‘The Ultimate Sinner’: Paul & the Antichrist in Political Context James R. Harrison, Wesley Institute 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE MODERN SCHOLARLY DEBATE In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Paul portrays the ‘man of lawlessness’ as a self-exalting deity seated in God’s Temple.1 In this article it will be argued that in the context of Second Temple Judaism the figure is an amalgam of figures such as, among others, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Pompey, and Caligula, each of whom defiled (or attempted to defile) the Jerusalem Temple. This could be Paul’s symbolic way of referring to the (developing) Antichrist tradition, alluding to the teaching of the historical Jesus and to the Old Testament and intertestamental traditions. But, in Paul’s view, it may primarily refer to Caligula who had become the historical precursor to the destruction of the Temple and (perhaps) to the eschaton itself. The time is overdue for such an investigation. Recent studies on Paul’s epistles have pursued with interest the imperial context of the house churches at Thessalonica. E.A. Judge explored the charge that the early Christians had somehow violated Caesar’s decrees by preaching the gospel of an alternate messianic King (Acts 17:1ff), arguing that the charge was to be understood against the backdrop of the Caesarian loyalty oaths.2 H. Hendrix and K.P. Donfried unveiled the benefaction and cultic culture of Roman Thessalonica,3 with Donfried emphasising the interrelatedness of imperial and local religious cults in 2 Thessalonians 2.4 J.R. Harrison has argued that in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 Paul confronts the eschatology of the imperial gospel with his apostolic gospel, challenging its apotheosis traditions, and undermining its terminology and providential world-view.5 In the most recent book on the political dimensions of 1 I will assume Paul’s authorship of 2 Thessalonians, notwithstanding the fact that there is an increasing tendency to regard the epistle as pseudonymous. For a defence of Paul’s authorship of 2 Thessalonians, see A.J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (New York: Doubleday, 2000) 364-370; contra, K.P. Donfried, ‘2 Thessalonians and the Church of Thessalonica’, in id., Paul Thessalonica, and Early Christianity (London-New York : T & T Clark, 2002) 49-67; L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Tradition-Historical Study of the Earliest Christians (Leiden : E.J. Brill, 1996) 64-68. 2 E.A. Judge, ‘The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica’ RTR 30 (1971) 1-7. 3 H.L. Hendrix, Thessalonians Honor Romans (ThD diss., Harvard 1984); id., ‘Archaeology and Eschatology at Thessalonica’, in B.A. Pearson (ed), The Future of Christianity (Minneapolis 1989), 107-118; K.P. Donfried, ‘The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence’, in id., Paul, Thessalonica and Early Christianity (London: T & T Clark, 2002) 21-48. 4 Donfried, ‘The Cults of Thessalonica’ 46-48. 5 J.R. Harrison, ‘Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki’, JSNT 25 (2002) 71-96. However, see P. Oakes’ criticism of my arguments in id., ‘Re-mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians’, JSNT 27/3 (2005) 301-322, esp. 312-313, 315-318. But, significantly for the 2 Thessalonians political context, Oakes 1 Paul’s gospel, J.D. Crossan and J.L. Reed, in their discussion of the Thessalonian epistles, have expanded on the issues raised by Harrison, setting out the wider significance of the parousia in its imperial context.6 It is surprising, therefore, that there has been no substantial study of Paul’s interaction with the developing anti-Christ tradition of early Christianity and Second Temple Judaism, as enunciated in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10, in its imperial (i.e. Caligulan) context. To be sure, P. Bilde has devoted a study to Caligula’s attempted desecration of the Temple in AD 40, but he does not relate his first-rate analysis of the ancient evidence to the portrayal of the ‘lawless one’ in 2 Thessalonians 2.7 Commentators have speculated regarding the identity of the ‘lawless one’ of 2 Thess 2.4 in varying contexts. D.E.H. Whitely argues for the referent being either Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Dan 11:36ff) or Caligula (Tacitus, Hist. 5:9; Philo, Leg.; Josephus AJ 18:257- 309; BJ 2:184-203),8 whereas A.J. Malherbe restricts the reference to Antiochus alone. 9 Some scholars fuse together well-known historical figures (e.g. Antiochus; Pompey; Caligula) with hubristic individuals denounced by the Old Testament prophets (e.g; Is 14:13-14 [king of Babylon]; Ezek 28:2 [king of Tyre]), or with powers depicted in Jewish apocalyptic as destroyers of Jerusalem and its Temple (e.g. Rome: 4 Ezra; 2 Baruch). These scholars also refer to the ‘abomination of desolation’ of the Jesus tradition as another cryptic allusion to the ‘lawless one’, namely Caligula (Mk 13:14 et par).10 Other scholars restrict the reference to the Jewish apocalyptic figure of Belial or Beliar who is depicted as setting up his image in every city (Asc. Isa. 4:11), denying thereby any allusion to an historical figure.11 The closest modern commentators come to restricting the reference entirely to Caligula is F.F. Bruce. He asserts that concedes that e0pifa/neia (2 Thess 2:8) is a prominent term in Roman eschatology (ibid., 317). 6 J.D. Crossan and J. L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom. A New Vision of Paul’s Words and World (SanFranciso: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004) 152-177. See also G.N. Stanton, Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 47-49. 7 P. Bilde, ‘The Roman Emperor Gaius’ (Caligula)’s Attempt to Erect His Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem’, Studia Theologica 32 (1988) 67-93. 8 D.E.H. Whitely, Thessalonians in the Revised Version with Introduction and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969) 100. Similarly, R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1937) 409-410. 9 A.J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians 420. 10 B. Rigaux, Saint Paul: les épitres aux Thessaloniciens (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1956) 658-659 (omitting Pompey and Caligula); E.J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians (Collegeville: Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press, 1995) 350-351. 11 W. Neil, Thessalonians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1950) 161-162; J.E. Frame, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912) 256-257. 2 The attempt of the Emperor Gaius (Caligula) in AD 40 to have his statue set up in the Jerusalem Temple, in assertion of his claims of divinity which the Jews refused to acknowledge (Philo, Leg. 203- 346; Josephus, AJ 18.261-301), provided a foretaste of what the final Antichrist was expected to do.12 Nor have studies devoted to the Antichrist as a motif in itself thrown light on whether there is a distinctly Roman political context for the Antichrist traditions at Thessalonica. Several examples of scholarship in this area will suffice. W. Bousset dismisses the idea of a Caligulan referent for 2 Thess 2:3-4 because it involved the ‘threatened profanation of the Temple by foreign armies’.13 He argues that the Antichrist envisaged in 2 Thessalonians is a false Messiah in Jerusalem who performs signs and wonders in an ‘unpolitical eschatology’.14 B. Rigaux confines his coverage of the Antichrist traditions to the Israelite evidence because, in his view, it is entirely a Jewish phenomenon.15 L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte asserts that the variegated expectations of early Christian expectations of eschatological opponents arose from Jewish eschatology, but they coalesce around a single eschatological opponent only from the time of Irenaeus onwards.16 The a0nomi/a of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (cf. v.8: o9 a2nomoj) is eschatological and the arrogance of the eschatological opponent in v.4 is best explained by Daniel 11:36.17 The excellent study of G.W. Lorein covers the intertestamental texts dealing with the Antichrist,18 criticising Bousset for not distinguishing sufficiently between the figures of Antichrist and Belial in the case of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10.19 Finally, G.C. Jenks proposes a Roman context for the man of ‘lawlessness’ in 2 Thessalonians. In Jenks’ view, Paul considered the Claudius to be the ‘restrainer’ of the Rebel until the eschatological outbreak of evil under Nero, notwithstanding the fact that the apostle was mistaken regarding the imminent arrival of the eschaton in Nero’s reign.20 A series of questions emerge from this overview of scholarship on 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10. 12 F.F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Waco: Word Books, 1982) 168. See, too, Bruce’s excellent excursus on the Antichrist, ibid., 179-188. However, see now G.L. Green’s first-rate distillation of the imperial context of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, though without an exclusive concentration on the Caligulan context (The Letters to the Thessalonians [Leicester: Apollos, 2002] 38-43, 307-313, 319-320). 13 W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (orig. 1896: rpt. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 22. 14 Ibid. 15 B. Rigaux, L’Antéchrist et l’opposition aux royaume messianique dans l’ancien et le nouveaux testament (Paris: Gabalda, 1932). 16 L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist. 17 Ibid., 76-78. 18 G.W. Lorein, The Antichrist Theme in the Intertestamental Period (London-New York: T & T Clark, 2003). 19 Ibid., 29. On Belial, see G.C. Jenks, Antichrist Myth 123-152. 20 G.C. Jenks, The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990) 222-224. Jenks endorses the proposal of ‘Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The Evidence of I and II Thessalonians’, NTS 27 (1980) 137-157, esp. 156. 3 1. What Jewish apocalyptic antecedents best fit the portrait of ‘the man of lawlessness’ in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4? Do they sufficiently account for the historical and ecclesiastical context that Paul is facing and responding to? And what is the relation between the eschatological ‘man of lawlessness’ (o9 a2nqrwpoj th~j a0nomi/aj: 2 Thess 2:3; o9 a2nomoj: 2 Thess 2:8) and the ‘mystery of lawlessness’ (to\ musth/rion th=j a0nomi/aj) already operative (h2dh e0nergei=tai) in the Roman empire? 2. What is the historical tradition underlying the contemporary accounts of Caligula’s attempt to defile the Temple? Does it accurately reflect the social realities of Caligula’s reign? 3. What textual indications are there that Paul might have had Caligula’s reign in view in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8? If this is a possibility, how does this critique fit into the wider presentation of imperial power in Paul’s epistles? In what ensues, I will focus on key themes in select verses of 2 Thessalonians 2 (vv.3- 4, 8) as opposed to a detailed discussion of the pericope verse by verse. I intend to demonstrate that Paul believed that Roman power under Caligula had assumed the character of the Antichrist and that Caligula was, in some sense, as F.F. Bruce ventured, a precursor of the final Satan-inspired Antichrist. 2. JEWISH PRECEDENTS FOR THE ‘MAN OF LAWLESSNESS’ IN THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Paul describes the revelation of the man of lawlessness thus: Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one (o9 a!nqrwpoj th~j a0nomi/aj) is revealed (a0pokalufqh~), the one destined for destruction. He opposed and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship (e0pi\ pa/nta lego/menon qeo\n), so that he takes his seat in the Temple of God, declaring himself to be God (o3ti e1stin qe/oj). Several texts highlight the profanation of the Temple by historical figures in a manner similar to, though not identical to, the profanation of the Temple presented in 2 Thess 2:4.21 Daniel 11:36-37 portrays Antiochus Epiphanes IV as exalting and magnifying himself above every god and speaking against the God of gods. 2 Macccabees 5:11-17 presents the hubris of Antiochus’ desecration of the Temple in 167 BC in the following manner: Not content with this, Antiochus dared to enter the most holy Temple in all the world, guided by Menelaus, who had become a traitor both to the laws and to his country. He took the holy vessels with his polluted hands, and swept away with profane hands the votive offerings that other kings had made to 21 We leave out of our discussion the reference to Nero seizing the ‘divinely built Temple’ (SibOr 5.150) because the Neronian referent post-dates (in our view) the genuinely Pauline epistle of 2 Thessalonians written (early or late) in AD 51. Similarly, we discount the suggestion that a (later) pseudonymous author is referring in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 to the Roman profanation of the temple in AD 70. For discussion, see F.F. Bruce, Thessalonians xxxiv-xxxv. 4 enhance the glory and honour of the place. Antiochus was elated in spirit and did not notice that the Lord was angered for a little while because of the sins of those who lived in the city, and that this was the reason he was disregarding the holy place.22 The ‘superhuman arrogance’ of Antiochus (2 Macc 9:8) — demonstrated in his belief that he could command the waves of the sea and weigh the high mountains in a balance — is requited in his grisly death (2 Macc 9:8ff). The writer of 2 Maccabees also nominates Nicanor, the Syrian governor of Jerusalem, as another figure who subsequently attempted to profane the Temple: ‘[Maccabeus] showed them the vile Nicanor’s head and that profane man’s arm, which had been boastfully stretched out against the holy house of the Almighty.’ In the case of Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem and profanation of its Temple in 63 BC, the writer of the Psalms of Solomon asserts that God had judged the sins of the Hamonean priestly royalty by raising up the Roman general Pompey against the Temple. The writer (Pss Sol 2:2-3; cf. 1:7-8; cf. T. Ash 7:2-3) speaks of God’s providential ordering of the event in this way: Arrogantly the sinner broke down the strong walls with a battering ram and you did not interfere. Gentile foreigners went up to your place of sacrifice; they arrogantly trampled (it) with their sandles. Because the sons of Jerusalem defiled the sanctuary of the Lord, they were profaning the offerings of God with lawless acts … Significantly, in Pss Sol 17:11-15, our writer sows the terminological seed for Paul’s reference to a ‘lawless one’: The lawless one (o9 a!nomoj) laid waste our land, so that no one inhabited it; they massacred young and old and children at the same time. In his blameless wrath he expelled them to the west, and he did not spare even the officials of the country from ridicule. As the enemy (was) a stranger and his heart alien to our God, he acted arrogantly. So he did in Jerusalem all the things that gentiles do for their gods in their cities. And the children of the covenant (living) among the Gentile rabble adopted these (practices). Finally, IqpHab 12.7-9 asserts that that the Wicked Priest of Jerusalem, one of the Hasmonean priestly royalty (John Hyrcanus? Alexander Jannaeus?), desecrated the sanctuary through his impious behaviour: Its interpretation: the city, that is Jerusalem, where the Wicked Priest did wicked things and defiled God’s sanctuary.23 22 For discussion of Antiochus in Jewish tradition, see G.C. Jenks, Antichrist Myth 153- 168. For a silver tetradrachma of Antiochus, who is depicted as the incarnation of Zeus, that bears the legend qeo\j e0pifanh/j, see N. Turner, ‘Antiochus’, in G.A. Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Volume 1: A-D (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) 150 fig.34. 5 These Old Testament and intertestamental texts demonstrate that various historical figures (Antiochus, Nicanor, the ‘Wicked Priest’, and Pompey) had become enemies of God and his covenantal people. They are presented stereotypically as ‘arrogant’, ‘wicked’, ‘lawless’, ‘sinners’, and ‘profaners of the Temple’. But, significantly, there is no reference in the texts to these opponents declaring themselves to be God or to taking seat in the Temple of God.24 Rather, they reverence the deities of their own nation or other foreign deities (e.g. Dan 11:38-39) while at Jerusalem. Moreover, the emphasis is more upon the way that covenantal Israel and its priestly rulers — or the ‘sons of darkness’ and the ‘Wicked Priest’ in the case of the Qumran covenanters — had departed from God through their sin and compromise with the ruling power. The strong focus on God’s providential judgement underscores that the Israelites are as much to blame as the Gentile oppressors themselves. Undoubtedly, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 is terminologically and conceptually indebted to Old Testament and intertestamental traditions in its picture of the Antichrist. However, Paul’s approach has distinctive elements that must be accounted for, either within his ecclesiastical and historical context, or from the scriptural traditions that he has inherited. 3. CALIGULA’S ATTEMPT TO DEFILE THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE (AD 40) As far as the contemporary Jewish sources, both Philo and Josephus discuss Caligula’s short-lived attempt to erect his statue in the Jerusalem Temple (Philo, Leg. passim; Josephus AJ 18:257-309; BJ 2:184-203). There is disagreement between each writer regarding Caligula’s provocation of the Jews and there exits chronological confusion between the accounts.25 Notwithstanding, both writers agree that Caligula’s frenzied promotion of the imperial cult led to the collision between the Romans and the Jews, causing the smooth diplomatic relations between the ruler and his Jewish subjects, 23 In CD 4.12-19 one of the three nets that Belial uses to catch Israel is the ‘defilement of the Temple’. 24 In light of the fact that the Jerusalem temple is often the focus of the intertestamental Antichrist traditions, the assertion of C.H. Giblin (The Threat to Faith: An Exegetical and Theological Re-examination of 2 Thessalonians 2 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967] 76-78) that Paul is referring to the Christian church in his use of naos in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is highly unlikely. For the most recent defence of the view that the church is Paul’s referent here, see G.K. Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVP: Downers Grove, 2003) 207-211. By contrast, G.L. Green (The Letters to the Thessalonians 312-313; cf. 39) argues that Paul is alluding to the Thessalonian temple dedicated to the divine Julius and Augustus his son. 25 On the contradictions and chronological confusion between the original source accounts, see J.P.V.D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius (Caligula) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934) 111-113, 136-137; P. Bilde, ‘The Roman Emperor’; A.A. Barrett, Caligula: The Corruption of Power (London: B.T. Batsford Ltd, 1989) 188-191; E.M. Smallwood, ‘The Chronology of Gaius’ Attempt to Desecrate the Temple’, Latomus 16 (1957), 3-17; S. Wilkinson, Caligula (London and New York: Routledge, 2005) 54. 6 established in the past by Julius Caesar and maintained by Augustus, to deteriorate rapidly (Philo, Leg. 184-348; AJ 18:261-309). Two flash points precipitated the crisis.26 First, there was the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Jewish ghetto in Alexandria, instigated by Flaccus, Prefect of Egypt, at the prompting of Greek activists who wanted to curtail Jewish privileges in the city.27 The Jews and the Greeks sent separate delegations to Caligula, the Jewish delegation being led by Philo Judaeus, our major ancient source on the episode. Upon Caligula’s return from Gaul in AD 40, the ruler met with both delegations on the Gardens of Agrippina outside the pomerium at Rome, promising them an audience with himself later. The two points in dispute — Jewish civic rights at Alexandria and, more specifically, the continued right of the Jews to exemption from the imperial cult because of their monotheism (e.g. celebrating the emperor’s birthday) — remained unresolved. Second, towards the end of May in AD 40 the Jews tore down an altar at Jamnia erected by Greeks to Caligula. Consequently, Caligula attempted to erect his own statue in the Jerusalem Temple inscribed with the words ‘Gaius, the new Zeus made manifest’ (Dio\j )Epifanoou=j Ne/ou xrhmati/zh| Gai5ou: Philo, Leg. 346). Undoubtedly, Caligula was induced into this foolish decision either by the over-reaction of the imperial procurator of Jamnia to the event or by his own desire to bring the increasingly contumacious behaviour of the Jews more into line with the imperial cult as practised by Rome’s provincial subjects elsewhere. Caligula ordered the governor of Syria, Petronius, to prepare the colossal statue and, taking part of his army, to set it up in the Temple. Petronius, well aware of Jewish sensitivities, suspected that this would plunge Jewish Palestine into rebellion and involve Syria in a highly costly war. Petronius employed clever delaying tactics and succeeded in staving off the threat of war. Initially, upon the intervention of his friend Herod Agrippa, Caligula rescinded his decree, but subsequently countermanded his order to Petronius.28 Ultimately, only the assassination of Caligula by his praetorian guard in AD 41 brought the crisis to an end for the Jews. But two historical issues must be addressed before we can lay the ground for this event being relevant for our understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2. First, S. Wilkinson has 26 For discussion of the event, see R. Auget, Caligula ou le pouvoir à vingt ans (Paris: Payot, 1975) 137-141; J.P.V.D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius 135-138; P. Bilde, ‘The Roman Emperor’ passim; A.A. Barrett, Caligula 186-191; A. Ferrill, Caligula: Emperor of Rome (London: Thames and Hudson, 1991) 140-148; Philonis Alexandri Legatio ad Gaium: Edited With an Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970); 31-36; S. Wilkinson, Caligula 53-61. 27 The events leading up to this are related primarily in Philo’s In Flaccum, with the De Legatio ad Gaium picking up the narrative with the Greek riots of August, AD 38, at Alexandria. 28 In regards to the role of Petronius, R. Auget (Caligula 140) observes that ‘la corruption de ce haut fonctionnaire’ added to Caligula’s general irritation over the affair and partially explained the ruler’s obsession with ‘ce projet absurde’. As proof, Auget points to Caligula’s letter to Petronius (towards the end of AD 40). In the letter Caligula insinuates that the procurator’s tardiness in erecting the statue was explained by his preference for gifts from the Jews over against the commands of his ruler (Josephus, AJ 18.304). 7 recently observed that since no statue was ever set up due to Caligula’s assassination, it is likely that Caligula’s order was not implemented or, given our hostile sources, not ordered at all, or, alternatively, was merely an offhand joke on the ruler’s part.29 Wilkinson argues that the missing palinode from Philo’s De Legatio ad Gaium30 — which, in Wilkinson’s view, may have even contained a retraction of what Philo had written — casts doubt on whether we can trust Philo’s evidence. Suetonius, Seneca, and Dio are all silent regarding the attempted Temple profanation. This is a curious omission given the penchant of Suetonius and Dio to emphasise Caligula’s inflated sense of his divinity.31 If Wilkinson is right, the attempted profanation of the Temple under Caligula has no historical basis and cannot therefore belong to the rhetorical and historical tradition animating 2 Thesalonians 2:1-10. However, in my opinion, Wilkinson’s case is a shaky edifice built on an extended argumentum ex silentio. Furthermore, although Tacitus’ account of Caligula’s reign in the Annals is tragically lost, we still have one important snippet of evidence from Histories 5:8 that points to the likelihood that Tacitus referred to the Temple profanation in the Annals: Then, when Caligula ordered the Jews to set up his statue in their Temple, they chose rather to resort to arms, but the emperor’s death put an end to their uprising.32 It would seem, then, that the tradition about Caligula’s profanation of the Temple remains secure and that, contrary to Wilkinson, the contemporary evidence of Philo has to be taken seriously, notwithstanding the fact that the De Legatio ad Gaium is charged with invective against Caligula and manipulates the chronology in order to blacken him further.33 Second, many scholars play down Caligula’s claim to deity. They place his inflated claims (including his rivalry with Jupiter, his prostration rituals, his acceptance of the designation Optimus Maximus Caesar), his temple building programs, and his 29 S. Wilkinson, Caligula 55-56. 30 Philo indicates that there is a missing palinode (Leg. 373) at the end of the De Legatio ad Gaium. From Eusebius (HE 2.5.1) we learn that ‘Philo has related in five books what happened to the Jews in the time of Gaius’. Rather than speculate what Philo’s five books might originally have been, it is safer to assume that Philo’s missing palinode in this instance included coverage of the events directly after Gaius’ death (E.M. Smallwood, Philonis Alexandri Legatio ad Gaium [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970] 43). 31 Ibid., 57-58. 32 Wilkinson (Caligula 59) argues that Tacitus would surely have seen the Jewish sources containing the command. Not only is this statement hypothetical, it also assumes that the astute Tacitus would not have seen through (in Wilkinson’s view) the outlandish propaganda of the Jewish sources. 33 On Philo’s manipulation of chronology, see E.M. Smallwood, Philonis Alexandri Legatio ad Gaium 3. For an excellent discussion of the politics of the De Legatio ad Gaium, see E.R. Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory (New Haven: Yale University, 1938) 12-20. In the view of Goodenough (ibid., 19), Philo wrote the De Legatio ad Gaium after the accession of Claudius in order to present to him as Caligula’s successor the function, qualities, and effects of the ideal ruler’s rule. 8 impersonations of deities, more in the category of the traditional religious practices of his Julian forebears. Barrett agues that evidence for a formal Caligula cult at Rome is to be understood more in terms of the worship of his numen rather than worship of the ruler as deity. To be sure, numen could mean ‘godhead’ as much as ‘divine will’ or ‘power of the gods’.34 But, in the view of Barrett and C.J. Simpson, 35 numen had become interchangeable with worship of the ruler’s genius, that is, worship of his spirit with its divine qualities. Moreover, even where Caligula is credited with deity (as in the preface to the oath of the Assians [pa~n e2qnoj e0pi\ th\n you~ qeou~ o2yin e2s[p]euken: SIG3 797], or is called the ‘New Sun’ [o9 ne/oj H$ elioj: SIG3 798]), these are merely the traditional epithets accorded the benefactor-king in the ruler and imperial cults of the Greek East.36 While this is true from an eastern provincial perspective, the distinction between worship of the ruler’s numen (the divine nature of his power and authority) and the ruler as praesens deus (the rulers as a manifest god) was a tenuous distinction for first-century monotheistic Jews, including Philo and Paul (e.g. Philo, Leg. 114-118; 1 Cor 8:5-6).37 Moreover, even in the case of Rome itself, as Simpson observes,38 there is evidence that Caligula wished to blur the distinction in the last few months of his reign.39 The fact that these significant moves on Caligula’s part were confined to a very brief aperture of time 34 A.A. Barrett, Caligula 140-153, esp. 151-153. See, too, the excellent article of C.J. Simpson, ‘The Cult of the Emperor Gaius’, Latomus 40 (1981) 489-491. Additionally, R. Auget, 130-137; Caligula J.P.V.D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius 157-173; A. Ferrill, Caligula 133-137; S. Wilkinson, Caligula 27-28. For commentary on Suetonius’ discussion of Caligula’s religious policy (Calig. 22.1-3), see J.H. Betts, Suetonius, Caligula. Edited With Introduction and Commentary (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, Bristol); D.W. Hurley, An Historical and Historiographical Commentary on Suetonius’ Life of C. Caligula (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); R.R. Rosborough, An Epigraphic Commentary on Suetonius’ Life of Gaius Caligula (Philadelphia: unpub. thesis University of Pennsylvania, 1920). 35 For C.J. Simpson’s discussion of numen, see id., ‘The Cult’ 508-511, esp. 509 n.69. 36 E.g. qeo\n Sebasto/n (‘God Augustus’: referring to Augustus): V. Ehrenberg and A.H.M. Jones (eds), Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971) §72. E.g. th?\n te megalio/?thta tou~ qeou~ (‘the greatness of our God Caesar’: Prefect of Egypt speaking of the contents of Claudius’ letter): Tcherikover, CPJ II §153. E.g. $Hlie basileu~ (‘Sun King’: referring to Ptolemaeus VI): UPZ 1, 15, 33. 37 Note the revealing comment of A.A. Barrett ( Caligula 142; cf. 152) regarding the subtle difference between numen and genius: ‘it is far from certain that the unsophisticated were aware of the distinction’. On the entire issue, see D. Fishwick, ‘Genius and Numen’, HTR 62 (1969) 356-367. In the case of monotheistic Jews, however, the distinction would have been irrelevant. For discussion of Paul’s critique of the imperial cult in 1 Cor 8:5-6, see B.W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 269-286, esp. 281- 282. 38 C.J. Simpson, ‘The Cult’ 509. 39 A. Ferrill (Caligula n.432 179) estimates that the period in question spans the few months from the summer of AD 40 to Caligula’s death in January, AD 41. 9 in his reign explains why there is no relevant epigraphic, numismatic, or archaeological evidence documenting the change.40 Relevant to our discussion of the Jerusalem Temple incident, at least by way of Caligula’s policy regarding the imperial cult, is the establishment of a temple devoted to his numen on the Palatine at Rome. Suetonius (Calig. 22.3) describes it as follows: He also set up a special temple to his own godhead (suo numin proprium), with priests and victims of the choicest kinds. In this temple was a life-sized statue of the Emperor in gold, which was dressed each day in clothing such as he wore himself. The richest citizens used all their influence to secure the priesthood of his cult and bid high for the honour. The victims were flamingos, peacocks, woodcock, guinea-hens and pheasants, offered day by day each after its own kind.41 Is Caligula simply acting within traditional boundaries here? Some ancient historians have argued regarding the Palatine temple that the transfer of imperial worship from the provinces to the capital had Augustan precedent. Before we can assess the truth of this claim, we need to ask what was Caligula’s policy in the East regarding his cult. In AD 40-41 Caligula annexed a temple at the site of Didyma, situated within the territory of Miletus and being built for Apollo, for the purposes of his own cult (Cass. Dio 59.28.1). From an inscription we know that inside the temple Caligula placed his own statue and established there for the operations of his own cult an archierus (high priest), a neokoros (temple warden), a sebastoneos (an official devoted to the imperial cult) and a sebastologos (an official who recited prose eulogies of the ruler at cult ceremonies).42 The parallels, therefore, between Caligula’s actions at Didyma near Miletus and his proposed actions regarding the Jerusalem Temple are important and should give pause to scholars who regard Philo’s De Legatio ad Gaium as unhistorical.43 When Caligula transfers the imperial cult from the Greek East (as practised at Didyma near Miletus) to the Palatine at Rome in the Latin West, however, we are witnessing (what seems to be) a high-handed act of cultic presumption. 40 The absence of documentary, numismatic, and archaeological evidence is (correctly) raised by those scholars who deny that Caligula claimed deity in any exalted sense: e.g. J.P.V.D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius 167-168; S. Wilkinson, Caligula 27. A. Ferrill (Caligula 136) says that the absence of any archaeological evidence for a Caligula cult is explained by the fact that the cult ceased upon the ruler’s death. 41 Dio (59.28.2) mentions that Caligula erected two temples at Rome, one by vote of the Senate on the Capitoline, the other at his expense on the Capitoline. On the historicity of Dio’s traditions, see D.W. Hurley, Commentary 88. See also Hurley (ibid., 89) for arguments (citing E. Köberlein, Caligula und die ägyptischen Kulte [Meisenheim an Glan: Hein, 1962] 46-49) that the cult of his numen was based on Isis worship. 42 For a translation, see R.K. Sherk, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1988) §43. Note, however, the comment of J.V.D.P. Balsdon (The Emperor Gaius 162) regarding the Miletus inscription: ‘in the form of the dedication, in which neither senate or Rome was associated with Gaius, there was certainly a break with tradition’. Similarly, A.A. Barrett, Caligula 143-144. 43 A.A. Barrett (Caligula 143) sees the planned temples at Miletus and Jerusalem as ‘two striking illustrations of Caligula’s policy towards his cult in the east’. 10