Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to its Archaeology, Religion and Culture (review)

Too much research on early Christianity has been marked by the application of a generic model for the Hellenistic city. General histories and Biblical commentaries often suffer most, but we have also lacked studies of specific cities particularly in terms of interdisciplinary efforts that combine the needed approaches and data.

The present volume goes far to rectify that condition for Ephesos. It is based on a 1994 conference at Harvard which brought together archaeologists and historians whose expertise involved classics, ancient history, comparative religion, New Testament and early Christian studies. Two clear maps (one a foldout with three sections), four black and white plates, thirty-four figures, a glossary and an index make the volume useful both to specialists and to students.

The most satisfactory articles come from the Austrian archaeologists, most associated with the Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut who continue the hundred year efforts of their predecessors. They offer comments on the state of research in Ephesos, even references to unpublished reports. One strong impression is the advance of contemporary archaeology. It remains a destructive science; digging through layers has often meant that later chronological levels were considered refuse. For example a small chapel near the harbor was destroyed to get to the Hellenistic remains underneath. The initial 1898 report only says it appeared to be medieval. In these articles there are multiple comments about what was lost in earlier excavations because more care was not taken.

Peter Scherer offers an overview of the city from the roman period to late antiquity. Carefully buried statues of Artemis suggest Christians did not always destroy her representations. Twenty churches speak of Christian presence; many of them were previously public structures or pagan temples. Dieter Knippe notes that the worship of Artemis had declined before Theodosius’ ban of 381, but a grave house in Panayirdag, still used in the fifth century, unexpectedly contained no Christian artifacts. Hilke Thür describes Ephesos’ processional way and Hadrian’s grand Olympeion, only identified in 1983, built on land reclaimed from the sea. Heinrich Zabehlicky remarks that although their exact location is unclear, Ephesos had at least three harbor sites, each of which silted up and was closed. Dredging and even diverting the river had little effect. Suzanne Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger shows that an Italian entrepreneur, C. Sentius, set up a pottery plant in Ephesus to supply common ware. Maria Aurenhammer notes that more statuary of Aphrodite was discovered in Ephesos (over one hundred exemplars) than of Artemis. Stefan Karwiese suggests that the see of Ephesos was only later identified with the Virgin Mary; its earlier patron saint may have been a local figure as yet unknown. The Church of Mary is later fifth century.

Participants other than the Austrians also make significant contributions. Michael White looks at the evidence of urban development and social change within the city. Christine Thomas points out that novels which depict Ephesos insist upon its Greek world while the archaeological evidence shows that it was saturated with Roman influence: for the city’s Greek elite, nostalgic wish stood against harsh reality. Steven Friesen details the use of the term neokoros in terms of the Ephesian realia, James Walters looks at the strong evidence for Egyptian deities worshipped at Ephesos, Vasiliki Limberis describes ecclesiastical politics in the eastern Mediterranean, particularly the death of the Ephesian see in relationship to the living belief in the Theotokos.

The least useful article is Koester’s. Zabehlicky employs lists of artifacts from Revelation 18 to speak of cargoes shipped in and out of Ephesus. Steven Friesen finds the use of neokoros in Acts 19:35 at least accurate for the second century and uses materials from Ephesos to provide context for Revelation. But Koester basically repeats earlier studies of Acts 19, finding there little that relates to historical data. His literary sensitivities blind him to the details of the stories. It remains...