινόµενα in the province, but the context suggests that here it covers only processes connected with the ordination of bishops.

85 See p. 277 above. 86 Cf. Ruge 1941, cols. 804f.; K. Belke in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 78. 87 See pp. 291–293 below. 88 On Justn. Nov. 8.2 (ἐκεῖνο µέντοι διορίζοµεν, τὸ χρῆναι τὸν βικάριον τῆς ᾽Ασιανῆς, ὄντα δὲ καὶ ἄρχοντα τῆς Πακατιανῆς Φρυγίας, µηκέτι µὲν οὕτω προσαγορεύεσθαι, ἀ ὰ τοῦ λοιποῦ κόµητα Φρυγίας Πακατιανῆς ὀνοµάζεσθαι … .) cf. Feissel 1998, pp. 102f.; Roueché 1998, p. 87. 89 Cf. Huttner, Bauinschrift (appearing shortly). See pp. 279 above and 315 below. 90 Cf. Lotter 1973, p. 127: “Ultimately, of course, the metropolitan had to rule on the validity of an episcopal appointment.” 91 CNic. (325) Can. 4 (Jonkers 1954, S. 40): ᾽Επίσκοπον προσήκει µάλιστα µὲν ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐν τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ καθίστασθαι. Εἰ δὲ δυσχερὲς εἴη τὸ τοιοῦτο ἢ διὰ κατεπείγουσαν ἀνάγκην ἢ διὰ µῆκος ὁδοῦ, ἐξάπαντος τρεῖς ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συναγοµένους συµψήφων γινοµένων καὶ τῶν ἀπόντων καὶ συντιθεµένων διὰ γραµµάτων τότε τὴν χειροτονίαν ποιεῖσθαι, τὸ δὲ κῦρος τῶν γινοµένων δίδοσθαι καθ’ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν τῷ µητροπολίτῃ. On the content, see Dvornik 1958, pp. 6f. 290 chapter seven

This authority is con rmed by canon 6, which deals rst with the privileges of the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch; then it continues: “One thing is clear: when someone becomes a bishop without the vote of the metropolitan, then according to the determination of the great synod, such a man cannot be a bishop …”92 These provisions were probably suited to satisfy Nunechius of Laodicea, whose position the vote of the Council had safeguarded. Obviously they were not approved out of thin air but built on already established structures. The bishop of Laodicea could probably already look back over years of leadership in his province. The Synod of Anti- och in 341 con rmed the privileges of the metropolitans.93 If we accept the church history ascribed to Gelasius of Cyzicus, dating from c. 480, it fell to Nunechius to publish the decisions of the Council of Nicea in Phrygia, “in both the rst and in the second Phrygian province.”94 Possibly there is evidence here of a transition, especially since later the bishop of Laodicea was to be responsible only for one of the Phrygian sub-provinces.

7.2.4. Christological Conlicts after Nicea It would be wrong to assume that the christological conicts following the Council of Nicea left no traces in the Lycus Valley, even though the centers of conict lay elsewhere. Flaccus held o ce in Hierapolis for many years after the Council of Nicea. In 343 he joined with 72 other bishops of the East after the Synod of Serdica to sign a decree condemning the supporters of Athanasius.95 In the same list of signatories, two names above Flaccus, we nd the name of Nonnius from Laodicea,96 where there had meanwhile been a change in the episcopate.97

92 CNic. (325) Can. 6 (Jonkers 1954, p. 41): … Καθόλου δὲ πρόδηλον ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι εἴ τις χωρὶς γνώµης τοῦ µητροπολίτου γένοιτο ἐπίσκοπος, τὸν τοιοῦτον ἡ µεγάλη σύνοδος ὥρισε µὴ δεῖν εἶναι ἐπίσκοπον. 93 Especially CAnt. (341) Can. 9 (Jonkers 1954, pp. 50f.); cf. also Ritter 1965, pp. 87f. 94 [Gelasius of Cyzicus] H.e. 2.28.9 (G.C. Hansen, GCS n.F. 9 [2002], 86.10): Νουνέχιος Λαοδικείας ταῖς κατὰ τὴν Φρυγίαν πρώτην καὶ δευτέραν. Cf. p. 277 above. 95 Hilar. Coll. antiar. 4.3.61 (A. Feder, CSEL 65 [1916], 77.17): “Flaccus episcopus ab Ieropoli, opto vos in domino bene valere.” On this decree, see Hanson 1988, pp. 296–299. On the episcopal lists of the Synod of Serdica, see Honigmann 1953, p. 28. 96 Hilar. Coll. antiar. 4.3.59 (A. Feder, CSEL 65 [1916], 77.14): “Nonnius episcopus a Laudo- cia, opto vos in domino bene valere.” Destephen 2008, pp. 724f. assumes that this refers to the bishop of Laodicea on the Lycus. The bishop of Syrian Laodicea at the time was Georgius. Cf. Aubert 2010, col. 514. But we cannot totally rule out the possibility that Nonnius was the bishop of Laodicea Combusta.—The name Nonnius was probably not the Latin nomen gentile but an Anatolian hypocoristic name. See Zgusta 1964, p. 364 §1046-11. 97 Mardirossian 2010, p. 118 considers it possible that Nonnius and Nunechius were one and the same person. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 291

During the Synod of Seleucia (Isauria) in 359, Theodulus of Keretapa and Leontius of Tripolis found themselves in the company of the controversial Acacius of Caesarea, the successor of Eusebius, and were promptly deposed.98 Keretapa was by then probably already sufragan to Laodicea,99 but the position taken by the metropolitan in those conicts is unknown. But we do learn from Athanasius that one of his most prominent opponents, Cecropius—perhaps as the immediate successor of Nonnius—occupied the see of Laodicea until well into the 350s when he was transferred to Nicomedia, obviously at the behest of the emperor Constantius.100 There is therefore mounting evidence that the supporters of the Arians or Homoeans had substantial inuence in the Lycus Valley.

7.3. The Synod of Laodicea

7.3.1. Province and Diocese At Nicea it was decided that a synod should be held regularly in Laodicea to discuss among the bishops of the province all the problem cases involving excommunication. Every year two such synods were to be scheduled in each province (ἑκάστου ἐνιαυτοῦ καθ’ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν).101 Naturally the logistical requirements and an adequate infrastructure were present in Laodicea, especially given that since the 4th century it had also been the site of the o cial provincial diets, on which dignitaries from throughout Pacatiana converged.102 If we can rely on the Justinianic lists of Hierocles, some 40 bishops met in the city.103 In any case, Hierocles counts 38 poleis belonging

98 Socr. H.e. 2.40.43. Cf. Destephen 2008, pp. 909 and 610–612. On the leading role played by Acacius among the Homoeans in Seleucia, see Hanson 1988, pp. 372–376. 99 See p. 323 below; also N. Mersich in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 323. 100 Athanasius Ep. Aeg. Lib. 7.5 (Metzler / Hansen / Sorridis 1996, p. 47, lines 19–23) counts Cecropius among his opponents. In H. Ar. 74.4–5 (Opitz 1935, p. 224, lines 16–25), he criticizes the arbitrary transfers undertaken by Constantius among the bishops. He cites the death of Gallus in 354 as terminus post quem: καὶ τρεῖς βασιλεῖς Βετρανίωνα καὶ Μαγνέντιον καὶ Γά ον καθελὼν εὐθὺς προέστη τῆς ἀσεβείας.… ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς Λαοδικείας Κεκρόπιον εἰς τὴν Νικοµήδειαν ἀπέστειλεν. On Cecropius see also Janin 1953, cols. 41f.; Destephen 2008, p. 574 (with a date of 351). At that time, Georgius was bishop in Syrian Laodicea, so that the statement of Athanasius must almost certainly refer to Phrygian Laodicea. Cf. also p. 290, n. 96 above. 101 CNic. (325) Can. 5. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 41. See Mardirossian 2010, pp. 158–160. Of course we cannot assume that the canon was observed consistently. Cf. Weckwerth 2010, pp. 45f. 102 On these provincial diets, see Roueché 1998, p. 88. 103 But note that the list provided by Hierocles is secular; see Honigmann, Hiéroklès 1939, 292 chapter seven to the province of Phrygia Pacatiana.104 Here the bishops of the Lycus Valley came in contact with extremely dynamic churches, for example in Eume- neia, where the Christians openly acknowledged their God in their sepulchral inscriptions long before Constantine, and in Pepuza, where the Mon- tanists still had their center. The neighboring bishop of Tripolis (further down the Lycus) probably did not participate in the synods in nearby Lao- dicea because his church belonged to the province of Lydia, where the metropolitan in Sardis convoked the bishops.105 The synod in Laodicea whose canons have been preserved in the tradition had other dimensions, as the introduction to its documentation shows: “The holy synod of Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana, assembled from [the] several provinces of [the diocese of] Asia, passed ecclesiastical resolutions as listed below …”106 The diocese of Asia comprised nine provinces (later

p. 2. Cf. also the statistical breakdown by Van Dam 2011, p. 221 based on the studies of A.H.M. Jones and S. Destephen: for Phrygia Pacatiana, “37 sees, but 41 cities.” 104 There is a discrepancy in the list of Hierocles, who speaks of 39 cities but names only 38; on this discrepancy, see Honigmann, Hiéroklès 1939, pp. 7f. The text from the standard edition of Honigmann, Hiéroklès 1939, pp. 24f.: ᾽Επαρχία Φρυγίας Καπατιανῆς, ὑπὸ κονσου- λάριον, πόλεις λθ. Λαοδίκεια. ῾Ιεράπολις. Μόσυνα. ῎Αττυδα. Τραπεζούπολις. Κολόσαι. Κερετάπα. Θεµεσόνιος. Οὐαλέντια. Σάναος. Κονιούπολις. Σιτούπολις. Κράσσος. Λοῦνδα. Μόλτη. Εὐµένεια. Σιβλία. Πέπουζα. Βριάνα. Σεβαστή. ᾽Ιλούζα. ᾽Ακµῶνα. ᾽Αδιοί. ᾽Ιουχαραθάξ. ∆ιόκλια. ᾽Αρίστιον. Κί- δυσσος. ᾽Αππία. Εὐδοκίας. ᾽Αζάνοι. Τιβεριούπολις. Κάδοι. Θεοδοσιανά. ᾽Αγκύρα. Σύναος. Τεµένου θύραι. Τανόπολις. Πολυχεριανούπολις. Cf. also the more convenient edition of Burckhardt 1893, pp. 19f. Jones 1937, pp. 72f., p. 395, n. 72, p. 508 plate XI calls attention to the numerous corruptions in the list and corrects them as follows: 1. Laodicea, 2. Hierapolis, 3. Mossyna, 4. Attuda, 5. Trapezopolis, 6. Colossae, 7. Ceretapa, 8. Themisonium, 9. Valentia, 10. Sanaus, 11. Dionysopolis, 12. Metellopolis, 13. Attanassus, 14. Lunda, 15. Peltae, 16. Eumeneia, 17. Siblia, 18. Pepuza, (19. Anastasiopolis), 20. Bria, 21. Sebaste, 22. Eluza, 23. Acmoneia, 24. Alioi, 25. Siocharax, 26. Diocleia, 27. Aristium, 28. Cidyessus, 29. Appia, 30. Eudocias, 31. Aezani, 32. Tiberiopolis, 33. Cadi, 34. Theodosiana, 35. Ancyra, 36. Synaus, 37. Temenothyrae, 38. Tra- janopolis, 39. Pulcherianopolis. Honigmann, Hiéroklès 1939, pp. 24f. arrives at the following result: 1. Laodikeia, 2. Hierapolis, 3. Mossyna, 4. Attouda, 5. Trapezoupolis, 6. Kolossai, 7. Kere- tapa, 8. Themisonion, 9. Valentia, 10. Sanaos, 11. Konioupolis (Demetroupolis), 12. Titoupolis (?), 13. Krassos (Attanassos), 14. Lounda, 15. Peltai, 16. Eumeneia, 17. Siblia, 18. Pepouza, 19. Bria, 20. Sebaste, 21. Ilouza, 22. Akmonia, 23. Alinoi, 24. Sioucharax, 25. Diokleia, 26. Aristion, 27. Kidyessos, 28. Appia, 29. Eudokias, 30. Aizanoi, 31. Tiberioupolis, 32. Kadoi, 33. Theodosiana, 34. Ankyra, 35. Synaos, 36. Temenouthyrai, 37. Traianoupolis, 38. Poulcheriopolis.—Some of these cities have not been located (e.g. Valentia, Eluza). At(t)anassos appears in the Acta of the Council of Chalcedon (see p. 323 below). Krassos in the list of Hierocles should probably be replaced with At(t)anassos. On no. 24/23 (Alioi, not Alia), see Weiß 1993. 105 Hierocles, Synecdemus (Honigmann, Hiéroklès 1939, p. 25). Cf. also N. Mersich in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 323. 106 ῾Η ἁγία σύνοδος ἡ κατὰ Λαοδικείαν τῆς Φρυγίας Πακατιανῆς συγκροτηθεῖσα ἐκ διαφόρων ἐπαρχιῶν ᾽Ασιανῆς ὅρους ἐξέθετο ἐκκλησιαστικούς, οὓς ὑποτέτακται. Text from Jonkers 1954, institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 293 eleven),107 of which the province of Asia and to a certain extent also the provinces of Insulae and Hellespontus played a special role, because there the right of the vicarius (the administrative head of the diocese) to intervene remained limited or was totally inhibited.108 Whether this distinction in secular administrative law also afected canon law and the body of participants at the Synod of Laodicea is unclear. In any case, the synod suggested an ecclesio-political primacy of the metropolitanate of Laodicea that extended far beyond the borders of the province and basically included all of western Asia Minor. Several pieces of evidence suggest that the vicarius of the diocese, who had no access to Ephesus in the province of Asia, had his o cial residence in Laodicea,109 so that the ecclesio-political dominance of the city was a byproduct of its dominance in the civil administration. If you take a cross section through the whole diocese of Asia, its southern end would be at Cnidus in the province of Caria or even Rhodes in the province of Insulae and its northern end at Midaion in Phrygia Salutaris. Its hinterland was therefore huge, measuring almost 400 kilometers from south to north. Naturally not all the sees (more than 300) sent representatives to Laodicea,110 but it is quite possible that 100 or more bishops met at the synod.111 The statement of Gratian in his 12th-century collection of canons that 22 delegates assembled in Laodicea under the leadership of a bishop named Theodosius is late and of dubious value for any reconstruction.112

p. 86. The Latin translation in Dionysius Exiguus is fuzzy: “Sancta synodus quae apud Laodi- ciam Phrigiae Pacatinae convenit ex diversis regionibus Asiae, de nhitiiones exposuit eccle- siasticas hquaei subter annexae sunt.” Cited from the edition of A. Strewe 1931, p. 52. A list of names for the Synod of Laodicea incorporated into the Syriac tradition early on (5th cent.) is therefore worthless for any reconstruction of the participants: a Syriac manuscript from the British Museum (Add. 14,528), probably written in 501, lists more than a dozen bishops, all from the Oriens diocese. On the manuscript, see Wright 1871, pp. 1030–1033; Schulthess 1908, p. V. Cowper 1861, pp. 42f. provides an English translation of the list. 107 Mentioned on p. 277 above, besides Lycia and Lycaonia. 108 Feissel 1998, p. 94. 109 Cf. Robert 1948, pp. 46f.; Foss 1979, pp. 181f. 110 Destephen 2008 a, p. 280: “Ensuite, le diocèse d’Asie possède un réseau épiscopal exceptionnel d’environ 330 sièges répartis sur un territoire continental de plus de 200 000km2 auquel il faut ajouter la moitié orientale de la mer Egée.” 111 Even if we assume that bishops from the provinces of Asia, Hellespontus, and Insulae did not participate in the synod. The list in Van Dam 2011, p. 221 shows that even without these provinces the diocese comprised more than 252 episcopal sees and 270 cities. 112 Corpus Iuris Canonici I, Decretum Gratiani 16.11 (Ae. Friedberg, 1879), col. 47: “Sexta Laudicensis, in qua Patres XXII statuerunt canones LVIII, quorum auctor maxime Theodosius episcopus extitit.” In Gratian’s list, Laodicea stands sixth in a series of minor synods. Attempts 294 chapter seven

7.3.2. The Date of the Synod The date of the Synod of Laodicea is uncertain and therefore disputed.113 An important reference point is the position of the canons of Laodicea in the collection of pre-Chalcedonian canons reconstructed on a rm foundation by Eduard Schwartz. Originally the material from Laodicea occupied last place in this collection, before the decisions of the Council of Constantino- ple (381) were added. The canons of Laodicea were immediately preceded by the canons of the Dedication Synod of Antioch, which was convoked in 341 and attended by Emperor Constantius.114 As a rst step, therefore, we can limit the date of the Synod of Laodicea to the period between 341 and 381.115 A further important clue to dating the synod is the condemnation of the Photinians in its seventh canon.116 Photinus, a supporter and student of the Marcellus of Ancyra, whose doctrine of hypostases made him controversial, was appointed bishop in Sirmium in 343/344, but in 351 he was already

to identify this Theodosius with the well-attested bishop of Philadelphia (Destephen 2008, pp. 904f.) and date the synod in the year 363 on the basis of Philost. H.e. 8.4 (Mansi II, pp. 563f., n. 2) are unnecessary given the totally unreliable nature of Gratian as a source, as pointed out by Hefele / Leclercq 1907 (1973), pp. 991–995 and Amann 1925, col. 2611. But cf. recently Mardirossian 2010, pp. 119–130. 113 Occasionally the collection of Laodicean canons is traced back to more than one source. In fact canons 1–19 (περὶ τοῦ) are introduced by a diferent formula than the rest (ὅτι οὐ δεῖ). On this observation, see Bardy 1957, col. 339; Faivre 1977, pp. 228f. Joannou 1962, p. 128 therefore considers the possibility of two separate synods in Laodicea; Ohme 1998, p. 403 takes a similar position. Occasionally the historicity of the synod itself has been challenged: cf. Gaudemet 1985, p. 47, n. 53 and p. 75, n. 1; Hess 2002, p. 48. 114 Fundamental to the collection of canons Schwartz 1960 (1936), pp. 161–192 and Mardi- rossian 2010, pp. 45–65; cf. also Honigmann 1961, pp. 49f.; Gaudemet 1985, pp. 75f.; Landau 2002, p. 9. For more on the Dedication Synod in Antioch, see Stevenson / Frend 21989, pp. 8– 11; Barceló 2004, pp. 80f. 115 Cf. for example Lauchert 1896, p. XXII; Jonkers 1954, p. 86: “Concilium Laodicenum inter annos 341 et 381 habitum”; Eisen 2000, p. 121. If the basic structure worked out by Schwartz is not accepted, the period must be extended. Markschies 2007, p. 202, who does not draw on the researches of Schwartz, dates the Synod of Laodicea between c. 325 (roughly the year when Phrygia Pacatiana was established) and c. 430 (the earliest mention of the synod by Theodoret; see pp. 302f. below). 116 CLaod. Can. 7 (Joannou 1962, p. 133): Περὶ τοῦ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν αἱρέσεων, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν Ναυα- τιανῶν ἢτοι Φωτεινιανῶν ἢ Τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατίτων, ἐπιστρεφοµένους εἴτ’ οὖν κατηχουµένους εἴτε πιστοὺς µὴ προσδέχεσθαι, πρὶν ἀναθεµατίσαι πᾶσαν αἵρεσιν, ἐξαιρέτως δὲ ἐν ᾗ κατείχοντο· καὶ τότε λοιπὸν τοὺς λεγοµένους παρ’ αὐτοῖς πιστοὺς ἐκµανθάνοντας τὰ τῆς πίστεως σύµβολα, χρισθέντας τε τῷ ἁγίῳ χρίσµατι, οὕτω κοινωνεῖν τῷ µυστηρίῳ τῷ ἁγίῳ. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 87. Lauchert 1896, p. XXII dates the synod after 345 on account of the mention of the Photinians; Ohme 1998, pp. 402f. after 351. On the content of the canon, see p. 300 below. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 295 deposed after his views had been condemned at several synods.117 Under Julian he was able to return to his see, but only temporarily.118 In the course of the christological dispute, Photinus had indirectly denied the divinity of Christ, and his opponents had saddled him with the name Skoteinos (“the dark one” in contrast to Photeinos, “the shining one”).119 Nevertheless the views of Photinus continued to nd supporters. Just when the “Photinians” emerged as party visible to outsiders and hence open to attack, however, is unclear. In any case, the “followers of the Ancyrogalatians Marcellus and Photinus” were already condemned in 344/345 in the Makrostichon120 in which the bishops of the East presented their view of the divine persons in detail to their counterparts in Italy, but the explicit identi cation of them as “Photinians” does not yet appear here. A relatively early witness dates from 365/366, in a letter of formerly Mace- donian bishops, including Eustathius of Sebaste, to Liberius of Rome, in which they distanced themselves from a whole series of heresies and also from the Photinians.121 Instances of the name become more frequent in the period around 380:122 at the Council of Constantinople in 381, the Photini- ans were included among the opponents of the creed of Nicea, who were pronounced anathema.123 Gratian had declared war on them shortly before, although he had fundamentally renounced the rigorous campaign against heresy of Valens, who had died in 378.124 A law addressed to the Praetorian prefect Eutropius from the months before the Council of Constantinople has survived; it calls for the nal eradication of the Photinian blight.125 The civil and ecclesiastical measures taken against the Photinians reect a mood

117 Cf. Brennecke 1984, pp. 91–105. Also Bardy 1935, cols. 1532f.; Pietri 1989, pp. 154f.; Wil- liams 2006, pp. 188–191. Also Schwartz 1960 (1935), pp. 23f. 118 Cf. Bardy 1935, cols. 1533f.; Speller 1983, pp. 100f. 119 Ath. Syn. 26.6.1 (H.-G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke 2.1 [1935], p. 253.1): Τοιοῦτοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ ἀπὸ Μαρκέ ου καὶ Σκοτεινοῦ τῶν ᾽Αγκυρογαλατῶν … . Cf. also the following note. 120 Cf. the preceding note and Socr. H.e. 2.19.16: Τοῦτοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ ἀπὸ Μαρκέ ου καὶ Φωτεινοῦ τῶν ᾽Αγκυρογαλατῶν …. 121 Socr. H.e. 4.12.12 (G.C. Hansen, GCS 1 n.F. [1995], 239.21–24: κατακρίνοντες … Φωτεινιανούς …). 122 The repeated mention of the Photinians by Ambrosiaster is noted here in passing; see Speller 1983, p. 103. 123 CCP (381) Can. 1. Cf. Wohlmuth 32002, p. 31 and the discussion of Ritter 1965, pp. 121–123. 124 Socr. H.e. 5.2.1 (G.C. Hansen, GCS 1 n.F. [1995], 275.22–23: µόνους δὲ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν εἴργεσθαι Εὐνοµιανούς, Φωτεινιανοὺς καὶ Μανιχαίους …); Soz. H.e. 7.1.1. Sozomen does not use the term Photinians, but calls them οἱ τὰ Φωτεινοῦ φρονοῦντες. Cf. Bardy 1935, col. 1535. 125 Cod. Theod. 16.5.6. of January 10, 381 (“… Fotinianae labis contaminatio …”). 296 chapter seven that may also have placed its stamp on the verdict against the heretics in canon 7 of the Synod of Laodicea. It is therefore not unreasonable to date the synod in the 370s, though obviously an earlier date is not ruled out.126 It is true, however, that a few Latin manuscripts reecting a relatively early tradition of the Laodicean canons omit the reference to the Photinians.127 If we assume that the gap was lled by a later interpolation,128 the chronological window opens once more, so that all that remains is a vague assignment to the four decades between 341 and 381. Nevertheless there is another piece of evidence. The collection of canons from Laodicea speaks for the rst time of the ambo as a feature of church architecture,129 before John Chrysostom in Constantinople assumed an established architectural tradition.130 The earliest architectural evidence for ambos dates from the 5th century,131 suggesting that the relevant canon from Laodicea should not be dated too early. Generally speaking, the canons of Laodicea appear to reect a period of well-developed church architecture: the collection also includes the earliest occurrences of other related terms, such as διακονικόν in canon 21 and βῆµα in canon 56.132 The identity of the Laodicean metropolitan who chaired the synod is unknown. Nonnius, who had been present at Serdica in 343, has been proposed for this leadership role,133 but Cecropius succeeded him,134 and the sources are silent about the episcopate of Laodicea after the 60s. The prosopographic value of Gratian’s statement that the synod was dominated by Bishop Theodosius is uncertain.135

126 Aubert 2010a, col. 517 prefers a later date without stating a reason (“sans doute vers 380”). 127 Lauchert 1896, p. 197. 128 Hefele / Leclercq 1907 (1973), pp. 999f. and Joannou 1962, pp. 127f., with the additional comment that canon 7 recognizes Photinian baptism, which would be unusual given their contravention of the mainstream view of the Trinity. Cf. also Wallraf 1997, pp. 259f., who would delete the Photinians from the list of heretics in canon 7. 129 See p. 313 below. 130 For further discussion see Jakobs 1987, p. 31. 131 Jakobs 1987, pp. 72f. See also the material in Niewöhner 2007, pp. 108–114 and 129. A monumental ambo has also been discovered in the recently excavated basilica near temple A in Laodicea. See p. 380 below. 132 Cf. the corresponding lemmata in Lampe 91989, pp. 296 (βῆµα C 1) and 351 (διακονικός B). On bemas see Schneider 1954; on diaconica, see Testini 21980, pp. 589–591. 133 Destephen 2008, pp. 724f. 134 See p. 291 above. 135 See p. 293 above. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 297

7.3.3. The Decisions Depending on the tradition, 59 or 60 canons have survived to document the decisions reached in Laodicea—not word for word, but in the form of lapidary summaries.136 Canon 60, found only in the Greek but not the Syriac and Latin manuscripts, is unusual in listing the accepted books of the Old and New Testament; it therefore constitutes an important milestone in the growth of the biblical canon.137 The range of topics dealt with by the assembled bishops was very diverse. Three groups of problems were primarily covered:138 (1) dissociation of orthodoxy from heretics, Jews, and pagans;139 (2) organization and discipline of the clergy;140 and (3) rite and liturgy.141 Two additional canons regulate penitential practice.142 A detailed scholarly commentary on the canons of the synod remains a desideratum. Our discussion here can only try to identify how certain provisions applied to the local situation in the Lycus Valley. In dealing with all normative sources, there is the problem that as a rule it is impossible to assess their acceptance and implementation; not all the pro- hibitions and regulations agreed on at Laodicea were put into efect. They do, however, outline a discussion that was being carried on in the Lycus Val- ley in the 4th century, responding to the situation in western Asia Minor. They also trace the course that the bishops charted to strengthen and reform their churches. In comparison with the decisions of other synods, the delib- erations in Laodicea produced well balanced results; the decision makers did not aim for severe or excessive restrictions.143 The anonymous bishop of

136 For the canons in Greek, see Jonkers 1954, pp. 86–96 and Joannou 1962, pp. 127–155 (Greek and Latin). The following discussion is based on Joannou’s edition; as a rule, reference is made also to the more widely available edition of Jonkers, which occasionally presents a diferent word, particularly in the case of particles. The Greek text with a French translation will be found in Mardirossian 2010, pp. 310–315. The Latin translation according to Dionysius Exiguus is in Strewe 1931, pp. 52–60 (as well as in Joannou). On the Syriac tradition, see Schulthess 1908, pp. 86–106; see also Wright 1871, p. 1031. The Old Slavonic version is given by Beneˇseviˇc1906 (1974), pp. 267–279 (opposite the Greek). 137 Cf. Hahnemann 1992, p. 157; Metzger 1993, p. 202 (also discussing doubts regarding the authenticity of canon 60). See also De Groote 2005, p. 156. 138 Following with minor modi cations the categorization of Schwartz, Ges. Schr. 4, 1960 (1936), pp. 190f. 139 CLaod. Can. 6–10, 29–35, 37–39, 53, 54. 140 CLaod. Can. 3, 4, 11–13, 20–27, 36, 40–42, 55, 57. Cf. Faivre 1977, pp. 228–232, under the heading “Laodicée ou l’apogée de la legislation concernant les fonctions inférieurs.” 141 CLaod. Can. 5, 14–19, 28, 43–52, 56, 58, 59. 142 CLaod. Can. 1 and 2; also 19. 143 Cf. Bardy 1957, cols. 342f. 298 chapter seven

Laodicea who presided over the synod was undoubtedly responsible in large measure for this result.

7.3.3.1. Christians and Jews The bishops at Laodicea were clearly concerned to de ne limits and mar- ginalize members of the community who made common cause with those outside the community, be they pagans, magicians, heretics, or Jews. The explosive character of the conict between Jews and Christians in that period is illustrated by two inconspicious gra ti on a column of the Nym- phaeum A, dating from the reign of Septimius Severus, fronting on the Syr- ian Road, one of the major roads traversing Laodicea.144 The earlier gra to, barely scratched into the marble, displays the traditional symbols of the seven-branch lamp (menorah) anked by a palm frond (lulav) and horn (shofar), as found on Jewish tombs in Hierapolis.145 Immediately on top of it a large cross with wide beams has been incised so vigorously that part of the menorah has been destroyed. As in similar gra ti from nearby Aphrodisias, the triumph of Christianity over the Jews is ostentatiously represented.146 Possibly Jews in the Lycus Valley in Late Antiquity had to fear abuse by radical Christians like that occasionally documented elsewhere.147 The legislation of the Christian emperors repeatedly imposed restrictions on the Jews (e.g. concerning construction of new synagogues); by and large, however, they were granted freedom to practice their religion until well into the reign of Justinian.148 Many Christians still found Jewish ritual attractive:149 canon 29 of the Synod of Laodicea prohibited Christians from fraternizing with the Jews; the term used is ἰουδαίζειν, which Paul also used in the Epistle to the Galatians.150 Above all they were not to rest from work on the Sabbath but on the day of the Lord.151 Other canons reinforced the dissociation, for example forbidding

144 On the Nymphaeum A, see Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 141–151; Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, pp. 147–159. 145 Cf. Ameling 2004, p. 398; also Ritti / Miranda / Guizzi 2007, p. 606 (menorah). 146 Cf. Chaniotis 2002, pp. 110–112 (Jewish gra ti erased by Christians). Sim¸ sek¸ 2006, p. 346 interprets the gra ti diferently, seeing the combination of the two in Laodicea as a symbol of peaceful coexistence. 147 Cf. Schuol 2007, p. 317. 148 Cf. Noethlichs 2001, pp. 99–161 (translation of the sources); Braun 1998, pp. 162–164; Schuol 2007, pp. 305–322; Leppin 2011, pp. 301–303. 149 Cf. Fredriksen 2003, p. 61 (with reference to the Synod of Laodicea). 150 Gal 2:14. For more on the interchanges between Christian and Jewish groups in Late Antiquity, see Jacobs 2008, pp. 177f.; on the phenomenon of “Judaizing” among Christians in Antioch in Late Antiquity, see Hahn 1996, pp. 72–75. 151 CLaod. Can. 29 (Joannou 1962, p. 142): ῞Οτι οὐ δεῖ Χριστιανοὺς ἰουδαίζειν καὶ ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 299

Christians to accept festival gifts or unleavened bread from Jews.152 Passover still appears to be a sensitive date, on which Christians must dissociate themselves from Jews with particular clarity.153 The worship of angels and the magical practices that were also condemned at Laodicea were probably associated with Jewish traditions by many contemporaries.154

7.3.3.2. Christians and Heretics This was not the rst time that conict with heretics ared up in the Lycus Valley, as the work of Apollinarius against the Montanists showed.155 For the bishops assembled in Laodicea, even vague cooperation with heretical groups was out of the question; their churches remained barred to the apostate.156 In the sacral potential of their opponents, they saw a blatant danger to their own faithful and sought to take vigorous countermeasures against breakaway movements. That members of the church must not visit the cemeteries or the so-called martyria of any heretics, to pray or to worship, but that such people, when they belong to the faithful, may have no fellowship until they express remorse and confess their error and are thus (re)admitted.157 Members of the mainstream church thus occasionally found spiritual ful llment at the cultic sites of sectarians; this is con rmed by canon 34, which forbids Christians to go on pilgrimage to the pseudo-martyrs of the heretics. The heretics had enough inuence to lay out their own cemeteries and construct monumental tombs for their martyrs. Far from sealing of their cultic sites to outsiders, they granted free access to interested Christians. Thus the

σχολάζειν, ἀ ’ ἐργάζεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ· τὴν κυριακὴν προτιµῶντας, εἴ γε δύναιντο, σχολάζειν ὡς Χριστιανοί. Εἰ δὲ εὑρεθεῖεν ἰουδαισταί, ἔστωσαν ἀνάθεµα παρὰ τῷ Χριστῷ. On an echo of the canon in a homily De sabbato from the 5th/6th century, see Machielsen 1961, pp. 511–514. Cf. also canon 16, which prohibits reading the gospels aloud on the Sabbath. On canons 16 and 29, see also Trebilco 1991, pp. 101f. 152 Cf. CLaod. Can. 37 and 38. See Braun 1998, pp. 166f. and p. 305 below. For a fundamental treatment of the synodal provisions directed against Jews, see Noethlichs 2001, pp. 161–172. 153 See pp. 300f. below; also Shepardson 2008, pp. 233–235. 154 See Lacerenza 2002, pp. 401–410 (on magic and Judaism). See pp. 301–305 below. 155 See pp. 255–266 above. 156 CLaod. Can. 6. 157 CLaod. Can. 9 (Joannou 1962, p. 134): Περὶ τοῦ µὴ συγχωρεῖν εἰς τὰ κοιµητήρια ἢ εἰς τὰ λεγόµενα µαρτύρια πάντων τῶν αἱρετικῶν ἀπίεναι τοὺς τῆς ἐκκλησίας εὐχῆς ἢ θεραπείας ἕνεκα, ἀ ὰ τοὺς τοιούτους, ἐὰν ὦσι πιστοί, ἀκοινωνήτους γίνεσθαι µέχρι τινός, µετανοοῦντας δὲ καὶ ἐξοµολογουµένους ἐσφάλθαι παραδέχεσθαι. It is not likely that the heretics in question were Montanists. Trevett 1996, pp. 123–126 shows that the Montanists had no particular a nity for martyria. 300 chapter seven contours of the religious groups became blurred. In the case of Laodicea in particular, the Syriac martyrology documents how the claims of mainstream Christians and heretics to prominent martyrs could compete:158 an entire group of Novatianists with particularly deep roots in Phrygia159 joined the orthodox at their martyrium. The fact that the text of the martyrology, which otherwise limits itself to listing names, mentions this detail reects the problem that the bishops at Laodicea were trying to deal with. Whether the Novatianists in Laodicea were ready without more ado to accept the turnaround of the martyrs named in the martyrology is another matter. The canons of Laodicea mention four heretical groups by name: the Nova- tianists, Photinians, and Quartodecimans in canon 7 and the Montanists in canon 8.160 The fact that the conict with the Quartodecimans was still going on signalizes the di culty of imposing the Easter decision of Nicea across the board. At the same time, however, their condemnation by the synod shows that the Quartodeciman position had nally lost all support among the higher clergy. The authority of local champions of Quartodecimanism like Apollinarius of Hierapolis or Sagaris of Laodicea might have lessened,161 but we can still see in the churches a need to seek cultic ties with the Jews and to “participate in their impieties.”162 The mention of the Quartodecimans and Novatianists in the same breath in canon 7 could be an indication that in celebrating Easter both heresies were guided by the Jewish Nisan 14, without suggesting that they were in total agreement in their design of the calendar governing the Paschal feast.163 In Lydian Philadelphia, Quartodecimans and Novatianists long held out against all appeals, as the initiative of Nesto- rius against these heresies in 428 shows, an initiative that had a sequel at the Council of Ephesus in 431.164 The pressure that the bishops gathered at

158 On the details, see p. 341 below. On this phenomenon, see also Wallraf 1997, p. 254, n. 7. 159 Cf. Wallraf 1997, pp. 256 and 271. 160 On the problems connected with the Photinians, see pp. 294–296 above. 161 On Apollinarius see pp. 249–253 above; on Sagaris, whose pro le in the Quartodeciman conict remains ill-de ned, see pp. 334f. below. 162 CLaod. Can. 38 (Joannou 1962, p. 146): ῞Οτι οὐ δεῖ παρὰ τῶν ᾽Ιουδαίων ἄζυµα λαµβάνειν ἢ κοινωνεῖν ταῖς ἀσεβείαις αὐτῶν. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 93. See pp. 298f. above. 163 For more see Wallraf 1997, pp. 273–277 (also discusses the synod of the Novatianists in Pazum, described in Socr. H.e. 4.28, where the Novatianists supposedly agreed to the date of the Jewish festival of unleavened bread). Cf. also Millar 2004, pp. 121f.; Mitchell 2005a, pp. 220f. 164 Socr. H.e. 7.29; Cod.Theod. 16.5.65; ACO I, 1.7.76; see Price / Gaddis I 2005, pp. 316–323. Cf. Millar 2004. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 301

Laodicea exerted was in fact not very great, especially since they were more concerned to create incentives for conversion and build bridges than ruthlessly to demolish the structures of the heretics. When the issue was restoring heretics to the mainstream church if they were willing to convert, there were two categories: Quartodecimans, Pho- tinians, and Novatianists did not have to submit to a repetition of the entire baptismal ritual; after a cursory period of instruction in the faith, all that was necessary was chrismation to convey the gift of the Spirit, possibly because it was not part of the rite of the heretics.165 The initiation of the Montanists was more elaborate; their radicalism required particularly thorough treatment. Canon 8 describes it: Concerning those who have turned away from the heresy of the so-called Phrygians, if they belong even by chance to the group that they identify as their clergy, even if they are among the “greatest,” they must be instructed with utmost care and be baptized by the bishops and presbyters of the church.166 In other words, converted Montanists, even high-ranking clergy, had to go through baptismal instruction and be baptized to be received into the bosom of orthodoxy. That the synodal resolution explicitly mentions the µέγιστοι, probably referring to the bishops and cenones, and possibly even the patriarch in Pepuza,167 signalizes the fragility of the Montanist front. In any case, the ood of converts from the ranks of the heretical clergy required comprehensive regulation recognized across provincial boundaries.

7.3.3.3. Angel Worship and Magic In addressing angel worship, canon 35 comes to grips with a problem already familiar from Colossians;168 there, however, it is mentioned so casually in passing that the background is obscure. The summary of the canon has come down to us as follows: That it is not permitted that Christians leave the glory and the church of God and invoke angels and hold assemblies, which is prohibited. Therefore

165 CLaod. Can. 7. Cf. Wallraf 1997, pp. 259f. and 269f. On anointing in the context of the baptismal rite in general, see Fürst 2008, pp. 157–159. 166 CLaod. Can. 8 (Joannou 1962, pp. 133f.): Περὶ τοῦ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν λεγοµέ- νων Φρυγῶν ἐπιστρέφοντας, εἰ καὶ ἐν κλήρῳ νοµιζοµένῳ παρ’ αὐτοῖς τυγχάνοιεν, εἰ καὶ µέγιστοι λέγοιντο, τοὺς τοιούτους µετὰ πάσης ἐπιµελείας κατηχεῖσθαί τε καὶ βαπτίζεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν τῆς ἐκ- κλησίας ἐπισκόπων τε καὶ πρεσβυτέρων. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 87. On this canon, see Tabbernee 2007, pp. 301f. and 394f. 167 For more on the hierarchy of the Montanist clergy, see Tabbernee 1993, pp. 254–263; also Huttner, Bauinschrift (appearing shortly). 168 Col. 2:18; see pp. 128–130 above. 302 chapter seven

if someone is discovered as he is engaged in this covert idolatry, he shall be excommunicated, because he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and turned to idolatry.169 The canon treats angelolatry as crypto-paganism:170 the devotees of this cult act as though they were Christians though they are actually pagans. The nature of this cult remains unclear; possibly visions were involved,171 possibly the term εἰδωλολατρεία suggests images as objects of worship.172 The fact that the negative verdict on angelolatry was still a topic of debate is shown by the canon’s reception by Theodoret, the earliest witness to the synod, who discusses it twice in his commentary on Colossians. The bishop explains the author’s call to do everything—in word and in deed—in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him (δι’ αὐτοῦ)173 thus: While they issued instructions to worship the angels, he [the apostle] instead calls upon us to adorn both our words and our deeds through remembrance of Christ the Lord. And give thanks to our God and Father, he says, through him [δι’ αὐτοῦ] and not through angels. The Synod of Laodicea followed this rule when it set out to mend that deplorable ancient custom and issued a directive forbidding the worship of angel and urging us not to abandon our Lord Jesus Christ.174

169 CLaod. Can. 35 (Joannou 1962, pp. 144f.): ῞Οτι οὐ δεῖ Χριστιανοὺς ἐγκαταλιπεῖν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀ έλους ὀνοµάζειν καὶ συνάξεις ποιεῖν, ἅπερ ἀπηγόρευται. Εἴ τις οὖν εὐρεθείη ταύτῃ τῇ κεκρυµµένῃ εἰδωλολατρείᾳ σχολάζων, ἔστω ἀνάθεµα, ὅτι ἐγκατέλιπεν τὸν κύριον ἡµῶν ᾽Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ εἰδωλολατρείᾳ προσῆλθεν. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 92. 170 Cf. also Ramsay 1893, p. 477, with the suggestion that the cult of St. Michael in Colossae could have replaced the ancient cult of Zeus. Hill 1916, pp. 155f. derives the cult of St. Michael instead from the cult of Apollo. For thoughts on a relationship between the cult of Michael and the cult of Attis, see Mango 1984, pp. 61f. 171 Cf. the sepulchral inscription of the prophetess Nanas from northern Phrygia, who had “angelic visions.” Merkelbach / Stauber III 2001, pp. 349f. no. 16/41/15: … ἀνγελικὴν ἐπισκοπὴν … εἶχε … . Hirschmann 2004, pp. 166f. suggests instead that Nanas may have exercised a kind of episcopate. Cf. also p. 130, n. 364 above. 172 The complexity of the term idolatry must be kept in mind; sometimes it is used in the general sense of the concept of sin: cf. Fredouille 1981, cols. 866–868. The catalog of vices in Colossians equates greed with idolatry: Col. 3:5: … καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρία … . On this catalog in Colossians, see pp. 131–134 above. 173 Col. 3:17. See p. 141 above. 174 Thdt. Interpretationes in Pauli epistulas (PG 82, 620 D–621 A): ᾽Επειδὴ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι τοὺς ἀγ- γέλους σέβειν ἐκέλευον, αὐτὸς τὸ ἐναντίον παρε υᾷ, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς λόγους, καὶ τὰ ἔργα κοσµῆσαι τῇ µνήµῃ τοῦ ∆εσπότου Χριστοῦ· Καὶ τῷ Θεῷ δὲ καὶ Πατρὶ τὴν εὐχαριστίαν δι’ αὐτοῦ, φησίν, ἀνα- πέµπετε, µὴ διὰ τῶν ἀ έλων. Τούτῳ ἑποµένη τῷ νόµῳ καὶ ἡ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ σύνοδος, καὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἐκεῖνο πάθος θεραπεῦσαι βουλοµένη, ἐνοµοθέτησε µὴ εὔχεσθαι ἀ έλοις, µηδὲ καταλιµπάνειν τὸν Κύριον ἡµῶν ᾽Ιησοῦν Χριστόν. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 303

Theodoret does not understand the cult of the angels condemned in Colossians in the sense that the angels are the only divine beings: they are clearly subordinate to the supreme God (to whom thanks is given through the angels) but displace Jesus (through whom God should actually be thanked). Theodoret provides more concrete information in his commentary on the critical passage in Colossians where the author warns against one who “takes pleasure in a show of humility and the worship of angels.”175 This “deplorable custom” (τοῦτο τὸ πάθος) was not eliminated by the Synod of Laodicea, for one still (µέχρι δὲ τοῦ νῦν) comes across it at shrines of St. Michael (εὐκτήρια τοῦ ἁγίου Μιχαήλ) in Phrygia and Pisidia.176 The sanctuary of the archangel Michael near Colossae grew to become the goal of innumerable credulous pilgrims;177 the legends associated with this site were correspondingly colorful.178 Although these texts rst surfaced centuries later, the roots of the cult of St. Michael in the Lycus Valley got back to the 4th century or probably even earlier. In Sazak, too, in the hill country some 25 kilometers northeast of Hierapolis (which an Italian survey has meanwhile identi ed as ancient Mossyna179), a sanctuary of St. Michael has been found. An inscription on a column dating from around the 6th century invokes divine protection for those “who labor in the house of the archangel Michael.”180 An additional motive for calling a halt to the worship of angels was certainly also its association with magical practices.181 Two epigraphic witnesses from the vicinity of Hierapolis illustrate this association. Twenty-two kilometers to the north, where the marble quarries of the city were located near the ancient city of Thiounta (modern Turkish Gözler), Ramsay discovered an inscription augmenting an invocation of God with a series of angelic names.182 Interspersed letters of the alphabet con rm the magical background of the inscription, especially since there are other documents

175 Col. 2:18; see p. 127 above. 176 Thdt. Interpretationes in Pauli epistulas (PG 82, 613 B); text on p. 128 above. Cf. Peers 2001, p. 10. 177 On the role of Chonae (modern Honaz), the town that succeeded Colossae as a pilgrimage center in the Middle Byzantine period, see Foss 2002, pp. 130–132 and Cadwallader 2008, pp. 320f. Cf. also Kötting 1950, pp. 166–171. 178 See pp. 372–377 below. 179 Scardozzi, G. / L. Castrianni 2010. Cf. p. 26 above. 180 MAMA IV, no. 307: Κύριος φυλάξι τοὺς ἐργαζοµένους ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ ᾽Αρχανγέλου Μιχαήλ. 181 Cf. for example the so-called exorcism of the archangel Michael in Bevilacqua 2010, p. 42. For additional discussion, see Huttner 2012, pp. 24f. 182 Ramsay 1897, p. 541 no. 404: Κύριε βοήθι. ααααα Μιχαὴλ ε Γαβριὴλ ᾽Ιστραὴλ ῾Ραφαήλ. 304 chapter seven with magical connotations that combine the names of the archangels with the vowel letters.183 In a tomb in the north necropolis of Hierapolis a silver capsule was discovered that contained a rolled-up sheet of bronze with the following spell: “I adjure you by God who created earth and heaven, I adjure you by the angels Cherubin, harmony on high, Michael, Raphael, Abrasax … to ward of the pain.”184 It was common practice to enclose small magical tablets in tombs to mobilize the forces slumbering in the dark.185 Though it is not impossible that the owner of the capsule was inuenced primarily by Jewish traditions, the formulaic use of the participial construction describing God as creator of heaven and earth had long been established in Christian texts.186 The enclosure of the metal foil in a silver capsule suggests that the spell was originally worn as an amulet. In accordance with the policies of the Christian emperors, who never tired of outlawing magical practices by decree,187 the bishops assembled in their synod nally explicitly repudiated magic in their canon 36 and sought to eradicate it by forbidding clergy to act as experts in magical matters: That it is not permissible for ordained individuals or clergy to function as magicians, conjurors, soothsayers, or astrologers, or to fashion so-called safe- guards [amulets], which are fetters of their souls. We have decreed that those who wear them [amulets] be expelled from the church.188 Not a few clergy appear to have staked out extensive claims for their sacral functions and capacities; in their communities they were obviously considered specialists in everything supernatural or otherworldly, just as Jesus’ miracles found numerous parallels in the practice of magicians.189 Especially when faced with pain and bodily sufering, Christians clearly sought refuge

183 On the famous archangel inscription of the theater in Miletus (Grégoire 1922, no. 221; IvMilet 2, no. 943), see Deissmann 41923, pp. 393–399; also Dornseif 1925, pp. 41f. 184 Aydas¸ 2004, p. 124; SEG 54 (2004), no. 1344: ἐνορκίζοµαί σοι τὸν Θεὸν τὸν κτίσαντα τὴν γῆν καὶ τοὺς οὐρανούς, ἐνορκίζοµαί σοι τοὺς ἀ έλους Χερουβειν, ἄνω ἁρµονίαν. Μιχαηλ˙ , Ραφαηλ, ᾽Αβρασαξ˙ … [..] ἀποτραπῆναι ἀπ[ὸ] τραυµατίου. Cf.˙ also˙ Huttner 2012, p. 25. ˙ ˙ ˙ 185 Cf. Graf 1996, 118–121. ˙ ˙ ˙ 186 Cf. Zimmermann 2007, pp. 345–383. J. Mylonopoulos (Kernos 20 [2007], p. 245 no. 11) considers a Jewish context more likely than a Christian context, given the mention of Abra- sax. 187 Cf. Wiebe 1995, pp. 169–193. 188 CLaod. Can. 36 (Joannou 1962, p. 145): ῞Οτι οὐ δεῖ ἱερατικοὺς ἢ κληρικοὺς µάγους ἢ ἐπαοιδοὺς εἶναι ἢ µαθηµατικοὺς ἢ ἀστρολόγους ἢ ποιεῖν τὰ λεγόµενα φυλακτήρια, ἅτινά εἰσι δεσµωτήρια τῶν ψυχῶν αὐτῶν. Τοὺς δὲ φοροῦντας ῥίπτεσθαι ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας ἐκελεύσαµεν. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 92. 189 Cf. Busch 2006, pp. 97–103. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 305 in the powers of magic; the fathers of the church repeatedly criticized such weakness.190 In the eyes of John Chrysostom, use of amulets was a form of idolatry, as he emphasized in one of his homilies on Colossians.191 The Christian devotees of magic found a prominent example in the greatest saint of the Lycus Valley: the Acts of Philip, which culminates with the martyrdom of the apostle, record how shortly before his death he angrily wished the pagans of Hierapolis to hell and cursed them with the following spell: Abalo, Arimouni, Douthael, Tharseleen, Nachaoth, Aeidounaph, Teleteloein! … Now, I pray, shall great Hades open his maw, the great abyss, and he shall devour these ungodly ones, who were unwilling that the word of truth should walk abroad in this city, by Sabaoth!192 The bishops at the Synod of Laodicea were undertaking no easy task when they joined battle against the local tradition on the spot; their verdict could also be understood as a declaration of war against the great apostle whose tomb in the neighboring city was a destination for innumerable pilgrims.

7.3.3.4. The Pagans Only one canon of the Synod of Laodicea, canon 39, deals explicitly with the pagans: “That it is not permitted to celebrate festivals jointly with the pagans and participate in their impiety.”193 The succinct prohibition is also expressed in very similar words in canon 37, which prohibits celebrating jointly with Jews or heretics.194 Though the pagans might be classed together with Jews and heretics, the danger they presented and the potential for conict with them was smaller: they had little in common, and hence there were only a few bridges that might tempt Christians to cross over to them.

190 Cf. Markschies 1997, pp. 129–131; Stenger 2009, pp. 61f. 191 Chrys. Hom. 3 on Col. 8:5 (PG 62, 357–368). Cf. Trzcionka 2007, pp. 122f. (with a brief comment on canon 36 of the Synod of Laodicea). 192 M.Phil. 132 (26) (Bonnet 1903, pp. 63.2–64.6): ᾽Αβαλώ, ἀριµουνί, δουθαήλ, θαρσελεήν, ναχαώθ, ἀειδουναφ, τελετελοεῖν· … νῦν, δέοµαι, ἀνοιξάτω ὁ µέγας ῞Αιδης τὸ στόµα αὐτοῦ, ἡ ἄβυσσος ἡ µεγάλη, καὶ καταπιέτω τοῦς ἀθέους τούτους τοὺς µὴ βουληθέντας χωρῆσαι τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ· ναὶ Σαβαώθ. On the various individual versions of this curse in the manuscript tradition, see Huttner 2012, pp. 21f. Cf. also pp. 365f. below. 193 CLaod. Can. 39 (Joannou 1962, p. 146): ῞Οτι οὐ δεῖ ἕ ησι συνεορτάζειν καὶ κοινωνεῖν τῇ ἀθεότητι αὐτῶν. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 93. 194 CLaod. Can. 37 (Joannou 1962, p. 146): “That it is not permitted to accept festival gifts from Jews or heretic, nor to celebrate jointly with them.”—῞Οτι οὐ δεῖ παρὰ τῶν ᾽Ιουδαίων ἢ αἱρετικῶν τὰ πεµπόµενα ἑορταστικὰ λαµβάνειν, οὐδὲ συνεορτάζειν αὐτοῖς. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 92. 306 chapter seven

Especially after the reign of Julian, the number of devotees of the ancient cults should not be underestimated, though there are no statistical data.195 The anti-pagan laws promulgated by the Christian emperors appear not to have had a far-reaching impact;196 uprisings of Christian rioters attacking pagan sanctuaries remained a limited and local phenomenon.197 In Hierapolis we see that the sanctuary of the Great Mother at the Pluto- nium was still intact toward the end of the 5th century, when the Neopla- tonist Damascius and a philosopher friend made a pilgrimage to the sacred cleft. As he himself reports, he turned himself into Attis in a dream and the Great Mother celebrated the Hilaria in his honor198—the traditional spring festival of the goddess, on a date that sometimes collided with the Chris- tian Easter.199 But this account is unique, and naturally the pagan sanctuaries did not go unchallenged in an environment that was increasingly taking on a more Christian cast. It is hard to imagine that the sacri cial ames continued to burn regularly at the central temples—the temple of Apollo in Hierapolis and the temple of Zeus in Laodicea. In Laodicea archaeological evidence illustrates the city’s continued use of one ancient cultic site during the decades following the Constantinian shift. Sanctuary A, located on one of the main streets (the Syrian Road) and dating from the Antonine period, was a prostyle temple on a podium next to an open square surrounded by a portico; it underwent only minor modi cations: the vault under the temple was used as a storage space for innumerable vials of unguent used in the Christian liturgy.200 The small chapel built into one of the two galleries anking the temple square remained relatively modest.201 Ofset behind the sanctuary, however, there soon arose a monu-

195 On the pagan traditions in Asia Minor after the Constantinian period, see Trombley, II, 22001, pp. 52–133; also Bowersock 1990, pp. 1–4; Mitchell, II, 1993, pp. 118f. 196 On the complex efects of the anti-pagan laws, see Hahn 2011, pp. 213–216. 197 In Asia Minor, there are only a few archaeological indications of violent attacks on sanctuaries. See Talloen / Vercauteren 2011, pp. 349–355; on the sanctuary of Men in Pisidian Antioch, see Mitchell / Waelkens 1998, pp. 85f. Cf. pp. 347–349 below. 198 Photius quotes the passage in which Damascius rst explains the situation of the sanctuary under the temple of Apollo, then deals with the danger of the noxious vapors, and nally recounts his own visit, Dam. Isid. 131: … λέγει δ’ ὁ συ ραφεὺς ὡς αὐτός τε καὶ ∆ῶρος ὁ φιλόσοφος, ὑπὸ προθυµίας ἐκνικηθέντες, κατέβησάν τε καὶ ἀπαθεῖς κακῶν ἀνέβησαν. λέγει δ’ ὁ συ ραφεὺς ὅτι “τότε τῇ ῾Ιεραπόλει ἐγκαθευδήσας ἐδόκουν ὄναρ ῎Αττης γενέσθαι, καί µοι ἐπιτελεῖσθαι παρὰ τῆς µητρὸς τῶν θεῶν τὴν τῶν ῾Ιλαρίων καλουµένων ἑορτήν … .” Text from Zintzen 1967, p. 176, §131. 199 See Huttner 2011, pp. 288f. 200 Cf. Sim¸ sek¸ / Duman 2007, pp. 289f. and 296; Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 232–234. 201 Cf. Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 241–243. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 307 mental three-aisled basilica, which with its elaborate furnishings probably overshadowed the architectural ensemble of the old temple.202 Architectural projects, however, were not enough. The bishops felt compelled to prevent the faithful from ocking to the pagan festivities. Possibly they also targeted such largely secularized celebrations as New Year’s Day, which had essentially been reduced to its social function, though it had its roots in the worship of the Roman god Janus.203 At least in the Greek East, the New Year’s festival was highly popular among Christians.204 The bishops at Laodicea knew how to make distinctions. They attacked the pagan cults and their festivals, but it was not their intent to subvert all traditions. In literature the Christians still encountered the ancient gods and their myths, nor did that generally present a problem: Christian writers sometimes even incorporated pagan themes themselves.205 Literary models provided guidance for both Christian authors and Christian readers when they conveyed pagan traditions. An inscription from Hierapolis provides an instructive example. Fragments of a thin marble slab were discovered in the theater; pieced together they present a text in carefully crafted distichs honoring the contributions of a high o cial to the monumental architecture of the city: To good fortune! Previously this magni cent work did not have such great splendor, but now the sagacious Magnus has made it appealing; he designed it according to his own plan, built solidly of stone, and completed it resplen- dently with divine images [plans?]. … and otherwise the time … Magnus built beautifully, after he had thought everything out. With his splendid wisdom, he made the city a sanctuary of the Nymphs, and he gave it splendor through delightful festivities. In return the residents of the Holy City [Hierapolis!] have awarded him an inscription and stele: just judge, deliverer, maintainer of justice, holy governor, scion of youth-nourishing, best-thinking Dike [justice]— emulate Magnus, who establishes justice. For the mother [metropolis] of Phrygia knows how to recompense the upright with gratitude.206

202 See the latest provisional excavation reports on the Internet at http://Laodikeia.pau.edu .tr (visited December 2011). Now Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, pp. 345–360. Personal inspection April 2012. Cf. pp. 380f. below. 203 Cameron 2011, pp. 787f. See also p. 252 above. 204 Meslin 1970, pp. 51–93; also Huttner 2011, p. 285. 205 Nonnus of Panopolis composed both the long epic Dionysiaca and a poetic version of the Gospel of John. Cameron 2011, p. 206 criticizes the tendency of scholars to automatically classify as pagan all writers who treated mythological themes or imitated classical models; on pp. 207f. he attempts to place Claudian in a Christian context. 206 Ritti 1986; Jones 1997 (SEG 47 [1997], no. 1735); Merkelbach / Stauber I (1998), pp. 266– 268 no. 02/12/06; Ritti 2007, pp. 417–421: [᾽Α]γαθῆι Τύχηι· / ᾽Αγλαΐην οὐκ ε[ἶ]χε τόσην τόδε ˙ 308 chapter seven

Magnus can be identi ed as the vicarius documented in the Codex Theo- dosianus who governed the diocese of Asia in 354.207 Among other bene- factions, he clearly saw to the restoration of the theater in Hierapolis at great expense, for which the residents of the city showed their gratitude. Taken literally the opening words of the text (᾽Αγαθῇ Τύχῃ) imply homage to Tyche, the Greek goddess of fortune, but the formula had been used for centuries in the formulations of resolutions and other public statements, so that its original meaning was obscured by its use as a cliché. When Mag- nus is called “scion of Dike” (∆ίκης ἔρνος) toward the end of the epigram, the phrase honors his judicial qualities, but it also suggests a sacral genealogy, modeled on panegyrics to rulers, rooted in the personi cation of Dike worshiped as a goddess. Here too, however, we are dealing with a topos; the epigram is based on an established rhetorical and poetic tradition.208 This literary context also explains the passage where the ancient cultic tradition of Hierapolis is almost palpable: Magnus had made the city a “sanctuary of the Nymphs” (νυµφῶν τέµενος); here the poet borrows the term τέµενος from sacral law, where it denotes a self-contained cultic precinct.209 Naturally it is inconceivable that during the reign of Constantius a high functionary like Magnus actually established a pagan sanctuary;210 the verse must be understood metaphorically as a reference to the water supply or the public baths in Hierapolis.211 The scanty source material prevents us from deciding whether Magnus himself was a Christian or pagan,212 but we may assume that hardly any Christian took ofense at the formulas ennobled by long tradition. No confession of religious faith was involved, since especially in

θ[έ]σκελον ἔργον / εἰσέτι, νῦν δ’ ἐ[ρα]τὸν Μάγνος ἔθη[κε] σοφός· / λάεσι γὰρ κο ητὸν ἑῆι µητίσατ[ο βο]υλῆι / θεσπεσίαις τε γραφαῖς ἤνυσε λ[αµπ]όµεν[ο]ν. / [….] καὶ χ[ρ]όνος ἄ ο κατὰ π[….]ηµα λ[…]ε /[Μάγνος ἔτε]υξε καλὸν πάντα [νοησάµ]ενος./[Καὶ] νυ[µ]φῶ[ν τέ]µενος ῥέξεν [πόλι]˙ν ἀγλαοµήτης˙ ˙ / καὶ θαλίαις ἐραταῖς θῆκεν ἀγα οµένην./ [᾽Αντὶ δ]ὲ τῶν ἱερῆς οἰκήτορες ἔνθα πόληος /[γρά]µµασι καὶ στήληι τῖσαν ἀµειψάµενοι /[ἰθυ]δίκην, σωτῆρα, θεµισσόον, ἁγνὸν ἔπαρχον,/ κουροτρό[φ]οιο ∆ίκης ἔρνος ἀριστονόου,/ Μάγνον µι[µήσ]ασθε δικασπό[λ]οhνi· ἡ Φρυγίης γὰρ / Μήτηρ το[ῖς] ἀγαθοῖς οἶδεν ἔχειν χάριτας. 207 Cod.Theod. 8.5.6. Cf. Ritti 1986, pp. 712–715; Feissel 1998, p. 96. 208 Cf. Ritti 1986, pp. 706–708. 209 Zimmermann 2002, cols. 105f. 210 On the anti-pagan policies of Constantius II, see Bonamente 2011, pp. 67–69; also Barceló 2004, pp. 175f. The restoration of the temples in Rome itself must be understood diferently; cf. Cameron 2011, pp. 49f. 211 On the metaphorical use of τέµενος, see Ritti 1986, p. 701, with n. 23. On the association of nymphs with baths in epigrams, see also Russell 1987, p. 42; with special reference to Late Antiquity, Robert 1948, pp. 74–78; Mitchell / Waelkens 1998, pp. 227f. 212 Von Haehling 1978, p. 134 no. 7 and p. 140. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 309 poetry Christian writers allowed themselves to borrow from the pagan thought-world, and the ancient formal elements (e.g. meter) retained their importance as guidelines.213 Measures to restore the theater of Hierapolis during the reign of Con- stantius II are documented by two additional inscriptions.214 In its formulaic dating, one of them refers expressly to his coregent Gallus as “dearly beloved by God” (θεοφιλέστατος).215 The bishops in the vicinity undoubtedly looked askance at the building program at the theater of Hierapolis; Christian ethics could not approve of spectacles,216 no matter how many Christians might fall victim to their spell as an integral part of urban culture in antiquity.217 In his De spectaculis, Tertullian treated them as tantamount to idolatry.218 In his Hexaemeron, Basil calls on his community not to be enticed by stage plays and horse racing but to wonder instead at the glory of God’s work of creation.219 But performances also took place in smaller venues, for instance at the family celebrations of the rich. In canon 54, the Synod of Laodicea forbade clergy to attend such performances: “That it is not permissible for

213 Cf. Bowersock 1990, pp. 43f. and 63–68; Hafner 1996, pp. 222–228, who speaks in this context of “cultural Christianity” (“Kulturchristentum”); Klein 2001, pp. 106f. Cf. for example a clumsy epitaph (c. 300) from the vicinity of Cotiaium (modern Κütahya) with impressive images from the mythology of the underworld (Erinyes, Acheron, Pluto), and in the last line the formula Χρηστιανοὶ Χρηστιανοῖς (MAMA X, no. 275). 214 Ritti 2006, pp. 124–126 no. 25; also Ritti 2007, pp. 415–417. 215 Ritti 2006, p. 125 (Greek text): “To good fortune! Under the really happy and divine rule of the triumphator who has won power over land and sea, Constantius the great king, and Constantius Caesar, dearly beloved by God, who has appeared for our wellbeing, the theater threatened to collapse and threatened the greatest portion of the metropolis with danger …”—᾽Αγαθῇ Τύχη. ᾽Επὶ τῆς εὐδαίµονος καὶ θείας ἀληθῶς βασιλείας τοῦ τροπαιοφόρου καὶ γῆς καὶ θαλάττης ἀναδησαµένου τὸ κράτος Κωνστ[αντίου] µεγάλου βασιλέως καὶ τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου καὶ καλῶς ἡµεῖν ἀποφανέντος Κωνστ[αντ]ίου Καίσαρος, τὸ θέατρον πτῶσιν ἀπειλοῦν καὶ τῷ πλείστῳ µέρι τῆς µητροπόλεως κίνδυνον ἐπα ειλόµενον … . “Constantius Caesar” refers to Gallus. Note once more the opening formula with its invocation of Tyche. The adjective θεοφιλέστατος developed into a common title for clergy, but it does not necessarily have to be given a Christian interpretation. Cf. the citations in Hornickel 1930, pp. 16f. Ritti 1989, pp. 285f. suspects that the temple of Apollo was also refurbished under Constantius. D’Andria 2003, p. 139 however dates these building projects in the period before the Constantinian shift (3rd cent.). 216 Schneider 1954, pp. 522f.; Cameron 2011, pp. 789–791. 217 On the fascination spectacles had for Christians, see Bowersock 1990, pp. 37f.; Piepen- brink 2005, pp. 294–299. On Aphrodisias as an example, see Roueché 1993, pp. 99–128. 218 Incisively Tert. Spect. 5.4 (M. Turcan, SC 332 [1986], p. 126.3, on the term ludus:… rei causa idololatria …). Cf. H. Tränkle in Sallmann 1997, pp. 487f. Fundamental on Tertullian’s criticism, see Lugaresi 2008, pp. 377–427. 219 Bas. Hex. 4.1. 310 chapter seven ordained individuals or other clergy to watch any performances at weddings or banquets; before the players enter, they must rise and depart thence.”220 As long as the theater of Hierapolis was undergoing lavish renovations, it was probably di cult to clamp down on theatrical performances in general. It is signi cant that the bishops at Laodicea did not impose their ban on theatrical performances on all Christians in their communities but only the clergy.221 The ethical rigorism of the Novatianists active in the region set the bar higher. In his church history, Socrates imputes extraordinary wisdom to the Paphlagonians and Phrygians because they avoided horse races and theatrical performances. This immunity to such temptations, he argues, explains their vulnerability to Novatianism.222

7.3.3.5. The Metropolitans The metropolitans emerged from the Synod of Laodicea in an even stronger position; their privilege established at Nicea and Antioch was con rmed: bishops are to be appointed “as they decide” (κρίσει τῶν µητροπολιτῶν).223 When Theodoret wrote his commentaries on the Epistles of Paul toward or around 450 and had to clarify the geographical situation in Colossians, he limited himself to the terse statement: “Colossae is in Phrygia. Its metropolitan see is neighboring Laodicea.”224 Theodoret obviously was aware of the role of Laodicea in the provincial administration of Phrygia Pacatiana and thus associated the title of metropolis with it. Nevertheless the authority of the Synod proved to be a source of conict in the Lycus Valley, especially because Laodicea’s role as a metropolitan see did not go unchallenged:225 nearby Hierapolis also claimed the title. In the 5th and 6th centuries, the conict intensi ed to the point that the bishop of Hierapolis even claimed the title of patriarch; given the recognized patri-

220 CLaod. Can. 54 (Joannou 1962, p. 152): ῞Οτι οὐ δεῖ ἱερατικοὺς ἢ κληρικούς τινας θεωρίας θεωρεῖν ἐν γάµοις ἢ δείπνοις, ἀ ὰ πρὸ τοῦ εἰσέρχεσθαι θυµελικοὺς ἐγείρεσθαι αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀναχωρεῖν ἐκεῖθεν. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 95. 221 Julian similarly sought to keep the pagan priests out of theaters and theatrical performances: Jul. Ep. 89b, 304 B–D (Weis 1973, no. 48). 222 Socr. H.e. 4.28.11–12 (4.28.11, G.C. Hansen, GCS n.F. 1 [1995], 264.19–20: … οὐδὲ γὰρ ἱπποδροµίαι οὐδὲ θέατρα σπουδάζονται νῦν παρ’ αὐτοῖς). 223 CLaod. Can. 12 (Joannou 1962, p. 135); cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 88. On the later history of this canon, see Gaudemet 1976 (1980), pp. 87–95. At the same time, canon 13 barred the laity from participating in the appointment of bishops. Cf. Thier 2011, pp. 92–97. 224 Thdt. Interpretationes in Pauli epistulas (PG 82, 593 A): Τῆς δὲ Φρυγίας αἱ Κολασσαί· µητρόπολις δὲ αὐτῆς καὶ γείτων, ἡ Λαοδίκεια. 225 See pp. 278f. above and 315 below. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 311 archates in Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome, this was an outrageous afront, which actually was an insult to the metropolitan in Laodicea. In any case, there is a dedicatory inscription in the pier church in Hierapolis that was composed during the incumbency of the archbishop and patriarch Gennaios.226 It is unclear, however, whether the conict between the bishops of Laodicea and Hierapolis had already ared up in the 4th century.

7.3.3.6. Presbytides The bishops assembled in Laodicea also saw some need for clari cation regarding clerical ranks below the episcopate. Canon 11 is especially puzzling in its lapidary formulation: “That it is not permissible to appoint so- called presbytides [female elders] or female presidents in the church.”227 The summary of the original text of the canon is so abbreviated that the meaning of the ruling can no longer be understood completely. In particular the function of the presbytides is unclear—whether they had only administrative duties or also liturgical functions and whether their sphere of inuence was as broadly de ned as that of presbyters.228 Possibly the Latin translation of Dionysius Exiguus gives a hint that this may not have been the case: “That it is not right to appoint (female) presbyters among women; that it is improper for women who are called presbyters or presidents to be appointed in the church.”229 In the caption summarizing the content of the canon, which speaks of those (female) presbyters being ordained in mulieribus, a restric- tion on their sphere of activity appears to be implied: the ordained women

226 ᾽Επὶ τοῦ ἁγιωτ(άτου) καὶ θεοφ(ιλεστάτου) ἀρχιεπισκό(που) ἡµῶν κὲ π(ατ)ριάρχο(υ) Γεν- ναίου … . Editions˙ of the inscription include: Judeich 1898, pp. 74f. no. 22; Tabbernee 1997, pp. 497–499 no. 82; Ritti 2006, pp. 136–138 no. 29. For a thorough discussion, see Huttner, Bauinschrift (appearing shortly). On the title of the Hierapolitan bishop in the 5th century, see p. 315 below. 227 CLaod. Can. 11 (Joannou 1962, p. 135): Περὶ τοῦ µὴ δεῖν τὰς λεγοµένας πρεσβύτιδας ἤτοι προκαθηµένας ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ καθίστασθαι. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 88. 228 Eisen 2000, pp. 121f. assembles signi cant arguments in support of including the presbytides among the major orders and seeing them in competition with the presbyters. Madi- gan / Osiek 2005, p. 164 suggest senior deaconesses given a special title, as already proposed by Bardy 1957, col. 340. On the lexical evidence, see Lampe 91989, p. 1131, s.v. πρεσβῦτις: “aged woman … senior widow … female presbyter.” Dassmann 1994, pp. 213–221 examines scattered references to the function of women in the liturgy of the early church: some involve prohibi- tions by ecclesiastical authorities, others are polemic texts against heretics. See also Madigan / Osiek 2005, pp. 163–202. 229 CLaod. Can. 11 (Strewe 1931, p. 53): “Non congruehrei presbiteras in mulieribus ordinari. Quod non oporteat eas, quae dicuntur presbyterae vel praesidentes, in ecclesia constitui.” 312 chapter seven exercised their ministry only among women; the male world was closed to them.230 It is unclear, however, whether we may not be seeing in this pro- viso only the interpretation of a late copyist or translator. When canon 44 of the synod forbids women in general to approach the altar,231 in speci c reference to the presbytides this could be understood as prohibiting liturgical functions.232 In any case, it is clear that the presbytides were viewed as rivals to the male clergy;233 there is no other explanation of the derogatory expression “so-called presbytides.” The prominent role of women had a long tradition, particularly in the churches of the Lycus Valley,234 represented in the administrative sphere by Nympha of Laodicea in Colossians and in the spiritual sphere by the daughters of Philip in Hierapolis. The dubious activities of the Montanists and their prophetesses along with the integration of women into the clergy within that heresy,235 which likewise sought to appeal to local traditions, may have led the bishops assembled in Laodicea to eliminate the presbytides. The epitaph of a πρεσβύτερα named Ammion from the vicinity of Usak¸ (about 100 kilometers north of the Lycus Valley) probably comes from a Montanist context.236

7.3.3.7. Cantors and Church Music When the Synod of Laodicea issued a series of canons regulating the organization of liturgical music,237 it was building on a tradition inaugurated by the Epistle to the Colossians, which we can identify as one of the earliest documents bearing on the musical design of worship.238 Among the clergy, the so-called ψάλτεις (“psalm-singers,” cantors) were responsible for singing.

230 Much as the Epistle of Titus (2:3–5) indicates that the older women should teach the younger women to lead a proper life. Cf. Brown 22008, p. 152. 231 CLaod. Can. 44 (Joannou 1962, p. 148): ῞Οτι οὐ δεῖ γυναῖκας ἐν τὸ θυσιατήριον εἰσέρχεσθαι. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 93. 232 As suggested by Eisen 2000, p. 122. 233 For a general discussion of the exclusion of women from the clergy in the early church, see Wischmeyer 1992, pp. 117–124. 234 Possibly such a local reference can also explain the mention of presbytides in the Acts of Philip. In A.Phil. 1.12, the archangel Michael places them in between presbyters on the one hand and eunuchs, deacons, deaconesses, and virgins on the other. On this passage cf. also Madigan / Osiek 2005, pp. 166f. 235 Cf. Eisen 2000, p. 118. 236 Cf. Tabbernee 1997, pp. 70–72 (on no. 4). For a diferent view, see Eisen 2000, pp. 116–123. On the inscription, see also Madigan / Osiek 2005, pp. 169f. 237 The canons of other early synods do not deal with church music. Cf. the collection of sources for early Christian music in McKinnon 1987, pp. 108–120. 238 See pp. 137–141 above. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 313

The fact that the ψάλτεις had since found a secure place among the minor clergy239 is documented in canon 24, which forbids clergy to enter taverns— “from presbyters to deacons and on down the priestly hierarchy to servants [subdeacons], lectors, psalm-singers, exorcists, gate-keepers, and the group of ascetics.”240 This listing by itself signalizes the degree of institutionalization that church music had already achieved by this time.241 The musical ambitions within the diocese had clearly already gone beyond the point that the assembled bishops could approve. In canon 23 they forbade the psalm- singers to wear a stole when employed in worship, withholding from them a badge that made their status appear higher than it actually was.242 Canon 17 sought to reduce the participation of the cantors in the liturgy to an appropriate scope; psalmody should be interrupted by readings from Scripture.243 At the same time, the synod insisted that the ψάλτεις alone were authorized to lead the singing of the psalms;244 obviously others had joined the designated singers so that their voices might resound from the ambo high above the heads of the congregation. Possibly these enthusiastic singers were not even clerics and therefore were occupying a position they were not entitled to. The point was not to prohibit singing by the laity entirely but to limit them to the responses. Only the ψάλτεις were to undertake to lead the chanting of the psalms.245 The repertoire of chants was also restricted;

239 Cf. Hübner 2005, pp. 39–41. 240 CLaod. Can. 24 (Joannou 1962, p. 140): ῞Οτι οὐ δεῖ ἱερατικοὺς ἀπὸ πρεσβυτέρων ἕως διακόνων καὶ ἑξῆς τῆς ἱερατικῆς τάξεως ἕως ὑπηρετῶν ἢ ἀναγνωστῶν ἢ ψαλτῶν ἢ ἐπορκιστῶν ἢ θυρωρῶν καὶ τοῦ τάγµατος τῶν ἀσκητῶν εἰς καπηλεῖον εἰσιέναι. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 90. 241 Cf. Faivre 1977, pp. 229f. 242 CLaod. Can. 23 (Joannou 1962, p. 140): ῞Οτι οὐ δεῖ ἀναγνώστας ἢ ψάλτας ὀράριον φορεῖν καὶ οὕτως ἀναγινώσκειν ἢ ψά ειν. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 90. The lectors were also forbidden to wear an orarion (stole), and likewise (as canon 22 shows) the servants (subdeacons), who functioned as doorkeepers. Actually the ὀράριον was the typical stole worn by deacons. It is rst mentioned in canons 22 and 23 of the Synod of Laodicea. Cf. Braun 1907 (1964), pp. 601 and 604. 243 CLaod. Can. 17 (Joannou 1962, p. 137): “Concerning not letting the psalms be sung continuously during assemblies; each psalm must be followed by a reading.”— Περὶ τοῦ µὴ δεῖν ἐπισυνάπτειν ἐν ταῖς συνάξεσι τοὺς ψαλµοὺς, ἀ ὰ διὰ µέσου καθ’ ἕκαστον ψαλµὸν γίνεσθαι τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 89. 244 CLaod. Can. 15 (Joannou 1962, p. 136): “Concerning that besides the canonical singers who go up to the ambo and lead the singing from a codex, no others may lead the singing in church.”—Περὶ τοῦ µὴ δεῖν πλὴν τῶν κανονικῶν ψαλτῶν τῶν ἐπὶ τὸν ἄµβωνα ἀναβαινόντων καὶ ἀπὸ διφθέρας ψα όντων ἑτέρους τινὰς ψά ειν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ. Cf. Jonkers 1954, p. 88. Ohm 1998, p. 406 points out that the adjective κανονικός refers to the roster of clergy. 245 Cf. Hefele / Leclercq 1907 (1973), p. 1008; for more on the leadership role of the ψάλτης in responsorial singing, see Taft 2000, p. 272. 314 chapter seven no place was allowed for individual compositions. Only canonical psalms would henceforth be heard.246 The canons regulating the singing of psalms signalized the churches’ active involvement in shaping the music of worship; by and large, the synod recognized this involvement but also regulated it. Possibly the development of church music led to such a strong position because sacral music also played an important role in pagan cults. We have already discussed the choirs of Apollo from Laodicea.247

7.4. The 5th-Century Councils

7.4.1. The First Council of Ephesus (431) and the Competition between Laodicea and Hierapolis For roughly half a century after the Synod of Laodicea, textual sources have nothing more to say regarding the history of the churches in the Lycus Val- ley.248 Not until 431, during the rst Council of Ephesus, do their representatives come into view once more. The documentary material has preserved the signature copies of the bishops who a rmed the theology of Nicea and rejected the views of Nestorius; the following entries relate to the Lycus Val- ley: Aristonicus, bishop of Laodicea, I have signed. … Commodus, the most humble bishop of Tripolis, I have signed.249 … Venantius, bishop of the metropolis of Hierapolis, I have signed; I signed through my secretary Theodosius. … Her- molaus, the most humble bishop of Attouda, I have signed. … Asclepiades, bishop of Trapezopolis, I have signed.250

246 CLaod. Can. 59. Cf. p. 138 above. 247 See pp. 139–141 above. 248 At the Council of Constantinople in 381, the province of Phrygia Pacatiana was represented only by bishops from the two cities of Appia and Eumeneia; cf. Braun 1906, p. 474 nos. 131–132; Kauold 1993, p. 77.—The tradition of a synod in Constantinople in 394 that dealt with conicts in the bishopric of Bostra speaks of a bishop Lucius from Hierapolis. It is not impossible that this refers to the city in the Lycus Valley, but Hieropolis in Phrygia Salutaris and above all Hierapolis in Syria are also plausible options. In this list, Lucius is followed by Elpidius from Laodicea in Syria. The text is published in Honigmann 1961, pp. 12f.: καθεσθέντων τῶν ἁγιωτάτων ἐπισκόπων· … Λουκίου ῾Ιεραπόλεως, ᾽Ελπιδίου Λαοδικείας … . On the problem of identifying the city, see ibid. pp. 39f. Destephen 2008 does not mention the bishop. On Hierophilus of Trapezopolis, see p. 316 below. 249 In the list, Commodus directly follows Silvanus, the bishop of Keretapa; on Keretapa see also p. 291 above. 250 ACO I, 1.7. 79 (25, 64, 163, 183, 189): ᾽Αριστόνικος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς Λαοδικέων ὑπέγραψα institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 315

The ve representatives from the Lycus Valley and its immediate neighborhood can be divided into two categories, rst the bishops of Laodicea and Hierapolis, the others in the hierarchy below them, with Commodus playing a special role as coming from the neighboring province of Lydia. Here we see for the rst time signs of rivalry between the bishops of Laodicea and Hierapolis, since the latter found it important to single out his bishopric as a metropolitan see. The fact that Aristonicus could also claim this title was clear to all, since Laodicea headed the administration of the province of Phrygia Pacatiana.251 The ambition of Venantius was restrained by the position of his signature (163), far behind that of Aristonicus (position 25). Among the signatories who put their seal on the condemnation of Nestorius a month before, Aristonicus, whose status as metropolitan is here explicitly stated, also preceded Venantius.252 Immediately before the council, Venantius appears to have resolutely gone his own way: in the note of protest signed by 68 bishops that was intended to persuade Cyril of Alexandria not to begin the sessions before the arrival of the delegates from Syria, the name of the bishop of Hierapolis also appears along with the names of Hermolaus of Attouda and Asclepiades of Trapezopolis—but not that of Aristonicus of Laodicea.253 Possibly Venantius had taken the neighboring sufragans in tow to strengthen his position vis- à-vis Aristonicus. During and after the council, we can see how the power and status continued to uctuate back and forth between Aristonicus and Venantius.254 In the long run, the bishop of Laodicea was able to maintain the upper hand, even though his colleague from Hierapolis repeatedly kicked against the pricks.255

…, Κόµοδος ὁ ἐλάχιστος ἐπίσκοπος Τριπόλεως ὑπέγραψα …, Βενάντιος ἐπίσκοπος ῾Ιεραπόλεως µητροπόλεως ὑπέγραψα· ὑπέγραψα δὲ διὰ τοῦ νοταρίου µου Θεοδοσίου …, ῾Ερµόλαος ἐλάχιστος ἐπίσκοπος ᾽Αττουδαίων ὑπέγραψα …, ᾽Ασκληπιάδης ἐπίσκοπος τῆς Τραπεζοπολιτῶν ὑπέγραψα … . Cf. ACO II, 3.1. 945 (Latin). 251 See pp. 310f. above. 252 ACO I, 1.2. 62 (150, 151): Aristonicus in position 150 (᾽Αριστόνικος ἐλάχιστος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς Λαοδικέων µητροπόλεως ὑπέγραψα ἀποφηνάµενος ἅµα τῇ συνόδῳ); Venantius, represented this time by a presbyter named Paul, in position 151 (Βενάντιος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς κατὰ ῾Ιεράπολιν ἁγίας τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας ὑπέγραψα ἀποφηνάµενος ἅµα τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ. Παῦλος πρεσβύτερος ὑπέγραψα ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ παρόντος καὶ ἐντειλαµένου µοι). Crabbe 1981, p. 377f. conjectures that Venantius could not write. 253 ACO I, 4.28–30 (Venantius in position 22, Hermolaus in position 56, Asclepiades in position 57). 254 For a thorough treatment, see Destephen 2008, pp. 956f. There is a striking letter from the emperor to the delegates to the council listing only high-ranking bishops—including Venantius but not Aristonicus: ACO I, 1.3. 93.1. 255 Cf. Huttner, Bauinschrift (appearing shortly); see also pp. 310f. above. 316 chapter seven

In the gures of Hermolaus and Asclepiades at the Council of Ephesus, two bishops come into view whose sees always remained in the shadow of their powerful neighbors. Of the Christian community in Trapezopolis, we know nothing beyond the entries in the Acta of the council and a comment in the church history of Socrates that Bishop Hierophilus of Trapezopo- lis (obviously a predecessor of Asclepiades) was translated to a new see, Plotinopolis in Thrace, although the translation of bishops from one see to another necessarily aroused canonical misgivings.256 A handful of Chris- tian inscriptions from Attouda, high in the mountains, have nevertheless survived, the most important being an inscription on a large marble table with a drain, obviously used by a Christian brotherhood in the club where they gathered,257 along with two lapidary votive inscriptions (εὐχή).258 None of these texts, however, can be dated with certainty prior to the Council of Chalcedon.

7.4.2. The Second Council of Ephesus (449) 7.4.2.1. Laodicea and Its Representatives in the Acta of the Council The second Council of Ephesus, which met under great turmoil, was dominated by Dioscorus, the bishop of Alexandria; its rst session is documented relatively well by the Acta of Chalcedon,259 the second and subsequent sessions by a Syriac manuscript.260 The more prominent participants

256 Socr. H.e. 7.36.19: ῾Ιερόφιλος ἀπὸ Τραπεζουπόλεως τῆς Φρυγίας µετηνέχθη εἰς Πλωτινούπο- λιν τῆς Θρᾴκης. In this chapter (7.36), Socrates collects a whole series of examples of such translations. Cf. CNic. (325) Can. 15. On the subsequent use of this list in the Latin West, see Scholz 1992, pp. 211f. On Hierophilus see also Destephen 2008, pp. 453f. 257 MAMA VI, no. 84 = Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 296–299 no. 200: “Eutychi- anos gives the table to the club of the Chrysampelites.”—+ χαρίζετε τραπέζιν Εὐτυχιανὸς Χρυ- σανπελιτῶν ἀκουβίττῳ. + Other technical terms for brotherhoods are generally more common: φιλιακόν, σπουδαῖοι, φιλόπονοι. For more see Russell 1987, pp. 62–64. The name Chrysampelites should not be misunderstood as an allusion to the drinking habits of the members of the club (“Goldwinedrinkers”). Possibly its founder’s name was Chrysampelos. The name Chrysampe- los is attested in connection with Laodicea: a gladiator from Laodicea appears in an epitaph from Cyzicus: Merkelbach / Stauber II (2001), p. 44 no. 08/01/32. 258 MAMA VI, nos. 85 and 86. The inscribed seal MAMA VI, no. 143 is obscure; it seemingly speaks of a metropolitan of Attouda. 259 Millar 2009, p. 46 calls attention to an unpublished Syriac manuscript in the British Library that documents the rst session of the council. 260 Cf. Price / Gaddis I 2005 (2010), pp. 31–37; Millar 2006, pp. 98 and 241; the Syriac tradition with German translation is in Flemming / Hofmann 1917. On the Syriac Acta, see now Millar 2009, pp. 46–63 (including the observation that the documentation clearly refers to more than one session). institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 317 included Nunechius, the bishop of Laodicea,261 though in comparison to other metropolitans he spoke comparatively rarely; he was clearly not one of the leading voices of the synod. The Acta of Ephesus II give Laodicea the characteristic epithet Trimitaria, an allusion to textile production:262 the city had made a name for itself as a center for the production of triple-thread material, possibly a kind of drill,263 possibly also tricolor fabric.264 Laodicea’s appearance in the conciliar Acta with a title emphasizing its economic power signalizes the importance of urban qualities in the self-portrait of the higher clergy: Nunechius was proud of being allowed to exercise his o ce in the famous textile city. Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices contains a reference to a δελµατικὴ τρίµιτος from Laodicea as one of its special textile products.265 Possibly we may conclude from the characterization of Laodicea in the council’s Acta that the dalmatica manufactured in Laodicea, originally a simple tunic with sleeves, had become primarily a liturgical garment: there is some evidence that the dalmatic was generally a vestment worn by deacons.266 Laodicean textile producers may by this time have found some of their major customers among the clergy.267 From the Syriac documents, we learn that Nunechius did not travel to Ephesus alone but in the company of the deacon Euphronius.268 When the delegation from Rome did not appear at the session although it was staying nearby, two bishops (from Augaza/Euaza near Pergamum and Hypaepa, also in the province of Asia) and two deacons (a second deacon from Aphro- disias in addition to Euphronius) were dispatched, but their mission was unsuccessful.269 This episode accidentally highlights the escort accompanying the metropolitans, which ran errands on behalf of the council: basically

261 The fundamental treatment of Nunechius is Destephen 2008, pp. 727–731. 262 Cf. the individual Greek instances in ACO IV, 3.3, p. 191 (index). 263 LSJ 1996, p. 1820, s.v. τρίµιτος; Laufer 1971, p. 265; cf. also Destephen 2008, 730. 264 Analogous to multicolored textiles: πολυµίτα. Cf. Blümner 21912, p. 142, with n. 2. Gen- erally on Laodicea’s textile industry, see Huttner 2009, p. 139. 265 Edict.Diocl. 19.39: δελµατικὴ ἄσηµος Λαδικηνὴ τρίµιτος—asemaLaodicenatrilex, presumably a reference to “plain, undecorated” (ἄσηµος) goods. Cf. the commentary of Laufer 1971, pp. 262f. 266 Cf. Braun 1907 (1964), pp. 249–252; Klauser 1957, cols. 902f.; also Mau 1901, col. 2025 and ThLL Onom. 3, cols 20–21. 267 The traditions of the textile industry in the Lycus Valley survived antiquity. Possibly we may even trace a continuity with the textile industry in modern Denizli. On medieval and modern evidence, see Sim¸ sek¸ 2007 a, pp. 38f.; Thonemann 2011, pp. 186–190; also Acar 2007. 268 On Euphronius see Destephen 2008, p. 344. 269 Cf. Flemming / Hofmann 1917, pp. 8–13. 318 chapter seven companions like the deacon Euphronius were entirely overshadowed by the bishops.270

7.4.2.2. The Role of Nunechius on the First Day of the Council The central agenda item on the rst day was the conict over Eutyches, an archimandrite from Constantinople; he was a rigorous Miaphysite, denying the human nature of Christ, and had therefore been condemned in 448 at a local synod presided over by Flavian. Dioscorus of Alexandria reopened this case in order to drive his colleague from Constantinople into a corner.271 It is di cult to reconstruct what actually took place, since our source is the Acta of the Council of Chalcedon, where the results of Ephesus II were revised; these Acta must be categorized as tendentious from the outset. At the Council of Chalcedon, which in turn deposed Dioscorus, the general impression arose that the bishop of Alexandria had staged a threatening scenario at Ephesus and had so intimidated the assembled bishops that they voted like spineless cowards. At the same time, a few metropolitans from the diocese of Asia, which was allied politically to the bishop of Constantino- ple,272 supported Flavian. Four are mentioned by name: Onesiphorus of Ico- nium (Lycaonia), Epiphanius of Perge (Pamphylia I), Marinianus of Synnada (Phrygia Salutaris), and Nunechius of Laodicea (Phrygia Pacatiana).273 At Chalcedon Marinianus expressly pointed out how he, Onesiphorus, Nunechius, and a few others had even prostrated themselves before the bishop of Alexandria, urging him to reconsider the condemnation of Fla- vian. Dioscorus, however, summoned the guards and nipped all resistance in the bud.274 All the bishops nally gave in and signed the verdict against Flavian. The account of Marinianus emphasizes the commitment of a few upright individuals, including the bishop of Laodicea—courageous but unsuccessful. But by the time of Chalcedon the wind had shifted: Flavian, who had since died, would be rehabilitated, the teaching of his opponent Euty- ches nally declared heretical, and the scheming Dioscorus deposed. For many bishops for whom there was no choice but to jump on the bandwagon, what mattered was to save face. How far Nunechius actually went out on

270 Cf. the role of the presbyter Paul accompanying the Hieropolitan bishop Venantius at the Council of Ephesus in 431; see p. 315, n. 252 above. 271 Cf. Price / Gaddis I 2005 (2010), pp. 25–31. 272 Cf. Dagron 21984, pp. 466–473. 273 ACO II, 1.1. 855–861: Price / Gaddis 2005 (2010), pp. 270f. 274 ACO II, 1.1. 861; Price / Gaddis I 2005 (2010), p. 271. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 319 a limb in the afair of the bishop of Constantinople in 449 must remain unclear. At other times he went with the ow or stayed in the background. Three speeches of Nunechius are noted in the Greek Acta on the rst day of the gathering in Ephesus; each time he spoke to ratify personally a decision of the council, as most of the bishops did; once all that was required was assent to the reading of the Acta of the local synod that had met in Constantinople in 448.275 His other two speeches involved more important decisions, but given the atmosphere in the council and the innumerable contributions of other bishops they were of no greater consequence. One had to do with the rehabilitation of Eutyches, con rmation of his orthodoxy, and his reinstatement as an archimandrite. One bishop after another asked to speak and supported Eutyches. Nunechius joined this monotonous series with the following, in which he—like those who spoke before him— referred to a written confession of Eutyches approving the councils of Nicea and Ephesus I:276 As evidenced in the attestation that he presented, the most humble Eutyches, presbyter and archimandrite, follows the exposition of the faith by the holy fathers of Nicea and the most holy men who assembled earlier in this glorious city [Ephesus]. Therefore it seems meet, right, and proper to this most gracious synod that he enjoy the status of presbyter and govern his monastery, as the holy fathers have determined.277 Even when the issue was the condemnation of Flavian, for whose vindica- tion he had supposedly labored so desperately, Nunechius aligned himself with the general sense of the council; Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum was also concerned by this sentence as just a year before (448) he had triggered the conict by denouncing Eutyches to Flavian. In the Acta, the words of Nunechius stand between those of the bishops from Berytus and from Constantia on Cyprus, who went on at greater length than their colleague

275 ACO II, 1.1. 209: “Nunechius, bishop of Laodicea Trimitaria, said: ‘In agreement with the proposal of the fathers dearly beloved by God, it seems proper to me also that the Acta be read.’”—Νουνέχιος ἐπίσκοπος Λαοδικείας Τριµιταρίας εἶπεν· Κατὰ τὴν διαλαλίαν τῶν θεοφιλεστάτων πατέρων ἀκόλουθον δοκεῖ καὶ ἐµοὶ τὸ γενέσθαι τὴν τῶν πεπραγµένων ἀνάγνωσιν. Cf. Price / Gaddis I 2005 (2010), p. 167. 276 Cf. ACO II 1.1. 185; Price / Gaddis I 2005 (2010), p. 162. 277 ACO II, 3.1. 884.28: “Nunechius eps. Laodiciae Trimitariae d.: Iustum est et consequens et humanissimae huic synodo conveniens Eutychen virum reverentissimum presbyterum et archimandritam sequentem expositionem dei sanctorum patrum qui in Nicaea, et sanctis- simorum qui pridem in hac splendida urbe congregati sunt, sicut ab ipso porrecti libelli con- tinent, frui et sacerdotali dignitate et regere monasterium, sicut placuit et sanctis patribus.” Price / Gaddis I 2005 (2010), pp. 278f. 320 chapter seven from Asia Minor. Nunechius was brief: “I too join the position of the holy fathers against the former bishops Flavian and Eusebius.”278 In his language, Nunechius presupposed the deposition of the two dignitaries, but even so he proved to be not particularly original. Other bishops who had voiced their assent before him had likewise spoken of the “former bishops.”279 During that vote, furthermore, not all the bishops caved in before the threatening posture of Dioscorus and the overbearing council majority: the representative of the bishop of Rome, a deacon named Hilarus (who later himself became bishop of Rome: 461–468) hurled his contradicitur at the participants in Latin, although he attracted little notice with his rebellion during the session; later he had to seek refuge from the harassment of Dioscorus.280 The list of signatories to the condemnation of Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylaeum, preserved in the Acta, comprises 140 names; it shows that three other bishops from the Lycus Valley besides Nunechius supported the verdict, though they had not spoken: the sufragans Sym- machius of Attouda and Epiphanius of Colossae, as well as Paul of Tripolis, their colleague from the neighboring province.281 Their subordinate status is reected in the fact that they did not rise to speak, a privilege by no means limited generally to the metropolitans. Epiphanius is also the rst representative of the see of Colossae known as an individual. The fact that Nunechius follows Eustathius of Berytus in the list of signatories could be interpreted as evidence for the seating arrangement at the council, especially since the speech of Eustathius preceded that of Nunechius.282

7.4.2.3. The Role of Nunechius on the Second Day The agenda of the second day was to rebuke Nestorian bishops from the Antiochene sphere of inuence for their heretical activities as well as for their violations of discipline. The Syriac Acta include a list of the bishops

278 ACO II, 3.1. 992: “Nunechius eps. Laodiciae Trimitariae d.: Consentio et ego ipse prolatae sententiae a sanctis patribus adversus Flavianum et Eusebium quondam episcopos.” Price / Gaddis I 2005 (2010), p. 348. 279 ACO II, 3.1. 987–989 and 991; Price / Gaddis I 2005 (2010), p. 347. 280 ACO II, 1.1. 964; Price / Gaddis I 2005 (2010), p. 344, with n. 500; Millar 2006, p. 103. 281 ACO II, 3.1. 1070 (30, 94, 102, 103); see also the entries in Destephen 2008, pp. 882, 262, and 770f. 282 The list of signatories in ACO II, 3.1. 1070, 30 (Nunechius), 94 (Paul of Tripolis), 102 (Symmachius of Attouda). Cf. Price / Gaddis I 2005 (2010), pp. 358–363. Cf. also the list reconstructing the archetype in Honigmann 1942/43, pp. 32–37: Nunechius no. 36, Paul of Tripolis no. 104, Symmachius of Attouda no. 116. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 321 present, which contains only 112 entries:283 Nunechius of Laodicea continuing to represent the province of Phrygia Pacatiana as metropolitan with Paul of Tripolis also present.284 There is no mention of Symmachius of Attouda and Epiphanius of Colossae; it is unclear whether they had left early or their names fell victim to a copyist’s carelessness.285 The discussion centered initially on Ibas of Edessa as the most prominent source of controversy; innumerable statements of witnesses had been solicited concerning him. Apart from his ofences against orthodox teaching, he was charged with having enriched himself unscrupulously from the church’s assets.286 Under these conditions, the bishops voted unanimously to deprive Ibas of his episcopal o ce. As in other cases, Nunechius joined his colleagues. The entry in the Acta reads (following the translation of Georg Hofmann): Nunechius, bishop of Laodicea in [Phrygia] Trimitaria, said: “There is no human reason that could nd a punishment commensurate with the wicked- ness of Ibas. But since it is proper that he receive a great [punishment] from the ecumenical synod that, though little, counts for many—for in a sense the signi cance of the impact of a harsh punishment is not increased by its greater magnitude—: therefore I, too, agree that he deserves to be excluded from the priesthood and the sacred community; in addition he must restore all church property, lest his blasphemy redound to his bene t and he employ the sacred vessels sacrilegiously.”287 This submission is remarkable, seeing that the bishop had reservations about the function of punishment in the administration of justice generally and in the special case of Ibas in particular. During the discussion, the hostility to the bishop of Edessa had erupted in aggressive denunciations that even demanded the death of the accused.288 The harshness of punishments was a problem debated intensively among Roman jurists.289 The possibility that Nunechius had enjoyed a legal education cannot be ruled out.290 In his

283 113 according to Honigmann 1942/1943, p. 29. 284 Cf. Flemming / Hofmann 1917, p. 7, line 35, no. 22 and p. 9, line 18, no. 83. 285 Honigmann 1942/1943, pp. 32f. emphasizes the copyist’s carelessness, based on a thorough comparison of the various lists of bishops at the “Robber Council.” 286 For a thorough discussion of the charges and the conict, see Rammelt 2008, pp. 143– 220. 287 Flemming / Hofmann 1917, p. 67, lines 16–24. 288 For more see Rammelt 2008, pp. 217f. 289 Cf. for example Gell. 20.1 on the Twelve Tables and the discussion in Humbert 1991, pp. 144–146. 290 On the legal education and training of bishops in general, see Rapp 2005, p. 182. 322 chapter seven eyes, in any case, Ibas would have deserved a harsher punishment than that described; at the same time, however, he is clear that a harsher punishment would not have been any more efective than a comparatively benign punishment. Nunechius spoke a second time when the council was debating the condemnation of Ibas’s nephew Daniel. As bishop of Carrhae, he was accused of adultery and other ofences by clergy of his diocese; he had already been condemned by high-ranking bishops of the region, but the verdict had not yet been enforced.291 The bishops at Ephesus saw a propitious moment to crack down in this case as well and depose Daniel. Like all the others, Nunechius supported the condemnation: “If the judges have found Daniel culpable, what should we do? I, too, recognize the justice of excluding him from the priesthood.”292 The Syriac Acta know nothing of other submissions of Nunechius during the second session of the Council of Ephesus in 449, even when such prominent gures were involved as Theodoret of Cyrrhus and the most powerful of the bishops of the region, Domnus of Antioch, who had protected the Syrian network. The voice of the metropolitan of the province of Phrygia Pacatiana carried some weight, but Nunechius never set out to be a spokesman, and his inuence therefore remained limited. If he did in fact sit next to Eustathius of Berytus during the rst session,293 that would be evidence of an illuminating constellation, for Eustathius had been one of the bishops who had reprimanded Ibas and condemned Daniel in the context of a three-person commission of inquiry in Tyre and Berytus shortly before the Council of Ephesus.294 Nunechius and Eustathius probably also had personal conversations on the sidelines of the council.

7.4.3. The Council of Chalcedon 7.4.3.1. Nunechius of Laodicea: the Metropolitan and his Sufragans Two years after the “Robber Council” of Ephesus, Nunechius of Laodicea reappeared: the new emperor Marcianus had convoked a council in Nicea and then nally transferred its venue to Chalcedon, near the imperial resi-

291 Flemming / Hofmann 1917, p. 69. 292 Following the translation of G. Hofmann in Flemming / Hofmann 1917, p. 73, lines 21– 23. 293 Cf. p. 320 above; on the problems involved, see p. 325 below. 294 Cf. ACO II, 3.3. VIII, 7; X, 28. See Price / Gaddis I 2005 (2010), p. 268, where the verdict is called a “gentlemen’s agreement” on account of the commission’s reticence. On Daniel see Flemming / Hofmann 1917, p. 69. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 323 dence. The number of participants was greater than at any previous council: later sources speak of 500 to 600 bishops; the extensive Acta of the council indicate that close to 400 were present.295 As metropolitan, Nunechius had the authority to represent the bishops of Phrygia Pacatiana who were subordinate to him but had not come to the council. The most complete rosters in the Acta of Chalcedon appear in the sixth session in the context of the reading and con rmation of the creed, which was in accord with the input provided by the Tome of Bishop Leo of Rome.296 The signature of Nunechius is followed by a whole series of other bishops; the entry in the Acta reads: Nunechius, bishop of Laodicea, the metropolis: I have decided and signed, and also in the name of the absent bishops under me: Symmachius from the city of Attouda, Philetus from the city of Keretapa, Epiphanius from the city of Colossae, Euagoras from the city of Eluza, Zosimus from the city of Themisonium, Antiochus from the city of Sanaus, Philadelphus from the city of Atanassus, Arabius from the city of Synaus, Heraclius from the city of Cidyessus, Gaius from the city of Alioi, Matthias from the city of Temeno- thyrae, Philip from the city of Peltae, Tatian from the city of Philippopolis.297 Not all the cities can be identi ed with certainty—for instance Eluza and Atanassus, which should possibly be searched for in the region of Eumeneia- Sebaste or perhaps further south.298 Symmachius of Attouda and Epiphanius of Colossae, however, are old friends; they had participated in the “Robber Council” together with Nunechius two years before.299 The entry for Philippopolis at the end of the series is puzzling; Bishop Tatian is a phantom among the council fathers.300 Possibly there was a bishop named Philip at this point, associated with a city whose name was

295 Price / Gaddis III 2005 (2010), pp. 193f. 296 On this list, see Honigmann 1942/1943, p. 42. 297 ACO II 2.1. 2, VI, 9, 377–390: Νουνέχιος ἐπίσκοπος Λαοδικείας τῆς µητροπόλεως ὁρίσας ὑπέ- γραψα καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀπόντων ὑπ’ ἐµὲ ἐπισκόπων· Συµµαχίου πόλεως ᾽Αττούδων, Φιλητοῦ πόλεως Χαι- ρατάπων, ᾽Επιφανίου πόλεως Κολασσῶν, Εὐαγόρα πόλεως ᾽Ιλούζων, Ζωσίµου πόλεως θεµισσοῦ, ᾽Αντιόχου πόλεως Σανάων, Φιλαδέλφου πόλεως ᾽Ατανασσοῦ, ᾽Αραβίου πόλεως Συννάου, ῾Ηρα- κλείου πόλεως Κυδισσοῦ, Γαίου πόλεως ᾽Αλίων, Ματθία πόλεως Τεµενουθύρων, Φιλίππου πόλεως Πελτῶν, Τατιανοῦ πόλεως Φιλιππουπόλεως. Cf. the reconstructed archetype in Honigmann 1942/1943, pp. 59f. no. (46) 447–460. 298 Cf. Honigmann 1935, pp. 646f. (Atanassus some 20 kilometers north of Lake Anaua and hence about 25 kilometers east of Hierapolis); Jones 1937, p. 73. N. Mersich in Belke / Mersich 1990, pp. 194 and 279 emphasizes the great uncertainty of attempts to locate these cities. On Atanassus see also p. 292, n. 104 above. 299 See pp. 320f. above. 300 See also Destephen 2008, p. 886. 324 chapter seven lost in the transmission of the Acta. In any case, there is evidence that the copyist made a whole series of mistakes here.301 The Latin tradition regarding Ancyra Sidera, absent from the Greek list, also speaks of a bishop named Philip.302 It is also not impossible that Philippopolis stands for Hierapolis on account of the apostle’s tomb.303 This interpretation is supported by the fact that the bishop of Hierapolis, who was certainly one of the most prominent clergy of Pacatiana, is not mentioned anywhere else in the Acta of Chalcedon. But in 457, when Emperor Leo addressed an encyclical to the major episcopal sees, the incumbent in Hierapolis appeared under his usual address; he was also named Philip.304 The roster for the sixth session of the Council of Chalcedon contains the rst explicit mention of the bishops sufragan to Laodicea.305 Besides the suf- fragans in whose name the metropolitan signed, others had come to Chal- cedon in person; they also appear in the list of signatories produced after the public reading of the creed. The following signatures can be assigned to bishops from Phrygia Pacatiana: Daniel of Kadoi, Modestus of Sebaste, Paul of Aristion,306 Eulalius of Siblia, Chares of Dionysopolis, John of Trapezopolis, Gennadius of Acmoneia, Thomas of Theodosiupolis, Gennadius of Mossyna, and Evander of Diocleia.307 Some of these bishops came from the northern area of the province but others—speci cally Chares of Dionysopolis and Gennadius of Mossyna—from the extended region of the Lycus Valley; the see of John of Trapezopolis was in the immediate neighborhood of Laodicea. If we count both the present and absent bishops from Phrygia Pacatiana named in the Acta of the Council of Chalcedon, we arrive at 24, more than half of the cities listed by Hierocles.308 This illustrates the problems posed

301 Cf. Honigmann 1942/1943, p. 75; Price / Gaddis II 2005 (2010), p. 231, n. 39. 302 ACO II, 2.2, p. 76, 337. See Price / Gaddis II 2005 (2010), p. 239, n. 57; Destephen 2008, pp. 798f. Honigmann 1942/43, pp. 75f. assumes that the entry in the list of signatures involves two bishops, Tatian from an unknown episcopal see and Philip from Ancyra Sidera. From Τατιανοῦ πόλεως Φιλιππουπόλεως he reconstructs this prototype: Τατιανοῦ πόλεως …— Φιλίππου πόλεως h᾽Αγκύρας Σιδηρᾶςi. 303 Ramsay 1931, pp. 9f.; rejected by Honigmann 1942/1943, pp. 76f. 304 ACO II, 5 p. 24, 49: Philippo reverentissimo episcopo Hierapoleos. See also Destephen 2008, p. 802. On the encyclical of Emperor Leo, see Honigmann 1953, pp. 176–178. 305 The earliest lists of bishoprics reect the situation in the 7th century. There Hierapolis takes on the role of a metropolitan see with several sufragans. Attouda, for example, is no longer sufragan to Laodicea but to Hierapolis. See Darrouzès 1981 (Notitia I, 450–455). 306 Only in the Latin tradition. Aristion or Aristeia probably lay between Usak¸ and Afyon. Cf. N. Mersich in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 191. 307 ACO II, 1.2. VI, 9. 251–260; ACO II, 2.2, p. 76, 229–340. 308 See p. 292 above. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 325 by these lists, which cannot be treated as reliable witnesses to a complete roster. Apart from the group of bishops from Phrygia Pacatiana, the representative of Tripolis (still Bishop Paul) naturally signed the creed.309 As a neighbor of the Lycus, he was among the representatives of the province of Lydia and was assigned to Metropolitan Florentius of Sardis.310

7.4.3.2. Nunechius of Laodicea: Networks and Votes The names of the bishops from the Lycus Valley who took part in the Coun- cil of Chalcedon—John of Trapezopolis and Paul of Tripolis along with Nunechius—also appear in the Acta in the context of other sessions, especially in the lists of participants and signatories.311 As a rule, the metropolitans appear separately in these lists, preceding the other bishops; this may possibly indicate that they were assigned privileged seats. In these lists, the name of Nunechius appears repeatedly in conjunction with Critonianus of Aphrodisias and Marinianus of Synnada,312 but also Onesiphorus of Ico- nium,313 possibly reecting personal contacts with neighboring bishoprics or tactical alliances (e.g. against Dioscorus). It must be remembered, however, that the formation of these lists need not reect the seating of the participants; the actual sequence can also be explained simply as reecting standardized models used by later copyists.314 During the council, Nunechius presumably also maintained contact with the delegates of the emperor, who attached great importance to maintaining strict control over the debate.315 The group of o cials and senators carefully selected by Marcian included the former Praetorian prefect Flavius Con- stantinus,316 who came from Laodicea. A few years later, his fellow citizens honored him with a statue with an inscription.317 There is no direct evidence, however, that the metropolitan’s contact with the secular power center of the council inuenced the course of the debate in any way. There is no more evidence of speeches of the metropolitan from Laodicea at Chalcedon than at Ephesus II, beyond his simple Placet during the voting.

309 ACO II 1.2. VI, 9. 213. 310 ACO II 1.2. VI, 9. 14. Cf. p. 320f. above. 311 Cf. the references in Destephen 2008, pp. 488 and 771. 312 E.g. ACO II, 1.1. I, 3. 42; ACO II, 1.2. III, 33. 313 Cf. for instance ACO II, 1.2. II, 1. 34. On this group, see also p. 318 above. 314 On this complex problem, see Price / Gaddis III 2005 (2010), pp. 196–201. 315 Cf. Millar 2006, p. 197. 316 ACO II, 1.1. I, 2. 17: καὶ τοῦ µεγαλοπρεπεστάτου καὶ ἐνδοξοτάτου ἀπὸ ἐπάρχων Κωνσταντίνου. PLRE II (1980), pp. 317f., s.v. Constantinus 22; cf. Millar 2006, p. 199. 317 Corsten 1997, pp. 87–89 no. 42. Cf. Robert 1948, p. 45. 326 chapter seven

His reaction during the third session in the debate over the deposition of Dioscorus, who did not appear before the conciliar fathers despite being summoned three times, is typical. Here the Latin tradition, which notes the commentaries of the various bishops, is more detailed than the simple list of the bishops who condemned him in the Greek tradition.318 The entry on Nunechius reads as follows: Nunechius, metropolitan bishop of Laodicea, said: In agreement with the condemnation by our holy father Leo, greatly beloved by God, archbishop of old Rome, through the bishops greatly beloved by God whom he delegated, and by the presbyter Bonifatius, greatly beloved by God, and by holy Anatolius, greatly beloved by God, archbishop of new Rome, the city of Constantinople, and by the whole council here present, I too judge concerning Dioscorus, the former bishop of the great city of Alexandria, that he be deprived of his entire priestly ministry.319 This lapidary text reects Nunechius’s accustomed behavior, which—as in the case of others—was essentially limited to following the lead of the authorities. The delegates of the bishop of Rome (three bishops and the presbyter Bonifatius) along with the bishop of Constantinople had laid out the line to be followed. In the same debate, the other representatives from the Lycus Valley also spoke. John of Trapezopolis said: “I too agree with all the preceding holy fathers against Dioscorus and give my judgment that he be deprived of all priestly ministry and dignity.”320 Paul of Tripolis likewise con rmed the verdict: “I too agree with the just and regular condemnation of Dioscorus, formerly bishop of Alexandria, approved by this holy and ecumenical council and deprive him of all priestly ministry.”321 The bishops of the Lycus Val- ley, the metropolitan and the sufragans, supported the repetitious, almost

318 On ACO II, 1.2. II, 96, see Price / Gaddis II, 2005 (2010), p. 71, n. 102. 319 ACO II, 3.2. III [II], 94. 33: “Nunechius eps. metropolitanus Laodiciae civitatis d.: Secun- dum ea, quae de nita sunt a deo amicissimo et sanctissimo patre nostro et archiepiscopo senioris Romae Leone per directos ab eo deo amicissimos episcopos et a deo amicissimo pres- bytero Bonifatio et a deo amicissimo et sanctissimo Anatolio archiepiscopo novae Romae Constantinopolitanae civitatis et omni praesenti sancto concilio, iudico et ipse Dioscurum Alexandrinae magnae civitatis quondam episcopum alienum esse omni sacerdotali ministerio.” 320 ACO II, 3.2. III [II], 94. 82: “Iohannes eps. Trapezuntis [!] d.: Concors e cior et ego omnibus praecedentibus sanctis patribus adversus Dioscorum et alienum iudico eum ab omni sacerdotali ministerio et dignitate.” 321 ACO II, 3.2. III [II], 94. 134: “Paulus eps. Tripolitanus d.: Consentio et ego iuste et regulariter a sancta hac et universali synodo adversus Dioscorum Alexandrinorum quondam episcopum factae damnationi et alieno eum ab omni sacerdotali ministerio.” institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 327 unvarying, chorus of the council against the bishop of Alexandria, thus underscoring the will of the assembled bishops for unity within the universal church. In its monotony, the recording of the individual voices in the Acta of the council symbolizes the ecumenical world. Three other entries regarding Nunechius in the Acta deserve brief mention. One has to do with the orthodoxy of the Tome of Leo, in which the bishop of Rome criticized the Christology of Eutyches in 449. In the initial phase of the Council of Chalcedon, it was still under scrutiny, but now it was a rmed by the council fathers.322 Most of the bishops, including Nunechius, pointed out that they had already signed the Tome. The bishop of Laodicea said: “The letter of the most blessed Leo, which I signed, agrees with the de nition of the faith by the holy fathers at Nicea, by the 150 who met at Constantinople, and by the Synod of Ephesus, presided over by our blessed father Cyril.”323 Here Nunechius, like many of his colleagues, followed the authoritative line of tradition, by which the entire council was guided: the decisions of the three great councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus (I), although the Constantinopolitan creed appeared at Chalcedon for the rst time as an important element in that line.324 The next entry in the Acta was a source of embarrassment for Nunechius, although it did lose some of its explosive force because it also afected almost all his colleagues who had participated in the “Robber Council”: the verdict that had been pronounced against Ibas of Edessa there325 was now countermanded. Presumably Nunechius gave his approval to the restoration of Ibas rather sheepishly; in any case, he was brief: “I join the decision of the holy fathers regarding the most humble bishop Ibas.”326 Two years previously he was still arguing that in fact no punishment was great enough for the bishop of Edessa. The nal session of the Council of Chalcedon left a bad taste in the bishops’ mouths, since it had not succeeded in maintaining the unity that had been demonstrated repeatedly in the earlier sessions. Here the issue was

322 On the Tome, see Grillmeier 1979, pp. 734–750; Uthemann 2001, pp. 582–593; Krannich 2005, pp. 201–206. 323 ACO II, 1.2. 9. 115: Νουνέχιος ὁ εὐλαβέστατος ἐπίσκοπος Λαοδικείας Φρυγίας Πακατιανῆς εἶπεν· ῾Η ἐπιστολὴ τοῦ µακαριωτάτου Λέοντος, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὑπέγραψα, σύµφωνός ἐστι τῇ ἐκθέσει τῆς πίστεως τῶν ἐν Νικαίαι ἁγίων πατέρων καὶ τῶν ρν’ τῶν συνελθόντων ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει καὶ τῇ κατ’ ῎Εφεσον, ἧς ἡγεῖτο ὁ µακάριος πατὴρ ἡµῶν Κύρι ος. 324 Cf. Wohlmuth 32002, pp. 20f. 325 See pp. 321f. above. 326 ACO II, 3.3. X [XI], 176: “Nunechius rev. eps. Laodiciae Phrygiae d.: Conde nimus ea quae de nita sunt a sanctis patribus de Iba reverentissimo.” 328 chapter seven the position of the bishop of Constantinople in the episcopal leadership hierarchy, which was nally de ned in canon 28 of the council. It stated a formal primacy of Rome but also awarded Constantinople—as the o cial residence of the emperor—comparable privileges, so that Rome feared for its inuence in the East.327 Concretely, the rights transferred to Constantino- ple essentially afected the ordination of metropolitans in the dioceses of Thrace, Pontus, and Asia.328 The loyalty of Nunechius to the bishop of Con- stantinople had already been articulated during the “Robber Council,” when he together with his colleagues attempted at the last minute to stand up to the attack of Dioscorus against Flavianus;329 now, too, the bishop of Laodicea remained loyal to his overlord: “The glory of the see of Constantinople is our glory, for we share its honor, especially since it supports our interests. And we nd it proper that the metropolitan of each province is appointed by this see; therefore I added my signature of my own free will.”330 This was not the commentary of Nunechius during the voting on the primacy of the bishop of Constantinople but his answer to the question the emperor’s o - cials addressed to the bishops of the provinces afected, asking them if they had signed of their own free will. Among the bishops of Asia Minor, the ordination question was by means non-controversial: the bishop of Ancyra, for example, had refused to sign, because he saw a threat to his own right of ordination in the neighboring see of Gangra.331 Loyalty to Constantinople was probably a tradition in Laodicea; therefore the see had so little to say of itself.

7.5. Summary: Conflict Resolution through Institutions

A council designed to bring controversies to a harmonious resolution naturally provided the bishop the worst possible platform for distinguishing himself. But Nunechius was by nature not one of those individuals prone to resist authority. The traditions relating to the councils do not paint a

327 Price / Gaddis III 2005 (2010), pp. 70–72. 328 Herman 1953, pp. 472–474. 329 This act of loyalty at Ephesus was con rmed during one of the earlier sessions in Chalcedon. Cf. p. 318 above. 330 ACO II, 1.3. XVII, 27: Νουνέχιος ἐπίσκοπος Λαοδικείας εἶπεν· ῾Η δόξα τοῦ θρόνου Κωνσταντι- νουπόλεως δόξα ἡµῶν ἐστιν· τῆς γὰρ ἐντεῦθεν τιµῆς καὶ ἡµεῖς µετέχοµεν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὰς µερίµνας ἡµῶν ἀναδέχεται. καὶ ἀγαπῶµεν τὸν καθ’ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν µητροπολίτην ὑπὸ τοῦ θρόνου τούτου χειροτονεῖσθαι, ὅθεν καὶ ἑκὼν ὑπέγραψα. 331 Cf. ACO II, 1.3. XVII, 35; see Price / Gaddis III 2005 (2010), p. 69. institutionalization: clerical offices, synods, etc. 329 clear-cut picture of the metropolitanate of Laodicea. The bishop guided his sufragans from the province of Phrygia Pacatiana with a steady hand. The very real ecclesio-political conicts within the province, especially between Laodicea and Hierapolis, emerge almost subliminally from the associations and titles in the lists of participants and signatories, along with an inscription in a Hierapolitan church that gives the incumbent bishop the titles ἀρχιεπίσκοπος and πατριάρχης.332 When similar conicts came up for discussion at Chalcedon, with two metropolitans from the same province ghting over precedence, whether Nicomedia and Nicea in the province of Bithynia or Tyre and Berytus in the province of Phoenicia I,333 Nunechius probably followed the debate attentively. The bishop of Berytus was the same Eustathius with whom Nunechius had presumably established contact two years previously at Ephesus.334 Despite all the ecclesio-political conicts, the institutions made a substantial contribution to reducing tension and creating a constructive atmosphere, since spheres of authority were clearly regulated in the hierarchy of the clergy and the collective authority of the synods. Occasionally the rulebook needed readjustment, as when overzealous psalmodists or the ambitious bishop of Hierapolis had to be put in their place. It was harder to establish order where centers of authority developed on the basis of individual sanctity, apart from institutions. The hagiographies discussed in the next chapter thus de ne fault zones that cannot be readily captured through institutional rules. Increasing institutionalization beginning in the 2nd century ofered the churches of the Lycus Valley a basis for participating in the structures of the universal church. The bishops traveled to synods and councils; the surviving Acta provide some highlights: Ancyra, Nicea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. To what extent the horizons of the church leaders extended beyond the regions of Asia Minor and especially to the Latin West remains largely unclear. At any rate, the metropolitan of Laodicea was an important enough gure to invite to a synod towards 380 involving colleagues from the entire diocese of Asia, which earned great respect in the course of eforts to give xed and stable form to ecclesiastical law. Besides the activity of Paul in the beginning, it was above all the Acta of the Synod of Laodicea that gave the Lycus Valley a well-de ned place in the history of the early church.

332 See p. 311 above. 333 Cf. Millar 2006, pp. 135f. 334 See p. 322 above.

chapter eight

PERSECUTION AND LEGENDS

8.1. Persecution in the Lycus Valley

8.1.1. Byzantine Accounts of Martyrdom in the Apostolic Age The legendary tradition already registered the earliest martyrs from the Lycus Valley in the entourage of Paul: in the Synaxarium of the Church of Constantinople, which existed as a closed collection in the 10th century and associated the stories of the martyrs with their various feast days,1 November 23 has an entry commemorating three gures addressed in the Epistle to Philemon: Commemorating the holy apostles Philemon, Archippus, and Apphia. They lived under Emperor Nero and became disciples of holy Paul. They sufered martyrdom in Colossae or Chonae, a city in Phrygia near Laodicea. A feast in honor of accursed Artemis was being celebrated by the misguided pagans in her temple in Chonae, and these holy ones together with the Christians were raising their praises to God in the most holy church. Then the idolaters attacked the holy people: all took ight, while only Archippus, Philemon, and Apphia remained behind. They were overpowered and brought before the governor [lit.: grain warden] Androcles in Ephesus. Archippus was struck by him. And when he could not be persuaded to ofer sacri ce to the idol they call Men, he was thrown into a pit and buried up to his navel. First his whole body was pierced with styli by schoolchildren2 and then he was stoned. Then holy Philemon was beaten with clubs and came to a pitiless end. Holy Apphia sufered similarly.3

1 The Synaxarium was obviously complete by the 10th century: see Kazhdan 1996, pp. 485f.; also Hannick 1994, pp. 184f.; Efthymiadis 2011, pp. 129f. For an important assessment of the edition of Hippolyte Delehaye, see Ehrhard 1937, pp. 52f. 2 This motif reappears often in accounts of martyrdom. Cf. the account of Mark of Arethusa in the First Invective against Julian of Gregory of Nazianzus (Gr.Naz. Or. 4.89). 3 Synax. eccl. Const. (H. Delehaye 1902: Prop. AASS Nov., cols. 247–248): Μνήµη τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων Φιλήµονος, ᾽Αρχίππου καὶ ᾽Απφίας. Οὗτοι ὑπῆρχον ἐπὶ Νέρωνος τοῦ βασιλέως, µαθηταὶ γεγονότες τοῦ ἁγίου Παύλου. ᾽Εµαρτύρησαν δὲ ἐν Κολασσαῖς ἤτοι ἐν Χώναις πόλει τῆς Φρυγίας, ἥτις ἐστὶν πλησίον Λαοδικείας. ῾Εορτῆς γὰρ ἀγοµένης τῇ µυσαρᾷ ᾽Αρτέµιδι ἐν τῷ αὐτῆς ναῷ τῷ ἐν Χώναις παρὰ τῶν πεπλανηµένων ἑ ήνων, οὗτοι οἱ ἅγιοι τὴν δοξολογίαν ἀνέπεµπον 332 chapter eight

The Byzantine background of the text is reected in the name of the city: in the 7th/8th century, Colossae was abandoned and the population moved to Chonae, some ve kilometers distant.4 When the story of the martyrdom of Paul’s three disciples took shape is unclear, as is the reason the author gave the magistrate in Ephesus the title sitophylax, actually an o cial responsible for the grain supply.5 The fact that the tradition provides no authentic biographical information regarding the protagonists is shown by other narratives that have Archippus sufering totally diferent tortures: in one horses torture him to death (a play on the name Archippus), in another he meets his death by the sword.6 The accounts of the martyrdom of Archippus, Phile- mon, and Apphia are therefore late, Byzantine constructs, which possibly should not even be cited as evidence of a regional cult of these saints in the Lycus Valley, not to mention the execution of Christians in the province of Asia during the reign of Nero. Assessment of the tradition regarding the apostle Philip suggests that a similar reserve is in order, although its roots in the region are incomparably stronger. At that time, when Emperor Trajan had succeeded to sovereignty over the Romans and in the eighth year of his rule, Simon, the son of Clopas, bishop of Jerusalem, the second bishop of that church after James, who is called the brother of the Lord, had sufered martyrdom; then the apostle Philip came through the cities and climes of Lydia and Asia and proclaimed the gospel of Christ to all.7

τῷ Θεῷ ἐν τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ µετὰ τῶν χριστιανῶν. Εἶτα ἐπιθέµενοι οἱ εἰδωλολάτραι τοῖς ἁγίοις, τῶν µὲν λοιπῶν φυγόντων, µόνων δὲ ᾽Αρχίππου καὶ Φιλήµονος καὶ ᾽Απφίας ὑποµεινάντων, κρατήσαντες αὐτοὺς ἤγαγον πρὸς ᾽Ανδροκλέα τὸν σιτοφύλακα ᾽Εφέσου.Τύπτεται οὖν παρ’ αὐτοῦ ὁ ῎Αρχιππος· καὶ µὴ πεισθεὶς θῦσαι τῷ εἰδώλῳ, τῷ παρ’ ἐκείνων καλουµένῳ Μηνᾷ, εἰς βόθρον ἐµβά εται καὶ χώννυται µέχρι τοῦ ὀµφαλοῦ· καὶ ὑπὸ παίδων σχολιτῶν γραφίοις κατακεντηθεὶς ὅλον τὸ σῶµα πρότερον, ὕστερον ἐλιθοβολήθη. Εἶτα καὶ ὁ ἅγιος Φιλήµων µετὰ ξύλων τυφθεὶς ἀνηλεῶς τελειοῦται· ὁµοίως καὶ ἡ ἁγία ᾽Απφία.—On the manuscript tradition of a diferent version, see Ehrhard 1937, p. 507. 4 See p. 372 below. 5 There is no evidence for an o cial with this title in ancient Ephesus. Cf. IvEphesos VIII 1, p. 63 (no entry in the word index compiled by H. Engelmann). But for Priene see IvPriene, no. 81. 6 On the tradition, see Halkin 1970, pp. 577f.; BHG, no. 2039–2040. 7 M.Phil. 107 (Bonnet 1903, p. 41): Κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἐκεῖνον Τραιανοῦ τοῦ βασιλέως παρειλη- φότος τὴν τῶν ῾Ρωµαίων ἀρχήν, µετὰ τὸ µαρτυρῆσαι ἐν ὀγδόῳ ἔτει τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ Σίµωνα τὸν τοῦ Κλωπᾶ ἐπίσκοπον ὄντα ῾Ιεροσολύµων, δεύτερον γενόµενον ἐπίσκοπον µετὰ ᾽Ιάκωβον τὸν χρηµατίσαντα ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου τῆς ἐκεῖσε ἐκκλησίας, Φίλιππος ὁ ἀπόστολος διερχόµενος τὰς τῆς Λυδίας καὶ ᾽Ασίας πόλεις καὶ χώρας κατή ελεν πᾶσιν τὸ εὐα έλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Cf. Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 343 (tradition of ms. Xenophontos 32 from Athos). persecution and legends 333

Figure 1. View from Colossae over the gorge of the Lycus to the possible site of the Sanctuary of St. Michael

Thus begins the anonymous author of the account of Philip’s martyrdom, which constitutes the conclusion of the Acts of Philip, composed around 400, in the medieval manuscripts.8 The date at the beginning of the 2nd century is clearly as ctitious as the martyrdom itself: its reliance on the comment of Eusebius about Bishop Simeon of Jerusalem9 is clear. The synchronization with the reign of the emperor and the mention of the Jerusalem episcopate reect the standard strategies of authentication in hagiography. The archaeological evidence in Hierapolis shows vividly that Philip was venerated by numerous devotees and that his cult enjoyed a monumental architectural setting.10 In contrast to the account of Paul’s disciples Archip- pus, Philemon, and Apphia, the account of Philip’s martyrdom was reected in an active devotional cult, which provided an adequate Sitz im Leben for the legend. Nevertheless the text from the Acts of Philip cannot be used

8 On the tradition of the Acts of Philip, see pp. 355f. below. 9 Eus. H.e. 3.32.1; cf. Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, pp. 342f. (commentary). 10 See pp. 378f. below. 334 chapter eight as evidence of an actual persecution of Christians or repressive measures against them in the Lycus Valley under Trajan.

8.1.2. Sagaris The rst authenticatable martyr from the Lycus Valley is Sagaris. Our source of information is his contemporary Melito of Sardis; in the introduction to his two books On the Paschal Feast, he mentions a conict over the date of feast that broke out in Laodicea under the governorship of Servilius Paulus, when Sagaris sufered martyrdom.11 Sagaris is mentioned a second time in the church history of Eusebius, to which we owe that information; here he appears in the context of the dispute over the Quartodeciman observance of Easter, to which the bishops of Asia Minor adhered uncompromisingly. In a letter of Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus to Victor of Rome at the end of the 2nd century, he lists the great Christian authorities of Asia Minor in support of his position:12 Philip and his daughters, John, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Thraseas (a bishop and martyr from Eumeneia), and then continues: “Why should it be necessary to mention Sagaris as well, the bishop and martyr, who lies buried in Laodicea?”13 Polycrates goes on to name Melito of Sardis as the last in the list of luminaries from Asia Minor. Within a few decades, the bishop of Laodicea obviously enjoyed such renown far beyond Asia Minor that it appeared expedient to cite him as an authority in a liturgical dispute within the church. There is no explicit evidence, however, that Sagaris himself was among the prominent Quartodec- imans. At rst glace, the date of his martyrdom appears promising, since Melito synchronizes it with the proconsulate of Servilius Paulus. Unfortu- nately the Roman tradition does not mention any governor by this name holding o ce in the province of Asia, and attempts to identify him with o cials having similar names are not convincing.14 In view of such uncertainties, it would be best not to assign a more precise date; the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161–180) and the episcopate of the Roman bishop Soter (166–174?) de ne the chronological limits of Eusebius’s account. Several scenarios are conceivable for the martyrdom of Sagaris. He could have fallen victim to local riots such as could take place anywhere in the

11 See p. 250 above. 12 On this letter, see p. 191 above and Gerlach 1998, pp. 327–330. 13 Eus. H.e. 5.24.5: τί δὲ δεῖ λέγειν Σάγαριν ἐπίσκοπον καὶ µάρτυρα, ὃς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ κεκοίµηται …; 14 For details see Huttner 2011, pp. 278f.; cf. p. 250 above. persecution and legends 335

Roman Empire. On the other hand, we cannot rule out a formal trial on capital charges brought against the respected Christian dignitary. Even though Pliny assigns Laodicea to the assize district of Cibyra, the prosperous city was clearly in a position to provide an appropriate setting for gubernatorial trials.15 The death of Sagaris ts with the reign of Marcus Aurelius, because at that time the pace of attacks on Christian was picking up, especially in Asia Minor.16 The “new regulations” mentioned by Melito in his apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius are much debated by scholars; whether they provided the decisive impetus17 must remain undecided, as well as the efect of the plague brought by the troops of Lucius Verus, which triggered religious responses everywhere and probably engendered deep feelings of resentment against the Christians.18 Sagaris is the rst bishop of Laodicea known by name. Like Papias and Apollinarius of Hierapolis, he represented an episcopate with deep local roots. His name, common primarily in central Anatolia and on the southern coast of the Black Sea, is derived from the Sangarius River, which rises in northern Phrygia and ows into the Black Sea.19 No legend regarding the martyrdom of Sagaris has survived. Whether this is due to the vagaries of tradition or whether the respect that Sagaris enjoyed simply did not lead to a cult during Late Antiquity remains unclear. The legend of Artemon assumes the presence of a church building ve stadia from Laodicea in the time of Diocletian, clearly in the necropolis of the city.20 Possibly we may see here a reference to a burial church of Sagaris.21

8.1.3. Christians or Crypto-Christians: Pre-Constantinian Inscriptions The martyrdom of Sagaris reminds us of the existential peril Christians faced when they confessed their faith. The bishop of Laodicea was undoubtedly a gure who ventured out of hiding and openly proclaimed the Christian God.

15 See p. 276 above. 16 See the extensive discussion in Motschmann 2002, pp. 220–271. 17 Melito emphasizes the atmosphere of persecution in the province of Asia. Eus. H.e. 4.26.5: τὸ γὰρ οὐδεπώποτε γενόµενον, νῦν διώκεται τὸ τῶν θεοσεβῶν γένος καινοῖς ἐλαυνόµε- νον δόγµασιν κατὰ τὴν ᾽Ασίαν. On the discussion of the καινὰ δόγµατα among scholars, see Motschmann 2002, pp. 251–256. Cf. p. 241 above. 18 Cf. Motschmann 2002, pp. 230–232. See pp. 266–269 above. 19 Cf. Robert 1963, pp. 536f. (“anthroponyme de l’Asie Mineure centrale et nord-occidentale”) and Wallner 2011, p. 58; also Zgusta 1964, p. 11; see the references to Σάγαρις / Σαγάριος / Σα άριος in LGPN V A: primarily from Pontus and Bithynia. 20 See p. 351 below. 21 Cf. Huttner 2013, p. 248. 336 chapter eight

At roughly the same time, his colleague Apollinarius was doing the same in Hierapolis; with his apology, he approached the Roman authorities quite openly, obviously not having to reckon on reprisals.22 Here we see how the conict between the Christians and the pagan majority could go in totally diferent directions within a small area. At the same time, the Christians had a wide range of possibilities for dealing with the scenario of persecution, which was constantly changing—now intensifying, now diminishing: some aggressively championed their position, while others went to ground and sought to leave no opening for attack. A series of tombstones illustrates the spectrum of responses. It must be stated at the outset, however, that not a single inscription from the Lycus Valley that can be dated reliably to the pre-Constantinian period comes irrefutably from a Christian context.23 As is well known, the evidence from the cities farther up the Meander is quite diferent: from Eumeneia and Apamea, for example, we have a whole series of Christian tombstones from the 3rd century.24 The cause of this diference is hard to determine. The argument that the power of the Roman state was more distant along the upper Meander does not hold water, not least because Apamea served as an assize city. Diferent social and cultural conditions may have been in place on the middle and upper Meander, which we can no longer identify in detail. The urban upper classes were probably relatively open vis-à-vis the Christians. In Eumeneia at least one of the known members of the council belonged to the Christian church,25 and in Apamea Noah’s ark appeared on the local coins for several decades beginning in the early 3rd century.26 The

22 In the 3rd century, Christianity can be identi ed as a public phenomenon in many cities of the Roman Empire. See Wischmeyer 1992, pp. 63–90; also Snyder 1985, pp. 163f., who sees a turning point around 180, when a Christian culture became recognizable. 23 In his chapter on Christian inscriptions in southwest Phrygia, Ramsay 1897, pp. 542– 553 cites 15 examples from the Lycus Valley, but only a small number of these turn out to be relevant. Ramsay’s survey erroneously included several that most likely did not belong in a Christian context, as well as the famous epitaph of M. Julius Eugenius from Laodicea Combusta, which he knew only from an ancient copy. 24 Cf. Mitchell 1993, II, p. 40, with n. 243, though many of these need reexamination to determine whether they should not more likely be assigned to a Jewish context. 25 Ramsay 1897, pp. 526–528 no. 371. On other members of the council in Eumeneia, who cannot however be assigned with certainty to a Christian or Jewish context, see McKechnie 2009, pp. 6–8 (who includes them with the Christians). On the problem, see Trebilco 2002, pp. 83–85; Trebilco 2004, pp. 79f. 26 As a rule, scholars assume that the people responsible for minting these coins were Jews. For more see Trebilco 1991, pp. 86–95; with modi cations Nollé 2006, pp. 91–95; Zwing- mann 2011, pp. 101–103. persecution and legends 337 attempt to ascribe the absence of Christian inscriptions in the Lycus Valley simply to the state of what is extant also does not really account for the situation, especially since in Hierapolis there is a largely undisturbed stock of epigraphic material. Lucius Nonius Glykon of Laodicea sought to protect his tomb by using the curses of Deuteronomy; his inscription has already been discussed in a diferent context.27 He need not necessarily be classi ed as a Jew; he could also have been a member of the Christian community of Laodicea, albeit without feeling any need to present himself to the general public of the city as a Christian. The Christians’ ties to the Jews were a religious problem for them, but given the risks of openly confessing Christianity, a punishable ofense in the eyes of the Romans, this very a nity might provide cover. Similar considerations apply to the case of P. Aelius Glykon of Hierapolis, who in his epitaph chose dates from the Jewish calendar—Passover and Pentecost—for the care of his tomb, without declaring himself to be a Jew.28 Another epitaph from Laodicea, dating from the 2nd or 3rd century, was inscribed by a certain Menophilos, the owner of the gravesite: “This platform belongs to Menopheilos, the son of Attalos, from Laodicea, from the phyle of Apollonis. Here, however, lies Piste, who is also faithful to God. Whoever undertakes an attempt or does damage shall pay 500 denarii to the treasury.”29 Menophilos was a respected citizen of Laodicea; he proudly notes his belonging to the phyle of Apollo. As was the general practice, he records on the stone the ne that must be paid for desecration of his grave. His theophorous name characterizes him as a friend of Men, who was worshiped throughout Asia Minor,30 but does not in itself imply a religious a liation. Pistos was a common name for slaves;31 a faithful wife was called πιστή in epitaphs.32 In both cases, the term signi es loyalty to a particular individual. On early Christian tombstones, the adjective marks the person buried as a faithful Christian.33 A Christian woman described as πιστή could demon-

27 See pp. 247–249 above. 28 See pp. 251–253 above. 29 Corsten 1997, pp. 189–190 no. 108 = Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, pp. 264–267 no. 170: οὗτος ὁ πλά[τος] ἐστὶν Μηνοφείλου τοῦ ᾽Αττάλου Λαοδικεὺς φυλῆς ᾽Απο ωνείδος· κεῖται δὲ ἐνθάδε Πίστη καὶ θεῷ πιστή. ὃς ἂν δὲ ἐπιτηδεύσι ἢ κατεάξει, θήσι τῷ ταµείῳ (δην.) φ ᾽. 30 Cf. Parker 2000, pp. 76f. On the cult of Men, see also pp. 52f. above. 31 Schumacher 2001, p. 47. 32 E.g. TAM IV, 1, no. 354; MAMA X, no. 89. 33 Kaufmann 1917, p. 228; Mango / Sevˇcenkoˇ 1978, pp. 5f. Cf. for example a group of 338 chapter eight strate her faithfulness both to her husband and to her God; the association is not always unambiguous.34 The speci cally Christian usage goes back to the New Testament, for example when Jesus commands unbelieving Thomas to touch him and nally become believing (πιστός).35 The woman named Piste buried in the tomb of Menophilos is also further characterized as θεῷ πιστή,36 in a wordplay that describes her as “faithful to God,” in a grammatical juncture found also in the Book of Acts.37 The deity to whom Piste demonstrates her faithfulness is not further speci ed. Since the adjective πιστός developed a unique Christian dynamic, there is much to support identifying him with the Christian God.38 An outsider visiting the necropolis would be puzzled by the text. Probably here we can see a crypto-Christian tendency at work, which not rarely complicates access to early Christian documents.39 The family of Menophilos appears to remain under cover; whether an atmosphere of reprisals or persecution in Laodicea was responsible remains unclear. A more overt confession of religious faith can be seen in one isolated example in Hierapolis: a sarcophagus lid found in the less frequented south necropolis has two fragmentary texts: on the long side, the typical beginning

stereotyped tombstones from the region of Iconium: MAMA VIII, nos. 325–326e; in Athens IG II/III2, nos. 13389, 13493, 13586. 34 Cf. the tombstone of the virtuous Euska from Syracuse (Agnello 1953, p. 23 no. 20); see Carletti 2008, p. 293. There is an analogous ambiguity in the meaning of Latin des (Christian faith / political loyalty). In his funeral oration on Theodosius, Ambrose plays on this ambiguity. Cf. Cameron 2011, pp. 119f. 35 John 20:27: εἶτα λέγει τῷ Θωµᾷ· φέρε τὸν δάκτυλόν σου ὧδε καὶ ἴδε τὰς χεῖράς µου καὶ φέρε τὴν χεῖρά σου καὶ βάλε εἰς τὴν πλευράν µου, καὶ µὴ γίνου ἄπιστος ἀ ὰ πιστός. On New Testament usage, see Bauer / Aland / Aland 61988, cols. 1336f. (on speci cally Christian usage, see esp. paragraph 2). 36 So also Corsten 1997, p. 190. 37 Cf. Acts 16:15: after her baptism, Lydia of Thyatira says to Paul and his companions: εἰ κεκρίκατέ µε πιστὴν τῷ κυρίῳ εἶναι, εἰσελθόντες εἰς τὸν οἶκόν µου µένετε. The theory that the inscription refers to a second woman, named Theopiste, who was buried alongside Piste (Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, p. 266) is unlikely both because of the singular κεῖται and the spelling with omega instead of omicron. Cf. also Corsten 1997, S. 190. 38 Corsten 1997, p. 190 also suggests the possibility of a Jewish context. Probably a pagan context cannot be ruled out either, for example a reference to Men. 39 On this phenomenon, see Ramsay 1897, pp. 501f.; Ramsay 1908, pp. 408f. (Judeich 1898, no. 227). Ramsay 1895, pp. 118f. no. 28 also categorized as crypto-Christian an inscription from Hierapolis that speaks of an enigmatic incineration ceremony (ἀποκαυσµὸς τῶν πάπων). Cf. also Ritti 1992/93, p. 47. Also problematic is the fragmentary inscription on a chamber tomb in the north necropolis, the text of which is accompanied by a staurogram. On the inscription see Pennacchietti 1963, pp. 133–136 no. 2 = Pennacchietti 1966/67, p. 320 no. 48. He is not sure that the staurogram and text belong to the same context. persecution and legends 339 of a conventional Hierapolitan sepulchral inscription refers to the property and the architectural design of the tomb as well as naming the person buried in it.40 On the narrow side of the lid is another inscription, which probably indicates a second use: ᾽Αµµίᾳ καὶ ᾽Ασ[κ]λήπωι, ἡ Χριστειανῶν.41 Although a few grammatical and orthographical details of the lapidary inscription remain to be explained,42 the two who were buried are labeled as Christians. William Tabbernee dates the inscription to around 200 and points out that the outspoken avowal of Christianity does not automatically imply a Mon- tanist context.43 A comparable avowal of Christianity can be seen in sepulchral inscriptions of central and northern Phrygia as early as the rst half of the 3rd century, in the context of the so-called “Christians for Christians” inscriptions.44 A formulation similar to that of the Hierapolitan inscription appears on a tombstone from Apamea, probably dating from the period following the Constitutio Antoniniana (212); it says that Aurelius Proklos had the tomb fashioned for himself and his wife Meltine.45 It ends with Χρειστι- ανῶν, characterizing the two occupants of the tomb. The problem of dating the inscriptions cannot be ignored, however. Ultimately we cannot be sure that Ammia and Asklep(i)os of Hierapolis and Aurelius Proklos and Meltine of Apamea actually planned their burial sites before the Constantinian shift. In any case, the explicit avowal of Christianity can be taken as evidence that it was not yet a self-evident declaration by a member of a majority. Despite all the problems of detail, these inscriptions clarify the range of possibilities for Christians to position themselves in society and the various degrees of perception on the part of others. Many tombs of Christians in the necropoleis probably did not attract further attention, especially since the owners complied with the conventions and made themselves invisible through this accommodation. The presence of Jews in the Lycus Valley probably provided substantial cover for the Christians. Only in isolated cases, when the believer actually wanted it so, do the contours actually become clear. At the very least, outspoken avowal of Christianity appears

40 Judeich 1898, no. 318: ἡ σορὸς καὶ ὁ τόπος, ἐφ’ οὗ ἐ[πίκ]εhιiτα[ι ------]. 41 Judeich 1898, no. 319. Cf. Tabbernee 1997, pp.˙ 91–93 no. 10. 42 See the editions. ἡ could represent οἱ through itacism; Χριστειανῶν could be understood as a partitive genitive: “Ammia and Asklep(i)os, who belong to the Christians.” 43 Tabbernee 1997, pp. 91–93, contra Schultze 1922, p. 428. See pp. 264f. above. 44 The central formula of these inscriptions reads: Χριστιανοὶ Χριστιανοῖς. See the fundamental study Gibson 1978, especially p. 4 on dating. 45 ΜΑΜΑ VI, no. 236: Αὐρ. Πρόκλος Ζωτικοῦ ἐπόησα τὸ ἡρῷον ἐµαυτῷ κὲ τῇ γυναικί µου Μελτίνῃ. Χρειστιανῶν. Cf. Gibson 1978, p. 111 no. 38. 340 chapter eight to have been anything but a matter of course, even if it did not always necessarily lead to complications.

8.1.4. Persecutions and Lists of Martyrs As a rule, the Christians had to stand up and be counted during the “persecutions” decreed by the emperor, rst under Decius (249/250),46 then under Valerian (257/258),47 and nally under Diocletian and his successors (303– 313):48 sometimes they were ordered to ofer sacri ce to the gods, sometimes they were targeted for punishment, and innumerable executions were carried out. During these periods of tension, there may have been movements of Christians to take refuge in the countryside to elude the authorities.49 Given the paucity of sources, the efects of these waves of persecution in the Lycus Valley are hard to estimate, especially in the case of the repressive measures under Decius and Valerian. The presence of Novatianists organized in a separate church, some documented as martyrs,50 could be because following the Decian persecution there was controversy over the treatment of the lapsi:51 in these controversies, Novatus and his supporters took a rigorist position toward those who had submitted to the demands of the emperor.52 The hagiographic traditions from the Lycus Valley, however, record no martyrs under either Decius or Valerian. Among the cities of the Lycus Valley, Laodicea was fated to become a setting for martyrdoms, especially since it knew how to solidify its position as an administrative and hence judicial center.53 This role is reected in the early martyrologies, which list the feast days of the martyrs who

46 For more see Selinger 22004; Huttner 2006, pp. 47–51 (with a pointed comparison to totalitarianism); and Huttner 2008, p. 204. The martyrdom of Pionius is exemplary for Asia Minor; see Robert / Bowersock / Jones 1994 and Lane Fox 1986, pp. 460–492. 47 Cf. Selinger 22004, pp. 83–94. 48 For more see Portmann 1990. On the context in Asia Minor, see Mitchell 1988 and Mitchell 1993, II, pp. 64f. 49 Suggested by Mitchell 1993, II, p. 65. 50 On CLaod. Can. 7 (see p. 294 above), see the note on Catharist martyrs in the Syriac martyrology edited by Nau: Nau 1915, p. 18 (July 26). But the Novatianists did acknowledge the Catholic Church before they sufered martyrdom. See also pp. 341f. below. 51 See the comment of Ameling 2008, p. 135: “Later on, the Novatians were very successful in Asia Minor, and their distribution might be a good indicator for the spread of the lapsi during the Decian persecution: Bithynia and Paphlagonia, Galatia and Phrygia were their strongholds, particularly the rural parts of these provinces.” 52 Eus. H.e. 6.43.1. 53 See pp. 276f. above. For a more general discussion of the judicial authority of the governor, see Wesch-Klein 2008, pp. 124–136. persecution and legends 341 were venerated in the 4th and 5th centuries. The Greek original of the Syr- iac martyrology was composed between 361 and 411 and focuses to a striking degree on martyrdoms in Antioch and Asia Minor,54 while the Marty- rologium Hieronymianum was compiled in Upper Italy before the mid-5th century and included material presented in the Syriac martyrology.55 If we limit our attention to the Syriac martyrology, we nd three entries mentioning Laodicea, with a total of ten martyrs (Menius; the former bishop of the Catharists Theophilus with his six followers, of whom one was called Philip; and nally Heraclion and the presbyter Diodorus) and one entry mentioning Hierapolis with two martyrs (Cyriacus and Claudianus).56 In the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, ve entries are clearly associated with Phrygian Laodicea, with almost 20 martyrs (Arthehmion; Menius; Iovianus, Iulianus, Emelus [Aemilius?], Felix, Marcianus, Maxima; Theophilus, Aux- entius, Pudentius, Philippus, Alexander, Zoticus, Bissia, Secunda, Macharus; Diodorus), while three entries are devoted to Hierapolis, two are about the apostle Philip (the third names Claudianus and Eugarus [corrupted from Cyriacus]).57 We can get an impression of the stories told about the martyrs documented in these dry entries if we factor in the elaborate tradition regarding

54 Cf. Nau 1915, pp. 7f. 55 Cf. Hofmann 1998, p. 373. 56 Nau 1915, p. 18 (July 23 and 26) and p. 21 (October 9 and 25 on Hierapolis). Cyriacus and Claudianus are numbered among the “ rst martyrs”: “A Hiérapolis de Phrygie, (du nom- bre) des premiers martyrs, Cyriaque et Claudianos.” What this entry refers to is unclear.— Hierapolis was not an assize city and hence not necessarily predestined to be the scene of martyrdoms. Obviously, however, people condemned to death could also sufer their fate in munera in Hierapolis. Two reliefs from Hierapolis related to such events are presented in Ritti / Yılmaz 1998, pp. 514–521. 57 Because of the many corruptions, the names are often uncertain. There is also the possibility of double names. In any case, in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum Theophilus has eight companions instead of six, at least if an individual is associated with each name: Auxentius, Pudentius, Philippus, Alexander, Zoticus, Bissia, Secunda, and Macharus. Cited from AASS, Nov. II/2 (H. Delehaye). April 22: “In Frigia civitate Hierapoli Philippi apostoli.” May 1: “In Frigia Hierapoli provincia Asiae natale sanctorum Philippi apostoli et Iacobi.” June 14: “In Frigia civitate Laudicia natale Artheonis.” July 23: “In Lauditia Frigiae Moenisi.” July 26: “In Laudicia Frigiae sanctorum Ioviani Iuliani Emeli Felicis Marciani Maximae.” July 28: “Laudatia civitate Frigiae natale Theo li Auxenti Pudenti Philippi Alexandri Zotici Bissiae Secundae Machari … .” October 9: “In Laodicia Frigiae civitate natale Diodori et alibi Attici … .” October 24: “Et in Hierapoli Frigiae Claudiani Eugari … .” The association of the apostle James with Hierapolis (May 1) is unclear. The Martyrologium Hieronymianum also contains two entries for Tripolis. June 12: “Tripoli Magdaletis.” December 24: “In Tripoli civitate natale sancti Luciani.” This refers more likely to Syrian Tripoli than the city in the Lycus Valley. 342 chapter eight

St. Artemon, which will be discussed in greater detail later. A hint, however, is given in the Syriac martyrology’s entry for the former heretical bishop Theophilus and his companions: they had initially been adherents of the Catharists but rejoined the Catholic Church, nally to bear witness as martyrs.58 Since the theme of heresy is not immediately compatible with c- tional legends of martyrs, we get here a direct insight into the complex nature of Christian persecution in Laodicea during the Tetrarchy: among Christians the Novatianists, identi ed as Catharists, were creating unrest with their rigorous demands,59 until the conicts over the dangerous situation created by the government were contained and replaced by domestic peace. The former heretics were nally celebrated and sacralized as models by the mainstream Christians on account of their courage in the face of death. The numerous corruptions in the lists of martyrs and the problems associated with their tradition naturally make it di cult to assess them as sources for a history of the persecutions in the Lycus Valley. We cannot assume that all men and women named in the lists actually sufered martyrdom. The onomastic material appears relatively ordinary; there are no genuinely Anatolian names or names peculiar to the Lycus Valley, except possibly the names of Artemon and Menius, which recall the cults of Artemis and Men, which were popular there.60 Sagaris was documented earlier in the church history of Eusebius; his absence from the martyrologies is also vexing. Less problematic is the assessment of the Syriac martyrology and the Martyrologium Hieronymianum as evidence for the veneration of martyrs in the Lycus Valley during the 4th through 6th centuries. A good dozen Chris- tians are said to have died as martyrs in Laodicea and two in Hierapolis (or three if we include Philip). Whether each of these saints had his or her own tomb and shrine is certainly questionable: probably the group associated with Theophilus was venerated in a single church. Nevertheless the density of martyrs’ tombs in Laodicea in particular appears to be quite high, and the city’s festival calendar undoubtedly was inuenced permanently by the cult of the saints: the Laodicean church had a wealth of role models.

58 Nau 1915, p. 18. Cf. p. 340 above. 59 On the identi cation of Catharists and Novatianists, see Mitchell II 1993, pp. 99f.; Millar 2004, p. 121. 60 The name Artemon is very common, however. LGPN V A counts 220 occurrences; it also appears three times in Hierapolis (Judeich 1898, nos. 242 and 293; SEG 54 [2004], no. 1337). On the name Menios, cf. Zgusta 1964, p. 313 §910. persecution and legends 343

Undoubtedly the number of martyrs also played a role in the conicts with neighboring cities, though it must have been di cult for Laodicea to keep up with the Hierapolitan cult of Philip, especially since the apostle was also reported to have died as a martyr.

8.2. The Legends of the Saints: Genesis and Impact

8.2.1. Trophimus and Thallus Laodicea appears to have tried hard to claim martyrs associated with other cities for itself, as is illustrated by the story of Trophimus and Thallus, the core of which is preserved in the Synaxarium of Constantinople and hence in a version dating from the 10th century.61 The dating of the story in the reign of Diocletian and Maximian signalizes the traumatic impression the Diocletianic persecution left but does not automatically imply that those two Christians were actually executed in Laodicea between 303 and 305. Their pregnant names, meaning essentially “sap and strength,”62 suggest a clever ction. Since the story of the two martyrs nevertheless includes a few points of contact with a particular time and place, it is worth citing the text in extenso: Trophimus and Thallus sufered martyrdom in Laodicea: in the days of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, when Asclepius was governor [hege- mon] in Laodicea, there was a persecution of the Christians. The holy martyrs Trophimus and Thallus were arrested on account of their confession of Christ, and they were stoned for many hours. Since God was protecting them, they remained uninjured. When the governor [archon] and his retinue saw that, they felt awe and left them unpunished for a short time. Then they were indicted once more and appeared before the court. They confessed out- spokenly that Christ is the true, omnipresent God, derided the idols, reviled the tyrants and aroused their anger. Therefore they hanged them naked on wooden stakes and ercely lacerated their esh.63 But the saints prayed, mocked the pagans, and made the governor furious. Therefore he decided

61 On the Synaxarium, see p. 331 above. 62 On Thallos cf. Robert 1963, p. 273: The name recalls ‘la pousse des plantes’. 63 We shall leave open the question whether these torments should be interpreted as deliberate torture of delinquents who have not confessed, as an aggravated form of capital punishment, or as an expression of collective sadism. On torture in Roman trials, see Momm- sen 1899 (1955), pp. 405–408. Clearly the development of Byzantine criminal punishment must also be kept in mind: see Troianos 1991, p. 191, who identi es “aying with iron claws” as one of the standard means of capital punishment. 344 chapter eight

against them and ordered that they be hanged on crosses.64 So they went to the appointed place, and a great crowd followed them; they let themselves be cruci ed, prayed, and spoke to the people about the soul. But the crowds endeavored to touch the blessed bodies of the saints. Some took drops of blood, others napkins, still others rings or other such things, for a blessing and to ward of all evil. The saints pronounced a blessing over all the people and said their farewells, then they surrendered their souls to God. But a few devout Christians took the bodies of the saints, anointed them with oil, wrapped them in linen, and laid them in the church. Then the wife of the governor Asclepius came also, anointed the bier of the holy martyrs, and spread a costly shroud over the bier. But a man named Zosimus and Artemius, devout Christians and fellow citizens of the saints, took the bier with the mortal remains, brought it into their city named Stratonike, and buried it in the quarries at the milestone.65 The names of governors in accounts of martyrdoms must be assessed carefully; the spectrum of possibilities runs from pure ction through the transfer of names from other contexts to authentic documentation.66 No governor of Phrygia (or Phrygia Pacatiana) named Asclepius is known.67 But possi-

64 Cruci xion was standard method of execution, considered especially degrading. Cf. Mommsen 1899 (1955), pp. 918–921. 65 Synax. eccl. Const. (H. Delehaye 1902: Prop. AASS Nov., cols. 527–530): Τροφίµου καὶ Θα οῦ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ µαρτυρησάντων. ᾽Εν ταῖς ἡµέραις ∆ιοκλητιανοῦ καὶ Μαξιµιανοῦ τῶν βασιλέων, ἡγεµονεύοντος ᾽Ασκληπιοῦ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ, διωγµὸς γέγονε κατὰ τῶν χριστιανῶν. Καὶ κρατηθέντες οἱ ἅγιοι µάρτυρες Τρόφιµος καὶ Θα ὸς διὰ τὴν εἰς Χριστὸν ὁµολογίαν, ἐλιθοβολήθησαν ἐπὶ ὥρας ἱκανάς. Τοῦ Θεοῦ δὲ περιφρουροῦντος αὐτοὺς ἔµειναν ἀβλαβεῖς. Τοῦτο θεασάµενος ὁ ἄρχων καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ αἰδεσθέντες εἴασαν αὐτοὺς πρὸς µικρὸν διάγειν ἀτιµωρήτους. Καὶ πάλιν διαβληθέντες παρέστησαν τῷ κριτηρίῳ. Καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν µετὰ παρρησίας Θεὸν εἶναι ἀληθινὸν ἐνώπιον πάντων ὁµολογήσαντες, τὰ δὲ εἴδωλα κωµῳδήσαντες καὶ τοὺς τυράννους ἐλέγξαντες, εἰς ὀργὴν τούτους ἐκίνησαν. ∆ιὸ καὶ γυµνοὺς ἐπὶ ξύλου κρεµάσαντες τὰς σάρκας αὐτῶν εὐτόνως κατέξεσαν. Οἱ δὲ ἅγιοι προσευχόµενοι καὶ τοὺς ἕ ηνας µυκτηρίζοντες ἐξέµηναν τὸν ἄρχοντα· διὸ καὶ ψηφισάµενος κατ’ αὐτῶν ἐν σταυρῷ κρεµασθῆναι προσέταξεν. ᾽Απερχοµένων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸν προκείµενον τόπον, πολὺ πλῆθος λαοῦ ἠκολοῦθησεν αὐτοὺς, καὶ σταυρωθέντες προσηύχοντο καὶ ὡµίλουν τῷ λαῷ τὰ εἰς ψυχὴν συντείνοντα. Οἱ δὲ λαοὶ ἔσπευδον προσψαῦσαι τοῖς ἱεροῖς τῶν ἁγίων σώµασιν. Οἱ µὲν γὰρ σταγόνας αἱµάτων, οἱ δὲ σουδάρια, ἄ οι δακτυλίους καὶ ἕτεροι ἄ α τινὰ εἴδη ἐλάµβανον εὐλογίας χάριν καὶ ἀποτροπὴν παντὸς ἐναντίου. Τότε οἱ ἅγιοι εὐλογήσαντες καὶ προπέµψαντες πάντας, τὰς ἁγίας αὐτῶν ψυχὰς τῷ Θεῷ παρέθεντο. τινὲς δὲ τῶν εὐσεβῶν τὰ τῶν ἁγίων λαβόντες σώµατα, µύροις ἀλείψαντες καὶ ὀθονίοις εἰλήσαντες, κατέθεντο αὐτὰ ἐν τῷ ναῷ. Καὶ προσελθοῦσα τοῦ ἄρχοντος ᾽Ασκληπιοῦ ἡ γυνὴ καὶ µυρίσασα τὴν τῶν ἁγίων µαρτύρων θήκην, καὶ ὀθόνην πο οῦ ἀξίαν ἄνωθεν τῆς θήκης ἐφήπλωσεν. ᾽Ανὴρ δέ τις Ζώσιµος καὶ ᾽Αρτέµιος, ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς καὶ πιστοὶ τῶν ἁγίων συµπολῖται ὄντες, µετὰ ταῦτα τὴν τῶν λειψάνων θήκην ἀναλαβόντες καὶ εἰς τὴν ἑαυτῶν πόλιν κοµισάµενοι, Στρατονίκην λεγοµένην, πρὸ µιλίου ἐν τοῖς λατοµίοις κατέθεντο.—On the tradition, see also Ehrhard 1937, p. 592. 66 See the examples in Barnes 2010, pp. 300–323. 67 Ramsay 1897, p. 512 considers the name of the governor to be evidence that the martyr- persecution and legends 345 bly behind the Asclepius of the martyr legend are reminiscences of governors of the double province of Phrygia-Caria created c. 250, at least one of whom was named Asclepiodotus. He can be associated with the reign of Carus (282/283), as a milestone on the road between Laodicea and Apamea shows.68 Ultimately, though, such proposed identi cations remain speculative. At least the personal name Asclepius, identical with the name of the god of healing, is attested several times in western Asia Minor.69 The other names in the account of the martyrdom, Trophimus, Thallus, and Zosimus, are common everyday Greek names; only Artemius is relatively rare.70 In addition the narrative comes up with a series of topoi typical of hagiographic texts, derived from a long literary tradition: cruci xion as imitatio of Jesus;71 confrontation with the evil governor who has a pious wife;72 the courage of the martyrs, which borders on insolence;73 but also the talk of the dying martyrs about the immortal soul, a subject repeatedly taken up by those condemned to death since Socrates.74 That said, there are also details that could serve to authenticate the account. A geographical framework is laid out that places Laodicea in south- western Asia Minor: the two martyrs are no more citizens of the city than are the men who bury their bodies. The fact that they come from Stratonicea, more than a hundred kilometers southwest in the province of Caria, could reect the Roman administration of the region between 250 and the period of the Tetrarchy, when Phrygia and Caria constituted a single province: during this period, citizens of Stratonicea might have had to travel to Aphro- disias or Laodicea to appear before the governor’s court; as a rule, the place of execution would have depended on the location of the trial.75 The descrip-

dom could be historical, arguing that pagan governors during the era of persecutions often used their names to send a religious message. Ramsay’s arguments are hypothetical. 68 SEG 31 (1981), no. 1101 (but written ᾽Ασκληµιοδότος). For more see Gerhardt / Hartmann 2008, pp. 1165f. Phryg 4: Asclepiodotus; see also the entry p. 1167 Phryg. 8: T. Oppius Aelianus Asclepiodotus (cf. ala 2004, no. 7), who is probably not to be identi ed with the governor named on the milestone.—Of course other identi cations are also possible, e.g. with Asclepi- ades, who held the post of governor in Arabia during the Diocletianic persecution: see Kuhof 2001, p. 513. 69 Cf. LGPN V A. 70 See the citations in LGPN. 71 On this motif in the legends of martyrs, see Kuhn 1982, pp. 698–701. 72 Cf. the role of Nicanora in the Acts of Philip (see pp. 361–364 below). 73 Cf. for example the hauteur of Polycarp at his trial in the Smyrna stadium (Mart.Polyc. 9–10). On similar stereotypes, see Delehaye 1907, pp. 92–102. 74 Cf. Huttner 2009a, pp. 296, 299, 304–307; also Robert / Bowersock / Jones 1994, p. 98. 75 See pp. 340f. above. 346 chapter eight tion of the burial site in Stratonicea is surprisingly precise—a mile outside the city, in the vicinity of the quarries. Since the city was in fact supplied with marble from quarries in the immediate vicinity,76 this detail suggests concrete knowledge of the area. Thus the cult of Trophimus and Thallus was observed in Stratonicea, but Laodicea sought to participate. In the narrative, the veneration of the saints’ relics begins even before they are dead. Probably capsules containing blood, strips of cloth, and nger rings were preserved in Laodicea and shown to pilgrims to bear witness to the martyrdom of the two saints.77 Behind the story of the two martyrs stand cultic interconnections between the two bishoprics of Laodicea and Stratonicea that crossed provincial boundaries and could be articulated in both cooperation and competition.

8.2.2. Artemon: An Itinerant Legend The Martyrologium Hieronymianum already contained a reference to Arte- mon, who was said to have sufered martyrdom in Laodicea.78 The passion legend associated with this man was elaborated colorfully until nally it became a novelistic narrative with a multitude of fanciful scenes. The genesis of the narrative remains obscure; several versions difering in length can be identi ed, but we cannot assume that the longer ones reect a later state than the shorter ones. Clearly we must also consider the possibility of short epitomic versions. We will begin with the short version in the Synaxarium of the Church of Constantinople (October 8) and cite it in extenso: Under the imperial rule of Diocletian, [Artemon] was a presbyter of the church of Laodicea. He was already old and had dense gray hair. Together with Bishop Sisinnius, he entered the idolatrous temple and overturned the image of Apollo. He likewise smashed the statue of Asclepius and destroyed the serpents surrounding it. It has been said that they were 20 cubits thick and 80 cubits long.79 Therefore his esh was sliced up with knives and boiled over a hearth where a re had been kindled. But he arose from the hearth unscathed. And the sinners inicted that on the saint although he was followed by a hind, which rebuked the brutality of the evildoers with a human voice. But the saint

76 See Huttner 2013, p. 248. 77 Pieces of cloth in particular served as contact relics. Cf. Kötting 1950, pp. 340f. 78 See p. 341 above. 79 The measurements are either corrupt or the thickness should be understood as circumference. persecution and legends 347

directly made a spring ow forth from the place where he was standing; those who passed by he baptized, and suddenly he found rest in the Lord.80 The nature of this text as an epitome of a longer narrative is evidenced by the interruptions in the story line, which result in an inconsistent juxtaposition of individual scenes and details.81 It is clear that the direct confrontation of the saint with the representative of the state has been omitted.82 Nev- ertheless the Synaxarium does preserve several characteristic elements of the tradition. The dating to the reign of Diocletian naturally corresponds to the dating of many stories of persecution. A striking feature is the association of the presbyter Artemon with the bishop Sisinnius, especially since the latter does not play any independent role, at least in the abbreviated version. The name probably has no roots in Asia Minor; it is better to assume that it derives from a Levantine language.83 W.M. Ramsay included Sisin- nius in his list of the bishops of Laodicea, placing him after Sagaris and before Nunechius.84 Especially in Late Antiquity (from the 4th cent. on), however, the name Sisinnius was especially common among the clergy,85 so that the Laodicean bishop may owe his existence to the ction of a hagiog- rapher. When Artemon together with his bishop visit a temple of the city and go on a rampage, the narrative draws on the standard stock of hagiographic

80 Synax. eccl. Const., cols. 121f. (October 8): ῝Ος ὑπῆρχεν ἐπὶ ∆ιοκλητιανοῦ τοῦ βασιλέως πρεσβύτερος τῆς κατὰ Λαοδίκειαν ἐκκλησίας, γηραιὸς ἤδη καὶ ἐπανθοῦσαν ἔχων τὴν πολιάν. Εἰσελθὼν δὲ µετὰ Σισιννίου τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ἐν τῷ τῶν εἰδώλων ναῷ, τὸ τοῦ ᾽Από ωνος κατέστρεψεν ἄγαλµα· ὁµοίως καὶ τὸ τοῦ ᾽Ασκληπιοῦ συνέτριψε ξόανον καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ δράκοντας ἠφάνισε. Φασὶ γὰρ αὐτοὺς εἴκοσι πήχεις τὸ πλάτος καὶ τὸ µῆκος ὀγδοήκοντα· διὰ τοῦτο τὰς σάρκας αὐτοῦ σιδήροις κατατέµνεται καὶ ἐν ἐσχάρᾳ πυρακτωθείσῃ ὀπτᾶται. Ταύτης δὲ ἀπαθὴς διανίσταται· καὶ ταῦτα ἐπῆγον τῷ ἁγίῳ οἱ ἀλιτήριοι, καίπερ δορκάδος ἑποµένης αὐτῷ καὶ φωνῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ ἐλεγχούσης τὴν τῶν παρανόµων ὠµότητα. ῾Ο δὲ ἅγιος, ἐν ᾧ ἦν ἱστάµενος τόπῳ ἐξαίφνης πηγῆς ἀναδοθείσης, τοὺς παρατυχόντας βαπτίσας αὐτίκα ἀνεπαύσατο ἐν Κυρίῳ. 81 On the variations in length and detail of the diferent versions of the legend of Artemon, see also Ehrhard 1937, pp. 472 and 615, with n. 2; see also pp. 350–355 below. 82 See pp. 350f. below. 83 Zgusta 1964, pp. 467–469 (also discussing possible Latin or Iranian roots). On an Ara- maic or Syro-Canaanite origin, see Fauth 1999, pp. 422f. 84 Ramsay 1895, pp. 78f. 85 Cf. Pietri / Pietri 2000, pp. 2087–2089; Destephen 2008, pp. 855f.; Seibt 2011, pp. 31f. Beginning in the 7th century, the name became extraordinarily popular. There are more than 100 examples from the 7th–9th centuries in the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit 4 (2000), pp. 143–168 (nos. 6714–6819). The evidence of Late Antiquity is con rmed by the inscriptions (cf. the digital indexes of SEG). There are several examples in Lycaonia, for instance; for more see McLean 2002, p. 72 on no. 205; see also MAMA I, no. 256. On Sisinnius as a name of saints, see Fauth 1999, pp. 418–421. 348 chapter eight motifs, in accordance with the texts’ tendency to dramatize the courageous involvement of their protagonists and give it an emotional charge.86 In the Acts of John, which go back to the 2nd century, the apostle destroys the altar and temple of Artemis of Ephesus through the power of his prayer.87 Striking parallels appear in the story of martyrs from northern Phrygia, which found its way into church historiography:88 during the reign of Julian, when a temple was to be reopened in Meros, three Christians demolished the cult statues and nally sufered an agonizing death by torture over a blazing re. Attacks by Christians on pagan sanctuaries were a harsh reality after the Constantinian shift and especially during the reign of Theodosius, whether they were inspired by high-ranking o cials89 or clergy or the Christian mob fell upon the old shrines in a spontaneous destructive frenzy.90 The Christian emperors beginning with Constantius II even sought to curb such vandalism by law.91 The fact that riots damaging shrines and sanctuaries could also be expected in Laodicea is attested by an inscription in which the prophecy of L. Antonius Zenon Aurelianus in the context of the oracle of Clarus was documented.92 When the inscription was discovered in the 1960s during excavations at the Caracalla-Nymphaeum, traces of a large christogram complete with alpha and omega were easily recognizable, covering the entire written surface.93 Christians had painted the symbol of their God over the pagan relic with black paint.94

86 Cf. also Saradi 2008, pp. 116–122. 87 For more see Klauck 2005, pp. 35f. A similar story was told of the martyr Procopius of Caesarea (Palestine); see Delehaye 1907, p. 136. 88 Socr. H.e. 3.15; Soz. H.e. 5.11.1–3. 89 On the role of imperial o cials in the battle against the pagan cults, see Meyer- Zwifelhofer 2011, pp. 117–123, who shows that the measures in question were often entrusted to o cials who outranked the governors. 90 Cf. Saradi-Mendelovici 1990, pp. 47–50. Examples in Trombley 22001, I, pp. 145–147 (temple of Allat-Athena in Palmyra), pp. 207–222 (Gaza), and Hahn 2004, pp. 78–105 (Alexandria) and 212–215 (Gaza). On recent research, see Salzman 2008, pp. 193f.; also Cameron 2011, pp. 798–800. But on Asia Minor cf. also pp. 306f. above. 91 Cod.Theod. 16.10.3 and 10.15; cf. Hahn 2011, pp. 206f. 92 See pp. 150 and 200 above. 93 Robert 1969, p. 289 and pl. CV 1. Today nothing more of the christogram can be seen, as the photograph in Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008 no. 37 shows. 94 This is comparable to the boastful sepulchral inscription of Epitynchanos, a man with prophetic gifts from the upper Tembris valley; he boasts of the favor of a whole series of gods and was probably among the pagan banner-bearers in the nal phase of the persecution of Christians under the Tetrarchy. The center of the front was later smoothed over and a cross was carved deeply into the surface. Cf. Merkelbach / Stauber III (2001), p. 237 on no. 16/31/10 (with ill.) For more on this inscription, see Hirschmann 2003. persecution and legends 349

It may not be by accident that both the epigraphic evidence and the vita of Artemon speak of vilifying the cult of Apollo, which may have particularly attracted the hostility of the Christians in Laodicea. But it must be noted that the more detailed versions of the vita do not mention any statue of Apollo; the anger of the presbyter is concentrated on a temple of Artemis.95 We can also leave open the question of a tie to sanctuary A in Laodicea, which was rebuilt in the era of Diocletian. Though it is not clear to what deity the temple was dedicated, its decorations include representations of both Apollo and Artemis.96 If we continue to follow the short version in the Synaxarium of the Church of Constantinople, Artemon did not stop with destroying the statue of Apollo but went on to ramp and rage in the temple of Asclepius: he demolished the cult statue and then demolished the gigantic cultic serpents. Though parallel traditions to the vita of Artemon shift this episode to another city,97 epigraphic and numismatic sources do bear witness to the cult of the god of healing in Laodicea.98 The serpent is closely linked to the iconography of Asclepius; occasionally the god is identi ed with that animal.99 But it is possible that the motif of the cultic serpent traveled from Hierapolis to Laodicea, especially since the apostle Philip is said to have emerged as a hero in a battle with the monsters worshiped by the Hierapoli- tans.100 Generally speaking, the god of healing attracted the attention of Chris- tians beginning in the 2nd century at the latest, and they increasingly demo- nized him: unlike Jesus Asclepius has no true power to heal; he is identi ed instead with the satanic serpent.101 Hence Artemon’s attack on Asclepius probably is not a bit of Laodicean local color but served as a powerfully symbolic cliché to illustrate the impassioned energy of the presbyter. Not all those who continued to elaborate on the story of Artemon were familiar with the situation in the Lycus Valley. The torturing of Artemon over the re lifts the procedures used in Roman criminal trials to the level of fantasy and is intended to illustrate the

95 See p. 350 below. 96 See the archaeological report in Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 231f.; Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, pp. 250f.; cf. pp. 54f. above. 97 See p. 352 below. 98 See pp. 52 and 64 above. 99 See Krug 21993, pp. 126–128. 100 See p. 367 below. 101 Cf. Schouten 1967, pp. 67f. 350 chapter eight unrestrained brutality of the pagan persecutors. The martyr’s survival of his torments contrary to all expectations is a motif that already informed the Acts of Thecla, but it also points to the sacralization of an individual who had actually not fought to the death in a time of persecution. The series of miracles continues on after the torture scene: rst the speaking hind, which may borrow once more from the Acts of Philip, where animals with the gift of speech (a kid and a leopard) likewise appear in the apostle’s company.102 The saint’s miraculous spring is also part of the genre’s standard repertoire.103 A much longer version of the story of Artemon appears in a Greek codex from Jerusalem that has a parallel in the Old Church Slavonic Codex Supras- liensis (11th cent.).104 The problematic nature of the text is already evident in the opening sentence: “In the 24th year of the reign of the godless tyrant Diocletian, there was a great uproar against the Christians.”105 The exact identi cation of the regnal year is ridiculous, since Diocletian reigned only 22 years.106 How the erroneous dating got into the text is unclear—whether through a copyist’s carelessness or an author’s need for fantasy.107 Whatever the case, the author’s love of detail, suggesting accuracy and credibility, continues on in the subsequent narrative. At the very outset, Artemon’s antagonist is named: Patricius, whom the emperor had ordered to search out the images of the gods in the cities.108 In the temple of Artemis, however, he had been preempted by the bishop Sisinnius and the presbyter Artemon, who had shattered and burned all the images of the gods. Even though the connection between the presbyter Artemon and the temple of Artemis feels arti cial, especially since the governor referred to it again by explicitly reminding Artemon that in the case of Artemis a personal tutelary goddess

102 See p. 357 below. On speaking animals in hagiography, see also Delehaye 1907, pp. 52f. and 82. 103 Cf. Pratsch 2005, pp. 273–275. 104 For the Greek text, see Abicht / Reichelt 1898, pp. 185–197. A less extensive version, which also omits the conclusion in Cyprus, appears in AASS Oct. IV, cols. 44–47. 105 Abicht / Reichelt 1898, p. 185: ῎Ετους εἰκοστοῦ τετάρτου ὑπὸ τῆς βασιλείας ∆ιοκλητιανοῦ τοῦ τυράννου καὶ ἀσεβεστάτου, ταραχὴ ἐγένετο µεγάλη κατὰ τῶν χριστιανῶν. 106 Hence his tribunicia potestas was counted up to his 22nd year. Cf. Kienast 21996, p. 268. 107 The inconsistency in the dating may be explained by the use of “Diocletian era,” especially widespread in Egypt, which began with the year 284 and occasionally was extended chronologically to martyrdoms after the reign of Diocletian. On the Diocletian era, see Kauf- mann 1917, p. 29; Bagnall / Worp 1978, pp. 43–49; Montevecchi 21988, p. 68; Dresken-Weiland / Angerstorfer / Merkt 2012, p. 214. 108 The context makes it clear that the issue was the economic value of the statues; people were to look particularly for works of art made of gold or silver. persecution and legends 351 was involved,109 the sanctuary of the goddess had a kind of traditional place in the city and could look back on a long tradition.110 The text repeatedly calls the o cial comes, leading W.M. Ramsay to conclude that the legend must be a late invention, since that title was rst given to the governor of Phrygia Pacatiana in the time of Justinian.111 But the o - cial in question could also have been the vicarius of the diocese of Asia, for whom the title comes is also attested.112 In Laodicea a 4th-century inscription for the vicarius Flavius Anysius has been preserved that gives him the title λαµπρότατος κόµης.113 The name Patricius is not uncommon in Late Antiq- uity, but among the relevant o cials so far none has been found who might have been the model for Artemon’s antagonist.114 Sisinnius and Artemon were denounced to Patricius for their outrageous crime and sought refuge in a church “ ve stadia distant from the city.”115 This distance, roughly equivalent to one kilometer, identi es an area where we must assume the city’s necropolis was located.116 It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the church was erected over the grave of a martyr, possibly that of Bishop Sagaris, who had paid with his life as a martyr under Marcus Aurelius.117 Here we have a topographic anchor point for the Artemon legend, similar to those found in many other hagiographic texts.118 The church, whose distance from the city is stated exactly, becomes a concrete site in the

109 Abicht / Reichelt 1898, p. 189: ῾Ο κόµης ἔφη· ∆ικαίως ἐκλήθης ᾽Αρτέµων, ὡς νοµίζω γάρ, ὅτι δοῦλος ὑπάρχεις τῆς θεᾶς ῎Αρτεµις, καὶ διὰ τὴν προσωνυµίαν συνεχώρησέν σοι τοῦ ζῆν. Thus Artemis saved Artemon from death. In the text, the name of the goddess is in the Modern Greek genitive. 110 See p. 55 above. 111 Justn. Nov. 8.2. Cf. Ramsay 1895, p. 83 and Ramsay 1897, p. 512. On the reforms of Justinian, see Jones 1964, pp. 280f. and 483; Roueché 1998, pp. 85–88. 112 Feissel 1998, p. 97; also Scharf 1994, pp. 25–29. 113 Corsten 1997, pp. 85–87 no. 41; Feissel 1998, p. 97 no. 2. Cf. PLRE I, p. 80 (Anysius 3). Ramsay 1895, p. 83 dates the inscription to the 6th century and identi es Flavius Anysius as the governor of Phrygia Pacatiana. 114 Cf. PLRE I, p. 673 (Patricius 1–6). But certain disputed 5th/6th-century controversial gures might be considered, such as Julius Patricius, the son of Aspar. Although Julius Patricius was an Arian, in 470 Leo raised him to the rank of Caesar, but he was deposed soon afterwards. For more see PLRE II, pp. 842f. (Patricius 15); Bagnall / Cameron / Schwartz / Worp 1987, p. 453. Naturally such possibilities remain purely speculative. 115 Abicht / Reichelt 1898, p. 186: ἦν γὰρ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἀπὸ σταδίων πέντε τῆς πόλεως. 116 Cf. Huttner 2013, p. 248. To date the archaeological nds from the necropolis of Laodicea have produced no evidence of a church. Cf. Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 302–325. 117 See p. 335 above. 118 Cf. Delehaye 1907, pp. 224f.; Barnes 2010, pp. 155–157 and 394f. (examples); now also Huttner 2013, pp. 247–254. 352 chapter eight immediate vicinity of Laodicea, thus coming to share in this story and the holy aura of Artemon. Patricius did not succeed in overcoming the sacral protection enjoyed by the bishop and presbyter in the church; instead he was beset by an insidious disease, which tormented him with great pains. Finally the comes could nd no other recourse than to beseech the bishop to intercede for him with the Christian God. The prayer of Sisinnius was efectual; Patricius was healed and betook himself—without any motive suggested by the text—to Caesarea. Shortly after leaving Laodicea, after traveling about three miles— presumably going east or southeast119—he came upon Artemon, whom he had not yet met face to face. The presbyter had just been hunting and was accompanied by six goats and two hinds, one of which could speak—a motif that also appears in the Synaxarium version, though in a diferent context.120 Once again the text provides an exact topographic distance:121 probably there was a memorial three miles outside the city commemorating the legendary meeting of the presbyter with the imperial o cial.122 Thereupon Patricius had Artemon arrested on the spot and taken to Caesarea to be executed, while the animals ran back to Laodicea to inform the bishop of the calamity. The bishop dispatched a deacon named Phileas to nd the captive presbyter. Artemon, however, had no message for the bishop except the request to pray for him. In Caesarea, meanwhile, a hearing was taking place, in which Patricius emphasized the benevolent protection granted by Artemis to her protégé Artemon, whereupon the presbyter repaid with raving abuse. Initially, however, Artemon does not evade the command to ofer sacri ce to Asclepius but accompanies Patricius to the temple, which is populated with wild animals. Now Artemon displays his sacral power by bringing down the monsters.123 The priest responsible for the cult is so impressed that he is immediately converted to Christianity. The comes meanwhile continues his hearing and begins to torture Artemon, whereupon the hind reappears and proph-

119 On the problem of localization, see pp. 353f. below. 120 See p. 346 above. 121 Abicht / Reichelt 1898, pp. 186f.: “He [Patricius] left the city of Laodicea and went about three miles, when he met God’s servant Artemon, coming from hunting.”—᾽Εξελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς Λαοδικείας πόλεως καὶ γεναµένου ὡς ἀπὸ µιλίων τριῶν, ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ θεοῦ ᾽Αρτέµων, ἐρχόµενος ἀπὸ κυνηγίων. 122 Cf. Huttner 2013, p. 249. 123 The text gives the measurements of the monsters as 5 cubits wide and 25 cubits long, substantially reduced in comparison with the tradition of the Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. Cf. p. 346 above. persecution and legends 353 esies Patricius’s end. Patricius however orders a cauldron to be heated over the re, to prepare an agonizing death for the presbyter. Then two angels in the form of eagles fall upon the comes and hurl him into the cauldron. Artemon alone remains, causes a spring to burst forth, and baptizes a huge crowd. To this point, the story of Artemon has basically been divided between two sites: the vicinity of Laodicea and Caesarea. The action that follows is accompanied by a whole series of concrete topographical details, which unfortunately totally confuse the basic geographical setting. First Artemon is instructed in a dream to turn his back on Caesarea: “Leave this city and betake yourself to Asia, to a place named Boulbi, located on the shore of the sea.”124 Here it becomes clear for the rst time that Caesarea is not located in Asia, though it remains unclear what concept of Asia lies behind the text.125 In a parallel tradition, the coastal city of Boulbi is called Balbine, but there the city is also the scene of the presbyter’s death.126 Stephanus of Byzantium may provide the critical clue to locating the city when he points out that Heraclea on the Latmus, which in antiquity was still on the coast, was also called Bolbai.127 If we consider the location of Boulbi/Balbine in Caria to be rm, Arte- mon still moves within the geographical area surrounding Laodicea. That would also be consistent with the identi cation of Caesarea with Keretapa- Diokaisareia, as suggested by W.M.Ramsay and Louis Robert.128 The location of the (double?) city is still uncertain, but in any case it lies southeast of Laodicea at a distance of 30 to 60 kilometers.129 A relatively short distance

124 Abicht / Reichelt 1898, p. 193: ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης καὶ πορεύου ἐπὶ τὴν ᾽Ασίαν ἐν τόπῳ καλουµένῳ Βουλβί, ἥτις ἐστὶν παραθαλασσία τοῦ αἰγιαλοῦ. 125 On this problem, see p. 82 above. 126 On the parallel tradition in the Synaxarium Sirmondi, see AASS October IV, cols. 42–43 (Βαλβίνη). 127 St.Byz.: Βόλβαι· πόλις Καρίας, ἥτις καὶ ῾Ηράκλεια ἐκλήθη. Cf. Abicht / Reichelt 1898, p. 184, who assume that the Caesarea mentioned in the legend of Artemon should actually be identi ed with Tralleis. But Tralleis bore the name Caesarea only in the 1st century; see RPC II (1999), p. 169. On Byzantine settlement on Bafa Gölü, where Heraclea is located today,see now U. Peschlow in Peschlow-Bindokat 2005, pp. 161–201. In Late Antiquity, Heraclea probably had only a narrow connection with the sea. Cf. Müllenhof / Herda / Brückner 2009, p. 23 (map of the development of the Meander delta). 128 Ramsay 1887, pp. 360f., who nevertheless distances himself from his suggestion in Ramsay 1895, p. 277, n. 4; Robert 21962, pp. 107f. 129 For more on the uncertainty of the city’s location, see N. Mersich in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 221 (s.v. Chairetopa); E. Miranda in Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008, p. 24; Nollé 2009, p. 54, n. 289. 354 chapter eight between Caesarea and Laodicea is also suggested by the concrete distance the text associates with the subsequent itinerary of the saint: when Artemon has traveled a bit of the way, he bids farewell to the deacon Phileas who has been accompanying him: “We have traveled 30 miles of the road. Now, therefore, go the rest of the way to Laodicea to Bishop Sisinnius and all the brethren and tell them all the great things God has had me experience.”130 At a distance of 30 miles (some 45 kilometers) from Caesarea, the ways of the two part; the presbyter goes on toward Boulbi/Balbina, while the deacon returns to Laodicea. Possibly this scene takes place south of Mount Cadmus, whence Artemon continues via Aphrodisias down to the Meander. When the hind remarks at one point that she has needed two days to go from from Laodicea to Caesarea,131 she con rms the short distance between the two cities. Unfortunately attempts to locate Caesarea in western Asia Minor are not entirely consistent with a statement that implies that the author or redactor of the text pictures it outside Asia. Also bothersome is the casual statement that after the priest of the temple of Asclepius was converted he was made a bishop in Palestine.132 In addition Artemon does not stay long in his new destination, where he is accused of rape; he sets of instead for Anemurion, where he wants to board a ship for Cyprus. Since none is lying at anchor, he arranges for a cloud to transport him to the island.133 Again he produces a miraculous spring and administers baptism, until he dies a peaceful death. Soon afterwards his comrades in the faith from Laodicea assemble where he ministered on Cyprus and compose the story of his life.134 Anemurion in Cilicia, Cyprus, and the Palestinian bishopric for the priest of Asclepius shift the geographical setting to the eastern Mediterranean,

130 Abicht / Reichelt 1898, p. 194: Πεπλήρωται ἡ ὁδὸς τῶν τριάκοντα µιλίων· δεῦρο, λοιπὸν πορεύου ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ πρὸς τὸν ἐπίσκοπον Σισίννιον καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀδελφούς, καὶ διήγησαι αὐτοῖς πάντα, ἃ ἐποίησέν µοι µεγάλα ὁ θεός. The 30 miles are likewise mentioned immediately before this passage. 131 Abicht / Reichelt 1898, p. 192: The hind reviles the comes, prophesies his death, and against this background says that she has come two days from the garden of Bishop Sisinnius to Caesarea to seek her master Artemon: σήµερον γὰρ δύο ἡµέραι εἰσίν, ἀφ’ οὗ ἐκ τοῦ παραδείσου ἐξῆλθον τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, ἀναζητῆσαι καὶ ἐξιχνιάσαι τὸν ἐµὸν δεσπότην. 132 Abicht / Reichelt 1898, p. 193: Τὸν δὲ Βιτάλιον ποιήσαντες ἐπίσκοπον, ἔδωκαν αὐτὸν (!) τὰ µέρη τῆς Παλαιστίνης. Vitalios was the name of the priest. 133 Abicht / Reichelt 1898, p. 195. 134 Abicht / Reichelt 1898, p. 196: Οἱ δὲ ἀδελφοὶ οἱ ὄντες ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ συνῆλθον ἐν Κύπρῳ ἐν τῷ Αὐλῶνι, ἐν ᾧ τὰς θαυµατουργίας ἐπιτέλει (!) ὁ ἅγιος, καὶ εὐξάµενοι συνέγραψαν τὰς περιόδους αὐτοῦ. The name of the place on Cyprus where he lived and died is Aulon, the usual term for the strait between Cilicia and Cyprus. Cf. the sources cited in Oberhummer 1896. persecution and legends 355 so that it is reasonable to look for the other places mentioned there as well. In fact the text would not contradict actual geography if we were to identify Laodicea with the Syrian Laodicea by the Sea and Caesarea with the capital of the province of Palestine to the south.135 It is out of the question, however, to move the whole legend of Artemon to the Syrian Laodicea, as is shown by the relevant entry in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, which speaks explicitly of Phrygian Laodicea (in Frigia civitate Laudicia).136 The legend began to wander when a shrine of Artemon sprang up on Cyprus: in hagiographic texts above all the confusion or deliberate substitution of cities of the same name often led to embarrassment and competing claims.137 The core of the narrative obviously consists of the brazen incursion of Artemon and his bishop into a sanctuary in Laodicea followed by their trial and torture, which may have been localized from the beginning in a neighboring city (“Caesarea”); this core was augmented by a miraculous spring and Artemon’s baptisms. Several memorial shrines in and around Laodicea commemorated him. The topographic uctuations and the migration of the story to the eastern Mediterranean were encouraged by the fact that clearly no prominent burial site of Artemon was venerated in Phrygian Laodicea; his memory had to be kept alive by other kinds of memorials.

8.2.3. The Acts of Philip Even though there were eforts in Laodicea to claim the apostle John for the city in addition to the martyrs discussed above, on the grounds that he had visited the city,138 the most prominent cult was naturally in Hierapolis, where the burial site of the apostle Philip attracted innumerable pilgrims. As already shown, his devotees identi ed the apostle as a martyr executed in the time of Trajan.139 In comparison to other acts of the apostles, the novelistic Acts of Philip, which describe the travels and miracles of the apostle, took shape relatively late; a complete text appears not to have

135 Cf. also the thoughts of Abicht / Reichelt 1898, pp. 183f., though they favor Arca- Caesarea in northern Lebanon. 136 See p. 341 above. 137 On the confusion of several cities named Caesarea, cf. the tradition of the martyrdom of Procopius; see Delehaye 1907, pp. 128 and 139f. (where it is clear that even the Martyrologium Hieronymianum is not always reliable). On Antioch in the legend of Thecla, see Dagron 1978, pp. 44–47 (Antioch in Syria, Antioch in Pisidia). 138 See pp. 185–192 above. 139 See pp. 332f. above. 356 chapter eight existed until c. 400.140 The tradition is complex, since there are two strands, which for most of the narrative present versions difering in detail; towards the end, they ramify further with the martyrdom of the apostle.141 Research into the Acts of Philip has taken on new life since 1974, when a 14th-century manuscript in the Xenophontos monastery on Athos was examined more closely; it provides a much more complete text of the Acts of Philip than the previously known textual witnesses; it also includes a few scenes set in Hierapolis.142 The following discussion will attempt to situate the relevant chapters of the Acts (13–15), culminating in the apostle’s martyrdom, in the context of Hierapolis. When Philip received the commission to go to Hierapolis, he was already much traveled. His journeys took him from Palestine to Athens and Parthia, then back to Palestine and possibly once more to Greece.143 Jesus plans to send Philip further on, accompanied by his sister Mariamne and his apostolic companion Bartholomew. He addresses Mariamne in particular, advis- ing her to disguise herself as a man and admonishing her in this way: “Set out in the company of your brother Philip for the city named Opheoryme, which means essentially ‘Street of Serpents’! The citizens of this city observe the cult of the mother of serpents, the viper.”144 The destination is initially given a fanciful name derived from an abstruse serpent cult. This name reappears several times in the subsequent text and is already sometimes identi ed with Hierapolis in the manuscripts.145 The impression that this identi cation

140 Cf. De Santos Otero 1997, p. 425; Klauck 2005, p. 241; also Amsler 1999, pp. 437–439. 141 Cf. Huttner 2012, pp. 18–22. 142 Cf. Bovon 1999, pp. 12f.; also Amsler / Bovon / Bouvier 1996, p. 23. The edition of Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999 is based on the new discoveries. Nevertheless the old edition of Bonnet 1903 must also still be consulted, especially for the Martyrdom of Philip. 143 Overview in Klauck 2005, pp. 241–243. One branch of the tradition explicitly locates the city of Nikatera in Greece (εἰς Νικάτηρα πόλιν λεγοµένην τῆς ῾Ε άδος; 5.1), but there are good arguments for identifying it instead with Caesarea Maritima. Cf. Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1996, pp. 43f. and Amsler 1999, pp. 218f. Ramsay 1906, pp. 548f. associated Philip’s journey from Palestine to Hierapolis with the striking 1500 meters high Takkeli Da˘gnear Konya, arguing that the Greeks living there had named the mountain after the saint (“a relic of Byzantine nomenclature”). 144 The text here is based on an Athens codex (Atheniensis 346), which like Xenophontos 32 was rst used to reconstruct the text in the new edition of Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999. A.Phil. 8.4 (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 245.4–7): … καὶ βάδιζε ὁµοῦ µετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου Φιλίππου εἰς τὴν πόλιν τὴν καλουµένην ᾽Οφεόρυµον, ἥτις ἑρµηνεύεται ὁ περίπατος τῶν ὄφεων· οἱ γὰρ ἄνθρωποι τῆς πόλεως ἐκείνης λατρεύουσιν τῇ µητρὶ τῶν ὄφεων τῇ ἐχίδνῃ. The quotations below from the Acts of Philip are based on the edition of Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999. 145 See for example the title of chapter 13 in Xenophontos: πρᾶξις τοῦ ἁγίου Φιλίππου ιγ´ τῆς ἐν ῾Ιεραπόλει ἐλεύσεως (Bovon /Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 311); cf. M.Phil.108 (Bovon / persecution and legends 357 was not yet part of the original text is certainly correct.146 Given the prominence of Philip’s tomb in Hierapolis, however, it is safe to assume that the episodes set in Ophioryme, including the apostle’s martyrdom, were soon claimed for the city in the Lycus Valley. The pregnant role of the serpents in the Acts of Philip could possibly be explained in connection with the cult of the Great Mother at the Plutonium and local traditions about a battle of Apollo with the dragon Python.147 In any case, the scenery easily displays enough local color to justify identifying Ophioryme with Phrygian Hierapo- lis.148 When the traveling company approaches the city, there are ve of them: along with Philip, Mariamne, and Bartholomew, there are a leopard and a kid, which joined them as they were traveling and can speak and even pray like human beings.149 Even when they are still outside the city walls, the apostles demonstrate their power: the serpents wound around the necks of passers-by lower their heads and the great dragons guarding the gate perish.150 The apostles nd lodging in an abandoned “medical practice” (ἰατρεῖον) near the gate, and Philip decides to use it as a base for giving sight to the blind inhabitants of the city and bring them the true light,151 having already distinguished himself as a successful eye doctor in Azotus in Palestine.152 A rich man named Stachys, who had been blind for 40 years, learns of the apostle’s initiative and asks to be brought to him.153 Initially he discloses his identity to the apostles: before his illness, he had been the chief priest of the serpents and also a feared persecutor of Christians.154 No means

Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 345): … ἐν πόλει ᾽Οφιορύµῃ, ἥτις καλεῖται ῾Ιεράπολις τῆς ᾽Ασίας …. The identi cation also appears on an icon of Philip from Cyprus (13th/14th cent.): Bovon 2009, p. 19. 146 Cf. Bovon 1988, p. 4493; Amsler 1999, pp. 521–524. 147 Cf. Weber 1910, pp. 178–205; Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1996, pp. 75f. We shall leave open the question whether the battle of Apollo with the Python dragon actually suggests a conict between the cult of Apollo and that of the Great Mother. Amsler 1999, pp. 299–312 emphasizes in general the confrontation of Christianity with the cult of the Great Mother in Asia Minor in the context of A.Phil. 8. 148 See p. 366 below. 149 On the motif of speaking animals, see Spittler 2008, pp. 228–232. Cf. also p. 350 above. 150 A.Phil. 13.1–3. 151 A.Phil. 13.4f. 152 Cf. A.Phil. 4.4 (40). 153 The name Stachys is relatively uncommon; it is not attested in the epigraphic material of the Lycus Valley. Paul sends greetings to someone named Stachys in his Epistle to the Romans (16:9). 154 A.Phil. 14.1f. 358 chapter eight had been found to cure his blindness; his illness had only grown worse. Even the liquid of serpent eggs had failed to work.155 When I daubed substance of the eggs on my eyes, they became sore and were inamed for 10 whole years. At that time my wife was still alive, and she went into the mountains and brought me dew from wild plants and instilled it daily into my eyes, so that I gained relief. One day she rose very early and went into the mountains to bring me the dew, but a gigantic beast of prey attacked her and wounded her. She died of this wound because no doctor was present to heal her. From that time on until recently I did not behold the light, nor did I see the face of my sons.156 This account is full of allusions; its rst part (reproduced on p. 176 above) parodies the practice of incubation common at shrines of Asclepius, which Aristophanes had already mocked in a parody in which Pluto was cured of his blindness in the temple of the god of healing with the aid of two serpents.157 Standard medical formularies are echoed in the text of the Acts of Philip. The verb βά ειν and its compounds were commonly used by physicians and medical practitioners to describe the action of combining substances to produce a remedy158 as well as its application to the body.159 The use of παραµυθεῖσθαι to describe the process of healing likewise reects the diction of formularies.160 The traditions of ophthalmology in the Lycus Valley are continued in the Acts of Philip.161 The wild plants collected on the mountain slopes were still much sought after, even though the wife of

155 For additional discussion of the context, see pp. 175–177 above. 156 A.Phil. 14.3 (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 321): ὅτε δὲ ἔβαλον ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς µου ἀπὸ τῶν ᾠῶν, ἐπλήγησαν καὶ ἐγένοντο ἐν φλεγµονῇ ἐπὶ ὅλα δέκα ἔτη. ἐν δὲ τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐτύγχανεν ζῶσα ἡ γυνή µου, καὶ ἐπορεύετο εἰς τὸ ὄρος καὶ ἔφερέν µοι δρόσον ἀπὸ βοτανῶν καὶ ἔβα εν καθ’ ἑκάστην εἰς τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς µου, καὶ παρεµυθούµην. ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν µιᾷ τῶν ἡµερῶν ὀρθρήσασα ἐπορεύετο εἰς τὸ ὄρος ἵνα ἐνέγκῃ µοι δρόσον, καὶ ἔδραµεν θηρίον παµµέγεθες καὶ ἔπληξεν αὐτήν· ἐξέπνευσεν δὲ ἐν τῇ πληγῇ ταύτῃ, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ὁ ἰατρὸς ἵνα θεραπευθῇ. ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου ἕως ἄρτι οὐκ ἐθεασάµην τὸ φῶς, οὐδὲ εἶδον τὸ πρόσωπον τῶν υἱῶν µου. Cf. also pp. 176f. above. 157 Ar. Pl. 732–741. The reference to Aristophanes is taken from Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1996, p. 209, n. 479. See also Amsler 1999, p. 397. 158 Many examples from Galen and Paul of Aegina in TLG. Cf. also the formulary literature of alchemy, for example the Stockholm Papyrus: Halleux 2002, pp. 110–151 (recipes for dyes). 159 Analogous to the Acts of Philip, for example, is the description in Galen’s De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos (Kühn 12.793) of the application of a cloth impreg- nated with butter to the eyes: … ὀθόνιον ἁπαλὸν βουτύρῳ βρεχόµενον καὶ ἐπιβα όµενον τοῖς ὀφθαλµοῖς. 160 Cf. Dsc. 2.99. 161 See also pp. 170–177 above. persecution and legends 359

Stachys brings home only δρόσος, a typical gift of the Old Testament God,162 which explains its rapid efect. The ἰατρεῖον, where once physicians had plied their trade, recalls the school for physicians at the sanctuary of Men Karou; it is abandoned, but the apostles promise to redeem this de ciency: they are the true physicians. There is something to be said for the argument that the story of Stachys alludes deliberately to the Epistle to the Laodiceans, where Jesus calls on them to buy collyrium to restore their vision.163 In addition, in the excavations at Laodicea, above all beneath temple A, which was reused by the Christian community after the Constantinian shift, hundreds of small terracotta unguent asks (unguentaria) have been found, which were not uncommon in centers of Christian worship.164 Such vessels have also been discovered in Hierapolis.165 It is an attractive hypothesis that they contained healing essences whose sacral efect pilgrims pinned their hopes on. Per- haps the wife of Stachys collected her δρόσος in such an unguentarium. Stachys’s initial attempt to alleviate his sufering with serpent eggs is due to his former function as chief priest of the serpent cult; he seeks healing from his own gods.166 In the context of narrative ction in Late Antiquity, serpent eggs also play a role in the Alexander tradition: Alexander’s father, Philip of Macedon, nds an egg from which a serpent emerges as a sign that his son will conquer the world.167 In any case, we must constantly be aware of buried literary traditions that inuenced the composition of the narrative of St. Philip. Stachys has yet another story ready for the apostle: with the help of a fantastic vision, he confronts Philip with the problem of the Trinity.168 He reports having heard a voice commanding him to go to the city gate. There he beheld with his own eyes “the image of a handsome young man with three faces. One face looked like that of a youth still without a beard; the central face looked like that of a woman wearing a magni cent robe; the third face

162 Cf. Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1996, p. 184, n. 375. For further discussion of the δρόσος ἀπὸ βοτανῶν see p. 176 above. 163 Rev 3:18; cf. the detailed discussion on pp. 170–177 above. 164 See Sim¸ sek¸ / Duman 2007. 165 Cf. Cottica 2000, pp. 1001–1008; see also p. 377f. below. 166 Amsler 1999, pp. 399–402 strengthens this connection by postulating an incubation cult in Hierapolis, initially associated with the temple of Cybele and then shifted to the Martyrium of Philip. 167 Alexander Romance 1.9 (Thiel 1974, pp. 14–16). 168 The vision belongs to the category of so-called enlightenment visions. Cf. Theißen 2007, pp. 150–155. 360 chapter eight looked like that of an old man.”169 The term πρόσωπον, here translated “face,” was among the established central terms in the christological and Trinitar- ian debates in the Greek East;170 it is used here to translate the Trinity into a pictorial allegory while also evoking the image of the strangers bringing salvation: Philip obviously plays the part of the young Jesus. Possibly the allegory reects popular notions of the Trinity171 that fell on fertile soil in the Lycus Valley because analogous images were familiar from the pagan iconography of the gods: in the 3rd century, under the Severi and shortly before midcentury, coins were minted in Laodicea with the hieratic image of Hecate on the reverse: three women wearing long robes, standing in a circle with their backs connected.172 The mother goddess, feared on account of her magical powers, was likewise called τριπρόσωπος, as was Selene when identi ed with her.173 Philip responds to the vision of Stachys by launching into an efusive paean of praise to God that runs through the divine persons—Jesus, Spirit, and Father—and concludes by de ning the τρεῖς µορφαὶ τέλειαι as “images of the Invisible One.”174 He makes it clear to Stachys that his blindness is actually spiritual blindness, brought about by sinfulness grounded in Satan. The actual acts of healing and baptism have been lost from the manuscript, since a leaf was removed from the codex after it was nished. We can still read how Philip inserts his index nger into Mariamne’s mouth, obviously in order to daub saliva on the blind eyes of Stachys. Someone reading the text found the passage so ofensive that he tore out the leaf.175

169 A.Phil. 14.4 (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 323): … καὶ ἀναβλέψας τοῖς ὀφθαλµοῖς µου εἶδον ὁµοιότητα νεανίσκου τινὸς ὡραίου ἔχοντος τρία πρόσωπα· τὸ ἓν πρόσωπον εἶχεν µορφὴν νεωτέρου µηδέπω γένειον ἔχοντος· καὶ τὸ µέσον πρόσωπον εἶχεν µορφὴν γυναικὸς περιβεβληµένην στολὴν ἔνδοξον· τὸ δὲ τρίτον πρόσωπον ἔχον µορφὴν πρεσβυτέρου. 170 Numerous examples in Lampe 91989, pp. 1187–1189, s.v. πρόσωπον IX and X. Cf. Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1996, p. 210, n. 483, translating it as “ gure.” See also Lebon 1951, pp. 454–477. 171 Cf. the Trinitarian interpretation of the three men at the oak of Mamre in early Christian art. See Gernhöfer 2009. 172 BMC Phrygia, p. 314 no. 218 (Iulia Domna on the obverse), p. 323 no. 255 (Otacilia Severa on the obverse); SNG Copenhagen, no. 583 (Iulia Domna), no. 602 (Otacilia Severa); SNG Munich, no. 402 (Otacilia Severa). 173 Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 322, n. 16 also call attention to this analogy, though without citing the local coinage. A fundamental study of trimorphic Hecate is Sarian 1992, pp. 988–1016. 174 A.Phil. 14.5; cf. Junod 1982, p. 45. 175 Cf. Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1996, p. 213, with n. 501; Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 328, n. 33. persecution and legends 361

As required by standards of the genre, the encounter of the saint with the governor must not be omitted; it follows the usual stereotypes but is also embellished with a few particularly fantastic details. Especially fantastic is the name of the o cial, who is introduced with the comparatively insignif- icant title ἡγεµών:176 Tyrannognophus, “sinister tyrant.” Hierapolis was not one of the assize cities of the province of Asia, so that a governor would hardly (or at least not regularly) have had occasion to visit it, not to speak of establishing a permanent residence, as in the story of Philip. As in many accounts of martyrdom, Tyrannognophus is accompanied by his wife, who feels attracted to Christianity. Her name, Nicanora, seems to appear only here; she is said to have settled in the city after a shipwreck.177 Possibly the Acts of the Apostles inuenced the author in his choice of a name: there the group chosen to care for the poor, as advised by the apostles, includes not only Stephen and Philip but also Nicanor.178 His name in the accusative (Νικάνορα) thus underwent a playful metamorphosis, so that we need not be surprised to learn that the governor’s wife came from Syria. Nicanora is sufering from poisoning, having been bitten by the serpents of the city, and promises herself that the apostles will help her, especially since she has experienced the healing of Stachys. When she arrives where the apostles are staying, she hears Philip addressing Stachys as follows: O Stachys, you were formerly in bondage to the tyranny of Satan and were aicted with blindness for a very long time, and were still aicted on the day before yesterday and the day before that; know now that God did not leave you to the very end in the ignorance and error in which you persevered. You received the true remedy from the good Father, and in your house the sun of righteousness rose and sent its light and its radiant beams into your chamber. Now don’t get luxurious because of the cattle [property],179 lest you be counted among the wild animals. Do not delight in too much wine, for it leads you astray to images [idols]. Do not boast in silver and gold, for they are the snares of Satan. Better come to a rm faith, and gain self-control [ἐγκράτεια] and

176 ῾Ηγεµών was a common designation of governors; for more see Corsten 1997, p. 83. In the context of the martyrdom narrative that concludes the cycle, Tyrannognophus is referred to several times as proconsul (ἀνθύπατος). 177 A.Phil. 15.1 (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 331): ἦν δὲ ἡγεµὼν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐκείνῃ καλούµενος Τυραννόγνοφος, εἶχεν δὲ γυναῖκα Νικάνοραν τοὔνοµα, Σύραν τῷ γένει. αὕτη πλέουσα ἐξερρίφη ἀνέµου πνεύσαντος καὶ ἐπελάσθη ἐν τῷ µεσογαίῳ ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐκείνῃ. 178 Acts 6:5: … καὶ ἐξελέξαντο Στέφανον, ἄνδρα πλήρης πίστεως καὶ πνεύµατος ἁγίου, καὶ Φί- λιππον καὶ Πρόχορον καὶ Νικάνορα καὶ Τίµωνα καὶ Παρµενᾶν καὶ Νικόλαον προσήλυτον ᾽Αντιοχέα. 179 If we follow the translation of Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 332, the passage refers concretely to the consumption of meat: “Ne t’adonne donc pas aux délice de la chair animale …” Given the nal clause that follows, this interpretation is plausible. 362 chapter eight

asceticism by a digni ed heart, for self-control is a support in everything. That is the riches of God.—Behold, the peace of God has struck root in your house. From this day on, be no longer ignorant, lest you topple into disaster. Behold, the seal of the Spirit dwells with you. Set yourself up as a pillar in the church of truth, and safeguard, o Stachys, self-control, for sancti cation removes any lawlessness. For the path of the souls of the righteous consists in sancti cation and removes the wellspring of destruction. Arise, then, from the lth of desire. Let not consumption of meat and inordinate wine-drinking rule in your members, lest your soul melt away. Purify yourself of fornication, for it is doom, the bride of death, the marriage-feast of destruction, the joy of demons, the exultation of uncleanness, the merriment of malevolence, the delight of those who are perishing.180 Better to hold fast to love and come to your senses by holding fast to Christ in your mind, and shun this [earthly] dignity and seek for heavenly renown. Have your sons make themselves useful and your daughters be virgins, but have your slaves be trained in self-control. For your house will be called a house of prayer, and you will be protected from turmoil and riot.181 This harangue forbids Stachys all the temptations of bodily pleasure, particularly the consumption of meat and wine, but also sexual activity. These are contrasted programmatically with ἐγκράτεια, which Philip invokes four

180 Some of the vices mentioned are familiar from Colossians; cf. p. 132 above. Of course that does not imply dependence. 181 A.Phil. 15.2f. (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, pp. 331+333+335): ὦ Στάχυ, ὁ δεδεµένος ἐν τῇ ἀδυναµίᾳ τὸ πρὶν τοῦ Σατανᾶ καὶ πλεῖστον χρόνον ὑπάρξας ἐν τῇ τυφλότητι ἐν ᾗ ἐτύγχανες πρὸ τῆς χθὲς καὶ πρὸ τῆς τρίτης ἡµέρας, νῦν οὖν γνῶθι ὅτι οὐκ εἴασέν σε ὁ θεὸς µέχρι τέλους ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ πλάνῃ, ἐν ᾗ ὑπῆρχες, ἀ ’ ἔσχες τὸ ἀληθινὸν φάρµακον παρὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ πατρός, καὶ ἀνέτειλεν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ σου ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἥλιος ἐνέγκας τὰς φωτεινὰς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνδόξους ἀκτῖνας εἰς τὴν σὴν αὐλήν. µὴ γίνου τοίνυν τρυφῶν ἀπὸ τῶν κτηνῶν, µή ποτε λογισθῇς µετὰ τῶν ἀγρίων θηρῶν· µὴ εὐφραίνου ἐπὶ οἴνῳ πο ῷ, ἐπειδή ἐστιν πλανῶν εἰς τὰ εἴδωλα· µὴ καυχῶ ἐπὶ ἀργυρίῳ καὶ χρυσίῳ, ὅτι αὐτά εἰσιν παγίδες τοῦ Σατανᾶ. ἀ ὰ µᾶ ον γενοῦ ἐν τῇ ἑδραίᾳ πίστει, καὶ ἐν καρδίᾳ σεµνότητος πρόσδεξαι πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἐγκράτειαν καὶ ἄσκησιν, ὅτι ἡ ἐγκράτεια τῶν πάντων στηριγµός. αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ πλοῦτος τοῦ θεοῦ.—ἰδοὺ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐρρίζωκεν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ σου. µὴ γίνου ἀγνοῶν ἀπὸ τῆς σήµερον, ἵνα µὴ στραφῇς εἰς τὸ χεῖρον. ἰδοὺ ἡ σφραγὶς τοῦ πνεύµατος συνοικήσει σοι· ἀνόρθωσε σεαυτὸν στῦλον ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ γίνου, ὦ Στάχυ, ἐν τῇ ἐγκρατείᾳ, ὅτι ὁ ἁγιασµὸς καταργεῖ πᾶσαν ἀνοµίαν. ἡ γὰρ διάβασις τῶν ψυχῶν τῶν δικαίων ἑστὶν ὁ ἁγιασµός, καὶ καταργεῖ τὴν γένεσιν τῆς φθορᾶς. ἆρον τοίνυν ἑαυτὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ ῥύπου τῆς ἐπιθυµίας. µὴ βασιλευέτω ἐν τοῖς µέλεσί σου ἡ κρεωφαγία καὶ ὁ πλεῖστος πότος τοῦ οἴνου, ἵνα µὴ χωνευθῇ ἡ ψυχή σου. καθάρισον σεαυτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας, ὅτι αὕτη ἡ καταστροφή, νύµφη ἐστὶν τοῦ θανάτου, γάµος ἐστὶν τῆς φθορᾶς, χαρά ἐστιν τῶν δαιµόνων, ἀγα ίασις τῆς ἀκαθαρσίας, εὐφρασία ἐστὶν τοῦ φθὸνου, τέρψις τῶν διαφθειροµένων. ἐπίµεινον µᾶ ον τῇ ἀγάπῃ, καὶ γίνου φρόνιµος ἔχων τὸν Χριστὸν νοερόν, καὶ ἔκβαλε ἀπὸ σεαυτοῦ τὸ ἀξίωµα τοῦτο, καὶ ζήτησον τὴν ἐπουράνιον δόξαν. οἱ υἱοί σου ἔστωσαν χρήσιµοι καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες σου παρθένοι, οἱ δὲ δοῦλοί σου διδαχθήτωσαν ἐγκράτειαν. κληθήσεται γὰρ ὁ οἶκός σου οἶκος προσευχῆς καὶ σὺ δὲ αὐτὸς ῥυσθήσῃ ἀπὸ τῆς ταραχῆς καὶ τοῦ θορύβου. persecution and legends 363 times in a row as a kind of watchword.182 Encratite tendencies are also observable elsewhere in the Acts of Philip, especially in the opening chapter.183 They are appropriate to the cultural environment of Asia Minor, where Thecla was already revered as a representative of a lifestyle hostile to pleasure and especially sex.184 In nearby Lycaonia, the Christians did not hesitate to honor the Encratite way of life of their number on tombstones; the texts even allow us to identify entire groups if not entire communities that associated themselves with the Encratites.185 The fact that the Encratite message also left traces in Hierapolis is documented by a post-Constantinian epitaph from the north necropolis, which Tullia Ritti has recently published:186 in it the councilman Flavius Diodoros proudly calls himself a “water drinker” (ὑδροπότης), thus demonstrating his ascetic readiness to deny himself. The Encratites, however, who claimed the apostle Philip for their concerns, were condemned as heretics both by the church fathers and imperial laws.187 The story in the Acts of Philip is presented as an etiology: Philip establishes a place of prayer in the house of Stachys, which is to serve as a cell for an Encratite community. The family of the paterfamilias sees to it that the rules of asceticism and worship are observed.188 As the narrative continues, Philip seals the act of foundation by planting his staf next to the house of Stachys and causes it to grow into a laurel tree.189 It is safe to assume that there was a prominent laurel

182 Amsler 1999, p. 422: “Le discours que Philippe adresse à Stachys … est un condensé de la doctrine encratite … .” 183 For details see Amsler 1999, pp. 493–519. Cf. Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1996, p. 30 and Slater 1999, pp. 293–505. Peterson 1932, pp. 97–106 makes a concrete connection with the ascetic followers of Eustathius of Sebaste, condemned by the Synod of Gangra (cf. the synodal letter in Joannou 1962, p. 86). 184 Cf. Davis 2001, pp. 19–22; forthcoming C. Zimmermann in Breytenbach, C. / C. Zimmer- mann: Early Christianity in Lycaonia. Leiden / Boston. The reference text for the veneration of Thecla is the so-called Acts of Thecla, which goes back to the 2nd century; its rst episode is set in Iconium. For more see Klauck 2005, pp. 64–74; cf. p. 364 below. On the reception of the Acts of Thecla in Ephesus, see N. Zimmermann 2011, pp. 152f. (paintings from the 5th/6th century in the so-called Grotto of St. Paul). 185 MAMA I, no. 175; MAMA VII, nos. 69 and 96. Cf. Mitchell 1993, II, pp. 102f. Now also Thonemann 2011a, pp. 194–203. 186 Hierapolis V (2012), p. 665f. (see p. 16, n. 68 above). My thanks to Tullia Ritti for important evidence. 187 See Slater 1999, pp. 298–302; Amsler 1999, pp. 471–480. Among the laws, Cod. Theod. 16.5.11 is especially clear. 188 For further details, see pp. 370f. below. 189 A.Phil. 15.4. Bovon 1988, p. 4511 considers it possible that this scene is a late addition, calling attention to an analogous scene in the Martyrdom of Matthew: M.Matt. 7 (M. Bonnet, AAA II, 1 [1898], 224.14–225.3). 364 chapter eight tree in Hierapolis where the miraculous power of the apostle and his call to asceticism were remembered. It is not the only apostolic memorial site in Hierapolis mentioned in the Acts of Philip.190 During the founding of the “Stachys convent,” the governor’s wife Nica- nora is on the sidelines, but then she returns to the center of the action. Fearing her husband’s brutality, she quickly returns home, where shortly afterwards she raises her voice to Jesus Christ in prayer—not that her illness be cured, but that Tyrannognophus either be converted to Christ or die. In any case, she expresses her desire to visit the apostle freely, so that her soul may be healed. As a result of this prayer, Jesus appears to her in a blinding shaft of light, which, however, attracts her husband’s attention.191 Tyrannognophus draws the obvious conclusion from what he has seen and warns Nicanora to have no contact with the apostles.192 The conict between Tyrannognophus and his wife escalates when he actually discovers her at the apostles’ house, whereupon she dismisses him with the demand that he convert and threatens him: “If you would like me to stay with you, then I will live with you in abstinence [ἐν ἐγκρατείᾳ].”193 This premonitory appeal, which returns to the program of the Encratite life, means an embarrassing humiliation for the governor: considerations of prestige alone would make it impossible for him to accept a sex strike on the part of his wife. A comparable theme had already been introduced in the Acts of Thecla, where the protagonist refuses to keep her promise to marry her betrothed, a man from the social elite of Iconium, thus triggering a legal complaint against the apostle Paul, her mentor.194 Philip, too, is said to have been taken to court, charged with magic,195 because in Roman law black magic in particular was a criminal of-

190 See p. 368 below. 191 This scene fell victim to the damage inicted on the codex (see p. 360 above) but can be reconstructed from a retrospective incorporated into one branch of the tradition concerning the martyrdom: M.Phil. 124 (18), Bonnet 1903, p. 53; Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, pp. 368– 370. Cf. Bovon 1988, p. 4512. 192 A.Phil. 15.7. Here the cycle of the Acts of Philip ends (concluded in 15.8); it continues in the account of his martyrdom, for which there is still no comprehensive edition. The best edition regarding the account of Philip’s martyrdom is in Bonnet 1903, pp. 41–90. Two traditions (Vaticanus graecus 824 and Xenophontos 32) are found in the edition of Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, pp. 342–431. 193 M.Phil. 119 (13) (Bonnet 1903, p. 49; Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 363): ἐὰν οὖν θέλῃς παρὰ σοί µε µένειν, ἐν ἐγκρατείᾳ οἰκήσω σὺν σοί. This is the version represented by Xenophontos 32. In the other strand of tradition, the point is mitigated. 194 A.Thecl. 7–17. 195 M.Phil. 121–123 (15–17). persecution and legends 365 fense.196 Contrary to the conventions of Roman criminal law, Tyrannogno- phus resorts to torture at the very beginning of the preparations; as a site, he chooses the sanctuary of the serpent.197 Philip and his companions are stripped, he himself is hanged upside down on a tree near the temple, and Bartholomew is stretched against the temple wall. But the slavering public waits in vain for Mariamne to be stripped, since a display of light conceals her body.198 In this tense situation, the apostle John, who happens to be passing by, makes his—totally unmotivated—appearance. John, who is even called a “fellow citizen” (συµπολίτης) of the people in the city,199 arrives at the place of torture and rebukes the cruel pagans, whereupon they try to seize him to execute him alongside the others. But they are unable to lay hands on him. John even begins a conversation with Philip, telling him why it is improper to take vengeance on his enemies. Thereupon his role comes to an abrupt end: he vanishes unnoticed from the city.200 The role played by John in the drama of the martyrdom is not exactly that of a bystander, but it feels so arti cial that it needs a special explanation, which is probably associated with the tradition of John speci c to the Lycus Valley, since the Acts of John report that the apostle visited the valley on his journeys from Ephesus.201 Now Hierapolis, too, is favored with his visit, through the back door of the Acts of Philip. The veneration of the apostles cast their regional circles. A gra to from Laodicea con rms that city’s interest in the cult of Philip.202 Philip meanwhile can no longer control his craving from revenge; John’s soothing words were in vain. He sends heavenward a veritable litany of curses, which exhibit striking coincidences with the verbal repertory of magicians, placing himself in a precarious position.203 Here and there we nd papyrological and epigraphic documents in which Christians use curses

196 Cf. Graf 1996, pp. 53f. 197 M.Phil. 125 (19). 198 M.Phil. 126 (20). 199 M.Phil. 129 and 131 (23 and 25). 200 Only a secondary branch of the tradition mentions his vanishing explicitly: M.Phil. 132 (Bonnet 1903, pp. 62.23f.): “Then John left the city without having been seen by anyone.”— Τότε ὁ ᾽Ιωάννης ἐξῆλθεν τῆς πόλεως ὑπὸ µηδενὸς ὁρώµενος. 201 See pp. 185–190 above. Bovon 1988, pp. 4453f. and 4515 calls attention instead to the meeting of Philip and John in the local legend of St. Michael. On this meeting, see p. 372 below. 202 Cf. Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, p. 122 g. 47m (Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, p. 120 g. 142): a oor plan with four apses carved on a pillar beside the Syrian Road, with lettering above it: Φίλιπ(πος). 203 M.Phil. 132 (26) (Bonner 1903, p. 63.2f.). On the broader context, cf. p. 305 above. 366 chapter eight to harm other persons,204 but in doing so they generally contravene the commandment to love one’s enemies. In addition, magical practices were frowned upon in the early church205 and were denounced repeatedly by the ecclesiastical authorities as well as imperial laws. The Synod of Laodicea speci cally forbade clergy to act as magicians.206 The cursing apostle could thus serve as a model to people moving outside the norms of canon law; he thus joins the list of protagonists especially attractive to many on account of their outing of accepted norms. At the conclusion of his angry tirade, Philip expresses the wish that the earth open its maw and devour the godless.207 At that a chasm actually opens and the pagans vanish into it together with the temple of the serpent. A few manuscripts count the victims as 7000 men plus women and children—roughly the population of Hierapolis.208 Only the Christians, naturally including Stachys and Nicanora, escape with no more than a scare. The fact that this dramatic scene reects the geology of the Lycus Valley has long been recognized.209 The intense seismic activity of the region and its subterranean chasms, including the Plutonium in Hierapolis, provide the background for the catastrophe evoked by the apostle. One branch of tradition (represented for example by Xenophontos 32) explicitly mentions the earthquake that accompanied the opening of the abyss.210

204 Cf. Huttner 2012, pp. 27f. Curses to protect tombs appear repeatedly in Christian contexts; cf. Perraymond 1980, pp. 120f.; Feissel 2006, pp. 364f.; J. Dresken-Weiland in Dresken- Weiland / Angerstorfer / Merkt 2012, pp. 148f. 205 Cf. Busch 2006, pp. 127–152. 206 See p. 304 above. 207 M.Phil. 132 (26). 208 M.Phil. 133 (27). In Vaticanus graecus 824 and others: ὡς ἄνδρες ἑπτακισχίλιοι χωρὶς γυναικῶν καὶ παιδίων. The translation in Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 386 (“soixante- dix mille …”) is wrong. Weber 1909, pp. 240f. assumes that there would have to be some 7000 Christians corresponding to the 7000 pagans and on that premise calculates a total population of 100,000. This number is so large not only because of the problematic premise but also because of a simple miscalculation: (4×14,000 = 84,000, per Weber). If one really wants to undertake concrete calculations, besides 7000 men 7000 women and 14,000 children could have been swallowed up by the earthquake. Hierapolis may have had some 30,000 inhabitants. On the problems posed by such gures, see Marek 2010, pp. 493f. (demography in Asia Minor). 209 Cf. von Gutschmid 1864, pp. 398f.; Weber 1910, p. 205. Given the concrete physical details near the sanctuary, Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1996, p. 76 assume that the chasm corresponds to the Plutonium. 210 The whole region is said to have been convulsed: M.Phil. 133 (27) (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 387): … καὶ ἐξετινάχθη ὅλος ὁ τόπος … . Shortly afterwars the text speaks explicitly of a σεισµός: M.Phil. 138 (32) (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 401). persecution and legends 367

At the moment of greatest destruction, Jesus appears on the scene, rebukes Philip, and demonstrates his reconciling power. He censures the apostle for repaying evil with evil and announces that he will have to wait 40 days outside the barred gates of paradise before he can enter the place of promise.211 It is noteworthy that he calls the apostle to account for his need for revenge but not his lack of self-control and use of black magic. To save the pagans who are languishing in the abyss, Jesus performs a miracle by making a gigantic cross of light appear on which the wretches can clamber up. Only Tyrannognophus, the serpent-priests, and the serpent itself are condemned to remain below.212 Jesus departs, and those saved from the abyss confess their faith in him. Thus the catastrophe served as an instrument of puri cation and Hierapolis became a Christian city at a stroke, thanks to the miraculous power of Jesus, but also thanks to the apostle’s burst of rage.—How greatly Philip’s anger was a departure from the norm of a Chris- tian ethics is shown by the disapproval of Basil in his homily against the wrathful, where he praises Jesus’ gentle restraint when he calmly sufered the o cial’s slap in the face during his hearing before the high priest and “did not send the ofender alive to Hades and did not tear the earth open under the blasphemer’s feet.”213 Although by now enough of Philip’s fellow citizens are ready to set him free from his awkward situation, he prefers to await death hanging upside down from the tree and nally gain the victory of martyrdom. Before he dies, however, he entrusts his legacy to the bystanders. First he underlines the omnipotence of God and the signi cance of martyrdom, then he sketches the twofold nature of Christ in a few formulas: Christ while being God also became man.214 Finally he speaks to Bartholomew, who is set free, and Mariamne. Before they go their way, Bartholomew to Lycaonia and Mariamne to Palestine, they are to build a burial church for him and see to the organization of the convent in the house of Stachys. Since this commission is of groundbreaking signi cance for the cult of Philip in Hierapolis, it is desirable to cite the essential extracts from the text verbatim according to the detailed version of Xenophontos 32:

211 M.Phil. 137 (31). 212 M.Phil. 138 (32). 213 Bas. Hom. 10 (PG 31, 369.28f.): … οὐχὶ ζῶντα ἔπεµψε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ᾅδην, τῆς γῆς ὑπορραγεί- σης τῷ δυσσεβεῖ … . On the setting of the biblical scene, see John 18:22f. 214 M.Phil. 139–141 (33–35). On the twofold nature of Christ (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 406): οὗτος θεὸς ὢν ἄνθροπος ἐγένετο, … (the version of Vaticanus graecus 824). 368 chapter eight

I give you this commission, that when I depart my body you build a church on the site where I depart my body. And let the leopard and kid into the church you are to build, that they may be a sign to all who nd their way to faith; and Nicanora is to take care of them until they depart their bodies. But when they depart their bodies, bury them near the entrance to the church.215 The apostle commands expressly that the church be built at the site of his death, i.e. in place of the serpent temple. The archaeological evidence near the temple of Apollo and in the vicinity of the Plutonium may reveal traces of a church building,216 nevertheless we should look for the site of the serpent temple in other places as well, though probably within the city walls.217 It remains to be seen whether this premise can agree with the new archaeological nds at the Martyrium of Philip to the east of the city.218 Possibly the so-called cathedral near the agora must be included in the study of the cult of Philip in Hierapolis. On the one hand, the alignment of the building appears to be roughly oriented toward the Martyrium of Philip; on the other, huge beams used as spolia have been found, suggesting an earlier cultic structure (the serpent temple?).219 The apostle’s concern for the two miraculous praying animals is noteworthy: possibly animal sculptures in his burial church constituted the starting point for the inclusion of the leopard and kid in the Acts of Philip.220 After a few instructions having to do with the Stachys convent,221 Philip nally gives Bartholomew a commission regarding the liturgical arrange- ments for his burial: So take my body and bury it in Syrian papyrus leaves and do not include a linen shroud, since that is what they placed on the body of our Lord. And wrap it in papyrus leaves and bury it in the choir of the church. And come and

215 M.Phil. 142 (36) (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 411): ἐντέ οµαι οὖν ὑµῖν, ἐὰν ἐξέλθω ἐκ τοῦ σώµατός µου, οἰκοδοµήσατε ἐκκλησίαν ἐν τῷ τόπῳ ἐν ᾧ ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος. καὶ τὸν λεόπαρδον καὶ τὸν ἔριφον τῶν αἰγῶν ἐάσατε ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ µε ούσῃ οἰκοδοµεῖσθαι ὑφ’ ὑµῶν, ἵνα γένωνται εἰς σηµεῖον πᾶσιν τοῖς µέ ουσιν πιστεύειν, ἡ δὲ Νικάνορα πρόνοιαν αὐτῶν ποιείτω, ἕως ἂν ἐξέλθωσιν ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος αὐτῶν· ὅτε δὲ ἐξέλθωσιν ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος αὐτῶν, θάψατε αὐτὰ ἐν τῷ πυλῶνι τῆς ἐκκλησίας. 216 Cf. Arthur 2006, pp. 148 (“three-aisled” church). 217 A.Phil. 14.2 says that the serpents were to be found near the house of Stachys. 218 Cf. pp. 378–380 below. 219 I owe these observations essentially to Stephen Mitchell. On the cathedral, see also p. 380 below. 220 Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 411, n. 62 also suggest such sculptures. Cf. also Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1996, p. 235, n. 577. 221 See pp. 370f. below. persecution and legends 369

pray for me for 40 days, that God may forgive me the sins I have committed, because I requited the man who did me ill …222 Refusal of a linen shroud can be interpreted as a modest gesture of humility, on the grounds that Jesus alone deserves such a burial;223 furthermore the local textile trade was based on wool and not the ax needed for the production of linen.224 It hardly makes sense, however, to assume that papyrus was available cheaply in the Lycus Valley, especially from Syria.225 In any case, the use of papyrus leaves seems abstruse, unless we picture the preparation of mummy cases in Egyptian tradition.226 Forty days of prayer are meant to assure the peace of the apostle’s soul. The narrative may provide the etiology for a 40-day rite centered on Philip observed in Hierapolitan church. It is naturally reasonable to associate the 40 days of prayers with the pre-Easter fast, which became established in the 4th century227 and which the Synod of Laodicea debated: four canons are devoted to the Τεσσαρακοστή.228 Canon 51 reads as follows: “That it is not permitted to celebrate the birthday [of martyrs] during the 40-day fast; the commemoration of the holy martyrs must be celebrated on the Sabbath and Lord’s Day.”229 Given a strict interpretation of this precept, if we assume that the 40 days of prayer in the Acts of Philip did in fact allude the Lenten fast, the legacy of the apostle amounted to a violation of the norm. But the Acts

222 M.Phil. 143 (37) (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, pp. 417+419): ἆρον οὖν τὸ σῶµά µου καὶ ἐνταφίασον χάρταις Συριατικοῖς καὶ µὴ βάλῃς ὀθόνην λινῆν, ἐπειδὴ ἔβαλον εἰς τὸ σῶµα τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν, καὶ σφίγξον αὐτὸ ἐν χάρταις καὶ παπύροις, καὶ χῶσον αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ τῆς ἐκκλησίας. καὶ γίνεσθε ὑπὲρ ἐµοῦ εὐχόµενοι τεσσαράκοντα ἡµέρας, ἵνα ἀφῇ µοι ὁ θεὸς τὴν παράβασιν ἣν ἐποίησα, ὅτι ἀνταπέδωκα τῷ ποιήσαντί µοι κακά …. 223 Cf. Bovon 1988, p. 4520: “Le sens d’une telle sépulture nous échappe: comme la croix de Philippe devait diférer de celle du Christ, par sa position, ainsi la sépulture, par sa nature?” 224 On the technological background, see Forbes 21964, pp. 27–43. 225 On the meaning of χάρτης, see Blümner 21912, p. 315; Montevecchi 21988, p. 14; also Laufer 1971, p. 282. 226 Cf. Montevecchi 21988, p. 25; Bagnall 2009, p. 87. On the icon of Philip from Cyprus (see p. 357, n. 145 above), the body of the apostle in the concluding scene is in fact prepared like a mummy; cf. Bovon 2009, p. 18 and pl. VIII. Linen bandages are also employed in mummi cation, so that we cannot automatically conclude how the body was wrapped on the basis of the image. On the materials used for mummi cation, see Sternberg 1982. 227 For more on liturgical fasting, see Arbesmann 1969, cols. 515–518; also Grün 21995, cols. 1189f. But see also Bovon in Bovon / Matthews 2012, p. 26 on a special “fasting period of Saint Philip” in November/December. The evidence for this fasting period is late (6th/7th century): Holl 1928 (1923), pp. 155 and 181–186. 228 CLaod. Can. 49–52. 229 CLaod. Can. 51 (Joannou 1962, p. 151): ῞Οτι οὐ δεῖ ἐν τεσσαρακοστῇ γενέθλιον ἐπιτελεῖν, ἀ ὰ τῶν ἁγίων µαρτύρων µνείαν ποιεῖν ἐν τοῖς σάββασι καὶ κυριακαῖς. 370 chapter eight of Philip with its cursing protagonist already paints a highly unconventional picture. The cult of Philip personally founded by the apostle cannot be identi ed in Hierapolis in the details cited, but the existence of it is undisputed, as are its monumental and institutional embodiment.230 Alongside the extensive architectural ensemble above the city to the east, which will be discussed below,231 the most important item illuminating the organization of the cult of Philip in Hierapolis is a sarcophagus inscription copied at the beginning of the 19th century by Charles Robert Cockerell: “Eugenios, the humblest archdeacon and custodian [of the sanctuary] of the holy and glorious apostle and theologian Philip.”232 The shrine of Philip was thus in the charge of a body of conventionally organized clergy, which included additional deacons and undoubtedly other functionaries.233 The inscription can hardly date prior to the 5th century, however. For the “convent” set up in the house of Stachys, Philip had ready a few rules to guide the conduct of the virgins on the right path: “In this house all the virgins staying there must fast. But they must visit the sick, setting of in pairs. And they must not speak with young men at all, lest Satan lead them astray.”234 The women are entrusted with charitable tasks, but they are subject to strict ascetic discipline, which is laid out in greater detail in the subsequent course of the narrative and reects the fundamental Encratite tendency already seen in the Acts of Philip. Himself hostile to sex, the apostle sees an existential danger in mutual contact between the sexes; as an exemplary authority in his appeal he cites Peter, who had strictly forbidden such contact: “And therefore our brother Peter ed from every place where a woman resided. He also took ofense at his own daughter and prayed to the Lord that she be crippled on one side, lest she be led astray.”235 This radical

230 Cf. also the representation of Philip on Byzantine episcopal seals from Hierapolis; see D’Andria in D’Andria / Zaccaria Ruggio / Ritti / Bazzana / Caccitti 2005/06, pp. 359–361. On pilgrim ampoules from Hierapolis, see Arthur 2006, p. 162. See also p. 378 below. 231 See pp. 378–380 below. 232 Gardner 1885, p. 346 no. 71 = Judeich 1898, p. 76 no. 24: Εὐγένιος ὁ ἐλ[ά]χιστος ἀρχιδι- άκ(ονος) κ(αὶ) ἐφεστ(ὼς) τοῦ ἁγίου κ(αὶ) ἐνδόξου ἀποστόλου κ(αὶ) θεολόγου Φιλίππου.—ΑΡΩ. The rho between alpha and omega could actually be a staurogram. For a detailed discussion of the inscription, see Tabbernee 1997, pp. 502–508 no. 83, although he assigns the inscription to a Montanist context. See also Destephen 2008, p. 291. Cf. p. 265 above. 233 On the relationship between archdeacons and deacons, see Hübner 2005, pp. 54f. 234 M.Phil. 142 (36) (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 413): ἔστωσαν δὲ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ταύτῃ πᾶσαι αἱ παρθένοι νηστεύουσαι· ἐπισκεπτέσθωσαν δὲ τοὺς νοσοῦντας βαδίζουσαι ἀνὰ δύο δύο· καὶ µὴ λαλείτωσαν µετὰ νεανίσκων τὸ σύνολον, ἵνα µὴ πειράσῃ αὐτὰς ὁ Σατανᾶς. 235 M.Phil. 142 (36) (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 415): καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἡµῶν persecution and legends 371 heartlessness, already visible in the Acts of Peter, composed late in the 2nd century,236 demonstrates the author’s intention to link the Encratite message to an apostolic tradition going back to the beginning. Generally speaking, the story of the founding of the convent reects tendencies beginning c. 350 to use such institutions as places of refuge to create sacral purity and give it particular stability through vows of virginity.237 Finally Philip assigns Stachys personally a special task in the Hierapoli- tan church: “My brother Bartholomew, give this message to Stachys and install him as leader and bishop in the church, that he himself may similarly become a good teacher.”238 Here Philip establishes the succession of bishops in Hierapolis; the spiritual leaders thus stand in an apostolic tradition, from which they derive their commission to teach.239 Legitimation through an apostolic act of initiation was a further trump in the hand of the Hierapolitan bishops in asserting their claims vis-à-vis the metropolitans in Laodicea. Having given his instructions, Philip expired amid great sympathy of those around him. The Hierapolitans did as the apostle had directed: oferings were made for 40 days, a church was built, and Stachys was made their bishop.240—There is ample evidence that the gure of Philip left his stamp on the church of Hierapolis and established its identity. What is unclear is the role played by the Acts of Philip; we know nothing of its reception in the region. If anything, the fact that the apostle’s personality as sketched in the acta ran counter in some respects to the rulebook of the majority church even increased the popularity of the narrative among the Christians of Hierapolis. In any case, the material they passed on was a seedbed for conict.

Πέτρος ἔφυγεν ἀπὸ παντὸς τόπου, ἐν ᾧ ὑπῆρχεν γυνή· ἔτι δὲ καὶ σκάνδαλον εἶχεν διὰ τὴν ἰδίαν θυγατέρα, καὶ ηὔξατο πρὸς κύριον, καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν παραλύσει τῆς πλευρᾶς αὐτῆς διὰ τὸ µὴ ἀπατη- θῆναι αὐτήν. 236 We are talking here of a single episode preserved in isolation in a Coptic papyrus. For more see Schneemelcher 61999, pp. 251 and 256–258; Klauck 2005, pp. 117–119. 237 Cf. Brown 22008, pp. 259–284. 238 M.Phil. 143 (37) (Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 417): ἀδελφέ µου Βαρθολοµαῖε, δὸς τὰς παρα ελίας ταύτας τῷ Στάχει, καὶ κατάστησον αὐτὸν ἀρχηγὸν καὶ ἐπίσκοπον ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἵνα καὶ αὐτὸς ὅµοιος γένηται καλῶς διδάσκων. 239 Cf. Bovon / Bouvier / Amsler 1999, p. 416, n. 72. The tradition of Nicetas the Paphlagonian (c. 900) in his encomium of the apostle Philip difers: the apostle appointed a man named Hero as bishop (PG 106, 192C–195C). 240 M.Phil. 145–147 (39–41). 372 chapter eight

8.2.4. The Legend of St. Michael from Colossae/Chonae The very fact that the legend of St. Michael draws on the tradition of the Acts of Philip suggests a comparatively late date for it. The opening scene presents the apostle John after his victory over Artemis in Ephesus; he is visiting his colleague Philip in Hierapolis to support him in his battle with the serpent.241 Having vanquished the serpent, the apostles set out for Chairetopa, where the archangel Michael is to perform his miracles.242 Although the toponym points beyond the Lycus Valley and the mountain range anking it to the south,243 other toponyms in the text locate the site of the miracles immediately next to the river.244 An additional approach to identifying the location appears in the title of the legend, which indicates that the narrator, Archippus, served as prosmonarios (“sacristan”) of the shrine of St. Michael in Chonae and that that was the location of the archangel’s miracles.245 Chonae is the name of the settlement that succeeded Colossae; when it was founded, the core of settlement shifted about ve kilometers away from the Lycus to take advantage of the protection ofered by the hilly terrain to the south; the old city name appears to have been lost between the 7th century and the 9th.246 Thus the legend is clearly associated with a shrine of the archangel in Chonae and hence tied to the Lycus Valley. On the north bank of the Lycus, opposite the old urban center of Colossae, the remains of a Byzantine church were identi ed in the 19th century, which might possibly be identi ed with the

241 Cf. the editions of Bonnet 1889 and Nau 1908, chapter 1. The basis is the earliest version of the legend, handed down anonymously; cf. Nau 1908, pp. 544f. The verbatim quotations are based on the edition of Bonnet 1889, pp. 289–307. On the Latin version, cf. Monteleone 2007. On the transmission of the legend, see also Cadwallader 2011a, pp. 282f. Cadwallader 2011, pp. 323–330 provides an English translation of the legend; a French translation will be found in Bouvier / Amsler 2003, pp. 401–406. 242 Chapter 2 (Bonnet 1880, pp. 290f.): Μετὰ ταῦτα ἔρχονται οἱ σεβαστοὶ κήρυκες τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἐκαθέσθησαν εἰς τόπον λεγόµενον Χαιρέτοπα, ἔνθα ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ δωρεὰ καὶ τὰ θαύµατα ἔµε ον ἀποδεικνῦσθαι τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ἐνδόξου ἀρχιστρατήγου Μιχαήλ …. 243 On the location of Keretapa, see pp. 353f. above. 244 On the inconsistencies in the topography of the legend, see Ramsay 1893, pp. 468 and 470f.; Meinardus 1980, pp. 460–466; Peers 2001, pp. 161f.; Thonemann 2011, p. 78. On the names of the cities and rivers in the text, see pp. 374–376 below. 245 Bonnet 1889, p. 289: ∆ιήγησις καὶ ἀποκάλυψις τοῦ ἁγίου πατρὸς ἡµῶν ᾽Αρχίππου καὶ προσµοναρίου τοῦ πανσέπτου οἴκου τοῦ ἀρχα έλου Μιχαὴλ ἐν ταῖς Χώναις. Nau 1908, p. 547: ∆ιήγησις τοῦ ἁγίου ᾽Αρχίππου καὶ προσµοναρίου περὶ τοῦ γεγονότος θαύµατος ὑπὸ τοῦ µεγάλου ἀρχιστρατήγου Μιχαὴλ τοῦ ἐν ταῖς Χώναις (from the manuscript catalog of Athos). 246 Cf. Brandes 1989, pp. 111f.; N. Mersich in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 310; Bennett 2005, pp. 20f.; Cadwallader 2008, pp. 332f. Already Ramsay 1893, pp. 478f.; Meinardus 1980, pp. 467f. persecution and legends 373 shrine of St. Michael.247 The toponym Chonae indicates a late date, especially since it is not clearly attested elsewhere in the tradition until the 8th century.248 The toponym appears only in the title of the early legend of St. Michael, however, not elsewhere in the text, so that an initial compilation of the literary material could easily be older and go back to the 5th century,249 when Theodoret witnessed the cult of St. Michael in Phrygia.250 The earliest manuscripts date from the 10th century; iconographic evidence goes back to the 11th century at the latest.251 Here we shall trace the major episodes in the plot line and analyze the local references of the legend of St. Michael from Chonae. In the place where the apostles were staying, which was called Chaire- topa and was to be the site of St. Michael’s miracles, a healing spring quickly gushed forth, which cured innumerable suferers of their diseases; its miraculous power also persuaded many pagans. In the early Byzantine period, there is evidence of hopes in the healing power of St. Michael elsewhere as well, and especially in western Asia Minor;252 one embodiment is the magical plate from the Hierapolitan necropolis.253 The legend speaks of an anonymous idol-worshiper from Laodicea whose mute daughter had her

247 The description in Hamilton 1842, p. 510 is signi cant: “Beyond the bridge are the ruins of a large oblong building, near which are four massive pilasters of loose rubble, cased with large blocks of stone; the natives call them churches.” Cf. Ramsay 1893, p. 479; Ramsay 1895, pp. 214f.; also Meinardus 1980, p. 469 describing his journey in 1976: “To the east of the elevation [the city hill of Colossae], near the gorge through which the Lycos ows, we saw a few fragments of columns and capitals with cross-designs which undoubtedly belonged to the once famous Church of St. Michael of Colossae.” Cf. N. Mersich in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 310. In April 2012 north of the Lycus we saw large shaped blocks of stone being used to construct corrals (some 200 meters west of the modern bridge, g. 1). Several times in the 11th and 12th centuries, the church fell victim to spoliation and looting. See Bennett 2005, p. 22; Cadwallader / Trainor 2011, p. 14, n. 18. 248 Cf. N. Mersich in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 310. 249 Cf. Nau 1908, p. 544, though he would date the text in its present form no earlier than the 6th or 7th century. Ramsay 1893, pp. 468 and 478 dates it even later (probably not before the 9th century). Rohland 1977, p. 95 considers a genesis of the legend in the 4th or 5th century possible. Bennett 2005, pp. 17 and 22 suggests prototypes in the 3rd and 5th centuries. Cadwallader 2011a, pp. 286–292 calls attention to seams and contradictons in the surviving text, resulting from a merger of several traditions (e.g. the seam following chapter 3). He also dates the beginnings of the legend in the 4th or 5th century (pp. 291f.). 250 See p. 128 above. 251 See the documentation in Bennett 2005, pp. 16–20. 252 Cf. Rohland 1977, pp. 75–104; Mango 1984, pp. 52–54. Maraval 1985, pp. 363–389 counts eight shrines of St. Michael in western Asia Minor.—The topography is similar in Germia, where the shrine of St. Michael is also located next to a gorge; cf. Mango 1986, pp. 117–121. 253 See p. 304 above. 374 chapter eight voice restored with the help of the water from the spring; he immediately built a chapel (εὐκτήριον µικρόν) in honor of the archangel Michael254 and thus functioned as a second founder of the site, after the apostles. His home city illustrates once more the extent of the geographical area from which the shrine drew; possibly episcopal claims are also reected here, especially since another protagonist, the prosmonarios Archippus, the narrator, comes from Hierapolis: he is said to have come to the pilgrim shrine as a ten-year- old boy 90 years after the founding of the chapel and settled there.255 He too is among the founder- gures, since he was the rst to exercise the function of a prosmonarios. The competition between the sees of Laodicea and Hierapolis for the popular pilgrimage shrine of the archangel256 recalls an analogous conict, exceptionally well documented, between the sees of Caesarea and Tyana over the burial site of St. Orestes.257 Another gure engaged in the ecclesio- political conict over the shrine of St. Michael was undoubtedly the bishop of Colossae, who had to defend his own claims against the covetous desires of the neighboring sees. Canon 35 of the Synod of Laodicea, which attacked angelolatry,258 can also be understood as keeping the bishop of Colossae in leading-strings.259 At the shrine of St. Michael, Archippus lived a life of strict asceticism; he subsisted on a diet of wild plants, did not bathe, clothed himself in sackcloth, and slept on stones and thorns, distancing himself from the vanities of the world through self-morti cation. At the same time, he had to sufer the hostility of the pagans, who sought to interfere with the pilgrim operations

254 Chapter 3. 255 Chapter 4 (Bonnet 1889, p. 293): “And 90 years after the place of prayer was built above the water, there came a child from Hierapolis, some 10 years old, named Archippus, son of a family of devout Christians, and he settled there as the rst prosmonarios.”—Καὶ µετὰ ἐνενηκοστὸν ἔτος ἀφ’ οὗ τὸ εὐκτήριον οἰκοδοµήθη ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος εἰσῆλθεν παιδίον ἀπὸ ῾Ιεραπόλεως ὡς ἐτῶν δέκα ὀνόµατι ῎Αρχιππος, γένους πιστῶν καὶ χριστιανῶν υἱός, καὶ ἐκαθέσθη οὗτος προσµονάριος πρῶτος. The boy’s name probably goes back to the Epistles to Philemon and the Colossians; see p. 86 above; Ramsay 1893, p. 469; Meinardus 1980, p. 462, n. 8. The character of Archippus as a role model in the legend of St. Michael is stressed by Peers 2001, pp. 146–150. 256 Cadwallader 2011a, p. 288 points out that within the legend a contrast is developed between Laodicea as the rallying point of pagan resistance and Hierapolis with its apostolic tradition. It must be remembered, however, that the builder of the chapel of St. Michael came from Laodicea. 257 For more see Gain 1985, pp. 306–309. 258 See pp. 301f. above. 259 Similarly Cadwallader 2011a, pp. 289f. persecution and legends 375 of the shrine; he was beaten up repeatedly.260 That did not by itself satisfy the fury of the pagans; their goal was to destroy the attraction of the sacred site. Therefore they tried to pollute the healing water, employing the river that owed by the shrine. The name of the river is given as Chryses (Χρύσης);261 it nds a parallel on the coins of Hierapolis, where a popular motif in the 2nd and 3rd centuries was a recumbent river god with the legend Chrysorhoas (Χρυσορόας).262 This river was such a well-known landmark that in the 3rd century festival games were even named for it.263 If the identi cation of the two rivers is correct, we have a further argument that the shrine of St. Michel stood on the north bank of the Lycus, in the direction of Hierapolis. The pagan opponents failed in their attempt to use the river Chryses, since the water always receded when it was to be piped into the healing spring. Finally the pagans went all out and planned to destroy the shrine on a grand scale by damming two other local rivers to make an end to the pilgrimage site with the massive force of the water. These two rivers are named Lykokapros and Kouphos and ow by the shrine at a distance of three miles.264 The Kouphos is known only from the legend of St. Michael,265 but the Lykokapros clearly indicates local knowledge: it is a corruption of the names of the two rivers Lycus and Caprus, which long adorned the coins of Laodicea in the form of a wolf and a boar.266 The Colossians also could use the Lycus to represent their city, as Colossian coins of the 2nd century depicting the personi ed river god attest.267 Although 5000 pagans gathered in Laodicea to attack the sacred spring, their machinations came to naught, since Archippus had besought God’s

260 Chapter 5. 261 Chapter 6: Καὶ ἦν ἐν τῷ τόπῳ ἐκείνῳ ποταµὸς καταβαίνων ἐξ ἀριστερῶν ὀνόµατι Χρύσης. 262 BMC Phrygia, p. 234 nos. 43–45; cf. p. 252 nos. 141f. (portrait of Heliogabalus); Weber 1913, pp. 17–19; RPC online temp. 9989. Also Burrell 2004, p. 140 (neocoria on a Chrysorhoas coin). Ramsay 1893, p. 471 already called attention to the identi cation of the rivers. 263 Cf. the numismatic reference in von Papen, p. 181: a coin from the period of Heliogabalus with Annia Faustina on the obverse and on the reverse the legend τὰ πα/ρὰ τῷ Χ/ρυσορ/όᾳ surrounded by a wreath. Cf. Ritti 1985, pp. 85f. Chuvin 1987, p. 101 assumes that the legend was intended to identify the setting of the Actia and Pythia. On the festival games, see also pp. 45 and 65 above. 264 Chapter 7: ᾽Εν δὲ τοῖς χρόνοις ἐκείνοις ἕτεροι δύο ποταµοὶ κατήρχοντο ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς ἐ ί- ζοντες τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐκεῖνον ὡς ἀπὸ µιλίων τριῶν· ὁ µὲν εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν ονόµατι Λυκοκάπρος, καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ὀνόµατι Κοῦφος. 265 N. Mersich in Belke / Mersich 1990, p. 319. 266 Cf. Huttner 1997, pp. 95–105; see also p. 18 above. 267 Von Aulock 1987, p. 92 nos. 581–584 (portrait of Crispina); also p. 85 nos. 465–468 with a representation of a wolf. See Huttner 1997, pp. 99f. 376 chapter eight

Figure 2. Rock formation in the gorge of the Lycus, near Colossae help and the aid of St. Michael in prayer.268 At the hour when the two rivers were meant to inundate the shrine, the archangel Michael appeared and commanded them to halt; with his staf he split a prominent rock formation that rose in the immediate vicinity of the shrine and diverted the rivers into a deep chasm, nally shouting after them: Plunge into this funnel [χώνη!] and melt together in this chasm and bellow until the consummation, because you positioned yourselves against me. And

268 Chapter 9. persecution and legends 377

the glory of this site shall endure all time through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory and power now and forever, world without end. Amen.269 Thus ends the earliest version of the legend of St. Michael, still emphasizing at the end its etiological intent: it was the archangel Michael who created the geographical and geological conditions and gave the site its name and character.270 The deep gorge in which the Lycus vanishes at Colossae was already known to Herodotus;271 it was one of the de ning geological formations of the region.272 These are the geographical reference points that help establish a historical setting for the legend of St. Michael in Chonae.273 The author or redactor may not have been familiar with several details, but the toponyms and their relationship to each other make at least a modicum of local knowledge clear enough.

8.2.5. Legend and Cult A motif common to the Acts of Philip and the legend of St. Michael is the healing miracles through which the saints demonstrate their God-given power.274 The sites associated with this tradition serve as sacral healing centers, thus continuing the medical tradition of the temple of Men Karou. Many chronological issues remain unresolved, however—for example whether the cult of Philip in Hierapolis and the cult of Michael in Colos- sae/Chonae came into direct competition or the latter superseded the former. In the Middle Ages, at any rate, pilgrims from far away headed for the church of St. Michael; even Emperor Manuel I visited it in 1176.275 Archaeological evidence also indicates that Christian pilgrims visited cultic sites in the Lycus Valley to be healed of their diseases. The unguent vials (unguentaria) found during the excavations in Laodicea, especially in the

269 Chapter 12: ᾽Ακοντίσθητε ὑµεῖς ἐν τῇ χώνῃ ταύτῃ καὶ ἔστε χωνευόµενοι ἐν τῷ χάσµατι τούτῳ καὶ βρυχώµενοι ἕως τῆς συντελείας, ἀνθ’ ὧν κατ’ ἐµοῦ ἡτοιµάσθητε· καὶ ἔσται ἡ δόξα τοῦ ἁγίου τόπου διαπαντὸς διὰ ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν, ᾧ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ᾽Αµήν. 270 Cf. Peers 2001, pp. 163f.; Thonemann 2011, pp. 81f. 271 Hdt. 7.30. Cf. p. 32 above. 272 Cf. Weber 1891; Ramsay 1893, pp. 472–476; Ramsay 1895, pp. 209f. 273 In the Lycus gorge at Colossae, a number of rock formations are visible that might recall the ssure created by the archangel ( g. 2), but the walls of the gorge are constantly shifting on account of sintering. 274 Rohland 1977, pp. 94–98 emphasizes the healing miracles in the context of the cult of St. Michael in Chonae. 275 Cf. Foss 2002, p. 131. For pilgrimage in Hierapolis during the 13th/14th centuries, cf. S. Ahrens in D’Andria 2011/12, pp. 67–74. 378 chapter eight vicinity of sanctuary A by the Syrian Road number in the hundreds.276 In Hierapolis, too, especially at the Martyrium of Philip, archeologists have found several dozen of these containers, a few centimeters tall, dating primarily from the 6th and 7th centuries.277 In addition both places were the source of the typical bulbous pilgrim ampoules that enabled the transportation of sancti ed essences over long distance; they date primarily from the 5th and 6th centuries. Some of the pictorial reliefs on the ampoules may be associated concretely with Hierapolis or St. Philip; another one depicts John the Evangelist with an open book.278 Basically the hagiographic texts establish prominent initial points on a sacral map of Christianity in the Lycus Valley: burial churches, sacred springs, memorial sites, and pilgrimage centers thus develop their own speci c stories. The conventional hierarchy in the topographical picture, until recently clearly dominated by urban centers, undergoes a wide-reaching transformation.279 Now it is primarily sites in the near or more distant vicinity of the cities that come into view and become endowed with sacral energy. Of these sacral extra-urban sites, the so-called Martyrium of Philip in Hierapolis has been most thoroughly examined and interpreted archaeologically. It was built at great expense at the beginning of the 5th century: an octagonal dome surmounts a square architectural complex comprising 28 identical rooms, all accessible from the exterior. A pilgrim coming from the city would approach the monumental ensemble on the slope above the city via a lavishly designed stairway, passing on the way another building, likewise octagonal, which clearly served as a bath.280 The most recent excavations at the Martyrium will bring new understanding of the function of the whole complex, for beside the octagonal building the archaeologists have discovered a three-aisle church (5th/6th-century) with a typically Hier- apolitan mausoleum built into a side aisle ( g. 3).281 The rst results of the

276 See p. 359 above. 277 Cf. Cottica 2000, pp. 1001–1008; see also p. 359 above. T. Ritti in D’Andria 2011/12, p. 56 publishes an inscription discovered in the basilica beside the Martyrium that mentions a µυροδότης. Possibly a connection can be established with the local pilgrimage industry. 278 Arthur 2006, pp. 162f. (John); Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, pp. 265 and 490–492 (saint in a mausoleum: Philip?); on pilgrim ampoules from Asia Minor in general, see Vikan 22010, pp. 34–36; also Kötting 1950, p. 411. 279 For a general discussion of the problem, see Brown 1981, pp. 4–8. 280 For more see D’Andria 2001, pp. 112f.; D’Andria 2007, pp. 531–540; D’Andria / Scardozzi / Spanó 2008, pp. 94–96. In the octagonal building beneath the Martyrium a column with gra ti (including Χριστὸhςi νικᾶ) was found; cf. Ritti / Miranda / Guizzi 2007, p. 596. 281 For press releases cf. e.g. FAZ July 27, 2011; Nuovo Quotidiano di Puglia, Aug. 20, 2011: persecution and legends 379

Figure 3. Tomb of St. Philip, Hierapolis (with the permission of F. D’Andria, Missione Archeologica Italiana) excavations have now been published and can be summarized as follows:282 The mausoleum, of the house type, was constructed in the 1st/2nd century and forms the nucleus of the whole group of buildings devoted to the veneration of Philip. Inside the monument have been found some coins of the 4th/5th century, probably to be explained as oferings by pilgrims. Dur- ing the 4th century, the tomb was included in an architectural structure (a kind of memoria), partly decorated with mosaics and giving the pilgrims the chance to immerse themselves in the purifying water of one of the basins constructed next to the grave. Later the basilica with three aisles enclosed the tomb and the basins and formed part of the great architectural ensemble on the east slope above Hierapolis. A thermal bath remodeled as a basilica located on the northern stretch of the arterial road has so far attracted less attention. The location of this church, some of whose arches still rise to their full height, in the vicinity

http://www.quotidianodipuglia.it/articolo.php?id=160189 (Feb. 10, 2012). Also D’Andria 2012, pp. 41f. 282 D’Andria 2011/2012, pp. 13–37. Cf. p. 16 above. 380 chapter eight of the north necropolis could suggest a martyr cult. Provisionally, however, the church can be dated only roughly to the early Byzantine period (5th–7th centuries).283 In both Hierapolis and Laodicea, excavations and surveys within the city walls have already registered evidence of the religious paradigm shift, most impressively of course in the numerous church buildings that gave the cityscape a new character. Here, too, unfortunately an exact dating of the archeological evidence faces substantial di culties. A whole series of churches have been identi ed in Hierapolis, the largest being the cathedral near the agora to the north, where archaeologists uncovered a well preserved synthronon in the apse, and the pier church on the main street a bit south of the ancient temple of Apollo, but none of the masonry can be dated prior to 450.284 The location of the earliest churches in Hierapolis is still unknown. In Laodicea, too, the remains of church buildings have been discovered in a few places, including two three-aisle basilicas, one to the north between the two theaters, the other to the northwest on a rise above the agora on the road to Ephesus. These churches were built in the 5th/6th centuries.285 Here the excavation and study of the magni cent basilica in the immediate vicinity of sanctuary A will yield new information that may provide insight into the grandiose pretensions of the Christian community, growing rapidly during the decades following the Constantinian shift.286 This basilica is separated from Temple A only by a small street and occupies an entire insula of about 40×40 meters ( g. 4).287 Probably the whole building including a narthex and three aisles separated by piers had already been installed early in the fourth century,288 although we have to note that the ambo in the middle of the central aisle is dated to the year 492 by an inscription.289 The side aisles are decorated by mosaics in an ornamental pattern: two of the donors

283 For more see D’Andria2003, pp. 62–66; Arthur 2006, pp. 100f.; Karydis 2011, pp. 3 and 19f. These presentations are based essentially on the studies of Paolo Verzone; cf. Verzone 1960, pp. 135–137 (date c. 400). 284 For more see Arthur 2006, pp. 138–148. On the pier church, see Verzone 1960, pp. 137f.; Karydis 2011, pp. 18f. (“urban basilica”). The archaeologists date both the cathedral and the pier church to the 6th century. On the inscription in the pier church, see p. 311 above. 285 Sim¸ sek¸ 2007, pp. 267–284; now Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, pp. 372–383. 286 See pp. 306f. above. 287 Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, p. 345. 288 Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, p. 360. 289 Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, p. 352. persecution and legends 381

Figure 4. Laodicea, Basilica: Sim¸ sek,¸ C.: Laodikeia (Laodicea ad Lycum). (Laodikeia Çalısmaları¸ 2) Istanbul 2013, res.455 (with the permission of C. Sim¸ sek)¸ we know by name, the protodeacon Polycarp and the deacon Alexander, whose oferings are memorialized in inscriptions on the oor.290 Besides the main apse with a synthronon at the end of the central aisle, the church had ten additional side apses. The grand basilica was not the only church in this quarter of the city: not far away, only about 100 meters to the south, beyond the Syrian Street, another church has recently been investigated, smaller in scale but obviously also a building of the 4th century.291 The architectural reformation of Laodiceaa seems to have begun with vigor in the Constantinian period. Apart from the comment of Theodoret in his commentary on Colossians, there is no evidence that the cult of St. Michael and hence the shrine of St. Michael existed in Colossae in the pre-Chalcedonian period.292 We are also indebted to the same author for the information that the memory of Paul was still linked to a speci c site in the small town in the 5th century: those wanting to express their devotion to the apostolic tradition made a

290 Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, pp. 354f.; cf. pp. 274f. above. 291 Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, pp. 360–372. 292 See pp. 128, 302, and 372f. above. 382 chapter eight pilgrimage to Philemon’s house, the existence of which Theodoret con rms in the introduction to his commentary on the Epistle to Philemon.293

8.3. Summary: Legends in Differing Contexts

Repressive measures taken against Christians also claimed their victims in the Lycus Valley, the most prominent initially being Bishop Sagaris of Laodicea. The lack of Christian inscriptions from the pre-Constantinian period might indicate that many Christians in the Lycus Valley retreated in the face of existential danger and sought protection in anonymity. Following the era of persecution, the Christian traditions regarding the region from the 4th century on become more colorful and diverting: in the apostle Philip, the presbyter Artemon, and others, heroes endowed with faith begin to take shape, gures who would stand up for their Lord Jesus Christ at the risk of their lives. It is di cult to identify the historical focal point of these literary constructs; they must be examined individually. The apostle had never visited Hierapolis, but in the 1st century he had a famous namesake there, whose daughters caused a sensation with their prophecies. There is no evidence of a martyrdom of Philip in Hierapolis, of whatever nature, while in Laodicea a Christian named Artemon was in fact executed for confessing his faith, as the early martyrologies show. The cultic context in which these legends move is also hard to determine—whether the text was associated in each case with a cult and hence a focus of veneration. When the mortal remains of Trophimus and Thal- lus were translated from Laodicea to Stratonicea, that tradition itself suggests the center of their cult was not in the Lycus Valley. Besides the relevant hagiographic evidence, the archaeological evidence makes it clear that many pilgrims came to the Lycus Valley to nd sacral help for their personal needs. With the stories of local saints, a new type of text found its way into the Lycus Valley: these narratives strengthened the solidarity of the churches not only by creating central gures for them but also by placing these gures in the midst of a vibrant life: in Artemon and Philip, we are not dealing with disconnected, spiritualized puppets but with real human individuals moved by emotions, who could also become enraged or insolent, depending on the situation, to the point of recklessly violating taboos. In addition to their local

293 Thdt. Interpretationes in Pauli epistulas (PG 82, 872A). See p. 81 above. persecution and legends 383 connections, it was these realistic dramas that gave the Christians of the Lycus Valley especially ready access to their saints.

chapter nine

CONCLUSION: COMMUNITIZATION AND THE SEARCH FOR A STANDPOINT

Even without reconstructing detailed scenarios, it is obvious that the Chris- tian churches of the Lycus Valley found themselves confronted with a fundamental change over the centuries. The sense of a new departure in the Pauline era, which proclaimed a new humanity and played subliminally with the idea of a new order of society, gave way to a growing disenchant- ment brought about by the constraints of adaptation and tendencies toward assimilation, but also by existential aiction when fellow citizens and o - cials sought to bring the religious minority into line by force. Finally there was a new departure under Constantine, who gave the Christians carte blanche and promised them worldwide recognition, until the church became entangled and demoralized in the intrigues of power politics and theological wrangling. The great developments initiated repeatedly by Rome and Constantinople also had their impact in the Lycus Valley and left their stamp on this account. But explanation and interpretation of these processes cannot be undertaken in a study with a regional focus; they await studies on a higher level, transcending the narrow horizon of a small region. The internal perspective, however, limited by the hills and mountains surrounding the Lycus Valley, has its own unique hermeneutical potential, which opens our eyes to the concrete everyday world of the early Christians through vivid details and ambiguous phenomena that are speci c and exemplary. This everyday world was the reality of the average Christian, even though it could be inuenced by the theoretical concepts of individual independent thinkers, like the author of Colossians, Papias, and Apollinarius.1 In the introduction, we developed the idea that two aspects of that everyday world can be illuminated through the diverse facets of the source material: community formation and the search for a de ning position, a standpoint.2 After the presentation of the material in the preceding chapters, a brief concluding summary will address each of these themes.

1 Following Berger / Luckmann 172000, p. 21. 2 See pp. 5–7 above. 386 chapter nine

9.1. Christian Communities in the Lycus Valley: Socialization and Communitization

The concepts of socialization (“Vergesellschaftung”) and communitization (“Vergemeinschaftung”) cannot be sharply distinguished. In the following discussion, socialization will be understood as a process that tends to reect purposively rational and mechanical principles, while communitization is explained on the basis of an afective consensus.3 Since early Christianity was a communitarian religion, which prevailed as a voluntary association in a world of civil religions standardized by the state,4 communitization plays a special role vis-à-vis socialization. The ability of the early Christian communities to assert themselves in the Greek cities and against power of Rome can be explained in part through their organization—a distribution of functions, especially leadership function, that followed a xed set of rules and led to a hierarchical structure. Rudiments of that organization appear already in the texts of the Epistles to Philemon and the Colossians, even though a regular institutionalization is not yet visible: Archippus, Onesimus, Epaphras, and even Paul himself are described as “servants,” διάκονοι, in their function within the community, although it would be wrong to conclude automatically that identical labels indicate identical obligations. The status and prestige of an Epaphras, who enjoyed enormous respect as the éminence grise of the Lycus Valley churches, is not comparable to the status and prestige of Onesimus, whom Paul had taken under his wing as his disciple and protégée. How the functions and hierarchies nally crystallized in the decades following the earthquake until the earliest prominent episcopal gures emerged with Papias and completely with Sagaris and Apollinarius remains unclear. The increasing elaboration of organizational structure was accompanied by a growing network of churches; it can already be seen in nuce in the time of Paul: the Pauline correspondence itself and later the Epistle to the Laodiceans in the Apocalypse of John are evidence of this networking. The development continued in the convening of the great councils, which are an especially vivid token of the tightly organized hierarchical system of governance into which the churches of the Lycus Valley were incorporated in the 4th and 5th centuries: the bishop of Laodicea served as primary authority for the ecclesiastical province; the bishops of Hierapolis, Colossae,

3 For more see Rosa et al. 2010, pp. 47–53; cf. also pp. 5f. above. 4 Cf. Stroumsa 2011, pp. 28f. conclusion 387 and even more clearly Trapezopolis and Attouda were subordinate to him. When conicts arose or issues required regulation, the institutionalized authorities stepped into the breach and saw to it that order was maintained. The churches were identi ed not only by the names of their cities but also— as in the case of Apollinarius of Hierapolis and Nunechius of Laodicea—by their leading gures. If institutionalization is understood as an element of socialization, we can assume a relative distance separating the “everyday Christians” of the Lycus Valley from their ecclesiastical superiors. As a rule, authorities not associated with the increasingly established hierarchy—including some who were constructed (or reconstructed) retroactively—insured a greater a nity. Though Philip and his daughters can hardly be grasped as historical gures, from the 2nd century on they represented central identifying gures for the Christians of Asia Minor and especially Hierapolis. Their tombs were sites where the sacral prominence of apostolic authority was made tangible and where the memory of the community focused on a common past. The prophetesses were unconventional, just because they were women, but also their father gradually acquired an aura that was out of the ordinary. The legend describes a gnarly apostle with rough edges, who did not even hesitate to consign his pagan opponents to the devil in his rage. Such ofenses against the norm probably made Philip a sympathetic gure: his story in the Acts of Philip is so colorful and varied, simultaneously true-to-life and fantastic bordering on the monstrous, that it must have resonated strongly with its audience, especially children. Thus the story of Philip became part of the tradition that bound the Hierapolitans together in a community. Other legends did much the same. As a rule, they crystallized around martyrdoms that gave their settings in church history more than regional prominence. These traditions established identity, especially because speci c places were named by name and thus became topographical reference points. Generally speaking this was tied to a local memorialization and mon- umentalization of the cult of the saints. Just as people in Hierapolis pointed to a laurel planted by Philip, people in Laodicea recalled the memorable encounter between the martyr Artemon and the cruel governor Patricius three miles from the city. The structures of the Greek polis proved so durable that the Christian were able not only to settle down within them but also to extend their reliance beyond them just rarely. They took their identity from the city whose church they belonged to. The Lycus Valley was quite sharply de ned geographically vis-à-vis the outside world as well as being clearly focused on the river, but only in the Pauline period do Christians appear to have 388 chapter nine seized the opportunity to conceive of a church community de ned by these geographical borders. Epaphras at least refused to let city boundaries divert him from preaching the good news; he built bridges connecting Colossae, Hierapolis and Laodicea. But very quickly the sense of competition arising from the self-awareness of citizens of each polis spread to the Christians, and the local churches increasingly distinguished themselves from each other: through their own organizational structures and o ce holders, their own martyrs and authorities, their own legends and monuments—in short their own histories. Communities are stablilized not only by telling familiar stories but also through the experience of common action. Unfortunately, however, we can reconstruct the rituals and liturgies of the Christians in the Lycus Valley only in a few scattered fragments.5 There is nevertheless substantial evidence that they were fond of singing God’s praises and did so often. Of course this would not be peculiar to the Lycus Valley, but it does show that formal elements of pagan worship were put to use simultaneously by Christians as well; choral music in honor of Apollo was cultivated in Laodicea. One earmark of Christian ritual speci c to Asia Minor was its reliance on the calendrical system of Judaism, as embodied in Quartodecimanism. During the 2nd century, the Christians of the Lycus Valley could feel a part of this Anatolian system, which found an inuential spokesman in Polycrates of Ephesus. By the time of the Constantinian campaign for uniformity in the imperial church at the latest, however, the Quartodecimans were relegated to the heretical sidelines. Here conicts over competing identities arose: the minority community had to give up a central badge of identity if it was to be allowed to feel part of the greater community. Such conicts ultimately focused on the quest for a proper standpoint or position.

9.2. Search for a Standpoint

A community must know where it belongs if it wants to function. Place— and in the rst instance geographical place—is an essential identifying feature.6 But the concept of place, and especially a standpoint, goes far beyond geography; it describes—regardless of whether in political, social, cultural, religious or historical categories—the relational structure within

5 On the close connection between ritual and community, see Theißen 2007, pp. 343–349. 6 Cf. Lieu 2004, p. 211f. conclusion 389 which someone or something stands.7 A person who is positioned is aware of being in a concrete relationship to others. One is a Christian, another a Jew, a third a worshiper of the divine emperor: all three have found their standpoint.—Particularly in the period of early Christianity, de ning such standpoints was a problem, because the boundaries between the religions could not be de ned readily, or at least not sharply—a situation actively discussed among scholars.8 The Christians in the Lycus Valley were repeatedly, in fact constantly forced to think about themselves and consider and redraw the boundaries distinguishing them from the others. The author of Colossians stuck the label of “philosophy” on his opponents, thereby triggering difuse associations that clearly also implied the charge of godlessness. About 100 years later, Apollinarius of Hierapolis wrote a treatise discussing the nature of “truth” and thus following in the wake of the Greek philosophers. As a member of the local upper class, he drew on their cultural heritage; he was familiar with literary traditions as well as with rhetorical re nement. Initially Apollinarius was simply living up to the expectations of his social status, but at the same time he was opening a window on an exciting world to Christians. We hear nothing of contemporaries seeing the bishop’s literary activities as a violation of boundaries. When we address the question of who determined the boundaries and assigned the Christians their proper place, we see the dependence of the churches on authorities. Initially it was Paul and his companions, who warned Christians against xation on ritual in the Jewish tradition. Then the apocalypticist John relativized the economic power of Laodicea in order to show a new path to salvation. Bishop Apollinarius named the groups outside the boundary by name in the title of his treatise: Jews, “Hellenes,” and Montanists; those very categories reappear in the decisions and laws of the 4th and 5th centuries as well as in the great regional synod at which bishops from the entire diocese of Asia met in Laodicea around 380. Beginning in the 2nd century, the established authorities, bishops and synods, tried repeatedly to establish clear rules assuring the dissociation of Christians from Jews, heretics, and pagans. Everyday Christians appear repeatedly to have explored and crossed those boundaries: they promised themselves protection through invocation of angels, even though they surely must have had the condemnation of angelolatry in Colossians echoing in their ears.

7 Cf. the remarks of Koselleck 1989, pp. 183–188 about the dependence of historians on a standpoint. 8 For more see Lieu 2004, pp. 98–146. 390 chapter nine

They found the festival traditions of the many Jews in the region as attractive as the shrines of heretical martyrs. The decisions of the Synod of Laodicea provide a wealth of material documenting how the bishops had to keep the members of their churches under their thumb. In the background was a dialectical process in which the ordinary Christians softened and blurred the boundaries of the Christian community while the bishops energetically redrew them. Alongside the authorities organized in a clerical hierarchy, however, there were also authorities that could appeal to a speci c charisma rather than to an o ce. It is possible that in the Lycus Valley, too, these marginal authorities occasionally created alternatives to the canonized orthodoxy. We know as almost nothing about the prophecies of the daughters of Philip, but this very de ciency, like the cooptation of the prophetesses by the Montanists, could suggest a deliberate removal of their message from the tradition. Their father Philip served later as a foil for endowing unconventional, even imper- missible behavior with an apostolic aura: in his rage, the apostle employed the very magical practices that had been condemned by the bishops and Christian emperors. The role of Papias is hard to assess; in Eusebius’s church history, he enjoys a certain recognition as bishop of Hierapolis; in later tradition, however, he found only a very muted echo. His experiments with an independent tradition concerning Jesus probably appeared too daring but perhaps also too unoriginal to gain support. The meager history of the marginal authorities in the Lycus Valley demonstrates ex negativo that it was not they but the established bishops who were responsible for drawing boundaries and de ning positions. In fact the daughters of Philip themselves illustrate the risks involved in drifting into realms outside the recognized boundaries. The Lycus Valley presents us with an interesting constellation precisely because ideas and practices of Christians outside the churches emerged and left su cient traces, especially in the context of pagan cults, to allow comparisons. We may recall the sacred ministry of individuals dedicated to Lairbenos on the one hand and the commitment of Onesimus on behalf of the gospel on the other; the penitential inscriptions at the sanctuary of Lairbenos and the regulations governing penance following the Synod of Laodicea; the young prophets from Laodicea with their processions to Apollo in Clarus and the prophetically endowed daughters of Philip in Hierapolis; and nally the cultic singing in honor of Apollo engaged in as enthusiastically as the praises sung to the Christian God. In none of theses cases can mutual inuence or dependence be demonstrated, but geographical proximity supports the hypothesis that contemporaries were conclusion 391 well aware of the similarities as well as the conceptual diferences in detail. This awareness by itself implies a relativization of the Christian position, which shared signi cant features with the position of the pagans. The result was divided identities.9 On account of their common tradition, the many Jews of the Lycus Valley were much closer to the Christians than the pagans: however often the Christian spokesmen urged distance, it was a long time before Jews and Christians went their separate ways.10 During the Synod of Laodicea, the bishops protested against the Christians’ continuing to rest from labor on the Sabbath instead of on the Lord’s Day.11 The fragmentary sources and the complex religio-historical situation make it di cult for a historian to identify religious identi cations and positions,12 as when Aelius Glykon of Hierapolis does not identify himself as a Jew on his sarcophagus but speci es the Feast of Unleavened Bread as one of the dates for its care, or Menophilos of Laodicea buries a family member whom he describes in the epitaph as “faithful to God” without providing any further signals on the stone that would permit a religious classi cation.13 But historians also face di culties in determining the actual position of prominent gures in church history. Two factors are frequently obscure: their social and personal contacts, and their cultural context. In the case of Papias, we cannot reconstruct his network of informants; neither do we know anything about the books he read. Much the same is true for Apolli- narius. Both bishops wanted to be measured against rhetorical standards; both were well informed about the literary traditions of the Jews, and only scanty fragments of their works survive. This scanty evidence enables only tentative attempts to identify their positions. Christians settled into an environment dominated by structures created by Greeks and Romans. Despite all eforts within the Christian world to rela- tivize Christians’ dependence on their local environment and endow Chris- tianity with universal claims, the local setting and its environment remained essential to the identity of the individual Christian.14 The perspective of a Christian living in Colossae and belonging to the Colossian church was

9 Cf. Lieu 2004, p. 143. 10 On the model of the “parting of the ways” of Jews and Christians, see Boyarin 2004, pp. 1–26; Lieu 2004, pp. 2f.; Jacobs 2008, pp. 169f. See also the criticism of Yoshiko Reed / Becker 2003, pp. 1–24. 11 CLaod. Can. 29; see p. 298f. above. 12 Cf. Ameling 1996, p. 46. 13 See pp. 251–253 above and 337f. 14 Cf. Lieu 2004, pp. 230–238. 392 chapter nine determined by the prevailing conditions in the Lycus Valley. We can trace the main features of how the Christians utilized and con gured the available environment, together with both competition and convergence with other groups and communities. The fact that in the early and high imperial era the Christian communities gathered in private homes can be understood as a preliminary stage leading to their emergence in public, especially given that such activities were not hidden from alert contemporaries. At the very least, the Christians who gathered on Nympha’s premises used public streets to get there. Similar mechanisms can be observed at work in the necropolises: comparison with other cities and regions in Asia Minor, especially along the upper Meander, in the upper valley of the Tembris, and in Lycaonia, where there is no evidence of any attempt to keep Christian and pagan burials separate,15 along the use of the Hierapolitan necropolises by the Jewish community, suggests that the Christian tombs were interspersed with those of other religions.16 What has not been found in the Lycus Val- ley, however, is clear evidence of Christians making public claim to their own space in the pre-Constantinian period. Christian tombstones cannot be identi ed unambiguously as such; they do not display crosses or clear religious markers of those buried or their survivors. The risks facing Chris- tians who openly confessed their God may have been especially high in the Lycus Valley because of its busy through highways and the frequent presence of representatives of the Roman administration, but that is a diferent matter. The Constantinian shift gave the Christians new opportunities to make the environment their own and declare their claims publicly. The clearest signal of this change were the church buildings that gradually put their stamp on the cityscape, along with appropriation of the pagan shrines. The latest excavations in the vicinity of temple A in Laodicea bear eloquent witness to this con guration.17 Now the cross became ubiquitous as a typically Christian symbol; it served Christians as a provocative marker identifying their territory against Jews and pagans. Naturally the Jews and the devotees of the Greek and local cults remained signi cant quantities, even though they saw themselves gradually put on the defensive. Damascius’s striking vision of the ancient Great Mother at the Plutonium in the middle of Hier- apolis shows that the urban environment at the end of the 5th century had

15 See the epigraphic evidence in Mitchell 1993, II, pp. 58f. 16 For a general discussion of this problem, see Volp 2002, pp. 106–115. 17 See pp. 380f. above. conclusion 393 not yet been entirely Christianized. But the silhouette of the city was now dominated by two or three large churches, with the ensemble of the Mar- tyrium of Philip in the background.

SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sources

Here are listed primarily editions not published as part of standard series. Additional references to the editions used will be found in the index of passages and the relevant footnotes. Annotated editions of texts and editions of inscriptions will also be found in the bibliography. For abbreviations see the list of abbreviations in the front matter. Abicht, R. / C. Reichelt: “Quellennachweise zum Codex Suprasliensis.” Archiv für slavische Philologie 20 (1898), pp. 185–197. Agnello, S.L.: Silloge di iscrizioni paleocristiane della Sicilia. Rome 1953. ala → Roueché APOT → Charles Beneˇseviˇc,V.N.: Syntagma XIV titulorum sine scholiis secundum versionem palaeo- Slovenicam. St. Petersburg 1906 (repr. Subsidia Byzantina II b, Leipzig 1974). Bergk, T.: Poetae Lyrici Graeci, vol. II. Leipzig 31866. Beˇsevliev, V.: Spätgriechische und spätlateinische Inschriften aus Bulgarien. Berlin 1964. Bogaert, P.: Apocalypse de Baruch: introduction, traduction du Syriaque et commentaire, vol. 2. (SC 145) Paris 1969. Bonnet, M.: Narratio de miraculo a Michaele Archangelo Chonis patrato, adiecto Symeonis Metaphrastae de eadem re libello. AnBoll 8 (1889), pp. 289–307. ———: Acta apostolorum apocrypha II 2: Acta Philippi et Acta Thomae, accedunt Acta Barnabae. Leipzig 1903 (repr. Darmstadt 1959). Boor, C. de: “Neue Fragmente des Papias, Hegesippus und Pierius in bisher unbekan- nten Excerpten aus der Kirchengeschichte des Philippus Sidetes.” In: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur V 2. Leipzig 1888, pp. 167–184. Bovon, F. / B. Bouvier / F. Amsler: Acta Philippi 1: Textus. (CChr Series Apocryphorum 11) Turnhout 1999. Byrne, M.A. / G. Labarre: Nouvelles inscriptions d’Antioche de Pisidie d’après les Note- books de W.M. Ramsay. (IvK 67) Bonn 2006. Charles, R.H. (ed.): The Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphica of the Old Testament, vol. 2. Oxford 1913. (APOT II) Clark, A.C.: M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationes, vol. 6. Oxford 1909. Corsten, T.: Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos I. (IvK 49) Bonn 1997. Damme, D. van: Pseudo-Cyprian, Adversus Iudaeos = Gegen die Judenchristen: Die älteste lateinische Predigt. Fribourg 1969. Durrbach, F.: Choix d’inscriptions de Délos, avec traduction et commentaire. Paris 1921/22. 396 sources and bibliography

Ehrman, B.D.: The Apostolic Fathers II. Cambridge (Mass.) / London 2003. Flashar, H. / U. Klein: Aristoteles. Mirabilia; De Audibilibus. (Aristoteles, Werke in deutscher Übersetzung 18) Darmstadt 1972. Flemming, J. / G. Hofmann: Akten der ephesinischen Synode vom Jahre 449, syrisch. Berlin 1917. Förster, R.: Scriptores physiognomonici I. Leipzig 1893 (repr. Stuttgart / Leipzig 1994). Funk, F.X.: Didascalia et Constitutiones apostolorum, vol. 1–2. Paderborn 1905 (repr. Torino 1979). Gelzer, H. / H. Hilgenfeld / O. Cuntz: Patrum Nicaenorum nomina. Stuttgart / Leipzig 1995 (orig. 1898). Goldschmidt, L.: Der Babylonische Talmud, vol. 1. Berlin 1929/30 (repr. Frankfurt [Main] 1996). Grégoire, H.: Recueil des inscriptions grecques-chrétiennes d’Asie mineure, fasc. 1. Paris 1922. Hall, S.G.: Melito of Sardis. On Pascha and Fragments. Oxford 1979. Halleux, R.: Les alchimistes grecs I: Papyrus de Leyde, Papyrus de Stockholm, recettes. Paris 2002. Hauses, R.: Tertullian. Adversus Iudaeos = Gegen die Juden. Turnhout 2007. Henry, R.: Photius. Bibliothèque 1. Paris 1959. Holl, K.: Fragmente vornicänischer Kirchenväter aus den Sacra Parallela. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur XX 1. Leipzig 1899. Honigmann, E.: Le Synekdèmos d’Hiéroklès et l’opuscule géographique de Georges de Chypre. Bruxelles 1939. (Honigmann, Hiéroklès 1939) Horsley, G.H.R.: The Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Burdur Archaeological Mu- seum. (RECAM 5) Ankara 2007. Hoyland, R.: “A New Edition and Translation of the Leiden Polemon.” In: Swain, S. (ed.): Seeing the Face, Seeing the Soul: Polemon’s Physiognomy from Classical Antiquity to Medieval Islam. Oxford 2007, pp. 329–463. Jenkins, C.: “Origen on ICorinthians IV.” JThS 10 (1908), pp. 29–51. Joannou, P.-P.: Discipline générale antique (IV e–IX e s.) I 2: les canons des synodes particuliers. Grottaferrata 1962. Jonkers, E.J.: Acta et symbola conciliorum quae saeculo quarto habita sunt. Leiden 1954. Junod, E. / J.-D. Kaestli: Acta Iohannis, 2 vol. (CChr Series apocryphorum 1–2) Turn- hout 1983. Kern, O.: Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander. Berlin 1900 (repr. 1967). König, R. / G. Winkler: C. Plinius Secundus d.Ä. Naturkunde, Bücher XXI/XXII. Darm- stadt 1985. Lauchert, F.: Die Kanones der wichtigsten altkirchlichen Concilien nebst den apostolischen Kanones. Freiburg / Leipzig 1896. Marcovich, M.: Tatiani Oratio ad Graecos. Berlin / New York 1995. ———: Origenes. Contra Celsum, Libri VIII. (Suppl. VigChr 54) Leiden / Boston / Cologne 2001. McLean, B.H.: Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Konya Archaeological Museum. (RECAM 4) Ankara 2002. Merkelbach, R. / J. Stauber: Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten 1: Die West- küste Kleinasiens von Knidos bis Ilion. Stuttgart / Leipzig 1998. sources and bibliography 397

Merkelbach, R. / J. Stauber: Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten 2: Die Nordküste Kleinasiens (Marmarameer und Pontos). Munich / Leipzig 2001. Merkelbach, R. / J. Stauber: Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten 3: Der “ferne Osten” und das Landesinnere bis zum Taurus. Munich / Leipzig 2001. Metzger, M.: Les constitutions apostoliques I. Paris 1985. ———: Les constitutions apostoliques II. Paris 1987. Munier, C.: Justin. Apologie pour les chrétiens: introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes. (SC 507) Paris 2006. Nau, F.: “Le miracle de Saint Michel à Colosses.” PO 4 (1908), pp. 542–562. ———:“Martyrologes et ménologes orientaux I–XIII. Un martyrologe et douze mé- nologes syriaques.” PO 10 (1915), pp. 1–163. Perler, O.: Méliton de Sardes. Sur la pâque, et fragments. (SC 123) Paris 1966. Petzl, G.: Tituli Asiae minoris V: Tituli Lydiae, fasc. III: Philadelphia et ager Philadel- phenus. Wien 2007 (TAM V 3) Roueché, C.: Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity: The Late Roman and Byzantine Inscrip- tions, 2nd ed. 2004 (ala: http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/ala2004). Schermann, T.: Prophetarum vitae fabulosae: indices apostolorum discipulorumque Domini Dorotheo, Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicata. Leipzig 1907. Schulthess, F.: Die syrischen Kanones der Synoden von Nicaea bis Chalcedon. Berlin 1908. Schwartz, E.: Eusebius. Kirchengeschichte. Kleine Ausgabe. Leipzig 41932. Schwartz, E. / T. Mommsen / F. Winkelmann: Eusebius. Die Kirchengeschichte I. Berlin 21999. Spencer, W.G.: Celsus. De medicina II. Cambridge (Mass.) / London 1938 (repr. 1977). Steinsaltz, A., Rabbi: The Talmud. The Steinsaltz Edition, Vol. 5.5. New York 1992. Strewe, A.: Die Canonessammlung des Dionysius Exiguus in der ersten Redaktion. Berlin / Leipzig 1931. Thiel, H. van: Leben und Taten Alexanders von Makedonien: der griechische Alexan- derroman nach der Handschrift L. Darmstadt 1974. Turner, C.H.: Ecclesiae occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima: canonum et conciliorum graecorum interpretationes latinae, Vol. 2. Oxford 1907. Waquet, H.: Eudes de Deuil. La croisade de Louis VII, roi de France. Paris 1949. Weis, B.K.: Julian. Briefe. München 1973. Zintzen, C.: Damascii vitae Isidori reliquiae. Hildesheim 1967.

Bibliography

This list includes all items mentioned in short form in the footnotes; for abbreviations see the list of abbreviations in the front matter. Acar, S.: “Geleneksel dokuma, tasarım ve tanıtım üçgeninde kızılcabölük doku- maları = Kızılcabölük Wovens in Terms of Traditional Weaving, Design and Introduction.” In: Özçelik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizli ve çevresi tarih ve kültür sempozyumu bildiriler, 6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 2. Denizli 2007, pp. 483– 489. Adler, W.: “Early Christian Historians and Historiography.” In: Harvey, S.A. / D.G. 398 sources and bibliography

Hunter (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Oxford 2008, pp. 584–602. Aharoni, Y. / M. Avi-Yonah / A.F. Rainey / Z. Safrai: The Carta Bible Atlas. Jerusalem 42002. Akıncı, E. / H. Yıldız: “Menderes vadisi’nde bir kefaret merkezi: ‘Apollon Lairbenos kutsal alanı’ = A Confession Center in Meander Valley: ‘Sanctuary of Apollo Lairbenos.’” In: Özçelik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizli ve çevresi tarih ve kültür sempozyumu bildiriler, 6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 2. Denizli 2007, pp. 98– 104. Akıncı Öztürk, E. / C. Tanrıver: “New Katagraphai and Dedications from the Sanc- tuary of Apollon Lairbenos.” EA 41 (2008), pp. 91–111. Akıncı Öztürk, E. / C. Tanrıver: “Some New Finds from the Sanctuary of Apollon Lairbenos.” EA 42 (2009), pp. 87–97. Alföldy, G.: “P. Helvius Pertinax und M. Valerius Maximianus.” In: Opuscula Iosepho Katelic sexagenario dicata. Situla 14/15. Ljubljana 1974, pp. 199–215. ———: Römische Sozialgeschichte. Wiesbaden 31984. Altunel, E.: “L’attività sismica a Hierapolis e nelle zone limitrofe.” In: D’Andria, F. / F. Silvistrelli (eds.): Ricerche archeologiche turche nella valle del Lykos. Lecce 2000, pp. 299–325. Amann, E.: DThC 8 (1925), cols. 2611–2615, s.v. “Laodicée (Concile de).” Ameling, W.: “Drei Studien zu den Gerichtsbezirken der Provinz Asia in repub- likanischer Zeit.” EA 12 (1988), pp. 9–24. ———:“Die jüdischen Gemeinden im antiken Kleinasien.” In: Jütte, R. / A.P. Kuster- mann (eds.): Jüdische Gemeinden und Organisationsformen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Vienna / Cologne / Weimar 1996, pp. 29–55. ———: Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis II: Kleinasien. (TSAJ 99) Tübingen 2004. ———:“Die jüdische Diaspora Kleinasiens und der ‘epigraphic habit.’” In: Frey, J. / D.R. Schwartz / S. Gripentrog (eds.): Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Leiden / Boston 2007, pp. 253–282. ———:“The Christian lapsi in Smyrna, 250A.D. (Martyrium Pionii 12–14).” VigChr 62 (2008), pp. 133–160. ———:“The Epigraphic Habit and the Jewish Diasporas of Asia Minor and Syria.” In: Cotton, H. / R.G. Hoyland / J.J. Price / D.J. Wasserstein (eds.): From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East. Cambridge 2009, pp. 203–234. ———:“Der kleinasiatische Kaiserkult und die Öfentlichkeit: Überlegungen zur Umwelt der Apokalypse.” In: Ebner, M / E. Esch-Wermeling (eds.): Kaiserkult, Wirtschaft und spectacula: zum politischen und gesellschaftlichen Umfeld der Of- fenbarung. Göttingen 2011, pp. 15–54. (Ameling 2011) ———:“Paränese und Ethik in den kleinasiatischen Beichtinschriften: Zu den Vo- raussetzungen christlicher Mission in Kleinasien.” In: Deines, R. / J. Herzer / K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.): Neues Testament und hellenistisch-jüdische Alltagskultur: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. III. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, 21.–24. Mai 2009. Leipzig / Tübingen 2011, pp. 241–249. (Ameling 2011 a) Amsler, F.: Acta Philippi: Commentarius. (CChr Series apocryphorum 12) Turnhout 1999. sources and bibliography 399

Anderson, J.G.C.: “A Summer in Phrygia I.” JHS 17 (1897), pp. 396–424. ———:“A Summer in Phrygia II.” JHS 18 (1898), pp. 81–128 and 340–344. Ando, C.: Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London 2000. Arand, T.: Das schmähliche Ende: der Tod des schlechten Kaisers und seine literarische Gestaltung in der römischen Historiographie. Frankfurt (Main) etc. 2002. Arbesmann, R.: RAC 7 (1969), cols. 500–524, s.v. “Fasttage.” Arnold, C.E.: The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae. (WUNT II 77) Tübingen 1995. Arthur, P.: Byzantine and Turkish Hierapolis (Pamukkale): An Archaeological Guide. Istanbul 2006. Arundell, F.V.J.: Discoveries in Asia Minor, vol. 1. London 1834. Arzt-Grabner, P.: Philemon. (Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 1) Göttingen 2003. ———:“How to Deal with Onesimus? Paul’s Solution within the Frame of Ancient Legal and Documentary Sources.” In: Tolmie, D.F. (ed.): Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Berlin / New York 2010, pp. 113–142. Ascough, R.S.: “Voluntary Associations and the Formation of Pauline Christian Com- munities: Overcoming the Objections.” In: Gutsfeld, A. / D.-A. Koch (eds.): Vere- ine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Tübingen 2006, pp. 149–183. Asper, M.: Kallimachos. Werke: griechisch und deutsch. Darmstadt 2004. Assmann, J.: Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. Munich 21999. Athanassiadi, P.: “Persecution and Response in Late Paganism: The Evidence of Damascius.” JHS 113 (1993), pp. 1–29. Attanasio, D. / M. Brilli / N. Ogle: The Isotopic Signature of Classical Marbles. Rome 2006. Attanasio, D. / P. Pensabene: “I marmi del teatro di Hierapolis.” In: Bernardi Fer- rero, D. de: Saggi in onore di Paolo Verzone. (Hierapolis IV) Rome 2002, pp. 69– 85. Aubert, R.: DHGE 24 (1993), cols. 109f., s.v. “Hermione.” ———: DHGE 30 (2010), cols. 513–517, s.v. “Laodicée de Syrie.” (Aubert 2010) ———: DHGE 30 (2010), cols. 517–518, s.v. “Laodicée (Conciles).” (Aubert 2010 a) Aulock, H. von: Münzen und Städte Phrygiens, Teil 2. (IstMitt Beih. 27) Tübingen 1987. Aune, D.E.: Revelation 1–5. (Word Biblical Commentary 52 A) Dallas 1997. Aydas,¸ M.: “New Inscriptions from Asia Minor.” EA 37 (2004), pp. 121–125. ———:“New Inscriptions from Stratonikeia and Its Territory.” Gephyra 6 (2009), pp. 113–130. Aytaçlar, P.Ö. / E. Akıncı: “A List of Female Names from Laodicea on the Lycos.” EA 39 (2006), pp. 113–116. Bagnall, R.S.: The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford 2009. Bagnall, R.S. / A. Cameron / S.R. Schwartz / K.A. Worp: Consuls of the Later Roman Empire. Atlanta 1987. Bagnall, R.S. / K.A. Worp: The Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt. Zutphen 1978. 400 sources and bibliography

Ba˘gdemir, A.: “‘Laodikya’ ve ‘Denizli’ kelimeleri üzerine” = “On the Words of ‘Laodi- kya’ and ‘Denizli.’” In: Özçelik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizli ve çevresi tarih ve kültür sempozyumu bildiriler, 6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 2. Denizli 2007, pp. 314–334. Bahrdt, H.P.: Schlüsselbegrife der Soziologie: eine Einführung mit Lehrbeispielen. Munich 61994. Baltes, G.: Hebräisches Evangelium und synoptische Überlieferung: Untersuchungen zum hebräischen Hintergrund der Evangelien. Tübingen 2011. Baltrusch, E.: Herodes, König im Heiligen Land: eine Biographie. München 2012. Banse, E.: Die Türkei: eine moderne Geographie. Braunschweig 21916. Barceló, P.: Constantius II. und seine Zeit: die Anfänge des Staatskirchentums. Stutt- gart 2004. Barclay, J.M.G.: “Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of Christian Slave-Ownership.” NTS 37 (1991), pp. 161–186. ———: JewsintheMediterraneanDiasporafromAlexandertoTrajan(323BCE–117CE). Berkeley / Los Angeles / London 1996. ———: Colossians and Philemon. She eld 1997. ———: Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews. Tübingen 2011. Bardenhewer, O.: Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, vol. 1. Freiburg 21913 (repr. Darmstadt 1962). Bardy, G.: DThC 12.2 (1935), cols. 1532–1536, s.v. “Photin de Sirmium.” ———: DDC 6 (1957), cols. 338–343, s.v. “Laodicée (Concile et Canons de).” Barnes, T.D.: “Legislation against the Christians.” JRS 58 (1968), pp. 32–50. ———: The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge (Mass.) / London 1982. ———: Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Em- pire. Cambridge (Mass.) 1993. ———: Early Christian Hagiography and Roman History. Tübingen 2010. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (ed. Talbert, R.J.A. et al.). Princeton / Oxford 2000. Bartman, E.: Ancient Sculptural Copies in Miniature. New York 1992. Bauckham, R.: “Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel.” JThS 44 (1993), pp. 24–69. ———: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rap- ids / Cambridge 2006. ———:“Historiographical Characteristics of the Gospel of John.” NTS 53 (2007), pp. 17–36. Bauer, T.J.: Das tausendjährige Messiasreich der Johannesofenbarung: eine literarkri- tische Studie zu Ob 19,11–21,8. Berlin 2007. ———: Paulus und die kaiserzeitliche Epistolographie: Kontextualisierung und Ana- lyse der Briefe an Philemon und an die Galater. (WUNT 276) Tübingen 2011. Bauer, W.: RAC 2 (1954), cols. 1073–1078, s.v. “Chiliasmus.” Bauer, W. / K. Aland / B. Aland: Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Berlin / New York 61988. Baum, A.D.: “Der Presbyter des Papias über einen ‘Hermeneuten’ des Petrus: zu Eusebius, Hist.eccl. 3,39,15.” ThZ 56 (2000), pp. 21–35. ———:“Ein aramäischer Urmatthäus im kleinasiatischen Gottesdienst: das Papi- sources and bibliography 401

aszeugnis zur Entstehung des Matthäusevangeliums.” ZNW 92 (2001), pp. 257– 272. Baumann, U.: Rom und die Juden: die römisch-jüdischen Beziehungen von Pompeius bis zum Tode des Herodes (63 v.Chr.–4 v.Chr.) Frankfurt (Main) 1983. Baysal, H.H.: “Le antiche città della valle del Lykos.” In: D’Andria, F. / F. Silvestrelli (eds.): Ricerche archeologiche turche nella valle del Lykos = Lykos vadidi türk arkeoloji arastırmaları. Lecce 2000, pp. 19–41. Bean, G.E.: Kleinasien 3: jenseits des Mäander, Karien mit dem Villayet Mugla. Stutt- gart etc. 21985. Becker, E.-M.: Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie. Tübin- gen 2006. Behrwald, R.: Der Lykische Bund: Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Verfassung. (Antiquitas 1, 48) Bonn 2000. Bejor, G.: “Per una ricerca di Laodicea ellenistica.” In: Traversari, G. (ed.): Laodicea di Frigia I. Roma 2000, pp. 15–23. Bejor, G. / J. Bonetto / S. Gelichi / G. Traversari: Laodicea di Frigia II: la ricognizione 2000. Padua 2004. Belke, K./ N. Mersich: Phrygien und Pisidien. (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 7) Vienna 1990. Belke, K. / M. Restle: Galatien und Lykaonien. (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 4) Vienna 1984. Bellen, H.: Studien zur Sklavenlucht im römischen Kaiserreich. Wiesbaden 1971. Benedum, J.: “Zeuxis Philalethes und die Schule der Herophileer in Menos Kome.” Gesnerus 31 (1974), pp. 221–236. Bennett, A.L.: “Archaeology from Art: Investigating Colossae and the Miracle of the Archangel Michael at Kona.” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 50 (2005), pp. 15–26. Berger, P.L. / T. Luckmann: Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Frank- furt (Main) 172000. Bernardi Ferrero, D. de: “Architettura e decorazione di età avia a Hierapolis di Frigia.” In: Bernardi Ferrero, D. de (ed.): Saggi in onore di Paolo Verzone. Rome 2002, pp. 1–43. Bernhardt, R.: Polis und römische Herrschaft in der späten Republik (149–31 v.Chr.). Berlin / New York 1984, pp. 50. Berns, C.: Review of Ismaelli, T.: Hierapolis di Frigia III: architettura dorica a Hierpolis di Frigia. Istanbul 2009. In Gnomon 83 (2011), pp. 471–473. Bertrandy, F. / B. Rémy: “Legio XII Fulminata.” In: LeBohec, Y. / C. Wolf (eds.): Les légions de Rome sous le haut-empire I. Actes du Congrès de Lyon (17–19 septembre 1998). Lyon 2000, pp. 253–257. Beutler, J.: LThK 10 (32001), cols. 933–935, s.v. “Wahrheit” III Biblisch-theologisch. Bevilacqua, G. et al.: Scrittura e magia: un repertorio di oggetti iscritti della magia greco-romana. (Opuscula epigraphica 12) Rome 2010. Beyer, H.W. / H. Karpp: RAC 2 (1954), cols. 394–407, s.v. “Bischof.” Biguzzi, G.: “A Figurative and Narrative Language Grammar of Revelation.” NT 45 (2003), pp. 382–402. Birley, A.: Mark Aurel: Kaiser und Philosoph. München 1968. Birley, A.R.: Marcus Aurelius: A Biography. London 21987 (repr. 2000). 402 sources and bibliography

———: Hadrian, the Restless Emperor. London / New York 1997. ———: Onomasticon to the younger Pliny, Letters and Panegyric. Munich / Leipzig 2000. ———:“Marcus Aurelius’ Northern Wars in the Historia Augusta.” HAC 11: Collo- quium Genevense 2008. Bari 2010, pp. 37–49. Biville, F.: “The Graeco-Romans and Graeco-Latin: A Terminological Framework for Cases of Bilingualism.” In: Adams, J.N. / M. Jansen / S. Swain (eds.): Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Word. Oxford 2002, pp. 77–102. Bleicken, J.: Augustus: eine Biographie. Berlin 1998. Blass, F. / A. Debrunner / F. Rehkopf: Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Göttingen 171990. Bleckmann, B.: “Sources for the History of Constantine.” In: Lenski, N. (ed.): The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine. Cambridge 2006, pp. 14–31. Blümner, H.: Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern, vol. 1. Leipzig 21912. Blum, G.G.: TRE 3 (1978), pp. 445–466, s.v. “Apostel / Apostolat / Apostolizität” II. Alte Kirche. Böcher, O.: Die Johannesapokalypse. (Erträge der Forschung 41) Darmstadt 21980. Böhm, T.: “Das Wahrheitsverständnis in Bibel und Früher Kirche.” In: Enders, M. / J. Szaif (eds.): Die Geschichte des philosophischen Begrifs der Wahrheit. Berlin / New York 2006, pp. 49–64. Boismard, M.-É.: Le martyre de Jean l’apôtre. Paris 1996. ———: La Lettre de Saint Paul aux Laodicéens, retrouvée et commentée. Paris 1999. Bolyki, J.: Jesu Tischgemeinschaften. (WUNT II 96) Tübingen 1998. Bonamente, G.: “Einziehung und Nutzung von Tempelgut durch Staat und Stadt in der Spätantike.” In: Hahn, J. (ed.): Spätantiker Staat und religiöser Konlikt: imperiale und lokale Verwaltung und die Gewalt gegen Heiligtümer. (Millenium- Studien 34) Berlin / New York 2011, pp. 55–92. Bormann, L.: “Weltbild und gruppenspezi sche Raumkon gurationen des Kolos- serbriefs.” In: Müller, P. (ed.): Kolosser-Studien. (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 103) Neukirchen-Vluyn 2009, pp. 83–102. Boulger, G.S. / J.C. Thackray: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 24 (2004), pp. 933, s.v. “Hamilton, William John.” Bouvier, B. / F. Amsler: “Le miracle de l’archange Michel à Chonae: introduction, traduction, et notes.” In: Warren, D.H. / A.G. Brock / D.W. Pao (eds.): Early Christian Voices in Texts, Traditions, and Symbols: Essays in Honor of Francois Bovon. Boston / Leiden 2003, pp. 395–407. Bovon, F.: “Les Actes de Philippe.” ANRW II 25.6 (1988), pp. 4431–4527. ———:“Editing the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostels.” In: Bovon, F. / A. Graham Brock / C.R. Matthews (eds.): The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. Cambridge (Mass.) 1999, pp. 1–35. ———:“From Vermont to Cyprus: A New Witness of the Acts of Philip.” Apocrypha 20 (2009), pp. 9–27. Bovon, F. / B. Bouvier / F. Amsler: Actes de l’apôtre Philippe: introduction, traduction et notes. Turnhout 1996. Bovon, F. / C.R. Matthews: The Acts of Philip. A New Translation. Waco 2012. Bowersock, G.W.: Augustus and the Greek world. Oxford 1965. sources and bibliography 403

———:“Augustus und der Kaiserkult im Osten.” In: Wlosok, A. (ed.): Römischer Kaiserkult. Darmstadt 1978, pp. 389–402 (Eng. orig. 1965). ———: Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor 1990. ———: Martyrdom and Rome. Cambridge 1995. Boyarin, D.: Border lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia 2004. Brandes, W.: Die Städte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert. Berlin 1989. Brandt, H.: Wird auch silbern mein Haar: eine Geschichte des Alterns in der Antike. Darmstadt 2002. Braun, J.: Die liturgische Gewandung im Occident und Orient, nach Ursprung und Entwicklung, Verwendung und Symbolik. Freiburg 1907 (repr. Darmstadt 1964). Braun, O.: “Syrische Texte über die erste allgemeine Synode von Konstantinopel.” In: Bezold, C. (ed.): Orientalische Studien, Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburt- stag, vol. 1. Giessen 1906, pp. 463–478. Braun, T.: “The Jews in the Late Roman Empire.” SCI 17 (1998), pp. 142–171. Braund, D.: “Polemo, Pythodoris and Strabo: Friends of Rome in the Black Sea Region.” In: Coskun,¸ A. (ed.): Roms auswärtige Freunde in der späten Republik und im frühen Prinzipat. Göttingen 2005, pp. 253–270. Bremen, R. van: The Limits of Participation: Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Amsterdam 1996. ———:“Adrastos at Aphrodisias.” In: Catling, R.W.V. / F. Marchand (edd.): Onomato- logos. Studies in Greek personal names presented to Elaine Matthews. Oxford 2010, pp. 440–455. Bremmer, J.N.: “Women in the Apocryphal Acts of John.” In: Bremmer, J.N. (ed.): The Apocryphal Acts of John. Kampen 1995, pp. 37–56. ———: Götter, Mythen und Heiligtümer im antiken Griechenland. Darmstadt 1996. Brennecke, H.C.: Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bischofsopposition gegen Konstan- tius II: Untersuchungen zur dritten Phase des arianischen Streites (337–361). (PTS 26) Berlin / New York 1984. Brent, A.: Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophistic. (STAC 36) Tübingen 2006. Breytenbach, C.: Paulus und Barnabas in der Provinz Galatien: Studien zu Apos- telgeschichte 13f.; 16,6;18,23 und den Adressaten des Galaterbriefes. Leiden 1996. ———:“Probable Reasons for Paul’s Unfruitful Missionary Attempt in Asia Minor (A Note on Acts 16: 6–7).” In: Breytenbach, C. / J. Schröter (eds.): Die Apos- telgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung. Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. (AJEC 57) Leiden / Boston 2004, pp. 157– 169. ———:“Psalms LXX and the Christian De nition of Space: Examples Based on Inscriptions from Central Asia Minor.” In: Cook, J. / H.-J. Stipp (eds.): Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint. Leiden / Boston 2012, pp. 381– 394. Bringmann, K.: Geschichte der Juden im Altertum: vom babylonischen Exil bis zur arabischen Eroberung. Stuttgart 2005. Bringmann, K. / T. Schäfer: Augustus und die Begründung des römischen Kaisertums. Berlin 2002. Brixhe, C.: Essai sur le grec anatolien au début de notre ère, Nancy 1987. (Brixhe 1987) ———:“La langue comme critère d’acculturation: l’exemple du Grec d’un district phrygien.” Hethitica 8 (1987), pp. 45–80. (Brixhe 1987 a) 404 sources and bibliography

———:“Interactions between Greek and Phrygian under the Roman Empire.” In: Adams, J.N. / M. Jansen / S. Swain (eds.): BilingualisminAncientSociety:Language Contact and the Written Word. Oxford 2002, pp. 246–266. ———:“Phrygian.” In: Woodard, R.D. (ed.): The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor. Cambridge 2008, pp. 69–80. Brock, S.P.: “Testamentum Iobi.” In: Brock, S.P. / J.-C. Picard: Testamentum Iobi; Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece. Leiden 1967, pp. 3–59. Broughton, T.R.S.:TheMagistratesoftheRomanRepublic, vol. 3: Supplement. Atlanta 1986. Brown, P.: The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity. Chicago 1981. ———: Die letzten Heiden: eine kleine Geschichte der Spätantike. Frankfurt (Main) 1995 (Eng. orig. 1978). ———: The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Chris- tianity. New York 22008. Bruce, F.F.: “Jews and Christians in the Lycus Valley.” BS 141 (1984), pp. 3–15. ———:“‘Unwritten’ Sayings and Apocryphal Gospels.” In: Evans, C.A. (ed.): The HistoricalJesus:CriticalConceptsinReligiousStudies, vol. 4: LivesofJesusandJesus outside the Bible. London 2004, pp. 163–185. Buchheim, H.: Die Orientpolitik des Triumvirn M. Antonius: ihre Voraussetzungen, Entwicklung und Zusammenhang mit den politischen Ereignissen in Italien. Hei- delberg 1960. Buchheit, V.: “Tierfriede in der Antike.” WJA 12 (1986), pp. 143–167. Bujard, W.: Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief als Beitrag zur Metho- dik von Sprachvergleichen. Göttingen 1973. Bultmann, R.: ThWNT 1 (1933), pp. 239–248, s.v. “ἀλήθεια.” Burnet, R.: “Pourquoi avoir écrit l’insipide épître aux Laodicéens?” NTS 48 (2002), pp. 132–141. Burrell, B.: Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors. Leiden 2004. Busch, P.: Magie in neutestamentlicher Zeit. Göttingen 2006. Busine, A.: “The O cials of Oracular Sanctuaries in Roman Asia Minor.” ARG 8 (2006), pp. 275–316. Butcher, K.: RomanProvincialCoins:AnIntroductiontothe“GreekImperials.” London 1988. Cadwallader, A.: “Revisiting Calder on Colossae.” AS 56 (2006), pp. 103–111. Cadwallader, A.H.: “A New Inscription, a Correction and a Con rmed Sighting from Colossae.” EA 40 (2007), pp. 109–118. Cadwallader, A.: “The Reverend Dr. John Luke and the Churches of Chonai.” GRBS 48 (2008), pp. 319–338. Cadwallader, A.H.: “Refuting an Axiom of Scholarship on Colossae: Fresh Insights from New and Old Inscriptions.” In: Cadwallader, A.H. / M. Trainor (eds.): Colos- sae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Göttingen / Oakville 2011, pp. 151–179. ———:“A Stratigraphy of an Ancient City through Its Key Story: The Archistrategos of Chonai.” In: Cadwallader, A.H. / M. Trainor (eds.): Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Göttingen / Oakville 2011, pp. 282–298. ———:“A Chronology of Colossae / Chonai.” In: Cadwallader, A.H. / M. Trainor (eds.): sources and bibliography 405

Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Göttingen / Oakville 2011, pp. 299–315. Cadwallader, A.H. / M. Trainor: “Colossae in Space and Time: Overcoming Dislo- cation, Dismemberment and Anachronicity.” In: Cadwallader, A.H. / M. Trainor (eds.): Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Göttingen / Oakville 2011, pp. 9–47. Cadwallader, A.H. / M. Trainor (eds.): Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Göttingen / Oakville 2011. Calabi Limentani, I.: Epigraa latina. Milan 41991. Calder, W.M.: “Philadelphia and Montanism.” BRL 7 (1922), pp. 309–353. ———:“The Epigraphy of the Anatolian Heresies.” In: Calder, W.M. et al. (eds.): Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir W.M. Ramsay. Manchester 1923, pp. 59–91. Callahan, A.D.: “Paul’s Epistle to Philemon: Toward an Alternative Argumentum.” HThR 86 (1993), pp. 357–376. Cameron, A.: “ΘΡΕΠΤΟΣ and Related Terms in the Inscriptions of Asia Minor.” In: Calder, W.M. / J. Keil (eds.): Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepburn Buckler. Manchester 1939, pp. 27–62. Cameron, Alan: The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford 2011. Campanile, M.D.: I sacerdoti del koinon d’Asia (I sec. a.C.–III sec. d.C.): Contributo allo studio della romanizzazione delle élites provinciali nell’Oriente greco. Pisa 1994. ———:“La costruzione del so sta: note sul βίος di Polemone.” In: Virgilio, B. (ed.): Studi Ellenistici 12. Pisa / Rome 1999, pp. 269–315. Camporeale, G.: Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum 2 (2004), pp. 36–62, s.v. “Puri cazione: Mondo etrusco.” Capelle, W.: RE V A 2 (1934), cols. 1713–1714, s.v. “Theodas.” Carleton Paget, J.: “Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity.” ZAC 1 (1997), pp. 195– 225. Carletti, C.: Epigraa dei Cristiani in occidente dal III al VII secolo: ideologia e prassi. Bari 2008. Carrell, P.R.: Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. Cambridge 1997. Carriker, A.J.: The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. Leiden / Boston 2003. Castrianni, L. / G. Scardozzi: “Mossyna: The Rediscovery of a ‘Lost City’ in the Terri- tory of Hierapolis in Phrygia (Turkey).” In: 15th International Conference on “Cul- turalHeritageandNewTechnologies”Vienna,2010,Postersession, pp. 616–633. PDF le: http://www.stadtarchaeologie.at/wpcontent/uploads/eBook_WS15_Part5_ Postersession+Award.pdf (January 2012). Ceylan, A.: “Scavi a Tripolis e nella necropoli di Buldan.” In: D’Andria, F. / F. Sil- vestrelli (eds.): Ricerche archeologiche Turche nella Valle del Lykos. Lecce 2000, pp. 69–81. Ceylan, A. / T. Ritti: “A New Dedication to Apollo Kareios.” EA 28 (1997), pp. 57– 67. Chaniotis, A.: “Zwischen Konfrontation und Interaktion: Christen, Juden und Hei- den im spätantiken Aphrodisias.” In: Ackermann, A. / K.E. Müller (eds.): Patch- work: Dimensionen multikultureller Gesellschaften: Geschichte, Problematik und Chancen. Bielefeld 2002, pp. 83–128. ———:“Der Kaiserkult im Osten des Römischen Reiches im Kontext der zeitgenös- 406 sources and bibliography

sischen Ritualpraxis.” In: Cancik, H. / K. Hitzl (eds.): Die Praxis der Herrscherver- ehrung in Rom und seinen Provinzen. Tübingen 2003, pp. 3–28. Chapman, J.: John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel. Oxford 1911. Charlesworth, J.H.: “A Prolegomenon to a New Study of the Jewish Background of the Hymns and Prayers in the New Testament.” In: Vermes, G. / J. Neusner (eds.): Essays in Honour of Yigael Yadin. Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982), pp. 265– 285. Chiai, G.F.: “Allmächtige Götter und fromme Menschen im ländlichen Kleinasien der Kaiserzeit.” Millenium 6 (2009), pp. 61–106. Chuvin, P.: “Observations sur les reliefs du théatre de Hiérapolis: thèmes agonis- tiques e légendes locales.” RA 1987, pp. 98–107. Çiçek, M. / A. Çelik: “Flora of Çökelez Mountain (Denizli—Turkey) and Its Environs.” Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences 23 B (2004), pp. 127–145. Clauss, M.: Kaiser und Gott: Herrscherkult im römischen Reich. Stuttgart / Leipzig 1999. Claussen, C.: Versammlung, Gemeinde, Synagoge: Das hellenistisch-jüdische Umfeld der frühchristlichen Gemeinden. Göttingen 2002. ———:“Vom historischen zum erinnerten Jesus: der erinnerte Jesus als neues Para- digma der Jesusforschung.” ZNT 20 (2007), pp. 2–17. Clerc, M.: “Inscriptions de la vallée du Méandre: Tralles, Nysa, Attouda, Laodicée et Colosses.” BCH 11 (1887), pp. 346–354. Cohen, G.: The Seleucid Colonies: Studies in Founding, Administration and Organiza- tion. (Historia Einzelschr. 30) Wiesbaden 1978. Cohen, G.M.: The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley / Los Angeles / Oxford 1995. Cohen, S.J.D.: The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London 1999. Collins, J.J.: “The Development of the Sibylline Tradition.” ANRW II 20,1 (1986), pp. 421–459. Connolly, A.L.: “Onesimos.” In: Horsley, G.H.R. (ed.): New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 4: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1979. Macquarie University 1987, pp. 179–181. Corssen, P.: “Die Töchter des Philippus.” ZNW 2 (1901), pp. 289–299. Corsten, T.: “Inschriften aus dem Museum von Denizli.” Arkeoloji Dergisi 3 (1995), pp. 215–224. ———: Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos I.(IvK 49) Bonn 1997. ———: Die Inschriften von Kibyra I: die Inschriften der Stadt und ihrer näheren Umge- bung.(IvK 60) Bonn 2002. ———:“Kibyra und Lykien.” In: Schuler, C. (ed.): Griechische Epigraphik in Lykien: eine Zwischenbilanz. Akten des Int. Kolloquiums München, 24.–26. Februar 2005. (ETAM 25) Wien 2007, pp. 175–181. ———:“Inschriften / Epigraphik.” In: Erlemann, K. / K.L. Noethlichs (eds.): Neues Testament und Antike Kultur 1: Prolegomena, Quellen, Geschichte. Neukirchen- Vluyn 2011, pp. 125–130. Corsten, T. / U. Huttner: “Münzen aus Laodikeia am Lykos.” EA 26 (1996), pp. 43–51. Cottica, D.: “Unguentari tardo antichi dal martyrion di Hierapolis, Turchia.” MEFRA 112.2 (2000), pp. 999–1021. sources and bibliography 407

Courtney, W.P. / C. North: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 2 (2004), pp. 574f., s.v. “Arundell, Francis Vyvyan Jago.” Cowper, B.H.: Syriac Miscellanies or Extracts Relating to the First and Second General Councils, and Various Other Quotations. London / Edinburgh 1861. Crabbe, A.: “The Invitation List to the Council of Ephesus and Metropolitan Hierar- chy in the Fifth Century.” JThS 32 (1981), pp. 369–400. Cronin, H.S.: “First Report of a Journey in Pisidia, Lycaonia, and Pamphylia II.” JHS 22 (1902), pp. 339–376. Çubuk, N.: Hierapolis: Tiyatro kabartmaları. Istanbul 2008. Curran, J.: “The Ambitions of Quintus Labienus ‘Parthicus.’” Antichthon 41 (2007), pp. 33–53. Dabrowa,˛ E.: Legio X Fretensis: A Prosopographical Study of Its Ocers (I–III c. AD). (Historia Einzelschr. 66) Stuttgart 1993. Dagron, G.: Vie et miracles de Sainte Thècle: texte grec, traduction et commentaire. Bruxelles 1978. ———: Naissance d’une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451. Paris 21984. Dagron, G. / D. Feissel: Inscriptions de Cilicie. Paris 1987. Daley, B.E.: The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology. Cam- bridge 1991. D’Andria, F.: “Hierapolis of Phrygia: Its Evolution in Hellenistic and Roman Times.” In: Parrish, D. (ed.): Urbanism in Western Asia Minor: New studies on Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierapolis, Pergamon, Perge and Xanthos. Portsmouth 2001, pp. 99–115. ———: Hierapolis in Phrygien (Pamukkale): Ein archäologischer Führer. Istanbul 2003. ———:“Il santuario e la tomba dell’apostolo Filippo a Hierapolis di Frigia” (with annexes: Ritti, T.: “Alcune iscrizioni rinvenute nella Chiesa di S. Filippo”; Calcag- nile, L.: “Risultati delle datazioni con il radiocarbonio nella Chiesa di S. Filippo a Hierapolis”; Ahrens, S.: “A set of western European pilgrim badges from Hierapo- lis of Phrygia”). RPAA 84 (2011/12), pp. 1–52. ———:“Hierapolis, nella città dell’Apostolo Filippo.” Archeo, aprile 2012, pp. 28–43. D’Andria, F. / T. Ritti: Le sculture del teatro: i rilievi con i cicli di Apollo e Artemide. (Hierapolis: Scavi e Ricerche II) Roma 1985. D’Andria, F. / A. Zaccaria Ruggiu / T. Ritti / G.B. Bazzana / R. Caccitti: “L’iscrizione dipinta con la Preghiera di Manasse a Hierapolis di Frigia (Turchia).” RPAA 78, 2005/06, pp. 349–449. D’Andria, F. / G. Scardozzi / A. Spanó: Atlante di Hierapolis di Frigia. Istanbul 2008. D’Andria, R.: “Recenti indagini nell’area del Martyrion.” In: D’Andria, F. / M. Piera (eds.): Hierapolis di Frigia I: le attività delle campagne di scavo e restauro 2000– 2003. Istanbul 2007, pp. 531–539. Darrouzès, J.: Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: texte critique, introduction et notes. Paris 1981. Dassmann, E.: “Zur Entstehung des Monepiskopats.” In: Ämter und Dienste in den frühchristlichen Gemeinden. Bonn 1994, pp. 49–73 (orig. JAC 17 [1974], pp. 74–90). ———:“Hausgemeinde und Bischofsamt.” In: Ämter und Dienste in den frühchris- lichen Gemeinden. Bonn 1994, pp. 74–95(orig. Vivarium: Festschrift T. Klauser [JAC Erg. 11] Münster 1984, pp. 82–97). 408 sources and bibliography

———:“Die frühchristliche Tradition über den Ausschluss der Frauen vom Priester- amt.” In: Ämter und Dienste in den frühchristlichen Gemeinden. Bonn 1994, pp. 212–224. Dauge, Y.A.: Le barbare: recherches sur la conception romaine de la barbarie et de la civilisation. Bruxelles 1981. Davis, S.J.: TheCultofSt.Thecla:ATraditionofWomen’sPietyinLateAntiquity. Oxford 2001. Debord, P.: Aspects sociaux et économiques de la vie religieuse dans l’Anatolie gréco- romaine. Leiden 1982. ———: L’Asie mineure au IVe siècle (412–323 a.C.). Bordeaux 1999. De Groote, M.: “Die Johannesapokalypse und die Kanonbildung im Osten.” ZKG 116 (2005), pp. 147–160. Deininger, J.: Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis zum Ende des dritten Jahrhunderts n.Chr. (Vestigia 6) Munich / Berlin 1965. Deissmann, A.: Paulus. Eine kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze. Tübingen 1911. ———: Licht vom Osten: das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt. Tübingen 41923. Delehaye, H.: The Legends of the Saints: An Introduction to Hagiography. London 1907. Delorme, J.: Gymnasion: étude sur les monuments consacrés à l’éducation en Grèce (des origines à l’Empire romain). Paris 1960. De Planhol, X.: “Le cadre géographique: le pays de Laodicée-Denizli.” In: Gagniers, J. des / P. Devambez / L. Kahil / R. Ginouvès: Laodicée du Lycos: le nymphée, campagnes 1961–1963: avec des études de L. Robert, X. de Planhol. Quebec / Paris 1969, pp. 391–413. De Santos Otero, A.: “Jüngere Apostelakten.” In: Schneemelcher, W.: Neutestament- liche Apokryphen II: Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes. Tübingen 61997, pp. 381–438. Des Gagniers, J.: “Introduction historique.” In: Gagniers, J. des / P. Devambez / L. Kahil / R. Ginouvès: Laodicée du Lycos: le nymphée, campagnes 1961–1963: avec des études de L. Robert, X. de Planhol. Quebec / Paris 1969, pp. 1–11. DeSilva, D.A.: “Out of Our Minds? Appeals to Reason (Logos) in the Seven Oracles of Revelation 2–3.” JSNT 31 (2008), pp. 123–155. (DeSilva 2008) ———:“The Strategic Arousal of Emotions in the Apocalypse of John: A Rhetorical- Critical Investigation of the Oracles to the Seven Churches.” NTS 54 (2008), pp. 90–114. (DeSilva 2008 a) Destephen, S.: Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire 3: Prosopographie du Dio- cèse d’Asie (325–641). Paris 2008. (Destephen 2008) ———:“L’apport de la prosopographie à la connaissance de clercs: l’exemple du Diocèse d’Asie.” In: Delage, P.-G. (ed.): Les pères de l’église et les ministères: Actes du IIIe colloque de la Rochelle, les 7, 8 et 9 septembre 2007. Paris 2008, pp. 279–295. (Destephen 2008 a) Destephen, S. / S. Métivier: “Chorévêques et évêques en Asie mineure aux IVe et Ve siècles.” Topoi 15 (2007), pp. 343–378. Dickson, J.P.: “Gospel as News: εὐα ελ—from Aristophanes to the Apostle Paul.” NTS 51 (2005), pp. 212–230. Dignas, B.: Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford 2002. sources and bibliography 409

———:“Urban Centres, Rural Centres, Religious Centres in the Greek East: Worlds Apart?” In: Schwertheim, E. / E. Winter (eds.): Religion und Region: Götter und Kulte aus dem östlichen Mittelmeerraum. (Asia Minor Studien 45) Bonn 2003, pp. 77–91. Dihle, A.: Die Griechen und die Fremden. München 1994. Dittmann-Schöne, I.: Die Berufsvereine in den Städten des kaiserzeitlichen Klein- asiens. Regensburg 22010. Dobbeler, A. v.: Der Evangelist Philippus in der Geschichte des Urchristentums: eine prosopographische Skizze. Tübingen 2000. Dönmez-Öztürk, F.: “Drei neue Inschriften aus Tripolis in Lydien.” Gephyra 6 (2009), pp. 165–168. Dorival, G.: “L’apologétique chrétienne et la culture grecque.” In: Pouderon, B. / J. Doré (eds.): Les apologistes chrétiens et la culture grecque. Paris 1998, pp. 423– 465. Dorl-Klingenschmid, C.: Prunkbrunnen in kleinasiatischen Städten: Funktion im Kon- text. München 2001. Dormeyer, D.: Das Neue Testament im Rahmen der antiken Literaturgeschichte: eine Einführung. Darmstadt 1993. Dornseif, F.: Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie. Leipzig 21925. Dräger, M.: Die Städte der Provinz Asia in der Flavierzeit: Studien zur kleinasiatischen Stadt- und Regionalgeschichte. Frankfurt (Main) etc. 1993. Drake, H.A.: “The Impact of Constantine on Christianity.” In: Lenski, N. (ed.): The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine. Cambridge 2006, pp. 111– 136. Dresken-Weiland, J.: “Angels in Early Christian Grave Inscriptions.” In: Reiterer, F.V. / T. Nicklas / K. Schöpin (eds.): Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings: Origins, Development and Reception. Berlin / New York 2007, pp. 663–670. Dresken-Weiland, J. / A. Angerstorfer / A. Merkt: Himmel-Paradies-Schalom: Tod und Jenseits in christlichen und jüdischen Grabinschriften der Antike. Regensburg 2012. Drew-Bear, T.: Nouvelles inscriptions de Phrygie. Zutphen 1978. Drew-Bear, T. / G. Le Rider: “Monnayage cistophorique des Apaméens, des Praipé- nisseis et des Corpéni sous les Attalides: questions de géographie historique.” BCH 115 (1991), pp. 361–376. Drexhage, H.-W.: Wirtschaftspolitik und Wirtschaft in der römischen Provinz Asia in der Zeit von Augustus bis zum Regierungsantritt Diokletians. (Asia Minor Studien 59) Bonn 2007. Dreyer, B.: “Die Rolle der lokalen Eliten abhängiger griechischer Städte vor dem Hintergrund der Entwicklung königlicher Administration und städtischer Politik im 2. Jh. v.Chr.” Klio 92 (2010), pp. 344–368. Dufy, J. / J. Parker: The Synodicon Vetus. (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 15) Dumbarton Oaks 1979. Duman, B. / E. Konakçı: “The Silent Witness of the Mound of Colossae: Pottery Remains.” In: Cadwallader, A.H. / M. Trainor (eds.): Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Göttingen / Oakville 2011, pp. 247–281. Dunderberg, I.: “The School of Valentinus.” In: Marjanen. A. / P. Luomanen (eds.): A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics,” Leiden / Boston 2008, pp. 64– 99. 410 sources and bibliography

Dunn, J.D.G.: “The Colossian Philosophy: A Con dent Jewish Apologia.” Biblica 76 (1995), pp. 153–181. ———: The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids 1996. Dunn, J.: “The Pauline Letters.” In: Barton, J. (ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge 1998, pp. 276–289. Dunn, J.D.G.: Beginning from Jerusalem. (Christianity in the Making 2) Grand Rapids / Cambridge 2009. Dupont-Sommer, A. / L. Robert: La déesse de Hiérapolis Castabala (Cilicie). Paris 1964. Durst, M.: “Hilarius von Poitiers.” In: Döpp, S. / W. Geerlings (eds.): Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur. Freiburg 1998, pp. 293–296. Dvornik, F.: The Ideal of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew. Cambridge (Mass.) 1958. Eck, W.: Der Neue Pauly 6 (1999), col. 67, s.v. “Iunius” II 15. ———:“Latein als Sprache politischer Kommunikation in Städten der östlichen Provinzen.” Chiron 30 (2000), pp. 641–660 ———: Rom und Judaea: fünf Vorträge zur römischen Herrschaft in Palaestina. Tübin- gen 2007. ———:“The Presence, Role and Signi cance of Latin in the Epigraphy and Culture of the Roman Near East.” In: Cotton, H.M. / R.G. Hoyland / J.J. Price / D.J. Wasserstein (edd.): FromHellenismtoIslam.CulturalandLinguisticChangeintheRomanNear East. Cambridge 2009, pp. 15–42. Eck, W. / J. Heinrichs: Sklaven und Freigelassene in der Gesellschaft der römischen Kaiserzeit. Darmstadt 1993. Eck, W./ A. Pangerl: “Sex. Iulius Frontinus als Legat des niedergermanischen Heeres: zu neuen Militärdiplomen in den germanischen Provinzen.” ZPE 143 (2003), pp. 205–219. Efthymiadis, S.: “Hagiography from the ‘Dark Ages’ to the Age of Symeon Meta- phrastes (Eighth–Tenth Centuries).” In: Efthymiadis, S. (ed.): The Ashgate Re- search Companion to Byzantine Hagiography, vol. 1: Periods and Places. Farnham / Burlington 2011, pp. 95–142. Ehrhard, A.: Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Li- teratur der griechischen Kirche von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhun- derts. Erster Teil: Die Überlieferung, vol. 1. Leipzig 1937. Eilers, C.: Roman Patrons of Greek Cities. Oxford 2002. Eisen, U.E.: Women Oceholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies. Collegeville 2000 (Ger. orig. 1996). Elze, M.: Tatian und seine Theologie. Göttingen 1960. Engelmann, H.: “Ephesos und Johannesakten.” ZPE 103 (1994), pp. 297–302. Erdemir, H.P.: “Antikça˘g’da Hierapolis ve çevresinde koyun yetistiricili˘give¸ yan sek- törleri = Sheep Raising and Side Sectors in and around Hierapolis in Antiquity.” In: Özçelik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizli ve çevresi tarih ve kültür sempozyumu bildiriler, 6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 1. Denizli 2007, pp. 23–30. Erdemir, H.: “Woollen Textiles: An International Trade Good in the Lycus Valley in Antiquity.” In: Cadwallader, A.H. / M. Trainor (eds.): Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Göttingen / Oakville 2011, pp. 104–129. sources and bibliography 411

Erdo˘gan,A. / U. Cörtük: Tripolis kazısı 2007 yılı çalısmaları¸ . PDF le, 18 pp. http:// tripoliskazisi.com/dokuman/kazisonuc007.pdf (3.2.2012) Erkelenz, D.: “Cicero, pro Flacco 55–59: zur Finanzierung von Statthalterfesten in der Frühphase des Koinon von Asia.” Chiron 29 (1999), pp. 43–57. Ertekin, E.: “Rome ça˘gındaHierapolis ve Laodikeia’da tekstil ve tekstil sektöründeki meslek örgütleri (ergasia’lar) = Textile Production and Textile Corporations of Hierapolis and Laodikeia in the Roman Period.” In: Özçelik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizlive çevresi tarih vekültür sempozyumu bildiriler,6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 1. Denizli 2007, pp. 31–41. Eskikurt, A. / E. Kapluhan: “Denizli’nin termal kaynakları = Thermal Springs of Denizli.” In: Özçelik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizli ve çevresi tarih ve kül- tür sempozyumu bildiriler, 6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 2. Denizli 2007, pp. 615– 624. Espérandieu, E.: Signacula medicorum oculariorum. Paris 1905. Fabricius, J.: Die hellenistischen Totenmahlreliefs: Grabrepräsentation und Wertvor- stellungen in ostgriechischen Städten. München 1999. Faivre, A.: Naissance d’une hiérarchie: les premières étapes du cursus clérical. Paris 1977. Fano Santi, M.: “Comunità giudaiche a Laodicea.” In: Traversari, G. (ed.): Laodicea di Frigia I. Rome 2000, pp. 25–27. Faraone, C.A.: “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells.” In: Faraone, C.A. / D. Obbink (eds.): Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. Oxford 1991, pp. 3–32. Fauth, W.: “Der christliche Reiterheilige des Sisinnios-Typs im Kampf gegen eine vielnamige Dämonin.” VigChr 53 (1999), pp. 401–425. Fédou, M.: Christianisme et religions païennes dans le Contre Celse d’Origène. Paris 1988. Feissel, D.: “Vicaires et proconsuls d’Asie du IVe au VIe siècle: remarques sur l’administration du diocèse asianique au bas-empire.” AnTard 6 (1998), pp. 91–104. ———: Chroniques d’épigraphie byzantine 1987–2004. Paris 2006. Felsch, D.: Die Feste im Johannesevangelium. (WUNT II 308) Tübingen 2011. Ferrary, J.-L.: “La Lex Antonia de Termessibus.” Athenaeum 63 (1985), pp. 419–457. ———:“Rome et les cités grecques d’Asie mineure au IIe siècle.” In: Bresson, A. / R. Descat (eds.): Les cités d’Asie mineure occidentale au IIe siècle a.C. Bordeaux 2001, pp. 93–106. ———:“Les mémoriaux de délégations du sanctuaire oraculaire de Claros et leur chronologie.” CRAI 149.2 (2005), pp. 719–765. Fiedrowicz, M.: Apologie im frühen Christentum: die Kontroverse um den christlichen Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten. Paderborn 2000. Fischer, J.A.: “Die Synoden im Osterfeststreit des 2. Jahrhunderts.” AHC 8 (1976), pp. 15–39. ———:“Angebliche Synoden des 2. Jahrhunderts.” AHC 9 (1977), pp. 241–252. Fischer, J.A. / A. Lumpe: Die Synoden von den Anfängen bis zum Vorabend des Nicae- nums. (Konziliengeschichte) Paderborn 1997. Fischer, T.: Seleukiden und Makkabäer. Bochum 1980. Flashar, H. (ed.): Die Philosophie der Antike 2/1: Sophistik, Sokrates, Sokratik, Mathe- matik, Medizin. Basel 1998. 412 sources and bibliography

Fleischer, R.: Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien. Leiden 1973. Folmer, M.: “Alt- und Reichsaramäisch.” In: Gzella, H. (ed.): Sprachen aus der Welt des Alten Testaments. Darmstadt 2009, pp. 104–131. Forbes, C.: Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment. (WUNT II 75) Tübingen 1995. Forbes, R.J.: Studies in Ancient Technology IV. Leiden 21964 (repr. 1987). Foss, C.: Ephesus after Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine and Turkish City. Cam- bridge 1979. ———:“Pilgrimage in Medieval Asia Minor.” DOP 56 (2002), pp. 129–151. Fragiadakis, C.: “Die attischen Sklavennamen von der spätarchaischen Epoche bis in die römische Kaiserzeit: eine historische und soziologische Untersuchung.” Diss. Mannheim 1986. Frank, N.: Der Kolosserbrief im Kontext des paulinischen Erbes. (WUNT II 271) Tübin- gen 2009. (Frank 2009) ———:“Der Kolosserbrief und die ‘Philosophie:’ Pseudepigraphie als Spiegel früh- christlicher Auseinandersetzungen um die Auslegung des paulinischen Erbes.” In: Frey, J. / J. Herzer / M. Janssen / Cl.K. Rothschild (eds.): Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. (WUNT 246) Tübingen 2009, pp. 411– 432. (Frank 2009 a) Franke, P.R. / M.K. Nollé: Die Homonoia-Münzen Kleinasiens und der thrakischen Randgebiete I: Katalog. Saarbrücken 1997. Fredouille, J.-C.: RAC 11 (1981), cols. 828–895, s.v. “Götzendienst.” Fredriksen, P.: “What ‘Parting of the Ways’? Jews, Gentiles, and the Mediterranean City.” In: Becker, A.H./ A. Yoshiko Reed (eds.): The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. (TSAJ 95) Tübingen 2003, pp. 35–63. Freeman, C.: A New History of Early Christianity. New Haven / London 2009. French, D.H.: “The Roman Road-System of Asia Minor.” ANRW II 7.2 (1980), pp. 698– 729. French, D.: “Acts and the Roman Roads of Asia Minor.” In: Gill, D.W.J. / C. Gempf (eds.): The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids 1994, pp. 49–58. ———:“Pre- and Early-Roman Roads of Asia Minor: The Persian Royal Road.” Iran 36 (1998), pp. 15–43. French, D.H.: Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor 3.1: Milestones, Repub- lican. Ankara 2012 (Electronic Monograph 1: http://www.biaa.ac.uk/ckeditor/ lemanager/user les/rrmam%20vol.%203%20milestones.pdf). Frenschkowski, M.: Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 7 (1994), s.v. “Philippus (‘Diakon’ ‘Evangelist’),” cols. 507–510. ———:“Erkannte Pseudepigraphie? Ein Essay über Fiktionalität, Antike und Chris- tentum.” In: Frey, J. / J. Herzer / M. Janssen / Cl.K. Rothschild (eds.): Pseudepigra- phie und Verfasserktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. (WUNT 246) Tübingen 2009, pp. 181–232. Frey, J.: “Zur Vielgestaltigkeit judenchristlicher Evangelienüberlieferungen.” In: Frey, J. / J. Schröter (eds.): Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen. (WUNT 254) Tübingen 2010, pp. 93–137. Friedrich, G.: ThWNT 6 (1959), pp. 829–863, s.v. “προφήτης κτλ” D–E. sources and bibliography 413

Friesen, S.J.: Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins. Oxford 2001. Fürst, A.: Die Liturgie der alten Kirche. Münster 2008. Fuhrer, T.: Der Neue Pauly 5 (1998), cols. 788–797, s.v. “Hymnos, Hymnus.” Gäckle, V.: Die Starken und die Schwachen in Korinth und in Rom: zu Herkunft und Funktion der Antithese in 1Kor 8,1–11,1 und in Röm 14,1–15,13. (WUNT II 200) Tübin- gen 2004. Gagniers, J. des / P. Devambez / L. Kahil / R. Ginouvès: Laodicée du Lycos: le nymphée, campagnes 1961–1963: avec des études de L. Robert, X. de Planhol. Quebec / Paris 1969. Gain, B.: L’église de Cappadoce au IV e siècle d’après la correspondance de Basile de Césarée (330–379). (Orientalia christiana analecta 225) Rome 1985. Gamble, H.Y.: “Pseudonymity and the New Testament Canon.” In: Frey, J. / J. Herzer / M. Janssen / C.K. Rothschild (eds.): Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. (WUNT 246) Tübingen 2009, pp. 333–362. Gardner, E.A.: “Inscriptions Copied by Cockerell in Greece II.” JHS 6 (1885), pp. 340– 363. Garzya, A.: “Aetios v. Amida.” In: Leven, K.-H.: Antike Medizin: ein Lexikon. Munich 2005, cols. 18–19. Gasque, W. Ward: Sir William Ramsay, Archaeologist and New Testament Scholar: A Survey of His Contribution to the Study of the New Testament. Grand Rapids 1966. Gaudemet, J.: “Note sur la transmission des C. 12 et 13 du concile de Laodicée relat- ifs à la désignation des évêques.” In: Liber Amicorum Moseigneur Onelin. Lou- vain 1976, pp. 87–98 (repr. Gaudemet, J.: La société ecclésiastique dans l’Occident médiéval. London 1980, IX). ———: Les sources du droit de l’église en occident du IIe au VIIe siècle. Paris 1985. Gauger, J.-D.: “Überlegungen zum Programm Antiochos’ III. für den Tempel und die Stadt Jerusalem (Jos.Ant.Jud. 12,145–146) und zum Problem jüdischer Listen.” Hermes 118 (1990), pp. 150–164. ———:“Formalien und Authentizitätsfrage: noch einmal zum Schreiben Antiochos’ III. an Zeuxis (Jos. Ant.Jud. 12,148–153) und zu den Antiochos-Urkunden bei Josephus.” Hermes 121 (1993), pp. 63–69. ———: Sibyllinische Weissagung. Düsseldorf / Zürich 1998. Gelichi, S. / C. Negrelli: “Ricognizione del 1999: Laodicea in età tardoantica e bizantina.” In: Traversari, G. (ed.): Laodicea di Frigia I. Rome 2000, pp. 125–164. Gelzer, M.: Caesar: der Politiker und Staatsmann. Wiesbaden 61960. ———: Cicero: ein biographischer Versuch. Wiesbaden 1969 (repr. 1983). Gerber, C.: Paulus und seine “Kinder”: Studien zur Beziehungsmetaphorik der paulinischen Briefe. Berlin 2005. ———:“Familie als Bildspender.” In: Scherberich, K. (ed.): Neues Testament und antike Kultur 2: Familie, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft. Neukirchen-Vluyn 2011, pp. 48– 52. Geréb, Z.: “Paulus als Diener der Kirche: Die Vorstellung des Apostels in Kolosser 1,21–2,5.” In: Müller, P.(ed.): Kolosser-Studien. (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 103) Neukirchen-Vluyn 2009, pp. 33–54. Gerhardsson, B.: “The Secret of the Transmission of the Unwritten Jesus Tradition.” NTS 51 (2005), pp. 1–18. 414 sources and bibliography

Gerhardt, T. / U. Hartmann: “Fasti.” In: Johne, K.-P./ U. Hartmann / T. Gerhardt (eds.): Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n.Chr. (235–284), vol. 2. Berlin 2008, pp. 1055–1198. Gerlach, K.: The Antenicene Pascha: A Rhetorical History. Leuven 1998. Gernhöfer, W.: “Die Darstellung der drei Männer an der Eiche von Mamre und ihre Bedeutung in der frühchristlichen Kunst.” RQ 104 (2009), pp. 1–20. Gibson, E.: The “Christians for Christians” Inscriptions of Phrygia. Missoula 1978. Gibson, E.L.: The Jewish Manumission Inscriptions of the Bosporus Kingdom. (TSAJ 75) Tübingen 1999. Gibson, W.: OxfordDictionaryofNationalBiography 11 (2004), pp. 493f., s.v.“Chishull, Edmund.” Gider, Z.: “Tripolisin ana caddesinde müze kurtarma kazısında bulunan dorik mal- zemeler = The Doric Materials Found with Museum Recovery Excavation at Tripolis Main Street.” In: Özçelik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizli ve çevresi tarih ve kültür sempozyumu bildiriler, 6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 2. Denizli 2007, pp. 25–31. Giesen, H.: “Das Römische Reich im Spiegel der Johannes-Apokalypse.” ANRW II 26.3 (1996), pp. 2501–2614. ———: Die Ofenbarung des Johannes. Regensburg 1997. Girardet, K.M.: “Die Teilnahme Kaiser Konstantins am Konzil von Nicaea (325) in byzantinischen Quellen.” AHC 33 (2001), pp. 241–284. ———: Die Konstantinische Wende: Voraussetzungen und geistige Grundlagen der Religionspolitik Konstantins des Grossen. Darmstadt 2006 (orig. 1998). Glas, T. / U. Hartmann: “Die Provinzialverwaltung.” In: Johne, K.-P. / U. Hartmann / T. Gerhardt (eds.): Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n.Chr. (235–284), vol. 2. Berlin 2008, pp. 641– 672. Gleason, M.W.: Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Prince- ton 1995. Gnoli, G.: Il Manicheismo 2: Il mito e la dottrina, i testi manichei copti e la polemica antimanichea. Milano 2006. Goetz, G.: “Papias von Hierapolis oder der Glottograph?” ZNW 27 (1928), p. 348. Gökgöz, A.: “Denizli ili jeotermal sahalarından yararlanmada bugünkü konum ve gelistirilebilirlik¸ üzerine genel bir de˘gerlendirme= A General Evaluation on the Development and the Present Status in Utilization from the Geothermal Field in Denizli Province.” In: Özçelik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizli ve çevresi tarih ve kültür sempozyumu bildiriler, 6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 2. Denizli 2007, pp. 625–635. Goldenberg, D.: “Scythian-Barbarian: The Permutations of a Classical Topos in Jew- ish and Christian Texts of Late Antiquity.” JJS 49 (1998), pp. 87–101. Gonzato, A. / M. Veronese: Passioni e atti dei martiri. Vittorino di Petovio, Opere. (Corpus scriptorum ecclesiae aquileiensis 2) Rome 2002. Graf, F.: Gottesnähe und Schadenszauber: Die Magie in der griechisch-römischen Antike. Munich 1996. Grandinetti, P. “Qualche osservazione sugli epigrammi greci in onore di donne.” Epigraphica 68 (2006), pp. 33–38. Grant, R.M.: “Melito of Sardis on Baptism.” VigChr 4 (1950), pp. 33–36. sources and bibliography 415

———: Greek Apologists of the Second Century. Philadelphia 1988. (Grant 1988) ———:“Five Apologists and Marcus Aurelius.” VigChr 42 (1988), pp. 1–17. (Grant 1988 a) Greschat, K. / M. Tilly: Justinus, Dialog mit dem Juden Tryphon, übersetzt von Philipp Haeuser. Wiesbaden 2005. Grewe, K.: “Ingenieurkunst und die Kraft des Wassers.” AW 3 (2010), pp. 37–42. Grewe, K. / P. Kessener: “A Stone Relief of a Water-Powered Stone Saw at Hierapolis, Phrygia: A First Consideration and Reconstruction Attempt.” In: D’Andria, F. / M. Piera Caggia (eds.): Hierapolis di Frigia I: Le attività delle campagne di scavo e restauro 2000–2003. Istanbul 2007, pp. 627–633. Gri n, M.: “The Flavians.” In: Bowman, A.K. / P. Garnsey / D. Rathbone (eds.): The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., vol. 11: The High Empire, A.D. 70–192. Cambridge 2000, pp. 1–83. Grillmeier, A.: Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, vol. 1: Von der apostolischen Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalcedon (451). Freiburg 1979. Gruen, E.S.: The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London 1984. ———: Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge (Mass.) / London 2002. Grün, A.: LThK 3 (21995), cols. 1189f., s.v. “Fasten” IV, historisch-theologisch. Gry, L.: “Le Papias des belles promesses messianiques.” RB 52 (1943/44), pp. 112– 124. Guarducci, M.: Epigraa Greca 4: Epigra sacre pagane e cristiane. Rome 1978. Günther, L.-M.: Herodes der Grosse. Darmstadt 2005. Günther, R.: Hosianna dem Sohn Davids: kurze Geschichte des frühen Christentums. Leipzig 1998. Guizzi, F. / E. Miranda: “Iura sepulcrorum nel Museo di Denizli a Pamukkale (Hier- apolis di Frigia).” In: Panciera, S. (ed.): Libitinaedintorni:Libitinaeilucisepolcrali, le leges libitinariae campane, iura sepulcrorum, vecchie e nuove iscrizioni. Atti dell’ XI Rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie. Rome 2004, pp. 635–652. Gutschmid, A. von: “Die Königsnamen in den apokryphen Apostelgeschichten: ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss des geschichtlichen Romans.” RhM 19 (1864), pp. 380– 401. Guyot, P. / R. Klein: Das frühe Christentum bis zum Ende der Verfolgungen 2: Die Christen in der heidnischen Gesellschaft. Darmstadt 1994. Habicht, C.: “New Evidence on the Province of Asia.” JRS 65 (1975), pp. 64–91. ———:“Die augusteische Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert nach Christi Geburt.” In: Boer, W. den (ed.): Le culte des souverains dans l’Empire romain. Geneva 1973, pp. 41–88. Haehling, R. von: Die Religionszugehörigkeit der hohen Amtsträger des Römischen Reiches seit Constantins I. Alleinherrschaft bis zum Ende der Theodosianischen Dynastie. Bonn 1978. Häkkinen, S.: “Ebionites.” In: Marjanen, A. / P. Luomanen (eds.): A Companion to Second-Century “Heretics.” Leiden 2008, pp. 247–278. Haensch, R.: Capita provinciarum: Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz 1997. Hafner, M.: Die Kaiserin Eudokia als Repräsentantin des Kulturchristentums. Gym- nasium 103 (1996), pp. 216–228. 416 sources and bibliography

Hahn, F. / H. Klein: Die frühchristliche Prophetie: Ihre Voraussetzungen, ihre Anfänge und ihre Entwicklung bis zum Montanismus: eine Einführung. Neukirchen-Vluyn 2011. Hahn, J.: “Die jüdische Gemeinde im spätantiken Antiochia: Leben im Spannungs- feld von sozialer Einbindung, religiösem Wettbewerb und gewaltsamem Kon- ikt.” In: Jütte, R. / A.P. Kustermann (eds.): Jüdische Gemeinden und Organisa- tionsformen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Vienna / Cologne / Weimar 1996, pp. 57–89. ———: Gewalt und religiöser Konlikt: Studien zu den Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Christen, Heiden und Juden im Osten des Römischen Reiches (von Konstantin bis Theodosius II.). Berlin 2004. ———:“Gesetze als Wafe? Die kaiserliche Religionspolitik und die Zerstörung der Tempel.” In: Hahn, J. (ed.): Spätantiker Staat und religiöser Konlikt: Imperiale und lokale Verwaltung und die Gewalt gegen Heiligtümer. (Millenium-Studien 34) Berlin / New York 2011, pp. 201–220. Hahn, U.: Die Frauen des römischen Kaiserhauses und ihre Ehrungen im griechischen Osten anhand epigraphischer und numismatischer Zeugnisse von Livia bis Sabina. Saarbrücken 1994. Hahneman, G.M.: The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Oxford 1992. Halfmann, H.: Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. (Hypomnemata 58) Göttingen 1979. ———: Itinera principum: Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich. (HABES 2) Stuttgart 1986. Halkin, F.: “Légende inédite de l’apôtre Archippos.” In: Gran eld, P. / J.J. Jungmann (eds.): KYRIAKON: Festschrift Johannes Quasten, vol. 2. Münster 1970, pp. 576– 579. Halleux, R.: Le problème des métaux dans la science antique. Paris 1974. Hamilton, W.J.: Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia, with Some Account of Their Antiquities and Geology, vol. 1. London 1842. ———: Reisen in Kleinasien, Pontus und Armenien nebst antiquarischen und geolo- gischen Forschungen: nebst Zusätzen und Berichtigungen von H. Kiepert, vol. 1. Leipzig 1843. Hanig, R.: “Antimontanist, Anonymer.” In: Döpp, S. / W. Geerlings (eds.): Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur. Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 1998, p. 35. ———:“Apollinaris von Hierapolis.” In: Döpp, S. / W. Geerlings (eds.): Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur. Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 1998, p. 41. Hannah, D.D.: “Guardian Angels and Angelic National Patrons in Second Tem- ple Judaism and Early Christianity.” In: Reiterer, F.V. / T. Nicklas / K. Schöpin (eds.): Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings: Origins, Development and Recep- tion. Berlin / New York 2007, pp. 413–435. Hannick, C.: “Liturgie und Geschichtsschreibung,” in: Scharer, A. / G. Scheibelreiter (eds.): Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter. Vienna 1994, pp. 179–185. Hanson, R.P.C.: The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381. Edinburgh 1988. Harland, P.A.: Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society. Minneapolis 2003. sources and bibliography 417

Harnack, A.: “Die Quelle der Berichte über das Regenwunder im Feldzuge Marc Aurel’s gegen die Quaden.” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1894.2, pp. 835–882. ———: Militia Christi: die christliche Religion und der Soldatenstand in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. Tübingen 1905. Harnack, A.v.: Marcion: das Evangelium vom fremden Gott: eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche.—Neue Studien zu Marcion. Leipzig 21924 (repr. Berlin 1960). ———: Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhun- derten, 2 vols. Leipzig 41924. ———: Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, Teil I.1. Leipzig 21958. Harrill, J.A.: Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions. Minneapolis 2006. Hatch, W.H.P.: “Über den Namen Papias.” ZNW 12 (1911), p. 83. Hefele, C.J. / H. Leclercq: Histoire des conciles d’après les documents originaux I. Paris 1907 (repr. Hildesheim / New York 1973). Heinen, H.: “Zur Sklaverei in der hellenistischen Welt II.” AncSoc 8 (1977), pp. 121–154. Heinimann, F.: Nomos und Physis: Herkunft und Bedeutung einer Antithese im griechischen Denken des 5. Jahrhunderts. Basel 1945 (repr. Darmstadt 1987). Heininger, B.: “Soziale und politische Metaphorik im Kolosserbrief.” In: Müller, P. (ed.): Kolosser-Studien. (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 103) Neukirchen-Vluyn 2009, pp. 55–82. Helgeland, J.: “Christians and the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constan- tine.” ANRW II 23.1 (1979), pp. 724–834. Heller, A.: “Les bêtises des Grecs”: Conlits et rivalités entre cités d’Asie et de Bithynie à l’époque romaine (129 a.C.–235 p.C.). Bordeaux 2006. Hellholm, D.: “Die Gattung Haustafel im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief: ihre Posi- tion innerhalb der Paränese-Abschnitte und ihr Hintergrund in der spätantiken Gesellschaft.” In: Müller, P. (ed.): Kolosser-Studien. (Biblisch-Theologische Stu- dien 103) Neukirchen-Vluyn 2009, pp. 103–128. Hemer, C.J.: The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting. She eld 1986. Henderson, I.H.: “Memory, Text and Performance in Early Christian Formation.” In: Frateantonio, C. / H. Krasser (eds.): Religion und Bildung: Medien und Funktionen religiösen Wissens in der Kaiserzeit. (PAwB 30) Stuttgart 2010, pp. 157–184. Hengel, M.: “Das Christuslied im frühesten Gottedienst.” In: Bauer, W. et al. (eds.): Weisheit Gottes-Weisheit der Welt: Festschrift für Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger. St. Ottilien 1987, pp. 357–404 (= his Kleine Schriften 4: Studien zur Christologie. Tübingen 2006, pp. 205–258). ———: Die johanneische Frage: ein Lösungsversuch, mit einem Beitrag zur Apokalypse von J. Frey. (WUNT 67) Tübingen 1993. Hengel, M. / R. Deines: The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Edinburgh / New York 2002. Hentschel, A.: Diakonia im Neuen Testament: Studien zur Semantik unter besonderer Berücksichtigungder Rolle von Frauen. (WUNT II 226) Tübingen 2007. Hering, J.P.: The Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln in Theological Context.: An Anal- ysis of Their Origins, Relationship, and Message. New York 2007. 418 sources and bibliography

Herman, E.: “Chalkedon und die Ausgestaltung des konstantinopolitanischen Pri- mats.” In: Grillmeier, A. / H. Bacht (eds.): Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 2: Entscheidung um Chalkedon. Würzburg 1953, pp. 459–490. Hernández, J., Jr.: “The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea for New Testament Textual Criticism.” JBL 130 (2011), pp. 183–196. Herrmann, P.:“῾Η Ναειτηνῶν κατοικία.: ein Beitrag zur historischen Landeskunde des südöstlichen Lydien.” In: Malay, H. (ed.): Erol Atalay Memorial. (Arkeoloji Dergisi özel sayı 1) Izmir 1991, pp. 77–85. ———:“Inschriften von Sardeis.” Chiron 23 (1993), pp. 223–263. Herrmann-Otto, E.: Konstantin der Grosse. Darmstadt 2007. ———: Sklaverei und Freilassung in der griechisch-römischen Welt. Hildesheim 2009. Hershbell, J.: “The Stoicism of Epictetus: Twentieth Century Perspectives.”ANRW II 36.3 (1989), pp. 2148–2163. Herz, P.: “Asiarchen und Archiereis: zum Provinzialkult der Provinz Asia.” Tyche 7 (1992), pp. 95–115. ———:“Neue Forschungen zum Festkalender der römischen Kaiserzeit.” In: Cancik, H. / K. Hitzl (eds.): Die Praxis der Herrscherverehrung in Rom und seinen Pro- vinzen. Tübingen 2003, pp. 47–67. ———:“Textilien vom nördlichen Balkan: ein Beitrag zur Wirtschaft der römischen Provinz Raetia.” In: Herz, P. / P. Schmid / O. Stoll (eds.): Handel, Kultur und Militär.: die Wirtschaft des Alpen-Donau-Adria-Raumes. Berlin 2011, pp. 61–78. Hess, H.: The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica. Oxford 2002. Heubeck, A.: “Zu einigen kleinasiatischen Ortsnamen.” Glotta 63 (1985), pp. 115–163. Hieke, T.: “Der Seher Johannes als neuer Ezechiel: die Ofenbarung des Johannes vom Ezechielbuch her gelesen.” In: Sänger, D. (ed.): Das Ezechielbuch in der Johannesofenbarung. Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004, pp. 1–25. Hierapolis di Frigia 1957–1987. Milano 1987. Hill, C.E.: “What Papias Said about John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian Fragment.” JThS n.s. 49 (1998), pp. 582–629. Hill, G.F.: “Apollo and St. Michael: Some Analogies.” JHS 36 (1916), pp. 134–162. Hind, J.G.F.: “Mithridates.” In: Crook, J.A. / A. Lintott / E. Rawson (eds.): The Cam- bridge Ancient History 9: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146–43 B.C. Cam- bridge 1994, pp. 129–164. Hirschberg, J.: Geschichte der Augenheilkunde, vol. 1. Leipzig 1899 (repr. Hildesheim / New York 1977). Hirschmann, V.: “Der Schatten der Unsterblichkeit: der Priester und Prophet Epi- tynchanos.” EA 36 (2003), pp. 137–152. ———:“‘Nach Art der Engel’—die phrygische Prophetin Nanas.” EA 37 (2004), pp. 160–168. Hirschmann, V.-E.: Horrenda Secta: Untersuchungen zum frühchristlichen Montanis- mus und seinen Verbindungen zur paganen Religion Phrygiens. (Historia Ein- zelschr. 179) Stuttgart 2005. Hirschmann, V.: “Zwischen Menschen und Göttern: die kleinasiatischen Engel.” EA 40 (2007), pp. 135–146. Hösle, V.: Moral und Politik: Grundlagen einer politischen Ethik für das 21. Jahrhun- dert. München 1997. sources and bibliography 419

Hofmann, J.: “Kalender, Martyrologium, Menologium, Synaxarion.” In: Döpp, S. / W. Geerlings (eds.): Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur. Freiburg 1998, pp. 373f. ———:“Christliche Frauen im Dienst kleinasiatischer Gemeinden des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts: eine prosopographische Studie.” VigChr 54 (2000), pp. 283–308. Holl, K.: Amphilochius von Ikonium in seinem Verhältnis zu den grossen Kappado- ziern. Tübingen / Leipzig 1904 (repr. Darmstadt 1969). ———:“Die Entstehung der vier Fastenzeiten in der griechischen Kirche.” In: his Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte 2: Der Osten. Tübingen 1928, pp. 155– 203 (orig. Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 5. Berlin 1923). ———:“Das Fortleben der Volkssprachen in Kleinasien in nachchristlicher Zeit.” In: his Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte 2: Der Osten. Tübingen 1928, pp. 238–248 (orig. Hermes 43 [1908], pp. 240–254). Homolle, T.: “Le Proconsul Rabirius: correction au texte de Josèphe.” BCH 6 (1882), pp. 608–612. Honigmann, E.: “Sur quelques évêchés d’Asie mineure.” Byz. 10 (1935), pp. 643–654. ———:“La liste originale des Pères de Nicée: apropos de l’évêché de “Sodoma” en Arabie.” Byz. 14 (1939), pp. 17–76. ———:“The Original Lists of the Members of the Council of Nicaea, the Robber Synod and the Council of Chalcedon.” Byz. 16 (1942/43), pp. 20–80. ———: Patristic Studies. (Studi e Testi 173) Città del Vaticano 1953. ———: Trois mémoires posthumes d’histoire et de géographie de l’orient chrétien. Bruxelles 1961. Hornickel, O.: Ehren- und Rangprädikate in den Papyrusurkunden: ein Beitrag zum römischen und byzantinischen Titelwesen. Giessen 1930. Horsley, G.H.R. (ed.): New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 1: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1976. Macquarie University 1981. Horsley, G.H.R. (ed.): New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 2: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1977. Macquarie University 1982. Horsley, G.H.R. (ed.): New Documents illustrating Early Christianity 4: A review of the Greek inscriptions and papyri published in 1979. Macquarie University 1987. Horst, P.W. van der: Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millenium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300BCE–700CE). Kampen 1991. ———:“A Note on the Judas Curse in Early Christian Inscriptions.” In: his Hellenism- Judaism-Christianity: Essays on Their Interaction. Leuven 1998, pp. 157–160 (orig. OrChrP 59 [1993], pp. 211–215). Hübner, S.: “Spiegel und soziale Gestaltungskraft alltäglicher Lebenswelt: der Kult des Men in Lydien und Phrygien.” In: Schwertheim, E. / E. Winter (eds.): Religion und Region: Götter und Kulte aus dem östlichen Mittelmeerraum. (Asia Minor Studien 45) Bonn 2003, pp. 179–200. ———: Der Klerus in der Gesellschaft des spätantiken Kleinasiens. (AwK 15) Stuttgart 2005. Hülsen, K.: “‘Tempelsklaverei’ in Kleinasien: ein Beitrag zum Tempeldienst in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit.” Diss. Trier 2007 (rev. 2008) (http://deposit.ddb .de/cgibin/dokserv?idn=988049066&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf& lename=988 049066.pdf; September 2, 2010) 420 sources and bibliography

Hüneburg, M.: “Paulus versus Paulus: der Epheserbrief als Korrektur des Kolosser- briefes.” In: Frey, J. / J. Herzer / M. Janssen / C.K. Rothschild (eds.): Pseudepigra- phie und Verfasserktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. (WUNT 246) Tübingen 2009, pp. 387–409. Hütteroth, W.-D. / V.Höhfeld: Türkei. (Wissenschaftliche Länderkunden) Darmstadt 2002. Humbert, M.: “La peine en droit romain.” In: La peine / punishment 1: antiquité / antiquity. Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l’histoire comparative des institutions 55. Bruxelles 1991, pp. 133–183. Hunter, L.W.: “Cicero’s Journey to His Province of Cilicia in 51B.C.” JRS 3 (1913), pp. 73–97 Huttner, U.: “Wolf und Eber: die Flüsse von Laodikeia in Phrygien.” In: Overbeck, B. / J. Nollé / P. Weiss (eds.): Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens. (Nomismata 1) Milan 1997, pp. 93–108. (Huttner 1997) ———:“Publius Aelius Dionysius Sabinianus und die Dionysischen Techniten in Laodikeia am Lykos.” JNG 47 (1997), pp. 205–208. (Huttner 1997 a) ———:“Zwischen Traditionalismus und Totalitarismus: zur Ideologie und Praxis der Regierung des Kaisers Decius.” In: Johne, K.-P. / T. Gerhardt / U. Hartmann (eds.): Deleto paene imperio Romano: Transformationsprozesse des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert und ihre Rezeption in der Neuzeit. Stuttgart 2006, pp. 37– 56. ———:“Von Maximinus Thrax bis Aemilianus.” In: Johne, K.-P.: Die Zeit der Sol- datenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n.Chr. (235–284), vol. 1. Berlin 2008, pp. 161–221. (Huttner 2008) ———: Römische Antike. Tübingen 2008. (Huttner 2008 a) ———:“Die Färber von Laodikeia und Hierapolis: eine Nachricht aus dem Corpus der Alchemisten.” MBAH 26 (2009), pp. 139–157. (Huttner 2009) ———:“Sterben wie ein Philosoph: zur Inszenierung des Todes in der Antike.” In: Zimmermann, M. (ed.): Extreme Formen von Gewalt in Bild und Text des Altertums. Munich 2009, pp. 295–320. (Huttner 2009 a) ———:“Kalender und religiöse Identität: Ostern in Hierapolis.” ZAC 15 (2011), pp. 272–290. (Huttner 2011) ———:“Vorläufer des Journalismus in der Antike.” medien & zeit 26.2 (2011), pp. 4–13. (Huttner 2011 a) ———:“Der Fluch des Apostels: Magie in den Philippusakten.” In: Popko, L. / N. Quenouille / M. Rücker (eds.): Von Sklaven, Pächtern und Politikern: Beiträge zum Alltag in Ägypten, Griechenland und Rom. ∆ουλικὰ ἔργα zu Ehren von Rein- hold Scholl. (Archiv für Papyrusforschung Beih. 33) Berlin / Boston 2012, pp. 18– 32. ———:“Mit den Heiligen unterwegs in Kleinasien: Distanzmessungen in hagiographischen Texten.” In: Geus, K. / M. Rathmann (eds.): Vermessung der Oikumene. Berlin 2013, pp. 243–254. ———:“Die Bauinschrift in der Pfeilerkirche von Hierapolis und der Patriarchen- titel im frühen Christentum.” In: Fischer, J. (ed.): Der Beitrag Kleinasiens zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte der griechisch-römischen Antike. Vienna (appearing shortly). sources and bibliography 421

Ibuki, Y.: Die Wahrheit im Johannesevangelium. Bonn 1972. Ilan, T.: Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity 1: Palestine 330BCE–200CE. Tübin- gen 2002. ———:“The New Jewish Inscriptions from Hierapolis and the Question of Jewish Diaspora Cemeteries.” SCI 25 (2006), pp. 71–86. ———: Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity 3: The Western Diaspora 330BCE– 650CE. Tübingen 2008. Imhoof-Blumer, F.: Kleinasiatische Münzen, 2 vols. Vienna 1901/02 (repr. in 1 vol. Hildesheim / Zürich / New York 1991). Isık,¸ F.: “Die anatolische-altphrygische Muttergottheit vom Neolithikum bis zur Klassik.” In: Schwertheim, E. / E. Winter (eds.): Neue Funde und Forschungen in Phrygien. (Asia Minor Studien 61) Bonn 2008, pp. 33–68. Ismaelli, T.: “Il monopteros del santuario di Apollo a Hierapolis di Frigia: ricerche sull’oracolo alfabetico.” MDAI (I) 59 (2009), pp. 131–192. (Ismaelli 2009) ———: HierapolisdiFrigia III: architetturadoricaaHierapolisdiFrigia. Istanbul 2009. (Ismaelli 2009 a) Jacobs, A.S.: “Jews and Christians.” In: Harvey, S.A. / D.G. Hunter (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Oxford 2008, pp. 169–185. Jakobs, P.H.F.: Die frühchristlichen Ambone Griechenlands. Bonn 1987. Janin, R.: DHGE 12 (1953), cols. 41–42, s.v. “Cecropius.” Janssen, M.: “Antike (Selbst-)Aussagen über Beweggründe zur Pseudepigraphie.” In: Frey, J. / J. Herzer / M. Janssen / C.K. Rothschild (eds.): Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. (WUNT 246) Tübingen 2009, pp. 125– 179. Jeremias, J.: ThWNT 3 (1935), pp. 173–180, s.v. “θύρα.” Johnson, S.E.: “Laodicea and Its neighbors.” The Biblical Archaeologist 13.1 (1950), pp. 1–18. Johnston, A.: “Hierapolis revisited.” NC 144 (1984), pp. 52–80. (Johnston 1984) ———:“Greek Imperial Statistics: A Commentary.” Revue numismatique 26 (1984), pp. 240–257. (Johnston 1984a) Jones, A.H.M.: Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford 1937. ———: The Later Roman Empire 284–602: A Social Economic and Administrative Survey, 3 vols. Oxford 1964. Jones, C.P.: “Epigrams from Hierapolis and Aphrodisias.” Hermes 125 (1997), pp. 203– 314. ———:“Ten Dedications ‘To the Gods and Goddesses’ and the Antonine Plague.” JRA 18 (2005), pp. 293–301. ———:“A Petition to Hadrian of 129CE.” Chiron 39 (2009), pp. 445–461 Jonkers, E.J.: Acta et symbola conciliorum quae saeculo quarto habita sunt. Leiden 1954. Judeich, W.: “Die Inschriften.” In: C. Humann et al. (eds.): Altertümer von Hierapolis. (JDAI Erg.4) Berlin 1898. Judge, E.A.: “πραΰτης.” In: Horsley, G.H.R.: New Documents Illustrating Early Chris- tianity 4. Macquarie University 1987, pp. 169–170 no. 80. Junod, E.: “Polymorphie du Dieu Sauveur.” In: Ries, J. / Y. Janssens / J.-M. Sevrin (eds.): Gnosticisme et monde hellénistique. Actes du Colloque de Louvain-la-Neuve (11–14 mars 1980). Louvain-la-Neuve 1982, pp. 38–46. 422 sources and bibliography

Junod, E. / J.-D. Kaestli: “Un fragment grec inédit des Actes de Jean: la guérison des lles d’Antipatros à Smyrne.” MH 31 (1974), pp. 96–104. Junod, E. / J.-D. Kaestli: “Le dossier des ‘Actes de Jean’: état de la question et perspectives nouvelles.” ANRW II 25.6 (1988), pp. 4293–4362. Karydis, N.D.: Early Byzantine Vaulted Construction in Churches of the Western Coast- al Plains and River Valleys of Asia Minor. Oxford 2011. Kauold, H.: “Griechisch-syrische Väterliste der frühen griechischen Synoden.” Oriens Christianus 77 (1993), pp. 1–96. Kaufmann, C.M.: Handbuch der altchristlichen Epigraphik. Freiburg 1917. Kazhdan, A.: “Constaninopolitan Synaxarium as a Source for Social History at By- zantium,” in: Taft, R.F. (ed.): The Christian East, Its Institutions & Its Thought: A Critical Relection. Papers of the International Scholarly Congress for the 75th Anniversary of the Pontical Oriental Institute (Rome, 30 May–5 June 1993). Rome 1996, pp. 484–515. Kearsley, R.A.: “Epigraphic Evidence for the Social Impact of Roman Government in Laodicea and Hierapolis.” In: Cadwallader, A.H. / M. Trainor (eds.): Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Göttingen / Oakville 2011, pp. 130–150. Kelp, U.: “Das Phänomen der Türfassaden in Phrygien: zu lokalen Identitäten anhand einiger Grabtypen römischer Zeit.” In: Schwertheim, E. / E. Winter (eds.): Neue Funde und Forschungen in Phrygien. (Asia Minor Studien 61) Bonn 2008, pp. 69–91. Kienast, D.: Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie. Darmstadt 21996. Kiley, M.: Colossians as Pseudepigraphy. She eld 1986. Kılıc, Y.: “Denizli yöresinin prehistorik yerlesimleri¸ ve yol sistemi = Prehistoric Settlements of Denizli Region and Road System between the Settlements.” In: Özçelik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizli ve çevresitarih ve kültür sempozyumu bildiriler, 6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 1. Denizli 2007, pp. 12–22. King, K.L.: “Which Early Christianity?” In: Harvey, S.A. / D.G. Hunter (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Oxford 2008, pp. 66–84. Kinzig, W.: “Der ‘Sitz im Leben’ der Apologie in der Alten Kirche.” ZKG 100 (1989), pp. 291–317. ———:“Überlegungen zum Sitz im Leben der Gattung Πρὸς ῞Ε ηνας / Ad nationes.” In: Haehling, R. v.: Rom und das himmlische Jerusalem: die frühen Christen zwischen Anpassung und Ablehnung. Darmstadt 2000, pp. 152–183. Kirbihler, F.: “Die Italiker in Kleinasien, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Eph- esos (133 v.Chr.–1. Jh. n.Chr.).” In: Meyer, M. (ed.): Neue Zeiten, neue Sitten: zur Rezeption und Integration römischen und italischen Kulturguts in Kleinasien. Vienna 2007, pp. 19–35. Kittel, G.: ThWNT IV (1940), pp. 100–147, s.v. “λέγω.” Klafenbach, G.: Griechische Epigraphik. Göttingen 21966. Klauck, H.-J.: Judas, ein Jünger des Herrn. Freiburg 1987. ———: Der Zweite und Dritte Johannesbrief. (EKK XXIII/2) Zürich 1992. ———: Apokryphe Evangelien: eine Einführung. Stuttgart 2002. ———: Apokryphe Apostelakten: eine Einführung. Stuttgart 2005. Klauser, T.: RAC 3 (1957), cols. 888–909, s.v. “Diakon.” Klein, R.: “Das Regenwunder im Quadenland.” BHAC 1986/89. Bonn 1991, pp. 117–138. sources and bibliography 423

———:“Zum pädagogischen Stellenwert der heidnischen Literatur bei den Kirchen- vätern des 4. Jahrhunderts.” In: Wiles, M.F. / E.J. Yarnold / P.M. Parvis (eds.): Studia patristica 34. Papers Presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford 1999. Leuven 2001, pp. 97–110. Kleiner, F.S. / S.P. Noe: The Early Cistophoric Coinage. New York 1977. Klibengajtis, T.: “Die Wahrheitsbezeichnungen des Clemens von Alexandrien in ihrem philosophischen und theologischen Kontext.” VigChr 58 (2004), pp. 316– 331. Klijn, A.F.J.: “Die syrische Baruch-Apokalypse.” In: Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit V/2. Gütersloh 1976, pp. 105–191. Klose, D.O.A.: “Festivals and Games in the Cities of the East during the Roman Empire.” In: Howgego, C. / V. Heuchert / A. Burnett (eds.): Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford 2005, pp. 125–133. Klose, D.O.A. / G. Stumpf: Sport, Spiele, Sieg: Münzen und Gemmen der Antike. Munich 1996. Knapp, H.M.: “Melito’s Use of Scripture in Peri Pascha, Second-Century Typology.” VigChr 54 (2000), pp. 343–374. Kneissl, P.: Die Siegestitulatur der römischen Kaiser. Göttingen 1969. Körtner, U.H.J.: Papias von Hierapolis: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des frühen Christen- tums. Göttingen 1983. ———:“Papiasfragmente.” In: Körtner, U.H.J. / M. Leutzsch: Papiasfragmente / Hirt des Hermas. Darmstadt 1998, pp. 3–103. ———:“Papiasfragmente.” In: Pratscher, W. (ed.): Die Apostolischen Väter: eine Ein- leitung. Göttingen 2009, pp. 170–191. Koester, C.R.: “The Message to Laodicea and the Problem of Its local Context: A Study of the Imagery in Rev 3,14–22.” NTS 49 (2003), pp. 407–424. Kötting, B.: Peregrinatio Religiosa: Wallfahrten in der Antike und das Pilgerwesen in der alten Kirche. Regensburg / Münster 1950. Kolb, A.: Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Römischen Reich. (Klio Beih. n.F. 2) Berlin 2000. Kolb, F.: “Zur Geschichte der Stadt Hierapolis in Phrygien.” ZPE 15 (1974), pp. 255– 270. ———:“Bemerkungen zu einer fragmentarisch erhaltenen Phyleninschrift im The- ater von Hierapolis / Phrygien.” ZPE 81 (1990), pp. 203–206. Kornemann, E.: RE Suppl. 4 (1924), cols. 914–941, s.v. “κοινόν.” Koselleck, R.: Vergangene Zukunft: zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt 1979. Kovács, P.: Marcus Aurelius’ Rain Miracle and the Marcomannic Wars. (Mnemosyne Suppl. 308) Leiden 2009. Kraabel, A.T.: “Melito the Bishop and the Synagogue at Sardis: Text and Context.” In: Overman, J.A. / R.S. MacLennan (eds.): Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of, and in Dialogue with, A. Thomas Kraabel. Atlanta 1992, pp. 197–207 (orig. 1971). Krannich, T.: Von Leporius bis zu Leo dem Grossen: Studien zur lateinischsprachigen Christologie im fünften Jahrhundert nach Christus. Tübingen 2005. Kreitzer, L.J.: Hierapolis in the Heavens: Studies in the Letter to the Ephesians. London / New York 2007. 424 sources and bibliography

Krug, A.: Heilkunst und Heilkult: Medizin in der Antike. Munich 21993. Kubi ´nska,J.: Les monuments funéraires dans les inscriptions grecques de l’Asie mineure. Warsaw 1968. Küchler, M.: Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen: zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Den- kens im Bereich des frühjüdischen Jahweglaubens. Fribourg / Göttingen 1979. Kürzinger, J.: PapiasvonHierapolisunddieEvangeliendesNeuenTestaments. Regens- burg 1983. Kuhof, W.: Diokletian und die Epoche der Tetrarchie: das römische Reich zwischen Krisenbewältigung und Neuaubau (284–313 n.Chr.). Frankfurt (Main) 2001. Kuhn, H.-W.: “Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit: ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums.” ANRW II 25.1 (1982), pp. 648– 793. Kurek-Chomycz, D.A. / R. Bieringer: “Guardians of the Old at the Dawn of the New: The Role of Angels according to the Pauline Letters.” In: Reiterer, F.V. / T. Nicklas / K. Schöpin (eds.): Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings: Origins, Development and Reception. Berlin / New York 2007, pp. 325–355. Labarre, G.: “L’épitaphe de l’archiviste Dionysios.” EA 38 (2005), pp. 116–124. Labarre, G. / M.-T. Le Dinahet: “Les métiers du textile en Asie Mineure de l’époque hellénistique à l’époque impériale.” In: Aspects de l’artisanat du textile dans le monde méditerranéen (Egypte, Grèce, monde romain). Lyon 1996, pp. 49–116. Lacerenza, G.: “Jewish Magicians and Christian Clients in Late Antiquity: The Testi- mony of Amulets and Inscriptions.” In: Rutgers, L.V. (ed.): What Athens Has to Do with Jerusalem: Essays on Classical, Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeol- ogy in Honor of Gideon Foerster. Leuven 2002, pp. 393–419. La , U.: “Le iscrizioni relative all’introduzione nel 9 A.C. del nuovo calendario della provincia d’Asia.” SCO 16 (1967), pp. 5–98. Lampe, G.W.H.: A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford 1961 (repr. 2007). Lampe, P.: “Keine ‘Sklavenucht’ des Onesimus.” ZNW 76 (1985), pp. 135–137. Landau, P.: “Die Rolle der Textkritik im ersten Jahrtausend der Geschichte des kanonischen Rechts.” AHC 34 (2002), pp. 1–15. Lane, E.: Corpus monumentorum religionis dei Menis 2: The Coins and Gems. Leiden 1975. ———: Corpus monumentorum religionis dei Menis 3: Interpretations and Testimonia. Leiden 1976. Lane, E.N.: “A Men-Stele from Phrygian Hierapolis: Further Considerations.” EA 7 (1986), pp. 107–109. Lane Fox, R.: Pagans and Christians in the Mediterranean World from the Second Century AD to the Conversion of Constantine. London 1986. Lang, F.G.: “Neues über Lydia? Zur Deutung von ‘Purpurhändlerin’ in Apg 16,14.” ZNW 100 (2009), pp. 29–44. Langier, L.: “Les grotesques de Smyrne, types pathologiques et caricatures.” In: Hasselin Rous, I. / L. Langier / J.-Luc Martinez (eds.): D’IzmiràSmyrne:découverte d’une cité antique. Paris 2009, pp. 170–173. Larfeld, W.: Griechische Epigraphik. (HdAW I/5) München 1914. Lattimore, R.: Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana 1942. Laufer, S.: Diokletians Preisedikt. Berlin 1971. Lebon, J.: “La christologie du monophysisme syrien.” In: Grillmeyer, A. / H. Bacht sources and bibliography 425

(eds.): Das Konzil von Chalkedon-Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 1: Der Glaube von Chalkedon. Würzburg 1951, pp. 425–580. Lenski, N.: “The Reign of Constantine.” In: Lenski, N. (ed.): The Cambridge Compan- ion to the Age of Constantine. Cambridge 2006, pp. 59–90. Leonhard, C.: The Jewish Pesach and the Origins of the Christian Easter: Open Ques- tions in Current Research. Berlin / New York 2006. Leppin, H.: Justinian: das christliche Experiment. Stuttgart 2011. Le Rider, G.: “Un groupe de cistophores de l’époque Attalide.” BCH 114 (1990), pp. 683–701. Leschhorn, W.: “Gründer der Stadt”: Studien zu einem politisch-religiösen Phänomen der griechischen Geschichte. (Palingenesia 20) Stuttgart 1984. ———: Antike Ären: Zeitrechnung, Politik und Geschichte im Schwarzmeerraum und in Kleinasien nördlich des Tauros. (Historia Einzelschr. 81) Stuttgart 1993. ———:“Die kaiserzeitliche Münzprägung in Phrygien: Stand der Arbeiten und Prob- leme der Forschung.” In: Nollé, J. / B. Overbeck / P. Weiss (eds.): Internationales KolloquiumzurkaiserzeitlichenMünzprägungKleinasiens,27.–30.April1994inder Staatlichen Münzsammlung, München. Milan 1997, pp. 49–60. ———:“Die Verbreitung von Agonen in den östlichen Provinzen des Römischen Reiches.” Stadion 24 (1998), pp. 31–57. ———: Lexikon der Aufschriften auf griechischen Münzen 2: Ethnika und “Beamten- namen.” Wien 2009. Leven, K.-H. (ed.): Antike Medizin: ein Lexikon. München 2005. Levick, B.: Claudius. London 1990. Levin, C.: Das Alte Testament. Munich 42010. Lichtenberger, H.: “Organisationsformen und Ämter in den jüdischen Gemeinden im antiken Griechenland und Italien.” In: Jütte, R. / A.P. Kustermann (eds.): Jüdische Gemeinden und Organisationsformen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Vienna / Cologne / Weimar 1996, pp. 11–27. Liddell, H.G. / R. Scott / H.S. Jones: A Greek-English Lexicon, with a Revised Supple- ment. Oxford 1996. Lieu, J.M.: Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World. Oxford 2004. Limmer, L. / G.K. Krieglstein: Augenheilkunde im Rom der frühen Kaiserzeit: A.C. Cel- sus, De medicina libri octo. Heidelberg 1992. Lindemann, A.: Paulus im ältesten Christentum: das Bild des Apostels und die Rezep- tion der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion. Tü- bingen 1979. ———: Der Kolosserbrief. (Zürcher Bibelkommentare NT 10) Zürich 1983. Lindner, R.: Mythos und Identität. Stuttgart 1994. Llewelyn, S.R. (ed.): New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 9: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1986/87. Macquarie University 2002. Llewelyn, S.R. / J.R. Harrison (eds.): New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 10: A Review of the Greek and Other Inscriptions and Papyri Published between 1988 and 1992. Macquarie University 2012. Löhr, H.: “Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien.” In: Pratscher, W. (ed.): Die apostolischen Väter: eine Einleitung. Göttingen 2009, pp. 104–129. Löhr, W.A.: “Theodotus der Lederarbeiter und Theodotus der Bankier: ein Beitrag zur römischen Theologiegeschichte des zweiten und dritten Jahrhunderts.” ZN 87 (1996), pp. 101–125. 426 sources and bibliography

Lössl, J.: Bildung? “Welche Bildung? Zur Bedeutung der Ausdrücke ‘Griechen’ und ‘Barbaren’ in Tatians ‘Rede an die Griechen.’” In: Prostmeier, R. (ed.): Frühchris- tentum und Kultur. Freiburg 2007, pp. 127–153. Lohse, E.: Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon. Göttingen 21977. ———: Die Ofenbarung des Johannes. (Das Neue Testament Deutsch 11) Göttingen / Zürich 151993. ———: Paulus: eine Biographie. München 1996. Lona, H.E.: Die “Wahre Lehre” des Kelsos. Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2005. ———: Judas Iskariot, Legende und Wahrheit: Judas in den Evangelien und das Evan- gelium des Judas. Freiburg 2007. Lotter, F.: “Designation und angebliches Kooptationsrecht bei Bischofserhebungen: zu Ausbildung und Anwendung des Prinzips der kanonischen Wahl bis zu den Anfängen der fränkischen Zeit.” ZSRG.K 59 (1973), pp. 112–150. Lüdemann, G.: Das frühe Christentum nach den Traditionen der Apostelgeschichte: ein Kommentar. Göttingen 1987. Lugaresi, L.: Il teatro di Dio: il problema degli spettacoli nel cristianesimo antico (II–IV secolo). Brescia 2008. Luz, U.: DasEvangeliumnachMatthäus,1.Teilband:Mt1–7. Düsseldorf / Zürich 52002. Luzzatto, M.J.: Der Neue Pauly 4 (1998), cols. 356–360, s.v. “Fabel” II. Ma, J.: Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. Oxford 2000 (repr. 2005). MacDonald, D.: “The Homonoia of Colossae and Aphrodisias.” JNG 33 (1983), pp. 25– 27. Macdonald, M.Y.: The Pauline Churches: A Socio-Historical Study of Institutionaliza- tion in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings. Cambridge 1988. ———:“Slavery, Sexuality, and House Churches: A Reassessment of Colossians 3.18– 4.1 in Light of New Research on the Roman Family.” NTS 53 (2007), pp. 94–113. Machielsen, L.: “Fragments patristiques non-identi és du ms. Vat. Pal. 577.” SE 12 (1961), pp. 488–539. MacLennan, R.S.: “Christian Self-De nition in the Adversus Judaeos Preachers in the Second Century.” In: Overman, J.A. / R.S. MacLennan (eds.): Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of, and in Dialogue with, A. Thomas Kraabel. Atlanta 1992, pp. 209–224. Macridy, T.: “Altertümer von Notion.” JÖAI 8 (1905), pp. 155–173. Madigan, K. / C. Osiek: Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History. Baltimore / London 2005. Magie, D.: Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, 2 vols. Princeton 1950. Maier, G.: Die Ofenbarung des Johannes, Kapitel 1–11. Witten 2009. Maier, H.O.: “Barbarians, Scythians and Imperial Iconography in the Epistle to the Colossians.” In: Weissenrieder, A. / F. Wendt / P. v. Gemünden (eds.): Picturing the New Testament: Studies in Ancient Visual Images. (WUNT 193) Tübingen 2005, pp. 385–406. ———:Reading Colossians in the Ruins: “Roman Imperial Iconography,Moral Trans- formation, and the Construction of Christian Identity in the Lycus Valley.” In: Cadwallader, A.H. / M. Trainor (eds.): Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Göttingen / Oakville 2011, pp. 212–231. Maisch, I.: Der Brief an die Gemeinde in Kolossä. Stuttgart 2003. sources and bibliography 427

Mango, C.: “St. Michael and Attis.” DCAH Ser. 4, 12 (1984), pp. 39–62. ———:“The Pilgrimage Centre of St. Michael at Germia.” JÖB 36 (1986), pp. 117– 132. Mango, C. / I. Sevˇcenko:ˇ “Some Recently Acquired Byzantine Inscriptions at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum.” DOP 32 (1978), pp. 1–27. Maraval, P.: Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient: histoire et géographie des origines à la conquête arabe. Paris 1985. Mardirossian, A.: La collection canonique d’Antioche: droit et hérésie à travers le premier recueil de législation ecclésiastique (IV e siècle). Paris 2010. Marek, C.: Geschichte Kleinasiens in der Antike. München 2010. Marguerat, D.: “Paul après Paul: une histoire de réception.” NTS 54 (2008), pp. 317– 337. Marjanen, A.: “Montanism: Egalitarian Ecstatic ‘New Prophecy.’” In: Marjanen, A. / P. Luomanan (eds.): A Companion to Second-Century “Heretics.” Leiden 2008, pp. 185–212. Markschies, C.: Zwischen den Welten wandern: Strukturen des antiken Christentums. Frankfurt (Main) 1997. ———: Das antike Christentum: Frömmigkeit, Lebensformen, Institutionen. München 2006. ———: Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen: Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte der antiken christlichen Theologie. Tübingen 2007. ———:“Plenary Agenda Report for Research Group B-III-2 ‘The Organization of Diversity in the Ecclesiastical Space of Antiquity.’” In: Fless, F. / G. Grasshof / M. Meyer (eds.): Reports of the Research Groups at the Topoi Plenary Session 2010. eTopoi. Journal for Ancient Studies, Special Volume 1 (2011), 9 pp. (http://journal .topoi.org). Markschies, C. / J. Schröter (eds.): Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Über- setzung, I. Band: Evangelien und Verwandtes. Tübingen 2012. Marshall, A.J.: “Flaccus and the Jews of Asia (Cicero Pro Flacco 28.67–69).” Phoenix 29 (1975), pp. 139–154. Mau, A.: RE IV (1901), cols. 2025–2026, s.v. “Dalmatien.” Maur, H. auf der: Die Osterfeier in der alten Kirche (mit einem Beitrag von C. Leon- hard). (Liturgica Oenipontana 2) Münster 2003. Mazzucco, C. / E. Pietrella: “Il rapporto tra la concezione del millenio dei primi autori cristiani e l’Apocalisse di Giovanni.” Augustinianum 18 (1978), pp. 29–45. McGehee, M.: “Why Tatian Never ‘Apologized’ to the Greeks.” JECS 1 (1993), pp. 143– 158. McGing, B.: “Population and Proselytism: How Many Jews Were There in the An- cient World.” In: Bartlett, J.R. (ed.): Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities. London / New York 2002, pp. 88–106. McKechnie, P.: “Christian City Councillors in the Roman Empire before Constan- tine.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 5 (2009), pp. 2–20. McKinnon, J.: Music in Early Christian Literature. Cambridge 1987. McKinnon, J.W.: Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart 3 (21995), cols. 907–928, s.v. “Frühchristliche Musik.” Meinardus, O.F.A.: “St. Michael’s Miracle of Khonai and Its Geographical Setting.” Ekklesia kai theologia 1 (1980), pp. 459–469. 428 sources and bibliography

Merkelbach, R.: Philologica: ausgewählte kleine Schriften. Stuttgart / Leipzig 1997. ———: Isis regina-Zeus Sarapis: die griechisch-ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt. Munich / Leipzig 22001. Merkelbach, R. / J. Stauber: “Die Orakel des Apollon von Klaros.” In: Merkelbach, R.: Philologica: ausgewählte kleine Schriften. Stuttgart / Leipzig 1997, pp. 155–218 (orig. EA 27 [1996], pp. 1–53). Meslin, M.: La fête des kalendes de janvier dans l’empire romain. Brüssel 1970. Metzger, B.: Der Kanon des Neuen Testaments: Entstehung, Entwicklung, Bedeutung. Düsseldorf 1993. Meyer, M.: Die Personikation der Stadt Antiocheia: ein neues Bild für eine neue Gottheit. Berlin / New York 2006. Meyer-Zwifelhofer, E.: “Mala desidia iudicum? Zur Rolle der Provinzstatthalter bei der Unterdrückung paganer Kulte (von Constantin bis Theodosius II.).” In: Hahn, J. (ed.): Spätantiker Staat und religiöser Konlikt: imperiale und lokale Verwaltung und die Gewalt gegen Heiligtümer. (Millenium-Studien 34) Berlin / New York 2011, pp. 93–131. Meyerhof, M.: The Book of the Ten Treatises on the Eye Ascribed to Hunain Ibn Is-Hâq (809–877A.D.):TheEarliestExistingSystematicText-BookofOphthalmology. Cairo 1928. Michaelis, W.: ThWNT 4 (1935), pp. 247–256, s.v. “λευκός, λευκαίνω.” Michels, C.: “Dionysos Kathegemon und der attalidische Herrscherkult: Überlegun- gen zur Herrschaftsrepräsentation der Könige von Pergamon.” In: Günther, L.-M. / S. Plischke (eds.): Studien zum vorhellenistischen und hellenistischen Herrscher- kult. Berlin 2011, pp. 114–140. Michl, J.: RAC 5 (1962), cols. 53–258, s.v. “Engel” I–IX. Mileta, C.: “Zur Vorgeschichte und Entstehung der Gerichtsbezirke in der Provinz Asia.” Klio 72 (1990), pp. 427–444. ———:“Überlegugen zur Bedeutung der Kultlandschaften Asia und Bithynia für die Herausbildung des römischen Kaiserkultes.” In: Olshausen, E. / V. Sauer (eds.): Die Landschaft und die Religion: Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 9, 2005. Stuttgart 2009, pp. 175–189. Millar, F.: A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford 1964. ———:“The Imperial Cult and the Persecutions.” In: Boer, W. den (ed.): Le culte des souverains dans l’Empire Romain. Geneva 1973, pp. 145–165. ———: The emperor in the Roman world (31BC–AD 337). London 21992. ———:“Repentant Heretics in Fifth-Century Lydia: Identity and Literacy.” SCI 23 (2004), pp. 111–130. ———: AGreekRomanEmpire:PowerandBeliefunderTheodosiusII(408–450). Berke- ley / Los Angeles / London 2006. ———:“The Syriac Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus (449).” In: Price, R. / M. Whitby (eds.): Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400–700. Liverpool 2009, pp. 45–69. Miller, M.C.: LIMC VIII/1 (1997), pp. 846–851, s.v. “Midas.” Miranda, E.: “La comunità giudaica di Hierapolis di Frigia.” EA 31 (1999), pp. 109–156. ———:“Due famiglie di ἀρχιερεῖς ᾽Ασίας dalla Frigia.” MediterrAnt 5.1 (2002), pp. 39– 48. ———:“Dioniso Kathegemon a Hierapolis di Frigia.” In: Epigraphica: atti delle gior- sources and bibliography 429

nate di studio di Rome e di Atene in memoria di Margherita Guarducci (1902–1999). Rome 2003, pp. 165–176. ———:“Iscrizioni dalla Caria nel Museo di Denizli-Pamukkale.” PP 60 (2005), pp. 379–391. ———:“I sedili della summa cavea.” In: De Bernardi Ferrero, D. / G. Ciotta / P. Pens- abene (eds.): Il teatro di Hierapolis di Frigia. Rome / Genova 2007, pp. 441– 445. Mitchell, S.: “Maximinus and the Christians in AD 312: A New Latin Inscription.” JRS 78 (1988), pp. 105–124. ———:“Festivals, Games, and Civic Life in Roman Asia Minor.” JRS 80 (1990), pp. 183– 193. ———: Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, 2 vols. Oxford 1993. ———:“The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians.” In: Athanassiadi, P. / M. Frede (eds.): Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Oxford 1999 (repr. 2008), pp. 81–148. (Mitchell 1999) ———:“The Administration of Roman Asia from 133bc to AD 250.” In: Eck, W. (ed.): Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert. Munich 1999, pp. 17–46. (Mitchell 1999 a) ———:“Italian and Turkish Archaeological Work in the Lycus Valley around Lao- dicea and Hierapolis.” JRA 14 (2001), pp. 632–634. ———:“Olive Cultivation in the Economy of Roman Asia Minor.” In: Mitchell, S. / C. Katsari (eds.): Patterns in the Economy of Roman Asia Minor. Swansea 2005, pp. 83–113. (Mitchell 2005) ———:“An Apostle to Ankara from the New Jerusalem: Montanism and Jews in Late Roman Asia Minor.” SCI 24 (2005), pp. 207–224. (Mitchell 2005 a) Mitchell, S. / D. French: The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Ankara (Ancyra), vol. 1: From Augustus to the End of the third Century AD. (Vestigia 62) Munich 2012. Mitchell, S. / M. Waelkens: Pisidian Antioch: The Site and Its Monuments. London 1998. Moesta, H. / P.R. Franke: Antike Metallurgie und Münzprägung: ein Beitrag zur Technikgeschichte. Basel 1995. Momigliano, A.: “Neue Wege der Altertumsforschung im 19. Jahrhundert.” In: Momi- gliano, A.: Wege in die Alte Welt. Berlin 1991, pp. 108–176 (orig.: New Paths of Classicism in the Nineteenth Century. History and Theory, Suppl. 21, 1982). Mommsen, T.: Gesammelte Schriften 4: Historische Schriften 1. Berlin 1906 (orig. 1895). ———: Römisches Strafrecht. Berlin 1899 (repr. 1955). Monteleone, F.: “La Narratio de miraculo a Michaele archangelo Chonis patrato e la tradizione micaelica del Gargano: confronto tra le versioni latine.” In: Gravina, A.: 27. Convegno Nazionale sulla preistoria—protostoria—storia della Daunia, San Severo, 25–26 novembre 2006. San Severo 2007, S. 139–155. Montevecchi, O.: La papirologia. Milano 21988. Mørkholm, O.: “Some Reections on the Early Cistophoric Coinage.” ANSMusN 24 (1979), pp. 47–61. Morley, N.: Writing Ancient History. London 1999. Most, G.W.:“The Judas of the Gospels and the Gospel of Judas.” In: Scopello, M. (ed.): The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference 430 sources and bibliography

on the Gospel of Judas, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006. Leiden / Boston 2008, pp. 69–80. Motschmann, C.: Die Religionspolitik Marc Aurels. (Hermes Einzelschr. 88) Stuttgart 2002. Müllenhof, M. / A. Herda / H. Brückner: “Auf Meeressand gebaut: Landschaftswan- del in Milet im Spiegel geoarchäologischer Zeugnisse.” In: Dally, O. / M. Maischberger et al. (eds.): ZeitRäume: Milet in Kaiserzeit und Spätantike. Regens- burg 2009, pp. 18–23. Müller, D.: Topographischer Bildkommentar zu den Historien Herodots: Kleinasien und angrenzende Gebiete mit Südostthrakien und Zypern. Tübingen 1997. Müller, H.: “Der hellenistische Archiereus.” Chiron 30 (2000), pp. 519–542. ———:“Römischer Kaiserkult.” In: Grüssinger, R. / V. Kästner / A. Scholl (eds.): Pergamon: Panorama der antiken Metropole. Berlin 2011, pp. 153–157. Müller, H.-P.: Das Hiobproblem: seine Stellung und Entstehung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. Darmstadt 31995. Müller, P.: Anfänge der Paulusschule, dargestellt am zweiten Thessalonicherbrief und am Kolosserbrief. Zürich 1988. ———:“Gegner im Kolosserbrief: Methodische Überlegungen zu einem schwieri- gen Kapitel.” In: Kraus, W. (ed.): Beiträge zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte. (BZNW 163) Berlin / New York 2009, pp. 365–394. (Müller 2009) ———:“Zum Problem der Paulusschule: Methodische und sachliche Überlegungen.” In: Müller, P. (ed.): Kolosser-Studien. (BThSt 103) Neukirchen-Vluyn 2009, pp. 171– 197. (Müller 2009 a) Munck, J.: “Presbyters and Disciples of the Lord in Papias: Exegetic Comments on Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III, 39.” HThR 52 (1959), pp. 223–243. Mutschler, B.: Irenäus als johanneischer Theologe: Studien zur Schriftauslegung bei Irenäus von Lyon. (STAC 21) Tübingen 2004. Myllykoski, M.: “Cerinthus.” In: Marjanen, A. / P. Luomanen (eds.): A Companion to Second-Century “Heretics”. Leiden 2008, pp. 213–246. Naether, F.: Die Sortes Astrampsychi. (ORA 3) Tübingen 2010. Naour, C.: “Inscriptions du moyen Hermos.” ZPE 44 (1981), pp. 11–44. Nasrallah, L.S.: “‘She Became What the Words Signi ed’: The Greek Acts of Andrew’s Construction of the Reader-Disciple.” In: Bovon, F. / A.G. Brock / C.R. Matthews (eds.): The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, Cambridge (Mass.) 1999, pp. 233–258. Niewöhner, P.: Aizanoi, Dokimion und Anatolien: Stadt und Land, Siedlungs- und Steinmetzwesen vom späteren 4. bis ins 6. Jahrhundert n.Chr. Wiesbaden 2007. Nigdelis, P.M.: ᾽Επιγραφικὰ Θεσσαλονίκεια: Συµβολὴ στὴν πολιτικὴ καὶ κοινωνικὴ ἱστο- ρία τῆς ἀρχαίας Θεσσαλονίκης. Thessaloniki 2006. Nissen, C.: “Prosopographie des médecins de l’Asie mineure pendant l’antiquité classique.” Diss. Paris 2006 http://www.bium.univ-paris5.fr/histmed/asclepia des/pdf/nissen.pdf (December 20, 2010) Nock, A.D.: “Σύνναος θεός.” HSPh 41 (1930), pp. 1–62. Noethlichs, K.L.: Die Juden im christlichen Imperium Romanum (4.–6. Jahrhundert). Berlin 2001. Nollé, J.: “Frauen wie Omphale? Überlegungen zu “politischen” Ämtern von Frauen im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien.” In: Dettenhofer, M.H. (ed.): Reine Männersache? Frauen in Männerdomänen der antiken Welt. Cologne 1994, pp. 229–259. sources and bibliography 431

———:“Vielerorts war Bethlehem: Göttergeburten im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien.” AW 34.6 (2003), pp. 635–643. ———:“Beiträge zur kleinasiatischen Münzkunde und Geschichte 4–5.” Gephyra 3 (2006), pp. 49–131. ———: Kleinasiatische Losorakel: Astragal- und Alphabetchresmologien der hoch- kaiserzeitlichen Orakelrenaissance. (Vestigia 57) München 2007. ———:“Beiträge zur kleinasiatischen Münzkunde und Geschichte 6–9.” Gephyra 6 (2009), pp. 7–99. Nollé, M. / J. Nollé: Götter, Städte, Feste: kleinasiatische Münzen der römischen Kai- serzeit. Munich 1994. Nordling, J.G.: “Some Matters Favouring the Runaway Slave Hypothesis in Phile- mon.” Neotest. 44 (2010), pp. 85–121. Norelli, E.: “La critique du pluralisme grec dans le Discours aux Grecs de Tatien.” In: Pouderon, B. / J. Doré (eds.): Les apologistes chrétiens et la culture grecque. Paris 1998, pp. 81–120. ———: Papia di Hierapolis: Esposizione degli oracoli del Signore: i frammenti. Milano 2005. Oberhänsli-Widmer, G.: “Hiobtraditionen im Judentum.” In: Krüger, T. / M. Oeming (eds.): Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen: Beiträge zum Hiob-Symposium auf dem Monte Verità vom 14.–19. August 2005. Zürich 2007, pp. 315–328. Oberhummer, E.: RE II 2 (1896), col. 2414, s.v. “Aulon” 10. Oberweis, M.: “Das Papias-Zeugnis vom Tode des Johannes Zebedäi.” NT 38 (1996), pp. 277–295. O’Connell, J.H.: “A Note on Papias’s Knowledge of the Fourth Gospel.” JBL 129 (2010), pp. 793–794. Ohme, H.: Kanon ekklesiastikos: die Bedeutung des altkirchlichen Kanonbegrifs. Ber- lin / New York 1998. Ollrog, W.-H.: Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter: Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der paulinischen Mission. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1979. Omerzu, H.: “Spurensuche: Apostelgeschichte und Paulusbriefe als Zeugnisse einer ephesischen Gefangenschaft des Paulus.” In: Frey, J. / C.K. Rothschild / J. Schröter (eds.): Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historiogra- phie. Berlin / New York 2009, pp. 295–326. Osborn, E.: Irenaeus of Lyons. Cambridge 2001. Paoletti, O.: Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum 2 (2004), pp. 3–35, s.v. “Puri - cazione.” Papadopoulou, Z.D.: Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum 2 (2004), pp. 355–365, s.v. “Musicians in cult.” Papen, F.G. von: “Die Spiele von Hierapolis.” Zeitschrift für Numismatik 26 (1908), pp. 161–182. Parker, R.: “Theophoric Names and the History of Greek Religion.” In: Hornblower, S. / E. Matthews (eds.): Greek Personal Names: Their Value as Evidence. Oxford 2000, pp. 53–79. Parvis, S.: “Justin Martyr and the Apologetic Tradition.” In: Parvis, S. / P. Foster (eds.): Justin Martyr and His World. Minneapolis 2007, pp. 115–127. Patai, R.: The Jewish Alchemists: A History and Source Book. Princeton 1994. Peers, G.: Subtle Bodies: Representing Angels in Byzantium. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London 2011. 432 sources and bibliography

Pekáry, T.: Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft, dargestellt anhand der Schriftquellen. (Das römische Herrscherbild III/5) Berlin 1985. Pennacchietti, F.A.: “Tre iscrizioni cristiane inedite di Hierapolis frigia.” RivAC 39 (1963), pp. 131–137. ———:“Nuove iscrizioni di Hierapolis frigia.” AAT 101 (1966/67), pp. 287–328. Peres, I.: Griechische Grabinschriften und neutestamentliche Eschatologie. (WUNT 157) Tübingen 2003. Perilli, L.: Menodoto di Nicomedia: contributo a una storia galeniana della medicina empirica. Munich / Leipzig 2004. Perraymond, M.: “Formule imprecatorie (᾽Αραί) nelle iscrizioni funerarie paleocristiane.” Quaderni dell’ Istituto di lingua e letteratura latina, Università di Roma 2/3 (1980), pp. 115–145. Peschlow-Bindokat, A.: Eine karische Gebirgslandschaft: Herakleia am Latmos, Stadt und Umgebung. Istanbul 2005. Petersen, E.A.H. / F. von Luschan: Reisen im südwestlichen Kleinasien II: Reisen in Lykien, Milyas und Kibyratis. Vienna 1889. Petersen, W.L.: “Tatian the Assyrian.” In: Marjanen, A. / P. Luomanen (eds.): A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics.” Leiden / Boston 2008, pp. 125– 158. Peterson, E.: “Die Häretiker der Philippus-Akten.” ZNW 31 (1932), pp. 97–111. Petzl, G.: Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens. (Epigraphica Anatolica 22) Bonn 1994. P sterer-Haas, S.: Antike Terrakotten. (Kleine Reihe des Antikenmuseums der Uni- versität Leipzig 3) Leipzig 1996. Piepenbrink, K.: Christliche Identität und Assimilation in der Spätantike: Probleme des Christseins in der Relexion der Zeitgenossen. (Studien zur Alten Geschichte 3) Frankfurt (Main) 2005. Pietri, C.: “La politique de Constance II: un premier “Césaropapisme” ou l’imitatio Constantini.” In: Dihle, A. (ed.): L’église et l’empire au IV e siècle. Genève 1989, pp. 113–172. Pietri, C. / L. Pietri: Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire 2: Prosopographie de l’Italie chrétienne (313–604), vol. 2: L–Z. Rome 2000. Pink, K.: “Die pseudo-paulinischen Briefe II.” Biblica 6 (1925), pp. 179–200. Pizzuto, V.A.: A Cosmic Leap of Faith: An Authorial, Structural, and Theological Inves- tigation of the Cosmic Christology in Col. 1:15–20. Leuven 2006. Pleket, H.W.: “Greek Epigraphy and Comparative Ancient History: Two Case Stud- ies.” EA 12 (1988), pp. 25–37. Plümacher, E.: RE Suppl. XV (1978), s.v. “Apokryphe Apostelakten,” cols. 11–70. ———:“Apostolische Missionsreise und statthalterliche Assisetour: eine Interpre- tation von Acta Johannis c. 37; 45,55 und 58,1–6.” In: Plümacher, E.: Geschichte und Geschichten: Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte und zu den Johannesakten, herausgeg. von J. Schröter und R. Brucker. (WUNT 170) Tübingen 2004, pp. 207–228 (orig. ZNW 85 [1994], pp. 259–278). ———:“Der θεὸς ἄφθονος von Acta Johannis 55 und sein historischer Kontext.” In: Plümacher, E.: Geschichte und Geschichten: Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte und zu den Johannesakten, herausgeg. von J. Schröter und R. Brucker. (WUNT 170) Tübingen 2004, pp. 229–273 (orig. Wyrwa, D. [ed.]: DieWeltlichkeitdesGlaubensin sources and bibliography 433

der Alten Kirche: Festschrift für Ulrich Wickert zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Berlin / New York 1997, pp. 249–301). Pokorn ´y,P.: Der Brief des Paulus an die Kolosser. (Theologischer Handkommentar zum NeuenTestament 10/I) Berlin 21990. Portmann, W.: “Zu den Motiven der diokletianischen Christenverfolgung.” Historia 39 (1990), pp. 212–248. Poschmann, P.: RAC 2 (1954), cols. 814–816, s.v. “Bussstufen (Bussstationen).” Potter, D.: “Procurators in Asia and Dacia under Marcus Aurelius: A Case Study of Imperial Initiative in Government.” ZPE 123 (1998), pp. 270–274. Pouderon, B.: “Réexions sur la formation d’une élite intellectuelle chrétienne au IIe siècle: les ‘écoles’ d’Athène, de Rome et d’Alexandrie.” In: Pouderon, B. / J. Doré (eds.): Les apologistes chrétiens et la culture grecque. Paris 1998, pp. 237–269. Pratsch, T.: Der hagiographische Topos. (Millenium-Studien 6) Berlin / New York 2005. Pratscher, W. (ed.): Die apostolischen Väter: eine Einleitung. Göttingen 2009. Pratscher, W.: “Quadratus.” In: Pratscher, W. (ed.): Die Apostolischen Väter: eine Ein- leitung. Göttingen 2009, pp. 192–207. Preisigke, F.: Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden I. Berlin 1925. Price, R. / M. Gaddis: TheActsoftheCouncilofChalcedon, 3 vols. Liverpool 2005 (repr. 2010). Price, S.R.F.: Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge 1984. Price, S.: “Local Mythologies in the Greek East.” In: Howgego, C. / V. Heuchert / A. Burnett (eds.): Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford 2005, pp. 115–124. Prigent, P.: L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean. (CNT [N] 2. sér. 14) Geneva 2000. Prostmeier, F.R.: “Antijudaismus im Rahmen christlicher Hermeneutik: zum Streit über christliche Identität in der Alten Kirche: Notizen zum Barnabasbrief.” ZAC 6 (2002), pp. 38–58. ———:“Der Barnabasbrief.” In: Pratscher, W. (ed.): Die Apostolischen Väter: eine Einleitung. Göttingen 2009, pp. 39–58. Pucci Ben Zeev, M.: Jewish Rights in the Roman world: The Greek and Roman Docu- ments Quoted by Josephus Flavius. (TSAJ 74) Tübingen 1998. Pugliese Carratelli, G.: “ΧΡΗΣΜΟΙ di Apollo Kareios e Apollo Klarios a Hierapolis in Frigia.” ASAA 41/42 (1963), pp. 351–370. Quass, F.: “Zur Verfassung der griechischen Städte im Hellenismus.” Chiron 9 (1979), pp. 37–52. ———: Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens: Untersuchun- gen zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit. Stuttgart 1993. Quet, M.-H.: “Le sophiste M. Antonius Polémon de Laodicée, éminente personnalité politique de l’Asie Romeine du IIe siècle.” In: Cébeillac-Gervasoni, M. / L. Lam- oine (eds.): Les élites et leurs facettes: les élites locales dans le monde hellénistique et romain. Rom 2003, pp. 401–443. Rädle, H.: “Untersuchungen zum griechischen Freilassungswesen.” Diss. München 1969. Rajak, T.: “Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?” In: The Jewish Dialogue with 434 sources and bibliography

Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction. Leiden 2001 (orig. JRS 74 [1984], pp. 107–123). ———:“Synagogue and Community in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora.” In: Bartlett, J.R. (ed.): Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities. London / New York 2002, pp. 22–38. ———: Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora. Oxford 2009. Ramage, A. / P. Craddock (eds.): King Croesus’ Gold: Excavations at Sardis and the History of Gold Rening. London 2000. Rammelt, C.: Ibas von Edessa: Rekonstruktion einer Biographie und dogmatischen Position zwischen den Fronten. (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 106) Berlin / New York 2008. Ramsay, W.M.: “Notes and Inscriptions from Asia Minor.” AJA 2 (1886), pp. 21–23. ———:“Antiquities of Southern Phrygia and the Border Lands I.” AJA 3 (1887), pp. 344–368. ———: The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. London 1890. ———: The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170. New York / London 1893. ———: The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia I: The Lycos Valley and South-Western Phrygia. Oxford 1895. ———: The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia II: West and West-Central Phrygia. Oxford 1897. (Ramsay 1897) ———: Impressions of Turkey during Twelve Years’ Wanderings. London 1897. (Ram- say 1897 a) ———:Review of Judeich, W.: Die Inschriften. In: C. Humann et al. (eds.): Altertümer von Hierapolis.(JDAI Erg.4) Berlin 1898. CR 14 (1900), pp. 79–85. ———: The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia and Their Place in the Plan of the Apocalypse. London 1904. ———:“Derbe.” Exp. 1, 7th series (1906), pp. 544–560. ———: Luke the Physician and Other Studies in the History of Religion. New York 1908. ———: Asianic Elements in the Greek Civilization. London 21928. ———:“Phrygian Orthodox and Heretics 400–800AD.” Byzantion 6 (1931), pp. 1– 35. Rapp, C.: Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London 2005. Rapske, B.M.: “The Prisoner Paul in the Eyes of Onesimus.” NTS 37 (1991), pp. 187– 203. Reale, G.: “Die Begründung der abendländischen Metaphysik: Phaidon und Menon.” In: Kobusch, T. / B. Mojsisch (eds.): Platon: seine Dialoge in der Sicht neuer For- schungen. Darmstadt 1996, pp. 64–80. Rebillard, E.: The Care of the Dead in Late Antiquity. Ithaca / London 2009 (French original 2003). Reinmuth, E.: Der Brief des Paulus an Philemon. (ThHK 11/II) Berlin 2006. Reitzenstein, R.: Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen. Leipzig / Berlin 31927. Rémy, B.: Les carrières sénatoriales dans les provinces romaines d’Anatolie au haut- empire (31 av. J.–C.–284 ap. J.–C.) (Pont-Bithynie, Galatie, Cappadoce, Lycie- Pamphylie et Cilicie). Istanbul / Paris 1989. Reynolds, J. / R. Tannenbaum: Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias. Cambridge 1987. sources and bibliography 435

Rhee, H.: Early Christian Literature: Christian Culture in the Second and Third Cen- turies. London / New York 2005. Ricken, F.: Antike Skeptiker. München 1994. Ricl, M.: “Les ΚΑΤΑΓΡAΦΑΙ du sanctuaire d’Apollon Lairbenos.” Arkeoloji Dergisi 3 (1995), pp. 167–195. ———:“Legal and Social Status of threptoi and Related Categories in Narrative and Documentary Sources.” In: Cotton, H.M. / R.G. Hoyland / J.J. Price / D.J. Wasser- stein (edd.): FromHellenismtoIslam.CulturalandLinguisticChangeintheRoman Near East. Cambridge 2009, pp. 93–114. Riedweg, C.: Ps-Justin (Markell von Ankyra), “Ad Graecos de vera religione” (bisher “Cohortatio ad Graecos”): Einleitung und Kommentar, 2 vols. Basel 1994. Riemer, U.: Das Tier auf dem Kaiserthron? Eine Untersuchung zur Ofenbarung des Johannes als historische Quelle. Stuttgart / Leipzig 1998. Ritter, A.-M.: Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol. Göttingen 1965. Ritter, H.-W.: Diadem und Königsherrschaft: Untersuchungen zu Zeremonien und Rechtsgrundlagen des Herrschaftsantritts bei den Persern, bei Alexander dem Grossen und im Hellenismus. (Vestigia 7) München 1965. Ritterling, E.: RE XII 2 (1925), cols. 1329–1829, s.v. “Legio.” ———:“Military Forces in Senatorial Provinces.” JRS 17 (1927), pp. 28–32. Ritti, T.: “Due iscrizioni di età augustea da Hierapolis.” Epigraphica 41 (1979), pp. 183– 187. ———:“Epigra dedicatorie imperiali di Hierapolis di Frigia.” Rendiconti dell’Acca- demia nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e lologiche 38 (1983), pp. 171–182. ———: Fonti letterarie ed epigrache. (Hierapolis I) Rome 1985. ———:“Un epigramma del tardo impero da Hierapolis.” ASNP 16 (1986), pp. 691–716. ———:“Il so sta Antipatros di Hierapolis.” Miscellanea Greca e Romana 13 (1988), pp. 71–128. ———:“Oracoli alfabetici a Hierapolis di Frigia.” Miscellanea Greca e Romana 14 (1989), pp. 245–286. ———:“Nuovi dati su una nota epigrafe sepolcrale con stefanotico da Hierapolis di Frigia.” Scienze dell’antichità: storia, archeologia, antropologia 6/7 (1992/93), pp. 41–68. ———:“Associazioni di mestiere a Hierapolis di Frigia.” In: Giannatasio, B.M. (ed.): Atti VII Giornata Archeologica: viaggi e commerci nell’antichità. Genova 1995, pp. 65–84. ———:“Un decreto onorario di Hierapolis per Tiberius Iulius Myndios.” MediterrAnt 4 (2001), pp. 489–555. ———:“Documenti epigra ci dalla regione di Hierapolis.” EA 34 (2002), pp. 41–70. (Ritti 2002) ———:“Miliari di Hierapolis di Frigia.” In: Bernardi Ferrero, D. de: Saggi in onore di Paolo Verzone. (Hierapolis IV) Rome 2002, pp. 87–107. (Ritti 2002 a) ———:“La neocoria di Hierapolis di Frigia.” In: Epigraphica: atti delle Giornate di Studio di Rome e di Atene in memoria di Margherita Guarducci (1902–1999). Rome 2003, pp. 177–215. ———:“Iura sepulcrorum a Hierapolis di Frigia nel quadro dell’epigra a sepolcrale microasiatica. Iscrizioni edite e inedite.” In: Panciera, S. (ed.): Libitina e dintorni: 436 sources and bibliography

Libitina e i luci sepolcrali: le leges libitinariae campane: Iura sepulcrorum: vecchie e nuove iscrizioni. Atti dell’ XI Rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie. Rome 2004, pp. 455–634. (Ritti 2004) ———:“Documenti adrianei da Hierapolis di Frigia: le epistole di Adriano alla città.” In: Follet, S. (ed.): L’Hellénisme d’époque Romaine: nouveaux documents, nouvelles approches (Ier s. a. C.–IIIe s. p. C.). Actes du Colloque international à la mémoire de Louis Robert, Paris, 7–8 juillet 2000. Paris 2004, pp. 297–340. (Ritti 2004 a) ———: Guida epigraca a Hierapolis di Frigia (Pamukkale). Istanbul 2006. ———:“Gli agoni Valentea a Hierapolis di Frigia.” AION n.s. 13/14 (2006/07), pp. 283– 298. ———:“Iscrizioni pertinenti all’edi cio teatrale di Hierapolis.” In: De Bernardi Fer- rero, D. / G. Ciotta / P. Pensabene (eds.): Il teatro di Hierapolis di Frigia. Rome / Genoa 2007, pp. 399–439. (Ritti 2007) ———:“Schema di una sega idraulica su un sarcofago di Hierapolis.” In: D’Andria, F. / M. Piera Caggia (eds.): Hierapolis di Frigia I: le attività delle campagne di scavo e restauro 2000–2003. Istanbul 2007, pp. 619–625. (Ritti 2007 a) ———:“La carriera di un cittadino di Hierapolis di Frigia: G. Memmios Eutychos.” CCG 19 (2008), pp. 279–308. Ritti, T. / H.H. Baysal / E. Miranda / F. Guizzi: Catalogo delle iscrizioni latine e greche, Museo archeologico di Denizli-Pamukkale. Naples 2008. Ritti, T. / E. Miranda / F. Guizzi: “La ricerca epigra ca: risultati dell’ultimo quadri- ennio e prospettive future.” In: D’Andria, F. / M. Piera Caggia (eds.): Hierapolis di Frigia I: Le attività delle campagne di scavo e restauro 2000–2003. Istanbul 2007, pp. 583–618. Ritti, T. / C. Sim¸ sek¸ / H. Yıldız: “Dediche e καταγραφαί dal santuario frigio di Apollo Lairbenos.” EA 32 (2000), pp. 1–88. Ritti, T. / S. Yılmaz: “Gladiatori e venationes a Hierapolis di Frigia.” Atti della Accade- mia Nazionale dei Lincei 395 (1998), pp. 443–543. Riza, K.: “Die türkische Landwirtschaft und ihre wichtigsten Betriebszweige.” Diss. Leipzig / Ankara 1935. Robert, L.: “Études d’épigraphie grecque.” RPh 60 (1934), pp. 49–53. ———: Les gladiateurs dans l’orient grec. Paris 1940 (repr. Amsterdam 1971). ———: Hellenica II. Paris 1946. (Robert 1946) ———: Hellenica III. Paris 1946. (Robert 1946 a) ———: Hellenica IV: Epigrammes du Bas-Empire. Paris 1948. ———: Hellenica X. Paris 1955. ———: Hellenica XI–XII. Paris 1960. ———: Villes d’Asie mineure: études de géographie ancienne. Paris 21962. ———: Noms indigènes dans l’Asie-mineure gréco-romaine I. Paris 1963. ———:“Les dieux des Motaleis en Phrygie.” JS 1983, pp. 45–63 (= his Opera minora selecta. Amsterdam 1990, pp. 549–567). ———: Documents d’Asie Mineure. Paris 1987. Robert, L. / G.W. Bowersock / C.P. Jones: Le martyre de Pionios, prêtre de Smyrne. Washington 1994. Robert, L. / J. Robert: La Carie: histoire et géographie historique avec le recueil des inscriptions antiques. Tome II: Le plateau de Tabai et ses environs. Paris 1954. sources and bibliography 437

Röhser, G.: “Der Schluss als Schlüssel: zu den Epistolaria des Kolosserbriefes.” In: Müller, P. (ed.): Kolosser-Studien. (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 103) Neu- kirchen-Vluyn 2009, pp. 129–150. Römer, H.P. / D.O. Edzard: Mythen und Epen I. (TUAT III 3) Gütersloh 1993. Röwekamp, G.: “Melito von Sardes.” In: Döpp, S. / W. Geerlings (eds.): Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur. Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 1998, pp. 436–437. Rohland, J.P.: Der Erzengel Michael, Arzt und Feldherr: zwei Aspekte des vor- und frühbyzantinischen Michaelskultes. Leiden 1977. Rolof, J.: TRE 3 (1978), pp. 430–445, s.v. “Apostel / Apostolat / Apostolizität” I. Neues Testament. Roose, H.: “Die Hierarchisierung der Leib-Metapher im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief als ‘Paulinisierung’: ein Beitrag zur Rezeption paulinischer Tradition in pseudo- paulinischen Briefen.” NT 47 (2005), pp. 117–141. Rosa, H. / L. Gertenbach / H. Laux / D. Strecker: Theorien der Gemeinschaft, zur Einführung. Hamburg 2010. Rothschild, C.K.: Principle, Power, and Purgation in the Letter to the Church in Laodicea (Rev 3:14–22). In: Frey, J. et al. (eds.): Die Johannesapokalypse: Kon- texte-Konzepte-Rezeption. (WUNT 287) Tübingen 2012, pp. 259–291. Roueché, C.: Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and Late Roman Periods. London 1993. ———:“Aurarii in the auditoria.” ZPE 105 (1995), pp. 37–50. ———:“Provincial Governors and Their Titulature in the Sixth Century.” AntTard 6 (1998), pp. 83–89. Rudwick, M.J.S. / E.M.B. Green: “The Laodicean Lukewarmness.” ET 69 (1958), pp. 176–178. Ru ng, K.: “Thermalquellen und Kult: das Beispiel Hierapolis.” In: Olshausen, E. / V. Sauer (eds.): Die Landschaft und die Religion. Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur His- torischen Geographie des Altertums 9, 2005. (Geographica Historica 26) Stutt- gart 2009, pp. 287–300. Ruge, W.: RE XX 1 (1941), cols. 781–868, s.v. “Phrygia” 1 (Topographie). Rumscheid, F.: Priene: Führer durch das “Pompeji Kleinasiens”. Istanbul 1998. Russell, J.: The Mosaic Inscriptions of Anemurium. (ETAM 13) Vienna 1987. Rutherford, I.: “Trouble in Snake-Town: Interpreting an Oracle from Hierapolis- Pamukkale.” In: Swain, S./ S. Harrison / J. Elsner (eds.): Severan Culture. Cam- bridge 2007, pp. 449–457. Sänger, D.: “Die Adresse des Galaterbriefs: Neue (?) Überlegungen zu einem alten Problem.” In: Bachmann, M. / B. Kollmann (eds.): Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Stu- dien zur Situierung der Theologie des Paulus-Schreibens. Neukirchen-Vluyn 2010, pp. 1–56. Sage, M.M.: “Eusebius and the Rain Miracle: Some Observations.” Historia 36 (1987), pp. 96–113. Sahin,¸ S.: “Die Bauinschrift auf dem Druckrohraquädukt von Delikkemer bei Patara.” In: Schuler, C. (ed.): Griechische Epigraphik in Lykien: eine Zwischenbilanz. Akten des Int. Kolloquiums München, 24.–26. Februar 2005. Vienna 2007, pp. 99–109. Saldern, F.v.: Studien zur Politik des Commodus. Rahden (Westf.) 2003. Saller, R.P.: Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family. Cambridge 1994. Sallmann, K.G.: Die Geographie des älteren Plinius in ihrem Verhältnis zu Varro: Versuch einer Quellenanalyse. Berlin / New York 1971. 438 sources and bibliography

Sallmann, K. (ed.): Handbuch der Lateinischen Literatur der Antike 4: Die Literatur des Umbruchs, von der römischen zur christlichen Literatur 117–283 n.Chr. (HdAW VIII 4) München 1997. Salzman, M.R.: “Pagans and Christians.” In: Harvey, S.A. / D.G. Hunter (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Oxford 2008, pp. 186–202. Salzmann, D.: “Kaiserzeitliche Denkmäler mit Preiskronen: Agonistische Sieges- preise als Zeichen privater und öfentlicher Selbstdarstellung.” Stadion 24 (1998), pp. 89–99. Sánchez Bosch, J.: “Der Hymnus Kol 1,15–20 in seinem früheren und seinem späteren Kontext.” In: Müller, P. (ed.): Kolosser-Studien. (BThSt 103) Neukirchen-Vluyn 2009, pp. 23–32. Saradi-Mendelovici, H.: “Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late An- tiquity and Their Legacy in Late Byzantine Centuries.” DOP 44 (1990), pp. 47–61. Saradi, H.: “The Christianization of Pagan Temples in the Greek Hagiographical Texts.” In: Hahn, J. / S. Emmel / U. Gotter (eds.): From Temple to Church: Destruc- tion and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity. Leiden / Boston 2008, pp. 113–134. Sarian, H.: LIMC VI 1 (1992), pp. 985–1018, s.v. “Hekate.” Satran, D.: “Anti-Jewish Polemic in the Peri Pascha of Melito of Sardis: The Problem of Social Context.” In: Limor, O. / G.G. Stroumsa (eds.): Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews. (TSMJ 10) Tübingen 1996, pp. 49–58. Saxer, V.: “Die Organisation der nachapostolischen Gemeinden (70–180).” In: Pietri, L. (ed.): Die Geschichte des Christentums 1: Die Zeit des Anfangs (bis 250). Freiburg 2003, pp. 269–339 (French orig. Paris 2000). Scardozzi, G.: “Hierapolis di Frigia: Applicazioni informatiche alle ricognizioni archeologiche e telerilevamento da satellite: l’esempio degli acquedotti della città.” Archeologia e calcolatori 18 (2007), pp. 331–353. Schäfer, P.: Die Geburt des Judentums aus dem Geist des Christentums. Tübingen 2010. Schäferdiek, K.: “Herkunft und Interesse der alten Johannesakten.” ZNW 74 (1983), pp. 247–267. ———:“Die Passio Johannis des Melito von Laodikeia und die ‘Virtutes Johannis.’” AnBoll 103 (1985), pp. 367–382. Schaller, B.: “Das Testament Hiobs.” In: JSHRZ III/3. Gütersloh 1979, pp. 303–387. Scharf, R.: Comites und comitiva primi ordinis. Mainz 1994. Schatz, K.: Allgemeine Konzilien: Brennpunkte der Kirchengeschichte. Paderborn 22008. Scheer, T.: Mythische Vorväter: Zur Bedeutung griechischer Heroenmythen im Selbstverständnis kleinasiatischer Städte. München 1993. Scheibelreiter, V.: Stifterinschriften auf Mosaiken Westkleinasiens. (Tyche Suppl. 5) Wien 2006. Schenk, W.: “Der Kolosserbrief in der neuen Forschung (1945–1985).” ANRW II 25.4 (1987), pp. 3327–3364. Schepelern, W.: Der Montanismus und die phrygischen Kulte: eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Tübingen 1929. Scherrer, P.: “Ein neues Flottendiplom für einen Boier vom 26. Oktober 145 aus Nordwestpannonien,” RÖ 31 (2008), pp. 149–159. sources and bibliography 439

Schmid, U.: Marcion und sein Apostolos: Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe. Berlin / New York 1995. Schmidt, C. / E. Schulz-Flügel: “Gaius, Antimontanist (von Rom).” In: Döpp, S. / W. Geerlings (eds.): Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur. Freiburg 1998, pp. 245. Schmidt, J.: RE XVIII/2 (1949), cols. 2174–2191, s.v. “Patmos.” Schmitt, H.H.: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos’ des Grossen und seiner Zeit. (Historia Einzelschr. 6) Wiesbaden 1964. ———:“Attaliden.” In: idem / E. Vogt (eds.): Lexikon des Hellenismus. Wiesbaden 2005, cols. 169–176. Schmitt, R.: “Die Sprachverhältnisse in den östlichen Provinzen des Römischen Reiches.” ANRW II 29.2 (1983), pp. 554–586. Schmitz, B.: “Zwischen Achikar und Demaratos: die Bedeutung Achiors in der Ju- diterzählung.” BZ 48 (2004), pp. 19–38. Schnabel, E.J.: Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Wuppertal 2006. Schneemelcher, W.: Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, vol. 1: Evangelien. Tübingen 61999. ———: Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, vol. 2: Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Ver- wandtes. Tübingen 61999. Schneider, A.M.: RAC 2 (1954), cols. 129–130, s.v. “Bema.” Schneider, C.: Geistesgeschichte des antiken Christentums, vol. 1. Munich 1954. Schneider, H.: “Die biblischen Oden im christlichen Altertum.” Biblica 30 (1949), pp. 28–65. ———:“Die biblischen Oden seit dem sechsten Jahrhundert.” Biblica 30 (1949), pp. 239–272. Schneider Equini, E.: La necropoli di Hierapolis di Frigia: contributi allo studio dell’architettura funeraria di età Romana in Asia minore. Rome 1972. Schnelle, U.: Die Johannesbriefe. (ThHK 17) Leipzig 2010. ———: Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Göttingen 82013. Schoedel, W.R.: “Apologetic Literature and Ambassadorial Activities.” HThR 82 (1989), pp. 55–78. ———:“Papias.” ANRW II 27.1 (1992), pp. 235–270. Schöllgen, G.: “Die Teilnahme der Christen am städtischen Leben: Tertullians Zeug- nis für Karthago.” In: Martin, J. / B. Quint (eds.): Christentum und antike Gesell- schaft. (WdF 649) Darmstadt 1990, pp. 319–357 (orig. RQA 77 [1982], pp. 1–29). Scholtissek, K.: “‘Geschrieben in diesem Buch’ (Joh 20,30): Beobachtungen zum kanonischen Anspruch des Johannesevangeliums.” In: Labahn, M. / K. Scholtis- sek / A. Strotmann (eds.): Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevan- gelium. Paderborn 2004, pp. 207–226. Scholz, S.: Transmigration und Translation: Studien zum Bistumswechsel der Bischöfe von der Spätantike bis zum Hohen Mittelalter. Cologne 1992. Schouten, J.: The Rod and Serpent of Asklepios: Symbol of Medicine. Amsterdam / London / New York 1967. Schrapel, T.: Das Reich der Kleopatra: Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu den “Land- schenkungen” Mark Antons. (Trierer historische Forschungen 34) Trier 1996. Schreckenberg, H.: Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1.–11. Jh.). Frankfurt (Main) 41999. 440 sources and bibliography

Schröger, F.: Gemeinde im 1. Petrusbrief: Untersuchungen zum Selbstverständnis einer christlichen Gemeinde an der Wende vom 1. zum 2. Jahrhundert. Passau 1981. Schröter, J.: Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997. ———:“Die apokryphen Evangelien und die Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons.” In: Frey, J. / J. Schröter (eds.): Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberliefer- ungen. (WUNT 254) Tübingen 2010, pp. 31–60. Schubart, W.: Griechische Palaeographie. (HdAW I 4.1) Munich 1966. Schürer, E. / G. Vermes / F. Millar: The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175B.C.–A.D. 135), vol. 1. Edinburgh 21973. Schürer, E. / G. Vermes / F. Millar / M. Black: The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175B.C.–A.D. 135), vol. 2. Edinburgh 21979. Schürer, E. / G. Vermes / F. Millar / M. Goodman: The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175B.C.–A.D. 135), vol. 3/1. Edinburgh 21986. Schuler, C.: Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien. (Vestigia 50) München 1998. Schultze, V.: AltchristlicheStädteundLandschaftenII:Kleinasien. Erste Hälfte. Güter- sloh 1922. ———: Altchristliche Städte und Landschaften II: Kleinasien. Zweite Hälfte. Gütersloh 1926. Schumacher, L.: Sklaverei in der Antike: Alltag und Schicksal der Unfreien. München 2001. Schuol, M.: Augustus und die Juden: Rechtsstellung und Interessenpolitik der kleinasiatischen Diaspora. (Studien zur Alten Geschichte 6) Frankfurt (Main) 2007. Schwab, G.: Echtheitskritische Untersuchungen zu den vier kleinen Paulusbriefen, Band I, Halbband A. Norderstedt 2011. Schwabl, H.: RE X A (1972), cols. 253–376, s.v. “Zeus” I. Epiklesen. ———:“Zum Kult des Zeus in Kleinasien.” In: Dobesch, G. / G. Rehrenböck (eds.): “Die epigraphische und altertumskundliche Erforschung Kleinasiens: Hundert Jahre Kleinasiatische Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissen- schaften.” Akten des Symposiums von 23. bis 25 Oktober 1990. Vienna 1993, pp. 329– 338. Schwartz, E.: “Über den Tod der Söhne Zebedaei: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Johannesevangeliums.” In: His Gesammelte Schriften 5. Berlin 1963, pp. 48–123 (orig. Abhandlungen d. Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wiss., N.F. 7.5 [1904], pp. 3– 53). ———:“Die Dokumente des arianischen Streites bis 325.” In: His Gesammelte Schrif- ten 3. Berlin 1959, pp. 117–168 (orig. 1905). ———:“Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts.” In: His Gesammelte Schrif- ten 4. Berlin 1960, pp. 1–110 (orig. ZNW 34 [1935], pp. 129–213). ———: “Die Kanonessammlungen der alten Reichskirche.” In: His Gesammelte Schriften 4. Berlin 1960, pp. 159–275 (orig. ZSRG 56, K 25 [1936], pp. 1–114). ———: Über die Bischofslisten der Synoden von Chalkedon, Nicaea und Konstantino- pel. (ABAW.PH n.F. 13) München 1937. Schwartz, E. / T. Mommsen: Eusebius, Die Kirchengeschichte, Dritter Teil: Einleitun- gen, Übersichten und Register. Leipzig 1909. Schwarzer, H.: “Der Herrscherkult der Attaliden.” In: Grüssinger, R. / V. Kästner / sources and bibliography 441

A. Scholl (eds.): Pergamon: Panorama der antiken Metropole. Berlin 2011, pp. 110– 117. Seeliger, H.R.: “Konstantin I., Kaiser (der Grosse)”. In: Döpp, S. / W. Geerlings (eds.): Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur. Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 1998, pp. 383f. Seibt, W.: Ein Blick in die byzantinische Gesellschaft: Die Bleisiegel im Museum August Kestner. Rahden (Westfalen) 2011. Sekunda, N.: “Changing Patterns of Land-Holding in the South-Western Border Lands of Greater Phrygia in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic Periods.” In: Cadwal- lader, A.H. / M. Trainor (eds.): Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Göttingen / Oakville 2011, pp. 48–76. Selinger, R.: The Mid-Third Century Persecutions of Decius and Valerian. Frankfurt (Main) 22004. Sellin, G.: “Adresse und Intention des Epheserbriefes.” In: Trowitzsch, M. (ed.): Paulus, Apostel Jesu Christi: Festschrift für Günter Klein zum 70. Geburtstag. Tübin- gen 1998, pp. 171–186. ———:“Vom Kolosser- zum Epheserbrief: eine Entwicklung im Deuteropaulinis- mus.” In: Müller, P. (ed.): Kolosser-Studien. (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 103) Neukirchen-Vluyn 2009, pp. 151–170. Sellin, V.: Einführung in die Geschichtswissenschaft. Göttingen 1995. Semeraro, G.: “Per un approccio contestuale alla lettura delle immagini: le cera- miche a rilievo di Hierapolis di Frigia.” MEFRA 117 (2005), pp. 83–98. Semiz, G. / A. Celik: “Flora of Mt. Aydo˘gdu(Denizli / Turkey).” Nat.Croat. 14.3 (2005), pp. 185–212. Sezgin, T. / M. Okunak: “Davulcutepe mevkii’nde bulunan antik yerlesim¸ üzer- ine ilk bulgular = First Discoveries about the Ancient Settlement on Davul- cutepe Area.” In: Özçelik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizli ve çevresi tarih ve kültür sempozyumu bildiriler, 6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 2. Denizli 2007, pp. 115– 130. Shepardson, C.: “Paschal Politics: Deploying the Temple’s Destruction against Fourth-Century Judaizers.” VigChr 62 (2008), pp. 233–260. Sheppard, A.R.R.: “R.E.C.A.M. Notes and Studies 6: Jews, Christians and Heretics in Acmonia and Eumeneia.” AS 29 (1979), pp. 169–180. ———:“Pagan Cults of Angels in Roman Asia Minor.” Talanta 12/13 (1980), pp. 77– 101. Sherk, R.K.: “The Eponymous O cials of Greek Cities III.” ZPE 88 (1991), pp. 225–260. Siegert, F.: Das Evangelium des Johannes in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt: Wiederher- stellung und Kommentar. Göttingen 2008. Silvestrelli, F.: “Bibliogra a topogra ca di Hierapolis di Frigia.” In: D’Andria, F. / F. Silvestrelli (eds.): RicerchearcheologicheturchenellavalledelLykos. Lecce 2000, pp. 375–471. Sim¸ sek,¸ C.: “Kolossai.” Arkeoloji ve Sanat 107 (2002), pp. 3–16. (Sim¸ sek¸ 2002) ———:“Trapezopolis antik kenti nekropolü I.” Arkeoloji ve Sanat 109 (2002), pp. 3–17. (Sim¸ sek¸ 2002 a) ———:“A Menorah with a Cross Carved on a Column of Nymphaeum A at Laodicea ad Lycum.” JRA 19 (2006), pp. 343–346. ———: Laodikeia (Laodikeia ad Lycum). Istanbul 2007. (Sim¸ sek¸ 2007) ———:“Laodikeia’dan Ladik’e Denizli = Denizli, from Laodikeia to Ladik.” In: Özçe- 442 sources and bibliography

lik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizli ve çevresi tarih ve kültür sempozyumu bildiriler, 6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 2. Denizli 2007, pp. 38–50. (Sim¸ sek¸ 2007 a) Sim¸ sek,¸ C. (ed.): Laodikeia Çalısmaları¸ 1, 2 vols. Laodikeia nekropolü (2004–2010 yılları). Izmir 2011. Sim¸ sek,¸ C.: Laodikeia (Laodicea ad Lycum). (Laodikeia Çalısmaları¸ 2) Istanbul 2013. Sim¸ sek,¸ C. / M. Büyükkolancı: Laodikeia antik kenti su kaynakları ve da˘gıtımsistemi. Adalya 9 (2006), pp. 83–103. Sim¸ sek,¸ C. / B. Duman: “Laodikeia’da bulunan geç antik ça˘gunguentariumlar.” Adalya 10 (2007), pp. 285–307. Slater, R.N.: “An Inquiry into the Relationship between Community and Text: The Apocryphal Acts of Philip 1 and the Encratites of Asia Minor.” In: Bovon, F. / A. Graham Brock / C.R. Matthews (eds.): The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. Cambridge (Mass.) 1999, pp. 281–306. Smith, R.R.R.: Hellenistic Sculpture. London 1991. Snyder, G.F.: Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life before Constantine. Mercer 1985. Sö˘güt,B.: “Antik dönemde Salbakos da˘gıve kalıntıları = Salbakos Mountain and Its Ruins in the Ancient Period.” In: Özçelik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizli ve çevresi tarih ve kültür sempozyumu bildiriler, 6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 2. Denizli 2007, pp. 15–24. Sofels, J.: Die Regeln Menanders für die Leichenrede in ihrer Tradition dargestellt, herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert. Meisenheim (Glan) 1974. Solin, H.: Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom: ein Namenbuch, 3 vols. Berlin / New York 2003. Soner, R.H.: “Il progetto ‘Valle del Lykos’: presentazione preliminare.” In: D’Andria, F. / F. Silvestrelli (eds.): Ricerche archeologiche turche nella valle del Lykos = Lykos vadidi türk arkeoloji arastırmaları¸ . Lecce 2000, pp. 51–60. Sordi, M.: “I nuovi decreti di Marco Aurelio contro i cristiani.” StudRom 9 (1961), pp. 365–378. ———:“Le monete di Marco Aurelio con Mercurio e la ‘pioggia miracolosa.’” In: Her Scritti di storia romana. Milano 2002, pp. 55–70 (orig. Annali dell’Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 5/6 [1960], pp. 41–55). Sourvinou-Inwood, C.: Tragedy and Athenian Religion. Oxford 2003. Speidel, M.A.: “Auf kürzestem Weg und gut verpegt an die Front: zur Versorgung pannonischer Expeditionstruppen während der severischen Partherkriege.” In: Eich, A. (ed.): Die Verwaltung der kaiserzeitlichen römischen Armee: Studien für Hartmut Wolf. (Historia Einzelschr. 211) Stuttgart 2010, pp. 133–147. Speidel, M.P.: “Legionaries from Asia Minor.” ANRW II 7.2 (1980), pp. 730–746. Speller, L.A.: “New light on the Photinians: The Evidence of Ambrosiaster.” JThS 34 (1983), pp. 99–113. Sperti, L.: “Ricognizione archeologica a Laodicea di Frigia: 1993–1998.” In: Traversari, G.: Laodicea di Frigia I. Rome 2000, pp. 29–103. Speyer, W.: Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum: ein Versuch ihrer Deutung. (HdAW I 2) Munich 1971. ———: RAC Suppl. 1 (2001), cols. 811–846, s.v. “Barbar” 1 A–B. Spittler, J.E.: Animals in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. (WUNT II 247) Tübingen 2008. sources and bibliography 443

Staden, H.v.: Herophilus: The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria. Cambridge 1989. Standhartinger, A.: Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte und Intention des Kolosser- briefs. (Suppl. NT 94) Leiden / Boston / Cologne 1999. ———:“‘… wegen der Hofnung, die für euch im Himmel bereitliegt’ (Kol 1,5): zum Proömium im Kolosserbrief und seinem politischen Hintergrund.” In: Müller, P. (ed.): Kolosser-Studien. (BThSt 103) Neukirchen-Vluyn 2009, pp. 1–22. Steigerwald, G.: “Die Purpursorten im Preisedikt Diokletians vom Jahre 301.” ByF 15 (1990), pp. 219–276. Stein-Hölkeskamp, E.: Das römische Gastmahl: eine Kulturgeschichte. München 2005. Stenger, J.: Hellenistische Identität in der Spätantike: pagane Autoren und ihr Unbe- hagen an der eigenen Zeit. Berlin / New York 2009. Stern, S.: “Jewish Calendar Reckoning in the Graeco-Roman Cities.” In: Bartlett, J.R. (ed.): Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities. London / New York 2002, pp. 107– 116. Sternberg, H.: Lexikon der Ägyptologie 4 (1982), cols. 213–216, s.v. “Mumie, Mumien- hülle, -binden, -netz.” Stevenson, J. / W.H.C.Frend: Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustrat- ing the History of the Church, AD 337–461. London 21989. Stewart-Sykes, A.: Melito of Sardis: On Pascha, with the Fragments of Melito and Other Material Related to the Quartodecimans. Crestwood 2001. Strack, H.L. / P. Billerbeck: Das Evangelium nach Markus, Lukas und Johannes und die Apostelgeschichte, erläutert aus Talmud und Midrasch. München 1924. Strasser, J.-Y.: “L’empereur θεῖος et une inscription de Laodicée du Lykos.” EA 37 (2004), pp. 129–143. Strelan, R.: “The Languages of the Lycus Valley.” In: Cadwallader, A.H. / M. Trainor (eds.): Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Göttingen / Oakville 2011, pp. 77–103. Strobel, A.: Ursprung und Geschichte des frühchristlichen Osterkalenders. Berlin 1977. ———: Das heilige Land der Montanisten. Berlin / New York 1980. Strobel, K.: “Zur Lesung und Deutung einer Grabinschrift aus Stobi und zu den Auswirkungen der Seuche von 166 n.Chr.” ZPE 75 (1988), pp. 232–234. ———:“Die kulturelle und religiöse Entwicklung Altphrygiens I: Kontinuitäten, Brüche, Einüsse.” In: Schwertheim, E. / E. Winter (eds.): Neue Funde und For- schungen in Phrygien. (Asia Minor Studien 61) Bonn 2008, pp. 123–142. Stroumsa, G.G.: “Dall’antigiudaismo all’antisemitismo nel cristianesimo primitivo?” CrSt 17 (1996), pp. 13–46. ———: Das Ende des Opferkults: die religiösen Mutationen der Spätantike. Berlin 2011 (French orig. Paris 2005). Strubbe, J.H.M.: “‘Cursed Be He That Moves My Bones.’” In: Faraone, C.A. / D. Obbink (eds.): Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. New York / Oxford 1991, pp. 33–59. ———: ΑΡΑΙ ΕΠΙΤΥΜΒΙΟΙ: ImprecationsagainstDesecratorsoftheGraveintheGreek Epitaphs of Asia Minor: A Catalogue. (IvK 52) Bonn 1997. Stuckenbruck, L.T.: Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. (WUNT II 70) Tübingen 1995. 444 sources and bibliography

Stumpf, G.R.: Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der römischen Statthalter in Kleinasien (122 v.Chr.–163 n.Chr.). Saarbrücken 1991. Stumpp, B.E.: Prostitution in der römischen Antike. Berlin 1998. Sullivan, R.D.: “The Dynasty of Judaea in the First Century.” ANRW II 8 (1978), pp. 296–354. ———:“Thrace in the eastern dynastic network.” ANRW II 7.1 (1979), pp. 186–211. ———:“Dynasts in Pontus.” ANRW II 7.2 (1980), pp. 913–930. Swain, S.: “Polemon’s Physiognomy.” In: Swain, S. (ed.): Seeing the Face, Seeing the Soul: Polemon’s Physiognomy from Classical Antiquity to Medieval Islam. Oxford 2007, pp. 125–201. Sykutris, J.: “Ein neues Papiaszitat.” ZNW 26 (1927), pp. 210–212. Syme, R.: Tacitus, 2 vols. Oxford 1958. ———: Anatolica: Studies in Strabo, edited by A. Birley. Oxford 1995. Syndikus, H.P.: Catull: eine Interpretation. Zweiter Teil: Die grossen Gedichte (61–68). Darmstadt 1990. Szaif, J.: Platons Begrif der Wahrheit. Freiburg / München 1996. Tabbernee, W.: “Montanist Regional Bishops: New Evidence from Ancient Inscrip- tions.” JECS 1 (1993), pp. 249–280. ———: Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia: Epigraphic Sources Illustrating the History of Montanism. Macon 1997. ———: FakeProphecyandPollutedSacraments:EcclestiasticalandImperialReactions to Montanism. (Suppl. VigChr 84) Leiden / Boston 2007. ———: Prophets and Gravestones: An Imaginative History of Montanists and Other Early Christians. Peabody 2009. Tabbernee, W. / P. Lampe: Pepouza and Tymion: The Discovery and Archaeological Exploration of a Lost Ancient City and an Imperial Estate. Berlin / New York 2008. Taeger, F.: Charisma: Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Herrscherkultes, 2 vols. Stuttgart 1957/60. Taeger, J.-W.: “Einige neuere Veröfentlichungen zur Apokalypse des Johannes.” In: His Johanneische Perspektiven: Aufsätze zur Johannesapokalypse und zum johan- neischen Kreis 1984–2003, herausgeg. von Bienert, D.C. / D.-A. Koch. Göttingen 2006, pp. 29–58 (orig. VF 29 [1984], pp. 50–75). Taft, R.F.: A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom V: The Precommunion Rites. Rome 2000. Talloen, P./ L. Vercauteren: “The Fate of Temples in Late antique Anatolia.” In: Lavan, L. / M. Mulrayn (eds.): The Archaeology of Late Antique “Paganism.” Leiden / Boston 2011, pp. 347–387. Tanrıver, C.: “Three New Inscriptions from Tripolis.” EA 42 (2009), pp. 81–86. Tavo, F.: “The Structure of the Apocalypse: Re-examining a Perennial Problem.” NT 47 (2005), pp. 47–68. Taylor, M.S.: Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus. Leiden 1995. Testini, P.: ArcheologiaCristiana:nozionigeneralidalleoriginiallanedelsec.VI. Bari 21980. Theißen, G.: Erleben und Verhalten der ersten Christen: eine Psychologie des Urchris- tentums. Gütersloh 2007. ———: Das Neue Testament. Munich 42010. sources and bibliography 445

Thier, A.: Hierarchie und Autonomie: Regelungstraditionen der Bischofsbestellung in der Geschichte des kirchlichen Wahlrechts bis 1140. Frankfurt (Main) 2011. Thonemann, P.J.: “Polemo, Son of Polemo (Dio, 59.12.2).” EA 37 (2004), pp. 144–150. ———: The Maeander Valley: A Historical Geography from Antiquity to Byzantium. Cambridge 2011. (Thonemann 2011) Thonemann, P.:“Amphilochiusof Iconium and Lycaonian Asceticism.” JRS 101 (2011), pp. 185–205. (Thonemann 2011 a) Thonemann, P.J. / F. Ertu˘grul:“The Carminii of Attouda.” EA 38 (2005), pp. 75–86. Timpe, D.: “Was ist Kirchengeschichte? Zum Gattungscharakter der Historia Eccle- siastica des Eusebius.” In: Timpe, D.: Antike Geschichtsschreibung: Studien zur Historiographie, herausgeg. von U. Walter. Darmstadt 2007, pp. 292–328 (orig. in Dahlheim, W. et al. [eds.]: Festschrift Robert Werner zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Konstanz 1989, pp. 171–204). Tolmie, D.F.: “Tendencies in the Research on the Letter to Philemon since 1980.” In: Tolmie, D.F. (ed.): Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Berlin / New York 2010, pp. 1–27. Torjesen, K.J.: “Clergy and Laity.” In: Harvey, S.A. / D.G. Hunter (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Oxford 2008, pp. 389–405. Tóth, F.: Der himmlische Kult: Wirklichkeitskonstruktion und Sinnbildung in der Johannesofenbarung. Leipzig 2006. Traina, G.: “Terremoti e misure amministrative nella provincia d’Asia(I a.C.–II d.C.).” MediterrAnt 5 (2002), pp. 747–757. Trainor, M.: Epaphras: Paul’s Educator at Colossae. Collegeville 2008. ———:“Excavating Epaphras of Colossae.” In: Cadwallader, A.H. / M. Trainor (eds.): Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient city. Göttingen / Oakville 2011, pp. 232–246. Travaglini, A. / V.G. Camilleri: Hierapolis di Frigia: le monete: campagne di scavo 1957– 2004. (Hierapolis di Frigia IV) Istanbul 2010. Traversari, G.: “La situazione viaria di Laodicea alla luce degli itinerari Romani.” In: Traversari, G. (ed.): Laodicea di Frigia I. Rome 2000, pp. 9–14. Trebilco, P.: Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. Cambridge 1991. ———:“Asia.” In: Gill, D.W.J. / C. Gempf (eds.): The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids 1994, pp. 291–362. ———:“The Christian and Jewish Eumeneian Formula.” MediterrAnt 5.1 (2002), pp. 63–97. ———:“The Christian and Jewish Eumeneian Formula.” In: Barclay, J.M.G. (ed.): Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire. London / New York 2004, pp. 66–88. (Trebilco 2004) ———: The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. (WUNT 166) Tübingen 2004. (Trebilco 2004 a) ———:“Christians in the Lycus Valley: The View from Ephesus and from Western Asia Minor.” In: Cadwallader, A.H. / M. Trainor (eds.): Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Göttingen / Oakville 2011, pp. 180–211. Trench, R.C.: Commentary to the Seven Churches in Asia: Revelation II. III. New York 1863. Trevett, C.: Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy. Cambridge 1996. Troianos, S.N.: “Die Strafen im byzantinischen Recht.” In: La peine / punishment 1: 446 sources and bibliography

antiquité / antiquity. Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l’histoire comparative des institutions 55. Bruxelles 1991, pp. 185–197. Trombley, F.R.: Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370–529, 2 vols. Boston / Leiden 22001. Trzcionka, S.: Magic and the Supernatural in Fourth-Century Syria. London / New York 2007. Turcan, R.: The Cults of the Roman Empire. Oxford / Cambridge (Mass.) 1996 (French orig. 1992). Uluskan, M.: “Osmanlı kaynaklarına göre 1703 ve 1717 Denizli depremleri = Earth- quakes of Denizli in 1703 and 1717 according to Ottoman Sources.” In: Özçelik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizli ve çevresi tarih ve kültür sempozyumu bildiriler, 6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 1. Denizli 2007, pp. 355–360. Urban, C.: “Die Rollen der Familienmitglieder.” In: Scherberich, K. (ed.): Neues Testament und Antike Kultur 2: Familie, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft. Neukirchen- Vluyn 2011, pp. 17–21. Uthemann, K.-H.: “Zur Rezeption des Tomus Leonis in und nach Chalkedon: Wider den dogmenhistorischen Begrif ‘strenger Chalkedonismus.’” In: Wiles, M.F. / E.J. Yarnold / P.M. Parvis (eds.): Studia patristica 34. Papers presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford 1999. Leuven 2001, pp. 572–604. Van Dam, R.: “Bishops and Clerics during the Fourth Century: Numbers and Their Implications.” In: Leemans, J. / P. van Nufelen / S.W.J. Keough / C. Nicolaye (eds.): Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity. Berlin / Boston 2011, pp. 217–242. Vanderkam, J.C.: TheAnchorBibleDictionary 1 (1992), pp. 119–120, s.v.“Ahikar/Ahiqar, Book of.” ———:“Apocalyptic Literature.” In: Barton, J. (ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge 1998, pp. 305–322. Vanhaverbeke, H. / M. Waelkens: “The Northern Necropolis of Hierapolis (Phrygia): The Chronological and Topographical Distribution of the Travertine Sarcophagi and Their Way of Production.” In: Bernardi Ferrero, D. de (ed.): Saggi in onore di Paolo Verzone. (Hierapolis IV) Rome 2002, pp. 119–145. Vegge, T.: “Polemic in the Epistle to the Colossians.” In: Wischmeyer, O. / L. Scor- naienchi (eds.): Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur: Texte und Kontexte. Berlin / New York 2011, pp. 255–293. Verheyden, J.: “The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute.” In: Auwers, J.-M. / H.J. de Jonge (eds.): The Biblical Canons. Leuven 2003, pp. 487–556. Versnel, H.S.: Fluch und Gebet: Magische Manipulation versus religiöses Flehen. (Hans-Lietzmann-Vorlesungen 10) Berlin / New York 2009. Verzone, P.: “Le Chiese di Hierapolis in Asia Minore.” CArch 8 (1956), pp. 37–61. ———:“Le grandi chiese a volta del VI secolo a Costantinopoli, Efeso e Hierapolis.” Corsi di cultura e arte ravennate e bizantina 7 (1960), pp. 133–140. Vikan, G.: Early Byzantine Pilgrimage Art. Washington 22010. Vitale, M.: Eparchie und Koinon in Kleinasien von der ausgehenden Republik bis ins 3. Jh. n.Chr. (Asia Minor Studien 67) Bonn 2012. Voinot, J.: Les cachets à collyres dans le monde romain. Montagnac 1999. Volp, U.: Tod und Ritual in den christlichen Gemeinden der Antike. Leiden / Boston 2002. sources and bibliography 447

Vonder Mühll, F.: RE I A (1914), cols. 25–28, s.v. “Rabirius” 6. Vorländer, H.: “Mündliches Erfragen von Geschichte.” In: Vorländer, H. (ed.): Oral History: Mündlich erfragte Geschichte. Göttingen 1990, pp. 7–28. Waelkens, M.: “Phrygian Votive and Tombstones as Sources of the Social and Eco- nomic Life in Roman Antiquity.” AncSoc 8 (1977), pp. 277–315. ———: Die kleinasiatischen Türsteine: typologische Untersuchungen der kleinasiatischen Grabreliefs mit Scheintür. Mainz 1986. Waldherr, G.H.: Erdbeben,dasaussergewöhnlicheNormale:zurRezeptionseismischer Aktivitäten in literarischen Quellen vom 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr. bis zum 4. Jahrhun- dert n.Chr. (Geographica Historica 9) Stuttgart 1997. Wallner, C.: Die Inschriften des Museums in Yozgat. (Tyche Sonderband 6) Vienna 2011. Wallraf, M.: “Geschichte des Novatianismus seit dem vierten Jahrhundert im Os- ten.” ZAC 1 (1997), pp. 251–279. Wallraf, M. / U. Roberto / K. Pinggéra: Iulius Africanus, Chronographiae: The Extant Fragments. (GCS n.F. 15) Berlin / New York 2007. Wander, B.: Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten: Studien zum heidnischen Umfeld von Diasporasynagogen. (WUNT 104) Tübingen 1998. Watzinger, C.: Theodor Wiegand. München 1944. Weber, G.: “Der unterirdische Lauf des Lykos bei Kolossai.” MDAI (A) 16 (1891), pp. 194–199. ———:“Die Flüsse von Laodicea: Lykos, Kadmos, Kapros, Eleinos und Asopos.” MDAI (A) 23 (1898), pp. 178–195. (Weber 1898) ———:“Die Hochdruck-Wasserleitung von Laodicea ad Lycum.” JDAI 13 (1898), pp. 1– 13. (Weber 1898 a) Weber, L.: “Apollon Pythoktonos im phrygischen Hierapolis.” Philologus 69 (1910), pp. 178–251. ———:“Die Homonoiamünzen des phrygischen Hierapolis.” Journal international d’archéologie numismatique 14 (1912), pp. 65–122. ———:“The Coins of Hierapolis in Phrygia.” NC 13 (1913), pp. 1–30 and 133–161. Weber, M.: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Tü- bingen 51972. Weckwerth, A.: Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverständnis westlicher antiker Syn- oden im Spiegel ihrer Akten. (JAC Erg. Kleine Reihe 5) Münster 2010. Wedderburn, A.J.M.: Jesus and the Historians. (WUNT 269) Tübingen 2010. Weiler, I.: Die Beendigung des Sklavenstatus im Altertum: ein Beitrag zur vergleichen- den Sozialgeschichte. Stuttgart 2003. Weima, J.A.D.: “Paul’s Persuasive Prose: An Epistolary Analysis of the Letter to Philemon.” In: Tolmie, D.F. / A. Friedl (eds.): Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Berlin / New York 2010, pp. 29–60. Weinreich, O.: Antike Heilungswunder: Untersuchungen zum Wunderglauben der Griechen und Römer. Giessen 1909 (repr. Berlin 1969). Weiser, W.: “Quintus Corellius Rufus und Marcus Marcius Rufus in Asia: Flavische Münzen aus Hierapolis und Ephesus.” EA 20 (1992), pp. 117–124. Weiß, A.: Sklave der Stadt: Untersuchungen zur öfentlichen Sklaverei in den Städten des Römischen Reiches. (Historia Einzelschr. 173) Stuttgart 2004. ———:“Der Nomade ist kein Barbar: Überlegungen zum antiken Nomadenbild.” In: 448 sources and bibliography

Kath, R. / M. Rücker (eds.): “Die Geburt der griechischen Weisheit, oder, Anachar- sis, Skythe und Grieche.” (Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 29) Halle / Wittenberg 2012, pp. 183–193. Weiß, P.: “Alioi: zum Namen eines kaiserzeitlichen Städtchens und byzantinischen Sufraganbistums in Phrygien.” Chiron 23 (1993), pp. 415–428. Welles, C.B.: Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigra- phy. London 1934. Wellesz, E.J.: “Melito’s Homily on the Passion: An Investigation into the Sources of Byzantine Hymnography.” JThS 44 (1943), pp. 41–52. Wesch-Klein, G.: Provincia: Okkupation und Verwaltung der Provinzen des Imperium Romanum von der Inbesitznahme Siziliens bis auf Diokletian: ein Abriss. Vienna / Zürich / Berlin 2008. Wessels, G.F.: “The Letter to Philemon in the Context of Slavery in Early Christianity.” In: Tolmie, D.F. (ed.): Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Berlin / New York 2010, pp. 143–168. Westaway, R.: “Neogene Evolution of the Denizli Region of Western Turkey.” Journal of Structural Geology 15.1 (1993), pp. 37–53. Wiebe, F.J.: Kaiser Valens und die heidnische Opposition. Bonn 1995. Wifstrand, A.: “Die wahre Lehre des Kelsos,” Årsberättelse, Bulletin de la Societé Royale des Lettres de Lund (1941/42), pp. 1–41. Williams, A.L.: “The Cult of the Angels at Colossae.” JThS 10 (1909), pp. 413–438. Williams, D.H: “Monarchianism and Photinus of Sirmium as the Persistent Heretical Face of the Fourth Century.” HThR 99 (2006), pp. 187–206. Williams, M.H.: “The Meaning and Function of Ioudaios in Graeco-Roman inscriptions.” ZPE 116 (1997), pp. 249–262. Willing, M.: Eusebius von Cäsarea als Häreseograph. (PTS 63) Berlin / New York 2008. Wilson, M.: Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70–170 C.E. Minneapolis 1995. ———:“Rich Yet Lukewarm: Early Christianity in the Lycus Valley = Lycus vadisinde erken hristiyanlık.” In: Özçelik, A. et al. (eds.): Uluslararası Denizli ve çevresi tarih ve kültür sempozyumu bildiriler, 6–8 eylül 2006, Denizli, vol. 2. Denizli 2007, pp. 69–72. ———: Biblical Turkey: A guide to the Jewish and Christian sites of Asia Minor. Istanbul 2010. Winkelmann, F.: “Die Bischöfe Metrophanes und Alexandros von Byzanz.” ByZ 59 (1966), pp. 47–71. Winter, S.C.: “Paul’s Letter to Philemon.” NTS 33 (1987), pp. 1–15. Wischmeyer, W.: Von Golgatha zum Ponte Molle: Studien zur Sozialgeschichte der Kirche im dritten Jahrhundert. Göttingen 1992. ———:“ΘΕΟΣ ΥΨΙΣΤΟΣ: Neues zu einer alten Debatte.” ZAC 9 (2005), pp. 149–168. ———:“Zwei Lehrer aus Kleinasien.” In: Prostmeier, R. (ed.): Frühchristentum und Kultur. Freiburg 2007, pp. 95–109. Wisskirchen, R.: “Zum ‘Tierfrieden’ in spätantiken Denkmälern (nach Gen.1,29f., Jes.11,6/8 und 65,25).” JAC 52 (2009), pp. 142–163. Witulski, T.: Die Johannesofenbarung und Kaiser Hadrian: Studien zur Datierung der neutestamentlichen Apokalypse. Göttingen 2007. ———:“Die Aufenthalte des Kaisers Hadrian in der römischen Provinz Asia.” In: Bienert, D.C. / J. Jeska / T. Witulski (eds.): Paulus und die antike Welt: Beiträge sources and bibliography 449

zur zeit- und religionsgeschichtlichen Erforschung des paulinischen Christentums. Göttingen 2008, pp. 150–167. Wörrle, M.: “Antiochos I., Achaios der Ältere und die Galater: eine neue Inschrift aus Denizli.” Chiron 5 (1975), pp. 59–87. ———:“Pergamon um 133 v.Chr.” Chiron 30 (2000), pp. 543–576. Wohlmuth, J. (ed.): Dekrete der ökumenischen Konzilien 1: Konzilien des ersten Jahr- tausends. Paderborn / Munich / Vienna / Zürich 32002. Wold, B.G.: “Familiy ethics in 4 QInstruction and the New Testament.” NT 50 (2008), pp. 286–300. Wolter, M.: Der Brief an die Kolosser. Der Brief an Philemon. (Ökumenischer Taschen- buch-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 12) Gütersloh / Würzburg 1993. Wolters, R.: Nummi Signati: Untersuchungen zur römischen Münzprägung und Geld- wirtschaft. (Vestigia 49) München 1999. Woyke, J.: “Nochmals zu den ‘schwachen und unfähigen Elementen’ (Gal 4,9): Pau- lus, Philo und die στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου.” NTS 54 (2008), pp. 221–234. Woytek, B.: “Paullus Fabius Maximus und Artemon: Neues zur augusteischen Münz- prägung von Hierapolis in Phrygien.” Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numis- matischen Gesellschaft 51.1 (2011), pp. 34–40. Wright, W.: Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum II. London 1871. Yarbrough, R.W.: “The Date of Papias: A Reassessment.” JETS 26 (1983), pp. 181–191. Yates, R.: “Colossians 2:15: Christ Triumphant.” NTS 37 (1991), pp. 573–591. Yoshiko Reed, A. / A.H. Becker: “Introduction: Traditional Models and New Direc- tions.” In: Their The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Tübingen 2003, pp. 1–33. Young, S.E.: Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers: Their Explicit Appeals to the Words of Jesus in Light of Orality Studies. (WUNT II 311) Tübingen 2011. Zäh, A.: Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 24 (2005), cols. 1303–1308, s.v. “Schultze, V.” Zahn, T.: Einleitung in das Neue Testament I. Leipzig 31906. Zahrnt, M.: “Hadrians ‘Provinzmünzen.’” In: Haensch, R. / J. Heinrichs (eds.): Herr- schen und Verwalten: Der Alltag der römischen Administration in der hohen Kai- serzeit. Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2007, pp. 195–212. Zanker, P.: Die Trunkene Alte: Das Lachen der Verhöhnten. Frankfurt (Main) 1989. Zgusta, L.: Kleinasiatische Personennamen. Prague 1964. Ziegler, R.: Die Agonistik im Kleinasien des 2. und 3. Jahrhundert n.Chr.: religiöse, kulturelle und politische Bedeutung. In: Eckholdt, J.-F. / M. Sigismund / S. Sigis- mund (eds.): Geschehen und Gedächtnis: die hellenistische Welt und ihre Wirkung: Festschrift für Wolfgang Orth zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin 2009, pp. 203–225. Zimmermann, C.: Die Namen des Vaters: Studien zu ausgewählten neutestamentlichen Gottesbezeichnungen vor ihrem frühjüdischen und paganen Sprachhorizont. (AJEC 69) Leiden 2007. ———:“Die negativen Gottesbezeichnungen in 1Tim 1,17 und 6,15f.: eine sprachliche Grenzüberschreitung und ihre Folgen.” In: Schweitzer, F. (ed.): Kommunikation über Grenzen: Kongressband des XIII. Europäischen Kongresses für Theologie, 21.– 25. September 2008 in Wien. Gütersloh 2009, pp. 390–408. ———: Gott und seine Söhne. Das Gottesbild des Galaterbriefs. (WMANT 135) Neu- kirchen-Vluyn 2013. 450 sources and bibliography

Zimmermann, K.: Der Neue Pauly 12/1 (2002), cols. 105f., s.v. “Temenos.” Zimmermann, N.: “Die spätantike und byzantinische Malerei in Ephesos.” In: Daim, F. / S. Ladstätter (eds.): Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit. Mainz 2011, pp. 125–172. Ziolkowski, J.M. / M.C.J. Putnam: The Virgilian Tradition: The First Fifteen Hundred Years. New Haven / London 2008. Zwingmann, N.: “Erinnerungslandschaften und Identitäten in einer kulturellen Kontaktzone: Mythen und Denkmäler in Kelainai-Apameia Kibotos.” In: Sum- merer, L. / A. Ivantchik / A. v. Kienlin (eds.): Kelainai-Apameia Kibotos: Stadt- entwicklung im anatolischen Kontext: Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums, München, 2.–4. April 2009. Bordeaux 2011, pp. 93–116. INDEXES

PERSONS

Abercius of Hieropolis, 257n281 Antiochus III, 35, 36n69, 59, 67–69 Abrasax, 304 Antiochus IV, 218 Acacius of Caesarea, 291 Antiochus Hierax, 34n52 Acastus (mythical king), 218n30 Antiochus of Laodicea, 173 Acastus (Cicero’s slave), 99n146 Antiochus of Sanaus, 323 Achaeus (the Elder), 69 Antipater (Second Sophistic), 61n246, 147, Achaeus (the Younger), 35 243n185, 244 Adelus (chorepiscopus), 283n59 Antiphon, 136, 253–254 Aelia Larcia D… (Laodicea), 167–168 Antonia Zenonis, 96–97 P. Aelius Apollinarios Makedon (Hierapolis), Antoninus Pius (emperor), 240n170 247–248 M. Antonius, 40–41 Aelius Aristides, 239–240 M. Antonius Felix, 193 P. Aelius Glykon, 251–253, 337, 391 M. Antonius Polemon, see Polemon (Second P. Aelius Zeuxidemos (Hierapolis), 243 Sophistic) Aemilius (martyr in Laodicea?), 341 L. Antonius Zenon (Laodicea), 235–236 Aetius of Amida, 172–173 L. Antonius Zenon Aurelianus (Laodicea), Agabus, 262 150, 200, 202–203, 348 Agogius of Tripolis, 286, 288 Antony, see Antonius Agricolaus of Caesarea, 280 Aphrodite, 54n203, 58, 87, 179 Agrippa, see Vipsanius Apollinarius of Laodicea, 216 Ahiqar, 219 Apollinarius of Hierapolis, 2, 7, 16, 46, 138, Alcidamas, 136 231–266, 270–271, 274–276, 300, 335–336, Alcman, 218n30 385–387, 389, 391 Alexander (deacon in Laodicea), 275, 381 Apology, 16, 236–242, 270, 336 Alexander (martyr in Laodicea), 341 Against the Hellenes, 236–238, 242–244, Alexander the Great, 33, 359 389 Alexander of Jerusalem, 98n137 Against the Jews, 238, 244–249, 389 Alexander Philalethes (physician), 171–172 Against the Montanists, 238, 242, 255– Ambrose, 338n34 266, 270, 299, 389 Ameling, W., 12–13 On the Paschal Feast, 138, 238, 249–253 Ammia (Christian, Hierapolis), 339 On Piety, 238 Ammia of Philadelphia, 153, 199–200, On Truth, 236n146, 238, 253–255, 389 261n300, 262, 264 Apollo, 34, 42, 44–52, 57, 200, 211, 228–229, Ammion (presbytera), 312 231, 269, 302n170, 337, 346, 349, 357 Amphilochius of Iconium, 253n246 birth, 46 Anacharsis, 135 iconography, 44–45, 47 Anaitis, 51 Apollo Alexikakos, 49n159 Anatolius of Alexandreia, 240 Apollo Archegetes, 46–47, 62 Anatolius of Constantinople, 326 Apollo of Clarus, 119, 129–131, 139–140, 148, Anderson, J.G.C., 9 200–203, 264, 266–268, 388, 390 Andrew (apostle), 221–222 Apollo Kareios, 29, 47, 267–268 Andrew of Caesarea, 215 Apollo Lairbenos, 29, 48–52, 107–108, 133, D’Andria, F., 4n11 261, 390 P. Anicius Maximus, 235 Apollo Pythios, 139, 201–203 Antiochus I, 34, 36 Apollonis, 36, 46, 58–59 Antiochus II, 34–36, 58 Apollonius of Tyana, 208–209 454 persons

Apphia (Phlm), 84–85, 91, 331–333 Aurelius Heortasios Iulianus (Hierapolis, Apphia, daughter of Glykon 1 (Hierapolis), Tripolis), 78 85 Auxentius (martyr in Laodicea), 341 Apphia, daughter of Glykon 2 (Hierapolis), Avidius Cassius, 239 49–50, 85n32 Avircius Marcellus, 257 Apphia, daughter of Zeuxis (Hierapolis), 61, 85 Banabelos, 69–70 M’. Aquillius, 152n28 Barnabas, 90–91 Arabius of Synaus, 323 Bartholomew, 175, 223, 356–357, 365, 367– Archippus (Phlm, Col), 84, 86, 116, 273–274, 369, 371 331–333, 386 Basil of Amaseia, 280 Archippus (prosmonarios, Chonai), 372, Basil of Caesarea, 286n76, 309, 367 374–375 Berenice, 194 Ariaeus, 33n47 Bissia (martyr in Laodicea), 341 Aristarchus (Phlm, Col), 84, 87, 90 Bonifatius (presbyter), 326 Aristides, 241 Bruce, F.F., 9 Aristion, 221, 223–224 Brutus, see Iunius Aristippus (Laodicea), 187 Buckler, W.H., 9, 13, 15 Aristobula (Laodicea), 187–189 Aristobulus, 240 Cadwallader, A.H., 15 Aristonicus of Laodicea, 314–315 Caesar, 40, 73–74 Aristophanes, 170n145, 358 C. Caesar, 61 Aristotle, 142, 174 S. Caesius (eques), 70 Arrian, 132 Calder, W.M., 9, 13, 15, 264 Artaxerxes II., 32, 33n47 Caligula (emperor), 181 Artemis, 46, 54–55, 57, 331, 342, 349–352 Cameron, Alan, 6–7 birth, 46, 57 Caracalla (emperor), 64–65 Artemis of Ephesos, 54–55, 57, 185, 372 Caria (personif.), 27, 30 Artemis Leucophryene, 179 Caricus, 256–257 Artemon (saint, presbyter in Laodicea), 3–4, Carneades, 254 55, 335, 341–342, 346–355, 382 Carus (emperor), 345 Arundell, F.V.J., 14–15 Cassius Dio, 56, 233n126 Asclepiades of Trapezopolis, 314–316 Cecropius of Laodicea, 291, 296 Asclepiodotus, 345 Celsus (De medicina), 170, 173 Asclepius, 52, 64, 171–172, 209, 346, 349, 352, Celsus (Platonic philosopher), 204–205, 255 354, 358 Chares of Dionysopolis, 324 Asclepius (governor?), 344–345 Chelbo, Rabbi, 79n352 Asklepios (Christian, Hierapolis), 339 Chishull, E., 11 Athanasius, 257, 286, 290 Cicero, see Tullius Athenagoras, 240–241n171 Claudia Zenonis, 96–97, 160 Athena, 58, 181, 268–269, 348n90 Claudian (poet), 307n205 Athenodorus of Dorylaeum, 285 Claudianus (martyr in Hierapolis), 341 Attalus I, 36, 57–59 Claudius (emperor), 62, 101, 161 Attalus II, 69 P. Claudius Attalos, 52, 54 Attalus III, 38, 59 P. Claudius Dionysios Aelianus (Laodicea), Attis, 57, 302n170, 306 201–203 Augustus, 41, 60–61, 65, 118 C. Claudius Sostratos (Laodicea), 139–140 Aurelia Augusta (Hierapolis), 76–77, 96 Ti. Claudius Tryphon (Laodicea), 161 Aurelia Cyrilla (Laodicea, Philippopolis), Ti. Claudius Zotikos Boas (Hierapolis), 166– 275 167 M. Aurelius Ammianos (Hierapolis), 23 Clement of Alexandria, 124, 135, 197, 222n56, M. Aurelius Eutychianos (Hierapolis), 56 255n261, 257n280 persons 455

Cockerell, C.R., 370 Elpidius of Laodicea (Syria), 314n248 Commodus (emperor), 63–64, 239, 240–241 Epaphras (Phlm, Col), 9n30, 27, 87–89, 91– n171, 241 92, 98, 116–117, 148, 386, 388 Commodus of Tripolis, 314–315 Epaphroditus (Phil), 88n60 Constantine the Great (emperor), 4, 228, Epictetus, 88, 123, 127n342, 132, 147, 175 284, 287–288 Epidaurus of Perge, 280 Constantius II (emperor), 286, 291, 294, 308– Epiphanius of Colossae, 320–321, 323 309, 348 Epiphanius of Salamis, 263 Cornelius Dioscurides (Laodicea), 180 Epiphanius of Perge, 318 Corsten, T., 14 Erasistratus, 171 Critonianus of Aphrodisias, 325 Erinyes, 309n213 Croesus, 27 Euagoras of Eluza, 323 Cybele, see Meter Euander of Diokleia, 324 Cyprian, (247), 266, 276 Eugenius (archdeacon in Hierapolis), 9n30, Cyriacus (martyr in Hierapolis), 341 265, 274, 370 See also Kyriakos Eugenius of Eucarpeia, 285 Cyril of Alexandreia, 315, 327 Eugenius of Apollonia Salbace, 286n75 Cyrus, 32 Eulalius of Siblia, 324 Eumenes II, 37, 57, 58 Daedalus, 23 Euphronius (deacon in Laodicea), 274, 317– Damascius, 57, 306, 392 318 Daniel of Carrhae, 322 Euplous (Hierapolis), 146 Daniel of Kadoi, 324 Eusebius of Caesarea, 2–3, 100, 153, 185, 190, David, 180 196, 198, 204–206, 213–214, 220, 226, 229, Decius (emperor), 340 232, 237–242, 245, 250, 256–258, 274, 284, Deiotarus, 38 287, 291, 333, 390 Demas (Phlm, Col), 84, 87, 90 Eusebius of Dorylaeum, 319–320 Demeter, 57 Eustathius of Berytus, 319–320, 322, 329 Demosthenes, 209n138 Eustathius of Sebaste, 295, 363n183 Demosthenes Philalethes (physician), 172– Eustolius of Nicomedia, 280 173, 176–177 Eutropius (praef. praet.), 295 Destephen, S., 274 Eutyches (archimandrite in Constantino- Dike, 307–308 ple), 318–319, 327 Dio Chrysostom, 133 Eutychis (daughter of Philip), 198n81 Diocletian (emperor), 167, 274–277, 381, 288, 317, 335, 340, 343, 345–347, 349– Fabius Maximus, 60 350 C. Fannius, 74n318, 164n112 Diodorus (historian), 33n47 Favorinus of Arelate, 208–209 Diodorus (presbyter, martyr in Laodicea), Felix (martyr in Laodicea), 341 275, 341 Firmilianus of Caesarea, 266, 276 Dion (leather-dresser, Colossae), 22 Flaccus (bishop of Hierapolis, 325), 1n1, 284– Dionysius of Corinth, 237 288, 290 Dionysius Exiguus, 293n106, 311 Flaccus of Sanaus, 285 Dionysus, 75, 131n369 Flavian of Constantinople, 318–320, 328 Dioscorus of Alexandria, 316–320, 325– Flavius Anysius (vicarius), 351 328 Flavius Constantinus (praet. praef.), 325 Domitia (wife of Domitian), 62, 180 Flavius Josephus, 67–68, 70, 72–74, 218 Domitian (emperor), 62–63, 102, 159–161, T. Flavius Zeuxis (Hierapolis), 20 180–181 P. Flavonius Paulinus, 235 Cn. Domitius, 70 Florentius of Sardes, 325 Domnus of Antioch, 322 Frontinus, see Julius Drusiane (Ephesos), 187–189 Fulvia, 41n106 456 persons

Gabriel, 303n182 Homer, 7, 268 Gaius (antimontanist), 196, 261 Horace, 228n96 Gaius of Alioi, 323 Humann, C., 11–12 Galen, 172–174, 358n158 Hygieia, 49 Galerius (emperor), 218 Hyrcanus I, 73 Gallus Caesar, 291n100, 309 Hyrcanus II, 72–74 Ganymede, 182n217 Gauger, J.-D., 68 Ibas of Edessa, 321–322, 327 Gelasius of Cyzicus, 277, 290 Ignatius of Antioch, 10, 109, 113–114, 153, 155, Gennadius of Acmoneia, 324 213–214, 221, 263n310, 273 Gennadius of Mossyna, 324 Irenaeus of Lyon, 113, 150, 185, 213, 222, 227, Gennaios of Hierapolis (patriarch), 11, 265, 257n280 311 Isidore Mercator, 279n41 Georgius of Laodicea (Syria), 290n96, Isis, 134n390, 136–137 291n100 Ti. Iulius Myndios (Hierapolis), 43, 62n254, Gerontius (bishop), 283–284 121n295, 126 Geta (emperor), 64 M. Iunius Brutus, 40 Gordian III (emperor), 234n134 L. Iunius Gallio, 82n8 Gratian (emperor), 295 M. Iunius Silanus, 59–60 Gratian (12th century), 293–294, 296 Gregory of Nazianzus, 331n2 James (apostle), 170, 185n3, 221–222, 332, 341n57 Hades, 57, 367 Janus, 269–270n345, 307 Hadrian (emperor), 30, 43n120, 160, 214–215, Jerome, 100–101, 194 241 Jesus, 367 Hamilton, W.J., 11, 15, 20n98 see also Christology Hanna, 199 Jesus Justus (Kol), 84, 92 Harnack, A. von, 1, 4, 245 Jezebel, 199 Hecate, 360 John (author of Apocalypse), 113, 149–152, Hegesippus, 230n109 163, 185, 227, 386 Heliogabalus (emperor), 48, 65 John (apostle), 9, 150, 170, 185–192, 210, 221– Helios, 48–49 222, 224, 334, 355, 365, 372–373, 378 Hemer, C.J., 163 John (deacon in Hierapolis), 274 Heracles, 168, 179 John of Trapezopolis, 324–326 Heraclion (martyr in Laodicea), 341 John Chrysostom, 296, 305 Heraclius of Cidyessus, 323 John Lydus, 269–270n345 Heraclius of Zela, 280 John Malalas, 101 Heras (Laodicea), 29n19 John Mark, 90–91 Hermes, 34, 43, 140, 181 John presbyter, 150, 221, 223–226 Hermione (daughter of Philip), 198n81 Johnson, S.E., 9 Hermolaus of Attuda, 314–316 Jovianus (martyr in Laodicea), 341 Hero (bishop of Hierapolis?), 371n239 Judas, 206, 216–219, 227 Herod, 74n317, 218 Judas Barsa(b)bas, 262 Herod Antipas, 207n125 Judeich, W., 11 Herodotus, 15n61, 25, 27, 32–33, 377 Julia Livilla, 181 Herophilus, 171 Julia Zenonis (Laodicea), 96–97 Hierocles, 291–292, 324 Julian Apostata (emperor), 295, 306, 310n221 Hierophilus of Trapezopolis, 314n248, 316 Julianus (martyr in Laodicea), 341 Hikesios Judas (Hierapolis), 75–76, 92 Julius, see also Iulius Hilarus of Rome, 320 Julius Africanus, 100 Hilary of Poitiers, 277 Julius Andronikos (Laodicea), 102 Hippolytus, 201 M. Julius Eugenius, 1n1, 336n23 persons 457

S. Julius Frontinus, 161 Mark of Arethusa, 331n2 Julius Patricius, 351n114 Matthew (apostle), 221–222, 223n61, 229– Justin, 126, 129, 151, 185, 240–242, 243n189, 230 246 Matthias (apostle), 207n119 Justinian (emperor), 289, 298, 351 Matthias of Temenothyrae, 323 Justus Barsabas, 205–206, 209 Maxima (martyr in Laodicea), 341 Maximian (emperor), 343 Klauck, H.-J., 218–219 Maximilla (Montanist), 259, 261, 264 Körtner, U.H.J., 218 Maximinus Daia (emperor), 279, 281 Kyriakos (presbyter in Hierapolis), 275 Melito of Laodicea, 189–190 see also Cyriacus Melito of Sardis, 1n1, 138, 237, 239–242, 244, 246, 250–251, 253, 255–256, 270, 334–335 Q. Labienus, 40–41 Men, 52–53, 331, 337 Lactantius, 218, 236 Men Axiottenos, 51 Lairbenos, see Apollo Men Karou, 29, 52–53, 171, 377 Lampe, P., 260 Menander of Laodicea, 244n192 Laodice, 34, 58 Menius (martyr in Laodicea), 341–342 Laodicea (personif.), 54 Menophilos (Laodicea), 337–338, 391 Leo (emperor), 324, 351n114 Messalinus of Laodicea Combusta, 283n59 Leo of Rome, 323, 326–327 Metatron, 129n352 Leontius of Tripolis, 291 Meter, 53–57, 141n447, 136n406, 175n181, 261, Leto, 45, 51 306, 357, 392 Letodorus of Cibyra, 284n63 Meter Adrastou, 53 Liberius of Rom, 295 Michael (archangel), 3–4, 25, 155, 302n170, Licinius (emperor), 279 303–304, 312n234, 365n201, 372–377, 381 Livia, 61 Michael VIII Palaeologus, 270n345 Louis VII, 20 Midas, 136n406 Lucius of Hierapolis, 314n248 Miltiades, 242n181, 245–246, 256 Lucius Verus (emperor), 241, 266, 335 Mirabella Roberti, M., 12 Luke (evangelist), 2 Miranda, E., 12–13 Luke (Phlm, Col), 84, 87, 90 Mithradates VI, 39 Lupus of Tarsus, 280 Modestus of Sebaste, 324 Lydia of Thyatira, 96, 169n141, 338n37 Montanus, 259–261, 264 Lydus, see John Mopsus, 264, 267–268 Moses, 243, 248 Macharus (martyr in Laodicea), 341 Musonius, 147 Magnus (vicarius), 307–308 Manaimos, 206–207, 209 Nadan, 219 Manasseh, 138 Nanas (prophetess), 130n364, 302n171 Mani, 188 Narcissus of Neronias, 280 Manuel I, 377 Nemesis, 54 Marcellus of Ancyra, 280, 294 Nero (emperor), 101, 207, 331–332 Marcianus (emperor), 322, 325 Nerva (emperor), 75n323 Marcianus (martyr in Laodicea), 341 Nestorius, 300, 314–315 Marcion, 91, 93–94, 113 Nicanor, 361 Marcus (interpreter? in Colossae), 28 Nicanora (A.Phil.), 345n72, 361, 364, 366, 368 Marcus Aurelius (emperor), 232–241, 249, Nicetas of Paphlagonia, 371n239 334, 351 Nike, 180 Mariamne, 175, 356–357, 360, 365, 367 Nikostratos (Laodicea), 120–121 Marinianus of Synnada, 318, 325 Noah, 336 Mark (evangelist), 220, 223–224, 229n103 L. Nonius Glykon (Laodicea), 78, 247–249, Mark (Phlm, Col), 84, 87, 90–91 253n245, 337 458 persons

Nonnius of Laodicea, 290–291, 296 Philip (“evangelist”), 3, 190–195, 210–211, 223, Nonnus of Panopolis, 307n205 387 Novatus, 340 daughters of Philip, 3, 190, 192, 195–208, Nunechius 1 (bishop of Laodicea, c. 325), 1n1, 210–211, 214, 261–262, 269, 312, 334, 279n41, 280–286, 288, 290 382, 387, 390 Nunechius 2 (bishop of Laodicea, c. 450), Philip (martyr in Laodicea), 341 281, 316–328, 387 Philip of Ancyra (Phrygia), 324 Nympha (Col), 84, 92, 95–96, 148, 199, 312, Philip of Hierapolis (457), 324 392 Philip II of Macedonia, 359 Nymphs, 307–308 Philip of Peltae, 323 Philip Sidetes, 190, 206, 214, 222n59, 223n62 Onesimus (Phlm, Col), 84, 86–87, 91, 98–99, Philo of Alexandria, 76 103–109, 145, 386, 390 Philostratus, 210 Onesimus of Ephesus, 109 Photinus, 294–295 Onesiphorus of Iconium, 318, 325 Photius, 238, 306n198 Q. Oppius, 39 Phrygia (personif.), 27, 30 Orestes (saint), 374 Piste (Laodicea), 337–338 Origen, 204, 255, 261n301 Pistus of Aizanoi, 285 Orosius, 101 Plato, 142, 254–255 Otacilia Faustina (Pergamon), 181 Pliny the Elder, 42, 100, 276, 278, 335 Pliny the Younger, 105, 139 Papias, 2, 150, 190–191, 193, 195–196, 205–206, Plutarch, 218 213–231, 269–270, 273, 385–386, 390–391 Pluto, 309n214, 358 Papias (lexicographer), 269–270n345 Polemon I, 40–41, 96 Papias Klexos (Laodicea), 21, 160, 166 Polemon II, 194 Patricius (governor?), 350–353, 387 Polemon of Cilicia, 194 Paul, 1n1, 5, 27, 42, 81–148, 189, 191–193, 273, Polemon (Second Sophistic), 147, 158n76, 329, 331–332, 381–382, 386 203, 208–210, 220 itinerary, 82–83, 123 Polycarp (protodeacon Laodicea), 275, Paul (presbyter in Hierapolis), 275, 315n252, 381 318n270 Polycarp of Smyrna, 114, 213–214, 219, Paula, 194 263n310, 334 Paul of Apamea, 285 Polycrates of Ephesus, 1n1, 191–192, 196–198, Paul of Aristion, 324 201, 250, 334, 388 Paul of Tripolis, 320–321, 325–326 Pompey, 40, 73 L. Peducaeus, 70 Q. Pomponius Flaccus (Laodicea), 161–162 Pennacchietti, F.A., 12 Pontius, 256–257 Permissos (Laodicea), 140 Poppaea, 97 Persephone, 57 M. Porcius Cato, 38 Peter (apostle), 170, 191, 213, 217, 221–222, 225, Priscilla (Montanist), 261, 264 229n103, 370–371 Proclus (Montanist), 196, 198, 210, 261 Peter of Iconium, 280 Procopius of Caesarea (martyr), 348n87, Philadelphius of Juliopolis, 280 355n137 Philadelphus of Atanassus, 323 Procopius of Synnada, 285 Phileas (deacon in Laodicea), 274n8, 352, Prophetilla (Hierapolis), 263–264 354 Protagoras, 253–254 Philemon (Phlm), 81, 84, 95–96, 98–110, 145, Publilius Syrus, 99n144 273, 331–333, 382 Pudentius (martyr in Laodicea), 341 Philetus of Keretapa, 323 Pythes (Laodicea), 168 Philip (“apostle”), 9–10, 190–195, 211, 221–223, Python (serpent), 357 305, 332–334, 341–343, 349, 355–373, 378, 382, 387, 390 Quadratus, 198n75, 214, 241, 262 persons 459

C. Rabirius, 72–75 Sylvester of Rome, 287n78 Ramsay, W.M., 8–9, 11, 129, 140, 171, 173, 252, Symeon Logothetes, 273 303, 347, 351, 353 Symmachius of Attouda, 320–321, 323 Raphael, 303–304 Syncellus, 101 Reitzenstein, R., 98 Ritti, T., 12 Tabbernee, W., 13, 260, 263–265, 339 Robert, L., 13–14, 58, 203, 353 Tacitus, 61, 100 Roma (personif.), 59, 61 Tatian, 30, 238, 241–243 Rothschild, C.K., 158 Tatian of Philippopolis, 323–324 Roubes, 129–130 Tertullian, 93, 232–233, 246, 309 Ru nus, 258 Tertullus / Tertyllos (Laodicea), 187–188 Thallus (martyr in Laodicea), 343–346, 382 Sabinianus, 105 Thecla, 188, 355n137, 363–364 Sagaris of Laodicea, 1n1, 4, 249–251, 274, 300, Theodas of Laodicea, 173 334–335, 342, 351, 382, 386 Theodoret, 81, 111, 128–129, 238, 244, 302–303, Satan, 154, 349, 361, 370 310, 322, 373, 381–382 Schultze, V., 8 Theodorus (deacon in Hierapolis), 13, 274 Schwab, G., 81 Theodorus Lector, 285 Schwartz, E., 3, 197, 245, 294 Theodosius I (emperor), 338n34, 348 Secunda (martyr in Laodicea), 341 Theodosius II (emperor), 315n254 Selenas, 30 Theodosius of Philadelphia (?), 293–294n112, Selene, 49, 360 296 Seleucus I, 36, 57 Theodosius (secr. in Hierapolis), 314 Septimius Severus (emperor), 64, 257, 260, Theodotus, 259–260 298 Theodulus of Keretapa, 291 Serapion of Antioch, 231, 256–257, 275 Theophilus (Novatianist, martyr in Sergianus of Antioch (Pisidia), 280 Laodicea), 274n6, 341–342 M. Sertorius Valens (Iconium), 28 Theophrastus, 174 Servilius Paulus, 250, 334 Thomas (apostle), 221–222, 338 M. Sestius Philemon, 84 Thomas of Theodosiupolis, 324 Severus (encratite), 238 Thraseas of Eumeneia, 334 Silas, 82, 96, 262 Thucydides, 220 Silvanus of Keretapa, 314n249 Tiberius (emperor), 61–62 Simeon of Jerusalem, 332–333 Timothy (Phlm, Col), 82, 84, 89, 110–111, 116 Simmias of Thebes, 254n250 Tissaphernes, 33n47 Simon, the magician, 193 Titus (emperor), 102, 160 Sim¸ sek,¸ C., 14 Tönnies, F., 5–6 Sisinnius (bishop of Laodicea?), 55, 346–347, Torrhebus, 264 350–352, 354 Trajan (emperor), 63, 85, 168, 213–215, 332– Socrates (church historian), 310, 316 334, 355 Sopatros, 72–73 Trebilco, P., 10 Soranus, 172 Trophimus (martyr in Laodicea), 343–346, Sosandros (from Hierapolis), 51 382 Soter of Rome, 250, 334 M. Tullius Cicero, 38–39, 70–71, 99, 164n112 Stachys (A.Phil.), 175–177, 357–371 Tyche, 43, 54–55, 140, 307–308, 309n215 Stephanus (bishop), 283–284 Tychicus (Col), 84, 87, 91–92, 109, 113–114, 116 Stephanus of Byzantium, 33–34, 36, 353 Tyrannognophus (A.Phil.), 361, 364–365, 367 Stephen, 191–193, 197, 361 Strabo, 23, 38, 52, 55–56, 133, 169, 171, 188 Valens (emperor), 295 Stratonice, 57 Valentinus, 243n189 Sulla, 218 Valerian (emperor), 340 Sykutris, J., 269–270n345 L. Valerius Flaccus, 70–71 460 persons

Venantius of Hierapolis, 275, 314–315 Zahn, T., 92 Verzone, P., 4, 11–12 Zenon of Laodicea, 40, 96, 194, 209 Vespasian (emperor), 75, 208–209 Zeus, 34, 42–44, 126, 129, 140, 172, 181, 302n170 Victor of Rome, 191–192, 196, 259, 334 birth, 44 Victorinus of Pettau, 157 iconography, 43–44 M. Vipsanius Agrippa, 74 Zeus Aseis, 44 Virgil, 228 Zeus Bozios, 44 Vitalis of Antioch, 280, 283–284 Zeus Hypsistos, 129 Vitruvius, 21 Zeus Laodiceus / Laodicenus, 43 Zeus Soter, 62 Weber, G., 13, 15 Zeus Troios, 44 Willing, M., 257–258 Zeus Trosou, 44n124 Wilson, M., 9–10 Zeuxis, 67–68 Zeuxis Philalethes (physician), 52, 171–172 Xenophon, 32, 142 Zosimus of Themisonion, 323 Xenophon (Laodicea), 187 Zoticus (martyr in Laodicea), 341 Xerxes, 27, 32 PLACES / GEOGRAPHICAL TERMS

Acheron, 309n213 Asiana (diocese), 266, 276–277, 288, 292– Acıpayam, 278n33 293, 308, 329, 351 Acmoneia, 79n349, 121, 230n112, 248, Asopus, 18 249n223, 292n104, 324 Athens, 30, 263n315, 356 Adramyttium, 70 Attalea, 19 Afyon, 166n122, 324n306 At(t)anassus, 292n104, 323 Aizanoi, 200n89, 285, 292n104 Attouda, 23–24, 36–37, 52–53, 61, 171, Akköy, 19n86 292n104, 314–316, 320, 323, 387 Alexandria, 73, 208, 219, 255, 257, 274, 290, see also Men Karou—Sanctuary 311, 318, 326–327, 348n90 Augaza, 317 Alinoi, 292n104 Aulon, 354n134 Alioi, 292n104, 323 Aulutrene, 234 Amaseia, 280 Azotus, 193, 357 Amisus, 131 Amorion, 235 Babakome, 42 Anastasiopolis, 292n104 Babylon / Babylonia, 67, 152, 178 Anaua, see Sanaus Bafa Gölü, 353n127 Ancyra (Galatia), 235n136, 279–284, 328 Bahadınlar, 107 Ancyra (Phrygia), 278, 292n104, 324 Balbine, 353–354 Andria, 278 Banaz, 260 Anemurion, 354 Baspınar,¸ 157 Antioch (Meander), 23 Berytus, 319–320, 322, 329 Antioch (Pisidia), 83, 235, 266, 280, 355n137 Bithynia, 277n29, 329, 335n19, 340 n51 Antioch (Syria), 83n15, 101, 207, 213, 231, 256, Black Sea, 41, 136, 203, 335 274–275, 280, 287, 290, 311, 320, 322, 341, Blaundus, 27n2 355n137 Bosporan Kingdom, 41, 106 Antoniopolis, see Tripolis Bostra, 314n248 Apamea (Phrygia), 19, 32, 37–38, 58, 70–71, Boulbi, 353–354 83, 133, 160, 234, 266, 278, 285, 336, 339, Bria, 292n104 345 Byzantium, 259, 279 Aphrodisias, 23n118, 45, 53n198, 102n168, 141, 179, 277, 298, 309n217, 317, 325, 345, Cadi, see Kadoi 354 Cadmus (Honaz Da˘gı),17–18, 44, 354 Aphrodision (? Hierapolis), 146 Cadmus (river), 18 Apollonia, see Tripolis Caesarea (by the Sea), 98, 192–195, 291, 352– Apollonia Salbace, 179n204, 236, 286 355, 356n143 Apollonoshieron, 45n134 Caesarea (Cappadocia), 266, 276, 280, 374 Appia, 292n104, 314n248 Çal, 26 Arca-Caesarea, 355n137 Cappadocia, 27, 234, 277n29 Arelate, 208, 287 Caprus, 18, 157, 375 Aristion, 292n104, 324 Caria (also province), 23, 27–28, 30, 179, 277, Asia, 82, 91, 152, 240–241, 332, 353 286, 293, 353 Asia (province), 19, 38, 40, 59–60, 63, 70–71, Carina, 23, 278 126, 151–153, 161, 191, 240, 243, 250, 276– Carnuntum, 232 278 Carrhae, 322 Asia (late Roman province), 277, 293 Carura, 19n86, 23, 52, 133, 171 462 places / geographical terms

Celaenae, see Apamea Dionysopolis, 292n104, 324 Ceraine, 278 Diospolis (Laodicea), 42 Ceretapa / Chairetopa, see Keretapa Docimeion, 22, 143 Chalcedon, 174, 322–328 Domuz Deresi, 22 Chios, 140 Dorylaeum, 285, 319–320 Chonae, 3–4, 303n177, 331–332, 372–373, 376–377 Edessa (Macedonia), 50 see also Colossae Edessa (Mesopotamia), 321–322, 327 Chrysorhoas (Chryses), 375 Egypt, 266n335, 288 Cibyra, 19, 42, 85, 87, 276, 284n63 Eluza, 292n104, 323 Cidramus, 23n121 Ephesus, 10, 19, 43, 63, 72, 83, 98–99, 150, 152– Cidyessus, 292n104, 323 153, 164, 185–189, 191–192, 196–197, 293, Cilicia (also province), 38–40, 194, 266, 314–322, 331–332, 348, 363n184, 365 277n29, 280, 288, 354 see also Councils Cilician Gates, 19 Euaza, see Augaza Clarus, 45–46, 88, 130–131, 139–140, 149, 200– Eucarpeia, 285 203, 264, 266–268, 348 Eudocias, 292n104 Cnidus, 293 Eumeneia, 41n106, 129–130, 178, 234, 292, Cogamus, 153, 262 314n248, 323, 334, 336 Colophon, 139–140, 267–268 Euphrates, 235 See also Clarus Colossae, 1, 3, 10, 14–15, 24–25, 31–33, 44, 53– Galatia, 82–83, 153, 266 54, 81–148, 169n143, 179, 192, 273, 278, 286, Gangra, 328 292n104, 310, 320, 323, 331–332, 372–377, Gaza, 193, 273, 348n90 386 Germia, 373n252 Church of St. Michael, 20, 25, 303, 372– Gözler, 303 377 Gordion, 136 necropolis, 15 Gümüsler,¸ 78 theater, 15 Güzelpınar, 47 see also Chonae Conium, 278 Helicon, 140 Constantia (Cyprus), 319 Hellespontus (late Roman province), 277, Constantinople, 138, 280, 296, 311, 318, 326, 293 328, 331 Heraclea on the Latmos, 353 See also Councils / synods Heraclea Salbace, 20, 43n115, 53n198 Corinth, 82n8, 199, 237 Herculaneum, 263n315 Corycus, 181, 264n315 Hermus, 19, 33, 50, 153, 199, 262 Cotiaium, 278, 309n213 Hieracome, 45n135 Cydrara, 23n122, 27, 32–33, 278n33 Hierapolis, 1, 3–4, 11–13, 24–26, 31, 36–37, 43– Cyme, 136 47, 55–66, 92–93, 96, 101–102, 121, 123, 126, Cyprus, 319, 350n104, 354–355, 369n226 138, 147, 162, 164n114, 166–167, 169, 175– Cyrrhus, 322 177, 190–199, 203–208, 210–211, 213–271, Cyzicus, 66n280, 316n257, 316n257 274, 278, 280, 285, 289, 303–305, 307–311, 314–316, 323–324 (Philippopolis?), 329, Danube, 215, 232, 234, 266n335 333, 337, 341, 355–371, 373–374, 377–380, Delos, 74 386–387 Delphi, 104, 267n337 Baths Basilica, 379–380 Demonesus, 174 “Cathedral”, 12, 368, 380 Denizli, 14, 18, 157 Frontinus Gate, 75, 102n166, 161n94, Deultum, 257 178n195 Didyma, 45n128, 202, 203n105 Martyrium of Philip, 4, 12, 16, 211, 269, Diocleia, 292n104, 324 333, 378–380, 393 places / geographical terms 463

necropolis, 13, 75–77, 96, 143–146, 178, Caracalla Nymphaeum, 13–14, 63, 200, 244–245, 251–253, 263–265, 298, 304, 348 338–339, 373, 380, 392 gymnasium, 29n19 “Pier Church”, 11–12, 265, 275, 311, 380 necropolis, 25, 78–79, 247–248, 335, 351 Plutonium, 55–57, 66, 306, 357, 366, 368, “Nymphaeum A” (Sept. Severus Nymph.), 392 298 Temple of Apollo, 46–48, 55, 215, 267, “Sanctuary A”, 16, 54–55, 306, 349, 359, 306, 309n215, 380 377–378, 380, 392 theater, 12, 46, 57, 160, 229, 307, 309–310 stadium, 66, 102n166, 159–160, 278 Tomb of Philip, 4, 16–17, 194, 211, 379, 387 Syrian Street, 54, 298, 306, 381 Hierapolis (Syria), 314n248 Syrian Gate, 102n166, 159–161, 210 Hieropolis (Phryg.Sal.), 285, 285n71, 314n248 theaters, 160, 167 Honaz, see Chonae Laodicea Combusta, 1n1, 153, 283n59, 336n23 Hydrela, 278 Laodicea (Syria), 314n248, 355 Hypaepa, 317 Limyra, 84 Lunda, 292n104 Iasos, 76 Lycaonia, 82, 116, 135, 269n343, 286, 293n107, Iconium, 19, 28, 38, 40, 83, 266, 276, 280, 318, 318, 347n85, 363, 367, 392 325, 364 Lycia, 293n107 Insulae (late Roman province), 277, 293 Lycus, 17–19, 24–25, 32, 372, 375 Italy, 20 Lydia (also province), 24, 27, 50, 67–69, 262, 277, 283, 286, 315, 332 Jerusalem, 70–71, 91, 98n137, 141, 165, 185n3, Lykokapros, 375 193, 199, 207, 228, 260, 311, 332–333, 350 Lystra, 89 Temple, 70, 141 Juliopolis (Gal.), 280 Magnesia, 152, 179 Mamakome, 49 Kadoi, 292n104, 324 Meander, 17–19, 23–24, 48, 153, 260, 336, Kapoumais, 156 354 Kavakbası,¸ 32n40 Melitene, 234 Keretapa-Diokaisareia, 291, 292n104, Melos, 130n359 314n249, 323, 353–354, 372 Men Karou—Sanctuary, 29, 52–53, 171–172, Kiddioukome, 42 359, 377 Klaros, see Clarus see also Attouda, Men Karou (index of Konioupolis, 292n104 persons) Kouphos, 375 Meros, 348 Krassos, 292n104 Mesopotamia, 19, 67, 69 Metellopolis, see Motella Lairbenos (Sanctuary), 26, 29, 48, 105–109, Midaium, 278, 293 133, 260 Miletus, 19, 72, 151, 156, 304n183 see also Apollo (index of names) Mossyna, 26, 292n104, 303, 324 Laodicea, 1, 3–4, 13–14, 20, 24–25, 29–30, Motaleis, 26, 31 33–35, 37–45, 57–66, 70–74, 78–79, 92– Motella, 26, 48, 107–108, 133 97, 100–102, 120–121, 123, 129, 136–137, Myrina, 41n107 152–183, 186–189, 192, 200–203, 208–210, Mysia, 82 215, 250–251, 265, 268, 273–279, 285– 286, 288–328, 317 (Trimitaria), 334–338, Nacolea, 87n57 340–355, 359, 373–374, 377–378, 382, 386– Neocaesarea, 283–284 387 Neonteichos, 42, 69 aqueducts, 13, 18, 159 Neronias (Cilic.), 280 “Basilica”, 4, 16, 274–275, 296n131, 306– Nicea, 284, 286, 322, 329 307, 380–381, 392 see also Councils 464 places / geographical terms

Nicomedia, 234, 280, 291, 329 Rome, 39–40, 71–72, 99–101, 125, 147, 152, 191– Nikatera, 356n143 192, 207, 231n114, 250, 290, 317, 320, 326

Oinoanda, 129 Salbacus (Baba Da˘gı),17, 20, 22–23 “Ophioryme” (“Opheoryme”), 175, 356–357 Samaria, 193 Samos, 151 Pactolus, 164 Sanaus, 19, 32, 285–286, 292n104, 323 Palestine, 193, 204, 207–208, 211, 230, 354– Sangarius, 335 357, 367 Sarayköy, 19n86 Palmyra, 348n90 Sardis, 19, 24, 33, 63, 77–78, 83, 152, 163–164, Pamphylia, 277 170, 239, 246, 325 Pamukkale, 14, 19n86 Sazak, 26, 303 Museum, 14, 19n92, 28, 144, 179, 274 Sebaste (Armenia), 295, 363n183 sinter terraces, 22 Sebaste (Phrygia), 292n104, 323–324 Paphlagonia, 310 Seleucia (Isauria), 291 Parthia, 356 Serdica, 277, 290, 296 Patara, 192 Siblia, 292n104, 324 Patmos, 151–152, 155, 189 Side, 19 Peltae, 292n104, 323 Sillyon, 53n192 Pepuza, 260, 265, 292, 301 Simoe, 260 Pergamum, 10, 60–61, 63, 70, 139, 152, 164, 181 Siocharax, 292n104 Asclepium, 209 Sirmium, 294 Perge, 28n10, 90, 280, 318 Smyrna, 19, 63, 152, 154, 171, 182n217, 186, 189, Permessus, 140 210, 213, 219, 239 Philadelphia, 19, 152–155, 162, 199, 214, 269– Sozopolis, 286n76 270n345, 300 Stratonicea (Caria), 35, 129, 344–346, 382 Philippi, 40, 96, 98n140 Susuzören, 260 Philippopolis (Phrygia?), 323–324 Synaus, 292n104, 323 Philippopolis (Thrace), 275 Synnada, 38, 243n186, 277, 285, 289, 318, 325 Philomelium, 38, 83 Syria, 208, 361 Phoenicia, 204 Phrygia, 23, 27–30, 38, 52, 67–69, 79, 82– Tabae, 20, 37 83, 148, 174, 262, 264–265, 283, 300, 303, Takkeli Da˘g(Konya), 356n143 310 Tarsus, 38, 279–280 Phrygia (administrative district, province), Tekkeköy, 23n122 30, 243n185, 277, 285, 288–290, 344 Tembris Valley, Upper, 392 Phrygia Pacatiana (Prima), 8, 260, 277, 279– Temenothyrae, 292n104, 323 280n41, 289–292, 310, 314n248, 315, 318, Themisonium, 203n107, 278, 292n104, 323 323–325, 329, 344, 351 Theodosiana, 292n104, 324 Phrygia Salutaris (Secunda), 277, 289–290, Theodosiupolis, see Theodosiana 293, 314n248 Thera, 130 Phrygia-Caria (province), 277, 288, 345 Thessalonica, 90, 264n315 Pisidia (also province), 82, 111, 277, 303 Thiounta, 22–23, 25–26, 31, 43, 140, 303 Plotinopolis, 316 Thrace, 203, 257, 275, 316, 328 Pontus, 40, 96, 139, 194, 283, 288, 335n19 Thyatira, 96, 152, 199 Pontus Polemoniacus (province), 283 Tiberiopolis, 292n104 Priene, 35, 55, 77–78, 332n5 Tipasa, 275n19 Ptolemais, 192 Titoupolis, 292n104 Pulcherianopolis, 292n104 Trajanopolis, 292n104 Tralleis, 35n63, 64, 73–74, 195, 214, 353n127 Rhoas (Laodicea), 42 Trapezopolis, 15, 23–24, 45, 52–53, 292n104, Rhodes, 293 314–316, 324–325, 387 places / geographical terms 465

Tripolis (Apollonia, Antoniopolis), 15, 19, 24, Usak,¸ 260, 312 27n2, 37, 41, 45, 48, 53, 58, 61n248, 78, 88, 262, 275n19, 286, 291–292, 314–316, 320, Valentia, 292n104 324, 341n57 Tripolis (Phoenicia), 275n19, 341n57 Xenophontos (Athos), 356 Tyana, 374 Tymion, 260 Zela, 280 Tyre, 192, 322, 329 SUBJECTS

Acta Conciliorum, 3, 316–320, 323–324, 326– archive, 76–77, 245, 252, 263 327, 329 Arians, 273, 286, 290–291 Acts of Andrew, 188–189 asceticism, 125, 362–364, 370–371, 374–375 Acts of the Apostles, 2, 10, 82, 187n13, 191, 195, see also Encratites 197–198, 204, 206–207, 217, 262, 338 assize centers, 38, 71, 276, 336, 340, 361 Acts of John, 185–190, 348, 365 associations Acts of Paul, 112n236, 188, 207 cultic, 31, 43, 316 Acts of Peter, 371 trade, craft, 21, 30–31, 166–168, 252 Acts of Philip, 3–4, 175–177, 189, 210, 305, 333, Attalids, 35–37, 57–58 350, 355–372, 377, 387 attar of roses, 173, 176 Acts of Thecla, 350, 363–364 authorities (in church), 97, 328–329, 386– afterlife, 181–182, 247–248, 309n213, 367 387, 389–390 agape, 144 azyma, see unleavened bread agriculture, 20–21, 24, 67–68, 227–229 aischrologia, 132 banquet, 177–179, 310 akatharsia, 132 baptism, 111, 118, 253, 266, 276, 301, 353–355, alchemy, 165, 167, 358n158 360 Alexander Romance, 359 barbarians, 30, 121, 135–136, 243 ambo, 138, 296, 313, 380 Barnabas, Epistle of, 246 Ambrosiaster, 295n122 bema, 296 amulet, 304–305 biblidion, 240n170 angels, angel worship, 111, 126–131, 154–156, birth of the child, 228 215–216, 299, 301–304, 353, 372–377, 389 see also Christmas see also guardian angel bishop, 155, 213–215, 259, 269–274, 282–283, animals, speaking, 346, 350, 352, 357, 368 301, 347, 386 anti-Jewish literature, 245–246 election of, 289 Apocalypse, 155, 227 see also archbishop, Councils, synods Apocalypse of Baruch, 228 borders / boundaries, 6, 89, 127, 135–137, 148, Apocalypse of John, 2, 111n225, 113, 120, 149– 199, 247, 270, 305, 366, 387–390 183, 189, 215–216, 224, 227–228, 263n310 building, building trades, 22–23 Letter to Laodicea, 2, 149, 154–185, 210, burial, 368–369 359, 386 see also necropolis, tomb Letter to Philadelphia, 153–154 Letter to Sardis, 170 calendar, 34–35, 58, 60, 118, 125–126, 249–253, Letter to Thyatira, 199 300, 388 apology, 147, 231, 236 canon, biblical, 138n428, 270, 297, 313–314 see also Apollinarius (index of persons) see also Muratorian Canon apostle, 111, 170, 191–192, 206–207, 220–223, cantors, 138–139, 312–314, 329 273–274 captivity, “captivity epistles”, 98–99, 117 Apostolic Constitutions, 273 catalog of vices, 131–134, 362 Aramaic language, 69, 230–231 catalog of virtues, 134–135 archaeology, 4, 10–17 Catharists, 341–342 archbishop, 311, 329 cattle, 21–22, 361 see also bishop see also sheep, sheperds arché / archontes, 120 cenones (Montanism), 265, 301 archhiereus, 59, 97, 273 charisma, 204, 211, 390 subjects 467 charity, 370 1Corinthians, 112, 117, 133–135, 198, 249 children, 139–140, 143–145, 200–203, 267– 2Corinthians, 98, 110 268, 366, 387 Councils, 284–290, 314–328 chiliasm, 226–227 Nicea (325), 4, 277, 283–290, 314, 319, 327 chorepiscopi, 282–283 Constantinople (381), 294–295, 314n248, chrismation, 301 327 Christmas, 44, 46 Ephesus I (431), 3, 275, 300, 314–316, 319, christogram, 130, 348 327 Christology, 110, 119–122, 156, 290–291, 359– Ephesus II (449), 3, 274, 316–322, 325, 360, 367 329 Chronicon Paschale, 238, 249 Chalcedon (451), 3, 5, 281, 283n59, 316, church (universal), 121–122 318, 322–329 church (architecture, buildings), 367–368, see also synods 378–381, 392–393 cruci xion, 344–345 see also house church Crypto—Christians, 248–249, 335–340 Cimmerians, 136 crypto—paganism, 302 circumcision, 88, 92, 122, 126 cupellation, 163–164 cistophors, 35, 164 curses, 218n35, 365–366 clergy, 5, 213–215, 221–222, 297, 304–305, 313, on tombs, 79, 218n32, 247–248, 366n204 347, 386 climate, 18 dalmatica, 317 clothes, 134 damnatio memoriae, 63–64, 66 see also textile industry, textiles Daniel, book of, 155 Codex Sinaiticus, 95 deacon, see diaconia Codex Suprasliensis, 350 demography, 68–69, 71, 79, 145, 366, 375 Codex Theodosianus, 308 Deuteronomy, 79, 247–249, 337 coins, 24, 27, 30, 35–37, 42–45, 48–49, 52–53, dew, 176, 358–359 58, 60, 65–66, 96–97, 102, 115, 136–137, diaconia, 13, 86, 89, 116, 122, 211, 265, 274–275, 160, 162, 164, 171–172, 180–181, 264, 336, 313n242, 352, 370, 386 360 diaconicum, 296 see also Homonoia coinage dietary laws, 125 Colossians (Epistle), 2, 24, 81–97, 103, 110– dioceses, 266, 276, 283, 288–289, 292–293, 148, 151, 154–155, 189, 301–303, 305, 310, 308, 318, 322, 328–329, 351–389 362n180, 381, 385–386, 389 domestic code, 141–146 Christological Hymn, 113, 119–122, 137–138 “dominion” terms, 120–121, 180–182, 215– collyrium, see eye salve 216 comes, 351–353 door, 177–178 see also governor see also tomb communication, 19–20, 27, 38, 78, 92–93, 153, double axe, 47–49 203–204, 208, 231–232, 238–239, 269–271, dropsy, 218 275–276, 284 dyers, 21–23, 31n30, 166–167, 252 communitization (“Vergemeinschaftung”), see also purple dye 5–7, 386–388 community (“Gemeinschaft”), 5–6, 144 earthquakes, 18, 24, 100–103, 114–115, 133, 159, confessional inscriptions, 49–51, 133–134, 173, 366 390 Easter, 191, 249–250, 287–288, 300, 306, 334 Constitutio Antoniniana, 133, 245n196, see also Paschal feast 251n236, 265n326, 339 Ebionites, 229n102 conventus (Roman citizens), 28 ecstasy, 153, 199, 205, 261 convergences (Christian—pagan), 44, 46, Edict on maximum prices (Diocletian), 56–57, 108–109, 131, 134, 141, 241, 252–253, 22n109, 167, 317 261, 269, 360, 388, 390–392 egg, 173, 176, 358–359 468 subjects emperor cult, 59–66, 97, 139, 149n1, 152, 160, freedom, 50, 98, 135 166, 180–181, 215, 278 fruitculture, 20, 227–228 altars, 61–63 fullers, 167–168, 170 priests, 61, 97 temples, 62–65, 160 Galatians, 25, 37–38, 69, 134–135 Encratites, enkrateia, 125, 238, 361–364, 370– Galatians (Epistle), 112, 127, 135, 248, 298 371 Galli, 56 endowment, 146, 252 gender, 95–97, 143–144, 199, 311–312, 370 enteuxis, 240 genre plastics, 219 Ephesians (Epistle), 91, 94, 98, 109, 111, 113– Gentile Christians, 122 114, 137, 142 see also pagans Epicureans, 124 Germans, 232 epigraphy, 9–15, 42, 75–77, 129–130, 135 gerousia, 75 see also inscriptions gladiatorial games, 39, 66, 241n176, 316n257 Epistle to the Alexandrians, 93–94 Gnostics, 124, 156, 221n51, 254 Epistle to the Laodiceans, 1n1, 93–94 goats, 169n144, 268, 352, 357, 368 eras, 118–119, 215, 248 gold, 70–71, 163–165 Actian era, 153n35 gospel, 118, 226, 249 Diocletianic era, 350n107 Gospel according to the Hebrews, 224–225 Sullan era, 107 governors, 38, 74, 151, 161, 186n8, 331–332, Erasistratian medicine, 171 343–345, 361 erro, 106 cult of, 59–60 eschatology, 177–179, 182, 226–229 hagiography, 344–345, 352–353, 361 etiology, 376–377 gra ti, 298, 365 euergetism, 102, 161–162 grain, 20, 67, 227–229 execution (hagiography), 343–344, 353, 364– group formation, 5–7, 386–388 365 guardian angel, 129–130, 155 eye salve, 163, 170–177, 219, 359 gymnasium, 29, 31n36, 76, 78 Ezekiel, 165 Hades, 178, 305, 366–367 family, 61, 143–145, 148 see also Hades (index of persons) fasting, 128, 369–370 hagiography, 3–4, 86, 329, 331–334, 343–382, fertility, 228 387 festivals, 24n125, 45, 64–66, 76, 140, 153n33, “Haustafel”, see domestic code 160, 166, 278, 305–307, 375 Hebrew language, 69, 207, 229–231, 254 Actia, 65, 375n263 Hellenes, 242–243 Adrasteia, 53 see also pagans Antiochia, 34–35, 58 Hellenization, 28–30 Antonia, 64 heretics, 7, 273, 297, 299–301, 389–390 Chrysorhoas, by the, 375 see also: Arians, Ebionites, Encratites, Deia, 43, 139–140 Miaphysites, Montanists, Nestorians, Deia Kommodeia, 63–64 Nicolaitans, Novatianists, Photinians, “for the emperor”, 62 Quartodecimans Hilaria, 306 Herophilian medicine, 171 Letoeia Pythia, 45 hetairiai, 30–31 Nea Olympia Apollonia, 45 hierarchy (clerical), 213–214, 221, 274–275, Pythia, 45, 375n263 282, 313, 328–329, 386, 390 nes (on tombs), 76–77, 244–245, 247, hinds, 346, 350, 352–353 337 Homoeans, 291 scus Iudaicus, 75 Homonoia coinage, 43, 65n278, 102n168, forgery, 68, 94, 112, 115–116 153 freedmen, 86–87, 104–107 house church, 84, 95, 392 subjects 469 hydropótes, 363 laurel, 363–364 hymnodists, see cantors leather, 19, 22, 259 hymns, 119–122, 131, 137–141, 201–203, 251, Legend of St. Michael, 372–377 388, 390 legio XII Fulminata, 232–236 lectors, 313 iatreion, 175, 357–359 Lent, see fasting identity, 6–7, 387–392 leopards, 357, 368 idolatry, 302, 305, 309 Libellus Synodicus, 258n283, 259–260 impurity, ritual, 132–134 lists of martyrs, see martyrologies, Marty- see also purity rologium incubation, 209, 358, 359n166 liturgy, 119, 128n343, 137–141, 230, 297, 306, inscriptions 311n228, 313, 368–369, 388 Christian, 156, 335–340, 382 logia, 220–222, 230 “Christians for Christians”, 264–265, loutron, 43, 253 309n213, 339 Luke (gospel), 199, 283 Jewish, 12–13, 75–79, 143, 244–245 lulav, 298 Montanist, 263–265 luxury, 158–163, 169–170, 361–362 see also confessional inscriptions see also epigraphy Maccabees, 69, 218 see also Indexes (passages) Macedonians, 29 institutions, 273–329 macrocosm / microcosm, 121 see also bishops, clergy, Councils, synods magic, 158, 193, 209, 241, 299, 303–305, 364– Ionians, 29 365, 390 Isaiah, 166, 193 Makrostichon, 295 Isaurians, 30 manumission, see freedmen Isis aretalogy, 136–137 maps, 8, 15, 17n74, 25n132, 26n140 marble, 16, 22–23, 46, 54n206, 61, 143, 160– Jewish Christians, 94, 122 162, 167, 274, 303, 316, 346 Jewish War, 75, 193 Mark (gospel), 170, 220, 223–225, 229n103 Jews, 7, 31, 51, 67–79, 88, 106, 122, 124–125, marriage, 110, 143–144, 178, 309–310, 337 148, 154, 156, 193–194, 227, 229–231, 244– martyrium (monument), 299–300 253, 287–288, 297–299, 304, 336n24, martyrologies, 4, 340–342 336n25, 388–392 Martyrologium Hieronymianum, 341–342, John (gospel), 194, 223n61, 224n75, 226, 249, 346, 355 254 Martyrologium, Syriac, 185n2, 300, 340n50, John, Letters of, 224 341–342 Jotham fable, 229n101 martyrs, 3–4, 86, 331–335, 340–371, 382, Judaizing, 7, 247n210, 298 387 cult of martyrs, 4, 299–300, 342–343, katagraphai, 49–50, 105n192, 107–109, 145 377–382 katoikia (Jews), 77 Matthew (gospel), 216–217, 223–224, 229– Kings, Book of, 207 231, 249n225 knowledge (of God, Christ), 117–118, 123, medicine, 52–53, 90, 157–158, 170–177, 357– 134 358, 373–374 koinon, see provinces menorah, 298 koinonós, see cenones metallurgy, 163–165 metropolitan (title of towns and bishops), laos (Jews), 77 265, 278–279, 288–290, 310–311, 315, lapsi, 281, 340 316n258, 322–325 Laterculus Veronensis, 276, 285n69 milestones, 19, 152n28, 234n135, 345 Latin language, 28, 39, 54, 94, 188–189, 235, military, Roman, 234–235 236n145 military diplomas, 30, 235n137 470 subjects miracles, 187n11, 190–191, 204–209, 350, 352– patriarch, 265, 301, 310–311, 329 353, 355, 360, 367, 373–377 Pauline school, 116–117 rain / lightning miracle, 232–237, 241 peace, 41, 118, 231n114 see also springs among animals, 227–228 mission, 2, 147 penance, 281–283, 297, 390 monastery, 363–364, 370–371 Pentecost, 252–253, 337 Montanism, 13, 56, 153, 196, 198–199, 200n88, Pergamenian Empire, see Attalids 210–211, 237, 255–266, 270, 275–276, 299– persecution (of Christians), 39, 241, 248–249, 301, 312, 339, 390 253, 279, 281–282, 331–377, 382 mosaics, 228n96, 274–275, 380–381 see also martyrs mother goddess, see Meter Persians, 19, 29–30, 32–33, 35, 69, 129n351, mummy, 369 153n30 Muratorian Canon, 93, 113 1Peter, 164, 224 mysteries / mystery, 98, 117, 122–123, 127, 131, pharmazy, 172–177 134 Philemon (Epistle), 2, 14, 81–112, 114, 145, 331, 382, 386 names, Jewish, 75, 207 Philippians (Epistle), 94, 110, 117, 119 names, theophorous, 46, 53, 87, 95n115 philosophy, 117, 122–126, 147–148, 175, 204– necropolis, 75–79, 336–340 205, 243–244, 253–255, 389 see also Colossae, Hierapolis, Laodicea Photinians, 294–296, 300–301 neocoria, 63–66, 168, 278 phratries, 31, 43 Nestorians, 273, 314–315, 320 Phrygians, see Phrygia (index of places) networks, 52, 71–73, 78, 83, 92–93, 97, 232, Phrygian language, 28–30, 136 275, 279, 284, 322, 325–328, 386, 391 phylae, 24n125, 36, 57–60, 62, 337 new moon, 125–126 physiognomy, 208 New Year, 252, 307 pigs, 21 Nicolaitans, 10 pilgrims, 4, 9, 20, 194, 211, 303, 305, 346, 355, Novatianists, 300–301, 310, 340, 342 359, 374–379, 382 pilgrim ampoules, 370n230, 378 oculist stamps, 170–171, 175 pilgrim psalms, 186, 188 oleiculture, 20–21 pistos, 337–338 onomastics, 46, 53, 206–208, 216, 231, 347 plague, 101, 266–269, 271, 335 see also names pneuma, 111, 198, 200–201 ophthalmology, 163, 170–177, 219, 357–359 see also Spirit oracles, 34, 45–46, 119, 130–131, 139, 200, 202, Polis, 89, 387–388 264, 266–268 polyteleia, 162 alphabetic / astragal oracles, 47, 268– porneia, 132, 362 269 portrait (emperors), 60 oral tradition, 218, 220–226 position (“Standort”), 6–7, 148, 269–271, otology, 174 388–393 see also standpoint pagans, 7, 42–66, 242–243, 297, 305–310, pragmateutes, 146 374–376, 389, 392–393 prayer, 77, 100, 106, 117, 199, 232–233, 281–282, see also Gentile Christians, Hellenes 348, 352, 362–364, 369, 376 papyrus, 368–369 Prayer of Manasseh, 138 paradise, 367 praytes, 134–135 see also afterlife prehistory, 31, 34 paramoné, 104–106 presbyters, 150, 221–224, 227, 275, 281, 311– Parthians, 40–41, 67, 266 312, 341 “parting of the ways”, 391 presbytides, 311–312 Paschal feast, 240, 249–253, 287, 299, 337 priests, see emperor cult see also Easter, Quartodecimans Prisca (collection of canons), 280, 283n62 subjects 471 prophets, prophecy, 139, 149–150, 153, 195– Scythians, 135–136 208, 211, 260–261, 263–264, 312, 387, Seleucids, 33–36, 57–58, 67–68 390 Septuagint, 137, 207, 249n223, 254 prosmonarios, 372, 374 serpents, 176, 206, 349, 356–359, 361, 365– prosopolempsia, 142 368, 372 prosopon, 359–360 servus fugitivus, 106 prosphonesis, 240 sexuality, 51, 132–134, 145n475, 243, 282, 362– prostitutes, 133, 188 364, 370–371 provinces, 37–41 sheep, 21, 169 late Roman, 276–279, 288–289 sheperds, 21 “provincial diet”, koinon, 61, 66n281, 118– Sheperd of Hermas, 155, 162 119, 243, 278 shofar, 298 see also Asia, Phrygia Sibylline Oracle, 159 Prytaneion, 179 sitophylax, 331–332 prytaneis, 35, 139–140, 201 slaves, 50, 86–87, 99, 103–108, 136n406, 142, psalms, 137–138, 141, 218, 254, 269, 314, 145–146, 337 329 social rank, 143, 145, 148 psalteis, 312–314 socialization (“Vergesellschaftung”), 386– see also cantors 388 pseudepigraphy, 2, 67–68, 110–112 society (“Gesellschaft”), 6, 141–146 punishment (jurisdiction), 321–322 sodomites, 282 see also execution, tortures Sophistic, 136, 253–254 purity, 72, 133–134, 169–170, 371, 379 Sophistic, Second, 147, 220, 239–240, see also impurity, loutron 244 purple dye, 22–23, 166–169 space, concepts of, 7, 388–389, 392 see also dyers Spirit, 182, 193, 196, 198, 200 Pythagoreans, 124–125, 133 see also pneuma springs, holy / miraculous, 350, 353–354, Quadi, 232–235 373–377 quarries, 22–23, 346 standpoint, 6–7, 385, 388–393 Quartodecimans, 191, 196, 249–251, 287, 300– see also position 301, 334, 388 stephanotikon, 146, 252 Qumran texts, 117 stock farming, see cattle stoicheia, 127 rabbi, 79, 147 Stoics, 125, 133 redemption, 118–119 stole, 313 relics, cult of, 344, 346 strategoi, 33, 35–36, 46, 58, 121n295, 161, resurrection, 111, 178, 206, 226 166 rhetoric, 98n134, 147, 220, 231–232, 238–240, sufragans (of Laodicea), 323–324 389, 391 synagogue, 31, 77–78, 106, 121, 141, 154, 246, rituals, 6, 128, 133–134, 301, 388 248 Jewish, 72–74, 88, 124–126, 128–129, 131, Synaxarium of the Church of Constantino- 246, 249, 298–299, 391 ple, 331, 343, 346–347, 349, 352n123 roads, 19–20, 32, 99, 152–153, 234, 239 syngenikon, 31 Romans (Epistle), 125, 136, 142 synodal acts, see Acta Conciliorum ruler cult (hellenistic), 57–59, 62 Synodicon Vetus, see Libellus Synodicus synods, 250–251, 256–257, 259–260, 279, 291, Sabbath, 72–74, 125–126, 246–247, 298, 329, 386 391 Iconium, 276 Sarmatians, 232 Arelate (314), 287 schools (Christian), 243 Ancyra (314), 279–284, 286, 329 see also Pauline school Neocaesarea, 283–284 472 subjects

Antioch (341), 290, 294, 310 tomb / tombstones, 75–77, 178–179, 210, 244– Serdica (343), 277, 290, 296 245, 299–300, 336–340, 363, 368–369, 387, Gangra, 363n183 392 Seleucia (359), 291 false door / doorstones (Phrygian), 29, Laodicea, 3, 7, 111, 128–129, 247, 266, 178 283, 287–288, 291–314, 329, 389– Tome of Leo, 323, 327 391 topography, sacral, 351, 355, 378, 387 Constantinople (394), 314n248 tortures, 331–332, 343–344, 346–350, 365 Constantinople (448), 318–319 trade, 19–20, 23, 160, 166–170 see also councils travertine, 22 synthronos, 181 tree of life, 227 Trimitaria, 317, 321 Talmud, 79 Trinity, 359–360 tapeinophrosyne, 127–128 triumph, 120–121 technology, 23, 163–165 truth, concept of, 253–255 temenos, 308 tutelary deity (of kings, emperors), 236–237 temperature metaphors, 156–158, 182– 183 unguentarium, (263), 306, 359, 377–378 temples, see emperor cult unleavened bread, 247, 249n225, 252, 299, tessarakoste, 369 300n163, 391 Testament of Job, 197 textile industry, 19, 21–22, 160, 166–170, 252, venom, 205–207 317, 369 vicarius, 289, 293, 308, 351 theater / theatrical performances, 309– victory, military, 62, 120–121, 180–181, 232– 310 237 see Colossae, Hierapolis, Laodicea violence against pagan sanctuaries, 306, (index of places) 347–349 theopropos, 131, 203 visions, 130, 149, 154, 302, 359–360 Theos Hypsistos, 129 viticulture, 20–21, 67–68, 227–229, 362 theosebes, 253n248 thermal water, 18–19, 23, 156–157 water / water supply, 18–19, 156–158 thespiodes, 139 wine, see viticulture 1Thessalonian, 111 women, 95–97, 143–144, 167, 180–181, 199, 2Thessalonian, 111–112 261–262, 311–312, 366 threptos, 50, 105n192, 108 see also gender throne, 120, 180–181 wreath money, see stephanotikon 1Timothy, 111, 120, 122, 214 worms (lit. topos), 217–218 2Timothy, 91, 111, 200 Titus (Epistle), 111, 144 Zechariah, 165 PASSAGES

Old Testament

Num Ps 5:21 218n35 39:12 254 5:27 218n35 66:1 137 109:18 218 Deut 21:23 248n220 Prov 27:26 248n220 3:12 177n192 28:16–44 248 28:26 248 Isa 1:18 166 Judg 11:6–8 228n96 9:8–15 229n101 65:25 228n96

2Kings Ezek 15:14–22 207 22:18–20 165

1Macc. Dan 15:16–24 69 12:1 155

2Macc. Zech 2:31 131n370 13:9 165 9:5–12 218

Job 42:14 197n71

New Testament

Matt 6:5–7 194 10:2–4 223 12:20–22 194 27:5 217 14:6 254 14:8–10 194 Mark 18:22–23 367n213 3:16–19 223 20:27 338 9:3 170 12:34 280n47 Acts 1:12 207 Luke 1:18 217, 219n35 1:32 180 1:23 206–207 2:36–38 199 2:9–11 82n12 6:1–5 192–193 John 6:5 361 1:15 223n64 8:5–13 193 1:43–51 194 8:26–39 193 474 passages

Acts (cont.) 2:1 193n44 8:40 193 2:14 298 10:1–33 195 3:10 248 13:1 207n124 3:13 248 13:13 90 3:28 135 15:37–39 90 4:3 127 16:1–3 89 4:14 128n347 16:1 116 5:2 112n233 16:6–8 82 5:19 132 16:14 96, 169n141 5:23 135 16:15 96, 338 6:1 135 16:23–26 98n140, 123 6:11 112 16:40 96 18:23 83 Eph 19:1 83 1:1 93n100 20:4 90–91 2:11–22 94 21:8–9 10n32, 192, 204 3:1 98 21:8 191 4:1 98 21:9 196, 198 4:11 87n52 23:35 98–99 5:15 114 24:23 98–99 5:18–19 137 28:16 98–99 5:21–6,9 142 28:30 98–99 6:21–22 114 6:21 91, 114 Rom 1:14 136 Phil 2:11 142 1:9 118 14:17 125 2:6–11 119 16:9 357n153 2:25 88n60 16:25–26 123 4:18 88n60

1Cor Col 2:6–10 123 1:1–2 110 4:15 103n217 1:1 116n263 4:21 135 1:3–8 117 6:12–19 133 1:5 118n280 7:13–15 110 1:7 89 11:5 199 1:9–11 117 12:8 117 1:13–14 118 12:13 135 1:15–20 113n241, 137 14 198 1:15 119 14:26 137 1:16 113, 120 15:32 98 1:18 120–121, 151 16:21 112 1:19–20 122 1:20 118–119 2Cor 1:21–22 122 6:5 98n139 1:23–29 122 11:23 98 1:23 112 12:21 132 1:24 121n300 1:25 86 Gal 1:26–27 123 1:18 193n44 1:27 122 passages 475

1:29 127n342 1Tim 2:1 92, 123 1:3 116 2:2–3 123 1:17 119–120 2:5 122 2:8–15 142 2:8 117, 124, 127 3:1–7 214 2:10 120 3:8–13 122 2:12 123 2:13 122 2Tim 2:15 120 3:14 86n42 2:16 125 3:16 200 2:18 111, 127, 130, 301, 303 4:12 91 2:20 127 2:21–23 125 Tit 2:23 128, 131 2:1–10 142 3:1–4 132 2:3–5 312n230 3:5 132, 302n172 2:4–5 144 3:8–9 132 3:12 91 3:9–10 134 3:11 135, 136n410 Phlm 3:12–14 134 1–2 84 3:12 128 1 84, 90, 98 3:15 137 5–7 103 3:16 134, 137 8 97 3:17 141, 302 9 98–99 3:18–4,1 141, 145n475 10–11 103 3:18–19 143 10 87, 98, 109 3:19 144 11–12 103 3:20–21 144 13 86, 98, 103, 107 3:22 145 15–16 103–104 3:23–25 142 16 86, 103 4:1 145 17 107 4:2–4 147 18–19 103 4:3 117, 147 19 112 4:5–6 147 22 100 4:7–8 113–114 23–24 92n91 4:7 91 23 88, 98 4:9 109 24 90 4:10–12 88 Subscriptio 86n37 4:10 90 4:11 90, 92 Heb 4:12 88 1:5–14 129n352 4:13 27, 89, 123n313 4:14 90 1Petr 4:15 92, 95–96 1:7 164 4:16 93–94 3:1 110n218 4:17 86 5:1–5 221–222n53 4:18 112, 116n263 2John 2Thess 1 224 1:1 116n263 2:1–2 112 3John 3:17 116n263 1 224 476 passages

Rev 3:14 150, 154 1:3 149 3:17 158 1:4 152 3:18 163, 170n145, 359 1:5 120, 151 3:19 177 1:9 151 3:20 177–178 1:11 149, 152 3:21 180 1:20 154 3:22 182 2:6 10n34 12:8–9 215 2:9 154 17–18 152 2:15 10n34 19:9 178 2:20 199 20:2–4 227 3:4–5 170 22:2 228 3:8 154 22:8–9 129n352 3:9 153–154 22:10 149n4 3:14–16 154

Apocryphal Works

Acta Iohannis, Acta Pauli, Acta Philippi Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (SyrBar) see below 29.5 228

Epistle to the Laodiceans (Laod) Testamentum Iobi (T.Job) 20 1n1, 94 1 197 48–50 197 Sirach (Sir) 4:28 255n266

Talmud

Bava Metzia (BM) Sabbathˇ (Shab) 83b–84a 79 22.5.6 (147b) 79

Legal Texts

Codex Iustinianus, Novellae (Justn.Nov.) 16.5.6 295 8.2 289, 351 16.5.11 363n187 16.5.65 300 Codex Theodosianus (Cod.Theod.) 16.10.3 348 8.5.6 308 16.10.15 348

Acts of Councils / Canon Law

Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II, 1.1. 209 319 (Ed. Schwartz, ACO) II, 1.1. 855–861 318 I, 1.2. 62 315 II, 1.1. 964 320 I, 1.3. 93.1 315n254 II, 1.1. I, 2.17 325 I, 1.7. 76 300 II, 1.1. I, 3.42 325 I, 1.7. 79 314–315 II, 1.2. 9. 115 327 I, 4.28–30 315 II, 1.2. II, 1. 34 325 II, 1.1. 185 319 II, 1.2. II, 96 326 passages 477

II, 1.2. III, 33 325 7 287, 294, 300–301, II, 1.2. VI, 9. 14 325 340n50 II, 1.2. VI, 9. 213 325 8 266, 300–301 II, 1.2. VI, 9. 251–260 9 299 324 11 311–312 II, 1.2. VI, 9. 377–390 12 310 323 13 310n223 II, 1.3. XVII, 27 328 15 138, 296, 313 II, 1.3. XVII, 35 328 16 299n151 II, 2.1.2, VI, 9 323 17 313 II, 2.2. p. 76, 229–340 19 297 324 21 296 II, 2.2. p. 76, 337 324 22 313n242 II, 3.1. 884. 28 319 23 313 II, 3.1. 945 315n250 24 313 II, 3.1. 987–992 319–320 29 247, 298–299, 391 II, 3.1. 1070 320 34 297 II, 3.2. III, 94. 33 326 35 128–129, 301–302, 374 II, 3.2. III, 94. 82 326 36 304–305 II, 3.2. III, 94. 134 326 37 299, 305 II, 3.3. VIIII, 7 322 38 247, 299 II, 3.3. X, 28 322 39 305 II, 3.3. X, 176 327 44 312 II, 5. p. 24. 49 324 49–52 369 51 369 CArel. 54 309–310 1 287 56 296 57 283 CAnc. (314) 59 138, 313–314 1 281 60 111 4 281 13 282 CCP (381) 16 282 1 295 17 282 Can.Chalk. CNeocaes. 28 328 14 283 Canon Muratori CNic. (325) Hahnemann 1992, p. 7 l.47–54 4 289 113 5 291 Hahnemann 1992, p. 7 l.51 6 290 93 15 316n256 Hahnemann 1992, p. 7 l.63–65 93 CAnt. (341) 9 290 Decretum Gratiani 16.11 293 CLaod. Praef. 292 Flemming / Hofmann 1917 1 297 p. 7 321 2 297 p. 8–13 317 6 299 p. 9 321 478 passages

Flemming / Hofmann 1917 (cont.) Mansi II p. 67 321 p. 534 279n41 p. 69 322 p. 73 322 Synodicon Vetus 3 260 Gelzer / Hilgenfeld / Kunz 1995 5 259 p. 67 285–286 6 260 p. 109 285 17 260 19 260 Mansi I col.723 259n289 Turner 1907 p. 32 279n40, 280, 283

Ancient, Byzantine, and Medieval Authors and Works

Acta Iohannis (A.Jo.) 126 (20) 365 55 186 129 (23) 365 58–59 187–188 131 (25) 365 132 (26) 305, 365–366 Acta Pauli (AAA I) (A.Paul.) 133 (27) 366 108,13 207 137–138 (31–32) 366n210, 367 139–141 (33–35) 367 Acta Philippi (A.Phil.) 142 (36) 368, 370–371 1.12 312n234 143 (37) 369, 371 4.4 357 145–147 (39–41) 371 5.1 356n143 8 357n147 Acta Sanctorum (AASS) 8.4 356n144 Oct. IV 13 praescr. 356n145 col. 42–43 353n126 13.1–3 357 col. 44–47 350n104 13.4–5 357 13.4 175 Acta Theclae (A.Thecl.) 14.1–2 357 7–17 364 14.2 368 14.2–3 176 Aetius Medicus 14.3 176, 358 7.81 172, 176 14.4 359–360 14.5 360 Alcidamas 14.6–7 177 Rabe, Comm. in Arist. Graeca 21,2 [1896], 15.1 361 p. 74 136 15.2–3 361–362 15.4 363 Alexander Romance 15.7 364 1.9 (Thiel 1974) 359

Martyrium Philippi (M.Phil.) Ammianus Marcellinus (Amm.) 107 332 23.6.18 56n214 108 356n145 119 (13) 364 Anthologia Graeca 121–123 (15–17) 364 16.52 29n19 124 (18) 364n191 125 (19) 365 passages 479

Antiphon (Soph.) Barnabas, Epistle of (Barn) DK 87 [80] B 1–44 2.4–6 246n203 254n251 DK 87 [80] B 44 136, 254n252 Basileios (Bas.) Epistulae (Ep.) Apollinarius of Hierapolis 261 286n76 De pascha Hexaemeron (Hex.) PG 5, 1297 A–1300 A 4.1 309 249–250 Homilies (Hom.) PG 92, 80 C 238 10 (PG 31, 369) 367

Appianus (App.) Callimachus Bellum Civile (BC) frgm.194 229n101 5.7 40n99 Mithridatica (Mith.) Cassius Dio (D.C.) 20 39 68.27.3 56 62–63 39 71.8–9 232 71.8 233n126 Apuleius, De mundo (Apul.Mund.) 71.10.5 234 17 56n213 Catullus Aristophanes 63 56n215 Acharnenses (Ach.) 112 170n145 Celsus (Cels.) Pax 3.12.3 157n70 1172–1178 170n145 6.6.2–8 170 Plutus (Pl.) 6.6.12 173 732–741 358 Cicero (Cic.) [Aristoteles] (Aristot.) Epistulae ad Atticum (Att.) Mirabilia (Mir.) 5.20.1 38n84 58 174 5.20.9 38–39 De mundo (Mund.) 5.21.9 38 4.395 b 56n213 6.2.4 38 6.3.9 39 Arrian (Arr.) Epistulae ad familiares (Fam.) Epicteti dissertationes (Epict.) 13.77.3 99 2.21.20 175 14.5.1 99n146 3.21.13–17 123 15.4.2 38 3.21.20–22 175 4.3.2 132 Pro Flacco (Flacc.) 4.4.46 132n377 66–67 71 68–69 70 Athanasius (Ath.) Epistula encyclica ad episcopos Aegypti et Clement of Alexandreia (Clem.) Libyae (Ep. Aeg.Lib.) Protrepticus (Prot.) 7.5 291 2.20 P 135 Historia Arianorum (H.Ar.) 5.56 P 135n403 74.4–5 291n100 Quis dives salvetur (Q.d.s.) De synodis (Syn.) 42.2 151n18 26.6.1 295 480 passages

Stromata (Str.) Eusebius (Eus.) 1.11.50.5–6 124 Chronographia (→ Hieronymus, 3.6.52.5 197 Chronographia) GCS 20, 215 (Karst) Constantine (Const.) 101 Oratio ad coetum sanctorum (Or.s.c.) Historia ecclesiastica (H.e.) 19–21 228–229 3.23.3 222n57 3.24.5–13 224n75 Constitutiones Apostolorum 3.30.1 197n68 (Const.App.) 3.31 1n1 7.46.12 273 3.31.2–5 195 3.31.3–4 190 Cyprian (Cypr.) 3.31.3 192n37, 196n63 Epistulae (epist.) 3.31.4 196, 198, 261 75.7.2 266n333 3.31.5 192 75.7.5 266, 276 3.32.1 333 3.34 213 Damascius, Vita Isidori (Dam.Isid.) 3.36 1n1 131 57, 306 3.36.1 213 3.37.1 198, 262 Ps. Democritus, Physica et Mystica 3.39 1n1 4–18 165n121 3.39.1 213n4, 219 3.39.2 220 Dio Cassius → Cassius Dio 3.39.3–4 220–221 3.39.3 220 Dio Chrysostomus (D.Chr.) 3.39.5–6 150 35.15 133 3.39.7 150, 224 3.39.9 190–191, 195, 205 Diodor 3.39.12 226 14.80.8 33n47 3.29.13 226 3.39.15 220, 224–225, 229n103 Diogenes Laertius (D.L.) 3.39.16 229 2.124 254n250 3.39.17 225 9.116 173 4.3.2 214n10 4.12 240n170, 241n174 Dioscurides (Dsc.) 4.14.10 237n152 1.43.4 176n189 4.18.2 241n174 2.99 358 4.18.6 185 4.21 233, 237n152 Epictetus (Epict.) (→ Arrian) 4.22.8 230n109 Encheiridion (Ench.) 4.26–27 237 33.16 132 4.26 1n1 4.26.1–14 237n152 Epiphanius (Epiph.) 4.26.1 233, 237n152, 239, 241 Haereses (Haer.) 4.26.2 239n160, 241, 253, 49.2.2 263 256n271 4.26.3 1n1, 250 [Epiphanius], Index discipulorum 4.26.5 241, 335 7 195 4.26.6–11 242 4.27 233, 237n152, 238, 241– Epistula Odonis 242, 256 6 20 5.3.4 259 passages 481

5.5.1–4 232–233 Bellum Iudaicum (Bell.) 5.16.1–2 258 1.656 218 5.16.1 255 7.218 70 5.16.3–5.17.4 257 5.16.3 259n289 Gaius, Institutiones (Inst.) 5.16.6–10 258n283 4.71 99n146 5.16.10 260 5.16.13 259n289 Galen 5.16.14 259 De compositione medicamentorum 5.17.1 242n181, 256 Kühn 12, 793 358n159 5.17.2–4 199 De diferentia pulsuum 5.17.2 262 4 172 5.17.3 153, 198, 262 De sanitate tuenda 5.17.4 153n36, 262 6.3.7 157 5.17.5 242n181, 245–246 6.12.3–4 174 5.18.2 260 5.19 1n1 [Gelasius of Cyzicus] 5.19.1–2 256–257 Historia ecclesiastica (H.e.) 5.19.2 231 2.28.9 290 5.19.3–4 257 5.24 1n1 Gellius (Gell.) 5.24.2–4 191–192 20.1 321n289 5.24.2 186 5.24.5 250–251, 334 Gregory of Naziance (Gr.Naz.) 5.28.6 259 Orationes (Or.) 6.36.2 255 4.89 331n2 6.43.1 340 7.11.5 98n137 Hermas (Herm) 7.32.16 240 Similitudines pastoris (Sim) Vita Constantini (V.C.) 1.10 162 2.71.4 240n170 5.5.3 155 3.8 284 3.16 287 Herodotus (Hdt.) 3.19.1 287–288 7.30 25, 27, 32, 377

Eustathius, Comm. in Dion.Per. Hierocles, Synecdemus (ed. Honigmann) 915 34n52 p. 24–25 292n104 918 34n53 p. 25 292

Flavius Iosephus (Josephus) Hieronymus (Hier.) Antiquitates Iudaicae (Ant.) Chronographia (Chron.), GCS Eusebius 7 12.147 67 (Helm) 12.148–153 67–68 183, 21–22 101 14.237–246 72–73 193,23–194,2 213n3 14.247–255 73 206,4 237 14.258 77 Epistulae (Ep.) 14.267 72 31.3 158n72 17.168–169 218 41.2 263n312 19.338 194 108.8 195 20.145–146 194 De viris illustribus (vir.ill.) 20.173–177 194 18 227 482 passages

Hilarius (Hil.) John Chrysostom (Chrys.) Fragmenta historica (Coll.antiar.) Hom. 3 in Col. 4.3.59 290 8.5 305 4.3.61 289 De synodis (Syn.) Josephus → Flavius Iosephus 33 277 Julian (Jul.) Hippolytus (Hipp. ) Epistulae (Ep. ) Refutatio omnium haeresium (Haer.) 61c 249n225 7.35 259n292 89b 310n221 De universo frgm. 128–134 201 Justin Martyr (Just.) Apology (Apol.) Hipponax frgm. 1.1.1 240n170, 241n174 46 21n99, 136n406 2.14.1 240n170 Dialogus cum Tryphone Iudaeo (Dial.) Horace 8.4 126 Epodes (epod.) 55.10 129 16.41–52 228n96 68.8 246 75.2 129 Ignatius of Antioch (Ign.) 76.3 129 Eph. 81.4 151, 185 1.3 109 93.2 129 5.15 114 142 246 6.1–2 109n213 Phil. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutionis (Lact. 1 155, 214 Mort.pers.) Pol. 33 218 5.1 114 Rom. Laterculus Veronensis 5.3 113 Barnes 1982, p. 202 Smyrn. 277 6.1 113 8.1 221 Livius (Liv.) Trall. 38.13.1 45n135 1 214 5.2 113 Lydus, De mensibus (Lyd.Mens.) 4.2 270n345 Index apostolorum discipulorum 60–61 273 Malalas 10.27 101 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (Iren.Haer.) 2.22.5 222 Martyrium Matthaei (M.Matt.) 3.1.1 185 7 363n189 3.3.4 213n4 5.33.3–4 227 Martyrium Philippi → Acta Philippi 5.30.3 150 5.33.4 213, 228n96 Martyrium Polycarpi (Mart.Polyc.) 9–10 345n73 Jerome → Hieronymus passages 483

Martyrologium Hieronymianum (AASS Noof Papias, Fragments II 2, H. Delehaye) Körtner 1983 / 1998 April 22, May 1, June 12, June 14, July 23, 1 227 July 28, October 9, October 24, December 5 205 24 341 6 217 10 206, 214, 222, 223n62 Martyrology, Syriac (Nau 1912) 11 224 p. 11 185n3 12 216 p. 18 340n50, 341 p. 21 341 Philippus Sidetes (Phil.Sid.) Fragments De Boor 1888 Melito of Sardes (Mel.) 6 190–191, 206, 214, Homilia in passionem Christi (Pass.) 223n62 87–99 246, 251 Philostorgius, Historia Ecclesiastica (Philost. Melito H.e.) Passio Johannis (PG 5) 7.10 218n31 1239–1240 189–190 7.13 218n31 8.4 294n112 Menander Rhetor (Men.Rh.) 354 136n406 Philostrat (Philostr.) Vita Apollonii (VA) St. Michael’s Legend of Chonae 4.45 208 praescr. 372 Vitae Sophistarum (VS) 1 372 532 209n135 2 372 535 209n138 3 373–374 543 209n135, 210 4 374 582–583 240 5 374–375 6 375 Photius, Bibliotheke (Phot.) 7 375 14 238 9 375–376 12 376–377 Plato (Pl.) Philebos (Phlb.) Nicetas the Paphlagonian 65 a 254 Encomium of Philip Theaitet (Tht.) PG 106, 192 C–195 C 161 c 254n250 371n239 Plinius, Naturalis Historia (Plin.Nat.) Oracula Sibyllina (Sib.) 4.23 151n19 4.107–108 159 5.105 42, 276, 278 4.109–113 159n83 5.111 41n105 4.130–134 159n81 5.145 278 21.51 169n143 Origen (Orig.) Contra Celsum (Cels.) Plinius, Epistulae (Plin.Epist.) 1.62 255 9.21 105 7.9 204–205 9.24 105 10.96.7 139 Orosius (Oros.Hist.) 7.7.4–12 101 Plutarch, Sulla (Plu.Sull.) 36 218 484 passages

Polemon, Physiognomica (Förster 1893) 12.8.20 52, 171 p. 162,12–16 208–209 13.4.14 55–56, 157, 169 14.2.24 40 Polyaenus, Strategemata (Polyaen.Strat.) 7.16 33n47 Suidas E 2424 88 Polybius (Plb.) 5.57.4–5 35 Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae (Synax. eccl. Const.) Polycarp, Epistula ad Philippenses (Polyc.) cols.14–15 198n81 7.1 219 cols.121–122 346–347 cols.247–248 331 Procopius, Historia Arcana (Procop. Arc.) cols.527–530 343–344 22.17 21n99 Syncellus Psalm of Constancy 407 101 188–189 410 101

Publilius Syrus Tacitus (Tac.) 596 99n144 Annales (Ann.) 4.15.3 61 Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica (Socr. H.e.) 4.20.1 100n154 1.9.41–42 288n83 4.27.1 100 2.19.16 295n120 Historiae (Hist.) 2.40.43 291 4.81 208 3.7.5 257 3.15 348 Tatianus (Tat.Orat.) 4.12.12 295 1 30 4.28.11–12 310 25 243 5.2.1 295 41,1 243 5.23.8 30 42,1 243 7.29 300 7.36 316n256 Tertullianus (Tert.) 7.36.19 316 Adversus Marcionem (Adv. Marc.) 5.11 93n100 Soranus (Sor.) 5.17 93 Gynaeciorum libri IV (Gyn.) 5.19 113 3.43.1 172 Apologie (Apol.) 5.5 233n126 Sozomenus, Historia ecclesiastica (Soz. H.e.) De baptismo (Bapt.) 5.11.1–3 348 17.5 112n236 7.1.1 295 19.2 253n246 De praescriptione haereticorum Stephanus of Byzantium (St.Byz.) (Praescr.) s.v. ᾽Αντιόχεια 34 36.3 151n18 s.v. Βόλβαι 353 Ad Scapulam (Scap.) s.v. ῾Ιεράπολις 36 4.7–8 233n126 s.v. Λαοδίκεια 34 De spectaculis (Spect.) 5.4 309 Strabo (Str.) 12.8.16 38–39, 169 12.8.17 23, 133, 188 passages 485

Theodoret (Thdt.) 4.28–29 228 Haereticarum fabularum compendium 5.60–61 228n96 (haer.) 1.21 238 Victorinus of Ptuj, Commentarius in 3.2 244, 256n270 apocalypsin (Vict.Poetov In apoc.) Interpretationes in Pauli epistulas 3.3 157–158 (Rom—Phlm) Commentary on Col Vita Artemonis (Abicht / Reichelt 1898) PG 82, 591–593 111 p. 185 350 PG 82, 593A 310 p. 186–187 352 PG 82, 613 111, 128, 303 p. 186 351 PG 82, 620D–621A p. 189 351 302 p. 192 354 Commentary on Phlm p. 193 354 PG 82, 872A 81, 382 p. 194 354 p. 195 354 Thukydides (Th.) p. 196 354 1.22 220 Vitruvius (Vitr.) Ulpian, Digesta (Dig.) 8.3.10 21 21.1.17.13–14 106n197 8.3.14 169n143

Virgil (Verg.) Xenophon, Anabasis (X.An.) Ecloges (Ecl.) 1.2.6 33 4.10 228 4.22–25 228n96 Zigabenos (Euthymius Zigabenius), PG 129 705 D 217n25

Inscriptions

AE 1976 193 85 658 234–235n135 196 167, 248n219, 251–253 197 143 Akıncı Öztürk / Tanrıver 2008 205 76–77, 96 13–14 105n192 206 77, 96 207 96 ala 2004 212 231n114 7 345n68 213 78–79, 247–249 91 280n47 Beˇsevliev1964 (IGBulg III 2) Ameling 2004 220 275 14 141 22 76 Cadwallader 2011 168 121, 248 p. 170–174 115n257 172 248 173 248 CIG 174 248 4380 k3 85 189 75–76, 92 8769 11n37 191 A 85 191 B 77–78 CIL I2 192 245 773 74 486 passages

CIL III IG II/III2 353 235 13389 338 13493 338 CIL XVI 13523 218n32 7 30n23 13586 338 67 235n137 145 30n23 IGR IV 145 194 Cronin 1902 353 139 p. 361f. no. 125 135 464 181 819 243 Dagron / Feissel 1987 868 44n123, 85 16–17 181 869 215n13 1173 41 Diocletian, Edict on maximum prices 1586 131 (Edict.Diocl.) 19, 25–40 u. 63 22n109 IGUR 19, 39 317 6 39–40

Durrbach 1921/22 ILS 167 74 33 39–40 2696 235 EA 37 (2004) 5163 241n176 p. 124 53n198 EA 39 (2006) Inschriften von Ephesos (C. Börker / pp. 113–116 29, 53n198 R. Merkelbach 1980, IvEphesos) EA 41 (2008) 1605 43 pp. 101f., nos. 13f. 105n192, 108n210 EA 42 (2009) Inschriften von Kibyra (Th. Corsten 2002) p. 81–86 53n198, 88 175 87 283 87 Gephyra 6 (2009) 293 95n115 pp. 113f. no. 1 129n351 pp. 165f. no. 1 58 Inschriften von Kyme (H. Engelmann 1976, IvKyme) Gibson 1978 41 136 38 339n45 Inschriften von Laodicea (Th. Corsten Grégoire 1922 1997) 167–207 130 1 37, 42, 69–70 209 130 2 35n56 221 156, 304 3 35n56 4 35n56 IAph 4 a 179 1.182 45 5 35n56, 55 8.30 40n99 7 29 12.26 d 179 13 159 14 159–160 IG II2 15 102n166, 160 9162 29–30 24 102n166, 160–161 32 167 33 167 passages 487

41 351 1307 129 42 325 1308 129 45 63 48 84 Inschriften von Tralles (F.B. Polijakov 1988, 50 168 IvTralles) 51 167–168 135 64 53 61n244, 97 60 64 JRS 65 (1975), 64–91 61 129 II, 26f. 41 62 A 62 63 43n115 Judeich 1898 64 88n58 6 216n21 66 168 22 311 67 149–150, 200, 348 24 211, 265, 370 68 200 25 49n161 69 269n339 30 36, 46, 58–59 74 66n280, 179 31 243 82 118n279, 161–162 32 162n102 83 120–121 33 56 84 96n119 51 19–20 95 143n463 56 96n119 98 143n463 64 96n119 105 31 72 216n21 108 14, 337–338 76 216n21 111 78–79, 247–249 81 280 112 21, 160 86 143 87 96n119 Inschriften von Magnesia (O. Kern 1900) 93 53n198 59 179 100 245 122 91 Inschriften von Milet 2 (P. Herrmann 1998) 123 216n21 943a 156, 304 126 87 147 188n14 Inschriften von Pergamon (M. Fränkel 1895) 152 188n14 497 181 155 248n213 174 87 Inschriften von Pergamon III (Ch. Habicht 181 188n14 1969) 227 338n39 33 209n138 242 342n60 250 216n21 Inschriften von Priene (F. Hiller von 262 175n177, 263– Gaertringen 1906) 264 81 332n5 268 216n21 270 146 Inschriften von Smyrna (G. Petzl 1982/90, 275 85 IvSmyrna) 276 216n21 594 139n423 293 342n60 318 339 Inschriften von Stratonikeia II (S. Sahin¸ 319 264–265, 339 1982/90, IvStratonikeia) 324 235n140 1117 129 339 247–248 1118 129 488 passages

La 1967 325–326 338 p. 21 Z.40 (60), 118 256 269n343 MAMA IX Macridy 1912 60 200n89 p. 55 no. 29 140 MAMA X 89 337 MAMA I 275 309n213 170 1n1 175 363 McLean 2002 237 135 75 28 256 347n85 205 347n85 MAMA III 207 269n343 364 264n315 MAMA IV Merkelbach / Stauber I 273 48n154 02/10/02 39n89 275 A 49n159 02/11/01 45 276 A 49–50 02/12/01 44, 46, 264, 267– 307 303 268 310 248n213 02/12/05 164n114 MAMA V 02/12/06 307–308 276 87n57 02/12/07 166n126 MAMA VI 02/12/11 145 1 9n30, 88n58 04/19/01 182n217 24 31 05/01/30 182n217 34 48n160 05/01/64 182n217 38–51 15 40 45n131 Merkelbach / Stauber II 44 22 08/01/32 316n257 47 31 48 31, 179 Merkelbach / Stauber III 50 21, 179 16/06/01 178 61 45 16/31/10 348n94 65 37 16/41/15 130n364, 302n171 66 61 68 37 Miranda 1999 73 53n198 p. 114 no. 1 75–76, 92 74 53 p. 117f. no. 4 96 75 53 p. 118f. no. 5 77, 96 79 53n198 p. 122f. no. 11 143 81 53 p. 124f. no. 14b 77–78 83 53n198 p. 125f. no. 16 76–77, 96 84 13, 316 p. 127 no. 18 245 85 13, 316 p. 131f. no. 23 248n219, 251–251 86 13, 316 143 316n258 Miranda 2003 236 339 p. 165f. 131n369 334 230n112 MAMA VII OGIS 69 363 308 36, 46, 58–59 96 363 494 149n5 MAMA VIII 320 135 passages 489

Pennacchietti 1966/67 pp. 591f. no. 36 146 p. 304 no. 22 78 pp. 592f. no. 37 144 p. 306 no. 25a 46n138 p. 320 no. 48 338n39 Ritti 2006 pp. 48–51 no. 1 146 Petzl 1994 pp. 67–70 no. 9 20n93 p. 126 no. 108 51n179 pp. 73–77 no. 10 102n166, 161n94 p. 128–130 no. 110 51, 133 pp. 80f. no. 11 61n246 p. 139f. no. 120 51 pp. 85–87 no. 13 66n280 p. 141f. no. 123 51n179 pp. 88f. no. 14 62 pp. 94–99 no. 16 46, 139, 267–268 Ramsay 1895 pp. 100f. no. 17 215 p. 78 no. 14 129 pp. 112–114 no. 21 164n114 p. 115 no. 17 141n447 pp. 115–118 no. 23 57 p. 118 no. 27 264 pp. 119–124 no. 24 p. 118f. no. 28 338n39 167 p. 142–144 no. 30–31 pp. 124–126 no. 25 43n116, 140 309 p. 271 no. 96 203n107 pp. 127f. no. 26 251–253 pp. 130–133 no. 27 Ramsay 1897 56 p. 526–528 no. 371 pp. 136–138 no. 29 336 265, 275, 311 p. 541 no. 404 303 pp. 142–144 no. 31 p. 740 no. 674 166n122 243n185 pp. 144–146 no. 32 Ramsay 1931 167 p. 21 156 pp. 159–165 no. 37 43n120, 121n295, 126 Ricl 1995 pp. 182f. no. 44 166 p. 171 no. 4 49–50 pp. 185–188 no. 45 p. 173 no. 9 106n193 66n280 p. 179f. no. 30 50, 107–108 p. 181 no. 32 50, 108 Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008 3 35 Ritti 1983 7 37 p. 172 no. 1 61 9–12 37n73 p. 172 no. 2 62n256 14 145 p. 175 no. 3 61 29 62 31–33 43n115 Ritti 1985 37 200, 348 p. 108 22, 46 43 31n31 44 31n31 Ritti 2004 51 61n247, 236 p. 569f. no. 1 274 52 61n247, 97 p. 572 no. 5 263–264 53 203n107 p. 573 no. 7 20n93 56 167–168 pp. 577f. no.13 53n198 64–81 179 p. 589 no. 32 85 73 31, 179 p. 590 no. 33 46n138 113 31 p. 590 no. 34 46n138 153 129 p. 591 no.35 53n198 157 130, 178 490 passages

Ritti / Baysal / Miranda / Guizzi 2008 (cont.) 1735 307–308 170 337–338 1738 168 191 274 SEG 51 (2001) 197 78–79, 247–249 1783 43, 126 200 14, 316 SEG 54 (2004) 201 14 1298 13, 274 202 14 1329 146n480 203 14, 274 1330 85 204 14 1334 146 1335 144 Ritti / Sim¸ sek¸ / Yıldız 2000 1337 342n60 p. 7–8 D3 49n159 1344 304 p. 10–11 D12–14 49 SEG 56 (2006) p. 22 K4 49–50 768 263n315 p. 23 K9 106n193 1687 243n186 p. 28 K 29 50, 107–108 SEG 57 (2007) p. 29 K 31 50, 108 1368–1369 46n141 p. 30f. K 34–37 50n172 1371 31 p. 39 K 49 50 1375 23 1378 138 Robert 1969 1382 28 p. 300 no. 8 203 Tabbernee 1997 SEG 6 (1932) 4 312 555 235 10 13, 263–265, 339 SEG 29 (1979) 11 13, 263–264 1404 62n256 82 13, 263, 265, 311 SEG 31 (1981) 83 13, 263, 265, 370 1101 345 84 265n330 SEG 36 (1986) 92 275 1198 279n38 SEG 37 (1987) TAM IV 1 855 236 354 337 961 201–202 968 88, 139–140 TAM V 3 1010 59n234 1428–1495, 1513–1526 SEG 45 (1995) 162 1754 145 1649 146n480 SEG 47 (1997) 1840 153 1730 85n31 1882 262–263, 265 CLERGY AND FUNCTIONARIES (PROSOPOGRAPHIC INDEX)

2 anonymous deacons (late antique), 274 Theodosios (metropolites, 5th/6th c.) (T. Ritti in D’Andria 2011/2012, p. 54– Attouda 56) Gennaios (patriarch and archbishop, Bishops 5th/6th c.?), 11, 265, 311 Hermolaus (c.431), 314–316 (Destephen 2008, p. 424f.) (Destephen 2008, p. 447) Symmachius (c.449 / 451), 320–321, 323 Presbyters (Destephen 2008, p. 882f.) Paulus (c.431), 275, 315n252, 318n270 (Destephen 2008, p. 770) Colossae Kyriakos (5th/6th c.?), 275 (Destephen 2008, p. 598) Bishops Philemon (1st c.; hagiographic ction), 273 Archdeacon Archippus (1st c.; hagiographic ction), 86, Eugenios (5th/6th c.?), 9n30, 265, 274, 370 273 (Destephen 2008, p. 291) Epiphanius (c.449 / 451), 320–321, 323 (Destephen 2008, p. 262) Deacons Theodoros (pre-constantinian?), 13, 274 Prosmonarius Johannes (5th c.?), 274 Archippus (hagiographic), 372, 374–375 Myrodotes Hierapolis Dorotheos (5th/6th c.) (T. Ritti in D’Andria 2011/2012, p. 56) Bishops1 Stachys (1st/2nd c., hagiographic ction), 371 Laodicea (Hero, 1st/2nd c., hagiographic ction), 371n239 Bishops Papias (c.100–130), 213–216 Archippus (1st c.; hagiographic ction), 86, Apollinarius (c.170), 231–239 273 Flaccus (c.325 / 343), 284–288, 290 Sagaris (c.170 or before), 274, 334–335 (Destephen 2008, p. 451f.) Theophilus (former Novatianist; time of Lucius (c.394?), 314n248 Diocletian?), 274n6, 341–342 Venantius (c.431), 275, 314–315 Sisinnius (time of Diocletian? hagio- (Destephen 2008, p. 955–957) graphic), 55, 346–347, 350–352, 354 Secretary: Theodosius (um 431), 314 Nunechius (c.314 / 325), 1n1, 279n41, 280– Tatianus (451?), 323–324 286, 288, 290 (Destephen 2008, p. 886) (Destephen 2008, p. 726f.) Philippus (457), 324 Nonnius (c.343), 290–291, 296 (Destephen 2008, p. 802) (Destephen 2008, p. 724f.)

1 Cf. a painted list of bishops from the recently excavated church of Philip: Bassos, Auxanon, Olymp. …, holding o ce presumably during the 6th century: T. Ritti in D’Andria 2011/2012, pp. 58–61. 492 clergy and functionaries (prosopographic index)

Cecropius ( fties of 4th c.), 291, 296 Trapezopolis (Destephen 2008, p. 574) Aristonicus (c.431), 314–315 Bishops (Destephen 2008, p. 169f.) Hierophilus (end 4th / beginning 5th c.), Nunechius (c.449/451), 281, 316–328, 387 314n248, 316 (Destephen 2008, p. 727–731) (Destephen 2008, p. 453f.) Melito (?), 189–190 Asclepiades (c.431), 314–316 (Destephen 2008, p. 174f.) Presbyters Johannes (c.451), 324–326 Diodorus (time of Diocletian?), 275, 341 (Destephen 2008, p. 487f.) Artemon (time of Diocletian? hagiographic), 275n15 Tripolis

Protodeacon Bishops Polykarpos (4th c.?), 275, 381 Agogius (c.325), 286, 288 (Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, pp. 354f.) (Destephen 2008, p. 83) Leontius (c.359), 291 Deacons (Destephen 2008, p. 610–612) Phileas (time of Diocletian? hagiographic), Commodus (c.431), 314–315 274n8, 352, 354 (Destephen 2008, p. 577–579) Alexander (4th c.?), 275, 381 Paulus (c.449/451), 320–321, 325–326 (Sim¸ sek¸ 2013, p. 355) (Destephen 2008, p. 770f.) Euphronius (c.449), 274, 317–318 (Destephen 2008, p. 344)