Podcasts about loeb classical library

For the past ten years, the Murty Classical Library of India (published by Harvard University Press) has sought to do for classic Indian works what the famous Loeb Classical Library has done for Ancient Greek and Roman texts. In this episode, Jacke talks to editorial director Sharmila Sen about the joys and challenges of sifting through thousands of years of Indic works and bringing literary treasures to the general public, as well as a new book, Ten Indian Classics, which highlights ten of the fifty works published in the collection so far. PLUS bookmaker and book historian Adam Smyth (The Book-Makers: A History of the Book in Eighteen Lives) discusses his choice for the last book he will ever read. Additional listening: 613 Celebrating the Book-Makers (with Adam Smyth) 381 C. Subramania Bharati (with Mira T. Sundara Rajan) 552 Writing after Rushdie (with Shilpi Suneja) The music in this episode is by Gabriel Ruiz-Bernal. Learn more at gabrielruizbernal.com. Help support the show at patreon.com/literature or historyofliterature.com/donate. The History of Literature Podcast is a member of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate Network. Learn more at thepodglomerate.com/historyofliterature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Send us a textYes, I know that Octavian IS Augustus, but this episode is about how Gaius Octavius became Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus, and in doing so replaced the old Roman Republic with a military autocracy masquerading as a republic. This is the conclusion of our three part series on the fall of the Roman Republic. My cohost for all three episodes has been my good friend Dr. Jennifer Paxton of the Catholic University of America.This episode includes two audio snippets:Mark Antony's funeral oration for Caesar, from the 1953 film version of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" (with Marlon Brando as Brutus)"What have the Romans done for us?" from "Monty Python's The Life of Brian"Quotations from:Appian on Caesar's Funeral, trans. John Carter (https://www.livius.org/sources/content/appian/appian-caesars-funeral/)Res Gestae Divi Augusti ("the achievements of the deified Augustus"), trans. F.W. Shipley  (https://www.livius.org/sources/content/augustus-res-gestae/)Tacitus Agricola. Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (1877)Tacitus, Annals. Loeb Classical Library edition of Tacitus, 1931For another take on the story, I recommend listening to "Marc Antony vs. Octavian Caesar: Ancient Rome's Ruthless Rivals," a two part series on the podcast "Beef with Bridget Todd."As I am posting this a couple of days before Christmas and Hanukkah, I would like to wish you all Happy Holidays. And if you haven't yet listened to it, you might want to try our episode on how Hanukkah and Christmas were celebrated in the Middle Ages (with detours into how Hanukkah became the Jewish Christmas in the United States and why the Puritans tried to suppress Christmas).Listen on Podurama https://podurama.com Intro and exit music are by Alexander NakaradaIf you have questions, feel free to contact me at richard.abels54@gmail.com

In this episode, we examine the relationship that the infamous emperor Caracalla had with Egypt. Support the Show: Patreon: https://patreon.com/MummyMoviePodcast Contact Us: Email: mummymoviepodcast@gmail.com Bibliography: Burgersdijk, D. (2024). A revised loeb of Historia Augusta. Magie,(D.) Rohrbacher (edd., trans.) Historia Augusta. Volume I.(Loeb Classical Library 139.) Pp. liv+ 471. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2022. The Classical Review, 74(1), 121-124. Hart, G. (2005). The Routledge dictionary of Egyptian gods and goddesses. Routledge. Lenski, M. B. D. G. N., & Talbert, R. J. A. (2012). From village to empire: A history of Rome from earliest times to the end of the Western Empire. New York. Martin, R. H. (1981). Tacitus. University of California Press. Milne, J. G. (1924). A history of Egypt under Roman rule (Vol. 5). Methuen & Company. Takács, S. A. (2015). Isis and Sarapis in the Roman world (Vol. 124). Brill. Thayer, B. (Ed.). (n.d.). Cassius Dio — Book 78. University of Chicago. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/cassius_dio/78*.html Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jesus prayed, “I speak these things in the world so that they may have my joy made complete in themselves” (Jn. 17). Acts 1:15-17, 21-26 Psalm 1 1 John 5:9-13 John 17:6-19 Friendship According to Aristotle and Jesus 1. “We seek one mystery, God, with another mystery, ourselves. We are mysterious to ourselves because God's mystery is in us.” [i] Gary Wills wrote these words about the impossibility of fully comprehending God. Still, we can draw closer to the Holy One. I am grateful for friends who help me see our Father in new ways. This week my friend Norwood Pratt sent me an article which begins with a poem by Li Bai (701-762). According to legend he died in the year 762 drunkenly trying to embrace the moon's reflection in the Yangtze River. Li Bai writes, “The birds have vanished from the sky. / Now the last cloud drains away // We sit together, the mountain and me, / until only the mountain remains.” [ii] For me this expresses the feeling of unity with God that comes to me in prayer. This poet was one of many inspirations for a modern Chinese American poet named Li-Young Lee (1957-). Lee's father immigrated to the United States and served as a Presbyterian pastor at an all-white church in western Pennsylvania. Lee feels fascinated by infinity and eternity. He writes this poem about the “Ultimate Being, Tao or God” as the beloved one, the darling. Each of us in the uniqueness of our nature and experience has a different experience of holiness. He writes, “My friend and I are in love with the same woman… I'd write a song about her.  I wish I could sing. I'd sing about her. / I wish I could write a poem. / Every line would be about her. / Instead, I listen to my friend speak / about this woman we both love, / and I think of all the ways she is unlike / anything he says about her and unlike / everything else in the world.” [iii] These two poets write about something that cannot easily be expressed, our deepest desire to be united with God. Jesus also speaks about this in the Gospel of John, in his last instructions to the disciples and then in his passionate prayer for them, and for us. In his last words Jesus describes the mystery of God and our existence using a surprising metaphor. At the center of all things lies our experience of friendship. On Mother's Day when we celebrate the sacrifices associated with love I want to think more with you about friendship and God. To understand the uniqueness of Jesus' teaching, it helps to see how another great historical thinker understood this subject. 2. Long before Jesus' birth the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) studied at Plato's school in Athens (from the age of 17 to 37). After this Aristotle became the tutor of Alexander the Great and founded a prominent library that he used as the basis for his thought. Scholars estimate that about a third of what Aristotle wrote has survived. He had a huge effect on the western understanding of nature. He also especially influenced the thirteenth century theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and therefore modern Roman Catholic approaches to Christian thought. For Aristotle God is eternal, non-material, unchanging and perfect. He famously describes God as the unmoved mover existing outside of the world and setting it into motion. Because everything seeks divine perfection this God is responsible for all change that continues to happen in the universe. We experience a world of particular things but God knows the universal ideas behind them (or before them). For Aristotle God is pure thought, eternally contemplating himself. God is the telos, the goal or end of all things. [iv] Aristotle begins his book Nicomachean Ethics by observing that “Happiness… is the End at which all actions aim.” [v] Everything we do ultimately can be traced back to our desire for happiness and the purpose of Aristotle's book is to help the reader to attain this goal. Happiness comes from having particular virtues, that is habitual ways of acting and seeking pleasure. These include: courage, temperance, generosity, patience. In our interactions with others we use social virtues including: amiability, sincerity, wit. Justice is the overarching virtue that encompasses all the others. Aristotle writes that there are three kinds of friendships. The first is based on usefulness, the second on pleasure. Because these are based on superficial qualities they generally do not last long. The final and best form of friendship for him is based on strength of character. These friends do not love each other for what they can gain but because they admire each other's character. Aristotle believes that this almost always this happens between equals although sometimes one sees it in the relation between fathers and sons (I take this to mean between parents and children). Famous for describing human beings as the political animal, Aristotle points out that we can only accomplish great things through cooperation. Institutions and every human group rely on friendly feelings to be effective. Friendship is key to what makes human beings effective, and for that matter, human. Finally, Aristotle believes that although each person should be self-sufficient, friendship is important for a good life. 3. The Greek word for Gospel, that particular form of literature which tells the story of Jesus, is euangelion. We might forget that this word means good news until we get a sense for the far more radical picture of God and friendship that Jesus teaches. For me, one of the defining and unique features of Christianity as a religion comes from Jesus' insistence that our relation to God is like a child to a loving father. Jesus teaches us to pray, “Our Father who art in heaven.” Jesus clarifies this picture of God in his story of the Prodigal Son who goes away and squanders his wealth in a kind of first century Las Vegas. In the son's destitution he returns home and as he crests the hill, his father “filled with compassion,” hikes up his robes and runs to hug and kiss him. Jesus does not just use words but physical gestures to show what a friend is. In today's gospel Jesus washes his friends' feet before eats his last meal with them. The King James Version says, “there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved” (Jn. 13:23). [vi] Imagine Jesus, in the actual embrace of his beloved friend, telling us who God is. Jesus explicitly says I do not call you servants but friends (Jn. 15). A servant does not know what the master is doing but a friend does. And you know that the greatest commandment is to love one another. Later in prayer he begs God to protect us from the world, “so that [we] may have [his] joy made complete in [ourselves]” (Jn. 17). 4. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 332-395) was born ten years after the First Council of Nicaea and attended the First Council of Constantinople. He writes about how so many ordinary people were arguing about doctrine, “If in this city you ask anyone for change, he will discuss with you whether the Son was begotten or unbegotten. If you ask about the quality of the bread you will receive the answer, “The father is the greater and the Son is lesser.' If you suggest a bath is desirable you will be told, ‘There was nothing before the Son was created.'” [vii] Gregory with his friends Basil and Gregory Nazianzus wondered what description of Jesus would lead to faith rather than just argument. [viii] Gregory of Nyssa came to believe that the image of God is only fully displayed when every human person is included. [ix] In his final book Life of Moses Gregory responds to a letter from a younger friend who seeks counsel on “the perfect life.” [x] Gregory writes that Moses exemplifies this more than all others because Moses is a friend to God. True perfection is not bargaining with, pleading, tricking, manipulating, fearing God. It is not avoiding a wicked life out of fear of punishment. It is not to do good because we hope for some reward, as if we are cashing in on the virtuous life through a business contract. Gregory closes with these words to his young admirer, “we regard falling from God's friendship as the only dreadful thing… and we consider becoming God's friend the only thing worthy of honor and desire. This… is the perfection of life. As your understanding is lifted up to what is magnificent and divine, whatever you may find… will certainly be for the common benefit in Christ Jesus.” [xi] On Thursday night I was speaking to Paul Fromberg the Rector of St. Gregory's church about this and he mentioned a sophisticated woman who became a Christian in his church. In short she moved from Aristotle's view of friendship among superior equals to Jesus' view. She said, “Because I go to church I can have real affection for people who annoy the shit out of me. My affection is no longer just based on affinity.” [xii] 5. I have been thoroughly transformed by Jesus' idea of friendship. My life has become full of Jesus' friends, full of people who I never would have met had I followed Aristotle's advice. Together we know that in Christ unity does not have to mean uniformity. Before I close let me tell you about one person who I met at Christ Church in Los Altos. Even by the time I met her Alice Larse was only a few years away from being a great-grandmother. She and her husband George had grown up together in Washington State. He had been an engineer and she nursed him through his death from Alzheimer's disease. Some of my favorite memories come from the frequent summer pool parties she would have for our youth groups. She must have been in her sixties when she started a “Alice's Stick Cookies Company.” Heidi and I saw them in a store last week!   At Christ Church we had a rotating homeless shelter and there were several times when Alice, as a widow living by herself, had various guests stay at her house. When the church was divided about whether or not to start a school she quickly volunteered to serve as senior warden. She was not sentimental. She was thoroughly practical. She was humble. She got things done… but with a great sense of humor.   There was no outward indication that she was really a saint. I missed her funeral two weeks ago because of responsibilities here. I never really had the chance to say goodbye but I know that one day we will be together in God. Grace Cathedral has hundreds of saints just like her who I have learned to love in a similar way.   Ram Dass was a dear friend of our former Dean Alan Jones. He used to say, “The name of the game we are in is called ‘Being at one with the Beloved.' [xiii] The Medieval mystic Julian of Norwich writes that God possesses, “a love-longing to have us all together, wholly in himself for his delight; for we are not now wholly in him as we shall be…” She says that you and I are Jesus' joy and bliss. [xiv]   We seek one mystery, God, with another mystery, ourselves. We are mysterious to ourselves because God's mystery is in us.” [xv] In a world where friendship can seem to be only for utility or pleasure I pray that like Jesus, you will be blessed with many friends, that you find perfection of life and even become friends with God. [i] Gary Wills, Saint Augustine (NY: Viking, 1999) xii. [ii] Li Bai, “Zazen on Ching-t'ing Mountain,” tr. Sam Hamill, Crossing the Yellow River: Three Hundred Poems from the Chinese, (Rochester, NY: BOA Editions, 2000). About 1000 poems attributed to Li still exist. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48711/zazen-on-ching-ting-mountain [iii] Ed Simon, “There's Nothing in the World Smaller than the Universe: In The Invention of the Darling, Li-Young Lee presents divinity as spirit and matter, profound and quotidian, sacred and profane,” Poetry Foundation. This article quotes, “The Invention of the Darling.”  https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/162572/theres-nothing-in-the-world-smaller-than-the-universe [iv] More from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Aristotle made God passively responsible for change in the world in the sense that all things seek divine perfection. God imbues all things with order and purpose, both of which can be discovered and point to his (or its) divine existence. From those contingent things we come to know universals, whereas God knows universals prior to their existence in things. God, the highest being (though not a loving being), engages in perfect contemplation of the most worthy object, which is himself. He is thus unaware of the world and cares nothing for it, being an unmoved mover. God as pure form is wholly immaterial, and as perfect he is unchanging since he cannot become more perfect. This perfect and immutable God is therefore the apex of being and knowledge. God must be eternal. That is because time is eternal, and since there can be no time without change, change must be eternal. And for change to be eternal the cause of change-the unmoved mover-must also be eternal. To be eternal God must also be immaterial since only immaterial things are immune from change. Additionally, as an immaterial being, God is not extended in space.” https://iep.utm.edu/god-west/ [v] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library vol. XIX (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975) 30-1. [vi] h™n aÓnakei÷menoß ei–ß e˙k tw◊n maqhtw◊n aujtouv e˙n twˆ◊ ko/lpwˆ touv ∆Ihsouv, o§n hjga¿pa oJ ∆Ihsouvß (John 13:23). I don't understand why the NRSV translation translate this as “next to him” I think that Herman Waetjen regards “in Jesus' bosom” as correct. Herman Waetjen, The Gospel of the Beloved Disciple: A Work in Two Editions (NY: T&T Clark, 2005) 334. [vii] Margaret Ruth Miles, The Word Made Flesh: A History of Christian Thought (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 105. [viii] Ibid., 108. [ix] From Jesse Hake, “An Intro to Saint Gregory of Nyssa and his Last Work: The Life of Moses,” 28 July 2022: https://www.theophaneia.org/an-intro-to-saint-gregory-of-nyssa-and-his-last-work-the-life-of-moses/ “For example, Gregory says that the image of God is only fully displayed when every human person is included, so that the reference in Genesis to making humanity in God's image is actually a reference to all of humanity as one body (which is ultimately the body of Jesus Christ that is also revealed at the end of time): In the Divine foreknowledge and power all humanity is included in the first creation. …The entire plenitude of humanity was included by the God of all, by His power of foreknowledge, as it were in one body, and …this is what the text teaches us which says, God created man, in the image of God created He him. For the image …extends equally to all the race. …The Image of God, which we behold in universal humanity, had its consummation then. …He saw, Who knows all things even before they be, comprehending them in His knowledge, how great in number humanity will be in the sum of its individuals. …For when …the full complement of human nature has reached the limit of the pre-determined measure, because there is no longer anything to be made up in the way of increase to the number of souls, [Paul] teaches us that the change in existing things will take place in an instant of time. [And Paul gives to] that limit of time which has no parts or extension the names of a moment and the twinkling of an eye (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).” [x] Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses trans. Abraham J. Malherbe and Everett Ferguson, “Preface” by John Myendorff (NY: Paulist Press, 1978) 29. [xi] Ibid., 137. [xii] Paul Fromberg conversation at One Market, Thursday 9 May 2024. [xiii] Alan Jones, Living the Truth (Boston, MA: Cowley Publications, 2000) 53. [xiv] Quoted in Isaac S. Villegas, “Christian Theology is a Love Story,” The Christian Century, 25 April 2018. https://www.christiancentury.org/lectionary/may-13-easter-7b-john-17-6-19?code=kHQx7M4MqgBLOUfbwRkc&utm_source=Christian+Century+Newsletter&utm_campaign=1ccba0cb63-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_SCP_2024-05-06&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-31c915c0b7-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D [xv] Gary Wills, Saint Augustine (NY: Viking, 1999) xii.

This is part 13 of the Read the Bible For Yourself. Before getting to the Church Epistles, we'll begin with an overview of how letters were written, read, and performed. Then we'll see how they are arranged in our Bibles. We'll spend a good deal of time talking about occasion. Why did Paul write each letter? What was going on that prompted him to initiate the expensive and elaborate process of writing to them? Lastly, we'll briefly consider how to apply what we read to our lives. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg3tInZU9JY&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2TrdUEDtAipF3jy4qYspM_&index=13&pp=iAQB —— Links —— See other episodes in Read the Bible For Yourself Other classes are available here, including How We Got the Bible, which explores the manuscript transmission and translation of the Bible Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— Letters in the First Century Letters written on papyrus with ink by a professional scribe (amanuensis) Though most letters that have survived from the ancient world were short and to the point, Paul's Epistles are extremely long. Because there was no postal system, someone had to carry the letter to its destination. Upon arrival, most people couldn't read, so a professional would need to read it aloud. This was difficult because there were no chapters, verses, paragraphs, punctuation, or spaces between words (scriptio continua). Name Greek Words English Words Verses Chapters Romans 7113 9506 432 16 1 Corinthians 6832 9532 437 16 2 Corinthians 4480 6160 257 13 Galatians 2232 3227 149 6 Ephesians 2424 3047 155 6 Philippians 1631 2261 104 4 Colossians 1583 1993 95 4 1 Thessalonians 1484 1908 89 5 2 Thessalonians 826 1065 47 3 Church Epistles in Chronological Order Galatians 48 1 Thessalonians 49-51 2 Thessalonians 49-51 1 Corinthians 53-55 2 Corinthians 53-55 Romans 57 Philippians 62 Colossians 62 Ephesians 62 Developing Your Knowledge of the Greco-Roman World Get background books like The World of the New Testament by Green and McDonald and Zondervan's Illustrated Bible Background Commentary by Clinton Arnold. Read the literature that has survived. Hundreds of volumes are available in the Loeb Classical Library. Learn about archeology in the Mediterranean world around the time of Christ (Biblical Archeological Review). Take a tour to visit the sites in Greece and Turkey (Spirit and Truth International). Study the geography of the region on maps that show the correct place names for the first century. Deciphering the Occasion Each letter arose out of a specific circumstance. What was going on among the Christians in that city that caused Paul to write? Galatians: Judaizers had visited churches Paul founded, telling people they needed to follow the law of Moses. 1 Corinthians: Chloe sent word of divisions in Corinth; Paul also received a letter asking specific questions. 2 Corinthians: false teachers had ensconced themselves in Corinth who criticized and undermined Paul. Philippians: Epaphroditus brought Paul financial assistance from Philippi. Reading the Church Epistles The first time through, just get your bearings. Read for scope. What's going on in that church? What's going on in that city? What are their concerns? What are the doctrinal errors that Paul is correcting? The second time through, read more slowly, paying attention to major units of thought (usually paragraphs). Ask yourself how each section contributes to the whole. Sometimes it is difficult to understand a particular sentence or phrase. 1 Cor 15:29  “baptism on behalf of the dead” 1 Cor 11:10 “because of the angels” No one understands everything. It's more important to get the main point than understand every little nuance. Form of ancient letters[1] Author(s) Recipient(s) Greeting Prayer/thanksgiving Content Final greeting(s) and farewell Content Section These Epistles are loaded with theology and practical application. Not systematic theologies, neatly organized Rather, they move from topic to topic based on the need of the congregation, oftentimes based on a previous (now lost) letter or communication they made to Paul. Romans and Ephesians come closest to laying out a theological system. Application What is Paul asking them to do? Are my particulars similar enough to say this instruction applies to me as well? How much of what he said is culturally conditioned? Can I derive a principle that applies in general today? Review Sending long letters in the Roman world was expensive and difficult due to the cost of materials, the skill required to write, and the need to have someone carry and read your letter aloud to the recipients. Paul sent the Church Epistles to Christian churches living in major Greco-Roman cities. We know much about the culture, politics, and geography of these cities due to surviving literature, archeological discoveries, and the ability to travel to them. Deciphering the occasion for which Paul wrote is the single most beneficial piece of information to help you understand an Epistle's overarching purpose. As you read through an Epistle for the first time, try to get the big picture. Then as you read through it again, try to figure out how each section relates to the whole. It's ok not to understand a particular verse. It's more important to understand the point Paul is making rather than the particulars. When applying the Epistles to your life, look for comparable circumstances and general principles. [1] See Fee & Stuart, p. 59

Letters in the First Century Letters written on papyrus with ink by a professional scribe (amanuensis) Though most letters that have survived from the ancient world were short and to the point, Paul's Epistles are extremely long. Because there was no postal system, someone had to carry the letter to its destination. Upon arrival, most people couldn't read, so a professional would need to read it aloud. This was difficult because there were no chapters, verses, paragraphs, punctuation, or spaces between words (scriptio continua). Name Greek Words English Words Verses Chapters Romans 7113 9506 432 16 1 Corinthians 6832 9532 437 16 2 Corinthians 4480 6160 257 13 Galatians 2232 3227 149 6 Ephesians 2424 3047 155 6 Philippians 1631 2261 104 4 Colossians 1583 1993 95 4 1 Thessalonians 1484 1908 89 5 2 Thessalonians 826 1065 47 3 Church Epistles in Chronological Order Galatians 48 1 Thessalonians 49-51 2 Thessalonians 49-51 1 Corinthians 53-55 2 Corinthians 53-55 Romans 57 Philippians 62 Colossians 62 Ephesians 62 Developing Your Knowledge of the Greco-Roman World Get background books like The World of the New Testament by Green and McDonald and Zondervan's Illustrated Bible Background Commentary by Clinton Arnold. Read the literature that has survived. Hundreds of volumes are available in the Loeb Classical Library. Learn about archeology in the Mediterranean world around the time of Christ (Biblical Archeological Review). Take a tour to visit the sites in Greece and Turkey (Spirit and Truth International). Study the geography of the region on maps that show the correct place names for the first century. Deciphering the Occasion Each letter arose out of a specific circumstance. What was going on among the Christians in that city that caused Paul to write? Galatians: Judaizers had visited churches Paul founded, telling people they needed to follow the law of Moses. 1 Corinthians: Chloe sent word of divisions in Corinth; Paul also received a letter asking specific questions. 2 Corinthians: false teachers had ensconced themselves in Corinth who criticized and undermined Paul. Philippians: Epaphroditus brought Paul financial assistance from Philippi. Reading the Church Epistles The first time through, just get your bearings. Read for scope. What's going on in that church? What's going on in that city? What are their concerns? What are the doctrinal errors that Paul is correcting? The second time through, read more slowly, paying attention to major units of thought (usually paragraphs). Ask yourself how each section contributes to the whole. Sometimes it is difficult to understand a particular sentence or phrase. 1 Cor 15:29  “baptism on behalf of the dead” 1 Cor 11:10 “because of the angels” No one understands everything. It's more important to get the main point than understand every little nuance. Form of ancient letters[[See Fee & Stuart, p. 59]] Author(s) Recipient(s) Greeting Prayer/thanksgiving Content Final greeting(s) and farewell Content Section These Epistles are loaded with theology and practical application. Not systematic theologies, neatly organized Rather, they move from topic to topic based on the need of the congregation, oftentimes based on a previous (now lost) letter or communication they made to Paul. Romans and Ephesians come closest to laying out a theological system. Application What is Paul asking them to do? Are my particulars similar enough to say this instruction applies to me as well? How much of what he said is culturally conditioned? Can I derive a principle that applies in general today? Review Sending long letters in the Roman world was expensive and difficult due to the cost of materials, the skill required to write, and the need to have someone carry and read your letter aloud to the recipients. Paul sent the Church Epistles to Christian churches living in major Greco-Roman cities. We know much about the culture, politics, and geography of these cities due to surviving literature, archeological discoveries, and the ability to travel to them. Deciphering the occasion for which Paul wrote is the single most beneficial piece of information to help you understand an Epistle's overarching purpose. As you read through an Epistle for the first time, try to get the big picture. Then as you read through it again, try to figure out how each section relates to the whole. It’s ok not to understand a particular verse. It’s more important to understand the point Paul is making rather than the particulars. When applying the Epistles to your life, look for comparable circumstances and general principles. The post 13: How to Read the Church Epistles first appeared on Living Hope.

Letters in the First Century Letters written on papyrus with ink by a professional scribe (amanuensis) Though most letters that have survived from the ancient world were short and to the point, Paul's Epistles are extremely long. Because there was no postal system, someone had to carry the letter to its destination. Upon arrival, most people couldn't read, so a professional would need to read it aloud. This was difficult because there were no chapters, verses, paragraphs, punctuation, or spaces between words (scriptio continua). Name Greek Words English Words Verses Chapters Romans 7113 9506 432 16 1 Corinthians 6832 9532 437 16 2 Corinthians 4480 6160 257 13 Galatians 2232 3227 149 6 Ephesians 2424 3047 155 6 Philippians 1631 2261 104 4 Colossians 1583 1993 95 4 1 Thessalonians 1484 1908 89 5 2 Thessalonians 826 1065 47 3 Church Epistles in Chronological Order Galatians 48 1 Thessalonians 49-51 2 Thessalonians 49-51 1 Corinthians 53-55 2 Corinthians 53-55 Romans 57 Philippians 62 Colossians 62 Ephesians 62 Developing Your Knowledge of the Greco-Roman World Get background books like The World of the New Testament by Green and McDonald and Zondervan's Illustrated Bible Background Commentary by Clinton Arnold. Read the literature that has survived. Hundreds of volumes are available in the Loeb Classical Library. Learn about archeology in the Mediterranean world around the time of Christ (Biblical Archeological Review). Take a tour to visit the sites in Greece and Turkey (Spirit and Truth International). Study the geography of the region on maps that show the correct place names for the first century. Deciphering the Occasion Each letter arose out of a specific circumstance. What was going on among the Christians in that city that caused Paul to write? Galatians: Judaizers had visited churches Paul founded, telling people they needed to follow the law of Moses. 1 Corinthians: Chloe sent word of divisions in Corinth; Paul also received a letter asking specific questions. 2 Corinthians: false teachers had ensconced themselves in Corinth who criticized and undermined Paul. Philippians: Epaphroditus brought Paul financial assistance from Philippi. Reading the Church Epistles The first time through, just get your bearings. Read for scope. What's going on in that church? What's going on in that city? What are their concerns? What are the doctrinal errors that Paul is correcting? The second time through, read more slowly, paying attention to major units of thought (usually paragraphs). Ask yourself how each section contributes to the whole. Sometimes it is difficult to understand a particular sentence or phrase. 1 Cor 15:29  “baptism on behalf of the dead” 1 Cor 11:10 “because of the angels” No one understands everything. It's more important to get the main point than understand every little nuance. Form of ancient letters1 Author(s) Recipient(s) Greeting Prayer/thanksgiving Content Final greeting(s) and farewell Content Section These Epistles are loaded with theology and practical application. Not systematic theologies, neatly organized Rather, they move from topic to topic based on the need of the congregation, oftentimes based on a previous (now lost) letter or communication they made to Paul. Romans and Ephesians come closest to laying out a theological system. Application What is Paul asking them to do? Are my particulars similar enough to say this instruction applies to me as well? How much of what he said is culturally conditioned? Can I derive a principle that applies in general today? Review Sending long letters in the Roman world was expensive and difficult due to the cost of materials, the skill required to write, and the need to have someone carry and read your letter aloud to the recipients. Paul sent the Church Epistles to Christian churches living in major Greco-Roman cities. We know much about the culture, politics, and geography of these cities due to surviving literature, archeological discoveries, and the ability to travel to them. Deciphering the occasion for which Paul wrote is the single most beneficial piece of information to help you understand an Epistle's overarching purpose. As you read through an Epistle for the first time, try to get the big picture. Then as you read through it again, try to figure out how each section relates to the whole. It’s ok not to understand a particular verse. It’s more important to understand the point Paul is making rather than the particulars. When applying the Epistles to your life, look for comparable circumstances and general principles. See Fee & Stuart, p. 59The post 13: How to Read the Church Epistles first appeared on Living Hope.

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts Let's face it the New Testament probably calls Jesus God (or god) a couple of times and so do early Christian authors in the second century. However, no one offers much of an explanation for what they mean by the title. Did early Christians think Jesus was God because he represented Yahweh? Did they think he was God because he shared the same eternal being as the Father? Did they think he was a god because that's just what they would call any immortalized human who lived in heaven? In this presentation I focus on the question from the perspective of Greco-Roman theology. Drawing on the work of David Litwa, Andrew Perriman, Barry Blackburn, and tons of ancient sources I seek to show how Mediterranean converts to Christianity would have perceived Jesus based on their cultural and religious assumptions. This presentation is from the 3rd Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference on October 20, 2023 in Springfield, OH. Here is the original pdf of this paper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Z3QbQ7dHc —— Links —— See more scholarly articles by Sean Finnegan Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here Introduction When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” (or “God”) what did they mean?[1] Modern apologists routinely point to pre-Nicene quotations in order to prove that early Christians always believed in the deity of Christ, by which they mean that he is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. However, most historians agree that Christians before the fourth century simply didn't have the cognitive categories available yet to think of Christ in Nicene or Chalcedonian ways. If this consensus is correct, it behooves us to consider other options for defining what early Christian authors meant. The obvious place to go to get an answer to our initial question is the New Testament. However, as is well known, the handful of instances in which authors unambiguously applied god (θεός) to Christ are fraught with textual uncertainty, grammatical ambiguity, and hermeneutical elasticity.[2]  What's more, granting that these contested texts[3] all call Jesus “god” provides little insight into what they might mean by that phrase. Turning to the second century, the earliest handful of texts that say Jesus is god are likewise textually uncertain or terse.[4] We must wait until the second half of the second century and beyond to have more helpful material to examine. We know that in the meanwhile some Christians were saying Jesus was god. What did they mean? One promising approach is to analyze biblical texts that call others gods. We find helpful parallels with the word god (אֱלֹהִים) applied to Moses (Exod 7.1; 4.16), judges (Exod 21.6; 22.8-9), kings (Is 9.6; Ps 45.6), the divine council (Ps 82.1, 6), and angels (Ps 8.6). These are texts in which God imbues his agents with his authority to represent him in some way. This rare though significant way of calling a representative “god,” continues in the NT with Jesus' clever defense to his accusers in John 10.34-36. Lexicons[5] have long recognized this “Hebraistic” usage and recent study tools such as the New English Translation (NET)[6] and the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary[7] also note this phenomenon. But, even if this agency perspective is the most natural reading of texts like Heb 1.8, later Christians, apart from one or two exceptions appear to be ignorant of this usage.[8] This interpretation was likely a casualty of the so-called parting of the ways whereby Christianity transitioned from a second-temple-Jewish movement to a Gentile-majority religion. As such, to grasp what early postapostolic Christians believed, we must turn our attention elsewhere. Michael Bird is right when he says, “Christian discourses about deity belong incontrovertibly in the Greco-Roman context because it provided the cultural encyclopedia that, in diverse ways, shaped the early church's Christological conceptuality and vocabulary.”[9] Learning Greco-Roman theology is not only important because that was the context in which early Christians wrote, but also because from the late first century onward, most of our Christian authors converted from that worldview. Rather than talking about the Hellenization of Christianity, we should begin by asking how Hellenists experienced Christianization. In other words, Greco-Roman beliefs about the gods were the default lens through which converts first saw Christ. In order to explore how Greco-Roman theology shaped what people believed about Jesus as god, we do well to begin by asking how they defined a god. Andrew Perriman offers a helpful starting point. “The gods,” he writes, “are mostly understood as corporeal beings, blessed with immortality, larger, more beautiful, and more powerful than their mortal analogues.”[10] Furthermore, there were lots of them! The sublunar realm was, in the words of Paula Fredriksen, “a god-congested place.”[11] What's more, “[S]harp lines and clearly demarcated boundaries between divinity and humanity were lacking."[12] Gods could appear as people and people could ascend to become gods. Comprehending what Greco-Roman people believed about gods coming down and humans going up will occupy the first part of this paper. Only once we've adjusted our thinking to their culture, will we walk through key moments in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to hear the story with ancient Mediterranean ears. Lastly, we'll consider the evidence from sources that think of Jesus in Greco-Roman categories. Bringing this all together we'll enumerate the primary ways to interpret the phrase “Jesus is god” available to Christians in the pre-Nicene period. Gods Coming Down and Humans Going Up The idea that a god would visit someone is not as unusual as it first sounds. We find plenty of examples of Yahweh himself or non-human representatives visiting people in the Hebrew Bible.[13] One psalmist even referred to angels or “heavenly beings” (ESV) as אֱלֹהִים (gods).[14] The Greco-Roman world too told stories about divine entities coming down to interact with people. Euripides tells about the time Zeus forced the god Apollo to become a human servant in the house of Admetus, performing menial labor as punishment for killing the Cyclopes (Alcestis 1). Baucis and Philemon offered hospitality to Jupiter and Mercury when they appeared in human form (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.26-34). In Homer's Odyssey onlookers warn Antinous for flinging a stool against a stranger since “the gods do take on the look of strangers dropping in from abroad”[15] (17.534-9). Because they believed the boundary between the divine realm and the Earth was so permeable, Mediterranean people were always on guard for an encounter with a god in disguise. In addition to gods coming down, in special circumstances, humans could ascend and become gods too. Diodorus of Sicily demarcated two types of gods: those who are “eternal and imperishable, such as the sun and the moon” and “the other gods…terrestrial beings who attained to immortal honour”[16] (The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian 6.1). By some accounts, even the Olympian gods, including Kronos and Uranus were once mortal men.[17] Among humans who could become divine, we find several distinguishable categories, including heroes, miracle workers, and rulers. We'll look at each briefly before considering how the story of Jesus would resonate with those holding a Greco-Roman worldview. Deified Heroes Cornutus the Stoic said, “[T]he ancients called heroes those who were so strong in body and soul that they seemed to be part of a divine race.” (Greek Theology 31)[18] At first this statement appears to be a mere simile, but he goes on to say of Heracles (Hercules), the Greek hero par excellence, “his services had earned him apotheosis” (ibid.). Apotheosis (or deification) is the process by which a human ascends into the divine realm. Beyond Heracles and his feats of strength, other exceptional individuals became deified for various reasons. Amphiarus was a seer who died in the battle at Thebes. After opening a chasm in the earth to swallow him in battle, “Zeus made him immortal”[19] (Apollodorus, Library of Greek Mythology 3.6). Pausanias says the custom of the inhabitants of Oropos was to drop coins into Amphiarus' spring “because this is where they say Amphiarus rose up as a god”[20] (Guide to Greece 1.34). Likewise, Strabo speaks about a shrine for Calchas, a deceased diviner from the Trojan war (Homer, Illiad 1.79-84), “where those consulting the oracle sacrifice a black ram to the dead and sleep in its hide”[21] (Strabo, Geography 6.3.9). Though the great majority of the dead were locked away in the lower world of Hades, leading a shadowy pitiful existence, the exceptional few could visit or speak from beyond the grave. Lastly, there was Zoroaster the Persian prophet who, according to Dio Chrysostom, was enveloped by fire while he meditated upon a mountain. He was unharmed and gave advice on how to properly make offerings to the gods (Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 36.40). The Psuedo-Clementine Homilies include a story about a lightning bolt striking and killing Zoroaster. After his devotees buried his body, they built a temple on the site, thinking that “his soul had been sent for by lightning” and they “worshipped him as a god”[22] (Homily 9.5.2). Thus, a hero could have extraordinary strength, foresight, or closeness to the gods resulting in apotheosis and ongoing worship and communication. Deified Miracle Workers Beyond heroes, Greco-Roman people loved to tell stories about deified miracle workers. Twice Orpheus rescued a ship from a storm by praying to the gods (Diodorus of Sicily 4.43.1f; 48.5f). After his death, surviving inscriptions indicate that he both received worship and was regarded as a god in several cities.[23] Epimenides “fell asleep in a cave for fifty-seven years”[24] (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.109). He also predicted a ten-year period of reprieve from Persian attack in Athens (Plato Laws 1.642D-E). Plato called him a divine man (θεῖος ἀνήρ) (ibid.) and Diogenes talked of Cretans sacrificing to him as a god (Diogenes, Lives 1.114). Iamblichus said Pythagoras was the son of Apollo and a mortal woman (Life of Pythagoras 2). Nonetheless, the soul of Pythagoras enjoyed multiple lives, having originally been “sent to mankind from the empire of Apollo”[25] (Life 2). Diogenes and Lucian enumerate the lives the pre-existent Pythagoras led, including Aethalides, Euphorbus, Hermotimus, and Pyrrhus (Diogenes, Life of Pythagoras 4; Lucian, The Cock 16-20). Hermes had granted Pythagoras the gift of “perpetual transmigration of his soul”[26] so he could remember his lives while living or dead (Diogenes, Life 4). Ancient sources are replete with Pythagorean miracle stories.[27] Porphyry mentions several, including taming a bear, persuading an ox to stop eating beans, and accurately predicting a catch of fish (Life of Pythagoras 23-25). Porphyry said Pythagoras accurately predicted earthquakes and “chased away a pestilence, suppressed violent winds and hail, [and] calmed storms on rivers and on seas” (Life 29).[28] Such miracles, argued the Pythagoreans made Pythagoras “a being superior to man, and not to a mere man” (Iamblichus, Life 28).[29] Iamblichus lays out the views of Pythagoras' followers, including that he was a god, a philanthropic daemon, the Pythian, the Hyperborean Apollo, a Paeon, a daemon inhabiting the moon, or an Olympian god (Life 6). Another pre-Socratic philosopher was Empedocles who studied under Pythagoras. To him sources attribute several miracles, including stopping a damaging wind, restoring the wind, bringing dry weather, causing it to rain, and even bringing someone back from Hades (Diogenes, Lives 8.59).[30] Diogenes records an incident in which Empedocles put a woman into a trance for thirty days before sending her away alive (8.61). He also includes a poem in which Empedocles says, “I am a deathless god, no longer mortal, I go among you honored by all, as is right”[31] (8.62). Asclepius was a son of the god Apollo and a human woman (Cornutus, Greek Theology 33). He was known for healing people from diseases and injuries (Pindar, Pythian 3.47-50). “[H]e invented any medicine he wished for the sick, and raised up the dead”[32] (Pausanias, Guide to Greece 2.26.4). However, as Diodorus relates, Hades complained to Zeus on account of Asclepius' diminishing his realm, which resulted in Zeus zapping Asclepius with a thunderbolt, killing him (4.71.2-3). Nevertheless, Asclepius later ascended into heaven to become a god (Hyginus, Fables 224; Cicero, Nature of the Gods 2.62).[33] Apollonius of Tyana was a famous first century miracle worker. According to Philostratus' account, the locals of Tyana regard Apollonius to be the son of Zeus (Life 1.6). Apollonius predicted many events, interpreted dreams, and knew private facts about people. He rebuked and ridiculed a demon, causing it to flee, shrieking as it went (Life 2.4).[34] He even once stopped a funeral procession and raised the deceased to life (Life 4.45). What's more he knew every human language (Life 1.19) and could understand what sparrows chirped to each other (Life 4.3). Once he instantaneously transported himself from Smyrna to Ephesus (Life 4.10). He claimed knowledge of his previous incarnation as the captain of an Egyptian ship (Life 3.23) and, in the end, Apollonius entered the temple of Athena and vanished, ascending from earth into heaven to the sound of a choir singing (Life 8.30). We have plenty of literary evidence that contemporaries and those who lived later regarded him as a divine man (Letters 48.3)[35] or godlike (ἰσόθεος) (Letters 44.1) or even just a god (θεός) (Life 5.24). Deified Rulers Our last category of deified humans to consider before seeing how this all relates to Jesus is rulers. Egyptians, as indicated from the hieroglyphs left in the pyramids, believed their deceased kings to enjoy afterlives as gods. They could become star gods or even hunt and consume other gods to absorb their powers.[36] The famous Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great, carried himself as a god towards the Persians though Plutarch opines, “[he] was not at all vain or deluded but rather used belief in his divinity to enslave others”[37] (Life of Alexander 28). This worship continued after his death, especially in Alexandria where Ptolemy built a tomb and established a priesthood to conduct religious honors to the deified ruler. Even the emperor Trajan offered a sacrifice to the spirit of Alexander (Cassius Dio, Roman History 68.30). Another interesting example is Antiochus I of Comagene who called himself “Antiochus the just [and] manifest god, friend of the Romans [and] friend of the Greeks.”[38] His tomb boasted four colossal figures seated on thrones: Zeus, Heracles, Apollo, and himself. The message was clear: Antiochus I wanted his subjects to recognize his place among the gods after death. Of course, the most relevant rulers for the Christian era were the Roman emperors. The first official Roman emperor Augustus deified his predecessor, Julius Caesar, celebrating his apotheosis with games (Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar 88). Only five years after Augustus died, eastern inhabitants of the Roman Empire at Priene happily declared “the birthday of the god Augustus” (ἡ γενέθλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ)[39] to be the start of their provincial year. By the time of Tacitus, a century after Augustus died, the wealthy in Rome had statues of the first emperor in their gardens for worship (Annals 1.73). The Roman historian Appian explained that the Romans regularly deify emperors at death “provided he has not been a despot or a disgrace”[40] (The Civil Wars 2.148).  In other words, deification was the default setting for deceased emperors. Pliny the Younger lays it on pretty thick when he describes the process. He says Nero deified Claudius to expose him; Titus deified Vespasian and Domitian so he could be the son and brother of gods. However, Trajan deified Nerva because he genuinely believed him to be more than a human (Panegyric 11). In our little survey, we've seen three main categories of deified humans: heroes, miracle workers, and good rulers. These “conceptions of deity,” writes David Litwa, “were part of the “preunderstanding” of Hellenistic culture.”[41] He continues: If actual cases of deification were rare, traditions of deification were not. They were the stuff of heroic epic, lyric song, ancient mythology, cultic hymns, Hellenistic novels, and popular plays all over the first-century Mediterranean world. Such discourses were part of mainstream, urban culture to which most early Christians belonged. If Christians were socialized in predominantly Greco-Roman environments, it is no surprise that they employed and adapted common traits of deities and deified men to exalt their lord to divine status.[42] Now that we've attuned our thinking to Mediterranean sensibilities about gods coming down in the shape of humans and humans experiencing apotheosis to permanently dwell as gods in the divine realm, our ears are attuned to hear the story of Jesus with Greco-Roman ears. Hearing the Story of Jesus with Greco-Roman Ears How would second or third century inhabitants of the Roman empire have categorized Jesus? Taking my cue from Litwa's treatment in Iesus Deus, I'll briefly work through Jesus' conception, transfiguration, miracles, resurrection, and ascension. Miraculous Conception Although set within the context of Jewish messianism, Christ's miraculous birth would have resonated differently with Greco-Roman people. Stories of gods coming down and having intercourse with women are common in classical literature. That these stories made sense of why certain individuals were so exceptional is obvious. For example, Origen related a story about Apollo impregnating Amphictione who then gave birth to Plato (Against Celsus 1.37). Though Mary's conception did not come about through intercourse with a divine visitor, the fact that Jesus had no human father would call to mind divine sonship like Pythagoras or Asclepius. Celsus pointed out that the ancients “attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos” (Origen, Against Celsus 1.67). Philostratus records a story of the Egyptian god Proteus saying to Apollonius' mother that she would give birth to himself (Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.4). Since people were primed to connect miraculous origins with divinity, typical hearers of the birth narratives of Matthew or Luke would likely think that this baby might be either be a descended god or a man destined to ascend to become a god. Miracles and Healing As we've seen, Jesus' miracles would not have sounded unbelievable or even unprecedent to Mediterranean people. Like Jesus, Orpheus and Empedocles calmed storms, rescuing ships. Though Jesus provided miraculous guidance on how to catch fish, Pythagoras foretold the number of fish in a great catch. After the fishermen painstakingly counted them all, they were astounded that when they threw them back in, they were still alive (Porphyry, Life 23-25). Jesus' ability to foretell the future, know people's thoughts, and cast out demons all find parallels in Apollonius of Tyana. As for resurrecting the dead, we have the stories of Empedocles, Asclepius, and Apollonius. The last of which even stopped a funeral procession to raise the dead, calling to mind Jesus' deeds in Luke 7.11-17. When Lycaonians witnessed Paul's healing of a man crippled from birth, they cried out, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men” (Acts 14.11). Another time when no harm befell Paul after a poisonous snake bit him on Malta, Gentile onlookers concluded “he was a god” (Acts 28.6). Barry Blackburn makes the following observation: [I]n view of the tendency, most clearly seen in the Epimenidean, Pythagorean, and Apollonian traditions, to correlate impressive miracle-working with divine status, one may justifiably conclude that the evangelical miracle traditions would have helped numerous gentile Christians to arrive at and maintain belief in Jesus' divine status.[43] Transfiguration Ancient Mediterranean inhabitants believed that the gods occasionally came down disguised as people. Only when gods revealed their inner brilliant natures could people know that they weren't mere humans. After his ship grounded on the sands of Krisa, Apollo leaped from the ship emitting flashes of fire “like a star in the middle of day…his radiance shot to heaven”[44] (Homeric Hymns, Hymn to Apollo 440). Likewise, Aphrodite appeared in shining garments, brighter than a fire and shimmering like the moon (Hymn to Aphrodite 85-89). When Demeter appeared to Metaneira, she initially looked like an old woman, but she transformed herself before her. “Casting old age away…a delightful perfume spread…a radiance shone out far from the goddess' immortal flesh…and the solid-made house was filled with a light like the lightning-flash”[45] (Hymn to Demeter 275-280). Homer wrote about Odysseus' transformation at the golden wand of Athena in which his clothes became clean, he became taller, and his skin looked younger. His son, Telemachus cried out, “Surely you are some god who rules the vaulting skies”[46] (Odyssey 16.206). Each time the observers conclude the transfigured person is a god. Resurrection & Ascension In defending the resurrection of Jesus, Theophilus of Antioch said, “[Y]ou believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that Aesculapius [Asclepius], who was struck with lightning, was raised”[47] (Autolycus 1.13). Although Hercules' physical body burnt, his transformed pneumatic body continued on as the poet Callimachus said, “under a Phrygian oak his limbs had been deified”[48] (Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis 159). Others thought Hercules ascended to heaven in his burnt body, which Asclepius subsequently healed (Lucian, Dialogue of the Gods 13). After his ascent, Diodorus relates how the people first sacrificed to him “as to a hero” then in Athens they began to honor him “with sacrifices like as to a god”[49] (The Historical Library 4.39). As for Asclepius, his ascension resulted in his deification as Cyprian said, “Aesculapius is struck by lightning, that he may rise into a god”[50] (On the Vanity of Idols 2). Romulus too “was torn to pieces by the hands of a hundred senators”[51] and after death ascended into heaven and received worship (Arnobius, Against the Heathen 1.41). Livy tells of how Romulus was “carried up on high by a whirlwind” and that immediately afterward “every man present hailed him as a god and son of a god”[52] (The Early History of Rome 1.16). As we can see from these three cases—Hercules, Asclepius, and Romulus—ascent into heaven was a common way of talking about deification. For Cicero, this was an obvious fact. People “who conferred outstanding benefits were translated to heaven through their fame and our gratitude”[53] (Nature 2.62). Consequently, Jesus' own resurrection and ascension would have triggered Gentiles to intuit his divinity. Commenting on the appearance of the immortalized Christ to the eleven in Galilee, Wendy Cotter said, “It is fair to say that the scene found in [Mat] 28:16-20 would be understood by a Greco-Roman audience, Jew or Gentile, as an apotheosis of Jesus.”[54] Although I beg to differ with Cotter's whole cloth inclusion of Jews here, it's hard to see how else non-Jews would have regarded the risen Christ. Litwa adds Rev 1.13-16 “[W]here he [Jesus] appears with all the accoutrements of the divine: a shining face, an overwhelming voice, luminescent clothing, and so on.”[55] In this brief survey we've seen that several key events in the story of Jesus told in the Gospels would have caused Greco-Roman hearers to intuit deity, including his divine conception, miracles, healing ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension. In their original context of second temple Judaism, these very same incidents would have resonated quite differently. His divine conception authenticated Jesus as the second Adam (Luke 3.38; Rom 5.14; 1 Cor 15.45) and God's Davidic son (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 2.7; Lk 1.32, 35). If Matthew or Luke wanted readers to understand that Jesus was divine based on his conception and birth, they failed to make such intentions explicit in the text. Rather, the birth narratives appear to have a much more modest aim—to persuade readers that Jesus had a credible claim to be Israel's messiah. His miracles show that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power…for God was with him” (Acts 10.38; cf. Jn 3.2; 10.32, 38). Rather than concluding Jesus to be a god, Jewish witnesses to his healing of a paralyzed man “glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Mat 9.8). Over and over, especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus directs people's attention to his Father who was doing the works in and through him (Jn 5.19, 30; 8.28; 12.49; 14.10). Seeing Jesus raise someone from the dead suggested to his original Jewish audience that “a great prophet has arisen among us” (Lk 7.16). The transfiguration, in its original setting, is an eschatological vision not a divine epiphany. Placement in the synoptic Gospels just after Jesus' promise that some there would not die before seeing the kingdom come sets the hermeneutical frame. “The transfiguration,” says William Lane, “was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifestation of Jesus' sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the Parousia, when he will come ‘with power and glory.'”[56] If eschatology is the foreground, the background for the transfiguration was Moses' ascent of Sinai when he also encountered God and became radiant.[57] Viewed from the lenses of Moses' ascent and the eschaton, the transfiguration of Jesus is about his identity as God's definitive chosen ruler, not about any kind of innate divinity. Lastly, the resurrection and ascension validated Jesus' messianic claims to be the ruler of the age to come (Acts 17.31; Rom 1.4). Rather than concluding Jesus was deity, early Jewish Christians concluded these events showed that “God has made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). The interpretative backgrounds for Jesus' ascension were not stories about Heracles, Asclepius, or Romulus. No, the key oracle that framed the Israelite understanding was the messianic psalm in which Yahweh told David's Lord to “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 110.1). The idea is of a temporary sojourn in heaven until exercising the authority of his scepter to rule over earth from Zion. Once again, the biblical texts remain completely silent about deification. But even if the original meanings of Jesus' birth, ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension have messianic overtones when interpreted within the Jewish milieu, these same stories began to communicate various ideas of deity to Gentile converts in the generations that followed. We find little snippets from historical sources beginning in the second century and growing with time. Evidence of Belief in Jesus' as a Greco-Roman Deity To begin with, we have two non-Christian instances where Romans regarded Jesus as a deity within typical Greco-Roman categories. The first comes to us from Tertullian and Eusebius who mention an intriguing story about Tiberius' request to the Roman senate to deify Christ. Convinced by “intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity”[58] Tiberius proposed the matter to the senate (Apology 5). Eusebius adds that Tiberius learned that “many believed him to be a god in rising from the dead”[59] (Church History 2.2). As expected, the senate rejected the proposal. I mention this story, not because I can establish its historicity, but because it portrays how Tiberius would have thought about Jesus if he had heard about his miracles and resurrection. Another important incident is from one of the governor Pliny the Younger's letters to the emperor Trajan. Having investigated some people accused of Christianity, he found “they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god”[60] (Letter 96). To an outside imperial observer like Pliny, the Christians believed in a man who had performed miracles, defeated death, and now lived in heaven. Calling him a god was just the natural way of talking about such a person. Pliny would not have thought Jesus was superior to the deified Roman emperors much less Zeus or the Olympic gods. If he believed in Jesus at all, he would have regarded him as another Mediterranean prophet who escaped Hades to enjoy apotheosis. Another interesting text to consider is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This apocryphal text tells the story of Jesus' childhood between the ages of five and twelve. Jesus is impetuous, powerful, and brilliant. Unsure to conclude that Jesus was “either god or angel,”[61] his teacher remands him to Joseph's custody (7). Later, a crowd of onlookers ponders whether the child is a god or a heavenly messenger after he raises an infant from the dead (17). A year later Jesus raised a construction man who had fallen to his death back to life (18). Once again, the crowd asked if the child was from heaven. Although some historians are quick to assume the lofty conceptions of Justin and his successors about the logos were commonplace in the early Christianity, Litwa points out, “The spell of the Logos could only bewitch a very small circle of Christian elites… In IGT, we find a Jesus who is divine according to different canons, the canons of popular Mediterranean theology.”[62] Another important though often overlooked scholarly group of Christians in the second century was led by a certain Theodotus of Byzantium.[63] Typically referred to by their heresiological label “Theodotians,” these dynamic monarchians lived in Rome and claimed that they held to the original Christology before it had been corrupted under Bishop Zephyrinus (Eusebius, Church History 5.28). Theodotus believed in the virgin birth, but not in his pre-existence or that he was god/God (Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2). He thought that Jesus was not able to perform any miracles until his baptism when he received the Christ/Spirit. Pseudo-Hippolytus goes on to say, “But they do not want him to have become a god when the Spirit descended. Others say that he became a god after he rose from the dead.”[64] This last tantalizing remark implies that the Theodotians could affirm Jesus as a god after his resurrection though they denied his pre-existence. Although strict unitarians, they could regard Jesus as a god in that he was an ascended immortalized being who lived in heaven—not equal to the Father, but far superior to all humans on earth. Justin Martyr presents another interesting case to consider. Thoroughly acquainted with Greco-Roman literature and especially the philosophy of Plato, Justin sees Christ as a god whom the Father begot before all other creatures. He calls him “son, or wisdom, or angel, or god, or lord, or word”[65] (Dialogue with Trypho 61).  For Justin Christ is “at the same time angel and god and lord and man”[66] (59). Jesus was “of old the Word, appearing at one time in the form of fire, at another under the guise of incorporeal beings, but now, at the will of God, after becoming man for mankind”[67] (First Apology 63). In fact, Justin is quite comfortable to compare Christ to deified heroes and emperors. He says, “[W]e propose nothing new or different from that which you say about the so-called sons of Jupiter [Zeus] by your respected writers… And what about the emperors who die among you, whom you think worthy to be deified?”[68] (21). He readily accepts the parallels with Mercury, Perseus, Asclepius, Bacchus, and Hercules, but argues that Jesus is superior to them (22).[69] Nevertheless, he considered Jesus to be in “a place second to the unchanging and eternal God”[70] (13). The Father is “the Most True God” whereas the Son is he “who came forth from Him”[71] (6). Even as lates as Origen, Greco-Roman concepts of deity persist. In responding to Celsus' claim that no god or son of God has ever come down, Origen responds by stating such a statement would overthrow the stories of Pythian Apollo, Asclepius, and the other gods who descended (Against Celsus 5.2). My point here is not to say Origen believed in all the old myths, but to show how Origen reached for these stories as analogies to explain the incarnation of the logos. When Celsus argued that he would rather believe in the deity of Asclepius, Dionysus, and Hercules than Christ, Origen responded with a moral rather than ontological argument (3.42). He asks how these gods have improved the characters of anyone. Origen admits Celsus' argument “which places the forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus” might have force, however in light of the disreputable behavior of these gods, “how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?”[72] (3.42). Origen's Christology is far too broad and complicated to cover here. Undoubtedly, his work on eternal generation laid the foundation on which fourth century Christians could build homoousion Christology. Nevertheless, he retained some of the earlier subordinationist impulses of his forebearers. In his book On Prayer, he rebukes praying to Jesus as a crude error, instead advocating prayer to God alone (10). In his Commentary on John he repeatedly asserts that the Father is greater than his logos (1.40; 2.6; 6.23). Thus, Origen is a theologian on the seam of the times. He's both a subordinationist and a believer in the Son's eternal and divine ontology. Now, I want to be careful here. I'm not saying that all early Christians believed Jesus was a deified man like Asclepius or a descended god like Apollo or a reincarnated soul like Pythagoras. More often than not, thinking Christians whose works survive until today tended to eschew the parallels, simultaneously elevating Christ as high as possible while demoting the gods to mere demons. Still, Litwa is inciteful when he writes: It seems likely that early Christians shared the widespread cultural assumption that a resurrected, immortalized being was worthy of worship and thus divine. …Nonetheless there is a difference…Jesus, it appears, was never honored as an independent deity. Rather, he was always worshiped as Yahweh's subordinate. Naturally Heracles and Asclepius were Zeus' subordinates, but they were also members of a larger divine family. Jesus does not enter a pantheon but assumes a distinctive status as God's chief agent and plenipotentiary. It is this status that, to Christian insiders, placed Jesus in a category far above the likes of Heracles, Romulus, and Asclepius who were in turn demoted to the rank of δαίμονες [daimons].[73] Conclusion I began by asking the question, "What did early Christians mean by saying Jesus is god?" We noted that the ancient idea of agency (Jesus is God/god because he represents Yahweh), though present in Hebrew and Christian scripture, didn't play much of a role in how Gentile Christians thought about Jesus. Or if it did, those texts did not survive. By the time we enter the postapostolic era, a majority of Christianity was Gentile and little communication occurred with the Jewish Christians that survived in the East. As such, we turned our attention to Greco-Roman theology to tune our ears to hear the story of Jesus the way they would have. We learned about their multifaceted array of divinities. We saw that gods can come down and take the form of humans and humans can go up and take the form of gods. We found evidence for this kind of thinking in both non-Christian and Christian sources in the second and third centuries. Now it is time to return to the question I began with: “When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” what did they mean?” We saw that the idea of a deified man was present in the non-Christian witnesses of Tiberius and Pliny but made scant appearance in our Christian literature except for the Theodotians. As for the idea that a god came down to become a man, we found evidence in The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Justin, and Origen.[74] Of course, we find a spectrum within this view, from Justin's designation of Jesus as a second god to Origen's more philosophically nuanced understanding. Still, it's worth noting as R. P. C. Hanson observed that, “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355.”[75] Whether any Christians before Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria held to the sophisticated idea of consubstantiality depends on showing evidence of the belief that the Son was coequal, coeternal, and coessential with the Father prior to Nicea. (Readers interested in the case for this view should consult Michael Bird's Jesus among the Gods in which he attempted the extraordinary feat of finding proto-Nicene Christology in the first two centuries, a task typically associated with maverick apologists not peer-reviewed historians.) In conclusion, the answer to our driving question about the meaning of “Jesus as god” is that the answer depends on whom we ask. If we ask the Theodotians, Jesus is a god because that's just what one calls an immortalized man who lives in heaven.[76] If we ask those holding a docetic Christology, the answer is that a god came down in appearance as a man. If we ask a logos subordinationist, they'll tell us that Jesus existed as the god through whom the supreme God created the universe before he became a human being. If we ask Tertullian, Jesus is god because he derives his substance from the Father, though he has a lesser portion of divinity.[77] If we ask Athanasius, he'll wax eloquent about how Jesus is of the same substance as the Father equal in status and eternality. The bottom line is that there was not one answer to this question prior to the fourth century. Answers depend on whom we ask and when they lived. Still, we can't help but wonder about the more tantalizing question of development. Which Christology was first and which ones evolved under social, intellectual, and political pressures? In the quest to specify the various stages of development in the Christologies of the ante-Nicene period, this Greco-Roman perspective may just provide the missing link between the reserved and limited way that the NT applies theos to Jesus in the first century and the homoousian view that eventually garnered imperial support in the fourth century. How easy would it have been for fresh converts from the Greco-Roman world to unintentionally mishear the story of Jesus? How easy would it have been for them to fit Jesus into their own categories of descended gods and ascended humans? With the unmooring of Gentile Christianity from its Jewish heritage, is it any wonder that Christologies began to drift out to sea? Now I'm not suggesting that all Christians went through a steady development from a human Jesus to a pre-existent Christ, to an eternal God the Son, to the Chalcedonian hypostatic union. As I mentioned above, plenty of other options were around and every church had its conservatives in addition to its innovators. The story is messy and uneven with competing views spread across huge geographic distances. Furthermore, many Christians probably were content to leave such theological nuances fuzzy, rather than seeking doctrinal precision on Christ's relation to his God and Father. Whatever the case may be, we dare not ignore the influence of Greco-Roman theology in our accounts of Christological development in the Mediterranean world of the first three centuries.    Bibliography The Homeric Hymns. Translated by Michael Crudden. New York, NY: Oxford, 2008. Antioch, Theophilus of. To Autolycus. Translated by Marcus Dods. Vol. 2. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Aphrahat. The Demonstrations. Translated by Ellen Muehlberger. Vol. 3. The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings. Edited by Mark DelCogliano. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022. Apollodorus. The Library of Greek Mythology. Translated by Robin Hard. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998. Appian. The Civil Wars. Translated by John Carter. London, UK: Penguin, 1996. Arnobius. Against the Heathen. Translated by Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell. Vol. 6. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 1971. Bird, Michael F. Jesus among the Gods. Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022. Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991. Callimachus. Hymn to Artemis. Translated by Susan A. Stephens. Callimachus: The Hymns. New York, NY: Oxford, 2015. Cicero. The Nature of the Gods. Translated by Patrick Gerard Walsh. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008. Cornutus, Lucius Annaeus. Greek Theology. Translated by George Boys-Stones. Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018. Cotter, Wendy. "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew." In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Edited by David E. Aune. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Cyprian. Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols. Translated by Ernest Wallis. Vol. 5. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Dittenberger, W. Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae. Vol. 2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960. Eusebius. The Church History. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Fredriksen, Paula. "How High Can Early High Christology Be?" In Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Edited by Matthew V. Novenson. Vol. 180.vol. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Hanson, R. P. C. Search for a Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Hart, George. The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005. Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York, NY: Penguin, 1997. Iamblichus. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Thomas Taylor. Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras. Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Laertius, Diogenes. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David R. Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Pamela Mensch. Edited by James Miller. New York, NY: Oxford, 2020. Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. Nicnt, edited by F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Litwa, M. David. Iesus Deus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Livy. The Early History of Rome. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 2002. Origen. Against Celsus. Translated by Frederick Crombie. Vol. 4. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pausanias. Guide to Greece. Translated by Peter Levi. London, UK: Penguin, 1979. Perriman, Andrew. In the Form of a God. Studies in Early Christology, edited by David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022. Philostratus. Letters of Apollonius. Vol. 458. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006. Plutarch. Life of Alexander. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff. The Age of Alexander. London, UK: Penguin, 2011. Porphyry. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Pseudo-Clement. Recognitions. Translated by Thomas Smith. Vol. 8. Ante Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pseudo-Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated by David Litwa. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Pseudo-Thomas. Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Translated by James Orr. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903. Psuedo-Clement. Homilies. Translated by Peter Peterson. Vol. 8. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897. Siculus, Diodorus. The Historical Library. Translated by Charles Henry Oldfather. Vol. 1. Edited by Giles Laurén: Sophron Editor, 2017. Strabo. The Geography. Translated by Duane W. Roller. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020. Tertullian. Against Praxeas. Translated by Holmes. Vol. 3. Ante Nice Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Tertullian. Apology. Translated by S. Thelwall. Vol. 3. Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Younger, Pliny the. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. Translated by Betty Radice. London: Penguin, 1969. End Notes [1] For the remainder of this paper, I will use the lower case “god” for all references to deity outside of Yahweh, the Father of Christ. I do this because all our ancient texts lack capitalization and our modern capitalization rules imply a theology that is anachronistic and unhelpful for the present inquiry. [2] Christopher Kaiser wrote, “Explicit references to Jesus as ‘God' in the New Testament are very few, and even those few are generally plagued with uncertainties of either text or interpretation.” Christopher B. Kaiser, The Doctrine of God: A Historical Survey (London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1982), 29. Other scholars such as Raymond Brown (Jesus: God and Man), Jason David BeDuhn (Truth in Translation), and Brian Wright (“Jesus as θεός: A Textual Examination” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament) have expressed similar sentiments. [3] John 20.28; Hebrews 1.8; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1; Romans 9.5; and 1 John 5.20. [4] See Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 12.2 where a manuscript difference determines whether or not Polycarp called Jesus god or lord. Textual corruption is most acute in Igantius' corpus. Although it's been common to dismiss the long recension as an “Arian” corruption, claiming the middle recension to be as pure and uncontaminated as freshly fallen snow upon which a foot has never trodden, such an uncritical view is beginning to give way to more honest analysis. See Paul Gilliam III's Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy (Leiden: Brill, 2017) for a recent treatment of Christological corruption in the middle recension. [5] See the entries for  אֱלֹהִיםand θεός in the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon (BDB), Eerdmans Dictionary, Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, the Bauer Danker Arndt Gingrich Lexicon (BDAG), Friberg Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon. [6] See notes on Is 9.6 and Ps 45.6. [7] ZIBBC: “In what sense can the king be called “god”? By virtue of his divine appointment, the king in the ancient Near East stood before his subjects as a representative of the divine realm. …In fact, the term “gods“ (ʾelōhı̂m) is used of priests who functioned as judges in the Israelite temple judicial system (Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9; see comments on 58:1; 82:6-7).” John W. Hilber, “Psalms,” in The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 5 of Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 358. [8] Around a.d. 340, Aphrahat of Persia advised his fellow Christians to reply to Jewish critics who questioned why “You call a human being ‘God'” (Demonstrations 17.1). He said, “For the honored name of the divinity is granted event ot rightoues human beings, when they are worthy of being called by it…[W]hen he chose Moses, his friend and his beloved…he called him “god.” …We call him God, just as he named Moses with his own name…The name of the divinity was granted for great honor in the world. To whom he wishes, God appoints it” (17.3, 4, 5). Aphrahat, The Demonstrations, trans., Ellen Muehlberger, vol. 3, The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022), 213-15. In the Clementine Recognitions we find a brief mention of the concept:  “Therefore the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honour of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who sends, as is often done in respect of angels: for when they appear to a man, if he is a wise and intelligent man, he asks the name of him who appears to him, that he may acknowledge at once the honour of the sent, and the authority of the sender” (2.42). Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions, trans., Thomas Smith, vol. 8, Ante Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [9] Michael F. Bird, Jesus among the Gods (Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022), 13. [10] Andrew Perriman, In the Form of a God, Studies in Early Christology, ed. David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 130. [11] Paula Fredriksen, "How High Can Early High Christology Be?," in Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Matthew V. Novenson, vol. 180 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 296, 99. [12] ibid. [13] See Gen 18.1; Ex 3.2; 24.11; Is 6.1; Ezk 1.28. [14] Compare the Masoretic Text of Psalm 8.6 to the Septuagint and Hebrews 2.7. [15] Homer, The Odyssey, trans., Robert Fagles (New York, NY: Penguin, 1997), 370. [16] Diodorus Siculus, The Historical Library, trans., Charles Henry Oldfather, vol. 1 (Sophron Editor, 2017), 340. [17] Uranus met death at the brutal hands of his own son, Kronos who emasculated him and let bleed out, resulting in his deification (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 1.10). Later on, after suffering a fatal disease, Kronos himself experienced deification, becoming the planet Saturn (ibid.). Zeus married Hera and they produced Osiris (Dionysus), Isis (Demeter), Typhon, Apollo, and Aphrodite (ibid. 2.1). [18] Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, Greek Theology, trans., George Boys-Stones, Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018), 123. [19] Apollodorus, The Library of Greek Mythology, trans., Robin Hard (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998), 111. [20] Pausanias, Guide to Greece, trans., Peter Levi (London, UK: Penguin, 1979), 98. [21] Strabo, The Geography, trans., Duane W. Roller (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020), 281. [22] Psuedo-Clement, Homilies, trans., Peter Peterson, vol. 8, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897). Greek: “αὐτὸν δὲ ὡς θεὸν ἐθρήσκευσαν” from Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca, taken from Accordance (PSCLEMH-T), OakTree Software, Inc., 2018, Version 1.1. [23] See Barry Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions (Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), 32. [24] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, trans., Pamela Mensch (New York, NY: Oxford, 2020), 39. [25] Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Thomas Taylor, Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras (Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023), 2. [26] Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 142. [27] See the list in Blackburn, 39. He corroborates miracle stories from Diogenus Laertius, Iamblichus, Apollonius, Nicomachus, and Philostratus. [28] Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 128-9. [29] Iamblichus,  68. [30] What I call “resurrection” refers to the phrase, “Thou shalt bring back from Hades a dead man's strength.” Diogenes Laertius 8.2.59, trans. R. D. Hicks. [31] Laertius, "Lives of the Eminent Philosophers," 306. Two stories of his deification survive: in one Empedocles disappears in the middle of the night after hearing an extremely loud voice calling his name. After this the people concluded that they should sacrifice to him since he had become a god (8.68). In the other account, Empedocles climbs Etna and leaps into the fiery volcanic crater “to strengthen the rumor that he had become a god” (8.69). [32] Pausanias,  192. Sextus Empiricus says Asclepius raised up people who had died at Thebes as well as raising up the dead body of Tyndaros (Against the Professors 1.261). [33] Cicero adds that the Arcadians worship Asclepius (Nature 3.57). [34] In another instance, he confronted and cast out a demon from a licentious young man (Life 4.20). [35] The phrase is “περὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ θεοῖς εἴρηται ὡς περὶ θείου ἀνδρὸς.” Philostratus, Letters of Apollonius, vol. 458, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006). [36] See George Hart, The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005), 3. [37] Plutarch, Life of Alexander, trans., Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff, The Age of Alexander (London, UK: Penguin, 2011), 311. Arrian includes a story about Anaxarchus advocating paying divine honors to Alexander through prostration. The Macedonians refused but the Persian members of his entourage “rose from their seats and one by one grovelled on the floor before the King.” Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 1971), 222. [38] Translation my own from “Ἀντίοχος ὁ Θεὸς Δίκαιος Ἐπιφανὴς Φιλορωμαῖος Φιλέλλην.” Inscription at Nemrut Dağ, accessible at https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=cimrm32. See also https://zeugma.packhum.org/pdfs/v1ch09.pdf. [39] Greek taken from W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae, vol. 2 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1960), 48-60. Of particular note is the definite article before θεός. They didn't celebrate the birthday of a god, but the birthday of the god. [40] Appian, The Civil Wars, trans., John Carter (London, UK: Penguin, 1996), 149. [41] M. David Litwa, Iesus Deus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 20. [42] ibid. [43] Blackburn, 92-3. [44] The Homeric Hymns, trans., Michael Crudden (New York, NY: Oxford, 2008), 38. [45] "The Homeric Hymns," 14. [46] Homer,  344. [47] Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, trans., Marcus Dods, vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). [48] Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis, trans., Susan A. Stephens, Callimachus: The Hymns (New York, NY: Oxford, 2015), 119. [49] Siculus,  234. [50] Cyprian, Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols, trans., Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [51] Arnobius, Against the Heathen, trans., Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell, vol. 6, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [52] Livy, The Early History of Rome, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 2002), 49. [53] Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, trans., Patrick Gerard Walsh (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008), 69. [54] Wendy Cotter, "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew," in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. David E. Aune (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 149. [55] Litwa, 170. [56] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, Nicnt, ed. F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974). [57] “Recent commentators have stressed that the best background for understanding the Markan transfiguration is the story of Moses' ascent up Mount Sinai (Exod. 24 and 34).” Litwa, 123. [58] Tertullian, Apology, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [59] Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 54. [60] Pliny the Younger, The Letters of the Younger Pliny, trans., Betty Radice (London: Penguin, 1969), 294. [61] Pseudo-Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, trans., James Orr (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903), 25. [62] Litwa, 83. [63] For sources on Theodotus, see Pseduo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2; Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 8.2; Eusebius, Church History 5.28. [64] Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, trans., David Litwa (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016), 571. [65] I took the liberty to decapitalize these appellatives. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, trans. Thomas B. Falls (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 244. [66] Justin Martyr, 241. (Altered, see previous footnote.) [67] Justin Martyr, 102. [68] Justin Martyr, 56-7. [69] Arnobius makes a similar argument in Against the Heathen 1.38-39 “Is he not worthy to be called a god by us and felt to be a god on account of the favor or such great benefits? For if you have enrolled Liber among the gods because he discovered the use of wine, and Ceres the use of bread, Aesculapius the use of medicines, Minerva the use of oil, Triptolemus plowing, and Hercules because he conquered and restrained beasts, thieves, and the many-headed hydra…So then, ought we not to consider Christ a god, and to bestow upon him all the worship due to his divinity?” Translation from Litwa, 105. [70] Justin Martyr, 46. [71] Justin Martyr, 39. [72] Origen, Against Celsus, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [73] Litwa, 173. [74] I could easily multiply examples of this by looking at Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and many others. [75] The obvious exception to Hanson's statement were thinkers like Sabellius and Praxeas who believed that the Father himself came down as a human being. R. P. C. Hanson, Search for a Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), xix. [76] Interestingly, even some of the biblical unitarians of the period were comfortable with calling Jesus god, though they limited his divinity to his post-resurrection life. [77] Tertullian writes, “[T]he Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son” (Against Praxeas 9). Tertullian, Against Praxeas, trans., Holmes, vol. 3, Ante Nice Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).

Welcome back to episode 2 of After Socrates. In this installment, Dr. Vervaeke continues to add insight into the Socratic Way as we go deep into dialogue and the practices of "Finding Your Root" and "The Humble Wonder Practice." Please consider joining my patreon to support our work: https://www.patreon.com/johnvervaeke -- You are invited to join me live, online, at the next Circling & Dialogos Workshop where we discuss & practice the tools involved in both Philosophical Fellowship & Dialectic into Dialogos.   You can find more information, and register, here:   https://circlinginstitute.com/circling-dialogos/ -- Thinkers Referenced: Drew Hyland Erich Fromm Robert C. Fuller Harold North Fowler Christopher Mastropietro Aristophanes Iris Murdoch John R. Wright Francisco J. Gonzalez Sara Ahbel-Rappe Sean D. Kirkland     Show Notes: [0:00] Introduction to episode [0:23] "Socrates the Monstrous" [1:06] Socrates described himself as atopos, which means "strange" or "out of place," not belonging to any known category. It resembles the modern word "atypical" but is deeper and more powerful. [1:48] Metaxy: as fundamentally in between the human and the divine [2:17] Finitude and Transcendence [2:35] Eros [3:26] The monster distorts the normal categories in a way that is startling, challenging and disruptive. [4:57] Questioning [7:12] By practicing this kind of dialogue, Socrates has come to know that he does not know. [7:48] "One has been pretending - deeply, unconsciously, automatically, reactively - to know." [8:25] Learned Ignorance [12:03] Horizon of Wonder [12:17] The psychoanalyst and social psychologist Erich Fromm successfully combined psychological and sociological thinking in a social psychological theory and method. World-wide known are his books Escape from Freedom, The Art of Loving and To Have Or to Be? and his humanistic concept of man. [12:25] Professor Fuller's research concerns the relationship between psychology and religion as well as the study of contemporary religion in the United States [13:00] Wisdom begins in Wonder [13:30] Educe: to bring out, or draw forth. Closely related to the word "education." [13:59] To be on the Horizon of Wonder is to be in a place in which you are calling yourself and your world into question. So a new self in a new world can deeply be born. [18:48] The process of dialogos is not something we do. It is something we participate in, the way we participate in love and friendship. It is between us, and between us and the world. [19:13] Harold North Fowler was the original translator of a number of Plato's works for the Loeb Classical Library collection. [21:07] we seek to bind ourselves to things [21:30] We seem by nature to be looking for things other than ourselves, to complete us. Self-transcendence; I'm looking for something that's other than me to become me so that I am more than me, but completed as me. [30:15] The unexamined life is not worth living. [34:49] 1) The best life is the life of virtue. [35:33] 2) Virtue depends on knowledge. [35:44] 3) He does not have the knowledge needed for virtue. [36:06] Aristophanes was a famous comic playwright of ancient Athens. His play The Clouds gives a critical portrayal of Socrates as a man of nonsense and deception. Socrates addresses the slander in Plato's Apology. [41:50] Iris Murdoch was a prominent British philosopher of the second half of the 20th century, best known for her moral philosophy. She combined her grounding in Wittgensteinian and linguistic/analytic philosophy with a strong influence of 19th and 20th century Continental philosophy, Christian religion and thought, and Hindu and Buddhist philosophy. [45:47] Is Socrates just Plato's mouthpiece? [59:11] Practice Intro. [59:44] Finding Your Root. [1:11:16] The humble wonder practice [1:12:08] There is so much I do not know about myself because of all of the facts. [1:12:49] There is so much I shall never know about myself because of all of the fate. [1:13:45] There is so much I refuse to see about myself because of all of my foolishness. [1:16:32] There is so much I am unable to see about myself because of all of my faults. --- After Socrates is a series about how to create the theory, the practice, and the ecology of practices such that we can live and grow and develop through a Socratic way of life. The core argument is; the combination of the theoretical framework and the pedagogical program of practices can properly conduct us into the Socratic way of life. We believe that the Socratic way of life is what is most needed today because it is the one that can most help us cultivate wisdom in a way that is simultaneously respectful to spiritual tradition and to current scientific work.

On our occasional series "Classically Educated," we are looking at the life and work of the Roman educator Quintilian (AD 35 - 100). Born in Spain with the full name Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, Quintilian is one of the few educators from the Roman world who wrote down anything concerning tips for running a classical classroom. Quintilian's great work, the "Institutio Oratoria" or, in English, "On the Education of an Orator," includes tips that range from teaching phonics to small toddlers to delivering speeches before crowds of senators. Quintilian's "Institutio Oratoria" is available here from the Loeb Classical Library: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/quintilian-orators_education/2002/pb_LCL124.51.xml?rskey=VPkNHn&result=1George Kennedy's "Quintilian: A Roman Educator and His Quest for the Perfect Orator," available on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Quintilian-Roman-Educator-Perfect-Orator/dp/0989783618/ref=sr_1_1?crid=399HPPBVHXRCL&keywords=george+kennedy+quintilian&qid=1655472354&sprefix=george+kennedy+quintilian%2Caps%2C51&sr=8-1

Lessons Learned in Paradoxical Leadership Three growth lessons in the paradoxes of leadership: Number One: Be aware of the Pyrrhic victory: being wrong by being so very right. Number Two: Discovering the win comes in being both timely and timeless. Number Three: Being other centered is a complementary part of being self-centered.   Join me in a brief, free call to learn more about how I can partner with you in the growth and sustainability of healthy leadership. Head to my website www.healthyleadership.online and there you will see an invitation for a complimentary call.   Resources: https://www.timelmore.com/book (TimElmore 8 paradoxes of great leadership) https://www.amazon.com/Hero-Mission-Path-Meaningful-Life/dp/1400226945 (Donald Miller,Hero on a Mission: ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarch (Plutarch). https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/plutarch/lives/pyrrhus*.html ("The Life of Pyrrhus"). Parallel Lives. Vol. IX (1920 ed.). Loeb Classical Library. p. 21.8. Retrieved January 26, 2017. https://www.andriopoulos.org/uploads/1/3/3/2/13324822/cmr5603_04_lewis.pdf (Paradoxicalleadership to enable strategic agility)    

Quelle était la place de l’astrologie au XVIème siècle en France ? Dans cet épisode, Seva Ankevis propose de découvrir l’astrologie sous un nouvel angle. Loin des prédictions vagues de fin de programmes TV, découvrez la science et l’art des étoiles au XVIe siècle. Seva Ankevis s’appuie ainsi sur son mémoire de Master 2, Autour d’un horoscope, étude de la maison d’Angoulême avant la montée au trône de François Ier, réalisé à l’université Paris 8 sous la direction d’Anne Bonzon. Une succession funeste Le Généalitic ou Horoscope du roi François Ier Le manuscrit que Seva Ankevis étudie dans son mémoire n’est pas un simple caprice. Il est en réalité issu d’une tragédie successorale complexe, dont seules les étoiles semblaient pouvoir prévoir l’issue. En effet, le roi Charles VIII, marié à Anne de Bretagne, ne parvient pas a avoir de fils qui survit. À sa mort, c’est alors un de ses proches parents, Louis d’Orléans, qui reprend le trône, et épouse Anne de Bretagne. Hélas, là encore, seules des filles survivent, et une nouvelle fois, le trône se retrouve sans héritier direct. C’est le comte d’Angoulême, son cousin au 4ème degré, qui est choisi dans l’ordre de succession pour prendre sa place à sa mort. Le futur François Ier est alors rapidement marié à Claude, une des filles de Louis XII afin d’assurer sa légitimité. C’est dans ce contexte de succession plus que difficile que Louise de Savoie, mère de François Ier, commande un horoscope pour connaître le destin de son fils. La science des étoiles L’astrologie est une science déjà ancienne au XVIe siècle. Elle rassemble l’astronomie, les mathématiques, la philosophie et les sciences naturelles en s’appuyant sur des connaissances et théories antiques. Il s’agit d’étudier, dans le cadre des horoscopes, à l’aide d’une cartographie appelée figura celi (figure du ciel) la position des étoiles et planètes à un instant et un lieu précis afin de déterminer les actions qu’elles auront sur une personne donnée. L’astrologie est un des sept arts libéraux enseignés à l’Université. On distingue 3 astrologies : Le modèle réel d’une sphère armillaire par Antonio Santucci (1582) au musée Galileo de Florence L’astrologie sphérique étudie les mouvements des planètes, elle est plus proche de l’astronomie actuelle et ne se préoccupe pas des influences que ces planètes ont sur l’homme, L’astrologie judiciaire se concentre sur les prédictions, L’astrologie naturelle se fonde sur la météorologie et la navigation, là encore sans volonté de prédiction. L’astrologie utilise de nombreux outils, comme l’astrolabe, la table astrologique ou la sphère armillaire. Elle repose aussi sur de nombreux écrits, comme la Tetrabible de Claude Ptolémée, rédigée au IIe siècle et posant les fondations de l’astrologie. Politique astrologique et astrologie de la politique Plus qu’une science, l’astrologie est aussi un outil politique. Les dirigeants, jusqu’au pape lui-même, se font conseiller par des astrologues dans leur exercice quotidien du pouvoir. François Ier lui-même, pour ses 40 ans, commande un manuscrit, le Généalitic, pour comprendre les destins de sa famille au regard des étoiles. L’astrologie judiciaire est cependant sévèrement considérée par l’Église, qui voit d’un très mauvais œil l’influence de ces prédictions sur le libre arbitre des Hommes, cherchant à dévoiler les projets de Dieu. Mais malgré les interdictions en Occident chrétien, l’astrologie continue à se développer dans les mondes arabo-musulmans, menant à une grande variété de formes d’astrologies, qui sont ensuite réemployées par les astrologues occidentaux. Pour en savoir plus sur le sujet de l’épisode, on vous conseille de lire : L’horoscope de Louise de Savoie Boudet Jean-Patrice, Entre Science et Nigromance : Astrologie, divination et magie dans l'occident médiéval (XIIe-XVe siècle), Publication de La Sorbonne, Paris, 2006. Dooley Brendan (dir.), A companion to Astrology in the Renaissance, Brill, Leyde, 2014. Drevillon Hevé, Lire et écrire l'avenir : l'astrologie dans la France du Grand Siècle, 1610-1715, Epoque, Champ Vallon Editions, Paris, 1998. Robbins Alfred, Ptolemy Tetrabiblos, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press (net edition 1940), Cambridge, MA, 1940. Grafton Anthony, Cardano's Cosmos : The worlds and works of a Renainnaissance Astrologer, Harvard University press, Cambridge, MA, 2002. Brioist Pascal, Fagnart Laure, et Michon Cédric (dir.), Louise de Savoie, 1476-1531, Collection Renaissance, Presses Universitaires François Rabelais, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Tours, 2015. Lecoq Anne-Marie, François Ier imaginaire ; Symbolique et politique à l'aube de la Renaissance française, Art et Histoire, Macula, Paris, 1987. Dans cet épisode vous avez pu entendre les extraits des œuvres suivantes : Anon. – Tourdion: Quand je bois du vin clairet M – La Bonne Etoile Si cet épisode vous a intéressé vous pouvez aussi écouter : Rencontres #11 – Guillaume Meurice Épisode 11 – Élodie et le suicide du curé de Pompierre (Passion Modernistes) Episode 21 – Maxime et les procès de sorcellerie (partie 1) Merci à Julien Baldacchino et Clément Nouguier qui ont réalisé le générique du podcast et à Ilan Soulima pour l'article ! Retrouvez Passion Modernistes sur Facebook et Twitter pour ne rien manquer de l'actualité du podcast !

Bonus episode! We covered Alexander the Great's half-sister Thessalonica- the mother of Philip IV, Antipater II and Alexander V- way back in the early episodes of the podcast. After all, we've witnessed quite a bit of family scheming (which I'll come back to with a new perspective today). However, today's topic is going to take her story beyond her death in 295 BCE. In fact, her memory would live on in the form of a mermaid reported to ask sailors a question in the Aegean. Spoiler alert: you don't want to give her the wrong answer... Sources for this episode: 1) Gerakiti, E., Daily Art Magazine (2020), Alexander the Great and His Mermaid Sister in Folklore (online) [Accessed 19/04/2021]. 2) Justinus, Epitome of Pompeius Trogus' Philippic Histories (books 16-20). Translated by Rev. J. S. Watson (1853). Available at: Attalus [Accessed 31/05/2021]. 3) Mitakidou, S., Manna, A. L. and Kanatsouli, M. (2002), Folktales from Greece: A Treasury of Delights. Greenwood Village: Libraries Unlimited. (eBook) [Accessed May-June 2021]. 4) Plutarch, (1920) the Parallel Lives (The Life of Pyrrhus 6) in: the Loeb Classical Library edition (Vol. IX). Proofread by Robert Thayer. Available at the University of Chicago [Accessed 31/05/2021]. 5) Author unknown, Royal Museums Greenwich (date unknown), What is a mermaid? (online) [Accessed 19/04/2021]. 6) Author unknown, Wikipedia (date unknown), Aegean Sea (online) [Accessed 18/04/2021]. 7) Author unknown, Wikipedia (date unknown), Aegeus (online) [Accessed 18/04/2021]. 8) Author unknown, Wikipedia (date unknown), Antipater II of Macedon (online) [Accessed 18/04/2021]. 9) Author unknown, Wikipedia (date unknown), Battle of the Crocus Fields (online) [Accessed 31/05/2021]. 10) Author unknown, Wikipedia (date unknown), Nicesipolis (online) [Accessed 31/05/2021]. 11) Author unknown, Wikipedia (date unknown), Philip IV of Macedon (online) [Accessed 18/04/2021]. 12) Author unknown, Wikipedia (date unknown), Thessalonike of Macedon (online) [Accessed 18/04/2021].

Hera, the Queen of the Gods, is having trouble with her afternoon nap. One by one the memories of her husband’s betrayals return, building a devastating portrait of a dysfunctional marriage. (This story - like so many Greek myths - contains references to assault and violence.) Starring Natasha Cashman as Hera. Featuring Dario Costa as Zeus. Written, directed and presented by Bibi Jacob. Production and sound design by Geoff Chong. Enormous thanks to Jean-Paul Palmyre at Studio Quali’sons, Paris. The Ovid quote comes from Vol. 1 of Frank Justus Miller’s translation of ‘The Metamorphoses’ published by the Loeb Classical Library.

A professora Renata Cazarini, do Departamento de Letras Clássicas e Vernáculas da Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), mestre e doutora pela FFLCH-USP, fala sobre Sêneca, autor do século I de nossa era, que nos legou uma coleção de peças trágicas integrais escritas em latim, bem como obras em prosa de divulgação da filosofia estoica. Renata Cazarini de Freitas graduou-se em Jornalismo, em 1990, pela Faculdade Cásper Líbero e em Letras-Latim, em 2012, pela Universidade de São Paulo. Tornou-se mestre, em 2015, com a dissertação “CVNCTA QVATIAM - Medeia abala estruturas. O teatro de Sêneca e sua permanência na cena contemporânea” e doutora, em 2019, com a tese “Entre a tradução e a adaptação: 'Édipo', de Sêneca”. Traduziu as peças “Medeia” e “Édipo”, ambas de Sêneca, direto do latim para o português (ainda não publicadas), tendo desenvolvido amplos estudos de recepção dessas obras. Sua tese de doutorado recebeu menção honrosa no Prêmio Tese Destaque USP – 9ª Edição, sob orientação do Prof. Dr. José Eduardo S. Lohner. Publicou uma seleção das epístolas de Sêneca sob o título “Edificar-se para a morte: das ‘Cartas morais a Lucílio’” (Editora Vozes, 2016). Está no prelo sua tradução dos diálogos senequianos “Sobre a brevidade da vida” e “Sobre o ócio” (Editora Vozes). A professora mantém um blog sobre a recepção de teatro antigo no Brasil: http://palcoclassico.blogspot.com Sugestão de Leitura: GRIFFIN, Miriam T. Seneca, a Philosopher in Politics. Oxford, Reino Unido: Clarendon Press, 2003. INWOOD, Brad. Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome. Oxford, Reino Unido: Clarendon Press, 2005. SÊNECA. Cartas a Lucílio. Tradução de J. A. Segurado e Campos. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 2009. ____. Edificar-se para a morte: das cartas morais a Lucílio. Seleção, introdução, tradução e notas de Renata Cazarini de Freitas. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2016. ____. Sobre a clemência. Introdução, tradução e notas de Ingeborg Braren. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2013. ____. Sobre a ira. Sobre a tranquilidade da alma. Tradução, introdução e notas de José Eduardo S. Lohner. São Paulo: Penguin Classics Companhia das Letras, 2014. ____. Sobre a brevidade da vida. Sobre a firmeza do sábio. Tradução de José Eduardo S. Lohner. São Paulo: Penguin Classics Companhia das Letras, 2017. ____. Tragedies I: Hercules, Trojan women, Phoeniciam women, Medea, Phaedra. Tradução de J. G. Fitch. Cambridge, EUA: Harvard University Press, 2002. (The Loeb Classical Library). ____. Tragedies II: Oedipus, Agamemnon, Thyestes, Hercules on Oeta, Octavia. Tradução de J. G. Fitch. Cambridge, EUA: Harvard University Press, 2004. (The Loeb Classical Library).
 ____. Moral Essays. Tradução de John W. Basore. Cambridge, EUA: Harvard University Press, 1985. (The Loeb Classical Library). O vídeo está disponível no canal da FFLCH no Youtube. Ficha Técnica: Coordenação Geral Paulo Martins Roteiro e Gravação Renata Cazarini de Freitas Produção Renan Braz Edição Renan Braz Música Pecora Loca - Ode Anacreôntica 39

An overview of the story of the Egyptian god Osiris, with readings from the most complete Egyptian and Greek sources. The books read from in this episode are: for Plutarch's account: Isis & Osiris (electronic text of the 1936 Loeb Classical Library edition of Plutarch's Moralia) for the "Great Hymn to Osiris": Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 2: The New Kingdom --- Salima Ikram & Aidan Dodson, The Mummy in Ancient Egypt: Equipping the Dead for Eternity Douglas Brewer, Ancient Egypt: Foundations of a Civilization Richard Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt Erik Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One & the Many Any comments, or suggestions for readings I should make in later episodes, can be emailed to humanvoiceswakeus1@gmail.com. I assume that the small amount of work presented in each episode constitutes fair use. Publishers, authors, or other copyright holders who would prefer to not have their work presented here can also email me at humanvoiceswakeus1@gmail.com, and I will remove the episode immediately.

"He was succeeded on the throne by his wife Teuta [who] gave letters of marque to privateers to pillage any ships they met, and collected a fleet and force of troops as large as the former one and sent it out, ordering the commanders to treat all countries alike as belonging to their enemies." So began the reign of Queen Τεύτα, who ruled Illyria from 231 to 227 BC. During this time, she would bring the Greek states to their knees with her buccaneering ways and get right up Ancient Rome’s aquiline nose. No wonder contemporaneous(-ish) chroniclers would do their best to relegate her to the footnote of history.  In this minisode, ancient historians Polybius and Appian hold a misogyny-off. And Sarah proves her cool credentials by claiming various classical figures as her ‘home boys’. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Appianus, White, Horace, and Denniston, J. D. Roman History (1912). Print. Dell, H. (1967). The Origin and Nature of Illyrian Piracy. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 16, H. 3 (Jul., 1967), pp. 344-358. Derow, P. (1973). Kleemporos. The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 58, Parts 1 and 2 (1968), pp. 1-21. De Souza, P. (1999). Piracy in the Graeco-Roman world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macurdy, G. (1937). Vassal-queens and some contemporary women in the Roman Empire (Johns Hopkins University studies in archaeology 22). Baltimore : London: Johns Hopkins University Press ; Oxford University Press, H. Milford. Polybius, & Paton, W. R. (1954). The Histories (Repr. ed., Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

This episode of Stoicism On Fire kicks off an exploration of the powerful, poignant, and perennially inspiring Encheiridion of Epictetus. The fifty-three chapters of this Stoic handbook will provide the primary content and plan for this exploration of Stoic theory and practice. However, I will incorporate other Stoic texts and the insights of scholars where appropriate for the subject at hand. In this introductory episode, I will provide some background on the Encheiridion. Then, in the next episode of Stoicism On Fire, we will begin the chapter-by-chapter exploration with the frequently quoted chapter one. About the Encheiridion Origin and Authorship The Encheiridion, like the Discourses, was written by Flavius Arrian, who was a student of Epictetus and later became a public servant under the Emperor Hadrian, and a respected historian. In a letter to Lucias Gellius, Arrian claims the Discoursesare “word for word” taken “as best I could” from the lectures of Epictetus.[1] The Encheiridion, frequently referred to as the Handbook, is a compilation of passages drawn from those Discourses. As a result, many of the chapters in the Encheiridion can be directly correlated to passages in the Discourses; those that cannot are likely from portions of the Discoursesthat are lost to us. History The Encheiridion, more so than the Discourses, has been the historical gateway into the thought of Epictetus. For example, Simplicius, a sixth-century Neoplatonist, wrote a commentary on the Encheiridion that served as an introduction to Neoplatonist philosophy. Additionally, as Christopher Gill notes in his introduction to the Robin Hard translation of Epictetus, The Handbook was also adopted, with some modifications (including replacing the name of ‘Socrates’ with ‘St Paul’), by Christian monks, and used for centuries by the Eastern (Greek Orthodox) Church. Through Syriac Christian scholars, Epictetus’ thought spread to the Islamic East, influencing, for instance, the teaching on ‘dispelling sorrow’ by al-Kindī, a major figure in the study of Greek texts in ninth-century Baghdad.[2] The fact that the Encheiridion served as the sole source of Epictetus’ teaching for many who are not otherwise interested in Stoicism produced a negative side effect. As W. A. Oldfather, the author of the Loeb Classical Library translations of Epictetus points out, the “necessary aridity and formalism” of this condensed version obscures “the more modest, human, and sympathetic aspects of [Epictetus’] character.”[3] Unfortunately, a compendium like this can easily create misunderstanding and result in unwarranted criticism of Epictetus’ thought. This bring up an excellent point. The Encheiridion is not a substitute for the Discourses of Epictetus. Instead, its passages should serve as reminders for those who are already familiar with Stoic teachings. Purpose According to Simplicius, Arrian wrote a letter to Messalenus that describes the Encheiridion as a “selection” of those passages from the Discourses that are “most timely and essential to philosophy, and which most stir the soul.” Simplicius further suggests: The aim of [the Encheiridion]—if it meets with people who are persuaded by it, and do not merely read it but are actually affected by the speeches and bring them into effect—is to make our soul free, as the Demiurge and Father, its maker and generator, intended it to be: not fearing anything, or distressed at anything, or mastered by anything inferior to it.[4] Because the Encheiridion was created to serve as a handy reminder of Epictetus’ teaching, I waited to address it on the Stoicism In Fire podcast until I covered the essentials of Stoic theory and practice. The Encheiridion is not a standalone text of Stoic doctrine. Instead, it serves to remind us about teachings with which students and practitioners of Stoicism should already be familiar. This podcast series will explore the Encheiridion with that in mind; therefore,

This month’s episode marks the first Roundtables episode of Humanities Viewpoints in which a group of Wake Forest faculty gather to discuss a topic from the lens of their respective fields. Today, our topic is “Familiar Prejudices from Unexpected Sources.” Our conversation includes discussions of anti-Greek sentiments in Roman satire, Ancient Greek and Roman anti-Semitism, women’s involvement in the second era Ku Klux Klan, imagined histories, and the rhetoric of the 2016 Presidential campaign. My guests are T.H.M Gellar-Goad, Jeffrey D. Lerner, and Lynn S. Neal. T. H. M. Gellar-Goad is Assistant Professor of Classical Languages at Wake Forest University. He specializes in Latin poetry, especially the funny stuff: Roman comedy, Roman erotic elegy, Roman satire, and — if you believe him — the allegedly philosophical poet Lucretius. Jeffrey D. Lerner is a Professor of History at Wake Forest University. His research focuses on the Hellenistic Period in the East. He teaches a variety of courses on Ancient History, including History 312: Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Lynn S. Neal is a scholar of American religious history. She is the co-editor, with John Corrigan, of Religious Intolerance in America, and the author of a number of articles on religious intolerance, including "Christianizing the Klan: Alma White, Branford Clarke, and the Art of Religious Intolerance," "The Ideal Democratic Apparel: T-shirts, Religious Intolerance, and the Clothing of Democracy," and "They're Freaks!: The Cult Stereotype in Fictional Television Shows, 1958-2008." She is Associate Professor and Associate Chair in the Department for the Study of Religions. I hope you enjoy our conversation. Here is a list of the readings and sources my guests draw from during this discussion: From Dr. Gellar-Goad: Translation of Juvenal's Third Satire by A. S. Kline: http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/JuvenalSatires3.htm Translation of Catullus 63 on Attis by A. S. Kline: http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Catullus.htm#anchor_Toc531846788 From Dr. Lerner: Dio Cassius, Roman History, Volume 9: Books 71-80. Translated by Cary, E., Foster, H.B., Loeb Classical Library 177 (Harvard University Press, 1927). See 75.32 Tacitus, Annals, Volume 4: Books 4-6, 11-12. Translated by Jackson, J. Loeb Classical Library 312 (Harvard University Press, 1937). See 12.54. Tacitus, Histories, Volume 3: Books 4-5. Annals: Books 1-3. Translated by Moore, C.H. Classical Library 249 (Harvard University Press, 1931). See 5.1-13. For Claudius’ edict concerning the inhabitants of Alexandria, see Select Papyri, Volume 2: Public Documents. Translated by Hunt, A.S. and Edgar, C.C. Classical Library 282 (Harvard University Press, 1934). See Chapter 3 (pp.78-89). For Manetho, see Josephus, The Life. Against Apion. Translated by Thackery, H.St.J. Classical Library 186 (Harvard University Press, 1926). See 1.26-31 (227-287).

This week it is all about turning stone into bronze as we enter the Bronze Age. Please be sure to give us a rating and review on iTunes and Google Play. You can talk to us at welshhistorypodcast@gmail.com Resources this week: Alex Gibson, "The timber circle at Sarn-y-Bryn-Caled, Welshpool, Powys: ritual and sacrifice in Bronze Age mid-Wales." Antiquity 66.250 (1992): 84+. World History in Context. Web. 28 May 2016. S.P. Beedham et al., Developments in the Early Bronze Age Metallurgy of Southern Britain, World Archeaology, Vol. 20, No. 3, (Feb 1989, pp. 383-402. Stephen V. Grancsay, Irish Bronze Age Weapons, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, New Series, Vol. 7, No. 7 (Mar. 1949), pp. 181-185. Joan J. Taylor, The Oliver Davis Lecture: The First Golden Age of Europe Was in Ireland and Britain (Circa 2400-1400 BC), Ulster Journal of Archaeology, Third Series, Vol. 57(1994), pp. 37-60. The Geography of Strabo, published in Vol. II of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1923, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/4E*.html Music: Celtic Impulse - Celtic by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1100297 Artist: http://incompetech.com/

May 5, 2015 at the Boston Athenæum. Jeffrey Henderson, in his lecture The Loeb Classics for a Digital Age, will reflect on the durability and adaptability of the works of the Loeb Classical Library. Over the millennia, these works have been adapted to new vehicles and systems of reference and organization. The new digital version is the latest of many previous forms: the Greek oral tradition was first captured in writing around the eighth century BCE, after which it was committed to handwritten scroll, handwritten codex, to printed codex, now to the computer in the twenty-first century, and surely to more media in years to come. Each new medium has resulted in unanticipated effects as writers and readers explored its capabilities and discovered its potential, and so it will be with the Loeb Classical Library in its new digital form.