Rise of Empires: Persia and Rome in Profile

On March 28, 2022April 1, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Ancient History, College Work, New Testament Background, Old Testament Background, Persia, Roman Empire

[Note: In light of the fact that both Persia and Rome are significant empires integral to the biblical narrative in both the Old Testament (Persia) and New Testament (Rome), sharing this historical background paper may be helpful to gain a broad appreciation of these empires. Obviously, this is only a rough sketch of these two global ancient empires.]

There are many areas to evaluate and examine ancient empires. In this paper, the Persian and Roman Empires will be evaluated based on their similarities and differences. This will be done by considering four lines of comparisons and contrasts.

First, I look at the rise of the Persian and Roman Empires, then, the political and economic bases that sustained each empire. Third, I consider the impact of environmental factors upon Persia and Rome and conclude with the major internal and external challenges that Persia and Rome confronted and how they were resolved.

These areas of discussion will be considered in light of class lecture notes[1] on the Persian and the Roman Empires respectively, and the related sections of Craig A. Lockard’s book, Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History, 3rd edition (abbreviated SNT).[2]

The Rise to Empire

Persia. The rise of the Persian Empire is connected to its expansion through conquest. In the seventh century B.C.E., the Persian kingdom competed against the Medes until Persian dominance displaced them. The Persian kingdom begins significant expansion during the reign of Cyrus II (Cyrus the Great) in the sixth century B.C.E. (r. 550-530) and Cambyses II (r. 530-522 B.C.E.). These kings were members of the “ruling family” known as the Achaemenid and they reigned during the “peak” of the classical Persian Empire (SNT 140). Then, King Darius I (r. 521-486 B.C.E.) who usurped the throne continued Persian expansion on to the time of Xerxes I (r. 486-465 B.C.E.).

In a period of fewer than one hundred years, the small coastal Persian kingdom expanded through conquest to include Afghanistan, western India along the Indus River, and Central Asia in the east; in the west, their geographic control included Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and all of Anatolia including the most western Anatolian kingdom of Lydia.

Rome. Concerning the rise of the Roman Empire, the expansion through conquest does not occur during the imperial period (31 B.C.E.-476 C.E.), but instead during the period of the Republic (509-31 B.C.E.).

As Map 8.2 in SNT (169) demonstrates, there was still unrest in certain areas of the Empire despite the Pax Romana (13 B.C.E.-180 C.E.); moreover, territories were still being added to the Roman Empire by the death of Emperor Hadrian (138 C.E.). The vast geographic territory touching the Mediterranean Sea (southern Europe, Greece, Anatolia, northern Africa, Egypt, etc.), however, is not technically the product of the Roman Empire (SNT 165).

The rise of the Roman Empire is more the result of political maneuvering away from a representative government towards a government of concentrated power in one man. This maneuvering begins with Julius Caesar.

Caesar is a victorious general who desires to become a member of the Republic Senate and was named Dictator upon arrival in the city of Rome. He violated the traditions of disarming at the city limits and the military one-day celebration to show the spoils of war; instead, Caesar crosses the Rubicon river armed, and celebrated for three days. Consequently, the senate responds to his actions by assassinating him. This ushered in a political civil war, where Caesar’s adopted son (nephew) Octavian and the allies of Julius Caesar take revenge upon all the assassins and their families, confiscate lands, and even kill slaves.

Octavian ultimately would become the first Roman Emperor, renamed himself Augustus, and reigned for approximately forty-one years (r. 27 B.C.E.–14 C.E.). The consequence was the loss of democracy, the rise of consolidated power, and as Juvenal notes distractions (“bread and circuses” SNT 168).

Thus, the rise of these two empires is seen from two different arcs. With Persia, the kingdom becomes an empire through traditional means – conquest and domination. The Roman Empire emerged due to political maneuvering rather than conquest. Yet, the rise of these empires emerges from a similar source: a small region or city that becomes a dominant world power.

Politics and Economics

Persia. Lockard describes the Persian rule during the imperial expansion as an “autocratic but culturally tolerant government” (SNT 141). In general, then, the diplomacy strategies of the Persian kings provided codified and humanitarian laws, kind economic policies, provincial governments, and expressed religious and social-cultural tolerance toward the peoples they conquered by force. Cyrus II (the Great) issued what is often called the first charter of human rights, and Darius I provided a codified law similar to that of Hammurabi.

The provinces were governed by a satrap (“protector of the kingdom”) who enforced established laws and paid taxes yearly to the king (SNT 143). Also, the religious and social-cultural tolerance shown to the diversity (language, religion, territories) of the growing empire is thought of as “most crucial” to its political success since it allowed Persia stability and flexibility not only in governing but also in battle and in commerce. Xerxes, however, was a less tolerant and more burdensome king (SNT 145).

Economically, other elements complimented Persia’s political success such as Darius completing the first Suez canal which temporarily unifies the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, thus expanding the land-based commerce of Persia (e.g. the “royal road”) to also include maritime trade from the west to the east. The trade routes not only reinforce the economic forces of the Persian Empire but also extends the political power of its aristocracy.

Rome. The Roman Empire, on the other hand, saw unquestioned control of the Mediterranean for nearly a century and a half (27 B.C.E.-180 C.E.) following the emergence of Caesar Augustus. This is known as the Pax Romana (Roman Peace). By the first century C.E., Rome was a multinational, diversely populated empire. Despite this diversity, there was equality under Roman law and emphasized personal responsibility before the law. It is believed that Stoicism, a Greek philosophy, influenced Roman law in its policies of tolerance, moderation, and acceptance of life (SNT 168).

Meanwhile, the economic bases of the Roman Empire came from its growing trade routes and industries which took advantage of its maritime technologies and routes, and its vast networks of Roman roads across land extending over 150,000 miles (SNT 171). The trade routes on land not only connected Europe, Greece, Anatolia, and Egypt, but Rome made contact with India on the Silk Road, and even with China. Unfortunately, overconsumption and lack of productivity from the western part of the Empire would overburden the economic system, inflation would be a problem, and expensive conquests would deplete the mines and the farmlands (SNT 172).

Thus, the political and economic bases of Persia and Rome faced similar challenges of managing a multinational population and a vast expanding trading network. They both extended a measure of political toleration and equality, and both took advantage of land-based and maritime trading and commerce. Yet, in Persia it would appear that the policies of intolerance would hurt the empire; meanwhile, in Rome, it would be the overconsumption of its scarce resources, and a lack of fiscal responsibility that would hurt its political and economic future.

Environmental Factors

Considering the environmental factors of both the Persian and Roman Empires, respectively, geography is crucial. Map 7.1 in SNT (142) demonstrates some topographical elements of the geographic environment of the Persian kingdom and the breadth of the Persian Empire at its height (cir. 500 B.C.E.).

The Persian homeland was on the northwestern shore of the Persian Gulf and would suggest the potential to have some maritime trade and quite possibly some naval strength needed to control those waters. Persia would then have some connection to India, China, and Egypt. It would also probably have rich fisheries. However, on its northern borders, the Persian kingdom faces the Zagros Mountains and other mountain ranges. It is therefore landlocked on this side. The Persian kingdom also would then have depended upon land-based trade.

When the imperial expansion occurred, trade opportunities were strengthened along newly controlled waterways (Indus River Valley, Suez, the Mediterranean Sea, etc). It may be observed that many of the environmental factors that shaped Persia were overcome through expansion as a result of conquest.

Based on Map 8.2 in SNT (168), there would be a tremendous impact of environmental factors upon the Roman Empire.

First, the fact that the Mediterranean Sea is the center of the Roman Empire suggests its importance in shaping the environment of Rome. There would be fishing, and fisheries, maritime travel and trade, maritime technologies, and naval capacities. There would also imply that the world would be more connected due to maritime travel.

Second, the mountainous European lands like Greece and Italy would also imply that it would be possible to be landlocked in various places, so on land, there would be difficulty in travel and communication. The valleys and small communities would also be a natural place for the growing of grapes and shepherding. This would suggest then wool, fabrics, textiles, and dairy products. The environmental factors of the Roman Empire would also imply the sharing of many ideas from the farthest parts of their world.

Thus, both the Persians and the Romans had experienced due to their environments maritime travel, trade, and diet. Rome however appears to have had more diversity in land-based production in dairy, wool, olive trees, and vineyards.

The Challenges of Empire

Every political system and government has pressures working on it from within and from outside. For all their success, the Persian and Roman Empires are no different.

Persia. Persia faces significant challenges, particularly during the reign of Xerxes (486-465 B.C.E.), son of Darius I, which will ultimately weaken the empire. Xerxes inherits a larger kingdom after his father’s conquests, but it comes with growing unrest among the Greek-speaking communities in the west which do not like Persian rule. The Scythians and several Ionic coastal cities become increasingly rebellious and Xerxes is forced to deal with the expensive task of shutting down their rebellion. Xerxes does so and desires to completely conquer the divided and weak Grecian peninsula; but, what should have been a “cakewalk” ends in an epic failure.

Moreover, Xerxes’ reign represents a significant shift towards intolerance, internal Achaemenid strife, and financial instability. Xerxes and his successors “unwisely reversed” the policies which had brought about the Persian Empire’s greatest strengths and flexibilities (SNT 145). The weight of these policy shifts weakened and exacerbated the empire internally and externally, and as a consequence, concluded with Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire in 330 B.C.E.

Rome. Rome, as well, faced major internal and external challenges. As mentioned above, later in the Roman Empire there were significant political and economic problems that undermined it. As a result of an over-reliance upon soldiers, the emperor would eventually come from soldier-backed emperors and this transition did not come without consequences.

For example, “none died peacefully in old age” (SNT 172). Yet, also, conquests would end due to the overconsumption of natural and agricultural resources. Externally, Rome would face in its declining years the rise of the Celtic and German societies in Europe. These societies exhausted Roman military resources, especially since Romans could not raise enough taxes to pay for soldiers to fight them off, especially the Germans (SNT 172-173).

Thus, the internal and external conflicts seem more focused on the Empire during the days of Xerxes when there was a reversal of policies away from tolerance and goodwill towards its subjects. Instead, there was internal unrest and military embarrassment in his failure to conquer the Grecian peninsula. Meanwhile, Rome struggled with political shifts as well, but it suffered tremendously due to mismanagement of natural and financial resources, and the unrest generated by the Celtics and the Germans.

Observations

In conclusion, there are few observations that can be made regarding the similarities and differences between the Persian and Roman Empires.

First, while the Persian Empire rose to world power through traditional means of expansion through conquest, the Roman Empire emerges due to political maneuvering and the transition from a representative government to one of consolidated power in Caesar.

Second, the political and economic bases that sustained the Persian and Roman Empires demonstrate similar demands for managing multinational populations under their rule and the economic capacity to trade and connect to other nations, but each empire succumbed to undermining what made it strong. For the Persians, it was their political tolerance and for the Romans, it was their lack of restraint with their resources.

Third, both the Persians and the Romans had experienced due to their environment: maritime travel, trade, and diet. Rome however appears to have had more diversity it land-based production in dairy, wool, olive trees, and vineyards.

Fourth, the internal and external challenges which confronted Persia and Rome are similar in that are rooted in policy changes and military interaction with outsiders. In the case of Persia, it was a drastic change in policy, while in Rome’s case it was a lack of management.

Endnotes

The class lectures referenced here are from Professor Ann Wiederrecht, Bakersfield College. The citation format/style for the paper will remain as submitted (cf. SNT, page).
Craig A. Lockard, Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History Volume 1: To 1500, 3rd ed. (Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015).

A Brief Look at Patronage as Background for the New Testament

On November 5, 2017April 6, 2019 By Jovan PayesIn 2017, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Greco-Roman World, Interpretation, Luke, New Testament, New Testament Background, New Testament World, Paul's Letters, Research Papers, Roman Empire, Romans, Social Conventions, Technical Studies, Women Studies

The present study is an inquiry into the interconnected reciprocal nature of patronage in the Greco-Roman imperial social setting, as one background component from the New Testament world. One would be wrong to think that such a social dynamic’s presence was minimal. In actuality, patronage and its vocabulary not only appears specifically in the New Testament (Luke 22:25; Acts 10:38; Rom 16:2; Philm 17-20, Phil 4:14-20, etc), but the social reciprocal dynamics in which its value and cultural powers are also assumed (shame, honor, unity, gratitude, fellowship, etc.). The reader who knows what to look for will see it in numerous contexts shaping the life of the body.[1] Unfortunately, the many elements vital to the matrix of patronage can only be pointed to. Yet, as Bruce J. Malina observes, it was “the most significant form of social interaction in the limited-good world of the first century is an informal principle of reciprocity, a sort of implicit, non-legal contractual obligation, unenforceable by any authority apart from one’s sense of honor and shame.”[2] The challenge in this paper is to briefly and accurately describe it.

In seeking to understand the New Testament accurately, scholars propose various exegetical principles and contextualizing models to accomplish this task.[3] The process here requires an approach which appreciates the cultural background of the New Testament to contextualize its vocabulary. This, Albert A. Bell reminds, is the “crucial part of understanding any written text.”[4] Greco-Roman words have a socially conditioned context that the modern reader may not readily identify. “Without a comprehension of the sociological dynamics of that world, our understanding… is terribly superficial at best and woefully mistaken at worst.”[5] The most crucial need for the reader of the New Testament, then, is to be able to bridge the cultural and time gap between the original (native) context and the reader’s contemporary context. This linguistic and cultural divide can be managed. In advancing a cultural-anthropological reading model, Jerome H. Neyrey argues that one can avoid ethnocentric and anachronistic readings of Paul (and the New Testament) by appreciating the difference between reading him as member of the same culture (an emic reading), and by reading him informed by the analytical and descriptive works of specialists and ethnographers (an etic reading).[6] As one gets closer to this “emic reading,” the modern reader comes closer to better appreciate the symbolic universe of Paul’s and Jesus’ culture.[7] The goal here is to gain a realistic perception from “native informants” which can illustrate and contextualize patronage as a Greco-Roman phenomenon.[8]

The presentation to follow will demonstrate how significant the social form of patronage was in the daily life of the Greco-Roman world, it will outline the vocabulary of patronage in Latin and Greek primary sources, it will sharpen this outline to differentiate between political and social patronage, and then offer a realistic scenarios that can illuminate reading the New Testament in its social and cultural world.

Daily Significance of Patronage

In modern analogy, patronage was like an ancient informal “welfare system.” Social services, like the modern model of the United States, would have been quite foreign. Instead, patronage was a cultural phenomenon in which there was a reciprocal relationship between the upper class and the lower class. It benefited lower classes with protection and patronage by means of reasonable support (legal, financial, medical, marital, etc.) for public support, the running of errands, odd jobs, escorting through streets, and providing social honor in exchange (a return). In exchange for the daily allowance (sportula), the client was at the patron’s call. Thus, it was a form of social investment between patron-client; interestingly, even slaves of wealthy households were known to have clients who hoped the slave could use their influence upon their master.[9] Greco-Roman and Christian scholarship is unequivocal about the daily and social significance of the patron-client network of relationships.[10]

Martial, in his colorful Epigrams, clocks what city life was like in the urbs (4.8.1-4): “The first and second hours wear out clients greeting their patrons.” The imagery evokes the crushing nature of the daily dependence of clients upon their patronus. A step further, Juvenal shows how important this allowance of money was for the everyday professional and collegia with his sarcastic words in the Satires (1.95-126):

For no deity is held in such reverence amongst us as Wealth; though as yet, O baneful money, thou hast no temple of thine own; not yet have we reared altars to Money in like manner as we worship Peace and Honour, Victory and Virtue, or that Concord that clatters when we salute her nest.[11]

This fits the common view that the patron-client phenomena were important to the daily life of every social stratum of the Greco-Roman world. To this point, Jérôme Carcopinodescribes that whether employed or unemployed, freedman or the parasite do-nothing, aristocrats or lower plebeians, clients “were no sooner out of bed than they were in the grip of the duties inseparable from being a ‘client.’ […] there was no man in Rome who did not feel himself bound to someone more powerful above him by the same obligations of respect, or, to use the technical term, the same obsequium.”[12] This honor-bound relationship allowed those in various professions and collegia to survive by means of this small daily “dole as their main source of revenue.”

Patronage in Latin and Greek Sources

Extant Greek and Latin sources (literary and epigraphic) speak of patronage, benefaction, and euergetism (good-doing) from political and social perspectives. Ideas such protection, assistance, help, advocacy, and philanthropy appear. Consider the following samples. It seems that patronage was initially borne out of political power and civic duty, but that distinction apparently broke down over time into a social network between the upper and lower classes in the Greco-Roman world among the rich, the poor, the freedman and freedwoman.[13]

The Roman historian Livy stretches back about four centuries to the early Roman Republic and recounts the story of Cincinnatus, the famed aristocratic plebeian consul, turn poor plebeian farmer, turn dictator, turn savior of Roman (History of Rome 3.26-29). According to Livy, his actions as dictator were reciprocated with honor and status. Livy frames (stylizes?) the response of the army as recognizing “the benefit [beneficii] they had received at his hands,” honored him with a golden crown, and “saluted him as their protector [patronum salutaverit]” (History of Rome 3.29.3). They had become his “clients,” and Cincinnatus would use this social bond to his advantage to “clear” the charges against his son Caeso who was on the run for charges of murder. The protector of Rome, then, returned his powers of dictator and returned to the rustic farm life. Later, when Augustus consolidates his power, Tacitus recounts his use of “gratuities” (donis) among the military and the poor (Annals 1.2). Michael Grant[14] interprets this as Augustus letting “it be understood that the old institution of patrons and clients had been recast, so that henceforward all the people were his own, personal clients, including the poorest citizens.” Thus, as principis Augustus and the emperors after him would portray (politically?) to the citizens of Rome and its subjects a bond of reciprocal loyalty.

Greek sources also illuminate various aspects of patronage. In the fifth century BCE, Sophocles frames the tragic Oedipus as gratefully exchanging protection from Thebes and “help [prostátisi] of the dread goddesses” who reigns in their districts, with obtaining “a great savior [sōtēr’] for this city, and troubles for my enemies” in him (Oedipus at Colunus 455-460). The Apocrypha[15] likewise points to the political upheavals in the Maccabean storyline connected to concepts of patronage. In 2 Maccabees, Simon slanders Onias, who is designated “a plotter against the government the man who was the benefactor [tòn euergétēn] of the city, the protector [tòn kēdemóna] of his compatriots, and a zealot for the laws” (4:2).[16]

In 3 Maccabees 3:13-29, “King Ptolemy Philopater” declares to his “generals and soldiers” that despite his goodwill (philanthrōpía), a desire to do good (eū poiēsaí), and to honor (timēsai) in the Jewish temple (3:15-17), the Jews “manifest ill-will toward us” and are “the only people among all nations who hold their heads high in defiance of kings and their own benefactors [euergétais], and are unwilling to regard any action as sincere” (3:19). The accommodative and benevolent king (philanthrópōs 3:20) declares that such rebellious Jews should be arrested, bound, and deported and that any who harbor them should be severely punished (3:25-29). Eventually, Philopator descends upon the Jews but is subdued by two angels. The king breaks down to pity and tears, and blames and threatens his “friends” (toís phílois): “You are committing treason and surpassing tyrants in cruelty; and even me, your benefactor [euergétēn]” (6:24).

Political and Social Patronage in Rome

In the Greco-Roman world of the first century CE, there appears to be evidence distinguishing between political and social patronage. This can be confusing since sources often use terms like benefactor, euergetes, and patron in the process of discussion. The masculine form of the Greek prostát– (see verbal use above for “help”) is somewhat problematic. It is often considered synonymous with the Latin patronus. Interestingly, the New Testament the feminine form προστάτις is used in Romans 16:2 and translated as patron and benefactor (ESV; NIV, NRSV, HCSB). Erlend D. MacGillivray[17] takes exception to the view that these two forms are completely synonymous. The masculine appears in both Attic Greek and in the Roman Empire and carries both legal and a variety of leadership benefaction roles, but not the feminine form. MacGillivray argues that applying the masculine meaning upon prostátis is exegetically problematic for this reason. Benefaction is in view, but one must distinguish between political patronage from some interpersonal social networking.

MacGillivray argues that understanding prostátis depends, then, upon understanding the fluid nature of ancient Mediterranean reciprocal dynamics, recognizing the patron-client model is far too limiting and misleading. There is a difference between the narrow and nuanced meaning of classical patronage and the broad euergetistic/altruistic benefaction. While epigraphical gratitude evidence shows that prostátis and prostátes imply civic prestige, the nature of the evidence is, however, often weak to force synonymity. Part of the problem stems from the near normative templates in honorary Greco-Roman epigraphs that do not always neatly distinguish between the various kinds of patronage. Thus, the presence of these terms do not prove exclusively a classical patronage/patronus; consequently, MacGillivray’s work argues that prostátis and prostátes are not demonstrably synonymous.

R. A. Kearsley[18] extends this trajectory and explores several first century CE gratitude (honorarium) inscriptions shedding light on the first-century distinction between political and social patronage. These aristocratic women are named, Iunia Theodora and Claudia Metrodora, and are celebrated as female benefactors/patrons who operated in mid-first century CE Asia Minor. The cities of Lycia (Myra, Patara, Tel-messos) recount the influence of Theodora. Theodora apparently had multiple-citizenships, she freely shared her wealth, applied influenced for political and commercial purposes, and is described consistently in benefactor terms (sōphronōs, philolúkios) in Lycia. Such amounts to Theodora functioning as a social benefactor. On the other hand, Metrodora of Chiot Island likewise held multiple-citizenships, did hold political office as magistrate (stephanephoros), which required benefaction toward the people although she surpassed such requirements. She functioned in banquets, directed imperial games, gymnasiarch, public bathhouse donation, basileia in Ionia, and was praised for her public virtue. She was a benefactor as part of holding office.

Realistic Patronage Scenarios for Reading the New Testament

The above illustrations provide insight into the deep and ancient tradition of patronage and how such played out in various settings. There are two passages where patronage vocabulary is explicitly found in the New Testament.

First, in Luke, the political aspect of patronage is evident in Jesus’ counter-intuitive teaching on greatness. Jesus corrects the “greatness debate” among the disciples by saying,

“The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors [euergétai]. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves” (22:25-26).

Frederick W. Danker observes, euergétai “served as a title for rulers in Syria and Egypt… In many cases the title would conceal tyranny under extravagant expenditure” (cf. Greek Esther 16:2-3, 13-14).[19] One might argue that Jesus is taking for granted a political euergétai known to abuse such roles, and parts from the fundamental principle of the patron-client relationship: “a service performed or a favor done shall not be transformed into status and honor.”[20] Jesus’ leadership principle, then, is that one serves detached from the demands of reciprocity and the honor and status it brings (cf. Acts 10:38).[21]

Second, in Romans 16:1-2 patronage appears to have a social component. Paul commends Phoebe to the church as “a servant of the church at Cenchreae” and as one who should be helped —reciprocally— “for she has been a patron [prostátis] of many and of myself as well.” Caroline F. Whelan[22] relates this passage to the context of Roman reciprocal social conventions within associations (collegia). Whelan maintains that women not only had the Roman legal standing to operate their wealth independently of guardians, they also functioned as civic patrons for collegia. Secondly, comparable “recommendation” letters reveal two types of reciprocal relationships. There is the superior-inferior recommendation rhetoric, and two, the social-equals recommendation rhetoric; each reflecting in some sense the inherent nature of reciprocity in Rome’s social structure, the matrix of which fuses together the economic and social. Romans 16:1-2, then, points to one of these realistic scenarios. Whelan argues that the patronage between social equals (amica, friends) is probably in view. Phoebe needs Paul’s influence among those addressed in Romans 16 (thus the recommendation), but as “equals” such rhetoric is not for his own social benefit. Instead, it is a gesture of gratitude for her own social activity as a social patron (euergetistic) to the collegia of the church in Cenchrea.

Conclusion

Robert Wilken asserts: “We have a distorted view of the history of early Christianity… The historian of Christianity has given the impression that the rest of the canvas is simply background for the closeup —relegating the general history of the times to an introductory chapter of vague generalities.”[23] Hopefully, this paper provides a closer, native (emic) reading. The smaller the cultural and linguistic gap is, the more accurate the reading. May this paper accomplish its task, to gain realistic perceptions from primary sources which can illustrate and contextualize patronage as an important Greco-Roman imperial phenomenon.

Endnotes

David A. deSilva, “Honor and Shame,” “Patronage,” DNTB 518-22, 766-71; Donald Walker, “Benefactor,” DNTB 157-59; Halvor Moxnes, “Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts, ed. J. H. Neyrey (1991; repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 241-68; Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 66-69.
Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World (Louisville: John Knox, 1981), 80.
Ralph P. Martin, “Approaches to New Testament Exegesis,” in New Testament Interpretation, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 220-51.
Albert A. Bell, Jr., Exploring the New Testament World (Nashville: Nelson, 1998), 2.
M. Robert Mulholland, Jr., “Sociological Criticism,” in Interpreting the New Testament, eds. David A. Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville: B&H, 2001), 171.
Jerome H. Neyrey, Paul, In Other Words (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 13.
Neyrey, Paul, 14-17. Neyrey’s distinctions and concerns have value, but he makes a hardline dichotomy between Paul as one who receives supra-cultural insight (i.e., from God) and Paul as a fully incarnated product of his times (18). This distinction ignores Paul’s stated role from God. This is one of Mulholland’s four critiques of this model, it tends to be human-centered, often grounded in dynamic models foreign to the Roman world, imposes the model on the evidence, and lends itself to sociological reductionism (“Sociological Criticism,” 178-80).
David A. deSilva, The Hope of Glory: Honor Discourse and New Testament Interpretation (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1999). The “native informants” are “our best instructors” (xi).
Bell, Exploring the New Testament World, 191-92.
Ferguson, Backgrounds, 67; Florence DuPont, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, trans. C. Woodall (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993); Micahel Grant, A Social History of Greece and Rome (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1992).
Juvenal, Satire 1.95-126, http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/juv-sat1eng.asp.
Jérôme Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, ed. Henry T. Rowell, trans. E. O. Lorimer (1940; repr., New Haven: Yale University, 1968), 171.
Grant, Social History of Greece and Rome, 30, 54, 70-76, 114-119.
Grant, Social History of Greece and Rome, 75-76.
See also the verbal, and substantival, usages in Wisdom 3:5, 11:5, 13, 16:2, 19:13-14; 2 Macc 8:6; 4 Macc 8:6; Greek Esther 16:2-3 = 8:12^c (tōn euergetoúntōn), 13 = 8:12ⁿ(euergétēn). Of these sources, Mordecai is framed as sōtēra and euergétēn (cf. God in LXX Psa 12:6, 56:3, 114:7).
Quotations for the Old Testament Apocrypha are taken from New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible (Nashville: Nelson, 1989). The Greek text is from Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996).
Erlend D. MacGillivray, “Romans 16:2, prostátis/prostátes, and the Application of Reciprocal Relationships to New Testament Texts,” NovT 53 (2011): 183-99.
R. A. Kearsley, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul,” TynB 50.2 (1999): 189-211.
Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age According to St. Luke (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing, 1979), 222.
Moxnes, “Patron-Client Relations,” 261.
Halvor Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom (1988; repr., Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004), 158.
Caroline F. Whelan, “Amica Pauli: The Role of Phoebe in the Early Church,” JSNT 49 (1993): 67-85.
Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University, 1984), xiv.

Bibliography

Bell, Albert A., Jr. Exploring the New Testament World: An Illustrated Guide to the World of Jesus and the First Christians. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1998.

Carcopino, Jérôme. Daily Life in Ancient Rome: The People and the City at the Height of the Empire. Edited by Henry T. Rowell. Translated by E. O. Lorimer. 1940. Repr., New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1968.

Danker, Frederick W. Jesus and the New Age According to St. Luke: A Commentary on the Third Gospel. 1972. Repr., St. Louis, MO: Clayton Publishing, 1979.

deSilva, David A. “Honor and Shame.” DNTB. 518-22.

deSilva, David A. The Hope of Glory: Honor Discourse and New Testament Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999.

deSilva, David A. “Patronage” DNTB. 766-71.

DuPont, Florence. Daily Life in Ancient Rome. Translated by Christopher Woodall. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

Grant, Michael. A Social History of Greece and Rome. New York, NY: Scribner’s Sons, 1992.

Kearsley, R. A. “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul.” TynB 50.2 (1999): 189-211.

MacGillivray, Erlend D. “Romans 16:2, prostátis/prostátes, and the Application of Reciprocal Relationships to New Testament Texts.” NovT 53 (2011): 183-99.

Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insight from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta, GA: Knox, 1981.

Moxnes, Halvor. The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke’s Gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1988. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004.

——-. “Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts.” Pages 241-68 in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Edited by Jerome H. Neyrey. 1991. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.

Mulholland, M. Robert, Jr. “Sociological Criticism.” Pages 170-86 in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: B&H, 2001.

Neyrey, Jerome H. Paul, In Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letters. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1990.

Walker, Donald D. “Benefactor.” DNTB. 157-59.

Whelan, Caroline F. “Amica Pauli: The Role of Phoebe in the Early Church.” JSNT 49 (1993): 67-85.

Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1984.

Of Sheep and Shepherds

On April 11, 2009November 29, 2019 By Jovan PayesIn Essays, Leadership Ethics, Published, Words of Truth4 Comments

Background Bible study is fascinating and is perhaps one of the most important parts of biblical research. Obtaining a “behind-the-scenes” look into the biblical documents will “contribute to a more precise comprehension of the Word of God.”[1] This observation can be said about the shepherd motif found in Scripture. Since it is dangerous to paint half a picture of anyone or anything – especially biblical topics; we stress, then, that this is but a footnote to the beautiful motif of the pastoral profession (i.e. the shepherd) often employed by the biblical authors.

Shepherds in Israel

Shepherding was a great profession in the culture of the Ancient Near East, and so far as it relates to Israel’s history, pastoral work was a constant aspect of nomadic life (cf. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.). Even when they conquered and settled into Palestine, the end of the nomadic life did not stop pastoral work (e.g. David in 1 Sam 16:19; Amos 1:1, 7:14).[2] The widespread awareness of this profession “made motifs of sheep and shepherding apt descriptions of human and divine roles and relationships.”[3]

Notice one Old Testament example. God through Jeremiah pronounces a “woe” upon the leadership of Judah using the pastoral motif:

“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: ‘You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD.’” (Jer 23:1-2 ESV)

The “shepherds” failed to maintain the pastoral relationship with God’s flock; consequently, the sheep were scattered. Jeremiah, looking to post-exilic times, promises that God will restore the proper care to his flock with faithful shepherds (Jer 23:3-4).

Shepherds in the New Testament

There are several related New Testament words used to the work of shepherding. The noun form is poimein, and refers to a shepherd, herdsmen, or pastor,[4] and hence it is a metaphor describing a guardian-leader. The third translation option probably receives the most attention from among the three, and this is due to its connection with the eldership of the New Testament (Eph 4:11, here teaching-pastors), and its erroneous, but popular, usage in denominational circles.[5]

However, the New Testament uses the term significantly in its normal sense. Jesus refers to himself as “the good shepherd” in John 10:1-18 to distinguish himself from the leaders who had oppressed or neglected the house of Israel. Luke narrates the story of the shepherds, in the field with their flock, who were told of the arrival of the Messiah (2:1-20). Jesus warned his disciples that when he is handed over to the Jews, that they would be scattered like sheep when their shepherd is harmed (Matt 9:36 = Mark 6:34).

But perhaps the most vivid pastoral scenes are of those moments that relate to our relationship with Jesus. The Lord is described as “the Shepherd and Overseer” of our souls (1 Pet 2:25; cf. Heb 13:20), who receives straying sheep as any good shepherd does. Another vivid scene using the shepherd motif is the Day of Judgment when Jesus “will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats” (Matt 25:32). This is taken from an understanding that sheep and goats were “pastured together” in Palestine, but at certain appropriate times they “require separation.”[6] The figure is given Christian meaning as a metaphor of the judgment upon faithful and non-faithful Christians.

Learning from the Sheep and the Shepherds

There are so many relationship lessons that God has taken from pastoral care, we would do well to reflect upon it more. For example: at the birthing of a new lamb, the shepherd “guards the mother during her helpless moments and picks up the lamb and carries it to the field. For the few days, until it is able to walk, he may carry it in his arms or in the loose folds of his coat.”[7] Could we not make an application from this? The shepherd and the lamb have a wonderfully tender relationship, and we would strengthen our fellowship in taking a lesson from this behavioral motif.

Truly, we can see that a pastoral care for Christians will encourage us to help in the development and care of new converts. It will stimulate us to help heal wounded sheep, and protect them as they are nourished to good health. And more personally, perhaps we would be more receptive to the prodding and care by our shepherds in the church. The “pastoral” mentality is not only for the elders, we would all do well to lead on, or be led, ever so gently (Gen 33:14).

Conclusion

In the Christian age, it is quite common for New Testament students to think of shepherd-pastors as only in terms of the office of a bishop/elder as mentioned in 1 Timothy 3. However, the imagery of a shepherd has a wide application to both describe religious leaders and the effects of their ministries upon their religious constituents, and it also describes how the Lord Jesus and the Father are both presented as providers and keepers of our souls.

May we take from these lessons, practical ways, to reflect a pastoral concern for ourselves, our fellow believers, family, and our friends.

Sources

Wayne Jackson, Background Bible Study, revised ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 1999), 1.
Madeleine S. Miller, et al., Harper’s Encyclopedia of Bible Life, 3rd ed. (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1978), 142.
D. Johnson, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds. Joel B. Green, et al. (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), DJG 751.
William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1986), 2:462, 569.
Despite popular usage among denominations as a term for “minister,” a usage which J.P. Louw and Eugene Nida’s lexicon continues to perpetuate (L&N 53.72), typical passages used to support this idea are misapplied. Specifically, Ephesians 4:11 where there are four groups of leadership types (not five) set forth as recipients of the temporary “gifts” which enable the Christians to obtain maturity (Eph 4:12; 1 Cor 13:10). See J. Jeremias in TDNT 6:485-502.
Jack P. Lewis, Matthew (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 2:137.
J. Patch, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1943), ISBE 4:2764.