Artemis of the Ephesians: A Conversation with Wayne Stiles

Our understanding of Artemis of the Ephesians at the time of the apostle Paul has, I believe, implications for how we read 1 and 2 Timothy. Recently I spoke with Wayne Stiles with Walking the Bible Lands about my research on this goddess and her influence, especially in the Province of Asia. You can watch our conversation in this video.

Right now I'm working on two books right now relating to the Ephesian Artemis and the ramifications for women and our understanding of first-century backgrounds—one a work of fiction and the other, an academic book.

My readers can get a free video series on Jesus's life from Walking the Bible Lands courtesy of Wayne.

Peter to Wives: Put Off, Put On, Watch This

My Engage post for the week:Instead of telling first-century wives to submit because they are inferior, as many believed at the time, Peter urges them to be submissive for a very different reason—so that their husbands might find true life (1 Peter 3:1). Peter encourages these wives to be subversive (keep worshiping Christ—which hubby may not like) in a cloak of respect (submit to your husband) so as to achieve a good end. Here is his rationale:In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. And let not your adornment be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (1 Peter 3:1–6, NAS).In Peter’s day, a wife was considered property, could not speak for herself in a court of law, and (of key significance here) was expected to worship the same god or gods as the householder.A number of Peter’s readers have husbands whom he describes as “disobedient to the word.” Doubtless, some of these wives in his readership are from households where Hecate or Apollo are worshiped, and great harm could come to these women if they spoke in a cocky way about Zeus or trash-talked Leto, false as these gods are. Even Paul when speaking of Artemis in Ephesus, was described as not blaspheming the goddess (Acts 19:37).Instead, in such a world, the wise believing wife is told she should show her fear of God by remaining quiet about her faith, while also remaining fiercely loyal to Christ (a radical idea) “without being frightened by any fear” (1 Pet. 3:6). Notice Peter does not tell wives to stop worshiping Christ and obey by worshipping their husbands' gods, which is what one would expect a good Roman family man to say. We must read between the lines to see how clever (indeed, subversive) he is in his advice to submit. It’s what he doesn’t say that makes it so interesting. He's telling wives to submit to husbands, but he's expecting these wives to keep worshiping Christ, whom the "disobedient" householder would object to her worshiping. But she is to keep quiet about it and actively seek to change his loyalty to his god with her own character.The writer of these words is not a man out to put down women; he is looking out for wives’ interests while working within existing structures and having as his first priority the advancement of the gospel that equalizes.The word translated “reverent” in this passage is not actually an adjective, but is the object of a prepositional phrase “in fear.” A wooden translation would be “as they observe your pure conduct in fear.” And the fear or respect is actually not directed toward the husband here. In Peter’s usage, such fear is always directed toward God—not in a terrified way, but in a reverent one. The point here, then, is not actually that the wives should be reverent toward their husbands, but rather that these women should live purely “in the fear of God” as part of their silent witness.Peter goes on to use the image of adornment three times within the short space of three verses to make his case. One reference is to the wives’ external signs of status (3:3). One is to their internal character (v. 4). And one is to the adornment of the past holy women of God (v. 5).Put off externals. Peter begins his argument by saying, “Let not your adornment be external” (v. 3). Many translations have added “merely external,” which suggests that these wives could have some external adornment. Other translators have rendered the text as saying, “Let not your adornment be external only.” But the modifiers “merely” and “only” are not in the original.After telling wives not to adorn themselves externally, Peter immediately specifies the sorts of external adornments he means: braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on apparel. And Peter’s readers understand he is not telling wives to be plain.To understand his meaning when it comes to braids, jewelry, and dresses, we must bear in mind that the honorable Greco-Roman wife wore the signs of her social status on her person. Many think the apostle’s earlier reference to “pure and reverent conduct” (v. 2) suggest he is concerned primarily with sexually provocative dress. But while dressing suggestively would be inappropriate, Peter appears to have more of a class than a moral concern in mind when mentioning braids, jewelry, and apparel.In the first century, every single piece of gold, diamond, and pearl was real. And wearing her external status was the opposite of what Peter envisioned for reverent wives. Usually letters like Peter’s were addressed only the people with social power—the householders. But in his epistle he directly addresses wives and slaves. (Radical! Elevating!) And the same person who elevated those with less social power by addressing them directly wanted godly wives to dress in a manner devoid of anything that would suggest superiority.Put on internals. Instead, Peter urges the wife in his audience to adorn themselves with something far more precious—something that is of great value to God—a gentle and quiet spirit. By coupling “gentle” with “quiet” Peter intensifies the virtue. And his hope is that the wife’s virtue will reveal a different value system to her husband and others in her sphere of influence.The spirit Peter envisions is not something the wife takes on and off as she would gold or apparel. Rather, it is permanent ornamentation, thus imperishable. Back in chapter 1, verse 7, he wrote that gold was “passing away”; in 1:18, he described gold and silver as “perishable.” And these references that appear only a few chapters earlier inform how he wants readers to understand his use of “imperishable” in this passage as applied to the wife’s virtue. The gentle and quiet spirit is the only kind of beauty that a woman can put on that will never be taken from her. It will not wrinkle or sag with age. Humans consider gold precious. The God who will one day pave the streets of his city with it considers something else far more precious—character.The “gentle and quiet” language has at times been mistaken both as a criticism of extroverted women, and also as a source of pride for introverts and/or husbands married to them. Yet by describing the godly woman as having a “gentle, quiet spirit,” Peter is not saying extroverted women have less godly personalities than introverted women. Nor is he saying that women with spiritual gifts that involve speaking should stop exercising these gifts and remain silent. The gentle, quiet “spirit” here is not a personality type; it’s a virtue. And “putting on” such a virtue, especially in the face of injustice, is an equal-opportunity option.The quietness Peter has in view is also not absolute silence. Rather, it is a refraining from speaking “words” the wife might think it wise to say to win her husband (3:1). Peter’s instruction in many ways takes the pressure off her to craft the most winsome argument that will lead her husband to conversion. Her silent spirit allows the Holy Spirit to do his work. This wife's hope must not be in herself, but in God.Watch this. Peter returns to the adornment image to give a rationale for this counsel about wives’ internal apparel. He writes,“For in this way [that is, internally] in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him ‘lord’ . . . (3:5–6).Once again the word “adorn” has appeared, and in this context it is a continuing action on the part of holy women. These matriarchs of the faith hoped in God—the very thing Peter wants all his readers to do. His readers can draw hope from the fact that someone ahead of them in the race has faced the same challenges and finished well.

Is Peter Insulting Women? (Part 1)

My Tapestry post for the week:

Primary tabs

Was the apostle Peter a misogynist? In response to this question one writer said, “99% of people in his culture were—so sure.” If we take Peter’s words at face value, we might think so. In his first epistle he writes some instruction that can trip up the twenty-first-century reader. After telling slaves how to deal with unjust masters, he adds this word to the wives:

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. And let not your adornment be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (1 Peter 3:1–6).

It seems like Peter believes wives should be seen, not heard. And he seems to teach they should wear fashions as appealing as gunny sacks. And what’s that stuff about calling him “lord”?

To understand Peter’s meaning, as well as apply his instruction to our lives, we must imagine our way back to first-century life in the Roman Empire.

The Householder’s World

In Peter’s day a wife was considered property, could not speak for herself in a court of law, and was expected to worship the same god(s) as the householder. The paterfamilias was a bit like Thomas Jefferson at Monticello or Lord Grantham at Downton Abbey—only with the latter owning slaves instead of employing servants.  

Recall that servants lived with their masters as part of one household. And back then, the householder’s god ruled. We get a glimmer of this when we read about the conversion of Lydia of Philippi. When she believed, she and “her household were baptized” (Acts 16:15). A similar situation occurs with the Philippian jailer and his household (v. 34). The paterfamilias—usually male, though clearly not always—chose the household god. And this god was usually honored daily in the home.  

So imagine a wife in that context believing in Christ and no longer able, in good conscience, to worship her husband’s god. Peter describes the husband in question as “disobedient to the word”—that is, an unbeliever. Imagine what could happen if his wife got cocky and trash-talked Apollo or Hecate. Even Paul when speaking of Artemis in Ephesus did not “blaspheme the goddess” (19:37). No, the wise believer would earn respect by remaining quiet about it while also being loyal to Jesus “without being frightened by any fear” (1 Pet. 3:6).

Inner Adornment

As for adornment, to understand Peter’s meaning when it comes to braids, jewelry, and dresses, it helps to bear in mind that the honorable upper-class wife wore the signs of her social status on her person. In contemporary settings when we hear exhortations for women to be “modest,” we tend to think only of sexual modesty. But Peter probably had class in mind when mentioning braids, jewelry, and dresses.

In his day, every diamond and pearl was real. This reality is foreign to those of us for whom an enormous clear gem is probably cubic zirconia and a fat pearl might be fake. Back then, a wife wore her signs of status for all to see.

A woman whose hair was covered with braids made the class statement that she had time for leisure and the budget to pay someone to pamper her. Indeed, gold and braids and pearls were signs of wealth, so that by her very adornment such a wife announced her social status. And wearing her status was the opposite of what Paul elsewhere said he wanted Christian wives to do when the church gathered. Over in that apostle’s first epistle to Timothy (2:9–10), we read that Paul told wives their dress should be “with modesty and self-control. Their adornment must not be with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothing, but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God” (2:9–10).

Notice the contrast between Paul’s and Peter’s advice? Paul told wives not to adorn themselves with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothes. Their dress was to be devoid of anything that might pose a threat to unity.

But Peter seems to assume that the wife in question would have no choice but to wear such emblems of class. Thus he stresses that the women in such situations were to adorn themselves in a way that was not “external only.” Indeed, unlike Paul’s audience where both husband and wife were told to be “filled with the Spirit,” Peter’s reader might be married to a “disobedient” man. If so, she was to add something to her wardrobe—the internal apparel of a gentle, quiet spirit that is so pleasing in the sight of God.

And she was to be courageous in her silent witness. Recall that Peter was writing in a context in which a woman could not call a hotline that would guarantee shelter if her husband threatened or hurt her. She had to do her best both to keep from setting him off and to gain his respect while retaining her loyalty to Christ. Doing so would require great courage. Perhaps this is why Peter urges her not to be “frightened by any fear.”

(Next time we’ll talk about what it means that woman is the “weaker vessel.” Stay tuned!)

A Week in the Life of Corinth

Rewind back to the time of Paul when he lived in Corinth andmade tents alongside Priscilla and Aquila. In that day, a master expectedaccess to his slaves’ bodies in every way, adoption was mostly aboutinheritance, and the oral slant of the culture meant rhetoric ruled.

Into this world New Testament scholar and multi-published author Ben Witherington III introducesthe character Nicanor and his patron Erastos in A Week in the Life of Corinth (IVP Academic). Weaving a plot abouttheir lives, the scholar provides a glimpse into the world of the earliestChristians.

The fact that an academic publisher has produced the bookmakes obvious that which becomes even clearer from the back cover copy: thatthe plot serves the content rather than vice versa. Flipping through the pages, readers find black-and-white photos as well as non-fiction text boxes providing information that further exegetes the culture,explaining background information that corresponds to theplot. Clearly, Witherington has set out to educate, and he has done so in the formof a story. Here content trumps plot, characterization, and setting.

Many in the fiction-writing world consider this sort of“edutainment” a no-no, arguing that the information must serve the story andnot vice versa. But Pilgrim’s Progress hasn’tdone too badly, and John Bunyan did the same thing—okay, less overtly. But heck, DanBrown did it too, though also less overtly, with TheDaVinci Code.

Brown, however, is a far better fiction writer. In this work, theplot is predictable and characters suffer from underdevelopment. They talk instiff dialogue, often telling each other what they would already know so thereader can learn. Their content-filled speech along with overlong dialogue tagscould benefit from the effective use of beats.  

As for style, the author selects a rather uninteresting rangeof verbs and nouns, using “was” and “were” and “is” far too often, along withoverusing "had" and "has." Long sentences at times serve as entireparagraphs—acceptable in Paul’s day when writing material was expensive andscarce, but not in 2013.

The total effect is the mirror of what happens when fictionwriters don’t know about biblical backgrounds, so they write the Esther storyas a romance. Here a biblical scholar has not mastered the art of writtenstorytelling. And we need both excellent storytelling and good background expertise.(Ben-Hur is an example of a work thatweds the two fields in a way that gives readers a story for the ages.)  

Nevertheless, I recommend this book. Highly. It won’t getnominated for the National Book Award. But it does capture the imagination much morethan would a textbook on first-century backgrounds. Witherington has given readers a primeron first-century backgrounds that delivers some of his vast knowledge in anaccessible form. Those who read his book will better understand the New Testament and thus make better correlations between the biblical text and our lives. How many novels can make that claim?

Paul would have been familiar with the "bema" or judgment seat in Corinth.

Samaritan Woman: Stay Away from Me?

My Tapestry post for the week: 

Ireceived a question this week from a former student, Vernita, about theSamaritan woman, whose story John records in the fourth chapter of his Gospel.

Vernita:I'm looking for any credible historical data to support the statements I'veread in some commentaries which suggest the Samaritan woman was an outcast inher society and came to the well later in the day than most women in order toavoid the scorn of that crowd. Are you aware of any writings that specificallyand definitively state that, or would that be speculation based on what we knowabout that society?

Me:English translations tell us, "It was about noon" (Jn.4:6). The Greek says it was the sixth hour. Some take that to meanfrom midnight—that is, 6 a.m. But because John elsewhere gives the time ofJesus's death as being about the sixth hour (19:14), or noon, making itcorrespond with the time Passover lambs began to be sacrificed, it is morelikely that in the John 4:6 reference he also means noon. Butknow there is some discussion about whether it is actually noon in the firstplace. 

Nowthen, much meaning has been read into this time detail. Sure, it is possiblethe Samaritan woman was at the well alone because she was a moraloutcast. 

Butit’s also possible she was there because she was infertile and poor–thus, sheherself went instead of sending one of her children. Some of our Africanfriends have this expression: “An infertile woman sends her own thigh.” Sincethe Samaritan woman had no one else to send, she had to go herself.

Manyassume women drew water only once a day. But if we look at the developing worldtoday, women may go to haul water three times a day or even more–depending onhow much water they need and how much they can carry in one trip. So weprobably should not assume there was only one set time for most to gather.

Ourknowledge of more agrarian cultures can help us here. And based on what I’veseen in the developing world, I suspect this woman was actuallynot anadulteress or a fornicator. Rather, she had endured the loss of six husbands.Some of them may have died. And some (most) might have left her. Infertilitycould have been a key reason. Women in Samaria typically could not just up anddivorce their husbands. Especially not five of them. How would they eat if theydid that? No, it was the men who typically initiated divorce. So she hadprobably been dumped and/or bereaved of her man five times.

Thesixth time, she had to settle for a polygamous arrangement to keep fromstarving. If so, she would have been the wife who got stuck doing the workbecause she could not bear children. This scenario better fits a society wherewomen were treated as chattel (they were in first-century Samaria), and itaccounts for why a grown woman would be fetching water. It also better fits acontext in which women did not typically initiate divorce, and where women whowere infertile were often abandoned. 

Noticein Luke’s story about Elizabeth and Zechariah that when the formerly infertileElizabeth conceives, she rejoices that she no longer feels shame in thesight of the people (Luke 1:25, emphasis mine). It was “shameful”for a woman in first-century Palestine to be infertile. If the Samaritan womanwas actually avoiding other women, infertility is the more likely factor. 

If suchis the case, imagine the impact of Jesus's words: "Go call yourhusband."

"Idon't have one."

"You'reright. You've had five five, and you have to share the one you have now."Said with compassion. And concern for the grief and injustice. (Not facing herabout her sin.)

"You'rea prophet! (How else could you know all that?) We're hoping forMessiah!" 

"IAM."

Jesus,who usually talks in enigmatic statements about his identity, comes right outand tells this woman longing for Messiah that he’s the one! And suddenly thesocial hider is running to make a public announcement.

Throughthe centuries, we have tended to see sexual sin lurking in the closets of mostwomen in the Bible. Certainly Jesus saves sinners. But in light of what we knowof cultural background, especially in this case, I think we need another look.

If, indeed,Jesus was not confronting this woman about her sexual failures, but was showingempathy, what might that tell us about the wisdom of beginning our evangelismconversations with confrontations about sin?  

Backgrounds Matter

Today was my day to blog over at Tapestry, the Christian Women in Leadership blog. My topic was first-century backgrounds. Here's what I wrote...

Last week I picked up a newly released second edition of a book on the role of women in ministry. Written by a well-known theologian, it was acclaimed as the latest in scholarship on backgrounds. And I was surprised to discover its chapter on the first-century Greek and Roman world drew on only one secondary source later than 1980. Though this author downplayed the importance of culture for understanding 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, and 1 Timothy 2—some of the Bible’s “woman” texts—he went on to talk of women in the ancient world being under male authority for life (which was not always the case), women veiling the fronts of their faces (probably not ever the case, except on wedding days), and other long-outdated information. Unfortunately, his historical understanding, based on old information, greatly affected how he understood the texts. Yet especially when it comes to understanding backgrounds on the “women” texts, much has changed, particularly in the past half-century. First, the field of women’s and gender history has exploded as women have joined men in the academy. And women’s involvement has added a new emphasis on social history. Whereas much of political history focuses on emperors and kings, social history asks all sorts of questions about commoners such as, “What was the average life expectancy?” and “What sort of work did men and women do?” and “Did women sit or lie down during childbirth?” Gender analysis also has us asking, “What did first-century Romans consider feminine?” and “What made a Greek man manly?” With new emphases in history departments have come new methodologies, including a reconsideration of primary sources. In the past when an ancient writer criticized women for being too talkative, scholars have tended to take such assessments at face value. But today's historian would look for additional clues. So when reading a writer such as Cicero, who used “woman” imagery to insult Antony in The Second Philippic, a contemporary scholar would consider how the author is using gender as part of a rhetorical strategy. Is Cicero including his negative assessment of women as part of a scheme of insulting Antony’s enemies? Second, the academic field of semiotics has seen monumental growth. “Semiotics” is the study of symbols and signs as elements of communicative behavior. Consider what a ring worn on the fourth finger, left hand communicates in the West, or what some think of a man who wears a baseball cap to a funeral. And a white dress on a woman’s wedding day says something different from what a red one would express. In terms of the ancient world, that would include knowing how and where a woman covered her head, with what she covered it (a veil or hair and/or fillets) and what doing so expressed in her context. Any explanation of the head-covering debate that ignores recent findings in semiotics is bound to be based on erroneous cultural information. Next, a deeper reading of ancient texts has also led to finding data about women hidden between the lines. Since Octavian passed laws allowing exemption from manus (male supervision) for citizen mothers of three children, the historian today will observe that “exemption as incentive” indicates women preferred freedom to being under authority. But the law itself also indicates that not all women lived under such authority all their lives. Today’s scholars are also more apt to consider the number of years separating an ancient writer from the event he (it was usually a “he”) describes. In the first century Strabo reported on cult prostitution in Corinth’s distant past (from his perspective). But archaeologists today are seriously challenging the accuracy of such hearsay. Yet how many of us were taught that Roman religion was filled with temple prostitutes? Add to all this the wealth of additional literary, archaeological, epigraphic, and iconographic evidence uncovered in the past half-century. The wording of many inscriptions is now available for search in a massive online concordance, making it possible for scholars to search by word, phrase, and geography without having to pore over books in a distant library or read them at the actual sites. All of this has greatly aided us in reconstructing visions of first-century life in family, religion, and society. And because most people in the early church were non-elites, historians interested in early Christian backgrounds have greatly benefited from these developments. So next time you’re browsing titles on the role of women, check out the footnotes and bibliographies. Are the sources up-to-date? The fundamental truths of Christianity will never change, but how we view biblical living may. Our understanding of the contexts in which texts were written has increased exponentially. And we often base applications today on our best parallels to what was happening in the world at the time.

The Death of Two Cities

We’ve all heard of Pompeii, the city buried when Mt. Vesuvius blew its top in A.D. 79. But a much smaller number of us have heard of Herculaneum. To be honest (I’ll show my ignorance here), I'd never heard of it till I started checking out info on its buried sister city a year ago. When Mt. Vesuvius erupted around 1 PM that autumn, the southeast wind blew pumice and ash over Pompeii, burying it. But it wasn’t till after midnight that night in nearby (and closer to the summit) Herculaneum that a flow of heated gas rolled down the mountain and fried everything in its path. For years experts thought everybody must have escaped in Herculaneum, because archaeologists found only a few skulls. But within the past few decades, a huge number of human remains have been discovered down at the waterfront. Apparently most people fled to the harbor and hid under the arches holding up the boardwalk. Shoulda been safe, huh? Well, not when a rolling 700-degree fire descends on you. A cool thing about Herculaneum is that the fire was hot enough to kill (bad), but not so hot as to incinerate everything (good). This means that two thousand years later, archaeologists are uncovering carbonized wooden beds and house beams as well as entire loaves of bread! Many of the emblems of daily life have survived. Totally rare. And fascinating.
Until last week, I used a 1966 book about Herculaneum—the most recent English-language resource—to help me reconstruct the eruption for a novel I’m writing. But then I heard about Andrew Wallace-Hadrill’s 2011 release on Herculaneum. He’s a mega-expert on Herculaneum, who was interviewed on PBS’s home video about Herculeneum in their “Secrets of the Dead” series. I ordered his book on Amazon for $37 (hardcover), expecting a reference work. But what arrived was a gorgeous coffee-table book, chock full of foldout pictures, diagrams, and fascinating prose. Plus it has all the latest info, some of which completely contradicts earlier assumptions, which means I’m rewriting a few scenes. But not matter—this book is a gold mine. We have assumed in the past that Pompeii showed us the norm of first-century life. But with the past decade of discovery in Herculaneum, we now know that Pompeii was more populated and urban, and Herculaneum was smaller and wealthier. It’s city vs. town, urban metropolis vs. resort spot. Pompeii had the brothels; Herculaneum did not. Pompeii had lots of graffiti; Herculaneum did not. Picture the difference between Vegas and Pebble Beach and you get the idea about how much we should extrapolate about "norms" from one city's evidence.

I, Claudius

The novel on my PhD reading list today: I, Claudius (1934) by Robert Graves.

The story is told as Claudius’s autobiographical account of his family’s dynasty from the assassination of Julius Caesar (44 B.C.) through the reigns of Octavian/Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula (A.D. 41). I had loved the BBC VHS series by the same title, but as is often the case, the book was even better. It was of particular interest to me to consider that Augustus reigned when “shepherds were abiding in their fields...,” and Tiberius reigned when a carpenter from Nazareth began his preaching ministry.

I couldn't put it down. And I came away with new appreciation for the apostle Paul's advice to "aspire to the quiet life." Graves leaves no doubt that the safest place is as far away as possible from the center of power! Four stars.

A Good One for Your List

If you want to learn more about the first century Greco-Roman world, you can wipe the dust off a history book and inch your way through the prose. Or you can pick up The Lost Letters of Pergamum, an engaging 200-page work of historical fiction in which the author uses the literary technique of story through correspondence as an entrée into the ancient world. In this work readers catch first-person glimpses of life in an honor/shame society as they read “newly discovered ancient letters.”

Readers meet Antipas, a Roman civic leader who has encountered the writings of Luke, the physician who researched and wrote an account of the Galilean’s life for someone named Theophilus (see Luke 1). Luke's history sparks Antipas's interest, and they engage in a correspondence about it. Those of us reading their accounts learn about gladiatorial contests, storms at sea, travel by foot, poverty, wealth, social class designations, slavery, persecution, and honor.

Unlike some writers of historical fiction, author Bruce Longenecker is careful to draw a meticulously accurate picture. And for those who want to go beyond enjoying the story to know what’s “true” and what’s “made up,” notes in the back of the book reveal all.

Yes, The Lost Letters of Pergamum provides readers with a context for understanding the ethos of the ancient world. But did I mention it’s also a good read, a gripping story? The surprise ending left me weeping. Four stars.