[The text discussed is Luke 3–4.]
Antipas, benefactor of the people and citizen of Rome;
To Luke, scholar and friend;
Greetings.
It is my great pleasure to report what you are likely to have heard already: The Pergamene gladiatorial contests were a great success. Rufinus has drawn up his own report on the day, which has been deposited in the city archives. Copies of his report have been made for wide circulation. One copy has been sent to the emperor himself, who provided some gladiators from his own troupe. I have several copies at my own disposal and enclose one of them with this letter, imagining that it might be a record of interest even within the Ephesian archives.
As you will see, the spectators were offered a feast of amusement and entertainment in grand fashion. As the sponsor of the day, Rufinus has received high praise and adulation from local residents, as well as the leading men of Pergamum and the neighboring cities. His reputation is held in increasingly high regard. My own part in assisting with the organization of the contests was publicly recognized by Rufinus, who in his banquet speech after the contests made mention of me and his other associate, Kalandion, showering us with praise, accolades, and gifts.
Your information about the historian Josephus came as a tremendous surprise. I had heard much about him while resident in Tyre during the time of the Jewish revolt, before relocating to Caesarea. Word spread like wildfire about the capture of the general of the Jewish forces in Galilee who preserved his life by ingratiating himself with his Roman overlords.
I remember that he was kept in Caesarea for the majority of the war, but once Vespasian departed for Rome, I heard no more about him, except that many Jews continue to speak ill of him, imagining him to be a traitor. Who would have imagined that a general of an unfortunate troupe of Jewish rebels would rise to become a great historian of Jewish antiquity in the household of the almighty Roman emperor. His god must indeed look favorably upon him. I look forward to enjoying his writings after studying your own monograph.
I greatly regret that our discussions of your portrait of the Nazarene Jesus have been hindered recently. This is due to a combination of factors, not least the postcompetition affairs and responsibilities and the heavy rains that have been unkind to my health. But after a two-week hiatus, Rufinus and I met outside the city walls in the temple of Isis, the mistress of Pergamum, to continue our reading and discussion of your narrative.
During our discussion, I chanced upon an idea of some interest to me. Following our consideration of your text in the forthcoming weeks, I will strive to recount to you the issues we discuss arising from your monograph; if you should find it good to respond to our impressions, so much the better. The opportunity to discuss a significant piece of historical writing with its author is rare and holds great interest for me. (Who would not jump at the chance to discuss Homer’s texts with Homer himself!) So perhaps you will permit me this luxury. If the gods permit, I will seek on a regular basis to send to you a brief synopsis of our discussion. If you care to reply to any point, that would be welcome, certainly, although I cannot conscript you into an enterprise of my own devising. Perhaps this suggestion is the product of an aging mind. If you find the suggestion unattractive in any way, you will of course let me know.
Even though we read only a brief section of your monograph, we were both impressed with your compositional skill. I must confess, however, that the lineage of Jesus [3:23–38] did not assist us in clearly locating Jesus’s heritage, since almost all the names you mentioned are unfamiliar to us. What does stand out is that, despite being a peasant, Jesus could boast of a long-established lineage. Presumably his family would have clung to this small indicator of honor. What else would they have had, with a hometown like Nazareth? I do not know if you have ever visited Nazareth, but it is not a very impressive place. Halfway between the Sea of Galilee and the great Mediterranean Sea, it is dwarfed in size and quality of life by the great cities of Galilee that encircle it: Tiberias, a most impressive city built by Herod Antipas as his second Galilean capital; Sepphoris, rebuilt by Herod Antipas, itself the ornament of all Galilee; and the magnificent Hellenistic city-states of Scythopolis, Sidon, and Tyre, the last being one of the cities where I spent many years of my life. These are bustling cities on the international trade routes and are full of merchants and artisans selling the finer things of life to the elite inhabitants. By contrast, Nazareth has a mere five hundred inhabitants at most, predominately agricultural workers, and an inordinate number of peasant busybodies concerned only with one another’s business. The town’s main function is simply to supply the nearby city of Sepphoris with provisions. If the goal of your narrative is to demonstrate Jesus’s claim to honor, it will have to cover a lot of ground.
In this regard, we were also struck by your description of the John who baptizes, the son of the priest Zechariah. He certainly seemed a troubled soul. His profile reminded me somewhat of a group of Jews who lived on the edge of the Dead Sea [a group now known as the Qumran community]. I think their community has now disbanded. I do not know much about them, except that, like John, they were very interested in baptism and lived in the wilderness. Moreover, they were not well regarded by some of the elite priests in Jerusalem with whom I occasionally came into contact. Perhaps those priests would not have appreciated John either. Am I right to think that there might have been some tension between Zechariah and John, the priestly father in the temple and the radical son in the wilderness? Both would have thought of themselves as agents of the Jewish god, but whereas the father offered sacrifices in the temple for the forgiveness of his people’s sins, the son promoted “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” [3:3]. Surely most Jews, and the priests in particular, considered the temple of their Jerusalem god to be the location where the forgiveness of sins took place prior to its destruction.
John also raised his voice against the lifestyle of Herod Antipas [3:19]. This caught my attention immediately since, despite the great numbers of Antipas’s admirers, I consider myself to hold the greatest admiration for Herod Antipas. He had some Jewish heritage,1 of course, whereas I do not. And yet, his name has been mine all my life, out of admiration for the way he advanced civic life in Galilee, much like his father, Herod the Great. My own father benefited much from Herod Antipas’s Galilean initiatives, which promoted the ways of Rome and the economic advancement of the area. As a consequence, our family’s material resources became firmly established. If Jesus the Nazarene is associated with John who baptizes and who opposed Herod Antipas, I will be intrigued to discover from your narrative whether Jesus followed the path of social unrest that John seems to flirt with or the path of honor. Jesus seems a curious figure in this regard.
These and other points were the focus of our recent discussion. We plan to meet again next week, and again I will write a digest of our discussion and send you sections of that digest by way of Stachys, unless you suggest otherwise. As ever, your care of Stachys is much appreciated. He speaks highly of you and of your hospitality. Please accept my gift of gratitude for your hospitality.
May the rains bring plenty to Calpurnius’s fields, to the honor of the blessed emperor.