The Cultural Evolution of Cultic Expertise in Ephesus: Experts in the Inscriptions of Unofficial Associations and in the Early Christian Texts related to the Figure of John

This doctoral dissertation charts the development of cultic expertise during the first three centuries of the Common Era. It analyzes how cultic expertise changed during the rise of early Christianity in the source material that is related to the ancient city of Ephesus. The sources for this study are inscriptions of unofficial associations and longer texts that describe a character named John as a cultic expert in Ephesus (the book of Revelation, the Acts of John, Apollonius’ Treatise against the Phrygians, and Polycrates’ Letter to Victor). To understand these developments, the study analyzes the management of the experts’ reputation: how was one recognized as a cultic authority in the sources, and what we can deduce about the historical reality behind the sources.

This study joins a wider debate on the changes that took place in ancient cultic expertise. Wide evolutionary claims have been made about cultic developments during the beginning of the Common Era. Several studies have attempted to explain how and why new kinds of textual and doctrinal expertise arose at that time. These studies have especially emphasized the way new textual experts separated themselves from the wider society 1) by creating alternative intellectual routes to success, 2) by creating translocal networks of shared expertise, or 3) as part of a worldwide “Axial age” trend, which favored moralizing religion over traditional hierarchy. In contrast to these three lines of interpretation, other studies have emphasized the continuation of earlier forms of cultic authority: the textual experts wanted to appear as reliable transmitters of traditional civic authority.

This study applies the cultural evolutionary approach to determine what other means besides doctrinal dimensions are at work when a person is assessed as a cultic authority. The analysis applies the cultural evolutionary concepts of “charismatic signals” (cultural products that create uniformity on a non-deliberative level) and “prestige-based leadership” (authorities as self-sacrificial and benevolent leaders). These phenomena are used as rhetorical devices to manage reputation for creating trust in authoritative individuals.

The Ephesian unofficial associations honored their important benefactors through erecting inscriptions to exemplary figures. Besides cultic expertise, they were appraised as securers of their family reputation, leaders of public spectacles, and as people who had good translocal ties to the top of the Empire—even to the emperors themselves.

Even though the book of Revelation (c. 95 CE) has often been interpreted as a protest against the ancient city elite and its benefactory connections to associations, Revelation’s portrayal of expertise can also be considered a way to appear as the valid way of behaving as a noble polis authority. The text does this by positioning its narrator as independent of all other cultic authorities. Not all early interpreters considered Revelation’s “John of Patmos” to be as independent and countercultural a figure as the author wished him to be seen. The Ephesian Justin Martyr (Dial. 81; written 150–160 CE), for example, viewed John as one noble learned man among several others.

The reputation management in the Acts of John (late-second century CE) is almost a mirror image to that of Revelation’s. For the Acts of John, the titular character is a wealthy old benefactor who teaches among the elite of Ephesus and arranges public displays. His decision to remain unmarried serves to overemphasize his capability to embody the elite value of sexual decency. This study agrees with previous research that sees the Acts of John as a means to build a stronger reputation for the burial place of John as an important public site in Ephesian cultic life. The significance of the burial site is emphasized at the end of the narrative and in several other ancient texts.

In the extracts that have been preserved from Apollonius’ Treatise against the Phrygians (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.18; originally c. 200 CE), Apollonius labels his adversaries as unmasculine charlatans who are only after money and who have no social credibility. Apollonius’ extract is a textbook example of how the elite position, the values related to it, and textual practices went hand in hand in the Greco-Roman world. In Apollonius’ text, references to John of Ephesus and other apostles may be considered techniques that purport the comprehension of Apollonius as a representative of the stable learned group of elite men with good reputation.

In the extract from Polycrates’ Letter to Victor (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.24; originally c. 200 CE), Polycrates of Ephesus opposes the Roman episkopos Victor, who wants to modify the date of pre-Easter lent. The extract is an important document because it shows that “translocal network” is not an unproblematic term for describing the connections of the cultic experts that we label as early Christians. For Polycrates, the character of John functions as a rhetorical device that is used to keep Victor away from tampering with local traditions. Polycrates argues that he knows the proper cult best since he knows the right local people and is even related to several of them.

Both the inscriptions of associations and the texts about John of Ephesus appreciate trustworthy transmitters of family traditions, leaders of public displays, and networked elite members. The main difference between the two kinds of sources is in the way they explicitly value cultic experts as text producers and interpreters. However, this study argues that even this dimension should be placed in the context of expected elite behavior and not used to separate the experts from the wider social logic of the civic society. Textuality should be seen as one way to build a route to the top of society. Furthermore, cultic expertise at large should be understood as part of a wider competition for the best places in society. The present analysis can be used to supplement all three of the previous interpretations about the evolution of cultic expertise during the rise of early Christianity.