The Faces of the Other. Religious Rivalry and Ethnic Encounters in the Later Roman World ed. by Maijastina Kahlos (review)

This edited volume, apparently distributed for review considerably after its publication, is composed mostly of Finnish contributions, with one article each from Danish and Israeli scholars. Hence, by mid-2014, a cursory search revealed just two reviews, one by L. Good in Comitatus the other by R. Flower in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review.¹ All of the articles are in good English, with only rare lapses. The theme, a popular one, is the construction of the “other” in Late Antiquity and how and why this came about. The main focus is on the creation of the religious “other,” but three articles deal with the ethnic “other”; there is, however, much overlap between the two.

Before examining the individual contributions to the volume, it is worthwhile to draw out some themes, echoing the introduction by M. Kahlos (1–15). As she underlines, the drawing of boundaries was of great importance, whether these were religious or ethnic—the issue was especially critical in times of stress. The “other” was often painted in highly derogatory terms, serving to alienate him further, and various rhetorical strategies were employed to achieve this end. One theme that emerges is the particular danger posed by those whose views resembled one’s own: church fathers had to deploy tremendous vigour and skill to distance themselves from such rivals, as Anders Klostergaard Petersen argues in the case of Paul (Chapter 1). Another theme is the change of attitudes over time toward certain groups—for example, to the cult of Cybele, examined by Rauhala (Chapter 2) or to the Christians themselves, discussed by Kahlos (Chapter 9). The changing fortunes of pagans and Christians within the empire naturally had an impact on their representation in their opponents’ literature. In the case of the portrayal of barbarians, on the other hand, Isaac and Lampinen show that often their image remained remarkably static throughout the imperial period (Chapters 7 and 8). Finally, several contributions discuss the rhetorical means used to denigrate one’s opponents—for example, Vähäkangas’ analysis of Irenaeus’ attacks on Valentinus (Chapter 3). Here one notes a certain difference of approach among the contributors, for while Klostergaard Petersen, for instance, insists that no inferences can be made about the group that is subject to criticism from the description given by its opponent (in his case, Paul, 25–26), Jacobsen is prepared to accept some of the information given in Tertullian’s portrait of pagans (106).

Klostergaard Petersen’s article concerns “Othering in Paul: A Case Study of II Corinthians” (19–50). As Flower notes in his review, this is a dense contribution with much detail, both on Paul’s letter and of a theoretical nature (the diagram on page 44 does little to elucidate matters). Nevertheless, Klostergaard Petersen draws out how Paul succeeds in “othering” his opponents by various rhetorical strategies and makes a good case for supposing that the views of his rivals among the Corinthians were far closer to his own than is commonly supposed. Paul achieved his objective by employing a “foundational apocalyptic structure” (50), by which he means an inversion of usual methods of argument. He lays stress on his own weakness and his opponents’ strength, but this paradoxically strengthens his hand since it makes him closer to God.

Marika Rauhala, “Devotion and Deviance: The Cult of Cybele and the Others Within” (51–82) traces the evolution of Roman attitudes to Cybele’s cult right from its arrival in Rome at the end of the third century bc. Until the late antique period, it attracted strong criticism, especially of its eunuch priests, the galli, but then references to them disappear. Christian critics, on the other hand, grew more contemptuous over time, perhaps concerned about the similarity of some of the cults’ rituals to their own, such as the taurobolium, which might be compared to baptism. The article provides an interesting...