“Birthing the Children of God: Echoes of Theogony in Romans 8.19–23.” New Testament Studies 63 (2017): 246–60.

New Test. Stud. (), , pp. –. © Cambridge University Press,  doi:10.1017/S0028688516000400 Birthing the Children of God: Echoes of Theogony in Romans 8.19–23 C O U RT N EY J . P. F R I E S E N University of Arizona, Learning Services Building 203, 1512 E. First Street, PO Box 210105, Tucson, AZ 85721-0105, USA. Email: friesen@email.arizona.edu In depicting an apocalyptic expectation of the revelation of God’s children (Rom .–), Paul personifies ‘creation’: awaiting the revelation of these children, she ‘groans and suffers pains of childbirth’. While Paul’s vision is framed with scriptural allusions, Greek and Roman images of Earth Mother also provide a relevant juxtaposition. This study recovers such a context by surveying sources ranging from Hesiod’s Gaia to the Roman Terra Mater. Philo provides an especially relevant comparative model, as he relates biblical cosmology to Greek mythological sources and asserts that earth’s role as mother is also attested in Genesis. In light of these comparisons, fresh insights emerge: maternal creation gives birth to a new divine era, yet for Paul this remains a future hope rather than a past (mythological) or present (political) occurrence. Keywords: Paul, Romans, creation, Hesiod, Gaia, Tellus/Terra Mater, mythology In Romans .–, Paul deploys a striking complex of images depicting an apocalyptic expectation and hope that would culminate in the revelation of the children of God – their adoption and the redemption of their bodies (.). Along with these divine children, the ‘creation’ (κτίσις) is personified as a central figure in this unfolding drama: she waits with longing for the revelation of God’s children (.), and she herself was subjected to futility with the hope that, together with them, she would also finally be set free (.–). Paul describes this process with the metaphorical language of childbirth, ‘for we know that the whole creation groans and suffers pains of childbirth together until the present moment’ (οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν, .). The sources of Paul’s imagery in these verses are diverse and wide-ranging, with multiple biblical texts contributing to his distinctive formulation. His apocalyptic vision is framed by scriptural allusions and forged within his developing   All translations are mine throughout unless otherwise specified. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400 Birthing the Children of God: Echoes of Theogony in Romans .–  Christian theology. For good reason, therefore, interpretations of this passage have explored biblical and contemporary Jewish backgrounds for Paul’s personified creation. For at least some of his readers in Rome, however, the depiction of creation as undergoing labour would have evoked a markedly different range of religious imagery, almost none of which has been considered in interpretations of Romans . Earth Mother was relatively common in religion and mythology. At Rome, the goddess Tellus or Terra Mater featured in civic cult, where she was addressed in prayer and received sacrifice. As an iconographic symbol of fertility, in imperial propaganda she represented the abundance of the new Augustan age. The goddess Gaia embodied similar characteristics in the Greek world, and for those with a literary education, the image of earth as mother would have called to mind Hesiod’s Theogony, where Gaia gives birth to numerous children of god. As with Paul’s creation, she ‘groans’ (στοναχίζετο, Theog. ) on account of the divine children concealed inside her as she awaits their final deliverance. Yet, in spite of the wealth of comparative material, little scholarly attention has been devoted to recovering a Greek and Roman context for Paul’s metaphor. My contention here is that creation’s groaning in childbirth activates such traditions of theogonic mythology together with contemporary civic cult, and that these comparisons would have been potentially recognisable to Paul’s readers in Rome. To be sure, Paul’s image of creation differs considerably from its Greek and Roman counterparts – indeed, his use of the term κτίσις rather than γῆ mutes potential echoes, perhaps intentionally so. In this study, consequently, the analysis of Greek and Roman materials is aimed at a juxtaposition with biblical and Jewish literature. As I demonstrate, this is precisely the method adopted by Paul’s Jewish contemporary, Philo of Alexandria, who read Greek mythological and philosophical accounts of the cosmos alongside scripture. Before turning to these, however, I undertake a brief survey of the ways in which earth was depicted as mother in scriptural sources. . Paul’s Groaning Creation in Biblical Imagery The subjection of creation to futility and the pain of women in childbirth were closely connected and deeply ingrained in the scriptural traditions inherited by Paul and his contemporary Jews. God’s punishment of Adam and Eve in the  The biblical and Jewish background for Rom .– is well documented in scholarship; see e.g. M.-J. Lagrange, Saint Paul: Épitre aux Romains (Paris: Gabalda, ) –; A.-M. Dubarle, ‘Le gémissement des créatures dans l’ordre divin du cosmos (Rom ,–)’, RSPT  () –; O. Kuss, Der Römerbrief ( vols.; Regensburg: Pustet, –) II.–III.; U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer ( vols.; EKKNT .; Zürich: Benziger, –) II.–; J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB ; New York: Doubleday, ) –; D. T. Tsumura, ‘An OT Background to Rom. .’, NTS  () –; E. Adams, Constructing the World: A Study Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400  COURTNEY J. P. FRIESEN Garden sets the stage for these ongoing themes: ‘and to the woman God said, “I shall surely multiply your griefs and your groaning; with griefs you shall give birth to children”’ (καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ εἶπεν Πληθύνων πληθυνῶ τὰς λύπας σου καὶ τὸν στεναγμόν σου, ἐν λύπαις τέξῃ τέκνα, Gen .). This is followed by a parallel punishment for Adam: ‘the earth is cursed in your labours; with griefs you shall eat from it for all the days of your life’ (ἐπικατάρατος ἡ γῆ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις σου· ἐν λύπαις φάγῃ αὐτὴν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς σου, .). It is a natural shift, then, in describing the plight of the world under evil, to transfer Eve’s ‘groaning’ in childbirth (στεναγμόν σου) to the earth, a move which clearly underlies Paul’s language in Rom ., with κτίσις substituted for γῆ (ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει). In Genesis, however, there is no explicit indication of the earth itself as a birthing mother, although this is potentially implied by ., where God made the first human as ‘dirt from the earth’ (χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς). Psalm  hints at this identification with greater clarity: God’s activity of individualised creation is said to occur ‘from my mother’s womb’ (ἐκ γαστρὸς μητρός μου), and, at the same time, ‘in the deepest recesses of the earth’ (ἐν τοῖς κατωτάτοις τῆς γῆς, LXX ., ; see also Job .; Sir .). In prophetic and subsequently apocalyptic literature, labour pains are commonly applied to the context of present sufferings together with future hopes, a in Paul’s Cosmological Language (Studies in the New Testament and its World; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ) –; H. A. Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in Romans .– and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (LNTS ; London: T&T Clark, ); L. J. Braaten, ‘All Creation Groans: Romans : in Light of the Biblical Sources’, HBT  () –; R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia ; Minneapolis: Fortress, ) –; D. J. Moo, ‘Romans .– and Isaiah’s Cosmic Covenant’, NTS  () –; B. Byrne, ‘An Ecological Reading of Rom. .–: Possibilities and Hesitations’, in Ecological Hermeneutics: Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives (ed. D. G. Horrell, C. Hunt, C. Southgate and F. Stravrakopoulou; London: T&T Clark, ) –, esp. –.  For the purposes of this study, biblical quotations are taken from the Septuagint/Old Greek because these translations would have been more familiar to Paul and his readers.  The correspondence between Paul’s κτίσις in Romans  and γῆ is strongly evident in view of the allusion to Gen .– in v. : ‘for the creation was subjected to futility’ (τῇ γὰρ ματαιότητι ἡ κτίσις ὑπετάγη); see Lagrange, Romains, ; Kuss, Der Römerbrief, III.– , ; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, II.; Fitzmyer, Romans, ; Tsumura, ‘An OT Background’; Adams, Constructing the World, –, –; Jewett, Romans, ; Byrne, ‘An Ecological Reading’, –. Why Paul adopts κτίσις in this context rather than γῆ remains a matter of speculation; however, from the perspective of the Greek and Roman contexts discussed below, the conceptual framework of Paul’s metaphor is more determinative than the specific term employed (κτίσις or γῆ) because numerous Greek and Latin words are involved with varying degrees of interchangeability. Much of the scholarly debate regarding the meaning of κτίσις in Romans  has centred on whether it entails human or non-human entities, or both; see Adams, Constructing the World, –.  See also below on Philo’s interpretation of Gen .. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400 Birthing the Children of God: Echoes of Theogony in Romans .–  theme which persists into the New Testament: Jesus speaks of the ‘beginning of birth pangs’ (ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων, Mark . and par.), and Paul compares the coming destruction to ‘labour pain upon a pregnant woman’ (ἡ ὠδὶν τῇ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσῃ,  Thess .; cf. Rev .–). The so-called Isaiah Apocalypse (chs. –) finds especially salient resonances in Romans . Throughout Isaiah , Earth (‫ארץ‬/γῆ) is personified, and her desolation is depicted with graphic detail; her experiences are compared, for example, to a staggering drunkard (.). Yet hope remains: the people of Judah are described ‘as a woman in labour pain [who] comes near to giving birth and cries out at her birth pang’ (ὡς ἡ ὠδίνουσα ἐγγίζει τοῦ τεκεῖν καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ ὠδῖνι αὐτῆς ἐκέκραξεν, .). This temporary agony would finally give way to resurrection, in which those in the tombs (οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις) and in the earth (οἱ ἐν τῇ γῇ) would rise and rejoice (.). Later in the Book of Isaiah, Zion is similarly personified: ‘a woman in labour gave birth’ (τὴν ὠδίνουσαν τεκεῖν, .). Miraculously, prior to reaching full term, ‘Zion labours and delivers her children’ (ὤδινεν καὶ ἔτεκεν Σιων τὰ παιδία αὐτῆς, .; see also Jer .). This conceptual imagery is developed yet further in  Ezra, a text postdating Paul (late first century CE): the underworld is likened to a womb that will, in the end, give back those who have died (.–; see also .–; .; .–). It is clear, therefore, that within the biblical tradition there would have been a rich and varied repertoire of images available to Paul and his audience that would give meaning to Romans .–. The earth is in some sense the origin of all human life (as in Gen .; Ps .), and it could be variously personified as suffering and mourning. In view of Gen .–, where Eve’s pain in childbirth and the futility of the earth are parallel consequences of human disobedience to God’s law, it follows naturally that the earth’s plight should be described as that of a woman in labour, particularly as a symbol for eschatological hope culminating in new life. The biblical passages surveyed above, however, fall short of explicitly depicting earth (or creation) as a mother whose labour would conclude with the deliverance of  Braaten, ‘All Creation Groans’, –; Moo, ‘Romans .–’.  At the end of ., the MT is potentially suggestive of the earth giving birth, but the Hebrew is highly uncertain: ‫וארץ רפאים תפיל‬. The NRSV renders this as ‘and the earth will give birth to those long dead’. This verb (‫)נפל‬, however, does not commonly denote childbirth, and the phrase may be better translated as ‘the land of the shades will fall’, which is how it is construed in the LXX: ἡ δὲ γῆ τῶν ἀσεβῶν πεσεῖται.  In Isa ., the earth’s (‫ארץ‬/γῆ) labour is mentioned in parallel with Zion’s: ‘Does the earth labour in one day? Also, has a people been born all at once’ (ἦ ὤδινεν γῆ ἐν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ, ἢ καὶ ἐτέχθη ἔθνος εἰς ἅπαξ). Cf. the MT, which has ‘shall the earth be born in one day?’ (‫)היוחל ארץ ביום אחד‬.  For comparison with Romans , see Kuss, Der Römerbrief, III.–. On this theme in  Ezra, see M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, ) –; K. M. Hogan, ‘Mother Earth as Conceptual Metaphor in  Ezra’, CBQ  () –. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400  COURTNEY J. P. FRIESEN God’s children. On the one hand, human sufferings are likened to labour pain (e.g. Isa .; cf. Hos .; Mic .–; Mark .;  Thess .); and, on the other, Zion is a mother to God’s children (Isa .–). It is only at the end of the first century CE in  Ezra that one finds unambiguous portrayals of earth itself as a birthing mother. Consequently, it is reasonable to draw on a wider scope of comparanda in order to delineate more fully a contextual framework for Paul’s metaphor. . Creation as Mother: From the Greek Gaia to the Roman Tellus/Terra Mater In almost every modern interpretation of Romans .–, the intertextual background is exclusively confined to the Bible and Second Temple Judaism. This is, to be sure, an understandable interpretive procedure: throughout Romans, Paul engages explicitly in biblical exegesis, and these verses are likewise brimming with scriptural allusions. Moreover, this approach appropriately presupposes a commitment to the authority of scripture shared by Paul and his implied audience. At the same time, however, at least some among the audience will have been educated in Greek literature and culture, and all of them lived in Rome with its ubiquitous religious symbols and practices. Thus Paul’s groaning creation would have potentially evoked numerous other texts and images. For   Ezra significantly develops earth’s likeness to a pregnant woman and expands it in new directions beyond earlier scriptural texts: she gave birth to Adam and all humans (.; .–), the mind (.), and would finally give birth to the souls of the dead (.–). Stone asserts that ‘[t]hese ideas have clear and obvious biblical antecedents, from Genesis  on’ (Fourth Ezra,  n. ). While this is partially true, the discussion here indicates that the biblical sources are not as ‘clear and obvious’ as Stone supposes.  There are a very few exceptions: most significantly, Robert Jewett relates Paul’s creation to Roman imperial propaganda and civic cult (‘The Corruption and Redemption of Creation’, Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (ed. R. A. Horsley; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, ) –; idem, Romans, –, –). Fitzmyer cites Heraclitus Stoicus, All. . (Romans, ); Wilckens cites Virgil, Eclogues  (Der Brief an die Römer,  n. ); Adams cites Plato, Men.  and Philo, Opif. ff. (Constructing the World,  n. ); and Troels Engberg-Pederson argues that Paul’s cosmology in Romans  is influenced by Stoicism (Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) –). On Paul’s eschatology and Stoicism more broadly, see also H. C. Kee, ‘Pauline Eschatology: Relationships with Apocalyptic and Stoic Thought’, in Glaube und Eschatologie: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum . Geburtstag (ed. E. Gräβer and O. Merk; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ) –. For a list of studies focused on biblical and Jewish backgrounds, see n.  above.  On the Christian community at Rome, see P. E. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ) –; Jewett, Romans, –. To be sure, many Christians were from the lower classes and therefore uneducated. Nevertheless, there would have been interactions with educated individuals. For example, the Jewish community in Rome, with which Christians were closely connected from early Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400 Birthing the Children of God: Echoes of Theogony in Romans .–  instance, in his use of verbs (συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει, .), an educated Greek might have been reminded of a similar collocation in Homer’s Odyssey. In response to having his eye gouged, the poet describes the ‘Cyclops groaning and labouring in pain’ (Κύκλωψ δὲ στενάχων τε καὶ ὠδίνων ὀδύνῃσι, Od. .). Of course, the context of Paul’s metaphor shares little in common with this mythological scene, and, as I argue below, it is Hesiod rather than Homer that provides the clearest epic analogues. Nevertheless, this verbal resonance with epic poetry foregrounds the potential for a wider range of salient intertexts. From early on in Greek religion and mythology, Earth (Gaia or Ge) was viewed as a divine figure. She often receives prayers and sacrifices, is called on in oaths, and addressed with the epithet ‘mother’. In Hesiod’s Theogony, Gaia plays a pivotal role in the origin of the cosmos and in giving birth to numerous divine children. Following an extensive proem, Hesiod begins his account with the famous lines: ἤτοι μὲν πρώτιστα Χάος γένετ’· αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα Γαῖ’ εὐρύστερνος, πάντων ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς αἰεὶ ἀθανάτων οἳ ἔχουσι κάρη νιφόεντος Ὀλύμπου. (Theog. –) In truth, first of all Chaos came to be, and thereafter broad-breasted Gaia, always sure foundation of all the immortals who possess the peaks of snowy Olympus. Gaia gives birth parthenogenically to Ouranos, who would become her partner, and next to the mountains and the sea (–). Subsequently, her role as mother shifts: now, through intercourse with Ouranos, she produces the generation of divine offspring who come to be known as Titans (–), of whom the on, was visited by the Alexandrian embassy led by Philo, whose literary and philosophical education was on par with Roman elites. His comments on earth as mother are discussed below.  E.g. Homer, Il. .–, –; Od. .–; Hesiod, Op. ; Homeric Hymn ; Aeschylus, Cho. –; Sept. , ; Suppl. –, –; Euripides, Med. . Among the literature on Mother Earth, from the perspective of anthropology and comparative religion, see A. Dieterich, ‘Mutter Erde’, AR  () –; M. Eliade, ‘Mother Earth and the Cosmic Hierogamies’, Myths, Dreams and Mysteries: The Encounter between Contemporary Faiths and Archaic Realities (trans. P. Mairet; New York: Harper, ) –; O. Pettersson, Mother Earth: An Analysis of the Mother Earth Concepts according to Albrecht Dieterich (Scripta minora Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis –, ; Lund: Gleerup, ). With attention to the Roman context, see T. Gesztelyi, ‘Tellus – Terra Mater in der Zeit des Prinzipats’, ANRW II.. () –.  On the Theogony in general, see M. L. West, Hesiod, Theogony: Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, ); J. S. Clay, Hesiod’s Cosmos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) –; S. Scully, Hesiod’s Theogony: From Near Eastern Creation Myths to Paradise Lost (New York: Oxford University Press, ). With respect to Gaia, see Clay, Hesiod’s Cosmos, –; A. Park, ‘Parthenogenesis in Hesiod’s Theogony’, Preternature  () –, esp. –. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400  COURTNEY J. P. FRIESEN youngest was ‘crooked-minded Kronos, most dreadful of children’ (Κρόνος ἀγκυλομήτης, δεινότατος παίδων, –). Ouranos despises these from birth, so that τῶν μὲν ὅπως τις πρῶτα γένοιτο, πάντας ἀποκρύπτασκε καὶ ἐς φάος οὐκ ἀνίεσκε Γαίης ἐν κευθμῶνι, κακῷ δ’ ἐπετέρπετο ἔργῳ, Οὐρανός· ἡ δ’ ἐντὸς στοναχίζετο Γαῖα πελώρη στεινομένη, δολίην δὲ κακὴν ἐπεφράσσατο τέχνην. (–) as soon as any of them was first to be born, he concealed them all in the depths of Gaia and did not permit them to come to the light but delighted in his wicked deed. Enormous Gaia groaned within, as she was constrained, and devised a deceptive and wicked trick. This would not be the last occasion in the Theogony that Gaia groans from agony: later, in the battle between Zeus and Typhon, as the monster crashes down upon her, ‘enormous Gaia groaned’ (στονάχιζε δὲ γαῖα πελώρη, ; also ). In lines –, however, her groaning results from the concealment within herself of her children, whom she most eagerly desires to be released from their imprisonment. To achieve this, she hatches a plot, which Kronos carries out, resulting in the castration of Ouranos and the deliverance of the divine brood (–). In the next generation, the cycle repeats itself. Kronos prevents his and Rhea’s children from seeing the light of day by swallowing them himself directly as they are born (–). Grieved by her loss, Rhea calls on Gaia and Ouranos for assistance (–). In response, Gaia receives Rhea’s youngest child Zeus on Crete (–), where she rears him and conceals the god in a cave, ‘under the hidden places of sacred Gaia’ (ζαθέης ὑπὸ κεύθεσι γαίης, ). Once again, Gaia enacts a plan to release the divine children from bondage – Kronos is presented with a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes, which he swallows and consequently vomits up his offspring. Thus, throughout the Theogony Gaia plays an instrumental role in bringing forth the children of gods: first, she conceives and gives birth to her own offspring and schemes to have them freed from captivity within herself, and later she acts similarly on behalf of Rhea’s children. Hesiod’s other poem, the Works and Days, concerns a very different topic, and consequently Gaia is not given a prominent role. In one myth, however – the Five Ages (Op. –) – she is once again responsible for concealing individuals within herself, this time mortals rather than gods. At the conclusion of each of the first three generations Hesiod repeats, ‘Gaia covered over this generation’ (τοῦτο γένος κατὰ Γαῖα κάλυψε, , , ).  Hesiod’s verb στοναχίζω is an epic form of στεναχίζω, which derives from the same root as (συ)στενάζω (Rom .) and στενάχω (Homer, Od. .). See LSJ s.v. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400 Birthing the Children of God: Echoes of Theogony in Romans .–  While Hesiod’s depiction of divine and cosmic origins enjoyed widespread popularity and influence throughout antiquity, it did not do so without contestation. Philosophers registered their dissatisfaction with the gods of both Hesiod and Homer (e.g. Xenophanes (B DK)). Perhaps the sharpest and most lasting attack was levelled by Plato. He famously charged Hesiod with having spoken ‘the greatest lie concerning the greatest matters’ (τὸ μέγιστον καὶ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων ψεῦδος, Resp. e), in attributing such familial violence to Ouranos, Kronos and Zeus. At the same time, Hesiod’s positioning of four apparently ungenerated entities at the origin of the cosmos – Chaos, Gaia, Tartaros and Eros – became a frequent starting point in subsequent metaphysical formulations, even among those who disputed the myth, and his divine personalities were readily reimagined as inanimate elements of nature. Moreover, Gaia’s divine individuality is commonly subsumed under the various fertility goddesses with whom she is identified. In Hellenistic philosophy, as the trajectory of demythologising cosmic origins advanced, the place of Gaia’s decisive agency in establishing Zeus as king among gods recedes. Thus, for example, in Stoicism Zeus can retain many of his mythological attributes, but there is scarcely room for Hesiod’s succession myth as background to his absolute sovereignty.  An indispensable starting point for Hesiod’s reception remains A. Rzach, Hesiodi carmina: accedit Homeri et Hesiodi certamen (Leipzig: Teubner, ); more recently, see the testimonia collected and translated by G. W. Most, Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days. Testimonia (LCL ; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, ) –; and for discussion, see G. Rosati, ‘The Latin Reception of Hesiod’, Brill’s Companion to Hesiod (ed. F. Montanari, A. Rengakos and C. Tsagalis; Leiden: Brill, ) –; Scully, Hesiod’s Theogony, –.  On Plato’s complex engagement with Hesiod, see F. Solmsen, ‘Hesiodic Motifs in Plato’, Hésiode et son influence (Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique ; Geneva: Vandoeuvres, ) –; G. W. Most, ‘Plato’s Hesiod: An Acquired Taste?’, Plato and Hesiod (ed. G. R. BoysStones and J. H. Haubold; Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) –; Scully, Hesiod’s Theogony, –.  See E. Belfiore, ‘“Lies Unlike the Truth”: Plato on Hesiod, Theogony ’, TAPA  () – . Elsewhere, however, Plato treats Hesiod’s succession myth with greater sympathy. In Timaeus d–a, it is said to be ‘impossible to disbelieve’ (ἀδύνατον … ἀπιστεῖν) because those who first pasted down this myth lived closer to the gods. One detects some irony here, however; so also Scully, Hesiod’s Theogony, .  E.g. Plato, Symp. b; Aristotle, Metaph. .b, a; .a; SVF ..–. For a more complete list of citations, see Rzach, Hesiodi carmina, –.  E.g. Demeter, Rhea and Hera, among others, as in the Derveni Papyrus (col. XXII.–); on this, see D. Obbink, ‘Cosmology as Initiation vs. the Critique of Orphic Mysteries’, Studies on the Derveni Papyrus (ed. A. Laks and G. W. Most; Oxford: Clarendon, ) –, esp. –. For a related discussion of the conflation of female chthonic deities, see R. Renehan, ‘Hera as Earth-Goddess: A New Piece of Evidence’, Rheinisches Museum  () –.  This is especially clear in Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus, where Zeus continues to wield his conventional thunderbolt (v. ), even while being reimagined as a rationalised Stoic deity. For discussion of these literary and religious dynamics, see M. Pohlenz, ‘Kleanthes’ Zeushymnus’, Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400  COURTNEY J. P. FRIESEN Similar trends are also evident in Roman poetry. Ovid’s Metamorphoses imitates Hesiod at several points, and, indeed, the opening lines position his own poetic account of cosmic origins in direct conversation with the Theogony (Met. .–): in a primordial time before sea, lands and sky had emerged, there existed a condition ‘that they have called Chaos’ (quem dixere chaos, ). Yet, although this clear allusion to Hesiod (Theog. ) prompts an expectation for an account of divine origins akin to that of the Theogony, the Metamorphoses lacks a succession myth, and consequently there remains little role for Earth (Tellus/Terra) as mother of the gods (but see .–; .–; .–). Nevertheless, even in the context of these intellectual and literary developments, an interest in Earth as mother persist, even if only metaphorically. In an oft-quoted fragment, Euripides describes Gaia as the mother of humans, food and animals: Γαῖα μεγίστη καὶ Διὸς αἰθήρ, ὁ μὲν ἀνθρώπων καὶ θεῶν γενέτωρ, ἡ δ’ ὑγροβόλους σταγόνας νοτίας παραδεξαμένη τίκτει θνατούς, τίκτει βοτάνην φῦλά τε θηρῶν· ὅθεν οὐκ ἀδίκως μήτηρ πάντων νενόμισται. χωρεῖ δ’ ὀπίσω τὰ μὲν ἐκ γαίας φύντ’ εἰς γαῖαν, τὰ δ’ ἀπ’ αἰθερίου βλαστόντα γονῆς εἰς οὐράνιον πάλιν ἦλθε πόλον. (TrGF ..–)  Greatest Gaia and Sky of Zeus, the latter is the begetter of humans and gods, the former, after receiving moistening drops of rain, gives birth to mortals; she also gives birth to foliage and the tribes of beasts. For this reason, she has not unjustly been regarded as mother of all. The things which by nature come from earth return back into the earth, and the things which are born from ethereal stock go back into the heavenly sphere. Hermes  () –; E. Asmis, ‘Myth and Philosophy in Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus’, GRBS  () –.  On this, see I. Ziogas, Ovid and Hesiod: The Metamorphosis of the Catalogue of Women (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) –; Rosati, ‘The Latin Reception’, –, –; Scully, Hesiod’s Theogony, –. Perhaps the most well-known borrowing from Hesiod is the myth of Five Ages (Op. –), which is reduced to four in Ovid (Met. .– ). See also Aratus, Phaen. –.  For this point, see esp. Ziogas, Ovid and Hesiod, ; Rosati, ‘The Latin Reception’, –. See similarly Apollodorus, Bib. ..; Lucretius .–.  The entire fragment continues through fourteen lines. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400 Birthing the Children of God: Echoes of Theogony in Romans .–  The first seven lines of this fragment were preserved by Sextus Empiricus (Math. .), who cites them as evidence for the benefits of music. Lucretius adapts the entire fragment to Latin, depicting Sky and Earth as parents common to all humanity: unde alma liquentis umoris guttas mater cum terra recepit, feta parit nitidas fruges arbustaque laeta et genus humanum … (.–) Whence [i.e. from Father Sky], as nurturing Earth Mother receives drops of flowing liquid, pregnant, she bears lovely fruits, pleasing trees and the human race. After a summary of Earth’s bountiful provisions, Lucretius adds, again following Euripides, ‘for this reason on her own merit she has acquired the maternal name’ (qua propter merito maternum nomen adepta est, ; cf. TrGF ..–). The same Euripidean lines are quoted with approval by Vitruvius via a Latin translation ( praef. ). For him, they are evidence that Euripides was a student of Anaxagoras, and thus a ‘philosopher of the stage’ ( philosophus scaenicus), and in the context of his argument they support his claims regarding the necessity of the four elements – air, fire, water and earth – for all life. Thus, even within a scientific perspective it remained possible to speak of Earth as mother. Pliny the Elder, for instance, writes that earth (terra) is the one natural element to which, ‘because of its merits, we imparted the epithet of maternal reverence. As the sky is to god, so she is to humans, she who receives us when we are born, and once born nourishes us’ (propter merita cognomen indidimus maternae venerationis. sic hominum illa ut caelum dei, quae nos nascentes excipit, natos alit). Moreover, after we are dead, she ‘embraces us in her bosom and covers us as a mother’ (conplexa gremio … ut mater operiens, Nat. ..). Heraclitus likewise characterises the earth’s production of vegetation as childbirth, describing spring as a time ‘when out of the winter frosts the barren and closed earth reveals the impregnated labour pains within’ (ἐπειδὰν ἐκ τῶν χειμερίων παγετῶν ἡ στερίφη καὶ μεμυκυῖα γῆ τὰς κυοφορουμένας ἔνδον ὠδῖνας ἐκφήνῃ, All. .). Ongoing interest in Hesiod’s cosmic origins and the maternal nature of earth was not limited to ‘pagan’ Greek and Roman writers. Philo of Alexandria engages  Cf. Pacuvius, Chrysae fr.  Ribbeck.  This fragment of Euripides is also quoted by numerous others: e.g. Philo, Leg. .; Aet. , , ; Marcus Aurelius, Meditations .; Clement, Strom. ...  See Gesztelyi, ‘Tellus – Terra’, –.  This statement occurs within Heraclitus’ allegorisation of Hera’s seduction of Zeus in Iliad  – Zeus’ embrace of Hera represents spring. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400  COURTNEY J. P. FRIESEN closely with these issues, and relates them to his view of the biblical account of creation. In On the Eternity of the World, he delineates three distinct views of the cosmos: () that it was generated and would be destroyed (Stoics); () that it was ungenerated and would not be destroyed (Aristotle); and () that it was generated and would not be destroyed (Plato). He adopts the third of these, which, he argues, could be derived from both Plato’s Timaeus and Genesis. Because the intended audience of this treatise was apparently non-Jewish, Philo draws on a wide spectrum of authors representing the three views in question. At an important juncture in his argument, he introduces two well-known verses of Hesiod: πατέρα δὲ τοῦ Πλατωνείου δόγματος ἔνιοι νομίζουσι τὸν ποιητὴν Ἡσίοδον, γενητὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον, οἰόμενοι τὸν κόσμον ὑπ’ ἐκείνου λέγεσθαι, γενητὸν μέν, ὅτι φησὶν ἤτοι μὲν πρώτιστα Χάος γένετ’, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα Γαῖ’ εὐρύστερνος, πάντων ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς αἰεί. (Aet. , quoting Theog. –) Some think that the poet Hesiod is the father of the Platonic doctrine – generated and indestructible – supposing that the cosmos described by him was, on the one hand, generated, because he said, In truth, first of all Chaos came to be, and thereafter broad-breasted Gaia, always sure foundation of all. While Philo acknowledges that Hesiod’s Chaos may be given an Aristotelian or Stoic reading, he asserts that ‘the cosmos disclosed by Hesiod is most manifestly a generated thing’ (τὸ γενητὸν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον ἐναργέστατα παρ’ Ἡσιόδῳ μεμήνυται), and adds, in this treatise’s only explicit biblical reference, that Moses had affirmed the same thing much earlier (–). Whereas Eternity is a philosophical doxography, in On the Creation of the World Philo presents a detailed exegesis of Genesis. At several points, he  On this treatise, see D. T. Runia, ‘Philo’s De aeternitate mundi: The Problem of its Interpretation’, VC  () –; M. R. Niehoff, ‘Philo’s Contribution to Contemporary Alexandrian Metaphysics’, Beyond Reception: Mutual Influences between Antique Religion, Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. D. Brakke, A.-C. Jacobsen and J. Ulrich; Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, ) –. Although the authenticity of this treatise has been questioned, both Runia and Niehoff argue that it is genuine. For a broader discussion of Philo’s engagement with religion in relation to contemporary philosophers, see P. Van Nuffelen, Rethinking the Gods: Philosophical Readings in Religion in the Post-Hellenistic Period (Greek Culture in the Roman World; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) –.  For Philo’s affirmative use of Hesiod elsewhere, see C. J. P. Friesen, ‘Hannah’s “Hard Day” and Hesiod’s “Two Roads”: Poetic Wisdom in Philo’s De ebrietate’, JSJ  () –.  On this treatise, see D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series ; Leiden: Brill, ). Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400 Birthing the Children of God: Echoes of Theogony in Romans .–  depicts the earth as a mother: ‘Indeed, God commands the earth to give birth to these things, but she, being extensively pregnant and in labour pain, gives birth to all of the things sown and all of the trees’ (ὁ μὲν δὴ προστάττει τῇ γῇ ταῦτα γεννῆσαι· ἡ δ’ ὥσπερ ἐκ πολλοῦ κυοφοροῦσα καὶ ὠδίνουσα τίκτει πάσας μὲν τὰς σπαρτῶν, πάσας δὲ τὰς δένδρων, ; see also ). As noted above, there is nothing in Genesis explicitly suggesting such a maternal role for the earth. Nevertheless, Philo argues that this is implied in Gen ., which describes springs flowing from the earth and nourishing life. These are akin to a mother’s breasts which prepare food in advance for children that are to be born (– ). To marshal support for this comparison, Philo turns to Greek rather than biblical sources. First, he cites a popular etymology: ‘Earth also is a mother, so it seems, wherefore also the first people determined to call her Demeter, combining the name of Meter and Ge’ (μήτηρ δ’ ὡς ἔοικε καὶ ἡ γῆ, παρὸ καὶ τοῖς πρώτοις ἔδοξεν αὐτὴν Δήμητραν καλέσαι τὸ μητρὸς καὶ γῆς ὄνομα συνθεῖσιν, ). Then, he adds both Plato and the ‘race of poets’ as further advocates: οὐ γὰρ γῆ γυναῖκα, ὡς εἶπε Πλάτων, ἀλλὰ γυνὴ γῆν μεμίμηται, ἣν ἐτύμως τὸ ποιητικὸν γένος παμμήτορα καὶ καρποφόρον καὶ πανδώραν εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν, ἐπειδὴ πάντων αἰτία γενέσεως καὶ διαμονῆς ζῴων ὁμοῦ καὶ φυτῶν ἐστιν. εἰκότως οὖν καὶ γῇ τῇ πρεσβυτάτῃ καὶ γονιμωτάτῃ μητέρων ἀνέδωκεν ἡ φύσις οἷα μαστοὺς ποταμῶν ῥεῖθρα καὶ πηγῶν, ἵνα καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ἄρδοιτο καὶ ποτὸν ἄφθονον ἔχοι πάντα τὰ ζῷα. () For earth does not imitate woman, as Plato said, but woman imitates earth, whom truly the race of poets is accustom to call ‘Mother of all’, ‘Fruit-bearer’ and ‘Giver of all’, because she is the cause of the creation and of the sustaining of all animals together with plants. Reasonably, therefore, nature gave to earth, as the eldest and most fertile of mothers, streams of rivers and fountains as breasts, in order that plants might be watered and all living things might have indestructible drink. The poetic sources implied here by τὸ ποιητικὸν γένος are, to be sure, vague and unspecified. The epithet πανδώρα, for instance, could call to mind numerous literary passages. The loci classici of the myth of Pandora, however, are found in Hesiod (Theog. –; Op. –). There she is the first woman, in some sense equivalent to Eve, and thus mother of all humanity.  For a similar point, see Plant. –. In Aet. –, Philo disputes that earth is the mother of humans in the literal sense suggested by myths of autochthony. See also Runia, On the Creation, .  For this etymology, see also Derveni Papyrus (col. XXII.–); Diodorus Siculus ..; Cicero, Nat. D. ..  At Aet. , Philo also notes that Pandora is an appellation for Earth used by Poets. Runia points to a related use in Aristophanes, Birds  (On the Creation, ).  See e.g. L. Séchan, ‘Pandora, l’Éve grecque’, BAGB  () –, esp. ; F. J. Teggart, ‘The Argument of Hesiod’s Works and Days’, Journal of the History of Ideas  () –, at . Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400  COURTNEY J. P. FRIESEN In a very different context, Philo describes the divine punishments belonging to those who fail to observe the Sabbath, neither permitting their subjects to rest every seventh day nor leaving the earth fallow every seventh year (Praem. –). Such treatment of fellow humans, Philo argues, fails to recognise that these are their brothers, for whom ‘common nature is a single mother’ (μία μήτηρ ἡ κοινὴ φύσις, ). As a result of their abuse of the land, these inhabitants would be removed. Yet there is hope: although the offenders were cursed and expelled from the country (χώρα), again, ‘as a compassionate mother pities the sons and daughters whom she sent away … once more, after regaining her youth, she will prosper and give birth to an unassailable generation’ (οἷα μήτηρ φιλόστοργος οἰκτιεῖται μὲν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας οὓς ἀπέβαλεν … πάλιν δὲ νεάσασα εὐφορήσει καὶ τέξεται γενεὰν ἀνεπίληπτον). Thus, in an eschatological moment, the earth (or in this case the ‘country’, χώρα) would again take on a maternal role reminiscent of that of primordial Gaia in mythology (cf. Sib. Or. .–). Philo’s framing of an eschatological vision with imagery drawn from myths of cosmic origins is not unique to him. About a century later, in his celebration of Rome’s imperial ascendency, Aelius Aristides would dispute Hesiod’s pessimistic cosmos. Had the Boeotian poet been gifted with the same inspiration as Homer, he would not have placed the Golden Generation first. Or, minimally, ‘he would say that whenever your [Roman] administration and authority should be established, then the iron race would pass away on the earth’ (ἡνίκ’ ἂν ἡ ὑμετέρα προστασία τε καὶ ἀρχὴ καταστῇ, τότ’ ἂν φάναι φθαρῆναι τὸ σιδηροῦν φῦλον ἐν τῇ γῇ, Or. .). Aristides’ political reading of Hesiod reflects a tradition of propaganda at least as old as the Augustan period, from which time the divine Earth Mother (Tellus or Terra Mater) figured prominently in imperial ideology. On the Ara Pacis, for example, a monument built between  and  BCE marking a new era of peace established under Augustus, the so-called Tellusrelief, depicts a matron deity reclining with two babies reaching for her breasts, and surrounded with symbols of fertility and renewal: fruit, grains, nuts, a sheep and a cow. It remains unclear which deity is represented; the iconography is suggestive of the earth-goddess Tellus, but it also points to Venus, Ceres, and possibly also Italia or Pax. Nevertheless, the propaganda value of this and other related Augustan iconography is clear: the new political regime ushered  Aristides refers here to Homer’s prediction of the rise of the descendants of Aeneas (Il. .–).  On this, see Van Nuffelen, Rethinking the Gods, –.  See Gesztelyi, ‘Tellus – Terra’, –; P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (trans. A. Shapiro; Jerome Lectures ; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, ) –.  See Gesztelyi, ‘Tellus – Terra’, –; Zanker, The Power of Images, –; D. Castriota, The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ) –. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400 Birthing the Children of God: Echoes of Theogony in Romans .–  in the golden age of prosperity and fecundity. Earth Mother figured elsewhere in civic cult. In the Saecular Games of  BCE, Augustus himself sacrificed a pregnant sow to her (ILS .–), and Horace’s Carmen saeculare, composed for the same religious celebration, invokes Earth, among other gods and goddesses: ‘May Tellus, fertile in fruits and cattle, grant grain as the crown of Ceres; and may healthful waters and the winds of Jove nourish the produce’ ( fertilis frugum pecorisque Tellus | spicea donet Cererem corona; | nutriant fetus et aquae salubres | et Iovis aurae, –). Thus, for Paul’s Roman audience, the image of the earth as mother would have been much more than merely a relic of archaic mythology. It was, rather, a dynamic cultic and political symbol employed in imperial religious propaganda to emphasise the new age accomplished by Augustus. Conclusion Paul and many in his Roman audience were deeply immersed in biblical texts and the cosmic and eschatological imagery therein. In Romans , these are clearly foregrounded by Paul’s depiction of creation as experiencing labour pains that would culminate in the revelation of God’s children. This theme is rooted in the primordial curse on the earth (Gen .–) and resounds throughout the Bible and subsequent Jewish literature. This study has contended that these aspects of influence upon Paul and his readers should be juxtaposed with others that were well known within the mythology, religion and philosophy of  Similarly, the cuirass relief on the statue of Augustus from the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta depicts Earth Mother reclining under the central image of Roman victory over the Parthians; see Gesztelyi, ‘Tellus – Terra’, –; Zanker, The Power of Images, – with Fig. .  On the cultic aspects involved, see M. Beard, J. A. North, and S. R. F Price, Religions of Rome ( vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) .–; .–.  Jewett has developed a compelling reading of Paul’s vision of the redemption of creation in Romans  against this Roman imperial background (‘The Corruption and Redemption’). To be sure, the apostle’s attitude towards the Roman Empire is complex; in recent decades, it been subjected to much scholarly inquiry. Some maintain that his message of the cross with its promise of liberation from the rulers of this age is inherently anti-Roman; see e.g. N. Elliott, ‘The Anti-imperial Message of the Cross’, Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (ed. R. A. Horsley; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, ) –. Others remain cautious; see J. A. Harrill, ‘Paul and Empire: Studying Roman Identity after the Cultural Turn’, Early Christianity  () –; idem, Paul the Apostle: His Life and Legacy in their Roman Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) –. Harrill problematises dichotomous analyses of Paul – whether he was pro- or antiimperial – focusing rather on the ways in which he constructs his own conceptions of power and authority from a Roman perspective. The interpretation proposed in this study of Paul’s image of creation as mother over against Roman Tellus/Terra Mater coheres well with such an approach. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400  COURTNEY J. P. FRIESEN Greece and Rome. Philo of Alexandria provides an especially salient model and justification for such an interpretive endeavour. As a Jewish intellectual committed to the exposition and defence of scripture, he found a wealth of Greek material to relate to biblical cosmology. For example, Hesiod’s account of cosmic origins, originating with Chaos and Gaia, was, he maintained, in agreement with both Plato and Moses. Moreover, Philo asserts that the earth’s maternal function is attested in Genesis (.) as well as in popular Greek sources, including etymology, poetry and philosophy. Finally, in an eschatological context, Philo maintains that the earth would again take on the role of mother as it gives birth to a final and lasting generation of God’s children. In view of these observations by Philo, Paul’s metaphor of the creation groaning in childbirth lends itself to a clear comparison with Greek and Roman material. As Hesiod had depicted Gaia groaning under the constraints of having her offspring concealed within her, so similarly does Paul’s creation, as it likewise awaits the final deliverance of God’s children. For Paul, the earth’s maternal role lends itself to the eschatological imagination. As the earth receives the dead of past generations (as in Hesiod’s Five Ages), so, in a Jewish and Christian context, she might naturally be expected to give birth to them once again at the resurrection (as in  Ezra .–). In Roman imperial ideology, however, the telos of Earth Mother moved in a different direction. The new age had already begun with the reign of Augustus, and thus the experience of abundance and fertility was now present and expanding. Against this backdrop of religious propaganda, Paul’s metaphor provokes the reader to reflect upon competing visions of cosmic order and renewal. Whereas Augustan Rome would advance its claim that God’s rightful children had been revealed and now ruled on earth, Paul’s creation continues to groan ‘until the present moment’ (ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν) as the suffering of God’s people persists, and the revelation of the true divine children remains to be accomplished at the moment of final deliverance.  As Jewett similarly observes, for Paul ‘[n]othing whatsoever remains of the illusion that the golden age has already arrived and that the whole world rejoices in Caesar’s victories’ (Romans, ). Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 08 Mar 2017 at 15:02:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000400