sign in sign up
<<
Home , Epicureanism

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe

Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) ∙ Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

537

Fergus J. King

Epicureanism and the Gospel of John

A Study of their Compatibility

Mohr Siebeck Fergus J. King, born 1962; holds a doctorate in Theology from the University of South Afri- ca; has taught at St Mark’s College, Dar es Salaam and The University of Newcastle, NSW; currently the Farnham Maynard lecturer in Ministry and Director of the Ministry Education Centre at Trinity College Theological School, within the University of , Melbourne. orcid.org/0000-0001-6822-1529

ISBN 978-3-16-159545-5 / eISBN 978-3-16-159546-2 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-159546-2 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2020 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to repro- ductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents

Preface ...... IX List of Abbreviations ...... X

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

A. Whence “Compatibility”? ...... 1

B. The Shape of This Study ...... 4

Chapter 2: A Time and A Place: The Fourth Gospel and Epicureanism ...... 10

A. The Spread of Epicureanism ...... 10

B. The Provenance of the FG ...... 13

C. Potential Locations for the Encounter of Epicureanism and the FG ...... 16

I. Epicureanism in ...... 16 II. Epicureanism in Asia Minor ...... 17 III. Epicureanism in Syria ...... 18

D. Summary of Findings ...... 20

Chapter 3: The Principle ...... 21

A. The Principles of Epicureanism ...... 21

B. The Principles of the FG ...... 36

VI Table of Contents

C. Summary of Findings ...... 49

Chapter 4: Death: Something or Nothing? ...... 51

A. Death in Epicureanism ...... 51

B. Death in the FG ...... 55

C. Summary of Findings ...... 64

Chapter 5: The “Atheists’” Gods ...... 65

A. The Gods of Epicureanism ...... 65

B. God in the FG ...... 82

C. Summary of Findings ...... 96

Chapter 6: Founding Figures ...... 98

A. The Epicurean Σωτήρ ...... 99

B. Ritual: Epicurean Cult Practice ...... 102

C. The Σωτήρ in the FG ...... 106

D. A Ritual Meal in the FG? ...... 110

E. Summary of Findings ...... 124

Chapter 7: Friendship and Discipleship: The Garden and “the Johannine Community” ...... 127

A. Schools and Communities ...... 127

B. Epicurean Communities ...... 129

C. Epicurean ...... 131 Table of Contents VII

D. Epicurean Παρρησία ...... 135

E. Epicurean Φιλία ...... 142

F. The Epicureans and the World ...... 149

G. The FG and “the Johannine Community” ...... 153

H. Psychagogy in the FG ...... 172

I. Παρρησία in the FG ...... 179

J. Φιλία in the FG ...... 181

K. The FG and the World ...... 184

L. Summary of Findings...... 187

Chapter 8: Whither “Compatibility”? ...... 189

Bibliography...... 193

Index of References ...... 219

Index of Modern Authors ...... 227

Index of Subjects ...... 229

Preface

This book has its origins in undergraduate studies at the University of St An- drews when Peter Woodward and the late Prof. Ian Kidd respectively intro- duced me to Epicureanism and . They sowed the seed which has even- tually germinated. It was watered by the late Prof. John C. O’Neill and Dr Douglas Templeton at Edinburgh. My doktorvater at the University of South Africa, Prof. J. Eugene Botha encouraged me to develop a theological method which embraced comparison without genealogy. Further cultivation came from two fine systematicians, Prof. John C. McDowell and Dr. Scott Kirkland, who, in a short-lived experiment to develop a full-blown theological presence at the University of Newcastle, NSW, tolerated my enthusiasm for dead Greek think- ers: they remain good colleagues, though we are now all transplanted to Mel- bourne. The faculty at Trinity College, Melbourne have all been most support- ive of these same foibles, especially Dean Robert Derrenbacker and Prof. Dor- othy A. Lee. Prof. Lee, emeritus Prof. William Loader (Murdoch University), Prof. Jason König (University of St Andrews) and Prof. John T. Fitzgerald (Notre Dame) were all most encouraging and helpful in the quest to find a pub- lisher. I must record my deep thanks to Prof. Jörg Frey and the editors of WUNT II for accepting my manuscript for publication, and to Elena Müller, Tobias Stäbler and Tobias Weiß at Mohr Siebeck for their patience and cour- tesy through the editing process. Material which had previously been published in my “Pleasant Places in the Gospel according to John: A Classical Motif as an Introit to Theological Awareness”, Pacifica 30/1 (2017), 3–19 is reproduced here by permission of Publications, Inc. Any mistakes, substantive or typological, which persist are entirely my own work. Lastly, I must record my thanks to Irene and the boys for their love and patience, when scholarship was a distraction from family.

Fergus J. King, Melbourne, June 2020.

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviations used follow the conventions out in Billie Jean Collins, Bob Buller, John F. Kutsko and the Society of Biblical Literature. The SBL Hand- book of Style: For Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines (2nd ed. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2014), except for the following:

DL – Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers.

DRN – Titus Carus, .

FG – the Fourth Gospel (the Gospel according to John).

KD – the Κυρίαι ∆όξαι (the Principle Doctrines of Epicureanism).

PHerc – Herculaneum Papyrus.

VS – the Vatican Sentences (a collection of Epicurean teachings).

Chapter 1

Introduction

A. Whence “Compatibility”?

If Tertullian was able to ask the question, “What has to do with Jerusa- lem?”, it seems likely that modern commentators might equally feel impelled to comment: “What might Epicureanism have to do with the Fourth Gospel?” It is a question which is immediately raised by the impression that Epicurean- ism is an atheistic, hedonist, and materialist , which surely can have little in common with a like that of the Fourth Gospel (FG). However, to leave the question there would be simply to abide with a bifurcation both ancient and modern. Norman DeWitt, one of the earliest and, perhaps, most enthusiastic propo- nents of Epicureanism in the twentieth century, noted that significant work was needed: If the history of Epicureanism were as well understood as the history of Stoicism, we might discover that there is more of Epicureanism than of Stoicism in the New Testament. 1 A caveat follows: his enthusiasm may have veered, on occasion, to the exces- sive. 2 DeWitt’s summation that “it would have been singularly easy for an Epi- curean to become a Christian”, 3 even if it may be tempered by James Camp- bell’s wry addition: “– and, one might suppose, a Christian to become an Epi- curean”, is worthy of further exploration. 4 His claim should neither be taken for granted, nor summarily dismissed, given his continued stature as an Epicu- rean scholar. Where Epicureanism has come into the picture it is usually in

1 Norman DeWitt, “Vergil and Epicureanism”, The Classical Weekly XXV/12 (1932), 89–96 at 96. 2 R. Alan Culpepper, The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine-School Hy- pothesis based on an Investigation of the of Ancient Schools (SBL Dissertation Series 26. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 101; Clarence E. Glad, Paul and : Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 8, fn. 14. 3 Norman DeWitt, and his Philosophy (Cleveland, OH: World Publishing, 1967), 31–32. 4 James I. Campbell, “The Angry God: Epicureans, , and Warfare” in Epicurus: His Continuing Influence and Contemporary Relevance, ed. Dane R. Gordon and David B. Suits (Rochester, NY: RIT Graphic Arts Press, 2003), 45–68 at 47. 2 Chapter 1: Introduction relation to and the Pauline literature where Greek settings appear to make such echoes more likely. 5 A key term within Epicureanism was ἀταραξία , and it provides the launching point for the explorations which follow. The words of Jesus in John 14:1 and 27, with their exhortation that the disciples, “let not their hearts be troubled” appears close to Epicureanism, prompted by the use of the cognate verb, ταράσσειν . Despite such shared vocabulary, little interest has been shown in exploring whether such a phrasing might resonate with Epicurean thinking. None of the classic commentaries such as Barrett, Brown, Brodie, Bultmann, Lindars, or the literary indices in Schnackenburg record any reference to Epicurus. 6 Specialised studies of the philosophical background tended to look elsewhere. Thus, C.H. Dodd’s The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel developed interest in the potential overlap of the FG with , but contained no mention of Epicureanism. 7 Questions have been raised about Dodd’s focus on Platonism by older and more recent commentators. 8 The absence of Epicureanism from studies of the FG extends into more recent work: none of the indices in Bruner, Malina and Rohrbaugh, Moloney,

5 Thus, inter alios , Norman DeWitt, St Paul and Epicurus (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1954); Glad, Paul and Philodemus ; Graham Tomlin, “Christians and Epicureans”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 68 (1997), 51–72. 6 Charles K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John . 2 nd ed. (Philadelphia PA: West- minster, 1978); Thomas L. Brodie, The Gospel according to John: A Literary and Theolog- ical Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993); Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (AB 29; London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1988); Rudolf Bultmann, The Gos- pel of John , trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray et al. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971); Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (New Century Bible; London: Oliphants, 1972); Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, Vols. 1–3 (ET. London: Burns & Oates, 1980–82). 7 Charles H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1978). 8 Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Setting the Scene; Stoicism and Platonism in the transitional period in ” in Stoicism in Early , ed. Tuomas Rasimus et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010) 1–14 argues that Stoicism rather than Platonism was the dominant philosophical school of the early Imperial period. For criticism of Dodd’s empha- sis on Platonism in relation to the FG, see Rudolf Bultmann, “Review of Dodd, C. H.: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel”, New Testament Studies 1 (1954), 77–91; F.N. Davey, “The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel by C.H. Dodd”, Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1953), 234–246, but the discussion focusses rather on the level of of Platonism rather than its popularity in relation to Stoicism, see John Painter, “The Prologue as a Her- meneutical Key to Reading the Fourth Gospel” in Studies in the Gospel of John and its Christology , ed. Joseph Verdeyhen et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 37–60 at 45. Millar Bur- rows, “Thy Kingdom Come”, Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955), 1–8 deplores the tendency of British scholarship of the period to assume that a Platonic worldview shaped eschatological speculation. A. Whence “Compatibility”? 3

Morris, Neyrey, Ridderbos, von Wahlde or Witherington make reference to Epicurus or Epicureanism. 9 Modern scholars, dissatisfied with the prominence given by previous generations to Platonism, have increasingly focused on the possible interplay between the Johannine material and Stoicism.10 So, Troels Engberg-Pedersen’s John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel does not include discussion of Epicureanism, but focusses on Stoicism. 11 This would appear a road more travelled. However, there are exceptions. R. Alan Culpepper’s comparison of the Johannine community to Greek philosophical schools includes significant references to Epicureanism. He suggests rather that Epicureanism, especially in the great cities, had influenced Jewish schools, and that these, in turn, may have helped shaped emerging Christianity, even, perhaps Johannine Christianity: This indirect influence may account for the similarity between the use of φίλος in the Epicurean and Johannine literature. 12 In a more recent piece, he briefly mentions that the FG and Epicurus share an interest in thanatology, but diverge significantly.13 His work refers to that of Jaime Clark-Soles which includes a longer study of the potential convergence between Epicureanism and the FG as part of her research on death and the in the New Testament. 14 Jo-Ann Brant notes three references to the Vatican Sentences (VS – i.e., a collection of Epicurean aphorisms), illustrating

9 Frederick Dale Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd- mans, 2012); Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998); Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998); Leon Morris, The Gospel accord- ing to John , (Rev’d. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rap- ids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995); Jerome H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John in Cultural and Rhetorical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009); Hermann Ridderbos, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007); Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010); Ben Witherington III, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995). 10 Work on Stoicism in John is already at a more advanced stage, for example, Tuomas Rasimus et al. (eds.), Stoicism in Early Christianity , (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010). 11 Troels Engberg-Pedersen, John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). 12 Culpepper, The Johannine School , 121. See further in Chapter 7. 13 R. Alan Culpepper, “The Creation of the Gospel of John” in Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John , ed. Christopher W. Skinner and Sherri Brown (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2017), 67–90 at 86, fn. 57. 14 Jaime Clark-Soles, Death and the Afterlife in the New Testament (New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2006), 110–149, especially 135–149. Part of this material also appears in Jaime Clark- Soles, “‘I Raise [Whom?] Up on the Last Day’: Anthropology as a Feature of Johannine Eschatology” in New Currents in John: A Global Perspective , ed. Francisco Lozada and Tom Thatcher (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 29–53. 4 Chapter 1: Introduction a point about φιλία (friendship) in Jesus’s relationship with Martha and Mary, but drawing no Epicurean parallels with John 14. 15 Craig Keener cites cross- references to Diogenes Laertius, but sees the terms as idiomatic, and does not develop the Epicurean (or even broader philosophical) dimension beyond potentially indicating weakness. 16 He also notes death, 17 and human responsibility, 18 but all these are cursory and figure in general on . Others mention Epicurus and Epicureanism, only to summarily dismiss them from their subsequent investigations of the FG. 19 Yet, these all serve to indicate the presence and possibility of cross-references to Epicurean φιλία ,20 pedagogy, 21 creation, human nature, of Epicureanism as a dialogue partner in ancient environments. Even short notes suggest that there might still be mileage in a detailed exploration of Epicureanism in relation to the FG: arguments from, or embracing, silence do not mean that this area of study has been exhausted.

B. The Shape of this Study

The research that follows will explore the question raised by DeWitt with a tighter focus: how much of Epicureanism might there be in the FG? It will not attempt to argue that the FG is derived from Epicurean philosophy, or vice- versa. The present task is to explore how the two traditions might be compatible given their apparent kinship, which is based on rejection of dominant contemporary conventions. It might reveal that they share points in common, but equally it may well reveal that, for a variety of reasons, they are incompatible, even if they seem to share, in the broadest terms, some correspondence. Additionally, the possibility of “cultural incommensurability”

15 Jo-Ann A. Brant, John (Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011), 172, 213. Here English translations are not always helpful. The discussion in Chapter 7 will show that discussions of love and friendship overlap, not least because of the key Greek vocabulary: ἀγάπη , ἔρως and φιλία . 16 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Vols. 1–2 (Peabody, MA: Hen- drickson, 2003), 845, 875, 915. 17 Keener, The Gospel , 365, 376–377, 381, 405, 553, 652, 728, 766. 18 Keener, The Gospel , 573. 19 Douglas Estes, The Temporal Mechanics of the Fourth Gospel: A Theory of Herme- neutical Relativity in the Gospel of John (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 53 (time); Jeffrey A. Trumbower, Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 29 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1992), 36 (“fix- edness” and ); Johns Varghese, The Imagery of Love in the Gospel of John . An- alecta Biblica 177. (Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2009), 214 (friendship). 20 Keener, The Gospel , 1005, 1008. 21 Keener, The Gospel , 57, 979. B. The Shape of this Study 5 cannot be completely ruled out, 22 although the phenomenon of incommensurability may likely be considered partial or, to use another image, porous, rather than total. 23 Nor is there any attempt to suggest that the Jesus of history was an Epicurean. 24 This work is concerned rather with the FG’s portrayal of Jesus as compatible with Epicurean traditions, and how it might have been read in light of them. 25 Such an approach is not unprecedented. It is worth noting Robert Royalty’s remarks in relation to his exploration of wealth in Revelation which focusses on the identity of the audience or readers:

22 Kögler illustrates this with an example, following Alasdair MacIntyre, appropriate to the environments which are under investigation here: “how god concepts cannot be ade- quately translated from polytheistic contexts into monotheistic horizons” (Hans Herbert Kögler, The Power of Dialogue: Critical after Gadamer and Foucault , trans. Paul Hendrickson [Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999], 71). 23 Derek L. Phillips, “ and Incommensurability”, Theory and Society 2/1 (1975), 37–61. 24 Any such endeavor would immediately be open to many of the same criticisms as those levelled at the portrayals of Jesus as a Cynic. For sample literature on this debate, see, inter alios, John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1993); F. Gerald Downing, Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in First Century Tradition (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1988), Cynics and Christian Origins (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992); Burton Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988); John Moles, “Cynic Influence Upon First-Century Judaism and Early Christianity” in The Limits of Ancient Biography , ed. B. McGing and J. Mossman (Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 2006), 89–116. Critical summaries of the Cynic claim in Greg- ory A. Boyd, Cynic Sage or Son of God: Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 9–166; Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 18– 21; Michael McClymond, “Jesus” in The Rivers of Paradise: Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, and Muhammad as Religious Founders , ed. D. N. Freedman and M. McClymond (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 309–456 at 321–323; Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Quest for the Jew of Nazareth , 2 nd ed. (Downers’ Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 58–92. 25 African hermeneutics are helpful in considering its use of the term “resonance” to de- note agreement or compatibility. The Pope-Levinsons, in exploring the relationship between the texts of Jewish Scripture and African Traditional , identify “resonance” as means of describing a “kindred atmosphere”: it includes elements like the “pervasiveness of reli- gion”, and “the centrality of solidarity and group loyalty” (Priscilla Pope-Levison and John Levison, Jesus in Global Contexts [Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992], 95). Fidon Mwombeki, in a fuller discussion of the term, notes that resonance may include both internalised theological and socio-cultural material (Fidon R. Mwombeki, “The Hermeneutic of Resonance: Making Biblical Theology Relevant Today” (Paper presented at TLC Augsburg , 2009) 8–9. Accessed online 31 January 2010 from http://www.lutheranworld.org/What_We_Do/DTS/TLC_Augsburg/Pa- pers/Mwombeki.pdf. 6 Chapter 1: Introduction

Few of the Christians who heard the Apocalypse would have had the knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures that John had, whereas all would be conversant in the public aspects of Greco-Roman culture that organized social life in the cities of Asia Minor. 26 While noting that Royalty’s “John” need not be identified with the evangelist, these remarks remain apposite also for the study of the FG, or indeed any text which potentially engaged with a Graeco-Roman audience: people may hear what their previous cultural (or “anterior knowledge”) 27 allows them to hear and so those “public aspects of Greco-Roman culture” frame the interpretive task. Thus, a Graeco-Roman audience with little or no exposure to the scriptural traditions may glean from their encounter, not an understanding based on such foundations, but one drawn from their own prior experience and exposure. That, the physical evidence suggests, might have included an Epicurean element. We might expect Epicureans to ask questions specific to their tradition from the text and can then explore how compatible the answers to such questions might be. The need for broad environmental studies is also seen in the comments of Larry Paul Jones. In describing Johannine symbolism, he makes the valuable point that the contexts of both the implied author and reader make a to the process of interpretation: While it will certainly benefit readers to know as much as possible about the world in which the author lived, unless we limit ability to interpret the text to the few with that knowledge, we can also expect the ordinary and commonplace features of the symbolic vehicle, along with its narrative context, to provide insights into and parameters for interpretation and understanding. Thus, while we cannot possibly arrive at the reading of the text, it is possible to offer a reading. 28 Craig Koester additionally reminds us that symbols may function at different levels: core symbols are shared across a variety of cultural expressions, even if they develop distinctive overtones through the use of metaphor and/or supporting symbols. 29 They might well include life, water, bread and light, and “stand on the boundary between various Jewish and Hellenistic modes of speech”. 30

26 Robert M. Royalty, The Streets of Heaven: The of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998), 81. 27 James Barr, Biblical Faith and (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 184, 187, 189, 196. 28 Larry Paul Jones, The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 145. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 20– 21. 29 Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995), 5, 9. 30 Koester, Symbolism , 234. B. The Shape of this Study 7

Nor need such studies demand complex, technical appropriations of the ma- terial. Pierre Hadot suggests that the possibility of the handling of Epicurean forms and concepts in a non-technical manner was real, given their form in the early imperial period: Whereas Platonism and were reserved for an elite which had the “leisure” to study, carry out research and contemplate, Epicureanism and Stoicism were addressed to everyone: rich and poor, male and female, free citizens and slaves. Whoever adopted the Epicurean or Stoic way of life and put it into practice would be considered a philosopher even if he or she did not develop a philosophical discourse, either written or oral. 31 Erlend MacGillvray provides a helpful summary which gives more detail about the broader reception of a number of writers and schools beyond technical or elite discussion: , , , Potamo of Alexandria, the Stoicism of first century CE Corinth, Euphrates, and all exercised wide influence. 32 He further notes the use of the ἐπιτοµή (short- ened or condensed distillations of longer and more complex theories and argu- ments, rather than an abridgement) in spreading philosophical interest. How- ever, these were viewed as a mixed blessing: there were concerns that they might not accurately reflect the more detailed expositions. 33 They were com- mon within Epicureanism and may have helped its influence to spread beyond formal adherence to the school itself. Epicurus himself appears to have encour- aged the memorization of such material: Τοῖς µὴ δυναµένοις, ὦ Ἡρόδοτε, ἕκαστα τῶν περὶ φύσεως ἀναγεγραµµένων ἡµῖν ἐξακριβοῦν µηδὲ τὰς µείζους τῶν συντεταγµένων βίβλους διαθρεῖν ἐπιτοµὴν τῆς ὅλης πραγµατείας εἰς τὸ κατασχεῖν τῶν ὁλοσχερωτάτων γε δοξῶν τὴν µνήµην ἱκανῶς αὐτὸς παρεσκεύασα, ἵνα παρ᾽ ἑκάστους τῶν καιρῶν ἐν τοῖς κυριωτάτοις βοηθεῖν αὑτοῖς δύνωνται, καθ᾽ ὅσον ἂν ἐφάπτωνται τῆς περὶ φύσεως θεωρίας. , I myself have prepared a summary (epitome) of the whole system for those who are unable to study any of the writings about physics in detail or the longer treatments to

31 Pierre Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy? trans. Michael Chase (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2004), 108. 32 Erlend D. MacGillivray, “Epitomizing Philosophy and the Critique of Epicurean Pop- ularizers”, Journal of Ancient History 3/1 (2015), 1–33 at 20. The wider spread of philosophy is also recognised in Nathan J. Barnes’ exploration of philosophically educated women in Corinth, which he terms a work of “historical imagination” (Nathan J. Barnes, Reading 1 Corinthians with Philosophically Educated Women [Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014], 201). He adds an important cautionary methodological note. Recognizing that an irrefutable historical reconstruction is impossible, and given the limitations faced by modern scholarship in ex- ploring ancient contexts, he claims to offer an historically plausible account; one which rec- ognises the limitations faced in reconstructing the implied reader (Barnes, Reading 1 Corin- thians , 200). 33 MacGillivray, “Epitomizing”, 3; see also Peter A. Brunt, “On Historical Fragments and Epitomes”, Classical Quarterly 30 (1980), 477–494 at 487 who notes this primarily in ref- erence to historical works. 8 Chapter 1: Introduction retain the key points in a fitting manner, so that they may assist themselves to grasp what is most important – to the extent that they might enter into the study of physics. 34 This indicates an approval for condensed forms of material to facilitate the spread of the school’s doctrine in the form of the ἐπιτομή . What emerges is significant: the writings focus on the teaching of Epicurus and the other signif- icant thinkers of the school and provide records of their teaching. These are primarily records of what they taught with incidental biographical details. Furthermore, Epicurean ideas might flourish outwith the formal boundaries of the school, even in other philosophical traditions: members of the Academy might well have cherry-picked for their own use elements of Epicureanism which they found helpful. 35 In the face of scholarly silence, a proposal to investigate potential links be- tween the FG and Epicurean philosophy must start with some basics. The claim for potential historicity demands an exploration of whether the two phenomena co-existed; one which is strengthened by paying close attention to geographical and temporal data (Chapter 2). Given such a possibility, and no methodological reason to exclude Epicu- rean phenomena from any study, it becomes permissible to explore how an Epicurean reader might have engaged with the FG: what might have seemed compatible and what might not. If nothing else, an exploration of how the two traditions explore shared themes would allow us to reflect on DeWitt’s remarks about the ease or likelihood of someone moving from one tradition to the other, and go some way to answering his question about how much of Epicureanism might be found, not just within this part of the NT, but within other writings within that canon. It must be stressed that any such engagement is presented as a possibility, not as a definitive cause for the composition of the FG. A claim that the FG was written intentionally as a counterblast to Epicureanism would meet with immediate , if not hostility. To make any such claim would be to overstep the conclusions which might be drawn from these envi- ronmental factors. Such a study starts with an examination of the key term ἀταραξία (Chapter 3), which appears in both traditions, and might be addressed under a question

34 Diogenes Laertius 10.35. Text from Diogenes Laertius: Lives of the Eminent Philoso- phers , ed. Tiziano Dorandi (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 50. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 2013), 755–756. Translation mine. See Abraham J. Malherbe, “Self-Definition among Epicureans and Cynics” in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition Vol. 3: Self-definition in the Graeco-Roman World , ed. Ben F. Meyer and Ed P. Sanders (London: SCM Press, 1982), 46–59 at 48. The short section on Epicureanism is omitted from a later ver- sion of the article: “Self-Definition among the Cynics” in Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity. Collected 1959–2012, by Abraham J. Malherbe , ed. Carl. R. Holladay, John T. Fitzgerald, Gregory E. Sterling and James W. Thompson (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 635–650. 35 Hadot, What is Philosophy?, 141. B. The Shape of this Study 9 of the aims and benefits of subscribing to the teaching and tenets of each. It then moves into reflections on death (Chapter 4), given that fear of death was a major consideration addressed by the Epicureans, and one pertinent to the substance of the FG. A third question concerns the nature of the gods (Chapter 5), and whether one needs to live in fear of them: here both traditions appear at odds with much popular Graeco-Roman religious thought and experience. Reflection on the identity of the key figures of both traditions also figure, not least because both claim some kind of divine status for their respective found- ers, and both exhibit evidence of cult, rituals and titles (Chapter 6). Lastly, both wrestle with the question of the relationship of the tradition, manifest in some kind of community organisation or sensibility, to wider society; a significant area of study which also embraces psychagogy, discipleship and παρρησία (Chapter 7). In each of these, the Epicurean position will first be described, and then read in relation to the FG to assess their compatibility. The reader who wishes to skim the arguments quickly will find short summaries of the salient points at the end of each chapter. These findings will then allow a final assess- ment of the compatibility of the two schools or traditions to be made (Chapter 8).

Chapter 2

A Time and a Place: The Fourth Gospel and Epicureanism

A. The Spread of Epicureanism

The School or Garden of Epicurus was located in Athens from 306 BCE, after unsuccessful attempts to establish centres in and . 1 From there it spread through the Greek-speaking world. Epicureanism is often presented as a dogmatic school with little variation from the teachings of its founders. Recent scholarship has, however, found that this is over-simplistic and there is a nuanced amount of development within the school. Thus, Robert Strozier notes Lucretius that holds a view of both the canonic and consciousness distinct from that of Epicurus, but that their variant do not ultimately signify major differences: The conclusion reached here about the difference between Epicurus and Lucretius does not directly affect most of the conclusions reached about Epicurus yet based on from the De rerum natura , primarily because most such arguments are concerned with general philosophic method, with respect to which Lucretius and Epicurus are almost identical. 2

1 Howard Jones, The Epicurean Tradition (London: Routledge, 1992), 62. 2 Robert M. Strozier, Epicurus and Hellenistic Philosophy (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985), 151. This is not always the case. The Dionysiac tradition is a prime example of a tradition so fluid that its texts must be used carefully within their immediate contexts: Dionysiac thought and practice evolved so much that it is sometimes almost im- possible to detect significant continuity between its different periods. For the fluidity of the Dionysiac tradition, see Fergus J. King, More than a Passover: Inculturation in the Supper Narratives of the New Testament (New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis 3; Frank- furt: Peter Lang, 2007), 67–68. Carl Kerényi , Dionysos: Archetypal Image of the Indestructi- ble Life trans. Ralph Mannheim (Bollingen Series LXV.2; Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer- sity Press, 1976) gives an exhaustive account of the different Dionysiac periods; pages 349– 388 describe the expression of the myth and cult in late antiquity which differs significantly from earlier periods. Albert Henrichs, “Changing Dionysiac Identities” in Jewish and Chris- tion Self-Definition, Vol. 3: Self-Definition in the Graeco-Roman World , ed. Ed P. Sanders, Albert I. Baumgarten and Alan Mendelson (London: SCM Press, 1982), 137–160 and 213– 236 notes that there was no universal cult, but rather “his cults were regional and emphasized different aspects of the god. In ritual terms, a Delphic maenad, an Athenian celebrating the Anthesteria, and a Greek from southern Italy who was an initiate of an Orphico-Dionysiac

Index of References

Old Testament

1 Sam Jer 1:8 38 2:13 170 1:10 38 17:13 170 23:1–3 184 1 Kgs 31:9 38 17:1 89 31:31–34 173

2 Kgs Lam 14:25 89 2:18–19 38

Esth Ezek 8:3 38 11:17–20 173 34:5–6 184 Ps 34:8–10 184 1:1–3 170 36:26–28 173 40:9–10 93 37:14 173 46:1 39 47 170 126 38 Nah Isa 1:1 89 32:15–18 173 Zech 11:15–17 184 12:10 126

Apocryphal and Inter-Testamental Writings

1 Bar 6:3–8 170 3:12 170 Sir CD 14:16 18 3:13–17 170 14:30 18

220 Index of References

New Testament

Mark 4:1–26 167 16:1 56 4:2 123 4:5–6 167 Luke 4:10–15 173 7:38–50 38 4:10 171 24:1 56 4:14 171 4:21–23 94 John 4:25 83 1:1–18 82, 89, 90 4:29 83 1:10 87, 92 4:31–38 173 1:14 87, 90 4:39 165, 171 1:17 83 4:42 107, 160 1:18 88 4:46–54 45 1:20 83 4:48 87 1:23 123 4:54 87 1:24–27 173 5:1–9 45 1:25–26 123 5:1 92 1:26 123 5:18 88, 185 1:27 123 5:27 83 1:29–34 123 5:44 87 1:29 83 6:1–66 173 1:36 83 6:1–71 114, 167 1:37–42 96 6:2 87 1:38–39 172 6:4 92, 113 1:41 83 6:10 167 1:48–51 173 6:11 114 1:48–50 167 6:14 87 1:51 83, 89 6:16–21 167 2:4 48 6:22–59 117 2:11 87 6:26 87 2:13–21 95 6:27 83, 95 2:13 92 6:30 87 2:17 41 6:33 160 2:18 87 6:35–40 89 2:20–21 173 6:35 91, 92, 93 2:23 87 6:37 92 3:2 87 6:44 92 3:3 96, 123 6:46–51 89 3:4–10 173 6:48 91, 92 3:5 116 6:51–58 114, 116, 118 3:13–14 83 6:51 91, 92, 117 3:16–17 160, 188 6:53–57 121 3:16–18 96 6:53 83 3:16–21 93 6:62 83 3:16 88 6:69 174 3:28 83 7:2 92

Index of References 221

7:4 180 10:11–18 182 7:10 180 10:11 91 7:13 180 10:14 91 7:18 87, 89 10:17–18 125 7:25–26 180 10:18 48 7:26 180 10:22 92 7:27 83, 89 10:24 83, 180 7:28–29 89 10:28–32 92 7:30 48 10:31–39 185 7:31 83, 87, 89 10:33 88 7:32 185 10:41 87 7:33–34 89 11:3 38 7:33–36 173 11:11–15 173 7:35 89 11:13 56 7:37–38 170, 171 11:14 38, 180 7:37 167 11:17–44 165 7:38 171 11:19 56 7:39 171 1:24–25 173 7:40–42 89 11:25 91 7:41 83 11:27 83 7:44–51 185 11:32–33 56 7:52 89 11:37 56 8:9 185 11:39 56 8:12 91, 92 11:33 37, 39 8:21–22 89 11:35 37–38 8:21–24 173 11:38 37, 39 8:21 48 1:45–50 182 8:23 89 11:47 87 8:28 83 11:49–53 185 8:29 89 11:54 180 8:38 89 12:1 92 8:42 89 12:18 87 8:44 92 12:20–26 56 8:47 92 12:22–30 94 8:48 89 12:23 83 8:49–51 89 12:27 40, 48 8:50 87 12:32 160 8:53 55 12:34 83 8:58 85, 91 12:37 87 8:59 185 12:40 92 9:1–12 45 13:1–20 56 9:16 87 13:1–30 114 9:22 83 13:1 48, 92 9:31 90 13:6–11 173 9:32 90 13:13 171 9:35 83 13:20 171 9:36 89 13:18 93 10:1–18 48 13:21 40 10:9 91 13:26 40, 114

222 Index of References

13:27–28 49 19:25 165 13:31 83 19:26–27 45 14:1 2, 36,45 19:30 37, 47, 56, 164, 183 14 4 19:32–37 126 14:6 91, 125 19:33 56 14:13–14 47 19:34 56, 116, 171 14:15 94 19:35 56 14:16–17 171 19:38 56 14:16 47 19:39–42 56 14:17 47 19:41 167 14:26 47, 94 20:1 165 14:27 2 20:11–18 165, 167 14:28 46 20:19–23 173 15:1 91 20:20 37, 47 15:13–15 182 20:21–23 164 15:13 182, 183 20:22 47 15:14 182 20:28 88 15:15 175 20:29 174 15:26–27 164 20:30 83, 87 15:26 47, 94 20:31 174, 178 16:6 45 21:1–14 114, 167 167:7–14 164 21:1 167 16:7 45–46, 47, 94 21:13 114 16:12 94 21:15–23 164 16:20 46–47 21:15–19 55 16:25 180 21:20–24 56 16:29 180 21:22 56 17:1–26 172 21:24–25 178 17:1 48 17:12 92 1 John 17:18 160 1:2–3 176 17:21 160 1:3 176 18:1–19:42 182 1:7 176 18:7–8 92 2:1 176 18:9 92 2:7 176 18:10–11 107 2:12 176 18:19 185 2:13–14 176 18:20–21 185 2:14 176 18:20 180 2:15–16 176 18:33 185 2:18 176 18:36 107, 187 2:22–24 176 18:37 92, 125 2:28 176 19:7 88, 185 3:1–3 176 19:10 49 3:1 176 19:12 185 3:7 176 19:15 185 3:8 176 19:18 125, 186 3:9–10 176 19:19 125 3:10 176 19:23–24 125 3:13 176

Index of References 223

3:15 176 5:21 176 3:17 176 3:18 176 2 John 3:23 176 1 156, 166 4:1 176 10 166 4:4 176 4:7 176 3 John 4:9–10 176 1 156, 177 4:11 176 2 177 4:14–15 176 5 177 4:14 176 11 177 4:20–21 176 5:2 176 Rev 5:5 176 7:17 171 5:9–13 176 21:6 171 5:13 176 22:1 171 5:16 176 22:5 171 5:19 176 22:16 171 5:20 176 22:17 171

Ancient Authors

AP 11.44 104–105 De medicina

3.23.7–8 118 Aretaeus

Cur. Acut . 7.4.7–8 118 De fat. 22 28 Aristides

Fin. Or. 2.101 103 26.32 78

26.103–105 78 Nat. d. 26.107 78 1.18–24 65

1.39 80 Athenaeus 1.43 80 1.46–47 72 Deipn. 3.16.41 111 7.298d 103

224 Index of References

Diogenes Laertius

Vitae 1 Apol. 6.101 103 6 65 10.18 103 10.22 24–25, 27 10.35 7–8, 133 Alex. 10.65 52 61 100 10.118 142 10.120 147 Tox. 10.123–124 75 22 118 10.123 66 10.124b–125 51–52 Lucretius 10.130–131 25–26

10.130 26 De Rerum Natura 10.131–132 27 1.44–46 72 10.133 30 1.124–126 31 10.136 23 1.455–458 72 10.137 33 2.1–61 23 10.139–154 133 2.167–183 72 10.139 23, 52, 66 2:646–652 72 10.140 (= KD 5) 22 2.1090–1094 72 10.144 (= KD 17) 24, 26, 148 3.581 56 10.148 (= KD 27) 143 3.754–859 71 10.149 33 3.857–858 53

5.8 80 Epictetus 5.156–194 72–73 5.1019–1027 151 Diatr. 10:1045–1052 101 2.20.32 91

Ovid Eusebius Metam. Hist. eccl. 6.488 111 3.23.6–19 15

PHerc. Herodotus 152/157 71 222 140 Hist. 223 140 1.74 118 1082 140 3.8 118 1089 140 4.70 118 1232 103, 105 1457 140 1471 136 Irenaeus 1643 140

1675 140 Haer.

3.1.1.1 15

Index of References 225

P.Mag. Par. Philostratus 1.225 168–169 Vit. soph. 1.22.526 15 P.Oxy.

215.2–18 73

Philo Judaeus Tim.

42b 71 Deus 90d 78 16–19 17

Pliny Philodemus

Nat. Adv. Soph. 28:4–5 118 5, 9–14 28 35.2 103

Ir . VIII.20–27 33 XXXVII.24–XXXVIII.8 34 Adv. Col. XXXVII.32–39 32 8.1111b 144 XL.2– 32 17.1117bc 101 XLI.28 34 30.1124d 151

D. Alex. III.viii–x 71 7.51 138

Lib. De Tran. An. 10 141 465f–466a 150

Mort. Mor. XIX 54 68a–b 138 XX.1–14 54 778c 147 XXIV.31 54 XXV.37–XXVI.11 54 XXVIII–XXIX 54

XXX 54 Bell. Cat. XXXII 54 22 118 XXXV.25–XXXVI.27 25.2 153 54

Piet . Scribonius Largus 27–31 73 30 73–74 XVII 118 31 74 262–2 71

226 Index of References

Seneca Valerius Maximus

Ep. Mor. Facta et dicta memorabilia 19.10–11 143 9.11.13 118

Suetonius Vatican Sentences

Tib. 15 25 32.2 91 18 25 23 143 28 144 Tacitus 55 27

56–57 148 Ann. 78 144 12.47 118

Vergil Theocritus

Aen. 1.69 168 2.227–230 169 7.136 168

Ecl . 4 108

Index of Modern Authors

Allison, Dale C. 43 Erler, Michael 12, 80 Anderson, Paul 85, 115, 119–121, 123, Annas, Julia 33, 35 Festugiere, A -J. 145 Ashton, John 164 Fiore, Benjamin 17 Asmis, Elizabeth 68 Foucault, Michel 135–137, 139 Fishwick, Duncan 77 Barrett, Charles K. 2 Frischer, Bernard 100, 103, 134 Bates, Matthew W. 174 Bilde, Per 99 Gasparro, Sfameni 105 Blackwell, Ben 78 Gigante, Marcello 131, 136, 140 Bousset, Wilhem 99 Glad, Clarence E. 128, 130, 132, 139 Brant, Jo-Ann 3 Glidden, D.K. 69 Brent, Allen 163 Gordon, Pamela 11 Braudel, Fernand 18 Brodie, Thomas L. 2 Hadot, Pierre 6, 11 Brown, Raymond E. 2, 15, 154, 157, 163, Hengel, Martin 15, 98–99, 157, 165 178 Henrichs, Albert 111, Bruner, Frederick D. 2 , Marianus Pale 172 Brunt, Peter A. 74 Hibler, Richard 18, 148 Bultmann, Rudolf 2, 14, 116, 121 Holloway, Paul 18 Burchard, Christoph 115 Burridge, Richard 178 Jones, Larry Paul 6, 116–117, 121, 170

Campbell, James I. 1, 192 Käsemann, Ernst 157 Capper, Brian J. 155, 158–160 Keener, Craig S. 4, 14 Charlesworth, James A. 155 Kennedy, George 60 Clay, Diskin 104 Klassen, William 179–181 Cole, Spencer 78 Kleve, Knut 67 Collins, John C. 156 Konstan, David 70, 136, 138 Collins, Raymond F. 172 Koester, Craig 6, 182 Clark-Soles, Jaime 3, 37, 55, 58, 83 Kugel, James, 157 Culpepper, R. Alan 3, 127, 154, 162–163, 165, 173, 175, 189 Lamb, David A. 153, 160 DeWitt, Norman 1, 8, 91, 131, 189, 192 Van de Leeuw, Geradus 110 Dodd, Charles H. 2 Lemke, Dietrich 67 Drozdek, Adam 72, 145 Lienemann-Perrin, Christine 192 Lieu, Judith 165 Edwards, Ruth B. 165–166 Lindars, Barnabas 2 Engberg-Pedersen, Troels 3 Litwa, M. David 81, 99 228 Index of Modern Authors

Loader, William 42–43, 83 Rowe, C. Kavin 192 Royalty, Robert 5–6 MacGilchrist, Iain 173–174 Russell, Daniel C. 22, 35 Malherbe, Abraham 101, 128, 139 Malina, Bruce J. 2, 127, 154, 162–163, Sandelin, Karl-Gustav 111 165 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 2, 15 Marrow, Stanley B. 179 Schnelle, Udo 164 Martyn, J. Louis 154, 157 Scott, Dominic 69 Meeks, Wayne A. 157, 183 Sedley, David 68, 75 Mitsis, Philip 145 Skarsaune, Oscar 19 Moloney, Francis J. 2, 49, 116 Smith, Dennis E. 124 Morris, Leon 3 Smith, Jonathan Z. 105, 112, 187 Stern-Gillet, Suzanne 145 Nasr, Seyyed Hossein 158 Stewart, Alistair C. 156 Neyrey, Jerome H. 3, 92 Strecker, Georg 164 Nikolopoulou, Kallliopi 136 Strozier, Robert 10 Nock, Arthur D. 77 Suits, David 30

O’Day, Gail 179–181 Thompson Marianne Meye 42, 85, 87 O’Neill, John C. 123 Voorwinde, Stephen 39 Pavone, Vincenzo 138 Petterson, Christina 119 Wahlde, Urban C. von 3, 41, 44 Piovanelli, Perluigi 109 Ware, J. Patrick 149 Warren, Meredith J.C. 118, 120, 126 Ranocchia, Graziano 16 Weder, Hans 82 Rensberger, David 123 Wheeler, Mark R. 145 Ridderbos, Hermann 2 Wilson, Bryan 160 Rist, John 69 Witherington, Ben 3 Robinson, John A.T. 43, 122 Rohrbaugh, Richard L. 2 Yarbro Collins, Adela 99 Rosenbaum, Stephen 21, 23

Index of Subjects

Ἀνάγκη 30, 48–49, 57, 81, 92–94 Dead Sea Scrolls 90, 112, 155–156, 158, Ἀνάµνησις 112, 122 184 Anthropophagy 118 Death 3, 17, 27–28, 36, 38–42, 48, 91, Ἀπονία 22–25, 27, 36, 44–46, 49 105–106, 131, 182–184 A/symmetry (of/in relationships) 131, – immortality 51, 54, 75, 78–81 138, 175–176, 189, 191 – in Epicureanism 51–55, 81 Association 110, 120, 156 – in the FG 38–42, 48–49, 56–64, 83 Attis 105 – physical 55–56, 58, 190 Ἀταραξία 2, 8, 49–50, 96, 184, 187– – of the soul 52–54, 58, 71 188, 190 – spiritual 55, 57–58, 83, 190 – in Epicureanism 21, 22–25, 27, 31, Deity 35–36, 51, 61, 67, 75, 77, 79, 86, 94, – and anthropomorphism 16, 65–66, 107, 143, 146, 148, 151, 173 71–72, 85, 87, 103 – in FG 36–37, 44, 46–48, 63–64, 84, – deification 77–78, 98–99, 185 189 – deification, Epicurean 79–81, 96 65–66 – honour–shame 78, 81, 83–85, 87– Augustine of 12 89, 102 – metacosmic/intramundial 70, 80–82, Beloved Disciple 56, 164–166, 175–176 85, 90, 96, 98, 122, 126, 144, 148, 190 Cannibalism, s ee anthropophagy – 71, 87 Chance 30, 72, 81, 92 – realism/, Epicurean 67–72, Cicero 11–12, 27–28, 65–66, 72 76, 82 Commensality 110, 112 – son/child of god 88, 172, 176 Community 3 – “star-gods” 66–67 – as school 128–129 22 – location, Epicurean 12, 16–19, 100, 91, 111 129 Discipleship, see psychagogy – practice, Epicurean 104, 131–153 Docetism 41–42, 44, 85 – structure, Epicurean 129–130 – location of FG 13–16 Emotions 31–34, 37–45, 47–50, 54, 56, – practice, in FG 63, 117, 121, 172– 75, 80, 145, 175 187 – anger 32–35, 38–41, 43, 45, 66, 141 – as sect, Johannine 157–162 – joy 21, 23–25, 27, 38, 46, 73 – structure of, Johannine 156–166 – grief 24, 27, 31, 38, 45–47 Cynics/ 5, 26, 128, 138–139, – tears 31, 38–39, 49, 56 147 Eleusis/ Eleusinian mysteries 74, 110 Cyreniacs 23 Epicurus 21–22, 25–27, 104–105 – as god, divinity 76–81 – as Saviour 99–102, 124 230 Index of Subjects

– death of 48–49, 56–57, 83–84, 96, – Lamb of God 83 106, 126 – as λόγος 82–83, 85–86, 90, 92, 175 – founder 81–82, 122–123, 126, 129, – obedience of 48–49, 57, 84, 125, 190 190 – teacher 64, 86, 95, 102, 125, 132– – as Saviour 106–109, 126, 160, 189 133 – as Son of God 88, 176 Epistles, Johannine 41, 127, 154, 163– – as Son of Man 83, 167 165, 178 – of 44–45, 63, 85, 175 Ἐπιτοµή 7–8, 133–134, 177–178 – as teacher 107, 124–125, 164, 180 Eschatology 36, 43, 59, 61–62, 108–109, Josephus 19, 162, 180 152, 170, 173 Judas Iscariot 40, 48, 93 / Euhemerism 80 Κοινωνία 110, 127 Fate, see ἀνάγκη Κυρίαι ∆όξαι (KD) 11, 22, 52, 73, 133, Forgiveness of sin 123–124, 164, 173 143 Fourth Gospel – and Johannine Community 113–114, Life/ 25, 77, 98, 152 153–155 Life, eternal 36, 60, 62, 172 – provenance of 13–16 Locus amoenus 11, 157, 167–168 29–30 Love 31, 45–46, 48–49, 57, 84, 97, 101, 125, 142, 160–161, 181–184, 191 God, see deity – ἀγάπη 142, 181 Guilds, see associations – ἔρως 142, 181 – φιλία 4, 72, 105, 124, 127–130, Heaven 142–149, 151, 164, 179–184, 189, – in Epicureanism 66, 71, 90 191 – in FG 56, 83–84, 88–90, 94, 107, Lucian 12, 75, 100, 118, 138 175 Lucretius 10–12, 29, 31, 52–54, 56, 72, , 1, 16, 21–27, 30–31, 35–36, 75–76, 79–81, 89, 101, 133, 142, 38, 46, 48, 52, 54–55, 73, 101, 142– 151, 167 146, 183, 190 History of School 90, 98 Maximus of Tyre 7, 132, 138 Honour/Shame 70, 147, 182 Meals 37, 40, 102–106, 110, 112–117, 11–12, 129, 141, 152–153, 167– 119–123, 126–127,182, 191 68 – Chaburah 112 – Epicurean 102–106, 126 Isonomia 29, 67, 85 – Eucharist 61, 116–117, 119–121 – Passover 113–114 Jesus – Seder 113 – Christ, Messiah 46, 82–83, 87–89, – symposium 37, 119, 124, 182 94, 107–109, 116, 121, 123, 166– – Todah 112 167, 172, 187 Metaphysics 50, 90, 105, 121–122, 125 – death of 113, 119, 121, 125–126, – , Epicurean 79, 81 175, 182–183 – chance, see chance – founder 51, 122–123, 126, 164, 190 – 28, 49 – glory, δόξα 38, 84–85, 87–89, 172 – creation/creator, divine 4, 28–29, 37, – as God/ divinity of 42, 83–96, 117, 65, 72–73, 82, 92, 96, 167, 173, 190 120, 175 – humanity of 41–44, 48, 85, 175–176 Index of Subjects 231

– , Epicurean 1, 28, 38, 50, Reconciliation , see forgiveness of sins 53–55, 64, 66, 72–73, 92, 107, 125, Religious virtuosity 158–159, 162–163 190 Resurrection 39, 44–45, 55–57, 59, 105 – πρόληψις 68–69 Ritual 98–9 – soul 24, 27, 42, 52–54, 58, 68, 71, – baptism 61, 63, 116, 119, 123–124, 75, 80–81, 109, 128, 131–132, 141, 170, 191 144 – in FG 110–124 – supernaturalism 45, 50, 107, 115, – Mithraic 110 121, 126 – participation in religious activities, Metrodorus 31, 103 Epicurean 102–106 Misunderstanding 172–173 – “ritual in ink” 120 – sacrament 110–113, 115–123, 126, Necessity, see ἀνάγκη 170–71, 191

Paraclete, 21, 37, 46–47, 49, 86, 94–95, Sacrificialisation, 112, 121 164, 170, 175, 190 Saviour, see also Epicurus, Jesus Παρρησία 128 – in politics 100 – history of 135–139 – in philosophy 100–101 – Epicurean 140–141 School, see community – in FG 179–181 – αἵρεσις 162 Pastoralia, see locus amoenus – σχολή 162 PHerc [] 71, 103, Sect/ sectarian 157–59 136, 140 Sodalities, see associations Judaeus 15–17, 162, 180 Spirit [Holy], see Paraclete Philodemus 1, 11, 17, 19f, 27, 32–34, Spiritualisation, see sacrificialisation 54, 65–67, 71, 73, 87, 90, 104, 132, Statius 11, 152, 167 134–136, 139–141, 150 Stoics/ Stoicism 1, 3, 7, 11–12, 23, 32, Pilate, Pontius 48, 56, 88, 106–107, 54, 65–66, 71–72, 80, 86–87, 90, 184–187 132, 135, 138, 146–148, 179–180 Plato/ Platonism 2–3, 7, 11, 54, 60, 65, Symbolism 6, 89, 91–92, 94, 100, 116, 68, 71, 73, 78–79, 91, 99, 132, 137, 119, 121, 167 179 – blood 117–121 Pleasure, see hedonism – water 123–124, 167–172 – katastematic 23–25, 27, 35–36, 44, Symposium, see meals 46, 145, 183, 190 – kinetic 23–25, 31, 35–36, 38, 44, Temple, Jerusalem 49, 92, 94–95, 112, 46–47, 190 167, 170 Plutarch 11–12, 138–139, 150 27–28, 51, 65 Πνεῦµα , see Paraclete Therapeutae 162 Politics – Epicurean attitudes to 75, 149–153 Vatican Sentences 3, 11, 27, 61, 133, – in FG 107, 184–187 144 Psychagogy 8–9, 17, 127–129 Vergil 11–12, 88, 108–109, 152 – Epicurean 63, 129–135 – in FG 63, 172–178 Women 22 – in Epicureanism 141, 152–153, 191– 192 Qumran 92, 112, 155–158, 160, 170 – in FG 165–166, 191–192 – in Johannine community 165–166