Fearful and Joyous Old Men: Old Age,Masculinity,and Emotions in Luke’s Account of Zechariah (Lk. 1) and the Fables of Babrios ( Fab . 98,136)

Abstract

In Graeco-Roman antiquity, the elderly, especially elderly men, were typically regarded as timid, cowardly, fearful, ill-tempered, and prone to anger. The Gospel of Luke, however, deviates from this stereotype of emotions by attributing to the aged priest Zechariah an emotional transformation from fear to joy. This article compares Luke’s characterization of Zechariah’s emotions with that of a happy and a timorous old father in Babrios’s fable collection, the Mythiamboi (Fab. 98, 136). Supplementing a narrative ethical analysis with a sociohistorical analysis, this comparative study demonstrates how old age, masculinity, and emotions intersected in diverse ways in different narrative contexts and communicated variegated norms and values regarding old men, their wisdom, authority, and performance of masculinity. Although Luke, due to its Jewish Christian background, evinces its own emphases, the comparison with Babrios highlights the cross-cultural character of narrative depictions of elderly male fear and joy in the Graeco-Roman world.

Keywords

Fables of Babrios/Babrius fear joy masculinity old age Zechariah

Throughout the Graeco-Roman world, the elderly, especially elderly men, were typically regarded as timid, cowardly, fearful, ill-tempered, and prone to anger. The Gospel of Luke, however, deviates from this emotional stereotype by attributing an emotional transformation to the aged priest Zechariah. While Zechariah is, at first, said to be afraid about the appearance of an angel (1.12), in the end his praise of God and his Holy Spirit-induced prophesy give expression to his joy about his newborn son and his salvation-historical importance (1.64, 67). How could Luke’s emotional characterization of Zechariah be positioned within the broader context of perceptions of the emotions of elderly men in the ancient world? How do old age and masculinity intersect in these perceptions? Which norms and values regarding old men are communicated in them?

As a contribution to the exegesis of Luke’s passage on Zechariah, the present article will compare Luke’s emotional characterization of Zechariah with that of two aged fathers in Babrios’s Mythiamboi, a collection of fables presumably composed in the late first to early third centuries CE in the eastern Mediterranean.¹ In recent years, New Testament scholarship has paid growing attention to the construction of Zechariah’s masculinity,² old age,³ and emotions (esp. his joy),⁴ yet the intersection of these three aspects in Luke’s characterization of Zechariah have not been analysed in detail. It is also left undiscussed how Zechariah’s transformation from a fearful to a joyous old man compares with other narrative characterizations of elderly men and their emotions in the ancient world. This comparative analysis will advance the still limited study of the emotions of the elderly in Graeco-Roman antiquity.⁵ In this respect, two of Babrios’s fables (Fab. 98, 136) are relevant, since in these fables aged fathers are said to experience the same emotions as Zechariah, namely fear and happiness. Given that ancient fables, as popular literature, built upon widely shared norms and stereotypes,⁶ Babrios’s fables present a concrete instance of how typical and less typical emotional perceptions of elderly men were used and understood in the Graeco-Roman world. Indeed, due to the wide circulation of these fables in Greek as well as in Roman contexts, they highlight the cross-cultural dimension of such perceptions. Given that Babrios’s Mythiamboi shares a similar geographic and chronological background with the Gospel of Luke, the use of the same two emotions of the elderly provides us with an occasion to read both writings in dialogue with each other.⁷

In this article, I will focus on emotions as social constructs, shaped by culture, social practice, and social interaction.⁸ Masculinity is approached as a dynamic social construct, co-determined by many factors.⁹ Given that in any given sociocultural context, many possible hierarchically structured forms of masculinity may exist,¹⁰ I will pay particular attention to the way Roman ideals of masculinity centred around active dominance and control (whether over oneself or others) affected the masculine performances of the elderly male characters involved.¹¹ Supplementing a narrative ethical analysis with a sociohistorical study, I will examine how ancient understandings of fear and joy, attitudes toward old age, and ideals of masculinity are used to portray and evaluate an elderly male character through the characterization of his emotions. In the use of this approach, I presume that the various elements of a narrative, like the characterization of a character with aspects such as age, gender, and emotions are imbued with value and provoke a reader/listener to reflect on his/her own moral value judgments.¹² Through characterization, sociocultural expectations about a character’s social status, personal attitude, and behaviour are mobilized, which, in turn, can be confirmed, rejected, or transformed by the speech, actions, opinions, emotions, etc., attributed to the character in the narrative.¹³ Within the broad spectrum of approaches to narrative ethics, I will particularly focus on the norms and values the author mobilizes from within his broader social, religious, and cultural contexts and on those he communicates regarding old men through his characterization of their emotions.¹⁴

In the following, I will first contextualize the emotions attributed to Zechariah in the Gospel of Luke and the two old fathers in Babrios’s Mythiamboi by introducing the emotions which were associated with the elderly, especially elderly men, throughout the ancient Mediterranean. Given Luke’s strong familiarity with the Jewish tradition (as particularly prominent in his account of Zechariah),¹⁵ I will introduce both the emotions associated with the elderly in Greek and Roman sources and those in the biblical tradition and early Jewish literature. In section 2, I will discuss the representation and evaluation of Zechariah’s fear and joy in the Gospel of Luke, in section 3 the happiness of an old father in Babrios, Fab. 98, and in section 4 the fear of an aged father in Babrios, Fab. 136. The concluding section will reflect on the way the old age-related dimension of emotions intersects with masculinity in these narratives and communicates norms and values regarding old men.

The Emotions of Old Men in Context

In Greek and Roman sources from the ancient Mediterranean, the elderly, including elderly men, could be attributed with a range of emotions. Due to the impending approach of death, for example, the elderly were believed to be afraid of death—or to lack such fear.¹⁶ Old age was also considered disadvantageous for the grief that the elderly, for demographic reasons, often experienced as a result of the loss of a beloved spouse, children, or brothers and sisters.¹⁷ Yet, throughout ancient Greek and Roman sources, from classical to late antiquity, two emotions are recurrently associated with elderly men, namely anger and fear. A case in point is Aristotle in Rhet. 2.13.1–16 [1389b14–1390a27]. Providing his audience with rhetorical guidelines on the stereotyped image of the old man, he argues, among other things, that the elderly are cowardly, because ‘they are chilled, … so that old age paves the way for cowardice (τῇ δειλίᾳ), for fear (ὁ ϕόβος) is a kind of chill’. As to the anger of the elderly, he writes: ‘Their outbursts of anger (οἱ θυμοί) are violent but feeble’ (trans. Freese/Striker, LCL).¹⁸

Aristotle’s observations can be positioned in a broader context of references to old men’s anger and fear in the Graeco-Roman world. Due to the cooling of their bodies, it was believed that the elderly were pessimistic, timid, and cowardly (cf. Aristotle above), while their irritability was diversely attributed to their inability to cope with life’s frustrations, character faults, or their weak bodies.¹⁹ Cicero, for instance, refers to the popular opinion that ‘old men are morose, anxious, prone to anger, and ill-tempered (morosi et anxii et iracundi et difficiles)’. Cato the Elder attributes this emotional state to a bad character and believes it can be ameliorated by good habits and education (Sen. 18.65).²⁰ According to Horace, old men are afraid (timet) to use the money they have amassed, being timid and cold (timide gelideque) in everything they do. He also describes them as ill-tempered and grumbling (difficilis, querulus), always praising the time of their youth and reproving the contemporary youth (Ars 170–174).²¹ In Roman comedy, the senex iratus was a stock character who was typically frustrated by the behaviour of his irresponsible sons, his nagging wife, and his cunning slaves, and by the fact that he was no longer thought of as a lover.²² Babrios, too, participates in this discourse when he concludes a fable with the lines: ‘The dog, they say, gave [the man] his latest years. That’s why everyone who gets to be old, Branchos, is ill-tempered (δυσκολαίνει); he only wags his tail when someone gives him sustenance, he’s always barking, and he is not happy (οὐ χαίρει) with strangers’ (Babrios, Fab. 74.15–17 [Perry, LCL, with adjustments A.O.]).²³

In early Jewish contexts,²⁴ the stereotype of the anxious, cowardly old man was known as well. The accounts of Eleazar’s martyrdom in 2 Macc. 6.18–31 and its retelling in 4 Macc. 5–7 presuppose this stereotype by way of contrast. In 2 Maccabees, Eleazar briefly explains how he prefers to die courageously (ἀνδρείως) so as to show himself worthy of his old age (v. 27) and present himself as a noble example for the young (v. 28). He indicates that his soul gladly/willingly (ἡδέως) suffers these tortures because of his fear of God (v. 30: διὰ τὸν αὐτοῦ φόβον).²⁵ Fourth Maccabees is more elaborate. Within its broader Stoic argument of rational self-control over one’s passions (regarding Eleazar, see 6.31–35; 7.1–23),²⁶ it repeatedly refers to Eleazar’s nobility and high spirit/courage (εὐψυχία) in resisting the temptation to eat pork, in spite of severe tortures (esp. 6.5, 11, 24, 30). Eleazar insists that he does not act as a cowardly old man (5.31: ἄνανδρος) nor pities his old age (5.33: οἰκτίρομαι) nor fears Antiochus’s violence (5.37: ϕοβηθέντα). He even refuses to become a laughingstock on account of his cowardice (ἐπὶ δειλίᾳ) by pretending to eat pork (6.20). According to Eleazar, the Jewish law, as a rational philosophy, had taught him the four cardinal virtues, including courage (ἀνδρεία) ‘so as to submit to every suffering willingly’ (5.22–24). Because of his courage and other virtues, Eleazar is constructed as performing ancient ideals of masculinity in terms of rational self-control, in contrast to his ostensibly masculine, powerful persecutors.²⁷ The fact that Eleazar’s fearless, courageous behaviour shatters common expectations about anxious, cowardly old men will have made his masculine performance even more remarkable.²⁸

Compared to Greek and Roman literature, however, the strong association of old men with anger and fear is less pronounced in early Jewish sources. These sources attribute a rather diverse range of emotions to elderly men. In particular, the love of aged fathers for the children born in their old age is referred to frequently. The Hebrew Bible—as well as the Septuagint upon which the Gospel of Luke is dependent²⁹—refers to the love of old Abraham for Isaac (Gen. 22.2) and that of aged Jacob for Joseph (Gen. 37.3) and Benjamin (Gen. 44.20). These references become a springboard for early Jewish sources to elaborate upon the love of these aged fathers (Philo, Abr. 194–195, 198; Ios. 223; Josephus, Ant. 1.222). They also refer to the affection of other aged fathers (Josephus, Ant. 20.24) or parents (Philo, Abr. 195) for their children. In the Hebrew Bible/Septuagint, Jacob’s love for Benjamin correlates with the sorrow he would feel if Benjamin would die (Gen. 42.38; 44.29, 31). This grief of aged fathers about the death of their children is also mentioned in early Jewish sources, for instance in relation to Jacob (Josephus, Ant. 2.103, 119), Sarah’s aged father Raguel (Tob. 3.10), and parents in general (Philo, Abr. 196; Sir. 3.12). Other emotions and emotional expressions ascribed to elderly people range from the lack of pleasure in old age (Eccl. 12.1), the fear of heights and along the road (Eccl. 12.5), not knowing a woman sexually (1 Kgs 1.4), the change from sorrow to joy (Jer. 31.13), hate against a man (Judg. 11.7), passion for a woman (Sus. 1.8, 10, 11), and the weeping of a dying old man, not because of a ‘cowardly fear of death’ (δι᾿ ἀνανδρίαν ϕόβῳ θανάτου) but due to a yearning for education (Philo, Somn. 1.10). As a result, the less stereotyped construction of the emotions of the elderly in early Jewish contexts points to the way perceptions of their emotions were partly dependent on cultural and religious background.

Luke’s Characterization of Zechariah’s Emotions (Lk. 1): From Fear to Joy

Having sketched the perceptions of the emotions of the elderly in ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish contexts, I will now turn to the question of how old age and masculinity intersect in Luke’s characterization of Zechariah’s emotions. As previous research has already shown, Zechariah’s performance of masculinity is ambiguous in light of Roman ideals of masculine dominance and control. While his priestly status, righteousness and Torah faithfulness, and selection for the temple service (including his presumed unblemished corporal state, despite his advanced age, as required for this service) will have bolstered his performance of masculinity, the temple selection procedure, Zechariah’s muteness, and the lack of emphasis on his paternity destabilizes it.³⁰ Luke’s reference to Zechariah’s advanced age at the outset of his narrative (together with Elizabeth, 1.7: ἀμϕότεροι προβεβηκότες ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτῶν ἦσαν) contributes to the ambivalent perception of his masculinity as an old man. It presumes ancient cultural knowledge about the diminishing sexual prowess of old men.³¹ Given that ancient ideals of masculinity were strongly connected with notions of virility (e.g., Juvenal, Sat. 10.204–209; Martial, Epigr. 4.50.2),³² the reference to Zechariah’s advanced age would have called his manhood into question.

Within the context of his ambivalent masculine performance, Zechariah’s fear is a destabilizing factor. During his temple service, Zechariah’s fear is aroused when an angel appears to him at the right side of the altar of incense. His fear receives a double emphasis: ‘and Zechariah was disturbed (ἐταράχθη) when he saw him, and fear (ϕόβος) overwhelmed him’ (v. 12). Since Zechariah’s fear is caused by the appearance of an angel, it would have been understood, in Jewish as well as in non-Jewish contexts, as an instance of epiphanic fear aroused in human encounters with the divine.³³ This fear may have included numinous aspects (i.e., awe),³⁴ but would also have been aroused due to the potential deadly consequences of a human’s encounter with the divine.³⁵ In line with ancient perceptions of fear,³⁶ including biblical ones,³⁷ fear was understood as being evoked in the face of an expected danger or immanent evil, whether human, natural, or divine. It presumes an adverse relationship of power in which people believe that other people or things, such as emperors, lions, or divinities, have the power and the intention to harm them.³⁸ In light of these perceptions, Zechariah’s fear presumes an evaluation of the angel as potentially harmful, possibly causing his death, as in the biblical texts with which he, as a priest versed in the Torah, was presumably familiar.³⁹ The arousal of his fear suggests that he missed hints about the favourable, dignified character of the angel as expressed in his appearance at the right side of the altar (v. 11).⁴⁰ Given that his evaluation implies a judgment on an adverse relationship of power, Zechariah, with his fear, gives expression to his subordination, in his performance of masculinity, to this divine being.

In response to Zechariah’s fear, the angel encourages him to reorient his emotional attitude. As in other epiphany stories in Jewish and non-Jewish sources,⁴¹ the angel first soothes his fear: ‘Don’t be afraid, Zechariah (Μὴ ϕοβοῦ, Ζαχαρία), for your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will call his name John’ (Lk. 1.13). Given that Zechariah’s prayers have been heard and his wife Elizabeth will beget a son, the angel makes clear, in a very concrete way, that he is in no imminent danger. Subsequently, the birth of his son is presented by the angel as an occasion for joy and exultation, on the part of Zechariah as well as of ‘the many’: ‘You will have joy and exultation (καὶ ἔσται χαρά σοι καὶ ἀγαλλίασις), and many will rejoice at his birth’ (v. 14). In light of the Lukan understanding of joy, Zechariah’s announced joy would have been regarded as a joy about a perceived good that is induced by God in response to a character’s faithful obedience, as motivated by Israel’s Scriptures, while awaiting God’s actions.⁴² In this case, the awaited for, perceived good pertains to the conception and redemptive meaning of Zechariah’s and Elizabeth’s son, the future John the Baptist (vv. 15–17). Zechariah’s faithful obedience is constituted by his priestly descent (v. 5), righteousness and Torah faithfulness (v. 6), and his temple service (vv. 8–11), while biblical models of barren couples (esp. the aged Abraham and Sarah) provide a rationale for his persistent waiting and hope for progeny late in life, as expressed in his prayers (v. 13).⁴³ Since this understanding of joy presupposes Zechariah’s acknowledgment of God’s favourable intervention in human life in response to his Torah faithfulness, it implies a construction of masculinity in which an element of subordination to the divine is included.

After the angel’s announcement, Zechariah requests a sign. Echoing Abram’s question in Gen. 15.8, Zechariah asks the angel: ‘How will I know this? For I am old (πρεσβύτης), and my wife is getting on in years (προβεβηκυῖα ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτῆς)?’ (v. 18). Since his request is motivated by his biological-cultural experience with the infertility of his own advanced age (and that of his wife), Zechariah re-foregrounds the emasculating character of the impotence caused by his old age in the mental image created of him. Although no emotions are explicitly attributed to Zechariah at this point, his request could be interpreted as following from his aforementioned fear. With his request, Zechariah attempts to receive additional proof of the angel’s good intentions. In this way, Zechariah may have intended to reevaluate the angel’s harmfulness as underlying his fear.⁴⁴ Given that God provided a sign to Abram upon his request (by concluding a covenant with him, Gen. 15.18–21) as well as to other biblical characters in Israel’s Scriptures (Judg. 6.37–40; 2 Kgs 20.8–11; Isa. 7.11), Zechariah would have been hoping for such a sign for himself as well.⁴⁵

Yet, his request is not appreciated by the angel. Considering Zechariah’s request as a personal assault on his reliability, the angel appeals to his authority as a messenger sent by God and punishes Zechariah with muteness until the birth of his son (vv. 19–20). This loss of speech would have cast doubt on Zechariah’s performance of masculinity. In the ancient world, spoken and written speech was an integral way for elite men to assert their manliness, status, education, and self-control. It enabled them to voice their opinions in public assemblies, to defend their own manliness, and detect the effeminate character of other men.⁴⁶ While silence, when self-imposed, was connected to masculine self-control, losing the ability to speak by an outside source was considered emasculating and aligned a man with the silence expected of women.⁴⁷ In Zechariah’s case, his muteness (possibly in combination with deafness⁴⁸) would have especially emasculated him as a man of advanced age, since in Greek and Roman sources old men were typically ridiculed for their speaking issues and hearing impairments.⁴⁹ Moreover, the connection of Zechariah’s muteness to his failure to trust the angel’s/God’s words (v. 20) highlights, in a Jewish context, Zechariah’s failing masculine performance as an aged priest versed in the Torah, with due ability to understand the messianic implications of the angel’s message.⁵⁰ In line with divinely imposed speechlessness in biblical and early Jewish traditions, the divinely imposed muteness of Zechariah curtails his performance of masculine control and bolsters that of God/the angel.⁵¹

His subordinate position in the divine-human hierarchy is, in the end, accepted by Zechariah in his expression of joy. Thanks to God’s intervention, the emasculating infertility associated with his old age is, albeit implicitly,⁵² overcome by Elizabeth’s conception (v. 24) and the resulting birth of a son (v. 57). When Zechariah, upon the request of his neighbours, writes ‘John is his name’ (v. 63) on a writing tablet, he relinquishes his masculine, paternal rights to name the child after himself and expresses his faith in God’s redemptive work, in obedience to the words of the angel.⁵³ Upon the return of his speech (v. 64), Zechariah publicly expresses his devotion to God by blessing/praising (εὐλογῶν) him (v. 64). A few verses later, being filled with the Holy Spirit, he utters a prophesy, the so-called Benedictus, in which he praises God for the salvation of his people (vv. 67–79). Compared with his previous focus on the personal level (v. 18), his present focus on God’s larger redemptive purposes signals a growth in faith.⁵⁴ Although Zechariah is not explicitly called joyful at this point of the narrative, both the praise of God and the filling of the Holy Spirit are associated with the experience and expression of joy elsewhere in Luke-Acts.⁵⁵ In addition, both the catalyst (the birth of his son John) and the thematic content (God’s provision of salvation and peace) of Zechariah’s song involve topics associated with joy, while the angel’s earlier prediction of Zechariah’s joy (v. 14) provides an interpretative frame.⁵⁶ Since Zechariah’s joyful utterances acknowledge God’s redemptive powers as realized in the birth of his son John, his joy demonstrates how he, as an aged male priest, subordinates himself, in his masculine performance, to the divine.

Previous scholarship has argued how Luke, with his reconfiguration of Zechariah’s masculinity, points ahead to larger themes in Luke-Acts. Since, in his portrayal of Zechariah, Luke subtly refigures elite masculine norms of active dominance and control, he demonstrates what it entails to be a ‘real’ man in God’s kingdom. Luke shows that supreme power and authority do not reside with men but are wielded by God. God destabilizes human factors of authority, such as those associated with masculinity, by dismantling traditional power structures, bringing down the powerful, silencing those who typically speak, and turning fathers to their wives and children.⁵⁷ Given that leadership and authority were frequently associated with elderly men in the broader Graeco-Roman world,⁵⁸ including the presbyteroi in Luke-Acts,⁵⁹ Luke’s emotional representation of Zechariah as an aged male priest may have questioned these traditional age hierarchies as well. Whereas Zechariah, by virtue of his age, masculinity, and religious status, would have been at or near the top of social-religious hierarchies,⁶⁰ Luke shows how this category of aged men should incorporate an element of subordination to the divine in their performance of masculinity. Indeed, when Zechariah, in his Benedictus, extols the soteriological importance of his son as a prophet of the Most High (vv. 76–79), his own masculine authority as an aged household head fades into the background in favour of his son’s status.

Within the Gospel of Luke, the aged Zechariah (together with the aged Elizabeth, Simeon, and Anna) is used to legitimize and announce the new dawn in God’s salvation history, guarantee the continuity in God’s salvation history, and serve as a role model of lasting hope in God’s redemptive work.⁶¹ Yet, with his fear and joy, Luke also presents Zechariah as a model of how aged men could emotionally reconfigure their masculinity. Since the angel soothes Zechariah’s fear, announces his future joy and exultation, and discards his request for a sign as an expression of distrust, it is Zechariah’s joy that Luke presents as the preferred emotional state. When he praises God and utters his prophecy, Zechariah demonstrates how an aged male believer may experience pleasure and meaningfulness when he orients his life toward God’s redemptive purposes as disclosed in the birth of John (and of Jesus) and their ensuing inversion of human values.⁶² Zechariah’s joy acknowledges God’s favourable intervention in human life, expresses his faithful understanding of God’s redemption as promised in Israel’s Scriptures, and shares his joy with others in praise and prophecy. In light of the importance of joy throughout Luke-Acts, both the grounds for and the expression of Zechariah’s joy will have made clear to Luke’s aged audience how they may joyfully express their masculine subservience to God.

Babrios, Fable 98: A Happy Old Father

Luke’s construction of Zechariah’s emotions differs strongly from that of an aged father in Babrios, Fab. 98. This fable tells the story of a lion who asks the father of a young girl for her hand in marriage. According to the father, he is happy to grant the lion permission to marry his daughter. By identifying the father as old both at the beginning and end of the fable’s narrative (ll. 2, 18), the fable portrays a rare social occasion in which an old father is still alive at the time of his daughter’s marriage. Demographically, such chances were very low in Roman imperial times.⁶³ Noteworthily, Babrios’s emphasis on the father’s advanced age deviates from other contemporary versions of this fable (the Augustana Collection and its Vindobonensis recension [Hausrath 1957: 145]; Aphthonius, Fab. 7; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 19.25.5–6) in which the age of the father is left unspecified. Moreover, while Babrios refers to the father’s joy, these other versions characterize the father as afraid of the lion.⁶⁴ How does Babrios’s characterization of the father’s emotions give expression to the intersection of his old age and masculinity? And which norms and values regarding old men does he communicate as a result? Following Maria Jagoda Luzzatto and Antonius La Penna’s text-critical edition of Babrios’s Mythiamboi,⁶⁵ the text of the fable reads:

A lion, overcome with love for a young girl, sought marriage with her from her father. To him the old man (ὁ πρεσβύτης), showing neither any ill-will nor resentment, said: ‘I grant permission to marry her, and I am happy (χαίρω) to grant it; 5 Who will not forge marriage ties with a ruler and a lion? But the hearts of young women and children are timorous. You, what huge claws, what huge fangs do you bring us! Which maiden will dare to embrace you without fear? Which girl, having seen them, will not weep? 10 Consider these things if you desire a marriage and do not be an untamed animal but become a bridegroom’. He [i.e., the lion], having been set aflutter and trusting the gift, took out his fangs, then by a surgeon’s knife he had his nails trimmed, and, having shown them to his father-in-law, 15 he demanded the girl. But each one struck him, the one hitting him with a club, the other with a stone in the hand. The wild one lay prostrated like a pig, dying having been taught by the crafty old man (γέροντος ἀνδρὸς ποικίλου) the wise advice that it is incompatible for human beings 20 to love lions, or lions human beings. [Someone is unaware of treating himself badly whenever he hastens to partake in things he is not naturally destined to.] (Babrios, Fab. 98)

Since the fable’s epimythium (ll. 21–22) is presumably secondary,⁶⁶ it will not be taken into account in the following discussion.

The fable starts with a lion who is overcome with love for a young girl and asks her father for her hand in marriage (ll. 1–2). Since according to Roman law a father’s consent was necessary to marry a daughter still under his paternal power,⁶⁷ the lion’s request affirms the father’s masculine authority as a pater familias. In response to the lion’s marriage request, however, the father uses his happiness to leave the ultimate position of masculine power to the lion. According to the fable, the old father intimates no ill-will or hostility (l. 3) when he grants the lion permission to marry his daughter and even expresses his happiness to do so (l. 4: χαίρω). In light of common Greek and Latin parlance, the father’s expression of joy would have presupposed his perception of the marriage as perceived good fortune.⁶⁸ His rhetorical question ‘Who will not forge marriage ties with a ruler and a lion?’ (l. 5) makes explicit his underlying motivation: the marriage enables him to forge kinship ties with an animal of a high social status.⁶⁹ It reflects the importance of social, economic, and political considerations in forging marriage ties in the Roman world, in particular for elite families.⁷⁰ Since the father, because of his happiness, positively associates the lion with rulership, he buttresses the lion’s masculine dominance in comparison with that of his own.

The lion’s masculine dominance continues to play a part in the continuation of the father’s speech. In this part of his speech, he emphasizes the fear young girls—including, by implication, his daughter—would experience upon marrying the lion (ll. 6–11). After arguing, in general terms, that the hearts of young women and children are timorous (l. 6: δειλαί),⁷¹ the father points out that they will not dare to embrace the lion without fear (l. 9: ἀϕόβως) because of his huge claws and fangs (ll. 7–9). In line with ancient understandings of fear (cf. above), the father would have assumed that the anxiety of these girls was aroused in the face of the potential deadly danger the lion’s claws and fangs pose them. Presuming an inverse relationship of fear and power, their fear emphasizes the weak position of the girls vis-à-vis the lion’s masculine power. When at the end of the speech the father finally invites the lion to ‘Consider these things if you desire a marriage’ and advises him to turn himself from a wild animal into a bridegroom (ll. 10–11), his open formulation leaves it up to the lion to decide whether he wants to proceed with the marriage or not. As a result, the father, with his expression of happiness, as part of his larger response to the lion, restrains his own exercise of masculine authority as an aged pater familias and strengthens that of the lion.

With his speech, the father motivates the lion to remove his claws and fangs (ll. 12–14). The reference to his afluttered state (l. 12: πτερωθείς) suggests that the lion’s love for the girl (cf. l. 1) made it impossible for him to think clearly and apprehend his situation rationally.⁷² It re-foregrounds the lion’s unmasculine lack of rational self-control over his emotions as already presumed in his initial reference to being overcome with love for the daughter (l. 1: ἁλοὺς ἔρωτι).⁷³ By removing his claws and fangs, the lion aims to prevent the arousal of the daughter’s fear. It evokes an ancient sexual discourse in which effete and effeminate men, with boyish, soft, and mild looks, were considered more liable to arouse erotic desire in others (men and women) than traditional masculine men. Yet, the effeminacy of these men subverted prevailing social norms in which adult male citizens were seen as the exclusive subjects of erotic passion, with the active role of pursuit and penetration being reserved for them.⁷⁴ Thus, when the lion removes his claws and fangs, he not only alters his frightening appearance, but also gives up the masculine posture expected of him and voluntarily disempowers and emasculates himself.

With the lion’s removal of his claws and fangs, the masculine power dynamics between the lion and the father change. When the lion shows himself, clawless and fangless, to his father-in-law and demands the girl he wants to marry (ll. 14–15), he is beaten to death with clubs and stones (l. 16). Although it is left unspecified who kills the lion, the concluding lines of the fable’s narrative suggest that the beating is orchestrated by the father: ‘The wild one [i.e., the lion] lay prostrated like a pig, dying, having been taught (διδαχθείς) by the crafty old man (γέροντος ἀνδρὸς ποικίλου), the wise advice (τὴν γνώμην σοϕίῃ) that it is incompatible for human beings to love lions, or lions human beings’ (ll. 17–20). By identifying the father as an old man and associating him with craftiness, teaching, and wise advice, the fable mobilizes the common association of old age with wisdom and experience throughout the ancient Mediterranean.⁷⁵ Due to this association, the fable casts new light on the father’s actions throughout the fable. In hindsight, it suggests that his grant of the marriage proposal, including his expression of happiness, was insincere. Perhaps he did not show any ill-will and resentment to the lion (cf. l. 3), but, inwardly, he did indeed bear this ill-will and resentment. His speech, including his joy, was therefore part of a truce to kill the lion. As a result, the old father was, behind the scenes, in masculine control all along.

Thus, when the aged father expresses his joy about granting marriage to the lion, he sets a course of events in action that eventually confirms his masculine position as the head of his household and his active control over the situation. The fable presents its audience with an old man whose verbal expression of an emotion does not match the way he acts. This discrepancy, at least in this narrative, is evaluated positively by the narrator. Mobilizing the common association of old age with wisdom and experience, Babrios conveys a norm that old men may use the expression of their emotions for strategic purposes to overcome a potential danger to their household and its members. Different from the lion in this fable, the strategic use of his joy, as part of a larger response to the lion’s marriage request, shows that the old man exhibits true self-mastery over his emotions, even to the extent of displaying outwardly different emotions than he experiences inwardly. It is this masculine self-mastery that enables the man to retain masculine control over the situation and his household. Since his actions are positively evaluated as an expression of wisdom and craftiness, the audience of Babrios’s fables is led to accept the authority of this old man as well as the content of his lesson. By way of positive example, Babrios confirms the social order in which elderly men, thanks to their perceived wisdom and experience, found themselves in a highly masculine, authoritative position in the household and society.

Babrios, Fab. 136: A Timorous Old Father

In the second fable of Babrios, the emotional characterization of an old man goes in a very different direction. The fable relates the story of a timorous old man who attempts to save his son from being killed by a lion as predicted to him, he believes, in a dream. Babrios identifies the man as old both at the beginning (l. 1: πρεσβύτης) and end (l. 21: ο βρεσβυ.) of the fable’s narrative, while his timorous character (l. 1: δειλός) and fear (l. 4: <καὶ ϕοβούμενος>) are mentioned right at the start of the fable. Apart from his additional reference to the old man’s advanced age in l. 21, Babrios does not substantially deviate from the characterization of the main character as old and fearful in the only other contemporary version of the fable (the Vindobonensis and Accursiana recensions of the Augustana Collection [Hausrath 1957: 279]).⁷⁶ With his explicit reference to the timorous character of the old man, Babrios mobilizes the common stereotype of the anxious old man in Graeco-Roman antiquity. How does the old man’s advanced age and masculinity intersect in his emotional characterization as fearful? Which norms and values regarding old men does Babrios convey by means of this characterization?

Since the primary witness of Babrios, Fab. 136—tablet IIrv of the Tabulae ceratae Assendelftianae (Leiden BPG 109)⁷⁷—is corrupt at several points (esp. ll. 16–22), the reading of the text is not always clear and has to be reconstructed on the basis of secondary medieval witnesses. This includes the reference to the old man’s fear in l. 4 (καὶ ϕοβούμενος), which is present (as ϕοβηθεὶς δέ / δὲ φοβηθείς) in medieval paraphrase collections⁷⁸ and in the Vindobonensis and Accursiana recensions of the Augustana Collection (Hausrath 1957: 279). The present discussion follows the text-critical edition of Luzzatto and La Penna in which minimal emendations are made in the text as preserved on tablet IIrv of the Tabulae ceratae Assendelftianae.⁷⁹ Its translation is as follows:

A timorous old man (δειλὸς … πρεσβύτης) had an only son, who was noble above all and wanted to hunt. In his sleep he [i.e., the father] believed that this one [i.e., his son] lay dead, having been killed by a lion: <and fearing> (<καὶ ϕοβούμενος>) lest perchance 5 it become reality and the vision prove true, he selected a very beautiful house as a men’s room <that was> lofty, well-built, full of sun, and there, having shut [him] up, he guarded his son closely. In order to beguile [his son’s] grief, 10 he [i.e., the father] put many-colored paintings of animals on the walls, 11 among them all also a lion was pictured. 11a <When he [i.e., the son] saw it, grief seized him even more.> 12 And once when he stood not far from the lion, he said: ‘Worst of w<ild animals, because> you showed the false dream to my father’s eyes <in vain>, 15 you keep me enclosed in a womanish prison. Why then with words against you? †and I do not do a deed†’ and he laid his hand upon the wall †in order to blind the lion†. But a splinter† under the nail, after a bloody [inflammation] had entered the flesh, destroyed this one, causing feverish heats 20 and it was upon him.† †Thus the old man (ο βρεσβυ.) did not save the child who was about to die.† Those things that have been fated to you, endure them nobly and do not play tricks: for you will not escape from fate. (Babrios, Fab. 136)

The opening lines of the fable introduce a timorous old man with an only son, who is noble and willing to hunt (ll. 1–2). With the characterization of the main character’s emotions as being δειλός, which can be translated as cowardly or fearful here,⁸⁰ Babrios evokes the ancient stereotype of the anxious old man, as introduced in the first section. His disposition implies a contrast with the noble (γενναῖος) character of his hunting-loving son (l. 2). While γενναῖος could be associated with courage and manliness in Graeco-Roman sources,⁸¹ δειλός has connotations of fear, ignobility, and a lack of courage and manliness.⁸² Due to these connotations, Babrios constructs the anxious old man as unmasculine in comparison with his noble, hunting-loving son.

The unmasculine performance of the timorous old man is elaborated upon when the old man responds with fear to a dream in which his son has been killed by a lion (ll. 3–5). Presupposing cultural beliefs about the mantic nature of, at least, some dreams in the Graeco-Roman world,⁸³ the old man is afraid that his dream will come true (ll. 4–5). As we have recurrently observed, the emotion of fear was constructed in Graeco-Roman antiquity as an emotion that was aroused in the face of an expected evil or danger. In the case of this old man, he perceives the realization of his dream, namely in the actual death of his son, as an immanent evil. Since his son is fond of hunting wild animals, his death by a lion is conceivable to the aged father. The reason(s) underlying his fear are left unspecified. The references to his advanced age and to his son as his only son (l. 1) may have evoked ancient perceptions about fatherly care and affection (cf. Homer, Il. 9.482; 22.25–76; Od. 16.17; see also section 1 for biblical and early Jewish sources).⁸⁴ However, the old man may also have been afraid out of more practical concerns. When his only son would be killed, the provision of support in his old age, the arrangement of a funeral upon his death, his commemoration after his death, and the transmission of his property and the perpetuation of his family name after his death would be at risk.⁸⁵ Whatever his motivations may have presumed to have been, the adverse relationship of power implied in his experience of fear presumes a restricted performance of masculine control and dominance on the part of the old man in comparison with the power of the lion to kill his son.

In his subsequent actions, the old man attempts to exercise masculine, perhaps even hypermasculine, control over his son’s living circumstances and emotional state. Since he makes an attempt to save his son from death, the old man puts his fear into action. The fable describes how he selects a very beautiful house as a men’s room (ll. 6–7). There he shuts his son up and guards him closely (l. 8). In the context of classical Greek domestic architecture, the men’s room (ἄνδρων) refers to a room where the head of the household could invite his male friends for dinner or communal drinking parties (symposia).⁸⁶ By locking his son up in this room (or in a house with this room), the father forces his son to cultivate an alternative form of masculinity, one which is not based upon hunting wild animals but upon hosting banquets and symposia for his male peers. Yet, the father expects that the confinement of his son and the determent of his hunting desires will grieve his son, since he aims to beguile his son’s grief (λύπη) by painting multicoloured animals on the walls, including a lion (ll. 9–11). By preventing the arousal of his grief, the father extends his masculine control to his son’s emotional state and attempts to bend it at his will.

In the next episode, it becomes clear that the father fails in his exercise of masculine dominance and control. Due to the corrupt state of tablet IIrv of the Tabulae ceratae Assendelftianae, the reading of the text is not completely clear, although the general course of events can be followed. In spite of his father’s attempts to soothe his son’s grief, his son is even more grieved when he sees the painted lion on the wall (l. 11a). In his subsequent speech, the son accuses the lion of having shown a false dream to his father and keeping him enclosed in a womanish prison (ll. 13–15). He clearly does not share his father’s belief in the mantic nature of his dream. After his speech, the son attempts to scratch out the lion’s eyes, but a splinter gets under his nail which causes a feverish infection and kills the son (ll. 17–20). The death of the son makes clear that the old man’s exercise of masculine control is to no avail: his son is still grieved, and he even dies, despite his father’s safety measures. Given that the son regards the men’s room a womanish prison (l. 15: φρουρῇ … γυναικείῃ), the hypermasculine control which the old father exercises over his son has an emasculating effect upon him, at least in his son’s perception.

The concluding lines of the fable’s narrative (ll. 21–22) emphasize the failure of the old man to save his child. The characterization of the father as an old man (ο βρεσβυ.) creates an inclusio with his initial characterization as old in the fable’s opening line (l. 1). By re-foregrounding his old age in the mental image created of him, the fable’s recalls his unmasculine δειλός character as the motivating cause of his ultimate failure to exercise masculine control over his son’s life circumstances and emotions. The fable’s epimythium (ll. 23–24) evaluates this exercise of fear-motivated, masculine control by the old man negatively. It reads: ‘Those things that have been fated to you, endure them nobly and do not play tricks: for you will not escape from fate’. With ‘nobly’ (γενναίως), the epimythium indirectly contrasts the old man’s character and actions with the noble character of his son in the fable’s opening lines (l. 2). Masculine nobility, it suggests, entails performing masculine ideals in endurance with fate, not escaping from fate by exercising cowardly fear-driven hypermasculine control over one’s life circumstances. The verb οὐ ϕεύξῃ (‘you will not escape/flee’) takes up the old man’s timorous attitude once again, given that fleeing was associated with fear and δειλός in the Graeco-Roman world.⁸⁷

With this fable, Babrios conveys a different behavioural norm about old men than fable 98. In light of ancient associations of old men with wisdom and experience, Babrios may initially have aroused the expectation that the aged father, with the confinement of his son in a men’s room, was doing a good job in thwarting the prediction of his dream. These associations are partly confirmed by the fable’s epimythium, since it reinterprets the old man’s actions with a verb related to the noun σοφία (‘wisdom’): μὴ σοϕίζου (‘do not play tricks’) (l. 24). Yet, the negation of this verb in the fable’s epimythium makes clear that no one, including old men, should be so wise as to meddle with the force of destiny. By way of negative example, old men in the fable’s audience are taught to endure fate even when the life of their children is at stake. Their anxiety-driven, hypermasculine attempts to escape from fate should be exchanged for a noble, masculine submission to fate. As a result, as with Zechariah in a different religious context, old men are shown how to cultivate a form of masculine subordination toward a higher entity.⁸⁸ In the process, Babrios qualifies the emotional stereotype of the anxious old man by encouraging the old men in his audience to release their unmasculine, fearful attitude. Indeed, given that old men, for demographic reasons, often experienced the loss of loved ones (sons or otherwise; cf. section 1), he may even have presented them with an emotional strategy of how to endure such losses.

Conclusions

This study has demonstrated how old age and masculinity intersected in diverse ways in the characterizations of Zechariah’s emotions in the Gospel of Luke and the emotions of the happy and timorous old fathers in Babrios, Fab. 98 and 136. In the case of Zechariah, his transformation from fear to joy results in the joyful performance of masculine subordination to the divine, while in Babrios, Fab. 98, the masculine authority of an old father over his household is restored by means of his masculine self-control over his emotions. In Babrios, Fab. 136, a timorous old father, because of his emasculating fear, fails to exercise hypermasculine control over his son’s life circumstances and emotional state. The narratives make clear that ancient biological, cultural, and emotional associations of old age contribute to the destabilization of an old man’s performance of masculinity through his emotions (Zechariah in Lk. 1), but just as well bolster this performance (the old father in Babrios, Fab. 98) or create a conflict in this performance (the old father in Babrios, Fab. 136). Performances of old age and masculinity therefore stand in tension with each other.

Directly and indirectly, via the outcome of the narrative or narrator’s comments and evaluations, the three old characters are presented as models of how old men in the narrative’s audiences should behave emotionally and present their masculinity, whether in joyful masculine subordination to the divine (Zechariah), in the exhibition of masculine control over one’s emotions and one’s household (the old father in Babrios, Fab. 98), or in the exhibition of masculine nobility in subordination to and endurance with fate (the old father in Babrios, Fab. 136). In all cases, the emotional characterization of an old man leads to a shift away from the ancient stereotype of the anxious old man, even when this stereotype is mobilized in the narrative (in Babrios, Fab. 136). It makes clear how perceptions of the emotions of the elderly in the Graeco-Roman world could be more diverse than the prevalence of stereotypes about these emotions would suggest, and that authors, in and via their narratives, could directly or indirectly reorient such stereotypes in their communication of emotional-behavioural norms and values regarding old men.

Overall, narrative ethical representations of the emotions of the elderly transcend, to some extent, cultural and religious boundaries. Despite their manifold differences, all narratives present elderly fear as an unfavoured emotional attitude, and its expression is depreciated. Zechariah moves from fear to joy, the old father in Babrios, Fab. 98 expresses his happiness instead of fear (as in other versions of the fable), and the fearful actions of the old father in Babrios, Fab. 136 are of no avail and negatively evaluated in the epimythium. Moreover, although the old father in Babrios, Fab. 98 provides a behavioural model of how to exercise masculine control over others through masculine self-control over one’s emotions, the ambiguous masculine performances of Zechariah and the old father in Babrios, Fab. 136 convey a behavioural norm of how to incorporate an element of subordination to a higher entity in one’s performance of masculinity, in a joyful way in the case of Zechariah and in a non-fearful way in the case of the old father in Babrios, Fab. 136. That is, these commonalities make clear how perceptions of fearful and joyful old men in the Graeco-Roman world were of a cross-cultural character.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Dr. Marion C. Hauck, Dr. Mirjam Jekel, and Prof. Ruben Zimmermann for their helpful comments and feedback on earlier drafts of this article. I also thank the anonymous peer reviewers for their useful suggestions. I am grateful to the participants of the EABS session ‘Emotions in the Biblical World’ (Sofia, Bulgaria, 2023) for their questions and remarks. The English of this article has been corrected by Jacob N. Cerone. Any remaining errors and infelicities are mine.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research that stands at the basis of the present article has been conducted as part of the DFG-funded research project ‘The Ancient Fable Tradition and Early Christian Literature’ (Gepris project no. 495720705) at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz.

Ethics Approval and Informed Consent Statements

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal participants.

ORCID iD

Albertina Oegema

1.

E.g., Perry (1965: xlvii–l); Luzzatto and La Penna (1986: ix–x); : 12–18).

2.

Wilson (2015: 79–112); : 157–67).

3.

4.

Newberry (2022: 43–171). Zechariah’s joy is hardly discussed by : 146–91).

5.

Brief surveys are conducted by Cokayne (2003: 79–81, 85–87, 115–72) and : 63, 76–79, 85, 86). Although Karen Cokayne devotes the third part of her book to ‘emotional aspects of old age’ (pp. 115–72), it is not focused on emotions as such but rather on sexuality, abuse of old women, and the family, as the chapter ti-tles indicate. Emotions are mentioned or presumed in passing.

6.

Zafiropoulos (2001); : 57–83).

7.

Babrios’s Mythiamboi has been hardly taken into account in New Testament scholarship so far. See Lee (1967); Luzzatto (1975: 58–63); for exceptions.

8.

: 35–47).

9.

: 4–7).

10.

For an older but still influential model of hierarchically structured forms of masculinity, see Carrigan, Connell, and Lee (1985); Connell (2005: 76–81). This model is discussed and applied in the context of biblical studies by, e.g., Smit (2017: 10–11); : 5–8).

11.

On these constructions, see, e.g., Mayordomo Marín (2006: 3–8); Asikainen (2018: 25–29); Anderson and Moore (2003: 68–71). A few discussed examples include Plato, Gorg. 491c–492c; Aristotle, Pol. 1260a; Philo, Opif. 165–166; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.13; 6.35.2. Asikainen identifies the masculine ideal of control over others and over oneself as two distinct ideals of masculinity in the Graeco-Roman world. The former was the more common and widespread ideal, while the latter was favored by men with a philosophical background (: 27–29).

12.

Cf. the definitions of narrative ethics (in the analytical-literary sense) in Joisten (2016: 108–109); : 77, 78–79).

13.

: 135–37).

14.

Cf. : 55–63, 64–68).

15.

I leave it open whether this familiarity implies that the author of the Gospel was a Christian of Jewish origin (Wolter 2016: 10–11) or a Greek proselyte (: 8).

16.

Cf. Anacreon, Frg. 395 PMG; Juncus, Περὶ γήρως apud Stobaeus, Flor. 4.50.85.3; Musonius Rufus, Ἐκ τοῦ τί ἄριστον γήρως ἐϕόδιον 22–27; Cicero, Sen. 19.66–68; Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 2.561.8. See Gnilka (1971: 14–16); Brandt (2002: 36); : 64, 68–69).

17.

E.g., Juvenal, Sat. 10.243–245; Lucian, De luctu 16–18. See Parkin (2003: 85); : 505).

18.

Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are mine.

19.

: 76, 78–79, 79–81, 85–87).

20.

: 76).

21.

: 78–79).

22.

Gnilka (1983: 1011, 1025); : 80). See, e.g., Simo in Terence, Andria, Demipho in Phormio, Demea in Adelphi, and Menedemus in Heauton timorumenos; Nicobulus in Plautus, Bacchides, Theopropides in Mostellaria, Periphanes in Epidicus, and Demipho in Cistellaria.

23.

Given the strong association of elderly men with anger in the Graeco-Roman world, the encouragement of el-derly men to be, among other things, loving, patient, and merciful in Tit. 2.2–4 and later early Christian texts (e.g., John Chrysostom, Hom. Tit. 4.1) conveys an emotional ideal that, at least partly, corrected this emotional stereotype of elderly men. See Gnilka (1983: 1056, 1069); : 503).

24.

For heuristic reasons, I discuss early Jewish discursive contexts separate from the Greek and Roman ones. Given the thorough Hellenization and, later, Romanization of ancient Jews, however, it is not my intention to suggest an absolute divide between Jews/Judaism on the one hand and their cultural-religious surroundings on the other.

25.

On the biblicizing use of ϕόβος in the meaning of fear, see Schwartz (2008: 293). As Lasater (2019: 219–23) has concluded regarding the Hebrew Bible, the fear of God articulates a submissive, affective, and normatively assessed activity or stance in relation to God. Eleazar’s ϕόβος of God may therefore not only have referred to his actual fear of God but also to his proper submissive stance toward him, as expressed in his practice of the Torah (cf. : 201). In the wisdom tradition, the fear of God was particularly connected to Torah, wisdom, knowledge, and instruction (e.g., Ps. 110.10; Prov. 1.7; 2.5; 9.10; 15.33; 22.4; Sir. 1.14, 18, 27; 19.20; 21.11; Ps. Sol. 18.7).

26.

Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg (2023: 96–99).

27.

Cf. Moore and Anderson (1998: 249–65, 272–73); Cobb (2008: 60–66, 76–80); .

28.

Cf. : 138).

29.

Since the Gospel of Luke is dependent on the Septuagint and employs a Septuagint style (as often demonstrat-ed, e.g., : 1:113–16), the scriptural references in this article pertain to both the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint.

30.

More elaborately Wilson (2015: 79–112); : 159–67).

31.

: 198–99). Implicit and explicit references to the impotence of elderly men appear in Gen. 17.17; 18.11; t. Yebam. 6.6; 8.6; Aristotle, Hist. an. 9(7).5–6 (585b3–9); Pol. 7.14.3 (1335a9); Juvenal, Sat. 10.204–209; Dig. 5.4.27. Still, ancient authors like Aristotle (Hist. an. 9[7].5–6 [585b3–9]) and Pliny (Nat. hist. 7.14.61–62) also express their awareness of the biological fact that men may father children up to a very high age.

32.

Cokayne (2003: 120); : 81).

33.

On epiphanic fear in the Hebrew Bible/Septuagint, the Synoptic Gospels, and Greek and Roman sources, see de Souza Nogueira (2002); Wolter (2016: 63); Naiden (2019: 39–41); : 94–97). Instances of fear in appearance stories include Dan. 8.17; 1 En. 60.3; Jos. Asen. 14.10; Mk 6.50 par.; 16.5; Acts 10.4; Cicero, Rep. 6.10.

34.

Theissen (2007: 130–38); Schlimm (2019: 32–36). The notions of das Numinose and the mysterium tremen-dum go back to Rudolph Otto’s Das Heilige (1917). Lasater (2019: 29–34) has criticized scholarship for argu-ing for a link between קדש‎ (‘to be holy’) and ירא‎ (‘to fear’) in the Hebrew Bible and concludes: ‘one can safely say that the Hebrew Bible indicates nothing about das numinose Gefühl as conventionally understood’ (33, emphasis original). I follow Schlimm’s careful approach by not distinguishing sharply between numinous and regular fear in relation to the divine (: 35–36).

35.

As denoted in Scripture: for example, Gen. 32.31; Exod. 20.18–21; 33.20–23; Judg. 6.23; 13.22. Cf. Dihle, Waszink, and Mundle (1972: 673); : 34).

36.

See Aristotle’s definition as a locus classicus: ‘Let fear (ϕόβος) be a kind of pain or disturbance (λύπη τις καὶ ταραχή) deriving from an impression of an imminent evil that is destructive or painful’ (Rhet. 2.5.1 [1382a21–22]). Note how the verb ταράσσω, from which ταραχή is derived, is used in Lk. 1.12. On Aristo-tle’s definition, see : 129–35). Similar ancient definitions can be found in Ps.-Andronicus Rho-dius, Pass. 1.2; Ps.-Plato, Def. 415e5; Diogenes Laertius, Vitae 7.1 Zeno [112].

37.

: 30–41).

38.

Cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 2.5.3–11 (1382a37–1382b19). On power and fear, see Lasater (2019: 24–25, 34–35, 43–56); : 98–99).

39.

Besançon Spencer (1992: 61–62). See also : 174).

40.

On the angel’s appearance at the right side of the altar, see : 63). Standing/sitting at the right side of God is mentioned in Lk. 20.42; Acts 7.55–56.

41.

E.g., Gen. 15.1; 21.17; 26.24; 28.13; Exod. 20.20; Judg. 6.23; Dan. 10.12, 19; Tob. 12.17; Jos. Asen. 14.11; 2 En. 1.8; Cicero, Rep. 6.10. Cf. Wolter (2016: 63); Schlimm (2019: 48–49); : 94–95).

42.

Cf. : 52–60) analysis of the Lukan understanding of joy in the Infancy Narrative.

43.

Cf. : 53–54, 55, 56, 58).

44.

: 60–75) criticizes scholarly tendencies to regard Zechariah as joyful after the angel’s birth announcement. In this criticism, she focuses predominantly on Zechariah’s speechlessness (vv. 20, 22) but does not discuss the emotional import of Zechariah’s request for a sign.

45.

Cf. Fitzmyer (1981: 1:327); : 38).

46.

Wilson (2015: 94–97, 98–102, 102–3), with reference to, among others, Dio Chrysostom, 1 Tars. 38–39; Seneca the Elder, Contr. 1.praef.8–9; Seneca the Younger, Ep. 114.1–27; 2 Macc. 15:32–33; Clement of Al-exandria, Paed. 2.7. See also : 164–66).

47.

See : 97–98, 104–5), with reference to Seneca the Elder, Contr. 5.6; Apuleius, Metam. 3.25; Lu-cian, [Asin.] 13.

48.

Although the angel announces Zechariah’s inability to speak (v. 20), the people, at the name-giving ceremony of Zechariah and Elizabeth’s newborn son, gesture at Zechariah to find out how he wants to name his son (v. 62). It suggests that Zechariah was deaf too. After Zechariah has left the temple after his vision, his characterization as κωϕός (v. 22) may have pertained to both his muteness and his deafness. See Fitzmyer (1981: 1:328, 381); : 38, 71).

49.

E.g., Juvenal, Sat. 10.198, 210–216; Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 650e. See : 82, 84, 367–68 n. 113).

50.

Troost (2019: 162). Cf. Coleridge (1993: 39–40); : 79).

51.

Biblical and early Jewish examples include Ezek. 3.26; 33.22; Dan. 10.15; 2 Macc. 3.29; 3 Macc. 2.22. See also Lk. 4.35, 41. See : 100–1, 103).

52.

When Luke describes how Elizabeth conceives (v. 24), Zechariah is not explicitly said to have impregnated her. Throughout the birth scene (vv. 57–58), he is left unmentioned as well. More on this : 105–6).

53.

: 106–9, 110).

54.

: 91–93).

55.

Lk. 1.41; 10.21; 19.37; 24.52–53; Acts 2.46–47; 13.48, 52. See : 78–79).

56.

As demonstrated by : 79–80).

57.

: 81–82).

58.

E.g., Cokayne (2003: 95–104). See also .

59.

: 83–84, 84–86). The presbyteroi are mentioned in Lk. 7.3; 9.22; 20.1; 22.52 (see also 22.66).

60.

Autero (2011: 39–44); .

61.

: 126–32).

62.

: 233–35, 235–37, 247).

63.

Saller (1994: 49, 55, 61) has estimated that, depending on the social status of Roman girls, ca. 62–72% had a living father at the age of fifteen. Only 4–11% would have had a living paternal grandfather and 15–28% a liv-ing maternal grandfather. Assuming that the girl in the fable would have been around the marriageable age of fifteen, the lower numbers are relevant in view of the advanced age of her father. Since Saller makes use of a computer simulated model, the percentages may not reflect actual demographic variations as a result of exoge-nous (climate, disease, etc.) and endogenous (war, system collapse, etc.) factors in a variety of contexts (city, region, cultural-religious customs, etc.). For a nuanced discussion, see Frier (2000); Scheidel (2000, 2008); .

64.

For an overview of all ancient and medieval versions of the fable, see : 190).

65.

: 98–99).

66.

: 99).

67.

: 22). Cf. Dig. 23.2.35.

68.

Cf. : 133).

69.

In Babrios’s fables, and in ancient fables more generally, lions often assume a ruling position in the animal world. See, e.g., Babrios, Fab. 67, 90, 95, 102, 103, 106.

70.

E.g., Sallust, Bell. Jug. 11.3; Tacitus, Ann. 15.59.20–23; Suetonius, Galba 3.4; Plutarch, Cicero 41.3–4; Pomp. 9; see Treggiari (1991: 89–100, 107–19). Treggiari notes that disparities in birth, social status, and wealth were generally avoided by all classes in the Roman world (89). Since Babrios leaves the social status of the father and his daughter unspecified, it is unclear to what extent social disparity is presumed in the fable. In the Au-gustana versions of the fable (: 145), the father is identified as a farmer, but in these versions the lion’s ruling status is not referred to.

71.

The father mobilizes an emotional stereotype about fearful women and children; see, e.g., Plato, Resp. 381e6; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 20.98.8.6.

72.

Cf. : 21–22), with reference to Homer, Od. 18.158–161 (with the expression θυμὸν πετάσαι [‘to flutter, elate one’s heart’]).

73.

With his reference to the lion’s love (ἔρως), Babrios attributes an unmasculine lack of self-control to the lion. In light of ancient understandings of ἔρως, it will have been presumed that the lion’s mind had been subdued by a strong passionate desire for the beauty of his beloved girl (Thornton 1997: 13, 14–17, 27–23; Konstan 2013: 13–14). This impression is reinforced by the description of the lion as being overcome (ἁλούς) by his love, given that this verb evokes ancient metaphorical expressions of love as a violent, military force that actively conquers and subdues the lover’s heart, mind, and will (cf. Plato, Phaedr. 252c6; Lucian, Dial. d. 9.3.6; Xeno-phon of Ephesus, Ephes. 1.4.1.4); see : 14–17, 27–31).

74.

Konstan (2002). See also the dialogue between Zeus and Eros in Lucian, Dial. d. 6 (2) as discussed in : 354–59). In this dialogue, Zeus complains to Eros about the fact that women are frightened to death (6 [2].1.13–14: τεθνᾶσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ δέους) when they see his true appearance. In response, Eros advises Zeus to stop shaking his aegis and carrying his thunderbolt. He should rather make himself attractive and tender (with curly hair, ribbons, purple robe, etc.). Contrary to the lion in our fable, however, Zeus prefers to maintain his appearance as an all-powerful, masculine, thunder and lightning god.

75.

As often discussed, see, e.g., : 91–111).

76.

Chambry (1925, #296 aliter) cites a version of the fable in which the father is neither identified as old nor as timorous (l. 1). His fear about the realization of the dream is still mentioned (l. 3). An overview of all ancient and medieval witnesses is provided by : 345–46).

77.

For a discussion of the text and its transcription, see Hesseling (1892); Crusius (1894). The tablets can be con-sulted online at https://digitalcollections.universiteitleiden.nl/view/item/1606764?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=b204a91691ceea7381d3&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=12#page/3/mode/1up.

78.

: 132).

79.

: 132–34).

80.

Cf. LSJ s.v. δειλός 1.1.

81.

E.g., Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 6.10.1–2; Plutarch, Crass. 26.4.7; Adul. amic. 68D10; Cassius Dio, Hist. rom. 55.16.4.

82.

E.g., Plutarch, Art. 25.3; Tranq. an. 475E; Epictetus, Diss. 3.20.6; 3.26.1; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 4.22; Cassius Dio, Hist. rom. 55.16.4.

83.

: 29–35). E.g., Plato, Symp. 202d–203a; Hippocrates, Vict. 4.87; Cicero, Div. 1.30.64; Philo, Somn. 1.1.

84.

The references to Homer, Il. 9.482; Od. 16.17 derive from : 198). They refer to fathers of an unspecified age with an only son.

85.

Balla (2003: 10–21, 64–70); Cokayne (2003: 164–72); : 205–16).

86.

: 283).

87.

On the etymological and literary relationship between fear and fleeing, see : 46–47). In-stances of δειλός and fleeing can be found in Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 3.7.13 [1116a13–15]; Lucian, Peregr. 30.9; Babrios, Fab. 108.22.

88.

In Fab. 49 in Babrios’s collection of fables, fate (τύχη) is conceived of as divine. Fab. 136 speaks more gener-ally of ‘what has been fated to you’ (ἅ σοι πέπρωται) and ‘that which must be’ (τὸ χρεών) (ll. 23–24).

References

Anderson

Janice Capel

Moore

Stephen D.

2003 ‘Matthew and Masculinity’, in Moore

Stephen D.

Anderson

Janice Capel

(eds), New Testament Masculinities (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature): 67–91.

Asikainen

Susanna

2018 Jesus and Other Men: Ideal Masculinities in the Synoptic Gospels (BibInt, 159; Leiden: Brill).

Autero

Esa

2011 ‘Social Status in Luke’s Infancy Narrative: Zechariah the Priest’, BTB 41: 36–45.

Avemarie

Friedrich

van Henten

Jan Willem

Furstenberg

Yair

2023 Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity: From the Books of Maccabees to the Babylonian Talmud (CRINT, 17; Leiden: Brill).

Balla

Peter

2003 The Child-Parent Relationship in the New Testament and Its Environment (WUNT, 155; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Besançon Spencer

Aída

1992 ‘“Fear” as a Witness to Jesus in Luke’s Gospel’, BBR 2: 59–73.

Bovon

Francis

2002 Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress).

Brandt

Hartwin

2002 Wird auch silbern mein Haar: Eine Geschichte des Alters in der Antike (Munich: Beck).

Campbell

R. Alastair

1994 The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

10.

Carrigan

Tim

Connell

Bob

Lee

John

1985 ‘Toward a New Sociology of Masculinity’, TheorSoc 14: 551–604.

11.

Chambry

Aemelius

1925 Aesopi fabulae (2 vols; Paris: Les Belles Lettres).

12.

Cobb

L. Stephanie

2008 Dying to Be Men: Gender and Language in Early Christian Martyr Texts (GThR; New York: Columbia University Press).

13.

Coin-Longeray

Sandrine

2015 ‘La peur dans la lyrique chorale: δέος, φόβος, τάρβος’, in Coin-Longeray

Sandrine

Vallat

Daniel

(eds), Peurs antiques (Saint-Étienne, France: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne): 41–49.

14.

Cokayne

Karen

2003 Experiencing Old Age in Ancient Rome (London: Routledge).

15.

Coleridge

Mark

1993 The Birth of the Lukan Narrative: Narrative as Christology in Luke 1–2 (JSNTSup, 88; Sheffield: JSOT Press).

16.

Connell

R. W.

2005 Masculinities (2nd ed.; Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

17.

Cramer

Malte

2021 ‘Die Alten in der lukanischen Vorgeschichte: Narratologische und intertextuelle Perspektiven auf die minor Characters in Lk 1,5–2,40’, in Cramer

Malte

Wick

Peter

(eds), Alter und Altern in der Bibel: Exegetische Perspektiven auf Altersdiskurse im Alten und Neuen Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer): 113–35.

18.

Crusius

1894 ‘Fabeln des Babrius auf Wachstafeln aus Palmyra’, Philologus 53: 228–52.

19.

De Wet

Chris L.

2016 ‘Grumpy Old Men?: Gender, Gerontology, and the Geriatrics of Soul in John Chrysostom’, JECS 24: 491–521.

20.

deSilva

David A.

2006 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus (SCS; Leiden: Brill).

21.

Dihle

Albrecht

Waszink

Jan Hendrik

Mundle

Wilhelm

1972 ‘Furcht (Gottes)’, RAC 8: 661–99.

22.

Dinkler

Michal Beth

2013 Silent Statements: Narrative Representations of Speech and Silence in the Gospel of Luke (BZNW, 191; Berlin: de Gruyter).

23.

Fitzmyer

Joseph A.

1981 The Gospel According to Luke: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (2 vols; AB, 28 and 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).

24.

Freese

J. H.

(trans.) 2020 Aristotle: Art of Rhetoric (rev. Gisela Striker; LCL, 193; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

25.

Frier

Bruce W.

2000 ‘Demography’, in Bowman

Alan K.

Garnsey

Peter

Rathbone

Dominic

(eds), The High Empire, A.D. 70–192. Vol. 11 of The Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 787–816.

26.

Gnilka

Christian

1971 ‘Altersklage und Jenseitssehnsucht’, JAC 14: 5–23.

27.

Gnilka

Christian

1983 ‘Greisenalter’, RAC 12: 995–1094.

28.

Graver

Margaret

2016 ‘Anatomies of Joy: Seneca and the gaudium Tradition’, in Caston

Ruth R.

Kaster

Robert A.

(eds.), Hope, Joy, and Affection in the Classical World (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 123–42.

29.

Green

Joel B.

2020 Luke as Narrative Theologian: Texts and Topics (WUNT, 446; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

30.

Harrisson

Juliette

2015 Dreams and Dreaming in the Roman Empire: Cultural Memory and Imagination (London: Bloomsbury).

31.

Hausrath

August

1957 Corpus fabularum Aesopicarum. Vol. 1: Fabulae Aesopicae soluta oratione conscriptae (2 vols; Leipzig: Teubner).

32.

Hersch

Karen K.

2010 The Roman Wedding: Ritual and Meaning in Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

33.

Hesseling

D. C.

1892 ‘On Waxen Tablets with Fables of Babrius (Tabulae Ceratae Assendelftianae)’, JHS 13: 293–314.

34.

Holleran

Claire

Pudsey

April

(eds) 2011 Demography and the Graeco-Roman World: New Insights and Approaches (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

35.

Inselmann

Anke

2012 Die Freude im Lukasevangelium: Ein Beitrag zur psychologischen Exegese (WUNT, 2/322; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

36.

Joisten

Karen

2016 ‘Narrative Ethik: Lesarten, Dimensionen, Anwendungen’, in Volp

Ulrich

Horn

Friedrich W.

Zimmermann

Ruben

(eds), Metapher – Narratio – Mimesis – Doxologie: Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik (KNNE, 7; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 105–21.

37.

Konstan

David

2002 ‘Enacting Erōs’, in Nussbaum

Martha C.

Sihvola

Juha

(eds), The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome (Chicago: University of Chicago Press): 354–73.

38.

Konstan

David

2006 The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature (RCL; Toronto: University of Toronto Press).

39.

Konstan

David

2013 ‘Between Appetite and Emotion, or Why Can’t Animals Have Erôs?’, in Sanders

Thumiger

Chiara

Carey

Chris

Lowe

Nick J.

(eds), Erôs in Ancient Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 13–26.

40.

Lasater

Phillip Michael

2019 Facets of Fear: The Fear of God in Exilic and Post-Exilic Contexts (FAT, 2/104; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

41.

Lee

G. M.

1967 ‘Two Linguistic Parallels from Babrius’, NovT 9: 41–42.

42.

Luzzatto

Maria Jagoda

1975 ‘La cultura letteraria di Babrio’, ASNSP 5: 17–97.

43.

Luzzatto

Maria Jagoda

La Penna

Antonio

(eds) 1986 Babrii Mythiambi Aesopei (Teubneriana; Leipzig: Teubner).

44.

Mayordomo Marín

Moises

2006 ‘Construction of Masculinity in Antiquity and Early Christianity’, LectDif 2: 1–33.

45.

Melzer

May-Britt

2024 Angstemotionen im Markusevangelium: Eine semantische und narratologische Studie (BZNW, 266; Berlin: de Gruyter).

46.

Moore

Stephen D.

Anderson

Janice Capel

1998 ‘Taking It Like a Man: Masculinity in 4 Maccabees’, JBL 117: 249–73.

47.

Morgan

Teresa

2007 Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

48.

Naiden

F. S.

2019 ‘Religion and Spirituality’, in Cairns

Douglas

(ed.), A Cultural History of the Emotions in Antiquity (London: Bloomsbury Academic): 35–45.

49.

Ndekha

Louis W.

2018 ‘Zechariah the Model Priest: Luke and the Characterisation of Ordinary Priests in Luke-Acts’, HTS Theological Studies 74.1: 1–7.

50.

Newberry

Julie

2022 Lukan Joy and the Life of Discipleship: A Narrative Analysis of the Conditions That Lead to Joy According to Luke (WUNT, 2/583; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

51.

Otto

Rudolf

1917 Das Heilige: Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen (Breslau: Trewendt & Granier).

52.

Parkin

Tim G.

2003 Old Age in the Roman World: A Cultural and Social History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).

53.

Patera

Maria

2014 ‘Reflections on the Discourse of Fear in Greek Sources’, in Chaniotis

Angelos

Ducrey

Pierre

(eds), Unveiling Emotions. Vol. 2: Emotions in Greece and Rome: Texts, Images, Material Culture (HABES, 55; Stuttgart: Steiner): 109–34.

54.

Perry

Ben Edwin

(ed.) 1965 Babrius and Phaedrus (LCL, 436; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

55.

Reddy

William M.

2001 The Navigation of Feeling: A Framework for the History of Emotions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

56.

Rodríguez Adrados

Francisco

2003 History of the Graeco-Latin Fable. Vol. 3: Inventory and Documentation of the Graeco-Latin Fable (ed. Adrados

Francisco Rodríguez

van Dijk

Gert-Jan

; trans. Ray

L. A.

del Canto

F. Rojas

; rev. ed.; Mnemosyne, 236; Leiden: Brill).

57.

Saller

Richard P.

1994 Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family (CSPESPT, 25; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

58.

Scheidel

Walter

2008 ‘Demography’, in Scheidel

Walter

Morris

Ian

Saller

Richard P.

(eds), The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 38–86.

59.

Scheidel

Walter

(ed.) 2001 Debating Roman Demography (Leiden: Brill).

60.

Schlimm

Matthew Richard

2019 ‘The Paradoxes of Fear in the Hebrew Bible’, SEÅ 84: 25–50.

61.

Schwartz

Daniel R.

2008 2 Maccabees (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter).

62.

Smit

Peter-Ben

2017 Masculinity and the Bible: Survey, Models, and Perspectives (BRPBI, 2; Leiden: Brill).

63.

Smit

Peter-Ben

forthcoming ‘Beyond Gender: Polycarpus’ Martyrdom at the Intersection of Old Age and Masculinity’, in Oegema

Albertina

Bledsoe

Seth A.

(eds), Old Age in Ancient Judaism, Early Christianity, and Their Contexts: Senescence and Its Significations (London: Routledge).

64.

Souza Nogueira

Paulo Augusto de

2002 ‘Fear and Ecstatic Reaction to the Miracle Stories in the Synoptic Gospels’, Mirabilia 2: 87–92.

65.

Spielhofer

Lukas

2023 Babrios: Ein Interpretationskommentar zu den Prologen und Fabeln 1 bis 17 (Hermes, 125; Stuttgart: Steiner).

66.

Theissen

Gerd

2007 ‘Furcht und Freude in der Bibel: Emotionale Ambivalenz im Lichte der Religions psychologie’, NTT/JTSR 61: 123–47.

67.

Thornton

Bruce S.

1997 Eros: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality (Boulder, CO: Westview).

68.

Treggiari

Susan

1991 Roman Marriage: Iusti coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Clarendon).

69.

Troost

Ari C.

2019 ‘Exegetical Bodybuilding: Gender and Interpretation in Luke 1–2’ (PhD diss., Utrecht University).

70.

Tsakirgis

Barbara

2016 ‘The Architecture of Greek Houses’, in Miles

Margaret M.

(ed.), A Companion to Greek Architecture (BCAW; Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell): 273–87.

71.

Wagener

Fredrik

2015 Figuren als Handlungsmodelle: Simon Petrus, die samaritische Frau, Judas und Thomas als Zugänge zu einer narrativen Ethik des Johannesevangeliums (WUNT, 2/408; KNNE, 6; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

72.

Wanke

Gunther

1990 ‘φόβος und φοβέοµαι im Alten Testament’, ThWNT 9: 194–201.

73.

Wick

Peter

2021 ‘Alte und Älteste in der neutestamentlichen Literatur: Eine Übersicht’, in Cramer

Malte

Wick

Peter

(eds), Alter und Altern in der Bibel: Exegetische Perspektiven auf Altersdiskurse im Alten und Neuen Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer): 77–89.

74.

Wilson

Brittany E.

2015 Unmanly Men: Refigurations of Masculinity in Luke-Acts (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

75.

Wolter

Michael

2016 The Gospel According to Luke. Vol. 1: Luke 1–9:50 (trans. Coppins

Wayne

Heilig

Christophe

; BMSEC; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press).

76.

Wortley

John

1997 ‘Aging and the Aged in Aesopic Fables’, AHD 44: 183–203.

77.

Zafiropoulos

Christos A.

2001 Ethics in Aesop’s Fables: The Augustana Collection (Mnemosyne, 216; Leiden: Brill).

78.

Zimmermann

Ruben

2016 Die Logik der Liebe: Die ‘Implizite Ethik’ der Paulusbriefe am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefs (BTS, 162; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie).

79.

Zimmermann

Ruben

2021 ‘Narrative Ethik’, in Lindner

Konstantin

Zimmermann

Mirjam

(eds), Handbuch ethische Bildung: Religionspädagogische Fokussierungen (UTB, 5604; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 77–83.

80.

Zimmermann

Ruben

2022 ‘The Fables According to Babrius and the New Testament Parables’, in Oegema

Albertina

Pater

Jonathan

Stoutjesdijk

Martijn

(eds), Overcoming Dichotomies: Parables, Fables, and Similes in the Graeco-Roman World (WUNT, 483; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 141–66.