1 Introduction
The critical inclusion of numismatic evidence in modern discussions of Pauline ethics is virtually absent in current New Testament scholarship. The paucity of numismatic interaction is more likely a symptom of a wider neglect of coinage as evidence for ancient history in general, and New Testament studies in particular, rather than an actual absence of relevant material.Footnote 1 Numismatic material has, at times, been drawn upon for contributing to clues which illuminate the iconographic and symbolic world of the New Testament,Footnote 2 but rarely has such analysis extended to the linguistic level of inscriptions upon the coins themselves as informing semantic domains of Hellenistic Greek terminology and, as a consequence, the lexicographer's inclusion of this material in a lexicon. Although there are positive signs of academic engagement in this research area,Footnote 3 the methodology and robust application of it to numismatic contributions to lexicography is in its infancy. This study seeks to analyse the numismatic evidence for insights into Pauline ethics, in particular the ΕΥΕΡΓ- word group (ɛὐɛργɛτέω [to serve as benefactor], ɛὐɛργέτης [benefactor], ɛὐɛργɛσία as it pertains to 1 Timothy 6.2.Footnote 4
The concept of benefaction was intrinsically woven into the fabric of the Greco-Roman world. The expectation that people occupying prominent social, religious, or political positions would provide some kind of benefaction for their community was presupposed. Whether it was an enthroned king seeking political capital,Footnote 5 a Hellenistic ruler desiring public displays of loyalty,Footnote 6 or benefaction which enhanced social standing and election to public office,Footnote 7 it was assumed in the ancient mind that such provisions of benefaction would be transactional.Footnote 8 This typically took the form of something desirable provided by the elite (military or territorial protection, financial subsidies, local civic benefits, acclamations) in exchange for some desired return (political loyalty, advancement of social status, honorific inscriptions). Sophocles captures this dynamic in Ajax 522 where he notes χάρις χάριν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τίκτουσ᾿ ἀɛί (trans. ‘for it is always one favour that begets another').Footnote 9 Such activity was recognised as ɛὐɛργɛσία ‘benefaction’ and the one who provided the contribution as the ɛὐɛργέτης ‘benefactor.Footnote 10 Failure to adhere to appropriate etiquette in these social or political constructions was considered catastrophic. One Jewish writer expresses the view that anyone who is guilty of impiety towards a benefactor, as much as towards God or one's parents, deserves death (Philo, Hypoth. 7.2). It is significant to note that by the late Hellenistic period acclamations and inscriptions bestowed further honours on such individuals, referring to them as ‘saviours’, ‘founders’, and ‘fathers of the city’.Footnote 11 Sviatoslav Dmitriev observes that, ‘Roman desire to connect the social prominence of local elites with their financial responsibilities…fell on well-prepared ground’Footnote 12 and that the elites ‘continued to pose as ɛὐɛργɛ́ται of their cities during the Roman imperial period’.Footnote 13 The significance of such activity is highlighted by J. H. M. Strubbe's observation that benefits for citizen benefactors could even include cultic veneration.Footnote 14 The numismatic evidence illuminates several key themes within the ancient social matrix of benefaction, not least the extent and significance of the concept at the civic level. We thus first turn to an analysis of the relevant extant coinage.
2 Numismatic Evidence
Roman Provincial Coinage of the Julio-Claudian period preserves over sixty unique Greek honorific titles spanning the full breadth of the Mediterranean world.Footnote 15 Prominent titular attestations include: ἁγνός ‘pure’ (Sebaste: RPC I. 3153; Temnus: RPC I. 2447), ἀγωνoθέτης ‘president of the games’ (Aegae: RPC I. 2427–2428; Cotiaeum: RPC I. 3222, 3224), ἀντιστράτηγος ‘commander’ (Cyrenaica and Crete: RPC I. 919–920), ἀρχιɛρɛύς ‘arch-priest’ (Hierocaesarea: RPC I. 2389–2390; Ephesus: RPC I. 2570–2574, 2585–2592 et al.), γραμματɛύς ‘secretary’ (Hypaepa: RPC I. 2543–2555; Nicaea Cilbianorum: RPC I. 2564 et al.), ἱɛρɛύς ‘priest’ (Nysa: RPC I. 2666–2667, 2671; Heraclea: RPC I. 2858–2862), κτίστης ‘founder’ (Prymnessus: RPC I.3200), φιλόκαισαρ ‘loyal to the emperor’ (Philadelphia: RPC I. 3027–3031; Tripolis: RPC I. 3054–3055; Synnada: RPC I. 3179, 3181, 3190). One title that is especially favoured on the coinage of Asia Minor, and the focus of our current discussion, is ɛὐɛργέτης ‘benefactor’. The epithet is found on 11 coin types of Roman Provincial Coinage attested in 80 specimens within the leading international museum and university collections (see Table 1). The numismatic title is also prominently found on Parthian coinage (see Table 2) and extremely popular on Seleucid coinage during the period 152–88 bce (see Table 3), in addition to at least 74 specimens (see Table 4) on the earliest coinage of the Hasmonean dynasty under John Hyrcanus I (see Table 4). The tabulation of attested evidence in Tables 1-4 below concretely demonstrates the significant extent and spread of relevant coinage in circulation, both in terms of geographic attestation and relevant chronological period.
ΕΥΕΡΓ- Word Group on Roman Provincial Coinage
ΕΥΕΡΓ- Word Group on Parthian Coinage
ΕΥΕΡΓ- Word Group on Seleucid Coinage Arranged by Authority
ΕΥΕΡΓ- Word Group on Hasmonean Coinage
Andrew Burnett, Michel Amandry, and Ian Carradice, editors of the magisterial collection of Roman Provincial Coinage (RPC I and II), propose a convincing historical reconstruction of the chronology of Neronian coins at Laodicea between 60–68 CE.Footnote 16 RPC I. 2920–2923 are dated to 62 CE based on specific iconographic features, including the association with Poppaea and the absence of the ‘steps’ portrait.Footnote 17 The reverse inscriptions of RPC I. 2920–2922 have ΙΟΥΛΙΟΣ ΑΝΔΡΟΝΙΚΟΣ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΗΣ (‘Ioulios Andronikos, benefactor’), and RPC I. 2923 expands this with an additional reference to location, ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΩΝ (‘of the Laodiceans’). The date, location, and honorific (ɛὐɛργέτης) are suggestive that Ioulios Andronikos was given this title in response to his financial support of the city after the earthquake of 62 CE.Footnote 18 Ioulios Andronikos also reappears on the coinage of Laodicea in the 70s under Vespasian (RPC II. 1269–1270) bearing the same honorific title.Footnote 19
The coinage of Apollonia Mordiaeum survives in only five specimens in two types, one from the time of Augustus (RPC I. 3527) and the other from the time of Tiberius (RPC I. 3528). Remarkably both have the title ɛὐɛργέτης for the individual named on the reverse of the issue: Ioulios Biton on RPC I. 3527 and Cornutus on RPC I. 3528. On the latter, we also have two inscriptions of the first century which honour a certain C. Julius Patruinus Cornutus φιλόπατρις (MAMA IV 163.2 and 163.3),Footnote 26 two fragments of an architrave block inscribed in both Greek and Latin recording the name Iulus Cornutus,Footnote 27 whom S. Mitchell identifies as a member of the local elite.Footnote 28 Among other inscriptional evidence (PIR2 S 566 in IGR III 315),Footnote 29 the name on RPC I. 3528 is clearly consistent with an eminent Asiatic family deeply engaged in public benefaction over multiple generations.
In 248 bce a tribal chieftain named Arsaces led a nomadic Central Asian tribe to invade and control Parthia. Quite remarkably, autonomous coinage was struck by the new power almost immediately. As might be expected the coinage produced shared iconographic similarities with its Seleucid predecessor but also incorporated significant elements from its Irano-Central Asian background.Footnote 30 Typically, the obverse depicts the royal bust, and the reverse portrays a seated archer, perhaps inspired by the Seleucid seated Apollo. Towards the end of the first century bc, the reverse portrays evolve into more complex victory scenes representing the king's triumph over rivals to the throne.Footnote 31 The innovative square arrangement of the reverse inscription typically permitted up to seven unabbreviated inscribed words, sometimes more. From Orodes II (57–38 bce) until the end of the Arsacid coinage, the reverse inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ is attested on every drachm and tetradrachm. A notable feature of the coinage of Mithradates II (123–88 bce) is the introduction of the title ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ. This title was adopted, in part, due to his military success, which included significant territorial expansion (and re-acclamation, e.g., Sakastan) and the pacification of historic political enemies, most notably the tribes in Bactria who were responsible for the death of his predecessors. One remarkable feature preserved in the numismatic record is Mithradates’ subjugation of Characene (Hyspaosines) whose coins are physically overstruck with the die of Mithradates II (e.g., Alram 491.2 overstruck with Sellwood 27.1).Footnote 32
Early Seleucid monetary policy allowed, and even encouraged an open financial system, whereby all external currencies (in the form of tetradrachms) were accepted for internal payments.Footnote 33 As Seleucid territorial expansion stabilised and state administration was regularised, coinage was more intentionally systematised.Footnote 34 Significant developments are evident in iconographic and inscriptional features, especially from the middle of the second century bce onwards. From Antiochus IV onwards, the complexity of visual imagery increased especially in regard to mythological origins and military victory, but also in the royal bust, to which Antiochus IV added a radiate crown in assimilation to Helios (e.g., SC II. 1406).Footnote 35 Inscriptions too, increased in length and complexity. Antiochus IV adds ΘEOY ‘god’ to his coinage minted at Ecbatana (SC. II. 1539, 1541–1542), ΘEOY EΠIΦANOYΣ ‘god manifest’ (SC II. 1396–1476) on bronze and silver coinage, and ΘEOY EΠIΦANOYΣ NIKHΦOPOY ‘god manifest, bringer of victory’ (SC II. 1398–1401, 1420, 1474–1476). Rulers that follow similarly enhance the inscription to convey a specific message of their rule, such as the addition of MEΓAΛOY ‘the great’ by Timarchus in 164–161 bce (SC II. 1588–1608), or ΣΩTHPOΣ ‘saviour’ by Demetrius I in 155–150 bce (SC II. 1623, 1627–1632, 1640–1657). Alexander Balas I introduces the title EYEPΓETOY ‘benefactor’ onto his coinage in 152–145 BCE, and subsequent rulers for approximately the next century followed suit.Footnote 36 As it stands, EYEPΓETOY is attested on the reverse inscriptions on 116 Seleucid coin types represented by more 6,100 extant specimens.Footnote 37
John Hyrcanus I (Yehonanan), son of Simon the Hasmonean and nephew of Judah the Maccabee (1 Macc 13.53; 16.1–10; Jos. BJ 1.51–3; AJ 13.225–7), served as a general in his father's army until 135 bce. After Simon's assassination by his son-in-law Ptolemy in 135/134 bce, Hyrcanus seized power in Jerusalem and installed himself as high priest. Soon after Hyrcanus's failed attempts to rescue his mother and brothers from Ptolemy, Antiochus VII led the Seleucid army against Jerusalem (1 Macc 16.11–22; Jos. BJ 1.54–60; AJ 13.228–35). It is of significance that Josephus explicitly contrasts the negative actions of Antiochus IV (167 bce) and the positive actions of Antiochus VII (132 bce). Whereas the former, upon besieging the city, ɛ̔λὼν ὗς μɛ̀ν κατɛ́θυσɛν ɛ̓πὶ τὸν βωμόν, τὸν νɛὼν δὲ τῷ ζωμῷ τούτων πɛριɛ́ρρανɛ συγχɛ́ας τὰ Ἰουδαίων νόμιμα (‘offered swine upon the altar, and sprinkled the temple with the broth of their flesh, in order to violate the laws of the Jews’, Jos. AJ 13.243), Antiochus VII not only permitted seven days respite to allow Jewish celebration of the feast of tabernacles but sent θυσίαν…μɛγαλοπρɛπῆ (‘a magnificent sacrifice’) with παντοίων ἀρωμάτων, ‘every kind of spice’ (Jos. AJ 13.242). Antiochus VII was also apparently agreeable to the negotiations of Hyrcanus who offered tribute (hostages and silver) which averted the siege against a range of Judean cities (Jos. AJ 13.247). As a political measure of fidelity and gratitude in 131 bce, John Hyrcanus I (under Antiochus VII) issued a bronze prutah (SC II.2123) on which was inscribed BAΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOY EYEPΓETOY (‘of King Antiochus, benefactor’).Footnote 38 It is no surprise then, the year after (129 bce), that Hyrcanus agreed to march alongside Antiochus VII against Parthia (Jos. AJ 13.250–252).Footnote 39
3 ΕΥΕΡΓ- Word Group in Hellenistic Greek
The ΕΥΕΡΓ- word group is used extensively in Hellenistic Greek sources and can be applied alike to gods and humans. First-century ce documentary and literary texts commonly employ the word group as a publicly bestowed title (ɛὐɛργɛ́της) for an individual's civic contribution and description of such benefit (ɛὐɛργɛσία).Footnote 40 Danker notes that the title recognises ‘unusual merit, as manifested by esteemed members of narrower or broader community, with the response made by the beneficiaries of such merit’.Footnote 41 The papyrological record contains hundreds of attestations of the ΕΥΕΡΓ-word group (898 on the last count) which are commonly used in the context of appeals, gift deeds, loan contracts and petitions. One such petition is SB 16.12714Footnote 42 (5–6 ce) where Isidoros from Sophthis in the Memphite nome appeals to Publius Ostorius Scapula, the πάντων ɛὐɛργέτην (‘benefactor of all’, lines 13–14) for action against the illegal activities of Tryphon, the strategos of the Arsinoite nome. Doing so would, we are told, would result in Isidorus ɛὐɛργɛτημένος (‘being benefited’, line 17). In another petition, P.Oxy 38Footnote 43 (49–50 ce), a different Tryphon appeals to the prefect Gnaeus Vergillius Capito for legal intervention against Syrus who apparently μὴ βουλομένου ἐνμɛῖναι τοῖς κɛκριμένοις (‘refuses to comply with the judgement’, line 16) of Pasion relating to the identity of a child (details of which are fortuitously preserved in P.Oxy 37). Tryphon addresses Gnaeus as benefactor, ἀκολούθως τοῖς ὑπὸ σοῦ τοῦ ɛὐɛργέτου προστɛταγμένοις (‘in accordance with what had been enacted by you, my benefactor’, lines 13–14).
The LXX has 23 occurrences of the ΕΥΕΡΓ-word group, Philo has 136, Josephus has 108 (see Table 5), and typically refers to favour or benevolence. In this Jewish context, the word group is commonly employed with reference to God in verbal form (Ps 56:3, κɛκράξομαι πρὸς τὸν θɛὸν τὸν ὕψιστον, τὸν θɛὸν τὸν ɛὐɛργɛτήσαντά μɛ (‘I will cry to God most high; the God who has benefacted me’)), or as a noun (Ps 77:11, καὶ ɛ̓πɛλάθοντο τῶν ɛὐɛργɛσιῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν θαυμασίων αὐτοῦ, ὧν ἔδɛιξɛν αὐτοῖς (‘and they forgot his benefactions and his wonders which he had shown them’)), yet the LXX avoids the titular ɛὐɛργέτης for God. Philo, however, has no such inhibitions and liberally applies the title to humans and God (e.g., Philo, Opificio 169, διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν ɛὐɛργɛ́την καὶ σωτῆρα θɛὸν ἀχαριστίαν (‘because of its ingratitude to God its benefactor and its Saviour’)). Josephus similarly uses the word group to refer to both human (AJ 2.262) and divine agents (AJ 3.14).
ΕΥΕΡΓ- Word Group in LXX, Josephus and Philo
Of particular relevance for our present discussion is the regular pairing of related terminology within the word group, where for example, ɛὐɛργɛσία (‘benefaction’) is directly identified as the outcome of the activity of an ɛὐɛργέτης (‘benefactor’) or an individual who is said to ɛὐɛργɛτɛῖν (‘benefact’). Such association is broadly attested in both literary and documentary texts. For example, in Philo's philosophical treatise on Genesis 17.1–5, 15–22 entitled De Mutatione Nominum, he contrasts God's absolute existence with his relative potency, and in one sentence uses two forms of the noun, the adjective, and verb while describing the divine activities, §28b records, ‘and of the powers which he has extended towards creation for the advantage (ɛὐɛργɛσίᾳ) of the world which is thus put together, some are spoken of, as it were, in relation to these things; as for instance his kingly and his beneficent (ɛὐɛργɛτικήν) power; for he is the king of something, and the benefactor (ɛὐɛργɛ́της) of something there being inevitably something which is ruled over and which receives the benefits (ɛὐɛργɛτουμɛ́νου)’. Similarly, Philo Somniis 1.163 associates God as ɛὐɛργɛ́την and the one who performs the ɛὐɛργɛσίας.Footnote 44 Z. A. Crook notes that, for Philo, ‘God is, indeed must be, the supreme benefactor because all things are God's alone; nothing else, or no one else, has anything to give.’Footnote 45
Josephus avoids any explicit reference to the eternal covenant between God and Israel.Footnote 46 H. W. Attridge proposes that the concept of God's relationship with Israel in Josephus is primarily expressed in terms of benefaction which intentionally replaces the covenantal understanding.Footnote 47 Attridge's proposal is consistent with Josephus employing benefaction language in relation to Israel over fifty times throughout the extant corpus. For example, Joshua's speech in Jos. AJ 5.115 includes exhortation of his listeners to remember, τάς τɛ ɛὐɛργɛσίας τοῦ θɛοῦ ἁπάσας (‘all the benefactions of God’), referring to the Exodus emancipation and entry into the land.Footnote 48 Josephus also regularly uses a combination of the ΕΥΕΡΓ- word group to refer to historical human figures, both biblical and contemporary. Examples include Joseph, son of Jacob (ɛὐɛργɛ́της AJ 2.136, 195; ɛὐɛργɛσία AJ 2.143); Moses (ɛὐɛργɛτɛ́ω AJ 2. 261; 4.317; ɛὐɛργɛσία AJ 2. 242, 262); Joshua (ɛὐɛργɛσία AJ 5.30); Herod the Great (ɛὐɛργɛ́της AJ 16.212; ɛὐɛργɛσία AJ 16.150; 17.109; BJ 1.184, 520; ɛὐɛργɛτικός AJ 16.150).
The close linguistic and practical relationship between the ɛὐɛργɛ́της and the ɛὐɛργɛσία they perform is similarly very prominent in broader Hellenistic literary texts too. Among many other possible examples, Aelian's second-century Greek work entitled On the Characteristics of Animals is a collection of observations concerning animals and provides a satisfying and interesting example. A unifying theme throughout Aelian's work is how the untaught but reasoning animals ironically provide a paradigm of virtue for humans who are regularly thoughtless and selfish. In book 4.44 Aelian addresses the apparent capacity of animals, in particular cats, wasps, crocodiles and hawks, to remember benefaction. He notes, ἀλλὰ ɛὖ παθόντα ἀπομνησθῆναι τῆς ɛὐɛργɛσίας ἐστὶν ἀγαθά…καὶ οὐκ ἄν ποτɛ ἐπίθοιτο τοῖς ɛὐɛργέταις τοῖς ἑαυτῶν, τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ συμφυοῦς τɛ καὶ συγγɛνοῦς ἅπαξ παραλυθέντα (‘but when well-treated they are good at remembering benefaction…they would never set upon their benefactors once they have been freed from their congenital and natural temper’).Footnote 49 This disposition is contrasted with humanity who can become ‘the bitter enemy of a friend and for some trifling and casual reason blurt out confidences to betray the very man who trusted him’ (4.44).
In addition to the literary texts noted above, scores of inscriptions exist which employ ΕΥΕΡΓ- terminology for a range of documents including resolutions drawn up by civic bodies, honours by private associations, honoured deities, and heads of states (see the high-level summary of evidence in Table 6). By way of example, SEG 46, 710Footnote 50 is a decree from Akrothooi in Chalcidice (196-180 bce) in which the city honours Dorotheos from Alexandreia, who ἀναθɛῖναι ɛἰς τὸ ἱɛρόν (‘dedicated the temple’, lines 4-5) and is recognised as ɛὐɛργέτην (line 3) because of his ɛὐɛργɛσίαν (line 4).Footnote 51 Likewise, an inscription from Pydna, SEG 43, 451 (168 bce) honours Karponidas and Alexiphaes as ɛὐɛργέταις (line 22) because of the restoration of the statue of Ἀπόλλωνος τοῦ Δɛκαδρύου (‘Apollo Dekadryos’, line 5). The result of the ɛυɛργɛτούσα (‘benefaction’ line 14) was recorded in the monument as ἡ πόλις ἡμῶν φαίνηται (‘our city shines’, line 14).Footnote 52 OGIS 6662 is an Egyptian inscription dated to 54–59 CE and records honours for Tiberius’ first prefect of Egypt. As with other material noted above, this inscription also uses the noun and verb in close co-ordination, namely in reference to Nero's status and action as ὁ ἀγαθὸς δαίμων τῆς οἰκουμένης, σὺν ἅπασιν οἷς ɛὐɛργέτησɛν ἀγαθοῖς τὴν Αἴγυπτον…ἔπɛμψɛν ἡμɛῖν Τιβέριον Κλαύδιον Βάλβιλλον ἡγɛμόνα (‘the good genius of the world in addition to all the other benefactions he has conferred on Egypt… sent to us Tiberius Claudius Balbillus as prefect’), after which the prefect's χάριτας καὶ ɛὐɛργɛσίας (‘favours and benefactions’)Footnote 53 are noted.
ɛὐɛργέτης and ɛὐɛργɛσία in Epigraphic Inscriptions
4 ΕΥΕΡΓ- Word Group in the New Testament with a Focus on 1 Timothy
The noun ɛὐɛργɛ́της appears once in the New Testament and is used in the traditional sense of an honorary title (Luke 22.25). There it refers to that which Jesus’ disciples should reject, namely the exploitation of power, cf. Luke 22.26, ὑμɛῖς δɛ̀ οὐχ οὕτως… (‘but not so with you…’). The verbal form occurs in Acts 10.38, ɛὐɛργɛτɛ́ω and refers to the apostolic testimony of Jesus’ deeds. The noun ɛὐɛργɛσία is used in Acts 4.9 and denotes the healing of the sick by the name of Jesus (cf. Acts 4.10) and in 1 Timothy 6.2 as a description of the service of a slave toward their Christian master.
For the purposes of our present discussion, we will focus on the sole reference in material traditionally attributed to Paul, namely 1 Timothy 6.2. However, as was demonstrated above in the discussion of Hellenistic Greek attestations of the ΕΥΕΡΓ- word group, individual lexemes in that group are commonly used in close association and interrelation. So much so, that when the presence of one lexeme appears, it suggests that the writer had in mind aspects or nuances of the other terms in the word group. In the current discussion of attempting to delineate numismatic implications for Pauline ethics, we will posit that the ɛὐɛργɛσία is performed by an implied, but carefully defined ɛὐɛργɛ́της.
Let us proceed by considering the larger unit in which 1 Timothy 6.2 is situated, namely 5.1–6.2. This pericope consists of an address to four groups: people of differing ages (5.1–2); widows (5.3–16), payment and discipline of elders (5.17–25), and slaves (6.1–2). To the final group (6.1–2) it is stressed that they should not be disrespectful to their Christian masters but rather serve them [their masters] all the more because οἱ τῆς ɛὐɛργɛσίας ἀντιλαμβανόμɛνοι (‘those benefiting from [their] benefaction’ 6.2) are believers. A. T. Hanson argues that ‘the author might be using the word [ɛὐɛργɛσία] deliberately in order to stress the ultimate equality of slaves and masters in God's eyes’,Footnote 54 a thought echoing John Calvin's view that ‘it is no small honour that God has made us equal to the lords of this earth’.Footnote 55 E. K. Simpson captures this idea more poetically when he similarly notes, ‘the slave is raised from a chattel to a spiritual equal in grace’.Footnote 56 However, these conclusions do not go far enough in doing justice to the nature and meaning of ɛὐɛργɛσία, which rather than connoting equality, is indicative of the absence of equality.
Evidence as wide-ranging as public monuments (epigraphic), philosophical (Philo), historical (Josephus) and theological texts (LXX), as well as a range of other documentary (papyrological) and literary sources, employs the ΕΥΕΡΓ- word group in descriptions of an act or service by a superior to an inferior. In light of our comprehensive numismatic discussion above, we can now add and give full credence to the numismatic material. As noted, the lexeme was found to be attested on coinage from the second century bce to the end of the first century ce, in hundreds of types, preserved in many thousands of specimens. The implication of this extant record of coinage has yet to be fully appreciated by New Testament scholarship. I propose, in no uncertain terms, that the author's direct identification of ‘ɛὐɛργɛσία’ in 1 Timothy 6.2 as a slave's servitude/benefaction towards a master was a deliberate and shocking inversion of expected social and linguistic categories.
This is not to say that commentators have completely overlooked this interpretive possibility. Indeed Danker, who was immersed in the epigraphic evidence, describes the phenomenon of an author using ɛὐɛργɛσία in description of an inferior's actions toward a superior as a ‘dramatic language event’.Footnote 57 Also, as far back as 1910 Deissmann briefly noted the possible connection between benefaction in Luke 22.25 and ‘Syrian and Phoenician coins’.Footnote 58 However, Deissmann and others could never have predicted the sheer volume and quality of numismatic discoveries that the 20th century would produce, and the impact which they would have on our understanding of language and culture. Perhaps equally impressive are the prodigious scholastic developments, aided by technology,Footnote 59 in the systematic analysis, categorisation and publication of over one million numismatic specimens.
When 1 Timothy 6.2 refers to slave labour, using a term customarily employed in description of benefaction by an honoured ɛὐɛργέτην, we agree with C. Spicq's view (although he arrives at it through a different line of argument) that Paul transforms the obedience of servitude into the giving of a noble benefit.Footnote 60 In so doing, the central assumption of Greco-Roman social structure involving slaves and masters is inverted. Paul's tacit reversal of Roman social order in 1 Timothy 6.2 is a more radical expression of his exhortation to Philemon to receive Onesimus back ‘no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother’ (Philemon 16). One might paraphrase the revolutionary corollary sentiment in 1 Timothy 6.2 as a (hyperbolic) exhortation for masters to consider their slaves ‘no longer as slaves, but as their benefactor!’ P. H. Towner captures an element of this when he notes, ‘Paul has turned the tables. The slaves serve, but in God's surprising oikonomia they do so from a position of power; nobility and honour, the rewards of benefaction, are accorded here implicitly to the slaves.’Footnote 61 This is not to suggest that Paul was attempting to instil negative superiority toward the master, as this would undermine his impetus in the immediately preceding verse that instructs slaves to regard ‘their masters as worthy of all honour’ (1 Tim 6.1). When Paul exhorts slaves to respect and honour their masters, he continues in the same breath (v2a) to grant status and dignity via the ‘benefaction’ that the slaves provide. Although the corollary is not explicitly stated, i.e., that masters ought to love and respect their slaves (cf. Eph. 6.2–9; Col 3.22–4:1), our proposal can be understood, at the very least, as a nuanced and non-confrontational rhetorical mechanism for addressing the master's attitude of appropriate respect toward the slave. Taken to its logical conclusion, the identification of the slave providing ɛὐɛργɛσία is suggestive of an implicit critique of the contemporaneous master-slave social hierarchical relationship, and potentially the structure of the system itself.
5 Conclusion
The goal of this study has been to immerse ourselves in this numismatic world (diachronically and synchronically) in order to bring clarity to one aspect of Pauline (or ‘Pauline’) ethics in 1 Timothy 6.2. In surveying the extant numismatic record, including Roman, Parthian, Seleucid, and Hasmonean coinage, it became abundantly evident that benefaction was a significant theme celebrated and communicated through the medium of coinage from the second century bce through to the end of the first century ce. The basic pattern of benefaction on coinage which emerged was strengthened through correlation with related forms of linguistic and archaeological evidence. Papyri, inscriptions and literary material evidenced the currency of the idea of benefaction in the Roman world with the employment of ɛὐɛργɛσία as a direct result of an ɛὐɛργɛ́της. Broad attestation and close relationship between these terms in our investigation enabled a deeper reading of 1 Timothy 6.2. Namely, that 1 Timothy's identification of a slave's servitude as ɛὐɛργɛσία was not indicative of a move to equality (as is periodically argued), but something more radical: a deliberate inversion of Greco-Roman social and linguistic categories.Footnote 62
Our underlying methodological assumption in this study has been that linguistic material on coins should, and must, be included as one part of the primary source materials for interpreting the New Testament. Such evidence is not the only relevant linguistic evidence, or indeed, necessarily the most important, but it is one form that deserves not to be omitted. In employing such a methodology, it is hoped that our present discussion has both provided illumination of 1 Timothy 6.2 and also contributed more broadly to our understanding of ancient views and responses to slave/master hierarchies, or in the case of 1 Timothy 6.2, their attempted inversion.
Competing interests
The author declares none.
Open access
