Recovering Jesus' Honor
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 50 No. 4 Recovering Jesus’ Honor: Luke’s and Justin Martyr’s Apologetic Strategies on Jesus’ Crucifixion in Luke-Acts and the First Apology KIM Dong Sung, Ph.D. New Testament Studies Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University I. INTRODUCTION II. HONOR/SHAME SOCIETY AND THE CRUCIFIXION III. THREE APOLOGETIC STRATEGIES IV. CONCLUSION Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 50 No. 4 (2018. 11), 55-76 DOI: 10.15757/kpjt.2018.50.4.003 56 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 50 No. 4 Abstract In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of honor and shame was the pivotal social and cultural code by which every person was valued and recognized. In the honor and shame society, crucifixion was the most dishonorable and scandalous state execution which would utterly destroy one’s honor. Thus, early Christian apologists had to deal with Jesus’ death by crucifixion. In this paper, I explore how two Christian apologists, Luke and Justin Martyr, who recognized the problem of Jesus’ crucifixion, deal with such a problem to defend Christianity and to persuade their audiences/readers in their works, the Luke-Acts and the First Apology. By comparing their understandings and interpretations on Jesus’ crucifixion described in their works, I argue that both Luke and Justin employ similar apologetic strategies in order to restore and elevate Jesus’ honor. I present three apologetic and rhetorical strategies that Luke and Justin take. Firstly, they identify Jesus’ crucifixion as the divine plan. Secondly, they make a connection between the suffering and death of Jesus and those of the Greco-Roman figures. And Thirdly, they emphasize Jesus’ role as moral source and Jesus as model of moral excellence. With some differences in detail, Luke and Justin make an almost identical approaches to Jesus’ crucifixion in order to defend Jesus’ disgraceful death and to prop up Jesus’ honor. Keywords Honor and Shame Society, Jesus’ Crucifixion, Luke and Justin Martyr, Apologetic Strategies Recovering Jesus’ Honor: Luke’s and Justin Martyr’s Apologetic Strategies on Jesus’ Crucifixion in Luke-Acts and the First Apology DOI: 10.15757/kpjt.2018.50.4.003 57 I. INTRODUCTION1 Both Luke and Justin Martyr2 acknowledge that Jesus’ crucifixion is problematic in the Roman world since crucifixion was a horrific and dishonorable execution that reserved for the lowest stratum of Roman society such as criminals. In Luke-Acts, Luke refers to Jesus’ death by crucifixion in a form of euphemism such as “handed over” (Luke 9:44; 18:32; 20:20; 22:4,6; 23:25; 24:6-7; Acts 2:23) and “hanging him on a tree” (Acts 5:30; 10:39; cf. 13:29) to minimize association of Jesus with crucifixion even though Luke does not deny that Jesus was crucified.3 In doing so, Luke avoids an unpleasant social implication brought about by the crucifixion as a shameful Roman death penalty. Similarly, in the First Apology, Justin Martyr recognizes the problem of Jesus’ crucifixion, as he cautions, “For they charge our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man second place after the unchangeable and eternal God” (1 Apo.13.4).4 If the Christian practice of venerating a crucified Jesus is scandalous for the Roman audience/reader, how did Luke and Justin 1 Main arguments of this paper were presented to the session on “Religion and Honor” at a Central Texas Colloquium on Religion in February 2015. 2 Scholars have long recognized that Justin’s works stand in a close relationship to the synoptic traditions in terms of verbal and literary similarities between the synoptic gospels and Justin’s works. In particular, some scholars such as J. C. O’Neill, Oskar Skarsaune, and N. Hyldahl, have paid attention to the remarkable commonalities between Luke-Acts and Justin’s works in focusing on theological movies and purposes. Based on this previous scholarship, especially on Hyldahl’s argument that Luke and Justin have a common practical and apologetic purpose that defend Jesus-believers in the Roman world, I chose Luke and Justin for my apologetic reading. J. C O’Neill, The Theology of Acts in Its Historical Setting (London: SPCK, 1970); Oskar Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987); Niels Hyldahl, Philosophie und Christentum. Eine Interpretation der Einleitung zum Dialog Justins (Kopenhagen: Munksgaard, 1966); For general introduction to the relationship between Luke and Justin, see Susan Wendel, “Scriptural Interpretation and Community Self-Definition in Luke-Acts and the Writings of Justin Martyr” (Brill, 2011), 4-18. 3 Shelly Matthews, Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Study Guide - Taming the Tongues (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017), 52. 4 Leslie W. Barnard, trans., The First and Second Apologies, Ancient Christian Writers, no.56 (New York: Paulist, 1997), 31. 58 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 50 No. 4 as early Christian apologists deal with this problem while defending Christianity and persuading their audience/reader? This is central to my exploration of Justin’s First Apology and Luke’s literatures, the Third Gospel and the book of Acts. I focus on various descriptions of Jesus’ crucifixion in Luke-Acts and the First Apology; the concepts of honor and shame arise when considering core social value. I argue that Luke and Justin have identical rhetorical strategies that underline divine providence, Greco-Roman tradition, and morality in order to defend Jesus’ shameful death and recover his honor. My argument is developed over the course of four sections. In the first section, I examine the concepts of honor and shame as the central social value in the Roman world, and the crucifixion as having been the most dishonorable experience in the honor and shame-based society. In the second section, I argue that Luke and Justin identify Jesus’ crucifixion as part of a divine plan. In the third section, I insist that Luke and Justin understand Jesus’ crucifixion in the cultural framework of the Greco-Roman world. Lastly in the fourth section, I maintain that Luke and Justin recover Jesus’ honor by emphasizing Jesus’ role as a moral source and moralistic example. II. HONOR/SHAME SOCIETY AND THE CRUCIFIXION 1. Honor and Shame as a Cultural Framework The concept of honor and shame was a key social and cultural value, which had governed ancient Mediterranean society. On the basis of socio-political and anthropological research, Bruce Malina defines the ancient social value of honor as “the value of a person in his or her own eyes plus the value of that person in the eyes of his or her social g roup.” 5 According to him, honor is a “claim to worth along with the 5 Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 54. Recovering Jesus’ Honor: Luke’s and Justin Martyr’s Apologetic Strategies on Jesus’ Crucifixion in Luke-Acts and the First Apology 59 social acknowledgement of worth.”6 On this point, honor is linked with “face” and “respect.” Pitt-Rivers identifies one concept of honor similar to Malina but also adds an important trait to honor. He explains that “honor is the value of a person in his (her) own eyes, but also in the eyes of society. It is his [sic] estimation of his [sic] own worth, his [sic] claim to pride, it is also the acknowledgement of that claim, his [sic] excellence recognized by society.”7 Pitt-Rivers’ statement points out that the critical nature of honor is essentially associated with respect and reputation. Neyrey also claims that “sentiments of worth and claims to pride must be made before some public and acknowledge by it.”8 As the nature of honor is described as holding public value, claim, and recognition it is suggested that honor could be acquired in two ways. Honor is “ascribed” or “achieved.”9 In general, “ascribed” honor comes simply from one’s family membership or one’s wealth or social status, which is already acquired. Thus, children who are born into noble or wealthy families acquire the public fame and honor without their endeavor for earning the reputation and fame. In a sense, ascribed honor is automatically bestowed upon individuals. However, “achieved” honor has nothing to do with innate or automatic reputation and fame. Achieved honor is related to one’s conduct and behavior. One can achieve social reputation and fame through his or her honorable and respectable conducts. In this way, achieved honor is not fixed concept, but a flexible one. One’s public reputation and prestige can be increased or decreased based on one’s conducts. In contrast to honor, shame is defined as “the loss of respect, regard, worth, and value in the eyes of others.”10 Shame would be a “loss of face, disgrace, and dishonor” and thus, essentially related to an “unfavorable public reputation.”11 Thus, 6 Malina, 54. 7 Julian Alfred Pitt-Rivers, The Fate of Shechem: Or, The Politics of Sex: Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediterranean (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 1. 8 Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 15. 9 Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterrannean World,” in Social World of Luke-Acts (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1991), 32-34. 10 Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, 30. 11 Neyrey, 30-31. 60 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 50 No. 4 if someone is shamed in a certain way, he or she does not participate in the game of reputation, and others hold him or her in contempt.12 The concept of honor and shame surrounds core cultural values dominated by ancient Mediterranean society.