θηριομαχέω—In What Sense?

The verb θηριομαχέω, a hapax legomenon, is a compound of the noun θηρίον, “wild beast,” and the verb μάχομαι, “I fight.” As this technical verb is most frequently employed as a reference to a literal fight with wild animals,Footnote ⁵ it is not difficult to understand why the majority of precritical exegetes assumed a literal reading of the text. While the Deutero-Pauline 2 Tim 4:17—in which the author claims to have been delivered from the mouth of a lion—may provide the earliest evidence for this interpretation of 1 Cor 15:32, popular imagination reaches its creative pinnacle in the Acts of Paul 7, which indulges in a fanciful narration of the supposed events: Paul is thrown into the arena to be devoured by wild beasts, but when the lion approaches, it immediately recognizes Paul as the one who on a previous occasion condescended to baptize the beast. The lion then proceeds to protect Paul from the other animals in the arena.Footnote ⁶ Despite the early popularity of the literal interpretation, modern exegetes have leveled substantial arguments against such a reading. Since these arguments have been so frequently rehearsed, we shall repeat them only briefly here.Footnote ⁷

1. 1. Had Paul been thrown to the wild beasts, his prospect of survival would have been bleak.Footnote ⁸

2. 2. If Luke is correct in ascribing Roman citizenship to Paul, he mostly likely would have been preserved from such a fate.Footnote ⁹

3. 3. In rare cases when Roman citizens were thrown to the beasts, they were subsequently stripped of their citizenship, yet according to Acts 22:25–29, Paul appeals to his Roman citizenship even after the events in Ephesus.Footnote ¹⁰

4. 4. In his catalog of sufferings in 2 Cor 11:23–29 Paul is conspicuously silent regarding such an event.

5. 5. Luke similarly makes no mention of this harrowing experience in Acts.

6. 6. The verb θηριομαχέω is used by Ignatius in a figurative sense in a passage that contains apparent allusions to 1 Cor 15:32 and its context.Footnote ¹¹

While these arguments are not without their respective counterarguments,Footnote ¹² their collective strength supports the conclusion that when Paul employs the verb θηριομαχέω, he cannot do so in a literal sense. An alternative approach takes the εἰ as signaling an unreal conditional: “If (hypothetically speaking) I had fought with wild beasts in Ephesus, what would I have gained?”Footnote ¹³ While this is grammatically possible, it is rhetorically ineffective, for Paul's argument is just reaching its peak.Footnote ¹⁴ Employing a hypothetical example at this critical moment would be radically anticlimactic. Moreover, since the verb ἐθηριομάχησα stands parallel to both τί βαπτίζονται (“why are people baptizing . . . ?” v. 29) and τί κινδυνεύομεν (“why do we put ourselves in danger . . . ?” v. 30), both of which are real events, εἰ . . . ἐθηριομάχησα must likewise refer to a real event.Footnote ¹⁵ In light of the weaknesses of the literal reading (whether that reading is construed as real or hypothetical), the metaphorical interpretation has a significant advantage, and a perusal of the major commentaries reveals that it has indeed won the day.Footnote ¹⁶ However, while it is generally assumed that the Corinthians had previous knowledge of the event to which this metaphor alludes and could thus have made sense of the veiled reference, modern interpreters are left to speculation, and the identity of Paul's adversaries remains unclear.Footnote ¹⁷ The beasts at Ephesus have been identified variously as Demetrius and the silversmiths (see Acts 19:21–41);Footnote ¹⁸ “the Judaizers”;Footnote ¹⁹ hedonists or a personal struggle with hedonism;Footnote ²⁰ a physical ailment, perhaps the thorn in Paul's flesh mentioned in 2 Cor 12:7;Footnote ²¹ Roman soldiers;Footnote ²² and the evil spirits at work in the resident demoniacs, idolaters, and sorcerers of Ephesus.Footnote ²³ However, many of these scholarly proposals are based on only very distant literary parallels with little, if any, relevance to Ephesus, and despite the number of solutions on offer, none has won widespread approval.Footnote ²⁴

Artemis of Ephesus—πότνια θηρῶν

Given these numerous speculations, it is surprising that the epithet πότνια θηρῶν, “mistress of wild beasts,” which Homer applies to Artemis in Iliad 21.470,Footnote ²⁵ has thus far received only very modest attention in discussions of the identity of the “wild beasts” of 1 Cor 15:32.Footnote ²⁶ That Paul writes of fighting with wild beasts specifically in Ephesus is particularly significant, for in the ancient Mediterranean world, one could scarcely think of Ephesus without being reminded of Artemis. In fact, her temple in that city—the Artemision—was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.Footnote ²⁷ Underscoring the significance of Artemis for the city of Ephesus is the fact that one-third of the references to Ephesus in the extant Greek literature from the first century b.c.e. to the fourth century c.e., not including incidental references, are in some way related to Artemis.Footnote ²⁸ No other deity enjoyed such acclaim among the Ephesians as did Artemis.

The reliability of the Acts of the Apostles as a source for historical information concerning the activity of Paul remains a point of contention, yet something can still be said for the plausibility of the general picture presented in Acts 19:21–41, where Luke reports that Paul came into conflict with devotees of Artemis during his stay in Ephesus. While some argue that the “local color” present in this narrative virtually guarantees that Luke is drawing on old sources,Footnote ²⁹ others contend that such details are the work of Luke's creative hand.Footnote ³⁰ However, even if the latter view is correct, we may understand Luke as a well-informed author whose writing portrays the sort of conflicts that an ancient reader could plausibly expect Paul to have encountered in Ephesus.Footnote ³¹ Luke, for instance, accurately depicts Artemis's religious, political, and economic significance to Ephesus and the Ephesians’ passion for her cult as well as the potential danger of challenging it. And although the particular clash that Luke narrates may not be the event to which Paul refers in 1 Cor 15:32, it is probable that during his lengthy stay in Ephesus Paul, the self-declared apostle to the Gentiles (see Rom 11:13; 15:16), would have had numerous encounters with followers of Artemis, some of whom may have turned hostile (see 1 Cor 16:9). Thus, in light of Artemis's reputation as “mistress of wild beasts,” the bond that existed between Ephesus and the cult of Artemis, and the likelihood of Paul's confronting devotees of Artemis in Ephesus, there is good reason to suspect that in 1 Cor 15:32 Paul is taking a polemical jab at the cult of Artemis, playing on Artemis's identity as “mistress of wild beasts” by referring to her Ephesian devotees with whom he fought as “wild beasts.”Footnote ³²

While only Homer and the scholia apply the epithet “mistress of wild beasts” to Artemis, the association of Artemis with animals is amply attested.Footnote ³³ As is well known, Artemis was widely regarded as the goddess of hunting and is perhaps best known by the epithet ἰοχέαιρα, “shooter of swift arrows,” which occurs twenty times in the works of Homer,Footnote ³⁴ who elsewhere refers to her as a “lion against women.”Footnote ³⁵ In the Homeric Hymns she is known for the slaying of wild beasts,Footnote ³⁶ and Callimachus similarly has her petition Zeus that she “may slay wild beasts.”Footnote ³⁷ In addition to hunting animals, Artemis, it was believed, could transform individuals into beasts and had the power to make such creatures do her bidding. In one myth, Artemis transforms her ardent devotee, Callisto, into a bear for violating her vow of chastityFootnote ³⁸ while in another she changes an inhospitable woman into a dog.Footnote ³⁹ According to yet another tradition, upon catching Polyphonte copulating with a bear, Artemis “turned all beasts against her.”Footnote ⁴⁰

The goddess was also revered as a protector of animals.Footnote ⁴¹ Despite Artemis's prowess and renown as a hunter, Aeschylus emphasizes her role as protector of young animals, describing her as “so very kindly disposed to the unfledged seed of fiery lions, and so delightsome to the suckling whelps of all beasts (πάντων . . . θηρῶν) that roam the wild.”Footnote ⁴² Likewise, evoking both the fear and reverence due to Artemis as hunter and protector, Apollonius of Rhodes portrays her as proceeding through the city on a chariot drawn by deer while “all around wild animals (ἀμφὶ δὲ θῆρες) fawn on her, cowering with whimpers as she makes her way.”Footnote ⁴³ This depiction of the “wild animals” is coupled with a similar depiction of Artemis's human devotees: “All around them the people (ἀμφὶ δὲ λαοί)) gave way as they avoided the eyes of the royal maiden.”Footnote ⁴⁴ Notably, both sentences have parallel grammatical structures, beginning with ἀμφὶ δέ (all around) followed by a nominative plural. What is more, the deferential actions of the λαοί (people) mirror those of the θῆρες (wild animals), suggesting that an intentional link is being drawn between the beasts associated with the goddess and Artemis's human devotees. Strabo, too, links Artemis with wild beasts as he describes some of the mythological elements ascribed to one of the precincts sacred to the goddess in Achaia: “The wild animals (τὰ θηρία) become tame, and deer herd with wolves, and they allow the people to approach and caress them, and any that are pursued by dogs are no longer pursued when they have taken refuge here.”Footnote ⁴⁵ This idyllic scene, in which beasts and humans commune peacefully with one another, underscores Artemis's rule over both human and animal affairs. Further, writing sometime in the late fourth or early fifth century c.e. and drawing on the strong literary tradition of the Greeks, Nonnus identifies Artemis as “sovran of all creatures,” demonstrating how profoundly her identity as “mistress of wild beasts” saturated her entire mythos.Footnote ⁴⁶ In this regard it is also significant that in one of the Greek Magical Papyri Artemis is addressed as “bull-shaped, horse-faced goddess, who howls doglike” and as a “she-wolf.”Footnote ⁴⁷

In addition to the above evidence from Greek literature, it is noteworthy that animals played a significant role in the religious rituals performed in honor of Artemis. Pausanias recounts an annual festival held in honor of Artemis at Patrai, in which a staggering number of animals are brought forth to be burned upon a pyre. While this can hardly be considered evidence of Artemis's role as protector of beasts, the vast array of animals offered does suggest that all varieties of beasts belonged to her, and Pausanius's concluding comment, “it is not remembered that anybody has ever been wounded by the beasts (τῶν θηρίων),” may indicate that the absence of injury reflects Artemis's sovereignty over them.Footnote ⁴⁸ The Greeks frequently performed dances in which celebrants dressed and danced in a manner imitative of animals. Such dances were particularly popular among devotees of Artemis and were quite widespread in ancient Greece.Footnote ⁴⁹ In Athens, for instance, young girls performed bear dances in honor of Artemis Brauronia and wore saffron garments in imitation of bearskins.Footnote ⁵⁰ Those who participated in these dances were referred to as “bears” and were said to “play the bear.”Footnote ⁵¹ It was similarly a widespread practice for dancers to wear fawn skins, to “play the fawn,” and to be identified as “fawns.”Footnote ⁵² Significantly, these dancing celebrants were affectionately referred to as the animals that they portrayed.

While it is quite clear that Greek Artemis shared a close affinity with wild beasts, we must exercise some caution in transferring this attribute to Ephesian Artemis, for Artemis Ephesia, Asiatic in origin, was originally quite distinct from the Artemis one encounters in Homer. The difference between the two is perhaps most apparent in their cultic statues. Greek Artemis is typically rendered as a huntress holding a bow, whereas the most notable feature of Artemis of Ephesus is the many protuberances on her torso, which have most frequently been interpreted as multiple breasts, although some have conjectured that they represent bulls’ testicles, fruit, or eggs.Footnote ⁵³ Ultimately, there is no consensus today on what they represent. Regardless of how one interprets these protuberances, her appearance is strikingly different from that of Greek Artemis, the huntress. To be sure, Jerome once distinguished the two by stating that the Ephesian Artemis (Diana) “was not the huntress who holds the bow and is girded, but that multi-breasted Diana which the Greeks call πολυμαστόν, so that, of course, on the basis of the statue itself they might also falsely assert that she is the nurse of all beasts and living beings (omnium eam bestiarum et viventium esse nutricem).”Footnote ⁵⁴ Significantly, however, the premise of Jerome's argument is that some did apply the epithet “nurse of all beasts and living beings” to Artemis (Diana) Ephesia. Indeed, his words indicate that it was the Greeks themselves who appealed to Artemis of Ephesus as such.Footnote ⁵⁵ It is possible that the Ephesians employed this epithet, which is strikingly reminiscent of Aeschylus's description of Greek Artemis as “delightsome to the suckling whelps of all beasts,”Footnote ⁵⁶ as an elegant literary allusion to superimpose Greek Artemis's identity as “mistress of wild beasts” on the multi-breasted image of Ephesian Artemis.Footnote ⁵⁷

Indeed, ample evidence suggests that the syncretistic impulse in Greco-Roman society so closely associated these originally distinct goddesses that by the first century c.e. Greek and Ephesian Artemis were no longer separate. Greek influence had been present in Ephesus for nearly a millennium, and the Asiatic appearance of the cultic image notwithstanding, the attributes of Greek Artemis predominated in popular culture. Numismatic, literary, and iconographic evidence supports this fact. Ephesian coins from the third century b.c.e. to the second century c.e. depict Artemis as a huntress despite the traditional Asiatic form of her cultic statue in Ephesus.Footnote ⁵⁸ And the poet Macrobius applies to Ephesian Artemis the traditional Greek epithet “she who shoots swift arrows.”Footnote ⁵⁹ Xenophon's Ephesiaka provides further evidence that in the popular culture of the time Ephesian Artemis had appropriated the attributes of Greek Artemis. Xenophon's work, a magnificent novel from sometime in the second century c.e., provides valuable perspectives on cultic festivals in Ephesus, about which very little is otherwise known. In this novel, Xenophon describes an Ephesian procession in honor of Artemis led by a young maiden named Anthia, who dons a fawn skin, carries a quiver of arrows and a javelin, and is accompanied by hunting dogs following in her train. The close attention paid to Anthia's physical appearance is particularly noteworthy, for she is dressed in imitation of Artemis the huntress, and although she bears little resemblance to the cultic statue in Ephesus, the Ephesians hail her as Artemis herself and worship her accordingly.Footnote ⁶⁰ In describing the procession, Xenophon writes, “Some were amazed and said it was the goddess in person; some that it was someone else made by the goddess in her own image.”Footnote ⁶¹ That Xenophon can so easily vacillate between the local goddess and her panhellenic persona indicates that both he and his audience accepted the merger of the two forms of Artemis. Indeed, in the novelistic literature of both Xenophon and Achilles Tatius, originally disparate traditions concerning Artemis all converge in Ephesus.Footnote ⁶² This mingling of the distinct forms of Artemis likely occurred outside of Ephesus as well.

Animal dances like those performed in honor of Greek Artemis were also performed in the temple of Artemis in Ephesus. Aelian quotes Autokrates's description of dancers: “As sweet maidens, daughters of Lydia, sport and lightly leap and clap their hands in the temple of Artemis the Fair at Ephesos, now sinking down upon their haunches and again springing up, like the hopping wagtail.”Footnote ⁶³ Imitating the birds that Artemis held dear, dancers symbolized their dependence upon Artemis as their protector.Footnote ⁶⁴ Insects were also included in Ephesian Artemis's wide array of beasts. The priestesses who served in the Ephesian temple were called μέλισσαι, “bees,” which were closely associated with Artemis, while the priest was referred to as ἐσσήν, “ruler,” which is a probable reference to the “king bee.”Footnote ⁶⁵ Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the cultic image of Artemis of Ephesus, while distinct from her depiction as the virgin huntress, gives clear expression to her identity as “mistress of wild beasts.” She wears a dress, or ἐπενδύτης, on which a variety of different animals, including bees, bulls, and griffins are carved.Footnote ⁶⁶ The Ephesian statue, moreover, has lions on her arms, and beginning in the time of Hadrian she was flanked by deer, suggesting the influence of Greek Artemis.Footnote ⁶⁷ Clearly, by Paul's time Ephesian Artemis, like her Greek manifestation, was closely associated with a panoply of wild beasts. Opponents could have easily exploited this connection for polemical purposes.

The Beast Metaphor in Greek and Jewish Polemics

There are numerous examples of polemicists, both Greek and Jewish, labeling their opponents “beasts” or “animals” for various reasons. Among Greek polemicists the insult was frequently deployed to connote the irrationality of one's enemies. Plato refers to a multifarious crowd as a beast, probably alluding to the irrational behavior of the masses.Footnote ⁶⁸ Pseudo-Heraclitus, writing about the same time as Paul, accuses the Ephesians of “having become beasts instead of men (ἐξ άνθρὠπων θηρία γεγονότες),” referencing their violent nature.Footnote ⁶⁹ Perhaps most famously, Thales thanks the gods that he was born a human and not a beast, a man and not a woman, and a Greek and not a barbarian.Footnote ⁷⁰ The popularity of the sentiment expressed in this prayer is demonstrated by the fact that it is attributed not only to Thales but also to Socrates and Plato in Greco-Roman literatureFootnote ⁷¹ and—with some variation—to R. Judah b. Elai and R. Meir in later Jewish literature.Footnote ⁷² And although the prayer is not explicit on this point, the implication is that beasts, women, and non-Greeks (or Gentiles in the Jewish version) share certain undesirable traits. Notably, Paul's assertion in Gal 3:28 that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, is decidedly at odds with this view.Footnote ⁷³ Still, while Paul does not make such comparisons between beasts and human beings based gender or ethnicity, he is, as can be seen in the case of Rom 1:22–25, willing to categorize idolaters as being beastlike.Footnote ⁷⁴ Thus while the beast metaphor was common in Greek polemics, Paul's application of this insult to his Ephesian opponents has closer affinities with its usage in Jewish aniconic polemics.

The beast metaphor was in fact quite common in Jewish polemics against Gentiles, whom Jewish polemicists likened to beasts on account of their allegedly inhumane treatment of enemies, their lawlessness, and their uncircumcision.Footnote ⁷⁵ Moreover, in apocalyptic literature, beasts often symbolize pagan rulers and the idolatrous nations.Footnote ⁷⁶ Most significantly, however, some Jews referred to Gentiles as animal-like with specific reference to their idolatrous practices, especially when animals played a role in their cultic devotion. While Greek and Roman philosophers found animal worship distasteful, they sometimes sought to mitigate its offensiveness by interpreting it symbolically or allegorically or by emphasizing the usefulness of the animals worshipped.Footnote ⁷⁷ By contrast, the veneration of theriomorphic deities among the Egyptians was the object of great disdain among many Jews,Footnote ⁷⁸ who frequently described the Egyptians as sharing the characteristics of the animals they worshipped.Footnote ⁷⁹ Some comments made in Wisdom of Solomon 11–15; Josephus's Contra Apionem 1.224–25, 2.65–67, 81–86; and Philo's De decalogo 52–80 illustrate this point particularly well.

First-century Judaism's paradigmatic critique of idolatry, Wisdom of Solomon 13–15, chronicles a crescendo of folly: nature worshippers are identified as “mindless (μάταιοι)” (13:1), idolaters are labeled “wretched (ταλαίπωροι)” (13:10), and the Egyptian animal worshippers are deemed “most foolish of all (ἀφρονέστατοι)” (15:14).Footnote ⁸⁰ According to Wis 11:15, it was the Egyptians’ foolishness that led them to worship irrational beasts, by which they were subsequently punished: “In return for their foolish and wicked thoughts (λογισμῶν ἀσυνέτων ἀδικίας), which led them astray to worship irrational serpents and worthless animals (ἄλογα ἑρπετὰ καὶ κνώδαλα εὐτελῆ), you sent upon them a multitude of irrational creatures (ἀλόγων ζῴων) to punish them.”Footnote ⁸¹ Elsewhere, those who worshipped the irrational beasts are described as being “like foolish (ἀφρόνων) infants” and “children who cannot reason (ἀλογίστοις)” (12:24–25). In these passages, humans who worship animals are characterized as sharing the same irrational nature as the beasts they venerate.

Josephus similarly deems animal worship irrational and debased and suggests that the Egyptians assume the nature of the animals they worship.Footnote ⁸² In Contra Apionem he contrasts the Jewish religion with that of the Egyptians, stating, “Our religion is as far removed from that which is in vogue among them as is the nature of God from that of irrational beasts (ζῴων ἀλόγων). For it is their national custom to regard animals as gods.”Footnote ⁸³ Implicitly appealing to the notion of imitatio Dei, Josephus intimates that because they worship “irrational beasts,” the Egyptians have become “frivolous and utterly senseless (ἀνόντοι) specimens of humanity.”Footnote ⁸⁴ When Josephus later directly attacks Apion, whom he characterizes as “an Egyptian par excellence,”Footnote ⁸⁵ he likens Apion to the beasts Egyptians were known to worship, attributing to him “the mind of an ass (cor asini) and the impudence of the dog (impudentiam canis), which his countrymen are wont to worship.”Footnote ⁸⁶ It is particularly noteworthy that he uses animal language to deride his opponent, with explicit reference to Egyptian zoolatry.

Most clearly of all, Philo uses the beast metaphor in the context of his aniconic polemic to ridicule the Egyptians and their theriomorphic deities by insinuating that those who worship animals become beasts themselves. In De decalogo, Philo engages in a lengthy discussion of idolatry, at the culmination of which he ridicules Egyptian animal worship and suggests that zoolatry reduces humans to animal status.Footnote ⁸⁷ Philo concludes that those who worship beasts ought to be pitied most of all, for they are “more miserable than the creatures they honour, as men with souls transformed into the nature of those creatures so that . . . they seem beasts in human shape (ἀνθρωποειδῆ θηρία).”Footnote ⁸⁸ The phrase ἀνθρωποειδῆ θηρία, which Philo uses elsewhere in reference to the Egyptians,Footnote ⁸⁹ is particularly salient, for it makes explicit the notion that those who worship beasts become beastlike.Footnote ⁹⁰ He expresses a similar concept when he writes, “For everyone who is left forsaken by reason, the better part of the soul, has been transformed into the nature of a beast (εἰς θήρειον φύσιν), even though the outward characteristics of his body still retain their human form (ἀνθρωπόμορφοι).”Footnote ⁹¹ As Philo deduces, since one is inferior to the object of his or her devotion, those who worship irrational animals are likewise devoid of reason and are thus like the beasts they venerate.Footnote ⁹²

Pauline Polemics and the Beast Metaphor

It is one thing to observe this sort of polemic in the Wisdom of Solomon, Josephus, and Philo; it is quite another to suggest that Paul was making a similar attack on the cult of Artemis, which was not, properly speaking, an animal cult. It should be recognized, after all, that while Artemis was inextricably linked with wild beasts, and although depictions of animals accompanied the image of Artemis at Ephesus, the animals were not themselves the objects of devotion, nor was she in most manifestations portrayed as an animal.Footnote ⁹³ However, most polemicists, more prone to caricature than nuance, are seldom concerned with such subtleties. Plutarch, for instance, falsely charges the Jews with animal worship—indeed, likens them to the Egyptian animal worshippers—on account of their abstention from pork.Footnote ⁹⁴ A similar tendency towards polemical distortion is evident in the case of Paul, who willingly misrepresents his opponents in Phil 3:19 with the censure “their god is the belly (κοιλία).”Footnote ⁹⁵ While this is sometimes taken as a reference to those who keep Jewish food laws,Footnote ⁹⁶ it is more likely that Paul here uses κοιλία as a euphemism for the genitals, as the term is commonly employed in the Septuagint.Footnote ⁹⁷ Thus as Paul likens circumcision to castration in Gal 5:11 and to pagan mutilation in Phil 3:2, in Phil 3:19 he compares those preoccupied with circumcision to members of pagan phallic cults.Footnote ⁹⁸ And if in the interest of scoring rhetorical points Paul could be so freely associative when attacking Jewish Christians, it is plausible that he could paint in equally broad strokes when maligning devotees of the “mistress of wild beasts” by identifying them as animal worshippers. Paul's rhetoric in service to his polemic reveals him as no dispassionate observer of cultic practices, but as one who willingly employs misrepresentation and caricature to win his cause.

Notably, in Rom 1:22–25 Paul employs some of the devices that the above authors use against the Egyptian animal cults. Concerning those who worship “images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles (ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν),” he writes, “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” In keeping with Jewish polemical literature, Paul suggests that idolatry results in the sort of irrational and base behavior that characterizes animals, that those who worship animals become beastlike themselves.Footnote ⁹⁹ However, while Paul is drawing on the traditional critique of Egyptian animal cults found in the Wisdom of Solomon, he significantly broadens the scope of the argument to include all idolatry.Footnote ¹⁰⁰ In view of Paul's application of this critique to idolaters in general, we may surmise that he could all the more easily have directed it against devotees of Artemis, a goddess who was known for her close association with wild beasts and whose iconography included depictions of animals.

Locating Paul's use of the beast metaphor within this aniconic polemical tradition may also illumine the difficult phrase κατὰ ἄνθρωπον,Footnote ¹⁰¹ the interpretation of which has long been the subject of debate, with suggestions including the following: “with merely human hopes,” that is, without hope for the resurrection;Footnote ¹⁰² “man-wise,” whatever that might mean;Footnote ¹⁰³ “humanly speaking,” suggesting the figurative nature of Paul's statement;Footnote ¹⁰⁴ or even “according to human folly,” indicating that the story of Paul's beast fight was a false report.Footnote ¹⁰⁵ Space does not permit an evaluation of these and other varied suggestions. One interpretation, however, merits analysis, for it further elucidates the thesis that in 1 Cor 15:32 Paul alludes to conflicts with devotees of Artemis. When the preposition κατά is followed by the accusative, as in κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, one of its uses is comparative, and it may be rendered “like” or “in the form of.”Footnote ¹⁰⁶ Ephesians 4:24, for instance, employs the phrase κατὰ θεόν in close juxtaposition to ἄνθρωπον to speak of the new human being created “according to the likeness of God.” The author is alluding to the creation of humankind “in the image of God” (Gen 1:27) and using the preposition κατά to facilitate the comparison between humankind and God. Similarly, though with precisely the opposite effect, Paul's placement of the phrase κατὰ ἄνθρωπον immediately before the θηρίον of ἐθηριομάχησα in 1 Cor 15:32 suggests a comparison between human beings and beasts. In this instance, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον may thus be translated “in the image of humankind,” “in human form,” or “in human likeness.”Footnote ¹⁰⁷ The first clause of our verse may accordingly be rendered, “If at Ephesus I fought with beasts in human form.” This sort of comparison is precisely what we have encountered in Philo's assertion that participants in animal cults are nothing more than ἀνθρωποειδῆ θηρία, “beasts in human form”Footnote ¹⁰⁸ and in his similar combination of the phrases εἰς θήρειον φύσιν, “into the nature of a beast” and ἀνθρωπόμορφοι, “human form.”Footnote ¹⁰⁹ Thus, in addition to fitting remarkably well in the context of Jewish aniconic polemic, the comparative reading of κατὰ ἄνθρωπον supports and is mutually reinforced by our reading of 1 Cor 15:32. With the allusion to Artemis as πότνια θηρῶν in the background, Paul's statement that he “fought with beasts in human form” quite plausibly reflects his view that the devotees of Artemis have taken on the nature of Artemis's wild beasts, just as Philo believed the Egyptian animal worshippers became like the beasts they venerated.

A Greco-Roman Parallel

Juvenal, writing in the early second century c.e., may provide an important bridge between the polemic directed against Egyptian animal worshippers and similar polemic against the cult of Artemis. Despite the potential similarities between Juvenal and Paul here, I do not suggest that Juvenal was in any way dependent upon 1 Corinthians. I only wish to observe that at least one other ancient writer made connections similar to those I am proposing were made by Paul, for if Juvenal, a Roman satirist, could note similarities between Artemis and the Egyptian animal cults, the possibility that Paul made such a connection as well is greatly increased. In his fifteenth satire, Juvenal's scathing critique of the animal cults coalesces with what may be read as a parody of Diana (Artemis) as “mistress of wild beasts.” Addressing a fictional Volsius of Bithynia, Juvenal asks, “Is there anyone who doesn't know the kind of monsters that crazy Egypt worships?” After offering a lengthy inventory of animals reverenced by the Egyptians, he laments, “Entire towns venerate cats in one place, in another fish, in another river fish, in another a dog—but no one worships Diana.”Footnote ¹¹⁰ Upon first consideration, this appears to be a straightforward contrast between the debased worship of animals and the worship of a worthy anthropomorphic deity such as Diana.Footnote ¹¹¹

However, the presence of several inconsistencies in this satire has perplexed interpreters who assume that the speaker's words represent Juvenal's own perspective. Yet once we realize that Juvenal deploys a fictional speaker to address the fictional Volsius of Bithynia, and that he expects readers to detect traces of irony in the speaker's dramatic monologue, it becomes evident that Juvenal's satire not only censures the Egyptian animal cults but extends also to the speaker's own conceit with regard to the superiority of Diana.Footnote ¹¹² In the opening lines of the satire, the speaker sets Diana in opposition to the animal cults and insinuates that the Egyptians who worship beasts sink into moral depravity by doing so, ultimately resulting in the taking of human life and cannibalism.Footnote ¹¹³ However, the speaker's moral argument is enervated by his own words when he later recalls how Diana, manifested as Greek Artemis, cruelly required Agamemnon to take his own daughter's life.Footnote ¹¹⁴ The speaker's hypocrisy is further exacerbated when he alleges that whereas animals do not gratuitously kill their own kind, the same cannot be said of the human race, by which he unwittingly implies that theriomorphic deities are superior to anthropomorphic deities such as Diana.Footnote ¹¹⁵ Juvenal may also be playing on his speaker's ignorance of the tradition that, according to Herodotus, the Egyptians did in fact worship Diana in the form of Bubastis.Footnote ¹¹⁶ Adding further irony still, the Egyptians depicted Diana Bubastis as having the head of a cat or lioness, a tradition Juvenal would have known from his acquaintance with Ovid.Footnote ¹¹⁷ Juvenal's satire may thus provide evidence that at least one other ancient polemicist drew on the widespread criticism of Egyptian animal worshippers in order to deride devotees of the cult of Diana (Artemis) as being as ignoble as the beasts with which their deity was associated, perhaps indicating a shared trope. However, regardless of whether this particular reading of Juvenal is accepted, the satire undeniably demonstrates that some made connections, if only for the sake of contrast, between Diana (Artemis) and the worship of animals. And as we have already noted, such associations could easily have been employed for polemical purposes by unsympathetic outsiders such as Paul.