Anti-Epicurean Polemics in the New Testament Writings [1 ed.] 9783666500220, 9783525500224

Citation preview

Stefan Szymik

Anti-Epicurean Polemics in the New Testament Writings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Lublin Theological Studies in connection with The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin edited by Adam Kubiś (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) in cooperation with Nicholas Adams (University of Birmingham), Marek Jagodziński (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin), Paweł Mąkosa (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) Advisory Board Klaus Baumann (University of Freiburg), David Fagerberg (University of Notre Dame), Zdzisław Kijas (Seraphicum, Rome), Juan Luis Lorda (University of Navarra), Dalia Marx (Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem), Łukasz Popko (École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem), Ilaria Ramelli (University of Cambridge; Durham University; Sacred Heart University, Milan), Carl-Maria Sultana (University of Malta)

Volume 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Stefan Szymik

Anti-Epicurean Polemics in the New Testament Writings

VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

The project is funded by the “Excellent Science” program of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Poland

Publishing review: Prof. Antoni Paciorek (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) Postdoctoral (Habilitation) reviews: Prof. Roman Bartnicki (Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw) Prof. Bogdan Poniży (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan) Prof. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de. © 2023 by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Robert-Bosch-Breite 10, 37079 Göttingen, Germany, an imprint of the Brill-Group (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany, Brill Österreich GmbH, Vienna, Austria) Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Translation: Maria Kantor, Nowy Sącz Indexes: Dawid Mielnik, Lublin Typesetting: le-tex publishing services, Leipzig Cover design: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISBN 978-3-666-50022-0

Table of Contents

Foreword to the English Edition .............................................................

9

Introduction.......................................................................................... 11 Epicureanism in New Testament Times ............................................ 1. Epicurus and Epicureanism ........................................................... 1.1 Epicurus and His Garden ........................................................ 1.2 Selected Aspects of Epicureanism............................................. 2. Epicureanism in the Light of Pagan Sources .................................... 2.1 The Preceding Period (1st Century BCE) ................................... 2.2 New Testament Era ................................................................ 2.2.1 Rome and the Apennine Peninsula .................................. 2.2.2 Greece and Asia Minor .................................................. 2.2.3 Syria, Palestine and Egypt ............................................... 2.3 Testimonies of Later Authors ................................................... 3. Epicureanism in Jewish Writings ................................................... 3.1 Palestinian Judaism ............................................................... 3.2 Judeo-Hellenistic Literature ..................................................... 3.3 Rabbinic Literature ................................................................

17 17 18 22 29 29 33 33 37 39 42 46 46 49 51

II. The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question ...................... 1. The Sadducees and the Resurrection of the Dead.............................. 1.1 The Testimonies of the Synoptic Gospels .................................. 1.1.1 Literary and Historical Problems (Mark 12:18–27) ............. 1.1.2 The Dispute over the Resurrection .................................. 1.2 The Testimony of Josephus ..................................................... 1.3 The Sources of the Sadducean Denial of the Resurrection ............ 1.3.1 Sadducism vs. Epicureanism .......................................... 1.3.2 Denial of the Resurrection of the Dead ............................ 2. The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) vs. Epicureanism ................... 2.1 The Proposals of Hans Dieter Betz............................................ 2.2 The Literary Genre of the Sermon on the Mount ....................... 2.2.1 Matt 5–7 the Epitome of Jesus’ Teaching ........................... 2.2.2 Verifying Betz’s Hypothesis ............................................

59 59 60 61 64 68 72 72 75 77 78 79 80 82

I.

6

Table of Contents

2.3 Anti-Epicurean Elements in Matt 5–7 ....................................... 85 2.3.1 General Characteristics .................................................. 85 2.3.2 Exemplification (Matt 6:22–23)........................................ 88 III. Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens......................... 1. Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16–34) ...................................................... 1.1 The Historical-Salvific Perspective of Acts ................................ 1.2 Literary Frameworks of the Areopagus Speech........................... 1.2.1 Debates with the Epicureans and the Stoics (vv. 16–21)....... 1.2.2 Ambivalent Reaction of the Audience (vv. 32–34) .............. 2. Paul’s Areopagitica (Acts 17:22–31) ................................................ 2.1 Literary Issues of the Areopagus Speech .................................... 2.2 The Theology of the Areopagus Speech ..................................... 2.2.1 The Message of “An Unknown God” (vv. 22–23) ................ 2.2.2 The Message about the True God (vv. 24–29) .................... a) God the Creator of the Cosmos (vv. 24–25)............................ b) God the Creator of Mankind (vv. 26–28) ............................... c) Man’s Divine Dignity (v. 29) ................................................. 2.2.3 The Call to Repent (vv. 30–31)......................................... 3. Luke’s Perspective: History and Paradigm........................................ 3.1 The Historical Reliability of Acts 17:16–34 ................................. 3.2 The Christian Message in the Pagan World ................................ 3.2.1 A Missionary Speech to Pagan Audiences ......................... 3.2.2 A Programmatic Encounter of Cultures and Religions ........ 3.2.3 The Function of Philosophical Schools ............................ 3.3 Christianity vs. Epicureanism ................................................. 3.3.1 The Areopagus Speech vs. the Philosophy of Epicurus ........ 3.3.2 The Epicureans’ Attitude towards the Christian Message .....

95 98 99 102 102 108 111 111 114 114 115 116 118 123 124 128 128 130 131 135 139 142 142 148

IV. Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities ........................... 1. Corpus Paulinum vs. Epicurus’ Philosophy...................................... 1.1 Norman W. DeWitt’s Pan-Epicureanism.................................... 1.2 Contemporary Research Lines ................................................ 2. First Thessalonians vs. Epicurean Rhetoric ...................................... 2.1 The Concern of the Thessalonians about the Fate of the Dead .................................................................................... 2.2 Anti-Epicurean Terminology and Rhetoric (1 Thess) .................. 3. Were the Sources of the Corinthians’ Licentiousness Epicurean? ........ 3.1 The Corinthian Community and its Problems............................ 3.2 Moral Disorder in the Corinthian Church ................................ 3.2.1 Libertinism and Sexual Immorality (1 Cor 5–6) ................

151 151 152 154 157 157 159 163 164 167 167

Table of Contents

3.2.2 Fornication (1 Cor 6:12–20) ............................................ 3.3 Religious Sources of the Immorality in the Corinthian Church .... 4. The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)................. 4.1 Leading Opinions on the Corinthian Deniers of the Resurrection .. 4.2 Literary Issues in 1 Cor 15 ....................................................... 4.3 The Apology of the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Cor 15 ............ 4.3.1 The Risen Christ (vv. 1–11) ............................................. 4.3.2 The Resurrection of the Dead (vv. 12–34) ......................... 4.3.3 The Resurrection of the Body (vv. 35–50) ......................... 4.3.4 The Mystery of the Last Day (vv. 51–58) ........................... 4.4 The Corinthian denial of the resurrection ................................. 4.4.1 Systematising the Data of 1 Cor 15 .................................. 4.4.2 Elements of Anti-Epicurean Polemic ...............................

168 171 175 176 180 186 186 188 195 198 199 200 204

V. The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter .................... 1. The Christian Community in a Time of Trial ................................... 1.1 Literary Problems of 2 Peter .................................................... 1.2 The Problem of the False Teachers ........................................... 1.3 Christian Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy....................................... 2. The Apology of the Parousia and the Day of Judgement (2 Pet 3:1–13) .. 2.1 The Structure of the Apologetic Section (3:1–13)........................ 2.2 Exegetical Commentary ......................................................... 2.2.1 The Unfulfilled Promise (vv. 3–4) .................................... 2.2.2 The Sovereignty of God (vv. 5–7) ..................................... 2.2.3 The Inevitability of the Day of the Lord (vv. 8–10).............. 2.2.4 New Heavens and a New Earth (vv. 11–13) ....................... 2.3 Anti-Epicurean Elements of the Apology of the Parousia ............ 3. The Apology of Christian Morality ................................................ 3.1 Called to Communion with God ............................................. 3.2 The Immoral Attitude of the False Teachers .............................. 3.2.1 The Libertinism of the False Teachers .............................. 3.2.2 Meanders of a Pleasant Life ............................................. 3.3 Elements of Anti-Epicurean Polemic ........................................

211 212 212 214 219 221 221 223 223 226 228 234 236 238 239 240 241 244 246

VI. The Motif of the Anti-Epicurean Polemic in the New Testament .............................................................................. 1. The General Characteristics of Anti-Epicurean Polemics .................. 2. A Historical Outline of the NT Anti-Epicurean Polemic.................... 2.1 The Biblical and Jewish Beginnings of Christianity .................... 2.2 Encountering the Hellenistic-Roman World ............................. 2.3 First Christian Apologists .......................................................

251 251 257 257 259 262

7

8

Table of Contents

3. The Theological Dimension of the NT Anti-Epicurean Polemic.......... 3.1 The Resurrection of the Dead .................................................. 3.2 God and His Providence ........................................................ 3.3 The Parousia and Judgement over the World .............................

263 264 268 269

Conclusion ........................................................................................... 273 Abbreviations ....................................................................................... Greek and Latin Writings .................................................................. Jewish Writings ................................................................................ Christian Writings............................................................................ Journals and Series ........................................................................... Others ............................................................................................

277 277 278 279 279 281

Bibliography ......................................................................................... Bible Editions .................................................................................. Greek and Latin Sources ................................................................... Jewish Sources ................................................................................ Other Works Cited ...........................................................................

283 283 283 285 285

Indices ................................................................................................. Bible ............................................................................................... Old Testament ............................................................................. New Testament ............................................................................ Ancient Writings .............................................................................. Greek and Latin ........................................................................... Jewish......................................................................................... Christian..................................................................................... Modern Authors ..............................................................................

307 307 307 310 324 324 328 331 332

Foreword to the English Edition

This book is a revised and updated English version of my postdoc dissertation (Habilitationsschrift) entitled Problem polemiki antyepikurejskiej w pismach Nowego Testamentu, which was submitted to the Faculty of Theology of the Catholic University of Lublin (KUL) twenty years ago and published by the KUL Scientific Press in the year 2003. The revision of the Polish text deals with three important areas. First, the dissertation has significantly been shortened and minor topics have been removed. Second, it was necessary to update the literature concerning the Epicurean polemics in the New Testament, considering the years that have passed after the first publication. The third, and probably most important goal of the revision was to specify the conclusions drawn from the detailed analyses of particular biblical and non-biblical texts, as well as to form final conclusions. In this respect, my views have developed over the years. It now seems that contacts between Christians and Epicureans were considerably more frequent than has been assumed in various comparative studies. As a consequence, the presence of indirect anti-Epicurean rhetoric and polemics in the New Testament writings seems to be very likely. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have been involved in the “Excellent Science” project of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, in whose framework the work on modifying my monograph was conducted. Separate, sincere thanks go to the translator, Doctor Maria Kantor, for our fruitful collaboration and her valuable remarks. Stefan Szymik

Introduction

The gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God (Mark 1:1), initially addressed to Jewish audiences in Palestine, was soon proclaimed also to pagan inhabitants of the Roman Empire. The death of Jesus Christ and the speech of Peter the Apostle in Jerusalem (Acts 2:1–36) as well as the intense activities of Christian missionaries first in Palestine, then in Syria and its capital Antioch, and farther in the cities of Asia Minor, Macedonia and Achaia happened within only a dozen or so years. During that time, the Good News also reached Rome to become a permanent marker in the cities of the Empire towards the end of the first century CE. The process of the Christianization of the Hellenistic-Roman world began, accompanied by the Hellenization and Romanization of the Christian religion. The origins of this unique inculturation were recorded in the writings of the New Testament, the fundamental document showing the rise, growth and spread of the Christian religion in the Roman Empire in the first century CE. In the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, scholars shared a common conviction that the Hellenistic-Roman world had a decisive influence on the formation of the new religion. Hellenism, a historical and cultural phenomenon, was, on the one hand, a direct heir, conduit and sometimes interpreter of the ancient Greek culture of the classical period, and on the other hand, it influenced the citizens of the Roman Empire through the colloquial Greek language, literature and art, philosophical schools and religious trends.1 This period of research into the New Testament and early Christianity was characterised by implementing the method of religious history (Religionsgeschichtliche Methode). The term was used to describe comparative studies of Christianity and ancient religions that generally placed, or at least derived from, all the essential components of Christianity in pagan beliefs. That is why it became necessary to ask about the attitude of Christianity towards Judaism, from which Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples, and also the first Christians, came. This seemingly trivial observation was and still is of great importance for research on the beginnings of Christianity and the sources of the new religion, because Christianity is a religion of two civilisations. Its homeland was Palestine and its mother – the Jewish nation with its spiritual heritage. Neverthelests, the new religion found numerous followers among the pagan inhabitants of the Roman 1 See Reinhold Bichler, Hellenismus. Geschichte und Problematik eines Epochenbegriffs (Impulse der Forschung 41; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983); Hans D. Betz, “Hellenismus,” TRE 15:19-35; Heinz Heinen, Geschichte des Hellenismus. Von Alexander bis Kleopatra (München: Beck, 2003); Glenn R. Bugh, ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

12

Introduction

Empire. The recognition of the biblical and Jewish origins of the Christian religion is of great importance in the context of the issues discussed in this work. The encounter between Christianity and the Hellenistic-Roman world led to contacts among the first Christians and the disciples of Epicurus, which Luke recorded. Narrating about Paul’s stay in Athens, he preserved the memory of his disputes with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers conducted in the streets of Athens (Acts 17:18). The later writings of Christian apologists and Church Fathers also contain numerous testimonies of vivid polemics that accompanied the encounter between Christianity and the hedonistic philosophy of Epicurus.2 Therefore, we can rightly ask whether Paul’s episode with the Epicureans in Athens was the only one of its kind in the second half of the first century CE. Were other traces of the encounter between Christianity and Epicureanism left in the New Testament? Until recently, the issue of Epicureanism has not been of special interest to NT scholars. Nevertheless, partial information on this subject can be found in the history of biblical exegesis. Numerous parallels between NT writings and pagan literature, including a small number of possible references to Epicureanism, were indicated by Johann J. Wettstein.3 Similarly, comparative analyses conducted by the historical and religious school at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries resulted in conclusions that considered Epicureanism a factor influencing Christian authors of the New Testament.4 The key scholar in the research on the manifestation of Epicureanism in the NT writings was Norman W. DeWitt, who, from the position of a classicist and humanist, devoted much attention to the issue. He formulated his research project as follows:5 Epicureanism served in the ancient world as a preparation for Christianity, helping to bridge the gap between Greek intellectualism and a religious way of life. It shunted the emphasis from the political to the social virtues and offered what may be called a religion of humanity. The mistake is to overlook the terminology and ideology of Epicureanism in

2 See Howard Jones, The Epicurean Tradition (London: Routledge, 1989), 94–116. 3 Johann J. Wettstein, Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. Novum Testamentum Graecum (vols. 1–2; Amstelaedami: Ex officina Dommeriana, 1751–1752; reprint Graz: akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, 1962); cf. Hugo Grotius, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum (vols. 1–3; Parisiis, 1641–1650). Note the project Neuer Wettstein of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; see Abraham J. Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament,” ANRW 26.1:271–78. 4 See Anton Fridrichsen, “Epikureisches im Neuen Testament?” in Anton Fridrichsen, Exegetical Writings. A Selection, trans. and ed. Chrys C. Caragounis and Tord Fornberg (WUNT 76; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 217–20; cf. Werner G. Kümmel, Das Neue Testament. Geschichte der Erforschung seiner Probleme (München: Alber, 2 1970). 5 Norman W. DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1954), 8 and 337. See also Norman W. DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1954).

Introduction

the New Testament and to think of its founder as an enemy of religion. Epicureanism ... was an integral part of a slow progression in society from Greek philosophy to Christianity. The vocabulary of the New Testament exhibits numerous similarities to that of Epicurus.

Despite the very critical reception of DeWitt’s theories, we cannot ignore them here as they have burdened research on Epicureanism in the New Testament for many years, and the influence of his scientific proposals is still recognisable today.6 However, the real development of studies on the epicurea in the New Testament has only taken place in recent decades, covering three different research areas. The first one, into which this work fits, concerns Epicurean terminology and thought in the NT writings, or in other words, the question of the confrontation of the Christian message with the Epicurean vision of man and the world. Although this issue appears frequently enough in various analyses of specific biblical texts or in short research contributions, there has been no comprehensive study of the topic so far. The second area of research, which is extremely popular and brings surprisingly interesting results, deals with the forms of social life manifested in Christian and Epicurean communities. The ancient institutions of learning that served as models for the first Christian communities, especially those founded by Paul, included schools of philosophy and rhetoric. Besides the Pythagorean school, it was the Epicurean contubernium, considered the prototype of the Christian community responsible for the education of its new members, that has been the focus of research (cf. psychagoge).7 The third and more formal area relating early

6 See Wolfgang Schmid, “Epikur,” RAC 5:681–819, esp. 814–16; Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christian. The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), 224 n. 62: “The rather undisciplined proposals put forward by de Witt 1954b may have done more to deter than to encourage serious scholarship in this area, despite the valuable observations scattered through the book”; John Ferguson and Jackson P. Hershbell, “Epicureanism under the Roman Empire,” ANRW 36.4:2275; David E. Aune, “The World of Roman Hellenism,” in David E. Aune, ed., The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament (Malden, MA; Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 15–37, esp. 31–33, commenting on DeWitt’s theses: “A respected classical scholar finds similarities between Paul and Epicurus by atomizing the Pauline letters and highlighting phrases that have some parallel in the writings of Epicurus, with completely unsatisfactory results” (36). 7 DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 31–32; and then Meeks, The First Urban Christian, 83: “There is much in the life of these communities that reminds us of the Pauline congregations”; cf. Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians. The Philosophical Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988), 61–94, esp. 85–88; Clarence E. Glad, Paul and Philodemus. Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy (NovTSub 81; Leiden: Brill, 1995); David Konstan, “Friendship, Frankness and Flattery,” in John T. Fitzgerald, ed., Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech. Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (NovTSup 82; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 5–19; Paul Holloway, “‘Bona cogitare’. An Epicurean Consolation in Phil 4:8–9,” HTR 91 (1998): 89-96; James A. Smith, Marks of an Apostle. Context, Deconstruction, (Re)citation and Proclamation in Philippians (PhD

13

14

Introduction

Christian communities to representatives of Epicurus’ philosophy concerns parallel literary forms aiming at consolidating, transmitting and promoting their ideas and convictions. While these forms were common to the entire Hellenistic-Roman world, some scholars have pointed to recognizable and striking similarities between Christianity and Epicureanism.8 The content and scope of the present study have been specified in its title. The purpose of the study is to analyse NT texts in terms of polemic and anti-Epicurean rhetoric. To what extent and in what ways did Epicurus and his philosophical thought influence the first Christian Churches? What was the reaction of their members? Although in the New Testament there is only one account of the encounter between the Apostle Paul and the Epicureans (Acts 17:18), the probability of their contacts was high, given the popularity of Epicureanism in the Roman Empire in the first century CE. As a vital component of Hellenistic-Roman culture, Epicureanism should be taken into account in research on the New Testament, becoming a point of reference and part of the content of comparative analyses. The subject of this study has led to the choice of the main research method, which is the historical-critical method, understood as a set of literary, philological, exegetical and theological analyses of the biblical text. This will allow us, as far as possible, to see the first Christians in their background, specific time and place.9 The results of literary and exegetical examinations will then lay down the dissertation) (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2000), 94–131; Troy W. Martin, “Live Unnoticed. An Epicurean Maxim and the Social Dimension of Col 3:3–4,” in A. Yarbro Collins, ed., Antiquity and Humanity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 227–44; J. Paul Sampley, “Paul’s Frank Speech with the Galatians and the Corinthians,” in John T. Fitzgerald et al., eds., Philodemus and the New Testament World (NovTSup 111; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 295–321; Voula Tsouna, “Epicurean Therapeutic Strategies,” in James Warren, ed., Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 249–65. 8 Norman DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 32; also Abraham J. Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament,” ANRW 26.1:304 “In writing this first Christian pastoral letter, Paul was creating something new, but in Epicurus he had a predecessor and in Seneca a contemporary who used letters as means by which to engage in pastoral care”; cf. Peter Eckstein, Gemeinde, Brief und Heilbotschaft. Ein phänomelogischer Vergleich zwischen Paulus und Epikur (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004); Hans D. Betz, “The Sermon on the Mount. Its Literary Genre and Function,” JR 69 (1979): 285–97 idem., “Die Bergpredigt. Ihre literarische Gattung und Funktion,” in Hans D. Betz, Studien zur Bergpredigt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 1–16; Ruth Morello and A.D. Morrison, eds., Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); Erlend D. MacGillivray, “Epitomizing Philosophy and the Critique of Epicurean Popularizers,” Journal of Ancient History 3.1 (2015): 1–33; esp. Vincenzo Damiani, La Kompendienliteratur nella scuola di Epicuro. Forme, funzioni, contesto (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 396; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021). 9 Martin Hengel, “Problems of a History of Earliest Christianity,” Bib 78 (1997): esp. 132-133, 142. Cf. selected methodologies of the NT: Pierre Guillemette and Mireille Brisebois, Introduction aux méthodes historico-critiques (Héritage et projet 35; Montréal: La Corporation des Editions Fides, 1987);

Introduction

basis for comparative analyses; hence, a special place has also been given to the comparative method, formerly known as the religionsgeschichtliche Methode. Its correct application – and this should be strongly emphasised – is a necessary condition for analysing and properly interpreting the results, and thus for formulating unambiguous conclusions.10 The comments made on the subject and purpose of the present work, including the methods used, have determined the structure and organisation of the material into six chapters, following the prism principle. The general view of Epicureanism and its influential presence in the first century CE (chapter I) have been refined and concretised, taking the form of detailed analyses of biblical texts in terms of the epicurea (chapters II–V), to finally present the problem of anti-Epicurean polemic in a comprehensive and systematic manner (chapter VI). Chapter I, dedicated to Epicureanism in New Testament times, is preliminary. Besides a brief review of Epicurus’ philosophy, it discusses the presence and impact of Epicureanism in the Roman Empire in the first century of the Christian era, with particular emphasis on the biblical-Jewish environment. In turn, chapters II–V provide detailed literary, exegetical and comparative-theological analyses of selected biblical texts with respect to the presence of Epicurean polemic: the Palestinian beginnings of the Epicurean question (cf. Mark 12:18–27; Matt 5–7), Paul’s confrontation with the Epicureans and Stoics in Athens (Acts 17:16–34), the Epicurean infiltrations in the Pauline communities (1 Thess; 1 Cor 5–6; 1 Cor 15) and the context of the debate over the parousia (2 Pet 3:1–13). The last chapter presents the general characteristics of the anti-Epicurean polemics in the New Testament, including their theological dimension. Moreover, it systematises the results of the analyses carried out in the previous chapters and comprehensively evaluates the phenomenon of anti-Epicurean polemics in the writings of the New Testament. The issues raised in the present study are certainly neither central nor the most important in research on the New Testament. However, undertaking them will allow for a fuller understanding of biblical texts and, above all, shed light on the little-known origins of the Church in its confrontation with the pagan world. Un-

Thomas Söding, Wege der Schriftauslegung. Methodenbuch zum Neuen Testament, Unter Mitarbeit von C. Münch (Freiburg: 1998); Wilhelm Egger and Peter Wick, Methodenlehre zum Neuen Testament: Biblische Texte selbständig auslegen (6., völlig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2011). 10 See Karlheinz Müller, “Die religionsgeschichtliche Methode. Erwägungen zu ihrem Verständnis und zur Praxis ihrer Vollzüge an neutestamentlichen Texten,” BZ 29 (1985): 161–92; Gerald Seelig, Religionsgeschichtliche Methode in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Studien zur Geschichte und Methode des religionsgeschichtlichen Vergleichs in der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 7; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001); cf. Guillemette and Brisebois, Introduction aux méthodes, 351–92.

15

16

Introduction

doubtedly, this question may be of interest to biblical scholars as well as other specialists dealing with antiquity. Finally, the author expresses the hope that this publication will enrich our knowledge of the cultural and religious processes that accompanied nascent Christianity and the early Church of the first century CE.

I.

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

Epicureanism was well known and going strong in the Roman Empire since it was propagated by Epicurus’ numerous disciples and successors.1 However, in the context of the problem posed, one should formulate an essential question about the scope of influence and reception of Epicurus’ school, which came to be known as The Garden, at the time of forming of the New Testament writings. Scholars even speak of the crisis of the Epicurean school at the dawn of the Christian era.2 Therefore, in addition to a brief presentation of Epicurus’ philosophical views, which are the reference point and an element of comparative analyses in this work, we should consider, from the outset, the presence and reception of Epicureanism in the Roman Empire, with particular emphasis on the Empire’s eastern areas in the first century of the Christian era. Apart from pagan sources, the stances of Jewish circles towards Epicurus and his philosophical thought provoke exceptional interest.

1.

Epicurus and Epicureanism

The vast majority of historians have shown the dependence of Epicurus’ philosophy on the historical period in which the founder of The Garden lived. The grandeur of Athens and other Greek cities had faded, and the Macedonian invaders were systematically conquering Greece. These military defeats were the outward expressions of the malaise that from the time of the Peloponnesian Wars onwards, had plagued the Greek community, cornered by ethical nihilism. Objective moral principles were denied. These changes also affected the Greeks’ attitudes toward religion and religious practices. They rejected the Homeric gods or denied their providential roles concerning men and the cosmos; atheism partly replaced piety. The conquests

1 Apart from detailed studies, several classic works on ancient philosophy have been consulted. See Michael Erler, “Epikur – die Schule Epikurs – Lukrez,” in Grundriß der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike. 4.2: Die hellenistische Philosophie, völlig neu bearb. Ausg., ed. Hellmut Flashar (Basel: Schwabe, 1994), 29–490; Giovanni Reale, Storia della filosofia antica. 3. I sistemi dell’Età ellenistica (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1989), 3.157–300; Ashley A. Long and David N. Sedley, Die hellenistischen Philosophen. Texte und Kommentare (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2000), 29–182; see also Robert W. Sharples, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics. An Introduction to Hellenistic Philosophy (London; New York: Routledge, 2003). 2 This problem has been signalled by Giovanni Reale, Storia della filosofia antica. 4. Le scuole dell’Età imperiale (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 5 1987), 4.53–57.

18

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

of Alexander the Great accelerated processes of political and social change in the Mediterranean basin.3 1.1

Epicurus and His Garden

Greek philosophy found itself in a new situation. It ceased to deal with the state and citizens’ obligations to the state. In the world at that time, which was shaped politically and socially, philosophers no longer wanted to form citizens or influence the daily life of the Greek polis so philosophy became an instrument for achieving happiness in one’s private life. Philosophical schools answered people’s questions about their place in the emerging situation, and Epicurus responded to this issue. His philosophy was also born in the context of the characteristic transformations taking place in the Greek world at the turn of the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE.4 The life of the founder of Epicureanism is relatively well known, better than the lives of other ancient thinkers and philosophers.5 Epicurus was born in 341 BCE, on the Greek island of Samos, where his Athenian-born father Neocles was sent as a settler. Little is known about his mother. Epicurus’ first studies of philosophy, at the age of fourteen, might be related to his journey to the Ionian city of Teos on the coast of Asia Minor, where Nausiphanes, a disciple of Democritus, taught. At the age of eighteen, Epicurus went to Athens to complete his compulsory twoyear ephebes’ military service, but it is not known whether or not if during this period he had the opportunity to study current philosophical trends.6 In 322, the Athenian settlers were expelled from Samos, and Epicurus’ father had to seek shelter in Colophon. Epicurus joined him and spent the next fifteen years in Colophon in Lydia, then in Mytilene on the island of Lesbos, and finally in Lampsacus in the Hellespont. During his stay in Colophon, Epicurus might have arrived in Teos to listen to the lectures of Nausiphanes, an atomist. This period marked the beginning of Epicurus’ independent work as a philosopher.7 Around 306, taking advantage of the favourable political situation, Epicurus moved with his disciples to Athens,

3 One can speak of the post-classical period in Greece. See Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 2–13. 4 Eduard Lohse, Umwelt des Neuen Testament (NTD. Ergänzungsreihe 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9 1994), 180; Graziano Arrighetti, La cultura letteraria in Grecia da Omero a Apollonio Rodio (Il mondo degli antichi 8.1; Roma; Bari: Laterza, 1989), 144. 5 André Laks, “Édition critique et commentée de la Vie d‘Épicure dans Diogène Laërce (X 1–34),” in Jean Bollack and André Laks, eds., Etudes sur l’Epicureisme antique (CahPh 1; Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille, 1976), 1–118; cf. André-Jean Festugiére, Epicure et ses dieux (Mythes et religions 19; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1946), 25–35; Erler, Epikur, 62–74. 6 At the Lyceum, Epicurus could have listened to Theophrastus (Aristotle was in exile in Chalcis), while at the Academy – to Xenocrates, the second successor to Plato. 7 Whether the encounter with Nausiphanes took place earlier or later, Epicurus gained a thorough understanding of his atomistic theory.

Epicurus and Epicureanism

where he founded a school of philosophy competing with the Academy as well as the Peripatetic and Stoic schools. From then on, Athens was his place of residence and work until he died in 270 BCE. It was exceptionally rare for Epicurus to leave the city; he would then keep in touch with his disciples by writing numerous and extensive letters. From among Epicurus’ great number of philosophical writings, only a few have survived.8 Apart from a brief summary of the most important principles of Epicureanism forming a set of tenants entitled the Principal Doctrines (Κύριαι Δόξαι = K.D.), there are also three letters to his friends and disciples. These writings were transmitted through quotations by Diogenes Laërtius, who dedicated the tenth volume of his work to Epicurus and his philosophy.9 Diogenes presented a biography of the founder of The Garden, an outline of his philosophical doctrine, the aforementioned letters and a collection of sentences – the epitome of Epicurus’ teaching.10 He also listed forty-one titles of Epicurus’ lost works, out of which only a few fragments have survived to the present day, brought to light thanks to archaeological discoveries. These included several parts of the lost thirty-seven volume of De natura (Περὶ φύσεως), Epicurus’ most important philosophical treatise.11 For his disciples, Epicurus was a charismatic figure, inspiring and stimulating to follow. Admired for his ascetic simplicity, he lived a life of peace and quiet, far from the public and political affairs of the city. The life of the founder of The Garden illustrated his principle “live unnoticed” (λάθε βιώσας), which he asked his disciples to observe.12 Epicurus’ entire life was in fact lived in accordance with

8 See Hermann Usener, ed., Epicurea (Studia Philologica 3; Leipzig: Teubner, 1887; reprint Roma, 1963); Graziano Arrighetti, ed., Epicuro: Opere (Turin: Einaudi, 2 1973); The Epicurus Reader. Selected Writings and Testimonia. Translated and edited, with Notes, by Brad Inwood and Lloyd P. Gerson (Hackett Classics Series; Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1994). 9 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 2: Books 6–10, trans. Robert Drew Hicks (LCL 185; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972; first published 1925), 528–678. 10 Cf. Usener, Epicurea, 1–81; he sequentially quotes the letters to Herodotus, Pythocles, Menoeceus and Principal Doctrines: Epistula ad Herodotum (Ep. Hdt.), Epistula ad Pythoclem (Ep. Pyth.), Epistula ad Menoeceum (Ep. Men.) oraz Epicuri sententiae selectae (K.D.). A similar collection of Epicurus’ sayings, overlapping in part with Principal Doctrines, has survived in a 14th -century manuscript in the Vatican Library and is known as the “Vatican Sayings” (Vat. Sent.) or Gnomologium Vaticanum; cf. Damiani, La Kompendienliteratur, 76–92. 11 Francesca Longo Auricchio, “I papiri ercolanesi,” in Epicuro e l’Epicureismo nei Papiri Ercolanesi (Napoli: Ist. Ital. per gli Studi Filosofici, 1993), 29–32; a list of Epicurus’ writings and their discussion are given by Erler, Epikur, 44–61, 75–125; cf. David Sedley, ed., “Epicurus, On Nature Book XXVIII,” Cronache Erconalesi 3 (1973): 4–83. 12 See Geert Roskam, Live Unnoticed (λάθε βιώσας). On the Vicissitudes of an Epicurean Doctrine (Philosophia antiqua 111; Leiden: Brill, 2007). The translation “live hidden, unnoticed” is justified because the verb λανθάνω (here imperativus aoristi) is usually combined with a participle or attributive, which is rendered as a verbal form, while the verb as an adverb, so instead of “escape notice

19

20

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

his philosophical views. Respected as a benefactor, Epicurus had many friends and was considered a liberator from all religious bonds, fears and illusions that a religion could bring. Epicurus’ charismatic influence and his teaching, aimed to set man free, led his contemporaries and followers to deify their master. His busts were venerated, and his birthday was solemnly celebrated, as he ordained in his will (Diog. Laert. 10.18). Like Socrates, Plato and Diogenes before him, Epicurus was also worshiped as a divine being (θεῖος ἀνήρ) and treated by his disciples as a liberator or deliverer (σωτήρ) and god (deus).13 A characteristic feature of Hellenistic philosophical schools was their departure from the social context of the Greek polis and the state in favour of using the existing social structures for egalitarian purposes and the needs of philosophical schools. Also, for Epicurus, the hitherto civic virtues and state laws were of little importance, as they neither explained the mystery of human life nor gave it any ultimate end. According to Epicurus, only the instances which help attain a happy life were of prime significance. The state was useless for achieving this goal, while a philosophical school – in his opinion – was extremely useful. It was the only organ that could transmit the principles and norms of behaviour needed for personal happiness. Such a hidden life made it possible to make friendships and create a community of friends, the Epicurean φιλία, about which the founder of The Garden spoke.14 The Epicurean “garden” in Athens was a classic example of an ancient school of philosophy, with all its characteristic elements, including a vivid memory of the founder, communal life, fostering friendship, caring for the school’s traditions and being separated from the surrounding city. The Garden of Athens implemented the main assumptions, goals and tasks of Epicurus’ philosophy.15 The school was hierarchical, and its first head was Epicurus, who was also given the title “wise man.” Epicurus proposed a type of community life based on an “atheistic” and at the same

or detection” we read “live (βιώσας) hidden, unnoticed (λάθε)”; an adequate translation should be “live undetected, unnoticed,” which gives a better understanding of Epicurus’ intention. See Henry G. Liddell, Robert Scott and Henry S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with a Revised Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 1029. 13 The heroization and deification of Epicurus clearly appear in the work of the Roman poet and Epicurean Lucretius, entitled De rerum natura (Lucr. 1.62–79; 3.1–30; 5.8, 52). See Johannes Leipoldt and Walter Grundmann, eds., Umwelt des Urchristentums. 1: Darstellung des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 7 1985), 352, no. 11; first of all, see the latest publication: Marco Beretta, Francesco Citti and Alessandro Iannucci, eds., Il culto di Epicuro. Testi iconografia e paesaggio (Centro Studi. La permanenza del Classico 31; Firenze: Olschki, 2014); esp. Michael Erler, “La sacralizzazione di Socrate e di Epicuro” (pp. 1–14) and Francesca Longo Auricchio, “Il culto di Epicuro. Testi e studi: qualche aggiornamento” (pp. 39–64). 14 Festugiére, Epicure, 36–70. 15 See Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.172–76; cf. Erler, Epikur, 205–15.

Epicurus and Epicureanism

time, ascetic friendship, which resulted from his philosophical doctrine. The Epicurean schools admitted students regardless of gender, origin, social status, race or economic differences. Epicureans lived a common life but did not share all things in common, as was sometimes assumed (Diog. Laert. 10.11).16 Of special importance was friendship (φιλία), more important than erotic love and sexual sensations. In the community, exceptional importance was also attached to the concern for disciples’ spiritual development and the acquisition of virtues (ἄσκησις), including the related mutual fraternal correction. Younger members of the community were introduced to the master’s teachings by more experienced members of the community who acted as their spiritual guides (θεραπεία). Epicurus emphasised the skill of remembering instructions, and thus he wrote short summaries of his doctrine, as if they were short catechisms (ἐπιτομαί) (Diog. Laert. 10.35–36). Epicurus’ special merit was not the discovery of personal friendship or community life, as these forms of life had been known before him, but the creation of a community of friendly people – a community of friends. Epicurus considered such a community the only form of social life that was worthy of mankind.17 The Epicureans celebrated religious holidays and other holidays in honour of their founder and master. For example, each twentieth day of the month they celebrated Epicurus’ birthday.18 They also maintained the traditions and religious customs of the Athenian community, kept not so much from a sense of piety but in keeping with the Epicurean concept of a happy life. Moreover, it was the duty of the Epicureans to promote their school and its philosophical ideas. For his part, Epicurus expressed his attachment to his philosophical school in his will, in which he regulated in detail its organisation and lifestyle (Diog. Laert. 10.16–22). The school that Epicurus founded survived into the first century CE, experiencing periods of both splendour but also stagnation (Diog. Laert. 10.22–26). Several illustrious disciples died before Epicurus, among them Metrodorus and Polyaenus. Some left The Garden disappointed and became staunch opponents of their master,

16 A community of goods – according to Epicurus – assumed an element of distrust, while without mutual trust there is no real friendship; hence, there is no need for a community of goods among friends. The view of, for example, Pythagoras on this point was different; see Reginaldo M. Pizzorni, Giustizia e carità (2nd ed.; Roma: Pontificia Università Lateranense, 1980), 37; DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 101–105. 17 Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.261–63; Pizzorni, Giustizia, 34–38. For the topic of friendship in the Epicurean understanding, see Festugiére, Epicure, 56–61. 18 Cf. Abraham J. Malherbe, “Self-Definition Among Epicureans and Cynics,” in Ben F. Meyer and Ed Parish Sanders, eds., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Vol. 3: Self-Definition in the Greco-Roman World (London: SCM Press, 1982), 48: “Images of the founder were venerated, and this practice seems to have been integrated with Epicurean doctrine as part of a systematic plan to maintain cohesion and gain perpetuity for the communities and their teaching.”

21

22

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

such as Timocrates,19 brother of Metrodorus. After Epicurus’ death, his successor was Hermarchus of Mytilene, who collaborated with Leonteus, Colotes and the historian Idomeneus, all three coming from Lampsacus. The next head of the school, Polystratus, was also a student of Epicurus. After him, the school was managed by the scholarchs who are not well known: Hippoclides, Dionysius of Lamptrai and Basilides of Tyre, and in the second century BCE – Protarchus of Bargylia, Demetrius and Apollodorus, surnamed “Tyran of The Garden.” Zeno of Sidon, his student and successor, successfully taught in Athens till 78 BCE. His disciples included Philodemus of Gadara, an outstanding representative of Epicureanism in Rome during the Augustan Age. Another of Zeno’s students was Phaedrus, who later succeeded him as the scholarch of the school in Athens. The last head of the Athenian school before its fall was Patro. As Reale writes,20 Nella seconda metà del primo secolo a.C. il Giardino ad Atene era ormai morto (dopo Patrone non si ha più notizia di altri scolarchi, e si sa che il terreno su cui sorgeva il Giardino era stato venduto), ma il verbo epicureo si era ormai da tempo diffuso dovunque, sia in Oriente sia in Occidente.

1.2

Selected Aspects of Epicureanism

In a biblical study, there is no need to systematically present the philosophy of Epicurus, but it is, nevertheless, appropriate to discuss Epicureanism in general, primarily as a philosophy of life.21 Epicurus’ philosophical system is an integral whole, and its particular sections are understandable only in relation to each other, bearing in mind that theoretical considerations and practical recommendations are interrelated, and sometimes difficult to separate. The following arrangement of Epicurus’ philosophy is usually adopted: canonica, which can be regarded as explanations of the Epicurean criticism of cognition, physica being presentations of the Epicurean views of the cosmos and its nature – since Epicurean cosmology

19 For the topic of the apostates and oppositionists, see Erler, Epikur, 283–87. 20 Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.270; cf. Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 18–19; Damiani, La Kompendienliteratur, 137–53. 21 See the discussion: Erler, Epikur, 126–87; Long and Sedley, Die hellenistischen Philosophen, 29–182. David Sedley, “Epicurus and his professional Rivals,” in Études sur l’épicurisme antique, ed. Jean Bollack and André Laks (CahPh 1; Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 1976), 119–59, presents Epicurus’ attitude towards his great predecessors, Plato and Aristotle. It should be remembered that for a long time the philosophy of Epicurus was misinterpreted and misunderstood in terms of extreme hedonism, and reliable studies on his theory were only available in the last several dozen years. Cf. Dorothee Kimmich, Epikureische Aufklärungen. Philosophische und poetische Konzepte der Selbstsorge (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993), 22–31.

Epicurus and Epicureanism

is the foundation of ethical considerations, and ethica, the most important part of Epicurus’ philosophical system, also occupying the largest part of his doctrine.22 In the context of our research, it is necessary to emphasise selected aspects and spheres of Epicurus’ philosophical thought which have turned out to be relevant when confronted with biblical and Christian theological thought. These characteristic areas certainly include the question of the existence and nature of the gods, the problem of death and its related issues, as well as ethical and moral questions.23 The foundation of Epicurus’ philosophical thought is a concise summary of logical and theoretical-cognitive canons of thinking creating his philosophy’s epistemological framework.24 These reveal an extreme sensualism and Epicurus’ completely empirical attitude towards reality. According to Epicurus, there are three criteria of truth. First, they include sensations that enable direct contact with the physical world and provide information about it. These are material contacts between sense organs and external objects. The latter, by sending atoms into space, appear to the recipient at a specific moment and under certain circumstances. Second, sensations provide the basis for the emergence of conceptions (more correctly, preconceptions – prolepseis), which are mental representations and images of things. The third criterion of truth and direct obviousness, according to Epicurus, is the experience of pleasure or pain, so-called “feelings” or “experiences.” Based on these three, it is possible to build opinions, in other words, judgments that have a smaller degree of certainty (Diog. Laert. 10.31–34).25 In physics, Epicurus assumed a materialistic, atomistic and purely mechanical explanation of the cosmos.26 According to the founder of The Garden, nothing comes into existence from what does not exist, and likewise, nothing can collapse into nothingness: the existing reality as a whole consists of bodies and the void, always the same, constant and closed. The simplest and indivisible bodies (atoms) can merge and create compound bodies. Atoms are in constant motion, and by

22 Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.177–267. 23 Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 22–24; cf. Hans-Josef Klauck, Die religiöse Umwelt des Urchristentums. 2. Herrscher- und Kaiserkult, Philosophie, Gnosis (1–2 vol.; KohlST 9.2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1996), 2.116–23. Later published in one volume as Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to GraecoRoman Religions, trans. Brian McNeil (London – New York: Clark, 2000). 24 Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.177–94; Long and Sedley, Die hellenistischen Philosophen, 91–105; cf. Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 24–29. 25 See also Fritz Jürss, Die epikureische Erkenntnistheorie (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike 33; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991). An interesting example of Epicurus’ epistemological ideas appears in the exegetical analysis of Matt 6:22–23 (see Chapter II). 26 Pierre-Marie Morel, “Epicurean Atomism,” in James Warren, ed., Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 65–83; cf. Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.195–233.

23

24

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

moving in empty space at enormous speed, they bring about change, creation or evolution. An important novelty in Democritus’ materialistic system is Epicurus’ concept of the “swerve” (clinamen): atoms, moving downwards, can swerve to the side at any time and place and collide with other atoms. Thanks to this, Epicurus could oppose the concept of necessity in the atomistic system and introduce the concept of freedom that was needed in his ethical system.27 Epicurus claimed that there was an infinite number of cosmoi, similar or dissimilar to our cosmos, which, due to the movement of atoms, come into existence and then dissolve in time. Between the cosmoi are interworlds (intermundia). Although cosmoi come into existence and dissolve after reaching their culmination, the universe as a whole does not change since the number of constitutive elements of the universe (atoms) always remains the same. Moreover, according to Epicurus, there is no transcendent Mind or Builder – Demiurge in the universe; all things are subject to chance and blind fate. Being neither the work of intelligent beings (gods) nor the creation of necessity, the universe is and remains irrational as a whole and in its specific manifestations. In cosmology, Epicurus opposes the teleological position of Plato and Aristotle. Man and his soul are material and made up of atoms; just like other entanglements of atoms, they have a definite end. Hence, there is no eternal soul, but only a mortal soul. According to Epicurus, not only the body dies, but the human soul also dies as it is composed of atoms and disperses upon death. At the moment of a person’s death, the atoms separate from each other, and thus the sensations are extinguished, and where there are no sensations, there are no feelings and there is no fear: “Death is nothing to us; for the body, when it has been resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us” (K.D. II).28 The founder of The Garden banishes the fear of death, proving that at the moment of death, man ceases to exist and so does his soul. Epicurus’ stance on the nature of man, his soul and mortality were of great importance to his ethical views29 since the fear of death and the fear of the gods’ wrath are “nothing to us.” Epicurus removed not only the fear of death, but also put to death man’s longing for immortality.30 27 Ibid., 208: “Perciò non c’e dubbio che il clinamen sia stato introdotto per far spazio nell’universo atomisticamente concepito alla libertà, alla vita morale e alla possibilità di realizzazione dell’ideale del saggio.” Cf. James Warren, ed., Epicurus and Democritean Ethics. An Archaeology of Ataraxia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 28 Diog. Laert. 10.139; cf. 10.124 (Ep. Men. 124). 29 On the topic of souls in Epicurus’ theory and its criticism, see Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.220–23. At this point, Epicurus opposed the classical tradition of Greek philosophy. 30 See James Warren, Facing Death. Epicurus and his Critics (Oxford et al.: Clarendon Press, 2004); cf. Heinz-Michael Bartling, Epikur. Theorie der Lebenskunst (Hochschulschriften Philosophie 16; Cuxhaven: Junghans, 1994), 43–59; Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 54–55. The cause of the Epicurean

Epicurus and Epicureanism

As stated by Epicurus, ignorance of the scientific knowledge of the rules governing the universe also led to a misunderstanding of the true nature of the gods. Contrary to popular belief, Epicurus did not reject the existence of the gods, but corrected false ideas about them. His thought followed two directions: a criticism of philosophical representations of deities and a critique of images of the gods in folk beliefs. Let us add that the Epicurean critique of religion depended on Epicurus’ ethical views, mainly on his desire to free man of fear of the gods and possible punishment after death.31 Epicurus rejected the existence of God the Creator – Demiurge, but accepted the existence of the gods since people believed in them from the beginning, and what is more, they had clear conceptions of them. The gods exist but do not live in this or that world, but reside in the space between the worlds (intermundia).32 Further, the number of the gods is infinitely great, which was postulated by the Epicurean principle of isonomia, or equal distribution (the law of equilibrium), for the number of immortal beings must be the same as that of mortal beings.33 Epicurus also formulated a strict theory concerning the way the gods exist. They are human in shape, supremely happy and immortal beings (Ep. Men. 123). Although the gods do not need to sleep, they do breathe, need food and talk to one another, obviously in Greek. The gods must be human in shape because only in this form do they appear to humans, and there is no other more perfect form. The Epicureans even pointed to the existence of sexual differentiation between the gods. The happiness of the gods consisted in their absolute freedom from pain and anxiety, and this is because they live far away from people, in the intermundia where there are no clouds in the sky, no wind, no snow, no thunder, no human regrets – only eternal tranquillity. The gods live where nothing can disturb their peace and happiness.

disbelief in the afterlife was not only the desire to banish fear but also the world of affairs and the existence of evil in this world (see Lucr. 5.195–234). 31 Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.225–33; cf. Bartling, Theorie der Lebenskunst, 59–66. Epicurus followed the rationalist critique of religion that existed before him and was a common phenomenon under the early Empire, although it took various forms in philosophical schools. Objections were raised primarily to the traditional belief in the Homeric gods and the popular folk religion based on mythology. See Harold W. Attridge, “The Philosophical Critique of Religion under the Early Empire,” ANRW 16.1:45–46, 51–52; cf. Festugiére, Epicure, 1–24, 71–101. 32 According to some contemporary authors, Epicurus believed that the gods only existed as thoughtconstructs, not as real bodies; they existed only in human minds as idealisations. Placing the gods in the intermundia resulted from Cicero’s and Lucretius’ interpretations of Epicurus’ teaching. See Long and Sedley, Die hellenistischen Philosophen, 169–74; cf. Marie Simon, “Epikureismus und Epikureertum. Das Fortleben philosophischer Ideen,” in Elisabeth Ch. Welskopf, ed., Hellenische Poleis. Krise, Wandlung, Wirkung (1–4 vol.; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1974), 4.2050–53; Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.231. 33 Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 53; cf. Lohse, Umwelt, 180.

25

26

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

The anthropomorphic character of the conception of the gods is evident and does not differ in any way from other ancient conceptions or folk images.34 According to Epicurus, the crowds are wrong to believe that the gods are actively interfering in people’s affairs, are angry at people, or that they threaten people’s lives and cause fear. On the contrary, the gods exist in blessed solitude and do not influence people and their lives. Consequently, people should not be concerned with the gods nor expect their help. Worship and sacrifices are pointless, and it is foolish to ask the gods for help in times of need. Epicurus thus rejected the doctrine of divine providence (πρόνοια), which was common in many schools of philosophy, and especially important in the Stoic system.35 Thus, the atheism of the Epicureans meant that the gods have no concern for human life and do not trouble themselves over the world’s miseries. Despite criticising religion, Epicurus encouraged his followers to participate in traditional religious ceremonies and maintain religious customs and practices, provided that the traditional faith was rejected and the nature of the gods was properly understood.36 Under the materialistic and atomistic conceptions of the world, including man and his mortal soul, Epicurus believed that the underlying principle and goal of human action should be pleasure (ἡδονή) as “our first and kindred good,” because only experiencing it makes man happy.37 By pleasure, Epicurus understood not only limited sensual pleasure and bodily satisfaction, but also mental pleasure, consisting in recalling previously experienced physical pleasures. Epicurus’ views on this matter in ancient times were often misunderstood.38 From the beginning of his existence, man experiences two basic desires: he craves pleasure and rejects pain; hence, the art of a happy life should consist of the ability

34 Since most of Epicurus’ works were lost, we owe our knowledge of the existence of the gods primarily to the discovery of the Epicurean library in Herculaneum, which included, among others, the writings of Philodemus of Gadara (see Longo Auricchio, “I papiri ercolanesi,“ 38–40); see further David Konstan, “Epicurus on the Gods,” in Jeffrey Fish and Kirk Sanders, eds., Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 53–71. 35 Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 53–55. This point of the Epicurean doctrine was constantly criticised by other schools of philosophy. 36 Ibid., 51–52. 37 In his Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus writes: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος λέγομεν εἶναι τοῦ μακαρίως ζῆν (“Wherefore we call pleasure the alpha and omega of a blessed life”) (Diog. Laert. 10.128); Usener, Epicurea, 62–63. 38 Bartling, Theorie der Lebenskunst, 14–21; Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.234–67; see more Phillip Mitsis, Epicurus’ Ethical Theory. The Pleasures of Invulnerability (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 48; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988); Reimar Müller, Die epikureische Ethik (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike 32; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991); cf. David Konstan, “Epicurean Happiness: A Pig’s Life?” Journal of Ancient Philosophy 6.1 (2012): 1–22.

Epicurus and Epicureanism

to choose pleasant experiences and reject pain. Pleasure, however, as the goal of human life, was not understood by Epicurus as short-term physical delight or contentment, since this could result in disappointment or dissatisfaction, as is the case with, for example, eating and drinking. Man should free himself from countless desires, meaning everything that prevents him from living happily every moment of every day. True bliss is characterized by the absence of dissatisfaction and anxiety, leading to a feeling of true and deep happiness.39 As a result, such a state leads to absolute peace, serenity and tranquillity. Man’s greatest happiness is to be free from pain and anxiety, to live in peace, serenity and tranquillity (ἀταραξία), i. e., the highest attainable state of pleasure, which is the only norm that determines the acceptance or rejection of desirable things. Calmness and tranquillity (ἀταραξία) should determine all other choices. After considering everything, a wise man knows what to choose to lead a quiet and happy life, but also what to reject and avoid. A wise man controls his anxiety and fears, seeks their causes and rationalises them. He assumes a proper attitude towards emerging desires and makes the right choices, being led by a practical mind. Thus, the philosopher’s φρόνησις plays a significant role, as it is a desire that allows him to live a pleasant and happy life (Ep. Men. 132; K.D. V).40 A wise man should avoid anything that disturbs tranquillity, and among these, Epicurus included carnal love, marriage, politics and social life. The source of desires and expectations is caused by society and the development of civilization; these, however, can also become a cause of anxiety and frustration. Thus, a wise man withdraws from the world and public life; he does not want to influence the course of events.41 A truly wise man lives on the margins of political and social affairs (cf. λάθε βιώσας), enjoying happiness as the Epicurean gods do, being far from the world of humans. One should pare all of

39 “The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. When pleasure is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is no pain either of body or of mind or of both together” (K.D. III = Diog. Laert. 10.139). 40 This aspect of the Epicurean ethics is emphasised by Bartling, Theorie der Lebenskunst, 33: “Damit ist deutlich geworden, was die Phronäsis bei Epikur im wesentlichen auszeichnet: sie ist eine das Wählen und Meiden von Hädonai und Schmerzen reflektierende Instanz, die zu einem angenehmen Leben verhelfen soll” (cf. pp. 22–40. 76–80); cf. Raphael Woolf, “Pleasure and Desire,” in Warren, Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism, 158–78. 41 This is debatable because it is known that in Rome (and elsewhere), the Epicureans were involved in political events. See Ashley A. Long, “Pleasure and Social Utility – The Virtues of Being Epicurean,” in Hellmut Flashar, ed., Aspects de la philosophie hellénistique (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 32; Genéve: Fondation Hardt 1986), 283–316; cf. Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 115: “A recurring criticism levelled against Epicureans since the time of Cicero and taken up with insistence closer to the Christian period by Plutarch was their reluctance to take an active part in the business of the state. Nor was the complaint wholly unjustified. Withdrawal from the world of affairs was an important element in the Epicurean search for the untroubled life.”

27

28

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

one’s desires to a minimum and be content with only necessary things; above all, one should be self-sufficient (αὐτάρκεια). The followers of Epicurus’ philosophy respond to the recommendations of the founder of The Garden if they are satisfied with what is simply necessary. Viewing Epicurus’ thoughts from a positive point of view, living a happy life calls for an attitude of gratitude for all the goods received, including gratitude for cultivating friendships and being with friends. Epicurus, protecting his theory against misunderstanding and deformation, emphasised that the pleasant life he proclaimed has nothing to do with promoting a life of riotousness devoid of all rules. On the contrary, it is a life of moderation and restraint, not using or abusing it nor indulging in luxuries (Ep. Men. 132).42 The path to a happy and tranquil life is to overcome the world’s fundamental misconceptions, the nature of the gods and the essence of death. The views concerning the gods and death are in fact, as Epicurus proves in his letter to Menoikeus, actually an introduction to Epicurean ethics and at the same time its prerequisite. Epicurus set his disciples free from the gods since he placed the latter in the intermundia. He also freed people from the fear of death, claiming that after death, there is nothingness. Thanks to Epicurus, people freed themselves from all their fears, which was the key to attaining happiness and tranquillity. The gods should not be objects of fear and terror but of admiration and gratitude, and honouring the gods can become, according to Epicurus, a source of the highest pleasure. The Epicurean gods enjoy a blessed existence, being examples of what man should strive for.43 Responding to the undergoing socio-political changes, Epicurus gave up any political activity in the firm belief that, in the changing world, a wise man should be self-sufficient, and man’s practical reason and natural abilities are the bases for attaining personal happiness. For Epicurus, the decisive, elementary and, at the same time, most natural norm became the avoidance of pain and the search for pleasure. Since every living creature behaves in this way, shunning pain and seeking pleasure, Epicurus considered pleasure to be the basic criterion and condition of a happy life, subordinating his philosophy to this idea.44 42 This was the stance of Epicurus, but the testimonies of ancient authors are not unequivocal. The Epicureans, including the founder of The Garden, were suspected and accused of immoral lives (Diog. Laert. 10.3–8); in NT times it was the stereotyped accusation against the “pleasure seekers” from the Athenian Garden. 43 As Reale writes, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.232: “…il suo Dio, in ultima analisi, è l’ideale della sua etica oggettivato e ipostatizzato.” See also Wolfgang Fauth, “Divus Epicurus. Zur Problemgeschichte philosophischer Religiosität bei Lukrez,” ANRW 1.4:206: “eine idealisierte Abspielung der Exklusivität und Lebensharmonie seines philosophischen Gartenzirkels in den transzendenten Bereich”; cf. Bartling, Theorie der Lebenskunst, 66–76; Stefano Mecci, “The Ethical Implications of Epicurus Theology,” Philosophia 48 (2018): 195–204. 44 See more Woolf, “Pleasure and Desire,” 158–78; cf. Arrighetti, La cultura letteraria, 145–46.

Epicureanism in the Light of Pagan Sources

Compared with other Hellenistic schools of philosophy, Epicureanism manifests itself as a unique phenomenon. Many scholars speak of the conservatism with which Epicurus’ successors treated their master’s teachings. For several hundred years, the philosophy of Epicurus was passed on unchanged, and it is difficult to detect any significant evolution in the views of the Epicurean school, as was the case with other philosophies. There were no ideological disputes among the Epicureans. Epicurus’ successors did not introduce any changes to his thoughts, which were passed on to later generations. The outstanding representatives of this philosophy limited themselves to explaining and deepening some aspects of its doctrine.45 Even polemics with other philosophical schools did not lead to significant changes or rethinking of the system, especially of its main tenets. The founder’s writings became a canon, and his philosophical views became dogmas, like the truths of faith.46

2.

Epicureanism in the Light of Pagan Sources

Epicureanism must be considered a homogeneous philosophical system that practically remained unchanged till the 4th century CE. Consequently, the content of the next part of the study is the spread of Epicureanism and its reception in the pagan world, mainly in New Testament times. Numerous writings by pagan authors and archaeological discoveries are witnesses of this expansion and important sources of knowledge about Epicureanism.47 2.1

The Preceding Period (1st Century BCE)

The Apennine Peninsula, including the important urban centres of Rome and Naples, was the scene of the splendid development of Epicurean philosophy and its expansion in the first century BCE. It was in Rome that the first philosophical work promoting Epicureanism was written in Latin. Soon after, numerous adherents and disciples of Epicureanism appeared among the Roman aristocracy. Epicurus’ philosophy was also known to the authors of the Ciceronian period and the Augustan

45 However, such an evolution can be observed in the Epicurean attitude toward rhetoric. Epicurus’ attitude towards rhetoric was negative, while the later representatives of Epicureanism, Philodem of Gadara and Lucretius had more positive views. Cf. Margherita Erbì, “La retorica nell’Epicureismo: una riflessione,” Cronache Ercolanesi 41 (2011): 189–206. 46 Malherbe, “Self-Definition,” 41: “Epicureans are known for the conservatism with which they maintained the teaching of the master” (cf. also p. 47). 47 Erler, Epikur, 203–82; Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.268–70, gives little information about the spread of Epicureanism in the East.

29

30

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

Age, among whom it is sufficient to mention a few ardent believers and staunch opponents.48 Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus was an Epicurean, a member of the nobility and a Roman consul in 58 BCE, whom Cicero criticised for glorifying and propagating Epicurus’ view on withdrawing from politics and involvement in public life for the cause of seeking pleasure and delight. Piso hosted Epicurus’ disciples in his suburban villa in Herculaneum. Thanks to Calpurnius Piso, Julius Caesar, his son-in-law, became familiar with Epicureanism. The most eminent Epicurean of that time was Philodemus of Gadara (110–40 BCE).49 Little is known about his family and early life in Gadara, where he was a member of the Decapolis city league. As a young man he went to Athens, where under Zeno of Sidon, he studied the philosophy of Epicurus. On arriving in Rome ca. 80–70 BCE, he became a key representative of Roman Epicureanism and a friend of the Epicurean Calpurnius Piso, as Cicero testified.50 For unknown reasons, Philodemus moved to southern Italy, first to Naples and then to Herculaneum, Piso’s suburban residence. It was there that the remains of the Epicurean library were discovered in the 1990s, and the preserved papyri included Philodemus’ philosophical works. In Campania, Philodemus also met Roman poets of the Augustan Age, whose names appeared in his writings during that period. His later fate is unknown, but it is believed that he was still alive around 40 B.C. His contribution to Epicurean philosophy was significant. Philodemus studied the logical operations governing the human mind and discussed the problem of the gods, religion and death. Contrary to Epicurus, who had a reluctant attitude towards poetry, especially the works of Homer, Philodemus of Gadara recognised the value of poetry because it changed its function in society (philosophers, 48 Ettore Paratore, “La problematica sull’Epicureismo a Roma,” ANRW 1.4:116–204; John Ferguson and Jackson P. Hershbell, “Epicureanism under the Roman Empire,” ANRW 36.4:2257–327; Benedino Gemelli, “Il primo Epicureismo romano ed il problema della sua diffusione,” in ZYZHTHSIZ. Studi sull’Epicureismo greco e romano offerti a Marcella Gigante (Biblioteca della Parola del Passato 16; Napoli: Macchiaroli, 1983), 281–90; Caterina Dominici, Epicureismo e stoicismo nella Roma antica. Lucrezio, Virgilio, Orazio (odi civili), Seneca (Padova: Abano Terme, 1985); Catherine J. Castner, Prosopography of Roman Epicureans Between the Second Century B.C. and the Second Century A.D. (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 34; Frankfurt am Main et al.: Lang, 1991); see also Erler, Epikur, 363–80; Damiani, La Kompendienliteratur, 154–63. 49 Tiziano Dorandi, “Filodemo. Gli orienamenti della ricerca attuale,” ANRW 36.4:2328–68; Elizabeth Asmis, “Philodemus’ Epicureanism,” ANRW 36.4:2369–2406, esp. 2385–90; Erler, Epikur, 289–362. See also: Marcello Gigante, Philodemus in Italy: The Books from Herculaneum (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2002); John T. Fitzgerald et al., eds., Philodemus and the New Testament World (NovTSub 111; Leiden: Brill, 2004). 50 Georg Strecker and Udo Schnelle, eds., Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus. Bd 2.1: Texte zur Briefliteratur und zur Johannesapokalypse (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996) 1.847 n. 2.

Epicureanism in the Light of Pagan Sources

instead of poets, became society’s teachers). From then on, poetry found a place in Epicurus’ hedonistic system.51 An outstanding Roman representative of Epicureanism was Lucretius (94–53 BCE), whose work De rerum natura contains a comprehensive presentation of Epicurus’ philosophy.52 The creation of such excellent poetry that originally promoted Epicurus’ philosophy testifies not only to the presence of Epicureanism in Rome, but also to its great vitality and powerful influence.53 Lucretius praised his teacher and master, calling him a giver of light, the father and discoverer of truth (Lucr. 3.1–13), and even a god: “For if we must speak as this very majesty of nature now known to us demands, he was a god, noble Memmius…” (Lucr. 5.8 [Rouse, LCL]).54 Another Roman poet of the Augustan Age, strongly influenced by Epicureanism, was Virgil (70–19 BCE), whose teacher was the Epicurean Siro (or Syro). Virgil stayed in Athens for a short time.55 Horace’s father was Epicurean, so it should come as no surprise that Horace (65–8 BC) was influenced by Epicurus’ philosophy for a long time, and that many traces of it survived in his letters and songs. Epicurean points can be seen in Horace’s praise for the simplicity of life and friendship, emphasizing the importance of pleasure and the importance of making the right choices. He highlighted freedom from fate and destiny as well as dispelled excessive anxiety about the future because death is annihilation. The poet practised the Epicurean principle of λάθε βιώσας and is the author of the famous sentence, carpe diem, which became a synonym of the Epicurean attitude towards life. Influenced by personal experiences, Horace later departed from Epicureanism, but retained many of the Epicurean customs.56 51 See Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.276–77. Reflecting on the numerous texts of Philodemus of Gadara, it is worth quoting a short aphorism illustrating the Epicurean view on life and death: “I loved. Who has not? I made revels in her honour. Who is uninitiated in those mysteries? But I was distraught. By whom? Was it not by a god? – Good-bye to it; for already the grey locks hurry on to replace the black, and tell me I have reached the age of discretion. While it was playtime I played; now it is over, I will turn to more worthy thoughts” (Epig. 5.112); see Greek Anthology, trans. William Roger Paton (LCL 67; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916) 274–75. This is a moral epigram of Philodemus since his other epigrams illustrate libertinism and the great moral laxity of the Epicureans. 52 Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, trans. William H.D. Rouse, rev. Martin Ferguson (LCL 181; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924); cf. Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.278–300. 53 See Dominici, Epicureismo e stoicismo, 14–26. 54 More in Lucr. 5.1–12. See Lewelyn Morgan and Barnaby Taylor, “Memmius the Epicurean,” ClQ 67.2 (2017): 528–541; cf. Fauth, Divus Epicurus, 205–25. 55 Dominici, Epicureismo e stoicismo, 33–34: “L’inquadratura ideologica delle Bucoliche e delle Georgiche ha uno stampo tempratamente epicureo”; on Epicureanism in Virgil’s poetry, see pp. 33–43. 56 Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2268–69; Dominici, Epicureismo e stoicismo, 27–33; see more Anastasia Tsakiropoulou-Summers, “Horace, Philodemus and the Epicureans at Herculaneum,”

31

32

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

In the case of Ovid (43 BCE–17/18 CE), the preserved texts do not allow us to formulate an unambiguous opinion regarding his attitude toward Epicurean philosophy. His view of the gods who do not care about human affairs but enjoy secura quies is a pure expression of Epicureanism. Ovid endorsed the Epicurean lifestyle, although he was not a member of the Epicurean community. He had an ambivalent attitude towards Epicureanism; he abandoned Epicurus for other philosophers but later returned to him.57 The Roman master of oratory, Cicero (105–43 BCE), occupies a special place in the history of Epicureanism. Cicero’s first teacher was the Epicurean Phaidros. Cicero followed his teaching again in Athens, in ca. 77 CE; there he also met Zeno of Sidon. The greatest Roman prose writer familiarised himself with Epicurean thought, but at the same time, he was a staunch opponent who mocked it. Such conclusions arise after studying Cicero’s philosophical De finibus bonorum et malorum, in which he deals with ethical issues, and his later work Tusculanae disputationes, which discusses happiness, as well as De natura deorum, which examines the topic of the gods.58 These writings were created within a short period, between 46 and 44, when the course of events made Cicero withdraw from public life. He spent most of his life in the vicinity of Tusculum. In De finibus bonorum et malorum, Cicero allowed the Epicurean Torquatus to present Epicurus’ views on the highest good and evil (Fin. 1.29–72), while in the other book, he expressed his and the Stoics’ criticism of Epicurean philosophy (Fin. 2.1–119). Shortly afterward, Cicero again polemicised with Epicurus (Tusc. 3.32–51) and criticised his thought many times (Tusc. 1.55; 2.15; 5.88).59 In Book 1 of De natura deorum, Cicero let the Epicurean Velleius present his master’s views on the nature of the gods (Nat. D. 1.43–56), which were then criticised by the Academic Sceptic Cotta (Nat. D. 1.57–124). In

Mnemosyne 51 (1998): 20–29. Horace ironically describes himself as the hog from Epicurus’ herd, meaning a well-groomed body, obesity and corpulence; see Klauck, Die religiöse Umwelt, 2.121: “In selbstironischer Weise reflektiert der römische Dichter Horaz die Stereotypen der antiepikureischen Polemik, wenn er den Grundsatz aufstellt: Carpe diem, «genieße den Tag», und wenn er in einem Brief das folgende schöne Selbstporträt entwirft: «Willst du einmal herzhaft lachen, so komm zu mir zu Besuch: Mich findest du rund und behäbig, in wohlgepflegter Leiblichkeit, ein richtiges Schweinchen aus der Herde Epikurs (Epicuri de grege porcum)» (Ep I 4, 15f).” 57 See Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2272. 58 Arnd Rehn, “Vomunt ut edant, edunt ut vomant. Beobachtungen zur Epikurpolemik in der römischen Literatur,” in Reinhard Feldmeier and Ulrich Heckel, eds., Die Heiden. Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden (WUNT 70; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 381–99, on p. 390; cf. Holger Essler, “Cicero’s Use and Abuse of Epicurean Theology,” in Fish and Sanders, Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition, 129–51. For a detailed selection of Cicero’s statements concerning Epicurus and his philosophy, see Brad Inwood and Lloyd P. Gerson, eds., The Epicurus Reader. Selected Writings and Testimonia (Hackett Classics Series; Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1994), 47–64. 59 See Rehn, “Vomunt ut edant,” 390–91.

Epicureanism in the Light of Pagan Sources

Book 2, the Stoic Balbus, lecturing on Zeno’s idea of the gods, again refuted Epicurus’ theodicy (Nat. D. 2.45–46).60 Cicero’s negative opinion of Epicureanism can be found in his other writings. According to experts on the subject, Cicero depreciated and disregarded the philosophy of Epicurus and did not always understand it properly.61 Recalling several supporters of Epicureanism and opponents of the philosophy of The Garden shows the dynamic development of Epicureanism, which was widely known and discussed in Rome and on the Apennine Peninsula in the first century BCE. Many distinguished representatives of Epicureanism lived in the Empire’s capital and beyond it. Philodemus and Lucretius deserve special attention because their writings influenced the following period. This triggered the revival and expansion of Epicureanism to the eastern parts of the Empire in the early Christian period. 2.2

New Testament Era

For obvious reasons, the presence of Epicureanism in the first century of Christianity evoked exceptional interest, especially in centres where there were Christian communities and the New Testament writings were often produced. We will begin our review of the surviving evidence from Rome and the Apennine Peninsula to trace the development of Epicureanism in Greece and Asia Minor, and then in the eastern provinces of the Empire: Syria, Palestine and Egypt.62 2.2.1 Rome and the Apennine Peninsula

Compared with the previous period, the situation on the Apennine Peninsula was significantly different. In the first century of Christianity, there were no Epicurean writers, like Philodemus or Lucretius, and neither were there new Epicurean writings. After the period of crisis during the reign of Caesar Augustus, the philosophy of The Garden experienced stability but then stagnation. Nevertheless, the influence of Epicureanism on the Roman Empire’s society was still widespread.63 An outstanding expert in Epicurus’ philosophy was Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BCE–65 CE), a Roman thinker, moralist and tutor of Emperor Nero. He was a

60 Also Nat. D. 2.73–74. 61 Rehn, “Vomunt ut edant,” 392: “Für die Philosophen bleibt immer die Tugend das höchste Gut, Epikur dagegen nennt die Lust. Cicero versteht nicht, daß bei Epikur Lust und Sinnlichkeit nicht einfach gleichgesetzt werden.” 62 Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2273–85. 63 See the discussion by Michael Erler, “Epicureanism in the Roman Empire,” in James Warren, ed., Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 46–64.

33

34

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

Stoic by conviction, but he also knew Epicureanism, as is evidenced in his writings. Seneca understood Epicurean philosophy even better than many Epicureans.64 Being familiar with Epicurean views, he accepted some of them but rejected others. Analysing his letters addressed to Lucilius, it can be concluded that Seneca highly valued Epicurus. He often quoted his aphorisms and maxims, showing his profound knowledge of the philosopher’s unpreserved texts (Ep. 13.16–17).65 Seneca himself admitted that reading Epicurus was fruitful for him and that his texts helped him draw arguments for his personal views.66 In particular, his knowledge of Epicurus’ ethical views (Ep. 66.45–47) and the affirmation of many of the ethical statements expressed by the philosopher of The Garden (Ep. 97.13)67 drew his attention. The Roman thinker even praised hedonistic philosophy, believing that Epicurus’ views should be considered as the views of the general public, and not only of this school (Ep. 8.8).68 Therefore, it is no wonder that Seneca spoke favourably of Epicurus and highly valued his work (Ep. 66.47; 92.25–26). Seneca was not acquainted with the anti-Epicurean polemic of his time. Instead, he entered into a genuine discussion with Epicureanism and tried to objectively evaluate this philosophy, sometimes even defending it (Vita B. 12.4).69 Seneca’s role and the significance of his writings are unique in getting to know and evaluate the Epicureanism of the first Christian century. He not only testified to the presence and vitality of The Garden in the Empire’s capital during the years when Christians arrived, but also showed there

64 Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2280–82. 65 Examples: “This saying of Epicurus seems to me to be a noble one” (Ep. 28.9); “How near he came to uttering a manly sentiment!” (Constant. 15.4). See Seneca, Epistles. Vol. 1: Epistles 1-65, trans. Richard M. Gummere (LCL 75; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917), 202-203; also Seneca, Moral Essays. Vol. 1: De Providentia. De Constantia. De Ira. De Clementia, trans. John W. Basore (LBL 214; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928), 92–93. 66 Cf. for instance, Ep. 8.7; 12.11; 16.7; 17.11; 20.9; 21.9; 26.8–10; 30.14–15. In each of the first 29 letters, Seneca quoted Epicurus. 67 Seneca, exiled to the island of Corsica under Claudius in 41 CE, comforts his mother, pointing out that suffering can be an opportunity to overcome his limitations and an opportunity for selfimprovement, see Rehn, “Vomunt ut edant,” 382. 68 “And I shall continue to heap quotations from Epicurus upon you, so that all persons who swear by the words of another, and put a value upon the speaker and not upon the thing spoken, may understand that the best ideas are common property” (Ep. 12.11); cf. Rehn, “Vomunt ut edant,” 394. 69 Further Seneca writes: “And so I shall not say, as do most of our sect, that the school of Epicurus is an academy of vice, but this is what I say – it has a bad name, is of ill repute, and yet undeservedly. How can anyone know this who has not been admitted to the inner shrine?” (Vita B. 13.2); see Seneca. Moral Essays. Vol. 2: De Consolatione ad Marciam. De Vita Beata. De Otio. De Tranquillitate Animi. De Brevitate Vitae. De Consolatione ad Polybium. De Consolatione ad Helviam, trans. John W. Basore (LCL 254; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932), 130–131. Nevertheless, Seneca also expressed negative opinions about Epicurus (cf. Ben. IV 2.1–4; 19.1–4).

Epicureanism in the Light of Pagan Sources

were different degrees of knowledge about the Epicurean views among the Empire’s citizens.70 Thanks to Seneca, we have information about many Epicureans of his time. He wrote about the Epicurean Annakus Serenus (Constant. 15.4), praefectus vigilum during Nero’s reign, in his three works instructing about Stoic philosophy and drawing people to Stoicism. Another Epicurean, Bassus, was a friend of Seneca (Ep. 30.14). Lucilius, about whom we know little, was an Epicurean who corresponded with Seneca (Ep. 23.9). Seneca also mentioned an Epicurean philosopher named Diodorus, who committed suicide ca. 60 (Vita B. 19.1).71 Petronius, who lived in the time of Nero (d. in 66 CE) and was familiar with Epicurean views, based his realistic romance Satiricon libri on Lucretius’ poem and sympathized with his views, but at the same time, he modified some aspects of the Epicurean doctrine (Sat. 23.4–5). For example, Petronius argued that corporal love is the goal of life, something that Epicurus never said. It seems that Petronius was one of the numerous exponents of a vulgarized form of Epicureanism, usually associated with Horace’s maxim carpe diem. Petronius’ Epicurean attitude was confirmed by Tacitus’ records (Ann. 16.18).72 Among Roman citizens, one can mention senator Pompedius, who liked a comfortable and peaceful life because he was an Epicurean (Joseph. Ant. 19.32–33). Some historians identify the figure of Pompedius with Publius Pomponius Secundus, consul in 44 CE and legate in Germania Superior, a tragic figure and a highly-valued poet who maintained peace of mind despite many adversities since he was a supporter of Epicurean philosophy (Tacitus, Ann. 5.8).73 In Italy, the aforementioned villa suburbana in Herculaneum belonging to the noble Roman Piso family played a great role in expanding and maintaining the vitality of Epicureanism. The estate was covered with volcanic ash at the time of the eruption of Vesuvius in the year 79. Thanks to this, many objects and works of art, including busts of Greek philosophers such as Epicurus and Hermarchus have been preserved, including a library containing numerous charred papyrus scrolls, which scientists have been trying to unroll and read for dozens of years since their discovery. This is the only ancient library that has survived. Originally, it contained many Epicurean works, including some lost works of Epicurus himself, e. g., several books from his greatest work, De natura, as well as the works of his successors, mainly

70 Kimmich, Epikureische Aufklärungen, 52: “Die Wirkungsgeschichte des Epikureismus ist ganz wesentlich geprägt von den Darstellungen Senecas” (more on pp. 50–53). 71 Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2281. 72 Ibid., 2277–79. 73 Ibid., 2279–80.

35

36

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

Philodemus of Gadara.74 The works discovered there have significantly enriched our knowledge about Epicureanism, for example, on Epicurean theology. Moreover, even if the authors who claim that the Piso’s family estate was no longer the centre of Epicureanism in the second half of the first century CE are right, numerous texts of Epicurean philosophers, preserved in many copies and reviews, prove that Epicureanism was a philosophical trend in New Testament times which was not only available thanks to its writings, but also must have been studied in Italy.75 In this context, one should mention another archaeological discovery related to the eruption of Vesuvius and indirectly to Epicurus’ thoughts, but this time in its primitive, vulgar form. Two cups unearthed near Boscoreale in 1895, a town close to Pompeii, and buried during the eruption of Vesuvius, bore carvings of human skeletons with inscriptions around them: “Enjoy the present” and “Enjoy life while you can, for tomorrow is uncertain,” or the significant maxim “the goal of life is pleasure” (τὸ τέλος ἡδονή), attached next to an image of Epicurus. Here we are dealing with a vulgar form of the Epicurean philosophy of a pleasant life. The skeleton cups from the Augustan Age were part of a large treasure found near the remains of a man who was unexpectedly overcome by the eruption while trying to hide everything he had in a cistern.76 In the first century of the Christian era, two significant and distinct tendencies regarding the way Epicurus’ philosophy was present on the Apennine Peninsula, already noticeable in the previous period, emerged. On the one hand, there were attempts to adjust Epicureanism to the Roman community and its values system, but on the other hand, Epicurus’ philosophy was constantly attacked and contested. Furthermore, its vulgar form became a way of life for the citizens of the Empire.77

74 See Achilles Vogliano, ed., Epicuri et Epicureorum scripta in herculanensibus papyris servata (Berlin: Weidmann, 1928); Marcello Gigante, La bibliothèque de Philodème et l’épicurisme romain (Collection d’études anciennes 56; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1987); on pp. 123–25, the author quotes critical editions of the discovered works of Philodemus. See also Anna Angeli and Livia Marrone, “Papiri ed edizioni,” in Epicuro e l’Epicureismo nei Papiri Ercolanesi (Napoli: Università di Napoli, 1993), 175–86. 75 Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2283; cf. Longo Auricchio, “I papiri ercolanesi”, 28: “La biblioteca, costituita da Filodemo, a partire da un primo nucleo di testi portati dalla Grecia – i più antichi, tra i quali i libri di Epicuro – si sarebbe poi sviluppata anche dopo la morte del suo creatore, giacché alcuni rotoli sono stati copiati nei primi decenni del I d. C., sempre nella direzione di un interesse per il pensiero epicureo.” 76 Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2273. 77 Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2283–85 (information about Epicureanism in the writings of Latin authors in the first century CE).

Epicureanism in the Light of Pagan Sources

2.2.2 Greece and Asia Minor

Similar trends in the development of Epicureanism can be observed in the eastern territories of the Roman Empire, in Greece and Asia Minor. The Athenian School and other Epicurean schools in the eastern part of the Empire were stagnant. The Epicurean estate in Athens was sold, but thanks to Luke (Acts 17:18) we have the information that the Epicureans continued to teach in the city of philosophers. They might have been active in many cities of Macedonia, Boeotia and Achaia.78 An important witness of the uninterrupted presence and vitality of Epicurus’ philosophy on the Peloponnesian Peninsula during the formation of the New Testament is Plutarch of Chaeronea (45–c. 120), a sophist and philosopher, essayist and eclectic creator, whose areas of activity were Boeotia and Achaia. Plutarch studied in Athens and frequently visited Corinth, hence the value of his rich output for New Testament research is very significant. Plutarch lived in the territories where the first Christian communities founded by Paul the Apostle flourished.79 Moreover, he could read materials that are now irretrievably lost, including original Epicurean works. Currently, they are known indirectly, and their traces can be found in Plutarch’s writings.80 He could have also used polemical anti-Epicurean writings, among them the work of Timocrates, a disciple of Epicurus, who turned against his master and school.81 Plutarch’s writings show some esteem for Epicurus; some works contain both praise and polemical elements.82 However, Plutarch, like Cicero, was a fierce critic of Epicurus and his philosophy, expressing his criticism in ten polemical writings, of

78 The historic and theological importance of Luke’s message will be discussed in Chapter III. 79 Although Plutarch wrote at the turn of the new era, his philosophical writings contain the polemics and disputes typical of the second half of the first century CE; therefore, they are useful for New Testament studies; see Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2286; yet, first of all, Rainer HirschLuipold, ed., Plutarch and the New Testament in Their Religio-Philosophical Contexts (Brill’s Plutarch Studies 9; Leiden: Brill, 2022). 80 This was discussed by Francesca Albini, “Introduzione,” in Plutarco, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum. Introduzione, traduzione, commento di Francesca Albini (Genova: D. AR. FI. CL. ET. “F. Della Corte”, 1993), 14–15: “Plutarco aveva a disposizione anche prezioso materiale informativo per noi perduto. Degli scritti epicurei di cui possediamo soltanto testimonianze dalla tradizione indiretta, cita esplicitamente nel Non posse un nutrito gruppo di opere: Colote, Secondo le dottrine degli altri filosofi non e nemmeno possibile vivere (1086 C); Epicuro: Opera sul fine (1091A), Casi difficili (1095C), Sulla regalita (1095D), Lettera a Sositeo e Pirsone (1101B), Sugli dei e sulla santità (1102C); Metrodoro: Contro i Sofisti (1091A), Sui poemi (1094E), Repliche al fratello (1098B). Inoltre e chiaro da altre citazioni prive di ‘titolo’ che Plutarco era a conoscenza di molte altre opere. Egli sottolinea anche di aver da poco riletto le lettere di Epicuro (1101B).” 81 Robert Flacelière, “Plutarque et l’epicurisme,” in Epicurea in memoriam Hectoris Bignone: Miscellanea Philologica (Genowa: Istituto di Filologia Classica, 1959), 199; cf. Sedley, “Epicurus and his professional Rivals,” 127–32. 82 Flacelière, Plutarque et l’epicurisme, 200–04.

37

38

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

which only three have survived,83 the most important being Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum (Moralia 1086C–1107C).84 Other works by Plutarch worth mentioning are Adversus Colotem (Moralia 1107D–1127E) and the anti-Epicurean An recte dictum sit latenter esse vivendum (Moralia 1128A–1130D). There is also the philosophical work De sera numinis vindicata (Moralia 548A–568A), in which Plutarch deals with providence, eternal reward and punishment. Plutarch repeatedly emphasized his objectivity towards Epicureanism. In fact, his writings contain an extensive set of classic, stereotypical, previously made allegations about Epicurus’ morality, though some important objections are missing. These appear in Diogenes Laertios (Diog. Laert. 10.4). Plutarch argued against Epicurean ethics, stating that one cannot live happily applying Epicurean teachings, and that people are deprived of true joy.85 According to scholars, Plutarch did not properly understand Epicurus’ views and was often biased in his polemics. Plutarch’s polemical and critical attitude towards Epicureanism as well as his partial approval of this philosophy were related to his philosophy and ideas on religion and piety. The Platonist Plutarch criticised Epicurus, Zeno as well as the Stoic school.86 Also, one cannot doubt the presence and vitality of the centres of Epicurean philosophy in Asia Minor at the time when the first Christian communities were established, although this is not entirely obvious. In the centuries leading up to the new era, the Epicureans were heavily represented in many cities in Asia Minor, including Lampsacus on the shores of the Hellespont, Colophon and other cities near Ephesus, Mytilene and also in the Cilician Tarsus (Diog. Laert. 10.26). In the following centuries, the Epicureans left distinct traces of their presence in Asia Minor. Therefore, their uninterrupted presence in these territories should be

83 Ibid., 204–10. 84 The book is divided into two parts: the first is composed of three sections corresponding to the three elements of the human soul, while the second part contains two sections on religious topics. See Albini, “Introduzione,” 14: “la divisione dell’opera in due parti sottolinea, mi pare, il significato delle due vite dell’anima: quella terrena e quella ultraterrena: probabilmente per questo nella prima parte i personaggi del dialogo camminano, sono in movimento, e nella seconda si fermano, sono in stasi.” 85 Plutarch’s attitude towards Epicurus is shown by Albini, “Introduzione,” 14–30; Rehn, “Vomunt ut edant,” 383–84; Eleni Kechagia-Ovseiko, “Plutarch and Epicureanism,” in Mark Beck, ed., A Companion to Plutarch (Oxford: Blackwell, 2014), 104–20. 86 Cf. Albini, “Introduzione,” 16; Attridge, The Philosophical Critique, 73–77; Flacelière, Plutarque et l’epicurisme, 214, writes: “Or, ces incrédules, à l’époque de Plutarque, c’étaient essentiellement les Epicuriens. C’est pourquoi l’attitude de Plutarque à l’égard de l’épicurisme fournit la meilleure «pierre de touche» de ses convictions profondes. Dans sa jeunesse, à l’époque où il écrivait le De superstitione, il acceptait plusieurs des thèses du Jardin, tout en rejetant formellement son athéisme pratique.”

Epicureanism in the Light of Pagan Sources

assumed, although witnesses from the first century CE are few, mostly indirect, fragmentary and scattered throughout various works.87 Dio Chrysostom (40–112 CE) described the Epicureans as “wiser than all wisdom” (Or. 12.36), who put pleasure above all else and, at the same time, deprived people of their gods (Or. 12.37). Unfortunately, these are only ironical allusions to the philosophy of The Garden. The value of Dion’s speeches of consists in their being significant sources of knowledge on Hellenist thought in New Testament times.88 A direct testimony to the presence and popularity of Epicureanism in Asia Minor in the first century CE was given by Philostratus of Athens in his Life of Apollonius of Tyana, a work created at the turn of the first and second centuries, where he depicted the life of Apollonius of Tyana, a sophist, miracle worker and prophet.89 At the age of fourteen, Apollonius listened to the philosophers first in Tarsus in Cilicia, i. e., the birthplace of the Apostle to the Nations, and then in the nearby Cilician city of Aegeae (Aegae, Aigai) on the Mediterranean coast. Apollonius’ teachers included the Epicureans.90 2.2.3 Syria, Palestine and Egypt

A separate issue is the occurrence of Epicureanism in Syria, Palestine and Egypt. Epicureanism was certainly known in Syria although its numerous witnesses are scattered and come from a time that considerably preceded the New Testament and

87 On the presence of the Epicureans in Asia Minor, and primarily in the churches of Galatia, see DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 59: “The assumption that great numbers of the Galatians had been converted to Epicureanism is quite consistent with our knowledge of the creed” (see more on pp. 59–63); cf. Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2275–77, where the authors accepted DeWitt’s view on the presence of Epicureanism in the eastern territories of the Empire, present in Paul’s letters: “we have seen good reason to believe that Epicureanism was from time of August discouraged at Rome; the evidence of the epistles is that it was prominent in the Near East” (p. 2277). 88 David A. Russel, ed., Dio Chrysostom: Orations VII, XII and XXXVI (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Imperial Library; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1992), 62–88; cf. Greg R. Stanton, “Sophists and Philosophers: Problems of Classification,” AJP 94 (1973): 351–54. 89 Vroni Mumprecht, ed., Philostratos: Das Leben des Apollonios von Tyana, griechisch-deutsch (Sammlung Tusculum; München: Artemis, 1983). 90 We read about Apollonius: “and he also heard the doctrines of Epicurus (διήκουε δὲ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικούρου λόγων), considering not even these unworthy of his attention” (Vit. Apol. 1.7.2). In this paragraph, the name of Epicurus reappears in relation to the way of life of a Pythagorean teacher who indulged in the pleasures of the stomach and sensual pleasures, like the founder of The Garden; cf. Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana. Vol. 1: Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Books 1–4, ed. and trans. Christopher P. Jones (LCL 16. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 44–45; see also Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2281.

39

40

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

later periods. However, there is no such evidence of Epicureanism in the Palestine from the first century of the Christian era.91 The Syrian city of Apamea on the Orontes, where there were several major philosophical schools, is an example of the presence of the Greek language, culture and Hellenistic philosophy. These included a Stoic school of the Middle Stoa whose outstanding representative was Posidonius (135–51 BCE).92 Also, a thriving Neopythagorean school, represented by Numenius of Apamea, who made a synthesis of Neopythagoreanism and Middle-Platonism, is worth mentioning.93 It can, therefore, be assumed that there was an Epicurean school in the city, considering the inscription from the 2nd century CE that mentions an Epicurean scholarch.94 Another centre of Epicureanism was probably Antioch on the Orontes, which became an outpost of Epicureanism under the Seleucids. From 175 to 145 BCE, the Epicurean Philonides of Laodicea, the king’s philosopher, lived in the royal court in Antioch. For the needs of the court, he completed an Epicurean library, and his specially written philosophical treatises helped King Antiochus IV Epiphanes follow Epicureanism. Philonides continued to live in Antioch during the reign of Demetrius I Soter.95 The situation of the Epicurean school in Antioch might have changed in the Roman period, but here we have to resort to guesswork and speculation.96 91 For the topic of the Hellenisation of Palestine and its surroundings, see Martin Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus (WUNT 10; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2 1973), esp. pp. 131–61; however, see Louis H. Feldman, “Hengel’s Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect,” JBL 96 (1977): 371–82, esp. p. 374; Emil Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (vol. 1–3; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2 1995) 2.29–80; cf. also Louis H. Feldman, “Hellenism and the Jews,” EncJud 8.786–790. 92 Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.449–62. 93 Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 4.410–26. 94 See Martin F. Smith, “An Epicurean Priest from Apamea in Syria,” ZPE 112 (1996): 123: “What the inscription proves is what one would in any case have expected, not only because the philosophy had been well established in that country for a long time, but also because we know that it continued to have a considerable following in other parts of the Greco-Roman world.” 95 See Wilhelm Crönert, “Der Epikureer Philonides,” in Sitzungsberichte der königlich preusischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin: Akademie Verlag [etc.] 1900), 942–59, 999–1001; idem, “Die Epikureer in Syrien,” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 10 (1907): 145–52. cf. Dov Gera, “Philonides the Epicurean at Court: Early Connections,” ZPE 125 (1999): 77–83; Italo Gallo, “Vita di Filonide epicureo (PHerc. 1044),” in Italo Gallo, Studi di papirologia ercolanese (Napoli: M.D’Auri, 2002), 59–205; cf. Smith, “An Epicurean Priest,” 123–24; Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2273–75. Also, DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 334: “a base of operations for the forcible introduction of Epicureanism into Judea”; see further on pp. 333–36 and 339; also DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 53–54. 96 See Martin Hengel and Anna M. Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien. Die unbekannten Jahre des Apostels (WUNT 108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 404–61. Studying the unknown years of the Apostle Paul, the authors discuss the religious situation in Antioch and the life of the Christian community, but do not mention Epicureanism and Epicureans. In their opinion,

Epicureanism in the Light of Pagan Sources

Hellenistic culture and philosophy developed rapidly in the former Phoenician cities, and Epicureanism found numerous supporters there.97 Under Syrian rule, the city of Tyre gave The Garden its fifth scholarch, Basilides, who headed the Athens school from 201/200 to 175 BCE, while Sidon was the home of Zeno, the seventh scholarch after Epicurus. Gadara in Transjordan was also an important city on the outskirts of Palestine, a city of the Decapolis mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 5:1). Gadara was the birthplace of many prominent Hellenistic men, including the rhetorician Theodorus, the satirist Menippus, the poet and collector of epigrams Meleager who was familiar with Epicureanism, and above all the Epicurean Philodemus of Gadara.98 Another important centre of Hellenistic culture and philosophy was the former Philistine city of Ashkelon, the birthplace of many writers and philosophers.99 On the south side, Palestine bordered another great centre of Hellenistic culture and thought – Egypt with its capital Alexandria. In Egypt, Epicurus’ philosophy was certainly known (Diog. Laert. 10:25), including in New Testament times, as evidenced by the writings of Philo of Alexandria, who extensively argued with the philosophy of The Garden.100 The huge Jewish community in Alexandria and their numerous contacts with Jerusalem helped the city influence Jerusalem and Judea in many ways, including by sharing philosophical ideas.101 Thus, the presence of Greek philosophy, including that of Epicurus, in the Hellenistic cities around and in Palestine has been ascertained. These territories were

97

98

99

100 101

Antioch is “eine typisch hellenistisch-römische Großstadt ... der syrische Charakter steht eher im Hintergrund” (p. 405). The poet Meleager of Gadara was educated in Tyre, where he was later very active. In turn, Sidon was the birthplace of the Stoic Boethus, and later the Peripatetic Boethus (the same name as the Stoic). See Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 158; see also p. 164. See John T. Fitzgerald, “Gadara: Philodemus’ Native City,” in Fitzgerald, Philodemus and the New Testament World, 343–97; cf. Martin Hengel, Juden, Christen und Barbaren. Aspekte der Hellenisierung des Judentums in vorchristlicher Zeit (SBS 76; Stuttgart: KBW, 1976), 96, 163–64. An example is the academic Antiochus of Ashkelon, who later became a follower of Stoicism. See Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 158–59; Catherine Hezser, “Interfaces Between Rabbinic Literature and Graeco-Roman Philosophy,” in Peter Schäfer and Catherine Hezser, eds., The Talmud Yerushalmi und Graeco-Roman Culture II (TStAJ 79; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 178 n. 114. For the presence of Epicureanism in Egypt, see DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 339–40. See Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 295–307: “Es ist eigenartig, wie so bei Aristobul jüdischpalästinische und pythagorisch-platonische und stoische Vorstellungen ineinanderfließen” (p. 306); also Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, 3.567–93, where the author presents the impact of Greek philosophy on Jewish authors (Aristobulus, Philo of Alexandria) and Jewish theology (Wis, 4 Macc).

41

42

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

completely Hellenised.102 As a result, there were theoretical possibilities for Epicurean infiltration into Judea and Jerusalem as well as nascent Christianity. The range and degree of the influence of these urban centres on Palestinian Jews remain an open question.103 Summing up the information on the presence of Epicurus’ thoughts in the vast territories of the Roman Empire, there is no exaggeration in the statement that, at the dawn of Christianity and the formation of NT writings, the significance and powerful influence of this philosophy were still enormous. This was certainly the case in Rome and on the Apennine Peninsula, Greece and Asia Minor, Egypt, and – less attested to – in the eastern borderlands of the Empire (see below). During the period in question, there were no outstanding Epicurean authors, but one can observe the emergence of a simplified form of Epicureanism, which sometimes took on aberrant forms and was inconsistent with the spirit of The Garden. Opponents and fierce adversaries of Epicurus (such as Plutarch of Chaeronea) gained in importance, although there were also well-balanced voices undertaking honest discussions with his philosophical views (cf. Seneca). 2.3

Testimonies of Later Authors

The history of Epicureanism in the second and third centuries of the Christian era is of less importance to New Testament research. The second century saw Epicureanism flourish in the Roman Empire, as attested to by abundant literary and archaeological evidence. The Epicurean school was one of the four official Athenian schools of philosophy. Epicurus’ philosophy had its supporters and adherents not only in Athens, but also in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor and Rome. Epicureanism enjoyed the support of the imperial house and Roman aristocratic families.

102 Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 160: “Es waren in Palästina und Phönizien auf diese Weise sämtliche Philosophenschulen vertreten, das Übergewicht der Stoa ist jedoch unverkennbar”; see also Feldman, “Hengel’s Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect,” 375. 103 Hengel’s opinion (cited above) is moderately formulated, Hengel, Juden, Christen und Barbaren, 164: “Wie weit das lebendige geistige Milieu der phönizischen Städte, aber auch einzelner griechischer Siedlungen, wie Gadara, auf das jüdische Gebiet hinüberwirkte, muß offen bleiben.” In turn, Rajak’s opinion is sharper, Tessa Rajak, “The Location of Cultures in Second Temple Palestine: the Evidence of Josephus,” in Richard Bauckham, ed., The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting (BAFCS 4; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns, 1995), 4: “Jewish and Greek cultures were deeply interwined from early hellenistic period”; see also Tesa Rajak, “Judaism and Hellenism revisited,” in Tesa Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome. Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1–10, esp. 4–5; cf. Hezser, “Interfaces Between,” 178; Erich S. Gruen, “Jews and Greeks as Philosophers: A Challenge to Otherness, in Erich S. Gruen, ed., The Construct of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism. Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 29; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 133–52.

Epicureanism in the Light of Pagan Sources

In the first decades of the second century, the aforementioned Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote polemical works and criticised Epicureanism, thus giving us an indirect testimony to its vitality. There were also favourable and kind voices supporting The Garden, one example being the work of Lucian of Samosata. A new element emerged from the second century onwards. Epicureanism became the subject of disputes and polemics in the writings of Christian authors, but this new, very interesting thread exceeds the scope and goal of our research.104 An interesting witness to the vitality of Epicureanism in the first half of the second century is the inscription carved in stone and found in Oenoanda, located in the mountains of northern Lycia (south-western Asia Minor), whose author was the Epicurean Diogenes of Oenoanda.105 Almost nothing is known about the origin of the inscription or Diogenes; we do know that he was a true follower of the founder of The Garden. The long inscription from Oenoanda, which reflects the Epicurean philosophical system and its terminology with remarkable precision, citing Epicurus’ statements expresis verbis, several dozen maxims that are known from the Principal Doctrines and an unknown letter to Epicurus’ mother, is the only philosophical text of this length carved in stone. The inscription confirms the faithfulness and loyalty of students of Epicurean schools to the founder of The Garden and its philosophical system, and supplements our knowledge of the system in cases where there are gaps due to the loss of Epicurus’ writings.106 Diogenes’ inscription attests to the existence of a whole network of Epicurean communities extending from Oenoanda, through the Island of Rhodes and Athens, and from Chalcis in Euboea to Thebes in Boeotia. Thanks to its discovery, we can learn many

104 Those who are interested in this issue can consult detailed studies, e. g., Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 94–116, or general ones: Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). 105 Some selected studies concerning the inscription: Cecil W. Chilton, Diogenis Oenoandensis Fragmenta (Leipzig: Teubner, 1967); Martin F. Smith, “More New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda,” in Bollack and Laks, Études sur l’Epicureisme antique, 279–318; Diskin Clay, “The Philosophical Inscription of Diogenes of Oenoanda: New Discoveries,” ANRW 36.4:2446–3232, esp. 2526–36; Martin F. Smith, The Epicurean inscription: Diogenes of Oinoanda (La Scuola di Epicuro. Supplement 1; Napoli: Bibliopolis, 1993); Jean-Pierre Schneider, “La philosophie épicurienne sur pierre,” Revue de théologie et de philosophie 130 (1998): 75–82; Martin F. Smith, Supplement to Diogenes of Oinoanda: The Epicurean Inscription (La Scuola di Epicuro. Supplement 3; Napoli: Bibliopolis, 2003); Erler, “Epicureanism in the Roman Empire,” 54–59; Jürgen Hammerstaedt, Pierre-Marie Morel and Refik Güremen, eds., Diogenes of Oinoanda. Epicurism and Philosophical Debates / Diogène d’OEnoanda. Épicurisme et controverses (Ancient and Medieval Philosophy 1.55; Louvain: Leuven University Press, 2017); cf. Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 4.63–68; Attridge, The Philosophical Critique, 54–55; Damiani, La Kompendienliteratur, 163–75. 106 Smith, “More New Fragments,” 289: “the discovery of NF 39-40 increases the hope that our knowledge of the Epicurean gods and religion will be significantly increased when more of the inscription is found” (see more on pp. 282–89); cf. Clay, “The Philosophical Inscription,” 2532.

43

44

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

details about the life of the Epicureans, the vitality of their communities at the end of the first and the beginning of the second century of Christianity, as well as its propaganda and missionary spirit.107 Another extremely interesting archaeological discovery, which sheds a lot of light on the extent of Epicurean philosophy in the Roman Empire, was made in the aforementioned Syrian city of Apamea on the Orontes. It was a small inscription in Greek carved on a column that was probably topped with a statue. Its text reads as follows: “… was dedicated, by command] of the mightiest holy god Bel, by Aurelius Belius Philippus, his priest and head of the Epicureans in Apamea (ἱερεὺς καὶ διάδοχος ἐν Ἀπαμείᾳ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων).”108 Since the initial words of the inscription are missing, trying to date it is very difficult. The end of the 2nd century or even the beginning of the 3rd century CE seems very probable, but an earlier date, during the reign of Emperor Hadrian, is also possible. The monument could have been dedicated to Plotina, the wife of Emperor Trajan.109 Describing the priest of the god Bel as the διάδοχος of the Epicureans indicates the head of an organised group, and even the local scholarch, who would fulfil the duties related to this function, though this is not certain. The tasks of such an administrator and teacher included ensuring that the Epicurean doctrine was faithfully implemented and disseminated in and around the city to attract new disciples to the philosophy of The Garden. He was obliged to follow the Epicurean calendar and maintain ties with other Epicurean groups in Asia Minor and Greece by writing letters or maintaining personal contacts. This inscription proves that, in the first centuries of the Roman Empire, Epicureanism developed in Syria, and this should not come as a surprise.110 The activities of a certain Diogenianus, whom we learn about from the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea,111 most probably date to the second century CE. It is not known whether or not he was really an Epicurean. In any case, Diogenianus remains in the trend of anti-Stoic philosophy and indeterminism in physics, arguing with fate and fortune-telling, and thus pursuing Epicurean philosophy.112 Lucian of Samosata, a Sophist and a humourist living in Athens in the 2nd century (120–180 CE), was a supporter of Epicurus, or perhaps even an Epicurean.113 Lucian used Epicurus’ philosophy to unmask popular superstitions as well as deceivers and charlatans.

107 108 109 110 111 112

See Chilton, Diogenis Oenoandensis, 30 (frag. 15.II. 3–11). Smith, “An Epicurean Priest,” 120–21. Ibid., 121–24. Ibid., 124–26. Apamea was a city where Stoicism, Neopithagoreism and Neoplatonism developed. 4.2,14–3,13 (PG 21.240–44); 6.7,44–8,38 (PG 21.445–56). Margherita Insardi-Parente, “Diogeniano, gli epicurei e la τύχη,” ANRW 36.4:2424–26 n. 4; cf. Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 4.69. 113 See a large discussion: Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2285–97.

Epicureanism in the Light of Pagan Sources

At the end of the biographical work Alexander the False Prophet, Lucian defined Epicurus as a holy and divine man, “who alone truly discerned right ideals and handed them down, who proved himself the liberator of all who sought his converse” (Alex. 61). His laudatory terms resulted from the fact that Lucian considered the Epicureans (including Christians) to be those who did not allow themselves to be deceived by charlatans and false prophets.114 It is no exaggeration to regard the second century of Christianity as the time of great development for Epicureanism. The height of Epicurean teaching occurred in the second half of the second century and the first half of the third century (150–250 CE). Epicureanism was characterized by expansionism and intense missionary activities. At the same time, its gradual decline began, mainly influenced by Christian authors’ polemics.115 Instead of summing up, let us give the floor to ancient authors whose testimonies are very meaningful. Cicero wrote: “Again, as to the question often asked, why so many men are Epicureans…” (Fin. 1.25),116 while some one hundred years later, Seneca stated: “There is Epicurus, for example; mark how greatly he is admired, not only by the more cultured, but also by this ignorant rabble” (Ep. 79.15).117 Much later, Diogenes Laertius described Epicurus: “his friends, so many in number that they could hardly be counted by whole cities” (Diog. Laert. 10.9).118 Therefore, in the first century of the Christian era, Epicureanism was known and widespread throughout large territories of the Roman Empire.119

114 Lucian, Anacharsis or Athletics. Menippus or The Descent into Hades. On Funerals. A Professor of Public Speaking. Alexander the False Prophet. Essays in Portraiture. Essays in Portraiture Defended. The Goddesse of Surrye, trans. Austin Morris Harmon (LCL 162; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925), 252–53. See further praise of Epicurus and comparing the Epicurean with Christians: Alex. 17, 25, 38, 47. 115 Insardi-Parente, “Diogeniano,” 2444–45; cf. Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2302–11; Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 4.63–70; esp. Richard P. Jungkuntz, “Fathers, Heretics and Epicureans,” JEH 17 (1966): 3–10. 116 Cicero, On Ends, trans. Harris Rackham (LCL 40; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914), 28–29. 117 Seneca, Epistles. Vol. 2: Epistles 66-92, trans. Richard M. Gummere (LCL 76; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920), 208–09. 118 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 2: Books 6-10, trans. Robert Drew Hicks (LCL 185; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925), 536–37. 119 Cf. DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 328–31; Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2327: “The first century A.D. saw something of a revival at Rome, and a wide spread in the Greek-speaking world.”

45

46

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

3.

Epicureanism in Jewish Writings

The last introductory issue that requires a closer look concerns the attitude of Jewish circles towards Epicurus and his philosophy. Examining Christianity’s encounter with Epicureanism, whatever form it took, must take into account the testimonies of Jewish circles from New Testament times and their reception of Epicurus’ philosophy. The testimonies of these circles are much more complex than pagan testimonies.120 3.1

Palestinian Judaism

It should first be noted that no literary and archaeological evidence directly confirms the presence of Epicurus’ philosophy in Judea and Jerusalem during the NT days. Therefore, the question can only be resolved indirectly by examining the degree and extent of the Hellenisation of Palestinian Jews at the time of Jesus. After the victorious conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek culture and spirit spread throughout the ancient Near East. The Greek language appeared in the cities of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and Egypt. Hellenistic culture and art, including its philosophy, flourished. The same was true in the lands bordering Palestine, i. e., in the cities of the Decapolis and on the vast Mediterranean coast. For three centuries, Palestine underwent Hellenisation, a long and many-faceted process of being influenced by Greek culture, spirit and lifestyle.121 In the period prior to the New Testament, one may presume the presence of Greek philosophy in Jerusalem and Judea, and even its knowledge among the educated spheres of the Jewish community. This is evidenced by some Old Testament books, including those which must have originated in Jerusalem (or Palestine), such as the Book of Qoheleth and the Book of Sirach. They include elements of Greek philosophical thought as well as references to Epicurean views – with similar ideas

120 See the extensive, though one-sided discussion on this topic: Simon, “Epikureismus und Epikureertum,” 2027–88. 121 M. Hengel focused on the Hellenisation of Palestine, and his works have led to a revision of traditional views. Apart from the aforementioned publication (cf. n. 91), see Martin Hengel, The “Hellenization” of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989); Martin Hengel, Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften (WUNT 90; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996); Martin Hengel, The ‘Hellenization’ of Judea in the First Century after Christ (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003). Hengel’s works provoked lively discussions and often strong criticism. See Feldman, “Hengel’s Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect,” 371–82; Rajak, “The Location of Cultures,” 7–9 n. 9–11.

Epicureanism in Jewish Writings

(cf. Qoheleth)122 or criticism and rejection of Epicurus (cf. Sirach).123 Completely new ideas concerning the Greek translation of the Book of Genesis have recently been formed.124 The dramatic period of Hellenisation fell in the time of King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, when orthodox Jews took up arms against the changes that were taking place. The most interesting aspect of the conflict related to a group of Hellenised Jews (1 Macc 1:11–15) who sought support from Antiochus IV Epiphanes.125 At the time, the Antiochian court of the king and Antiochus himself were influenced by the philosophy of The Garden as represented by the Epicurean Philonides. However, because of the strenuous resistance of the Jews, who were faithful to the Law of Moses, the opportunists’ efforts were not crowned with success. It seems that the process of Hellenisation did not stop and there was a Jewish philhellenic party in Jerusalem which continued to spread the Greek culture and way of life.126 Nevertheless, the victory of the chassidim triggered the formation of a Jewish community centred on the Law and religiosity characterized by legalism, including the marginalisation of other influences. As a result, the Jews were isolated in the Hellenistic-Roman oikoumene, and a Jewish exclusivism, resulting in ancient antiSemitism, emerged.127 122 The Book of Qoheleth was presumed to be influenced by Epicureanism (e. g., Jerome), and some scholars regard Qoheleth as a disciple of Epicurus. See Charles F. Whitley, Koheleth. His Language and Thought (ZAWBeih 148; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979), 158–161, 165–176; cf. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 211 n. 51, more on pp. 210–40; similarly DeWitt (Epicurus and His Philosophy, 335); but cf. Simon, “Epikureismus und Epikureertum,” 2057–61 and his further remarks on pp. 2081–82. 123 Sir 16:17–23 contains strong traces of the author’s polemic with the free-thinking, Hellenistic spirit of the time. The author of the book had to face, inter alia, the negation of providence and views that had strong Epicurean overtones. See Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 256–57 n. 226. 124 Michaël N. van der Meer, “The Greek Translators of the Pentateuch and the Epicureans,” in Klaas Spronk and Hans Barstad, eds., Torah and Tradition (Old Testament Studies 70; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 176–200, cf. “Yet, I think it is worthwhile to study the reception history of the Hebrew Bible not only in terms of direct appropriation of contemporary concepts, but also in terms of avoiding ideas that were once held to be irreconcilable with the main ideas of Jewish religious tradition” (p. 200). 125 They regarded the Jews’ separateness from the Gentiles as a mistake; cf. Feldman, “Hellenism,” 295. For the topic of the conflict, see Johann Maier, Zwischen den Testamenten. Geschichte und Religion in der Zeit des zweiten Tempels (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1990), 148–53. 126 1 Macc 7:12–16; 14:41–43; cf. regular usage of the formula υἱοὶ παράνομοι (renegades) by the author of 1 Macc (1:11, 34; 10:61; 11:21; cf. 2 Macc 4:11, 14; 6:21; 8:4; 13:7); other characteristic terms of the renegades were ἄνδρες ἄνομοι or simply ἄνομοι (1 Macc 2:44; 3:5–6; 7:5; 9:23, 58, 69; 11:25; 14:14). See Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 193. 127 M. Hengel (Judentum und Hellenismus, 555–65) presents the far-reaching effects of the Jews’ struggle for the Law and their resistance to Hellenisation. His assessment seems one-sided, since it takes little account of the further course of events in Palestine, the Hasmonean Kingdom and later under Roman rule, hence cf. Feldman (“Hellenism,” 295), who thinks that the victory of the Maccabees had political significance but did not stop the march of the Greek spirit and culture.

47

48

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

Hellenistic culture and spirit made their presence felt in Jerusalem during the time of King Herod the Great (37–4 BCE). The king himself was a Hellenised Idumean, led a cosmopolitan life and maintained contacts with Hellenistic-Roman metropolises. He built Greek poleis, and in the already existing cities funded gymnaseia, theatre, hippodromeia and organised games; he also admitted that “he was on more friendly terms with Greeks than with Jews” (Joseph. Ant. 19.329).128 Thanks to the court historian Nicholas of Damascus (64 BCE–14 CE), the king familiarised himself with Greek philosophy, though probably only superficially.129 Despite the conservative Jewish community’s resistance to King Herod, and later also to Roman governors, many groups in Jerusalem were open to Hellenistic culture, spirit and lifestyle. This attitude seems to have been adopted by the Sadducees, although it is disputable.130 A person who displayed an attitude of collaboration and cooperation with Rome was Flavius Josephus, who certainly knew Epicurean philosophy. According to some scholars, Hellenisation affected not only aristocratic and wealthy people, but also the common men.131 The presence of thousands of pilgrims from many parts of the Roman Empire in Jerusalem, mostly Hellenised Jews, must have favoured Hellenistic-Roman infiltration (cf. Acts 2:5; 6:9).132 To sum up these points, the Hellenisation of Palestine was an extremely complex and extended process. In its initial stage, political and socio-economic issues were important. Slightly later, other aspects of public life, such as culture and art, construction, and to a certain extent education and upbringing, including philosophy, began to be considered; however, religious life was only an exceptional question. Yet, it was on religious grounds that armed conflicts took place twice, first the Maccabean uprising against the policy of the Seleucids and Hellenisation (167–64 BCE), and then the Jewish War against Rome (66–73 CE). Ultimately, it was not the Hellenised form of Judaism, but Judaism in its typical, pharisaic and rabbinical form that survived the great catastrophe of the year 70 CE.133

128 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Vol. 8: Books 18–19, trans. Louis H. Feldman (LCL 433; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), 368–69. 129 Nicholas of Damascus was a follower of Aristotle. See Hengel and Schwemer, Paulus, 264–65; Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, 1.28–32. 130 See Chapter II showing the similarity between the Sadducees’ thoughts and Epicurean doctrine. 131 Feldman, Hellenism, 297–98; Simon, “Epikureismus und Epikureertum,” 2031–32. 132 Hengel and Schwemer, Paulus, 267; on the Jewish diaspora, see Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, 3.1–176. 133 Hengel, Juden, Christen und Barbaren, 94–98. Cf. Rajak, “Judaism and hellenism,” 4–5: “And yet fundamental disagreements continue about the depth of Hellenization in Jewish Palestine during the Second Temple period. Paradoxical though it may seem, I would suggest that those who have taken Hengel on, choosing to highlight Jewish exceptionalism, are no less justified than he.... And so, if the debate about the Hellenization of the Jews has seemed inconclusive, this, I would further suggest, is because both sides are right in their own terms. The quest for resolution may then be

Epicureanism in Jewish Writings

3.2

Judeo-Hellenistic Literature

The picture is different when considering Hellenistic Judaism, which left a sufficient number of literary documents confirming the Judeo-Hellenistic authors’ knowledge of Epicurus’ philosophy. Looking at the extensive literature written in the Jewish diaspora, we must first of all mention authors of the first century of Christianity, i. e., Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. Yet, the encounter between the Jewish religion and Hellenistic culture and philosophy took place much earlier, as is evidenced by the clear traces in the writings of the Jewish diaspora in Egypt and Syria, for example, the Book of Wisdom, the philosophical-theological works of the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus134 or the apocryphal 4 Maccabees. One can only guess that the authors of these writings possessed knowledge of Epicurus’ philosophy.135 Philo and Josephus must have known it, since they attacked the views of Epicurus because of his claims about nature, the way of the gods and rejection of God’s providence. The role of Philo of Alexandria in Jewish and early Christian theology is unique.136 Although little is known about his life, we can point to approximately 10 CE as the date of his birth and the 50s as the date of his death. Philo knew Greek philosophical tradition and drew heavily from it. His idea to combine Jewish theology and Greek philosophy was epochal. According to experts on the subject, the history of Christian philosophy and theology began with Philo. Therefore, when looking for traces of Epicureanism in Hellenistic Judaism, one can hardly leave out the writings of this Jewish philosopher and theologian.137

134 135

136

137

superfluous, since the agendas are simply disparate.” And she sums up: “Martin Hengel has enabled us to understand the extent and depth of that assimilation in the Jewish heartland. His critics have enabled us to realize that this is not the whole story” (p. 8). According to J. Maier, since there is no uniform (one) definition of relationships between Judaism and Hellenism, a separate judgment must be made each time, depending on the time and place of their contacts. See Maier, Zwischen den Testamenten, 35–38. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 306: “Es ist eigenartig, wie so bei Aristobul jüdisch-palästinische und pythagorisch-platonische und stoische Vorstellungen ineinanderfließen.” See Simon’s discussion of Epicurean issues, “Epikureismus und Epikureertum”: Book of Wisdom (pp. 2062–68), Letter of Aristeas (pp. 2068–69), 4 Maccabees (pp. 2069–70). Scholars have seen Epicurean elements first of all in Wis 2:1–9; cf. Armin Schmitt, Das Buch der Weisheit. Ein Kommentar (Würzburg: Echter, 1986), 44–47. Mireille Hadas-Lebel, Philo of Alexandria. A Thinker in the Jewish Diaspora (Studies in Philo of Alexandria 7; Leiden: Brill, 2012). For basic information on Philo of Alexandria, see Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 4.247–306; Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, 3.809–89. The question of Philo’s knowledge of Epicurean doctrine was a research subject, although perhaps not as much as his knowledge of other philosophical schools. See Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo. Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (vol. 1–2; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 4 1968), 1.108–09; 2.511–12; Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicure-

49

50

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

Philo of Alexandria participated in the cultural and spiritual life of his time, referring to Greek thought and national heritage. He knew Epicureanism and anti-Epicurean traditional rhetoric in negative terms. His works contain about thirty references to the views of The Garden, although he mentioned Epicurus only twice. His most fierce criticism of Epicurean theses can be found in De providentia, in which he used Stoic arguments to prove the existence of providence and refuted opposite views that were Epicurean (cf. Prov. 1.50).138 A similarly critical evaluation of Epicureanism can be found in De opificio mundi, containing a critique of the Epicurean thesis about the existence of many worlds in the universe (Opif. 170–172).139 In turn, in De posteritate Caini, Philo denied the Epicurean, anthropomorphizing concept of the supreme being, characterising it as a monstrous impiety (Post. 1–11; cf. Conf. 114–115).140 Generalising the position of the Jewish theologian, Philo opposed the main claims of Epicurean doctrine: he rejected its atomism in physics and its hedonism in ethics; he also criticised Epicurean views on the gods, arguing against the negation of providence and the claim that blind fate governs the world.141 Another Jewish author who mentioned Epicureans several times and openly disapproved of Epicureanism is Flavius Josephus.142 Born in Jerusalem (37–100 CE), he travelled a lot and got to know Palestine and Rome, where he lived and worked after the Jewish Wars. Josephus’ violent attack on the Epicureans in Antiquitates Judaicae, written in Rome ca. 94, is noteworthy.143 Only once did Josephus attack a philosophical school, it was the Epicurean. He portrayed the Epicureans as refusing to believe in God’s providence:

138

139 140 141

142

143

anism,” 2273–74; Simon, “Epikureismus und Epikureertum,” 2070–82; mainly Carlos Lévy, “Philon d’Alexandrie et l’epicurisme,” in Michael Erler and Robert Bees, eds., Epikureismus in der späten Republik und der Kaiserzeit (Philosophie der Antike 11; Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 2000), 122–36. Usener, Epicurea, 342; cf. Philon d’Alexandrie, De providentia I et II. Introduction, traduction et notes par Mireille Hadas-Lebel (Les Oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 35; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1973), 58–63; Simon, “Epikureismus und Epikureertum,” 2079–80. Philo, On the Creation. Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3, trans. Francis Henry Colson and George Herbert Whitaker (LCL 226; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929), 134–37. Charles K. Barrett, ed., The New Testament Background. Writings from Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire that Illuminate Christian Origins (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1996), 259–61. Wolfson, Philo, 1.108–9, 166, 176, 180. Philo did not consider the Epicureans to be atheists: “there is a passage in which Philo definitely indicates that Epicurus is not to be included among the atheists” (p. 166). See Willem C. van Unnik, “An Attack on the Epicureans by Flavius Josephus,” in Willem den Boer, ed., Romanitas et Christianitas. Studia Iano Henrico Waszink (Amsterdam: Noerh-Holland Publishing Company, 1973), 341–55. Cf. Louis H. Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1998). There are no references to the Epicureans in Jospehus’ second historical work De bello Judaico.

Epicureanism in Jewish Writings

“who exclude Providence from human life and refuse to believe that God governs its affairs or that the universe is directed by a blessed and immortal Being to the end that the whole of it may endure, but say that the world runs by its own movement without knowing a guide or another’s care” (Ant. 10.278).

He repeats in the next verses: “they are very far from holding a true opinion who declare that God takes no thought for human affairs” (Ant. 10.280).144 He again referred to Epicurean views in Contra Apionem, this time in the form of allusion (C. Ap. 2.180).145 What were the motives of his fierce attack against Epicurus’ thought? His attitude should not come as a surprise since he was a Pharisee, and this made him closer to the Stoic school (cf. Vita 3). Josephus’ attack against the Epicureans corresponds to popular disputes between the Stoics and Epicureans about the place and meaning of providence in human life. It must be remembered that providence (πρόνοια) was one of Josephus’ favourite themes and the history he wrote is a theological postulate. Thus, Josephus himself engaged in discussions with the Epicureans, believing that providence ought to be accepted, and any other views were false. However, where did Josephus come into contact with the philosophy of Epicurus: in Jerusalem and Palestine or only in Rome?146 3.3

Rabbinic Literature

Rabbinic sources and, more generally, Talmudic literature, have a separate and specific character. This is because most rabbinic traditions and Talmudic literature are later than the New Testament writings, although some of their messages date back to the first and the beginning of the second century CE or even earlier. Therefore, these materials should be used with caution, but they are of great value for New Testament research, and also in the context of Epicurean studies.147 Also, Jewish

144 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Vol. 4: Books 9–11, trans. R. Marcus (LCL 326; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937), 310–13. 145 “Among us alone will be heard no contradictory statements about God, such as are common among other nations, not only on the lips of ordinary individuals under the impulse of some passing mood, but even boldly propounded by philosophers; some putting forward crushing arguments against the very existence of God, others depriving Him of His providential care for mankind.” See Josephus, The Life. Against Apion, trans. Henry St. John Thackeray (LCL 186; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926), 364–65. 146 See van Unnik, “An Attack on the Epicureans,” 349–50. 147 Here the following studies have been consulted: Hermann L. Strack, Einleitung in Talmud und Midraš (München: Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 5 1930); Günter Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (Beck-Studium; München: Beck, 8 1992).

51

52

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

rabbis’ attitudes towards Greek philosophy, including Epicureanism, turn out to be extremely interesting.148 Jewish scholars were reluctant and had negative attitudes towards theoretical Greek philosophy, whose terminology they did not know. They accepted only some Stoic and Platonic ideas.149 The rabbis never mentioned Aristotle, Plato or any of the Stoics. However, in their literature, they did refer to two Greek philosophers: a rather unknown Cynic named Oenomaus of Gadara150 and the founder of The Garden – Epicurus.151 Jewish scholars might have directly condemned Epicureanism, although there is reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the term “Epicurus” in the relevant text (mAvot 2.14).152 Yet, one should note the extremely interesting trace of knowledge of Epicureanism, which is at the same time a manifestation of aversion towards the philosophy of The Garden in the Hebrew language. Hebrew uses the common term apiqoros (‫ )אפיקורוס‬in the singular and plural to describe the godless, heretics, liberals and sceptics (mSanh 10.1; mAvot 1.3; cf. yPea 16b), as well as the term “epicureanism” (‫)אפיקורוסות‬. It is doubtful in which rabbinic texts ‫ אפיקורוס‬is a proper name and in which a common noun designating heretics and

148 See Arthur Hyman, “Philosophy, Jewish,” EncJud 16.67–79, esp. pp. 73–74; Feldman, “Hellenism,” 298–300, and mainly Saul Lieberman, “How Much Greek in Palestine?” in Alexander Altmann, ed., Biblical and Other Studies (Studies and Texts 1; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 123–41; the author analyses the character of Jewish rabbis’ contacts with Greek philosophy. See more Hans-Joachim Becker, “‘Epikureer’ im Talmud Yerushalmi,” in Peter Schäfer, ed., The Talmud Yerushalmi und Graeco-Roman Culture I (TStAJ 71; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 397–421; Hezser, “Interfaces Between,” 161–87. Yet, the fundamental work is Henry A. Fischel, Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philosophy. A Study of Epicurea and Rhetorica in Early Midrashic Writings (StPB 21; Leiden: Brill, 1973; reprint 1997), discussing the presence of “epicurea et rhetorica” in the rabbinic writings of the tannaim, predominantly of the second generation of these Jewish scholars. 149 Wolfson, Philo, 1.92; Lieberman, “How Much Greek,” 123–31; Simon, “Epikureismus und Epikureertum,” 2034; see also Hezser, “Interfaces Between,” 171, 177–83. 150 See BerR 68.20; cf. yGit. 48b; yTer. 40a; see Jürgen Hammerstaedt, “Der Kyniker Oenomaus von Gadara,” ANRW 36.4:2834–65. 151 Cf. mSanh. 10.1; mAvot 1.3; see Lieberman, “How Much Greek,” 130; Feldman, “Hellenism,” 299: “The rabbis mention only two philosophers – Epicurus and Oenomaus – by name, and they do not use any Greek philosophical terms”; cf. Hyman, “Philosophy, Jewish,” 423; Becker, “‘Epikureer’ im Talmud Yerushalmi,” 398, who additionally mentions the Cynics (yGit. 48c). 152 “Sei eifrig bedacht zu lernen, was du einem Freigeist (‫ )לאפיקוראוס‬zu antworten hast” – see Die Mischna. IV Seder. Neziqin. 9 Traktat. Abot (Väter). Text, Übersetzung und Erklärung von Karl Marti und Georg Beer (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1927), 58–9: “Gemeint ist aber mit dem Wort nicht nur der epikureische Philosoph, sondern der Freigeist überhaupt.” It is worth looking at the new translation: “Be constant in learning of Torah. And know what to reply to an Epicurean” (mAvot 2.14) – The Mishnah. A New Translation, trans. Jacob Neusner (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988). See Becker’s commentary, “‘Epikureer’ im Talmud Yerushalmi,” 400–03.

Epicureanism in Jewish Writings

the godless.153 The origin of the term is uncertain, but its similarity to the proper name “Epicurus” and its pejorative meaning are striking. Thus, the Epicureans were considered by the ancients to be representatives of a libertarian, licentious and godless attitude. Hence, the idea is that the proper name in Greek was changed to a common noun in Hebrew. However, when the term changed its designation, what this change meant is debatable.154 The above philological observation illustrates well the generally negative and hostile attitude of the Jews towards Epicurus’ philosophy. This means that in the first century CE (or earlier), Palestinian Jews must have come into close contact with the philosophy of The Garden. However, this question remains unclear and awaits further investigation.155

153 See the interpretation in mSanh. 10.1: Die Mischna. IV Seder. Neziqin. 4 u. 5 Traktat. Sanhedrin – Makkot. Text, Übersetzung und Erklärung von Samuel Krauß (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1933) 267–69: “doch wurde bei den Juden ein nom. apell. daraus, das den Sektierer überhaupt oder den freigeist bezeichnet” (p. 269); M. Simon writes (“Epikureismus und Epikureertum,” 2032) commenting on this text: “versteht unter dem Epikureer den Libertin, ohne an philosophische Lehrmeinungen zu denken” (cf. also p. 2044); also Becker, “‘Epikureer’ im Talmud Yerushalmi,” 403: “Die Mishna will mit dem Begriff des ‘Epikureers’ offensichtlich eine dritte häretische Position verbunden wissen, die mit den beiden anderen nicht identisch ist. Sie ist für die Mishna mit dem Namen hinreichend genau bezeichnet und muß daher nicht weiter erläutert werden.” In the next section, the author suggests that this was about the priesthood represented by the Sadducees (pp. 406–08). 154 See Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 114 n. 113, in which the author suggests that this transition from the proper name to the common noun took place outside of the Hebrew language, in the sphere of Greco-Roman rhetoric. See Simon’s large commentary, “Epikureismus und Epikureertum,” 2036–46, in which she categorically states: “Im Talmud und Midrasch finden wir die Begriffe ‘Epikureer’ und ‘Epikureismus’ erwähnt. An k e i n e r Textstelle ist unter dem ‘Epikureer’ eine bestimmte Person zu verstehen, noch auch meint ‘Epikureismus’ die Lehren der griechischen Philosophenschule, sondern mit diesen beiden Bezeichnungen wird ein Verhaltenstypus umschrieben, der negativ beurteilt, mehr noch: schäristens verworfen wird.” In her opinion, Epicureanism is synonymous with impiety in Talmudic literature, while the aversion to Epicureanism was further intensified by the deification of Epicurus and the fact that it was not only a philosophical system, but a form of substitute religion (p. 2041). 155 One may think, for example, of the Maccabean times and the negative role played by King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, as DeWitt writes (St. Paulus and Epicurus, 53–4). Yet, according to Fischel (Rabbinic Literature, 16), it is not obvious whether the Palestinian Jews knew about Antioch IV Epiphanes’ adherence to the Epicureans (“There is no evidence, however, that it was generally known in Judaea that he belonged to this school of philosophy”). Simon’s suggestion may be helpful (“Epikureismus und Epikureertum,” 2028–29); in her opinion, the reluctant and hostile attitude of the Jewish rabbis towards Epicurus and Epicureanism, already present in the Mishnah, proves that the Jewish apostates and assimilants who underwent Hellenisation, adopting the Greek spirit, above all adopted the Epicurean vision of the gods, the world and man: “An die Stelle des jüdischen Weltbildes trat ein griechisches, und zwar, wie es scheint, in der Hauptsache das Epikureische” (p. 2028).

53

54

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

Later rabbinical literature recorded traces of encounters between Jewish theology and the philosophy of Epicurus, although the references to these were sporadic. According to H. A. Fischel, the few Epicurean and anti-Epicurean elements in the Talmudic tradition left an interesting trace in the story entitled “The Four in ‘Paradise’” (the four yielded to mystical, esoteric speculations) (bHag. 14b). Jewish scholars reinterpreted and re-incorporated an earlier narrative, which had been incomprehensible in the period of the Amoraim, into the collection of mystical speculation, the present context of this tradition. According to Fischel, the four Jewish sages represent the characteristic types of Epicureans and the quadruple typology of fate destined for them. They were Simeon ben Azzai (b. Azzai), Simeon ben Zoma (b. Zoma), Elisha ben Abuyah (Acher) and Rabbi Akiva, the only one who entered in peace and “left in peace” (uncorrupted by erroneous teachings). The others, on the other hand, lost their way and suffered various punishments.156 The reasons why some Jewish sages were presented as Epicurean types are, according to Fischel, varied and not entirely clear. The later Tannaim or early Amoraim must have assumed that b. Azzai had too many dealings or discussions with the Epicureans, or that his celibate life was decisive here (bJeb 63b), which in some sense made him closer to Epicurus.157 It remains a mystery why b. Zoma was classified as an Epicurean because, apart from a few Epicurean-coloured items in his name, the literary output of this sage shows his general closeness to Greco-Roman culture and rhetoric.158 Of these four sages, only Acher, who was born in Jerusalem before the year 70, was treated by the Jews as a heretic and renegade par excellence; hence, in the Talmudic tradition, he was called the “Other” (whose name is not pronounced). Acher, a lover of Greek poets, denied the existence of divine providence and divine justice, i. e., of reward for good and punishment for evil. They must not have been the only reasons for his classification as a heretic since we cannot exclude Hedonistic elements in his life (yHag. 77ab).159 On the other hand, the respected and valued Akiva remained unspoiled by Epicureanism but was classified into the group of four because of a period of obscurity and ignorance in his youth, analogous to the am ha-arez, the class of the uneducated (bPesah. 49b).160 156 See Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 4–34; cf. the severe criticism by Becker, “‘Epikureer’ im Talmud Yerushalmi,” 399 n. 12. 157 Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 6–9; cf. Zvi Kaplan, “Ben Azzai, Simeon,” EncJud 3.322–23. 158 The fact that he was classified among the “Epicureans” was perhaps related to his love of speculation on celestial phenomena, close to cosmology and cosmogony (cf. the anecdote of his absentmindedness contained in w bHag. 15a; cf. BerR 2.4 to Gen 1:2), or his reflection on the first chapters of Genesis, which was close to Gnostic speculations. See Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 9–10; cf. Zvi Kaplan, “Ben Zoma, Simeon,” EncJud 3.393. 159 Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 10–14; cf. Stephen G. Wald, “Elisha Ben Avuyah,” EncJud 6.352–54. 160 Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 14–15; cf. Harry Freedman and Stephen G. Wald, “Akiva,” EncJud 1.562–63.

Epicureanism in Jewish Writings

Midrashic texts contain the set formula ‫“( דיין ולית דין לית‬there is no justice and there is no judge”), and it is also known in a different form in Targumic literature. In the Targumic tradition, in which the fratricide Cain is depicted as an Epicurean (Targum Neofiti on Gen 4:8), we can find a similar statement that there is no other world and nothing after death, thus no judgment, punishment and repayment, and the soul and body, made of atoms, disappear.161 It may be intriguing that the typical Epicurean views of providence and divine justice, i. e., no providence, reward and punishment, are spoken of through a biblical protagonist. The interpretation of the text of the targum, however, remains controversial.162 Among the Jewish rabbis, Fischel continued to write that few figures were more influenced by Epicurus’ philosophy or, more generally, Greek philosophy. B. Zoma, as a representative of the second generation of the Tannaim (ca. 90–130 CE), whose midrash in the Babylonian Talmud (bBer. 58a) proves that the sage knew Greek philosophy and used it selectively, is such an isolated example.163 Epicurean and rhetorical elements also appear in the teaching of b. Azzai from the younger group of the second generation of the Tannaim.164 In the later period, from the 2nd to the 4th centuries, we are not certain about the rabbis’ knowledge of anti-Epicurean rhetoric. Scholars differ in their assessment of this issue. The later Tannaim and early Amoraim confronted the Epicurean expansion occurring in the Roman Empire. In Talmudic literature, there are more themes whose content and form are similar to Epicureanism than in the preceding period, taking into account the fact that these are frequently anti-Epicurean statements. Hence, it can be concluded that the Tannaim had at least a superficial knowledge of Epicureanism. According to Fischel, anti-Epicurean themes in Talmudic teaching resulted from the contacts of Jewish rabbis with Hellenistic-Roman literature and their adoption of traditional anti-Epicurean rhetoric, which had previously

161 For this topic, see Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 37: “it is highly probable that this passage, and within it, our coinage, try to make Cain an Epicurean” (more on pp. 36–50). 162 A completely different interpretation of the targum is given by Sheldon Isenberg, “An anti-Sadducee Polemic in the Palestinian Targum Tradition,” HTR 63 (1970): 433–44, on p. 442–43: “Thus, this section of the haggadah in the Targums to v. 8 could well be an anti-Sadducee polemic with the Sadducean position put in the mouth of the primal murderer and heretic, Cain.” According to Fischel (Rabbinic Literature, 37), allusions to the Saducian-Pharisaic controversy are extremely improbable here, while the motive of negation of providence and retribution appears more often in the rabbinical tradition, for example in exegetical midrashim (cf. Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 41–43). 163 Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 51–89, concludes: “Among the ingredients of this mixture were Platonic, Cynical and Stoic elements combined with various amounts of pro- or anti-Epicureanism, and some Pythagorean, Skeptic, and minor other materials” (p. 89). 164 Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 90–98.

55

56

Epicureanism in New Testament Times

developed in the Greco-Roman environment. Apparently, the Hellenistic-Roman centres in and on the fringes of Palestine had an impact on the Palestinian Jews.165 In many reviewers’ opinions, H. A. Fischel clearly exaggerated the Epicurean element in Talmudic literature, as was generally done concerning the influence of the Greco-Roman spirit on Jewish scholars. There is a closeness to Greco-Roman rhetorical and literary models, but not necessarily Epicurean ones.166 The Jewish sages, Tannaim and Amoraim, must have known Epicurean philosophy. Elements of anti-Epicurean polemic can be found in Talmudic texts discussing the topics of resurrection, providence and the last judgment. However, the rabbis did not deal with Epicurus’ philosophical system as a whole, but only criticised its selected elements, namely those that posed a threat to their theological views. Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus pursued similar approaches toward Epicureanism.167 In conclusion, the broadly understood Hellenistic culture had an undeniable influence on the life of the Jewish community in New Testament times. The same could probably be said of Hellenistic philosophical thought, which was not excluded from the process of Hellenisation, but through the Greek language, culture and customs reached the East, thus appearing in Palestine, Judea and Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the Jewish scholars’ knowledge of Greek philosophy was superficial and secondary, presumably being acquired through personal contacts with educated Greeks. Also, it seems probable that knowledge of Epicurus’ philosophy was present in the circles of Jewish sages after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE. One should assume a similar situation in the preceding period.168

165 Ibid., 107 n. 56, cf. pp. 88–89; see more Henry A. Fischel, “Epicureanism,” EncJud 6.463: “Rabbinic condemnation reflects knowledge of Greco–Roman rhetoric, experiences with individuals and centers (Gadara, Gaza, Caesarea), and, possibly, the favoritism shown to Epicureanism by Antiochus Epiphanes and Hadrian. ‘Epicurean’ became thus a byword for ‘deviance’ – ranging from disrespect to atheism – in Philo, Josephus, and rabbinism alike (see *Apikoros).” 166 See Willem S. Vorster, “H.A. Fischel, Rabbinic Literature and Greco–Roman Philosophy,” JSJ 5 (1974): 211–13; Ellis Rivkin, “H.A. Fischel, Rabbinic Literature and Greco–Roman Philosophy,” JBL 96 (1977): 135–36. There were more such critical reviews. 167 As Lieberman writes, “How Much Greek,” 130: “Epicurus was chosen as a symbol of heresy not only because of his immense popularity but also because of the particular danger inherent in his philosophy. Complete atheism was not fashionable in the first centuries of the Christian Era, and polytheism was not too difficult to combat. The Epicurean doctrine that the gods care about nothing and nobody, thereby denying reward and punishment for men’s actions, was regarded by the Rabbis as worse than atheism.” Cf. similar opinion of Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 50. 168 Cf. Lieberman, “How Much Greek,” 131; Hezser, “Interfaces Between,” 181: “Although we may assume that some rabbis were more or less acquainted with some aspects of Graeco-Roman philosophy, actual (literary or oral) influence cannot be ascertained.”

Epicureanism in Jewish Writings

We can point to times and places in ancient history in which Epicurus’ philosophy was amazingly vital. There were also periods for which there is no clear evidence of the existence of Epicurean schools. One can only speculate about the presence of Epicurus’ disciples. Nevertheless, we can assume that Epicureanism was an important component of the Hellenistic-Roman world. At the time of the formation of the NT writings, the Epicurean doctrine was well-known and debated in Rome and Greece, including Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt.169 We can state that some ancient authors, such as Philo of Alexandria and Seneca, knew Epicureanism very well, striving to have a balanced and objective judgment of this philosophy, even though they did not share Epicurus’ views. However, in the Hellenistic-Roman world, Epicureanism was the most attacked philosophy. The attacks came from opposing philosophical schools, mainly from Stoic and Platonic ones, and from popular rhetoricians and sophists. A good example is Plutarch of Chaeronea. Epicureanism was attacked for its hedonism, and in polemics, it was usually presented in a vulgar and simplified form. It was opposed due to its withdrawal from public life and biased doctrine on the gods and providence, expressing Epicurus’ impiety and even his atheism. During the formation of the New Testament writings, these were stereotypical charges against the philosophy of The Garden. Over time, this resulted in the emergence of the cliché of an Epicurean as a godless and immoral man. The attitude of the Jewish community towards Epicurus’ philosophy was similarly hostile and negative.

169 According to DeWitt (Epicurus and His Philosophy, 3), Epicurus’ philosophy “flourished among Greeks and barbarians alike, in Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Judaea, Egypt, Italy, Roman Africa, and Gaul.”

57

II.

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

The search for the first traces of Epicurus’ philosophy in the New Testament should begin with the canonical Gospels. Theoretically, Epicureanism could have influenced nascent Christianity from its very beginnings. This suggestion can be supported by several arguments. Epicurean elements cannot be ruled out in Jewish biblical and non-biblical traditions, although the Jewish community generally had a negative attitude towards the philosophy of Epicurus. Additionally, Epicureanism had its representatives on the outskirts of Palestine, in the cities of the Decapolis and the nearby territory of Syria. Hence, according to some authors, Epicurus’ philosophical views influenced the Gospel traditions, subsequently established in the synoptic Gospels. In particular, the Sadducees’ religious views, close to those of the Epicureans, deserve special attention.1

1.

The Sadducees and the Resurrection of the Dead

The Sadducees, the second religious sect besides the Pharisees mentioned in the New Testament, are known for their theological dispute with Jesus about the resurrection of the dead. They are also referred to in the writings of Jewish authors, mainly Flavius Josephus, and in rabbinic writings are usually described negatively.2 The Sadducees

1 See Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2275; DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 319, 336–37, does not associate Jesus of Nazareth with Epicureanism but assumes that the Teacher was subject to the influence of the Hellenistic cities surrounding Galilee, met educated Greek citizens and knew the Greek language. Moreover, he shows some similarities between Epicureanism and Jesus’ ethical and moral teaching. 2 The history of the Sadducees and their religious views can be reconstructed only based on the New Testament, Flavius Josephus and rabbinic writings; as their original texts have not been preserved. See the studies by: Günter Stemberger, Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Essener (SBS 144; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991), 10–64; Günter Stemberger, “The Sadducees – Their History and Doctrines,” in William Horbury, W[illiam] D[avid] Davies and John Sturdy, eds., Cambridge History of Judaism (vols. 1–3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 3.429–35; Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 77–237; Hillel Newman, Proximity to Power and Jewish Sectarian Groups of the Ancient Period. A Review of Lifestyle, Values, and Halakhah in the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Qumran (BRLA 25; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 73–82; Martin Goodman, “The Place of the Sadducees in First-Century Judaism,” in Martin Goodman, Judaism in the Roman World. Collected Essays (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 66; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 123–35; René Gehring, Die antiken jüdischen Religionsparteien. Essener, Pharisäer, Sadduzäer,

60

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

are an interesting party, since they might have represented Epicurus’ views in the Palestinian circles where the Gospel of Jesus Christ was being proclaimed. The issue that arises is Jesus’ disputes with the Sadducees about the resurrection of the dead (Mark 12:18–27).3 The Sadducees’ denial of the resurrection of the dead and the afterlife resembles Epicurus’ views on man’s fate after death. Josephus gave the same testimony. On the other hand, the testimonies recorded in rabbinic and Talmudic literature contain the Sadducees’ legal views on ritual purity, usually juxtaposed with the Pharisaic position, yet add nothing to the topic of the resurrection of the dead.4 1.1

The Testimonies of the Synoptic Gospels

The Synoptic Gospels perpetuated the theological dispute about the resurrection of the dead, which was much earlier than the salvific events related to the cross, the empty tomb and the paschal faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ as well as the concomitant belief in the general resurrection of all people. What is meant here is that the dispute over the resurrection of the dead between Jesus and the Sadducees, including its course and content, was preserved in the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptics recorded only one conversation about this between Jesus and the Sadducees, precisely concerning the resurrection of the dead (Mark 12:18–27; cf. Matt 22:23–33 and Luke 20:27–40).5 Of the three accounts, chronological priority is to be given to Mark. The Evangelist Matthew, by making a few stylistic corrections of the text, slightly departed from the message of the second Gospel, but added nothing new to its theological dimension. In turn, Luke made deeper modifications

Zeloten und Therapeuten (Schriften der Forschung. Historische Theologie 2; Bogenhausen: St. Peter am Hart, 2012); Günter Stemberger, Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Essener. Fragen, Fakten, Hintergründe (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013); Martin Goodman, A History of Judaism (London: Penguin Books, 2017), 87–222, esp. pp. 122–28. See the earlier opinions: Rudolf Meyer, “σαδδουκαῖος,” TWNT 7.35–54; Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, 2.404–14; Menahem Mansoor, “Sadducees,” EncJud 17.654–55. Naturally, this selection of publications does not exhaust the extensive literature on the subject, see James C. VanderKam, “Foreword,” in Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, XI-XXV. 3 DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 335. The question appeared earlier, while Epicureanism would be an important element in Sadducism. See Ludwig Levy, Das Buch Qoheleth. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Sadduzäismus (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912), 45–54: “Jedenfalls ist der Epikureismus ein starkes, vielleicht das wesentlichste Ferment im Sadduzäismus” (p. 52). 4 Stemberger, “The Sadducees,” 428–29; Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 199–237; cf. Pieter J. Botha, “History and Point of View. Understanding the Sadducees,” Neotestamentica 30 (1996): 244–47. 5 See the monograph: Otto Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage (Mk 12, 18–27 parr). Eine exegetisch–theologische Studie zur Auferstehungserwartung (BBB 66; Bonn: Athenäum, 1987).

The Sadducees and the Resurrection of the Dead

to Mark’s narrative, introducing linguistic corrections to the text and giving it an extremely interesting theological reinterpretation.6 1.1.1 Literary and Historical Problems (Mark 12:18–27)

Jesus’ conversation with the Sadducees recorded by the Evangelist Mark contains several peculiarities. The first is that the Sadducees appear only once in Mark’s Gospel.7 Second, a few phrases and expressions occur in the second Gospel only in this pericope, and this is important when one asks about the preceding traditions, and thus about the historicity of the message.8 Moreover, it should be noted that the pericope is found in the redactional collection of several pericopes similar in content and literary form, showing Jesus in the temple area disputing with his opponents (Mark 12:13–37), although the context of his teaching in the temple is probably secondary.9 The arrangement of the material in Mark 12:18–27 is characteristic of Jesus’ conversations with his opponents, although it does not quite correspond to the structure of the literary genre described as a polemical dialogue (Streitgespräch), as the text is often classified. The narrative element in the pericope has been limited to

6 Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage, 309, esp. pp. 439–65. Luke preserved the essential significance of Jesus’ words; however, he greatly reduced the role of the “scriptures” as testimonies; he also distinguishes between the present and future aeon (αἰών) (Mark 12:24 = Luke 20:34) and comments on the sense of “God of the living” adding πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν (Mark 12:27 = Luke 20:38). The later commentaries sometimes include an opinion about the dependence of Mark on Matthew and Luke (rejecting the hypothesis of two sources), which I do not support; see Christopher S. Mann, Mark. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 1986), 47–66. 7 Besides the quoted passage (Matt 22:23–33), Matthew mentions the Sadducees six times, usually in connection with the Pharisees, which does not quite correspond to the historical realities (Matt 3:7; 16:1, 6, 11, 12; 22:34). Luke mentions them only once in the quoted fragment (Luke 20:27), and three more times in the Acts (Acts 4:1; 5:17; 23:6–8) always referring to the topic of the resurrection. To compare: in the NT the Pharisees are mentioned 99 times: 69 in the Synoptic Gospels and 20 in the fourth Gospel. See Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 174–97. 8 See Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2. Teilband (Mk 8,27–16,20) (EKKNT 2.2; Zürich: Benziger [et al.], 4 1994), 157 n. 2. 9 These are the following scenes: the Pharisees’ question about paying taxes (Mark 12:13–17), the Sadducees asking the question about the resurrection of the dead (Mark 12:18–27), the scribes asking about the first among the commandments (Mark 12:28–34), and the question about the origin of the Messiah (Mark 12:35–37). Insignificant for the problem under consideration, we ignore the question of whether Jesus’ dispute with the Sadducees reached Mark in the collection of several periscopes (Mark 12:13–34); see Heinrich Zimmermann, Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre. Darstellung der historisch-kritischen Methode (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 6 1978), 160. The existence of this collection has been rejected by Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2.172, who emphasises that these texts do not have a uniform literary form, but formally represent various literary genres: apophthegm, polemical dialogue (Streitgespräch) and didactic narrative/scholastic dialogue (Schulgespräch).

61

62

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

an absolute minimum. Taking the participants of the conversation as the criterion for dividing the pericope, two parties can be indicated: the Sadducees and their questions related to the law of levirate (vv. 18–23) and Jesus as the Teacher answering the questions (vv. 24–27). In the first part (vv. 18–23), the Evangelist introduces the Sadducees and briefly characterises them. Essential information is given in his remark that they say that there is no resurrection (ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι) (v. 18). Then they outline a legal case of a woman who was a wife of seven husbands according to the levirate law, but the essence of the problem is in the final question: “In the resurrection (ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει), whose wife will she be?” (v. 23).10 In the second part of the dialogue (vv. 24–27), Jesus responds to the problem, and his answer consists of three elements: a general statement that the Sadducees are wrong and incompetent (πλανᾶσθε) (v. 24), an answer to the legal casus (v. 25) and justifying the truth about the resurrection of the dead based on Moses (vv. 26–27a). Finally, Jesus stresses again that the Sadducees are wrong (πολὺ πλανᾶσθε) (v. 27b).11 The inner structure of the material in the periscope is as follows: Part one:

Part two:

Sadducees legal casus question Jesus the Teacher detailed answer general judgment

vv. 18–23 vv. 19–22 v. 23 vv. 24–27 vv. 24–25 vv. 26–27

10 Scriptural quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, 1989; however, select phrases and words are taken from the original Greek text. The critical editions give a few textual variants of v. 23, the most important being the addition of ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει, which explains and complements ὅταν ἀναστῶσιν. The shorter reading attested in the oldest codices, including ‫א‬, B, C and several others, should be considered original, although it is not completely certain. Quite rightly, Bruce M. Metzger thinks that here we are dealing with the deliberate omission of ὅταν ἀναστῶσιν by later copyists as a redundant explanation – pleonasm or tautology. However, the addition fits the context well as it emphasises the sarcasm and irony of the Sadducees’ question, and the phrase is in line with the Semitic way of speaking. Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Soc., 3 1975), 110–11; also Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2.156 n. 1; Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 2 1966), 482. 11 The Sadducees were completely wrong or they even let themselves be deceived (πολὺ πλανᾶσθε – indicativus praesentis passivi); moreover, the verb πλανάω occurs in Mark 13:5–6, where Jesus warns against those who deceive others and claimed that they come in his name. See Walter Bauer and Kurt Aland, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testament und der frühchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 6 1988), 1337–38; Henry G. Liddell, Robert Scott and Henry S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. With a Revised Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 1411.

The Sadducees and the Resurrection of the Dead

The construction of the episode is transparent. The focus is on the inclusive frames of the separated fragments: in the first case, the inclusion is created by the theme of the resurrection (ἀνάστασις) (vv. 18 and 23), but in the other, the view of the Sadducees is wrong (πλανᾶσθε) (vv. 24, 27). In turn, the joining elements of both passages are Moses and the Law he wrote (vv. 19, 26) and the theme of the resurrection (vv. 18, 23, 25, 26). The construction of the pericope reveals that it is not appropriate to consider Jesus’ conversation with the Sadducees as “a polemical dialogue” (Streitgespräch), modelled on the polemics and disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees.12 One should rather speak of an “opponents’ question” (Gegnerfrage), a literary form represented by a group of texts belonging to the genre called chreia or in a narrower meaning apophthegm, a sub-genre. We can define this literary genre as a saying given by a famous person within the context of a specific situation, going beyond the matter in question and acquiring a universal value. Here, we are dealing with a cause: it may be a word or event that triggers a reaction. This pattern corresponds well to the structure of the text of Mark 12:18–27.13 In the case of this literary genre, it is important to attribute the saying to a historical figure: Gospel chreiai must have come from Jesus himself, although a later redaction cannot be excluded. Materials of the tradition reaching back to the historical Jesus could assume the literary form of chreia at the stage of redaction, yet, for this reason, the messages themselves must not be denied authenticity.14 The authenticity of the Gospel testimony about Jesus’ conversation with the Sadducees is also confirmed by the extraordinary content of the pericope. This is where Mark introduces the Sadducees, a religious party that disappeared after 70 CE. It is so unique, that many commentators consider the dispute with the Sadducees to be addressed to the Pharisees as well, without justifying such a position.15 Also, the

12 Cf. Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium. II. Teil. Kommentar zu Kap. 8, 27–16, 20 (HThKNT 2.2; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1977), 230, who speaks about Schulgespräch. 13 See more Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage, 310–29. Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg; Quelle & Meyer, 1984), 80–93, stresses the presence of this Greek–Hellenistic literary form in the Gospels and indicated the progress of the Hellenization of Palestinian Jews; cf. Hezser, “Interfaces Between,” 167–68: “both rabbinic (tannaitic and amoraic) and early Christian chreiai are specific adaptations of a Hellenistic literary form used by all the main philosophical schools.” 14 See Berger, Formgeschichte, 84: “Und da die Einführung dieser Gattung zum Teil erst redaktionell gegen den Seitenreferenten erfolgt ... besagt dieses alles auch nichts über die ‘Unechtheit’ der betreffenden Jesusworte.” The issue is related to the claims of some morphocritics, who considered polemical dialogues or chreiai (apophthegmata) as a creation of Christian communities conducting theological disputes with Jews, thus reflecting the conflicts between Christianity and Judaism, but this would have little to do with the historical Jesus; see Berger, Formgeschichte, 88–89; Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2.235: “authentische Jesusüberlieferung.” 15 Berger, Formgeschichte, 89: “Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Sadduzäern hat möglicherweise auch die Pharisäer als Adressaten.”

63

64

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

problem at the heart of the Sadducean question is atypical. Levirate marriage, unknown in the Greco-Roman world (Deut 25:5–10), was understood only in the Jewish, Palestinian or diaspora circles, but in New Testament times, it was already anachronistic.16 The question presented by the Sadducees (vv. 19–22) was probably not about an actual event, but about an elaborated legal case. In fact, the Sadducees actually wanted to ridicule the truth about the resurrection, but also, and this cannot be ruled out, were attempting to ridicule Jesus himself. Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees’ question was equally unexpected. His reference to the text of Exodus 3:6 was a strong argument for the resurrection. Another argument testifying to the authenticity of Mark’s narrative is the originality and particularity of Jesus’ argumentation.17 On the other hand, one can hardly find anything in Jesus’ conversation with the Sadducees that would indicate that the pericope was redacted post factum as the Christian community’s response to the Sadducees’ post-Paschal reaction to the message about the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. Mark’s message presents a trace of Jesus’ historical dispute over the resurrection with the Sadducees.18 1.1.2 The Dispute over the Resurrection

The problem raised by the Sadducees concerned the resurrection, and this theme appears several times in the text. First, the Evangelist’s brief information about the Sadducees is noteworthy, namely that they deny the resurrection (λέγουσιν ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι) (Mark 12:18). This is the only testimony of Mark and other Evangelists concerning the Sadducees’ religious views (Matt 22:23 and Luke 20:27), and it is confirmed in Acts 23:8 (λέγουσιν μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν). The Evangelists

16 Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2.158: “Darum ist es ohne Belang, daß die Schwagerehe zur Zeit Jesu in Israel wegen der veränderten Verhältnisse kaum noch praktiziert worden sein dürfte.” 17 The Jewish rabbis did not cite this text as an argument in favour of the resurrection. Gamaliel II of Jabneh failed to convince the Sadducees that the Torah could prove the resurrection (bSanh. 90b); cf. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2.159–60. 18 Opinions about the historicity of the pericope are diametrically different, which is usual in such cases. The historical core is adopted for vv. 18–25, but often, following the opinion of R. Bultmann, scholars deny the authenticity of vv. 26–27; see Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2.160–61; Taylor, St. Mark, 480: “… nor is there ground for attributing the saying to a debate within the Christian community”; also Mann, Mark, 473; cf. extensive review of the historicity of the text in Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage, 501–87, who in his conclusion opts for the authenticity of Jesus’ dispute with the Sadducees.

The Sadducees and the Resurrection of the Dead

must have encountered a common opinion about the Sadducees’ religious views, also evidenced by Josephus.19 The case of a woman married successively to seven husbands, each dying, one after another, presented by the Sadducees, bears all the features of a rabbinical dispute based on scriptural texts.20 The Sadducees built their argument on Moses’ command to raise a descendant for a brother who died childless, an order mentioned here only vaguely (Deut 25:5–10; cf. Gen 38:8).21 The main goal of the case presented to Jesus was to ridicule the truth about the resurrection, because the text does not indicate that the target of the attack was Jesus and his teaching authority, although this cannot be ruled out (cf. διδάσκαλε) (Mark 12:19). Anyway, Mark says nothing of the Sadducees’ trickery or their attempt to entangle Jesus in his words like the Pharisees did (cf. Mark 12:13).22 Asking the question and applying the Mosaic law of levirate based on a probably fictional situation, the Sadducees tried to show the absurdity of faith in the resurrection, since it was supposedly contrary to the law commanded by Moses (argumentum ad absurdum). The striking thing in the argumentation is the Sadducees’ material understanding of the reality of the afterlife as the continuation of earthly life.23 In reply, Jesus the Teacher first acknowledges the general error of the Sadducees resulting from their ignorance of the scriptures and the power of God (v. 24a) and then responds to their question.24 In the first part of his answer, Jesus replies directly, indicating that there will be no marriages in the future life: “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (v. 25). The future existence of the resurrected will be similar to the

19 It is worth noting that an opinion similar to that of the Sadducees was expressed by unknown opponents of Paul of Corinth, but they assumed a post-Paschal perspective (ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν) (1 Cor 15:12). 20 See Taylor, St. Mark, 482. 21 See Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage, 338–45. 22 In the second Gospel, the word διδάσκαλος occurs ten times, including as many as four times in the nearest context of the text under discussion: in the Temple area, Jesus teaches representatives of leading groups of the Jewish community (Mark 12:14, 19, 32; 13:1). Certainly, the present arrangement of the pericopes showing Jesus teaching in the temple square was intended to demonstrate the authority of Jesus as Teacher; as a further clue, Mark emphasises the hearers’ admiration and amazement at Jesus’ teachings (Mark 12:17, 32, 37). 23 The legal case presented by the Sadducees is supported by the text of 2 Macc 7:1ff. or the story of Sarah from the Book of Tobit. Cf. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2.232; Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage, 345–52; see more Peter G. Bolt, “What Were the Sadducees Reading? An Enquiry into the Literary Background of Mark 12:18–23,” TynBul 45 (1994): 369–94. 24 The error resulting from ignorance is expressed in the construction of the interrogative οὐ διὰ τοῦτο πλανᾶσθε, where διά + accusativus assumes the meaning “because of.” See Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner and Friedrich Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 16 1984) § 222.2.

65

66

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

existence of angels; since the interpersonal relationships characteristic of earthly life will cease to exist, the Sadducees’ question is groundless. Jesus assumes the perspective of Jewish apocalyptic thinking, according to which the resurrected will be like angels in the world to come (1 En. 104:4–6; 2 Bar. 51:10).25 Thus, addressing the question, Jesus corrects the Sadducees’ erroneous position regarding the nature of the future life of the saved, and at the same time he refers to another point of the Sadducean religious doctrine, i. e., their belief that there are no angels or spirits (cf. Acts 23:8).26 Referring to the problem directly, Jesus takes up a more fundamental issue – the fact of the resurrection. In his introduction to the scene, the Evangelist mentions the Sadducees’ unbelief in the resurrection. Also, Jesus accepts the common opinion about the Sadducees’ views indicated by the introductory phrase: “And as for the dead being raised … (ὅτι ἐγείρονται)” (Mark 12:26).27 Jesus is aware of the true motives of the Sadducees who pose this tricky question. Considering the Sadducees’ position on the scriptures and oral tradition, Jesus appeals directly to the authority of Moses to affirm the truth about the resurrection and eternal life in God. The Sadducees cannot reject this argument (cf. Mark 12:26–27).28 Jesus recalls the words God spoke to Moses at Sinai: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Mark 12:26; cf. Exod 3:6 LXX). The Jewish rabbis, unlike Jesus, do not quote Exod 3:6 as an argument for the resurrection of the dead.29 In fact, the quoted words do not directly mean that the patriarchs are alive, but indicate the covenant made by God with Abraham and renewed with the patriarchs, proving the historical-redemptive continuity of the times of the patriarchs, Moses and Israel.

25 In the Ethiopic Apocalypse (1 Enoch), God speaks to the angels: “That is why (formerly) I did not make wives for you, for the dwelling of the spiritual beings of heaven is heaven” (1 En. 15:7) and similarly “You are about to be making a great rejoicing like the angels of heaven” (1 En. 104:4; cf. also 1 En. 39:4–8; 51:4; 104:6). In the Syriac Apocalypse (2 Baruch), we read: “For they will live in the heights of that world and they will be like the angels and be equal to the stars” (2 Bar. 51:10). For these and other quotations from the pseudepigrapha, see James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (vols. 1–2; New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985). 26 Let us note the free transmission of Jesus’ words by the third Evangelist, formulated from a postpaschal perspective: Jesus speaks of the saved as no longer dying because they are like angels, and being children of the resurrection, they are also children of God (Luke 20:36). 27 Here the indicativus preasentis passivi in an intransitive meaning – “rise, to rise (from the dead)” (Mark 6:14; Matt 11:5; Luke 7:22; 20:37; John 11:12; 1 Cor 15:15, 29, 32, 35, 52; cf. Isa 26:19; 2 Kgs 4:31); see Bauer 432–33. 28 This text is usually interpreted that the Sadducees only affirmed the Pentateuch, which is not precise: the Law of Moses was the authority for them, and the Prophets were less important; cf. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2.232. 29 See Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage, 276–92.

The Sadducees and the Resurrection of the Dead

The most important thing is the final fragment of Jesus’ statement in which the Teacher adds an exegetical commentary to Exod 3:6. Jesus’ mysterious explanation, “He is God not of the dead, but of the living,” (Mark 12:27) is not easy to interpret. How are we to understand that God is “God of the living” (θεὸς ζώντων)? Taking into account the motif of the covenant and the promises given to the patriarchs, it can be assumed that God’s promises do not expire even after the death of the patriarchs. Therefore, according to Jesus’ words, one should assume the continued existence of the patriarchs and their tasting of the salvific goods (Luke 16:19–31) that will be fully available after the general resurrection (cf. Matt 8:11; Luke 13:28–29).30 Following the more likely direction of interpretation, one can emphasise the union and community of the righteous with God, the result of their obedience and sanctity of life. In the light of the OT texts, the interpersonal relationship between man and God is related to the conviction that the righteous live happy lives in God, so the transformation into a new life is a work of God’s power, something that the Sadducees do not understand (Ps 16:8–11; 49:14–16; 73:23–24).31 This line of interpretation is confirmed by 4 Maccabees, which originated at the beginning of the Christian era, depicting the martyrdom of seven brothers and their mother. In the opinion of its author, martyrs who die for God continue to live for God (ζῶσιν τῷ θεῷ), as do Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the patriarchs (4 Macc 7:19; 16:25). Noteworthy is the unique convergence of these texts with the redactional change introduced to Mark’s text by Luke (πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν) (Luke 20:38).32 The Sadducees denied the resurrection and afterlife, as their dispute with Jesus testifies (Mark 12:18–27; par.) Luke also testifies to this tradition (Acts 23:6–8; cf. 4:1–2).33 The importance of the Gospel testimony does not lie in the fact of confirming the theological views of the Sadducees, as known elsewhere, but in

30 See Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2.160; François Dreyfus, “L’argument scripturaire de Jésus en faveur de la résurrection des mortes (Marc XII 26–27),” RB 66 (1959): 224: “L’Alliance, et comment le salut promis par Dieu aux Patriarches et à leur descendance en vertu de l’Alliance, contient implicitement la doctrine de la résurrection.” In Jewish theology, the patriarchs as the archetypes of the righteous were shows as “living in God” (LAB 4.11; T. Isaac 8:5–6). 31 See Taylor, St. Mark, 484; Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2.234. Two proposals for interpreting Mark 12:26–27 are shown by Berger, Formgeschichte, 102; cf. Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage, 381–418. 32 The texts of 4 Macc: πιστεύοντες ὅτι θεῷ οὐκ ἀποθνῄσκουσιν ὥσπερ οὐδὲ οἱ πατριάρχαι ἡμῶν Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ Ιακωβ ἀλλὰ ζῶσιν τῷ θεῷ (4 Macc 7:19); ἔτι δὲ καὶ ταῦτα εἰδότες ὅτι οἱ διὰ τὸν θεὸν ἀποθνῄσκοντες ζῶσιν τῷ θεῷ ὥσπερ Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ Ιακωβ καὶ πάντες οἱ πατριάρχαι (4 Macc 16:25). The author of 4 Maccabees does not know the idea of resurrection, but

believes in everlasting life (4 Macc 9:8; 10:15; 13:17; 17:4). 33 The Acts of the Apostles does not introduce new elements about the Sadducees apart from mentioning the mutual hostility of the Pharisees and Sadducees, therefore, we only signal these texts. Interestingly, from Luke’s theological perspective, the Sadducees were the only group that opposed Christianity (Acts 4:1–2; 5:17–18; cf. 5:34–39; 26:5–10).

67

68

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

the Sadducean arguments based on the Bible, rooted in the Synoptic Gospels, characterised by understanding the human person as the unity of the body and spirit (anthropological monism). There are no post-paschal and Christological accents in this dispute. 1.2

The Testimony of Josephus

In his major historical works, Josephus showed the existence of the Jewish religious factions in Judea during Roman rule, including the Sadducees.34 He did so especially in De bello Judaico, in which he described “three philosophies” that he called religious sects (Bel. 2.119). He focused on the Essenes (Bel. 2.120–161), and briefly depicted the factions of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, omitting the Zealots (Bel. 2.162–166). He again returned to the subject of Jewish religious parties in Antiquitates Judaicae. The Jewish historian presented Jewish schools of philosophy, called religious sects, and, in addition, he discussed the Zealots (Ant. 18.11–25; cf. 13.171–173).35 Writing in Rome, Josephus presented the Jewish religious sects to the citizens of the Empire who were brought up in Greco-Roman culture, hence his specific language and terminology. It is noteworthy that he intentionally applies these specific terms to all religious and political parties: philosophy (φιλοσοφία), an official school (αἵρεσις), a party or group (τάγμα) as well as a member of the school or sect (αἱρετιστής). Also, his mention that the schools existed “from the most ancient times” is significant, and so is his emphasis on the national character of the parties.36

34 See Emmanuelle Main, “Les Sadduceens vus par Flavius Josephe,” RB 97 (1990): 161–206; Stemberger, “The Sadducees,” 429–30; Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 79–127; cf. Newman, Proximity to Power, 73–82; Gehring, Die antiken jüdischen Religionsparteien, 270–92, esp. pp. 271–75. 35 “The Jews, from the most ancient times, had three philosophies (φιλοσοφίαι) pertaining to their traditions, that of the Essenes, that of the Sadducees, and, thirdly, that of the group called the Pharisees. To be sure, I have spoken about them in the second book of the Jewish War, but nevertheless, I shall here too dwell on them for a moment” (Ant. 18.11). See Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Vol. 8: Books 18–19, trans. Louis H. Feldman (LCL 433; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), 10–11. Josephus tries to win the favour of the Romans, but also presents the Jews as a nation of great culture and spirit, for a long time in friendship with Rome (Ant. 1.27–37; 13.163–180). His intention is described by Botha, “History and Point of View,” 238: “Jews are not the bizarre and anti-social people that some Greeks and Romans claim them to be.” 36 Also, Luke described the Sadducees as αἵρεσις (Acts 5:17); he used this term to describe the Pharisees (Acts 15:5; 26:5; 28:22) and Christians (Acts 24:5, 14); cf. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 123–27; Gehring, Die antiken jüdischen Religionsparteien, 459–65. For the meaning of the term αἵρεσις, see LSJ 41 (including a philosophical system or school, or even a religious group).

The Sadducees and the Resurrection of the Dead

Our interest is focused on the religious views of the Sadducees, since Josephus also attested to their negative attitude towards the resurrection. We should begin with the first chronological information about the Sadducees in De bello Judaico, the most complete description of the group: The Sadducees, the second of the orders, do away with Fate (εἱμαρμένην) altogether, and remove God beyond, not merely the commission, but the very sight, of evil. They maintain that man has the free choice of good or evil, and that it rests with each man’s will whether he follows the one or the other. As for the persistence of the soul (ψυχῆς) after death, penalties in the underworld, and rewards, they will have none of them.37

The next two texts can be found in Antiquitates Judaicae, which originated 16 years later. As compared with the text quoted, these passages are clearly fragmentary and respective: But the Sadducees do away with Fate (εἱμαρμένην), holding that there is no such thing and that human actions are not achieved in accordance with her decree, but that all things lie within our own power, so that we ourselves are responsible for our well-being, while we suffer misfortune through our own thoughtlessness.38 The Sadducees hold that the soul (τὰς ψυχάς) perishes along with the body (συναφανίζει τοῖς σώμασι). They own no observance of any sort apart from the laws; in fact, they reckon it a virtue, to dispute with the teachers of the path of wisdom that they pursue. There are but few men to whom this doctrine has been made known, but these are men of the highest standing. They accomplish practically nothing, however. For whenever they assume some office, though they submit unwillingly and perforce, yet submit they do to the formulas of the Pharisees, since otherwise the masses would not tolerate them.39

From among the quoted texts, the fullest information about the Sadducees’ views is provided in the first text – the description of the Sadducees included in the general presentation of Jewish religious and political parties in Roman times. The other texts depend on the historical context that the author placed them in. In the first case, it is about the victorious battles of the Maccabees, in the second – about the tragic struggles of the Zealots with the Romans. The historical situation affects the

37 Bel. 2.165; see Josephus, The Jewish War. Vol. 1: Books 1-2, trans. Henry St. J. Thackeray (LCL 203; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), 386–87. 38 Ant. 13.173; see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Vol. 5: Books 12-13, trans. Ralph Marcus (LCL 365; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1943), 312–13. 39 Ant. 18.16–17 (trans. Feldman, LCL).

69

70

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

content of these descriptions, the first of which emphasises the role and place of divine providence that directs events, while the second one emphasises the fate of man after death and public matters. In fact, Josephus did not give a complete and objective picture of the Jewish schools of the Roman period.40 In light of the testimony preserved in the works of Flavius Josephus, the religious beliefs of the Sadducees can systematically be summarized as follows. First, Josephus mentions the Sadducees’ denial of fate or the rejection of fate (τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην ἀναιροῦσιν), repeating the statement in both historical works. This is tantamount to believing that God is beyond the power of doing any evil or even seeing it. Some scholars believe that this text contains a rejection of divine providence (πρόνοια) as the first theological principle of the Sadducees.41 In their opinion, not only is God not responsible for evil in the world, but he cannot even see it, and therefore he does not judge it. God is distant and indifferent to human affairs; God is unknown according to the biblical message, but he is close to the pagan images, especially the Epicurean ones.42 This rejection of God’s interference in human life is completed by the statement of man’s absolute free will, who defines himself and has to choose (ἐκλογή) between good and evil. All things depend on man, who is the cause of good and evil, as Josephus stated in the second text. Thus, man’s free will and self-

40 The importance of the historical context, in order to properly understand the texts of Josephus, has been emphasised by Botha, “History and Point of View,” 236–44; cf. also Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage, 334–35. 41 See Stemberger, Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, 65–67; cf. Newman, Proximity to Power, 74-75. The presence of various terms in Josephus’ works has been indicated: as for the Sadducees he speaks of εἱμαρμένη (fate), while for the Epicureans – πρόνοια (providence). See Becker, “‘Epikureer’ im Talmud Yerushalmi,” 406–7. The Sadducees’ rejection of providence is attested by Josephus, and in the Talmudic tradition – only indistinctly; hence the question has long been difficult to interpret. See Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, 2.391–92 n. 32, 411–12; Main, “Les Sadduceens,” 172–73; lately Newman, Proximity to Power, 74: “However, the Sadducees, unlike the Epicureans, believe in Providence,” and also n. 97. 42 Stemberger, Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, 67: “Die sachliche Parallele ist unbestreitbar,” but he immediately adds: “doch bleibt die so beliebt gewordene Parallelisierung der Sadduzäer mit den Epikureern historisch unbewiesen.” This position of the Sadducees can be seen as an expression of practical atheism, but according to other scholars, the rejection of providence resulted from the Sadducees’ emphasis on the transcendence of God. See Meyer, “Σαδδουκαῖος,” 46; Maier, Zwischen den Testamenten, 257–59.

The Sadducees and the Resurrection of the Dead

determination are – according to Josephus – the second characteristic elements of Sadducean theology.43 Finally, what we are interested in most is Josephus’ mention of the Sadducees’ rejection of the persistence of the soul, i. e., its immortality since “the soul perishes along with the body (συναφανίζει τοῖς σώμασι).” This view of the Sadducees is known from their disputes with Jesus. However, in Josephus’ testimony, the Greek philosophical terminology and point of view are striking: he makes a distinction between the body (σῶμα) and man’s soul (ψυχή), and then emphasises the persistence of the soul. The Epicurean overtone of this thought is evident, as will be shown at length in the next chapters.44 The Sadducees’ denial of punishment and reward after death is the logical and theological consequence of rejecting divine providence and the soul’s immortality. For the Sadducees, only mortality is important, for nothing is to be expected after death. The features of the Sadducees’ theological views show three elements that also characterise the philosophical thought of Epicurus: the rejection of providence, the denial of the soul’s immortality as well as denying judgement and reward after death. Moreover, the convergence with Epicureanism is indicated by the distinct emphasis on man’s free-will choice, the only thing that his fate depends on. The necessity of man’s self-determination is also characteristic of Epicurus’ views. Thus, Josephus’ description of the Sadducees makes it possible to associate the religious faction of the Sadducees with The Garden, and so the Sadducean views presented by Josephus could be Epicurean. Yet, care should be taken not to equate the Sadducees and Epicureans, since Josephus does not explicitly mention the Sadducees as Epicureans.45 Additionally, he mentions details that do not allow us to forget about this party’s Jewish provenance. He emphasises its aristocratic and egalitarian nature and the fact that the small but rich social class, associated with the priestly families, belonged to it. Josephus further points to the Sadducees’ love

43 Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, 2.392–94, 411–412. According to Schürer, the origin of the Sadducean concept of absolute freedom was a progressive religious laxism and the influence of Hellenistic thought. Maier disagrees with this, Zwischen den Testamenten, 258, stating that the emphasis on the free choice and rewards in this world (Bel. 2.164–65; Ant. 13.173) should not be understood in the Hellenistic way but as a conclusion flowing from the Jewish premises and the priestly functions of the Sadducees. 44 Of the many meanings of the verb ἀφανίζω, let us note “to cover, to hide, to remove, to take”; hence “to destroy, to kill, to annihilate” – the soul dies along with the body at death (see LSJ 286). 45 See Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 102 n. 16: “Two famous passages ... do not portray the Sadducees as Epicureans,” adding that he means the Sadducees’ theologumena; this is confirmed by Simon, “Epikureismus und Epikureertum,” 2033–34: “Ist diese Parallelisierung historisch gerechtfertigt?” On the other hand, Josephus directly juxtaposed the Pharisees with the Stoics as being close to or almost equal to them (ἣ παραπλήσιός ἐστι) (Vita 12) and the Essenes with the Pythagoreans (Ant. 15.371); see also Goodman, “The Place of the Sadducees,” 131–33.

71

72

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

of debates and disputes with teachers of wisdom, and this can be confirmed by the dispute between them and Jesus. The Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, rejected the oral tradition that arose around the Law (Ant. 13.297–298). Josephus also mentions the violent, malicious and harsh disposition of the Sadducees towards each other and outsiders (cf. Bel. 2.166),46 contradicting the image of the Epicureans living in friendship (φιλία). Additionally, he indicates that the Sadducees held various offices.47 Despite these differences, the theological-religious image of the Sadducees given by Josephus resembles the philosophical ideas of Epicurus and his school. Therefore, one can ask what motives Josephus had when he juxtaposed the views of these social groups. Was it only his personal perception of the history of the chosen people and his desire to create a positive image of the party based on analogy and conditioned by the historical context? 1.3

The Sources of the Sadducean Denial of the Resurrection

The rise of Sadducism and the historical development of their party are of interest to us in the context of the question about the origin of their views on man’s fate after death. This element of the Sadducean doctrine appears in the Gospel writings in the form of a dispute with Jesus about the resurrection. Nevertheless, the answer must be set in a broader historical and ideological context. 1.3.1 Sadducism vs. Epicureanism

It is not known exactly when the Sadducees and their religious views originated. The party was certainly formed during the period of the Maccabees, the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes or shortly thereafter, because during the reign of John Hircanus (134–104 BCE), the Sadducees existed as an organised religious sect (Joseph. Ant. 13.293). It does not seem possible to indicate a more precise date. However, the Sadducees probably came from the circles of priests and high priests as well as from the Philhellene upper class of Judean society. There were two factors in the formation of a religious party by the Sadducees: theological-religious reasons and political-social elements. If the name “Sadducees” is associated with Zadok, and this is the most likely origin of their name, they can be related to the Old Testament priestly line of the Zadokites. The history of this priestly dynasty from the Babylonian exile to the death of Onias 46 Josephus gives another example of this behaviour of the Sadducees, this time represented by Annas the High Priest and his five sons in Antiquitates Judaicae; their cruelty contributed to the death of James the Elder, the Lord’s brother (Ant. 20.198–201). 47 See Goodman, A History of Judaism, 127, and also Newman, Proximity to Power, 78–81.

The Sadducees and the Resurrection of the Dead

III, the last rightful High Priest in Jerusalem, is fairly well known. After the death of Onias III, during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Zadokites dispersed (2 Macc 4:32–38). The successor and heir to the ancestral traditions, Onias IV, fled to Egypt, where he built a temple in Leontopolis (Joseph. Ant. 13.62–73). Another group of the “sons of Zadok” went to the desert and might have joined the Qumran community (cf. CD 4:2b–4).48 The Zadokites that remained in Jerusalem must have given birth to a new party, as some scholars claim. The final separation of the Sadducees from the Pharisees took place during the reign of John Hyrcanus.49 Rabbinic sources give another theological and religious genesis for the name “Sadducees.” In the light of the non-canonical rabbinic tradition, established in Avot of Rabbi Nathan, the Sadducees descended from Zadok, a disciple of the famous Antigonus of Sokho, who lived in the 2nd century BCE.50 According to this tradition, two disciples of Antigonus, Zadok and Boethus, misinterpreted their master’s teaching about selfless service to God without regard for rewards, giving rise to two sects: the Sadducees and the Boethusians (mAvot 1.3). Commentators treat this rabbinic tradition with reserve, questioning, above all, its historical value as it cannot be placed in the second century BCE.51 Nevertheless, it shows an important doctrinal question that caused the division and rise of the Sadducees. In the light of Avot of Rabbi Nathan, the schism was caused by the Pharisees’ attitude towards the resurrection, reward and afterlife, and it was different from that of Zadok and his disciples (Sadducees).

48 Further recalled texts: 4Q394–4Q399 = 4QMMT; see Botha, “History and Point of View,” 248–50, who claims that we have too little information about this topic; similarly Stemberger, “The Sadducees,” 429 n. 3 and 5). 49 Maier, Zwischen den Testamenten, 257, who believes that some of the Zadokites adjusted to the new religious and political conditions and transformed themselves into the Sadducean direction. Cf. Newman, Proximity to Power, 81–82, who distinguishes two groups of the Sadducees (p. 81 “we shall distinguish between the ‘Jerusalem Sadducees’ and the ‘Halakhic Sadducees’”) and gives their historical picture; see also Goodman, “The Place of the Sadducees,” 125–27. 50 “Antigonus of Soko had two disciples who used to study his words. They taught them to their disciples, and their disciples to their disciples. These proceeded to examine the words closely and demanded: ‘Why did our ancestors see fit to say this thing? Is it possible that a laborer should do his work all day and not take his reward in the evening? If our ancestors, forsooth, had known that there is another world and that there will be a resurrection of the dead, they would not have spoken in this manner.’ So they arose and withdrew from the Torah and split into two sects, the Sadducees and the Boethusians ... The Sadducees said, ‘It is a tradition amongst the Pharisees to afflict themselves in this world; yet in the world to come they will have nothing’” – quoted after Isenberg, “An anti-Sadducee Polemic,” 441; cf. Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, 2.360 n. 13. 51 It is generally believed that it dates to the third century CE, although it may be a reminiscence of the division of priestly circles into the Boethusians and the Sadducees during the reign of Herod the Great. See Stemberger, Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, 62–63: “rabbinische Klischees über die Sadduzäer, doch nichts von historischem Wert.”

73

74

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

The second factor influencing the formation of this new religious group was the political and social situation, and in particular, the progression of the Hellenization of Palestinian Jews. It was the Sadducees who enjoyed the opinion of those who favoured the Hellenistic-Roman culture and collaborated with the ruling elites, first with the Hasmonic dynasty, and then with the Roman authorities.52 A great supporter and propagator of Greek culture was Jason, usurper of the office of high priest and brother of Onias III the High Priest from the line of the Zadokites. Jason maintained lively contacts with King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and, as High Priest, he openly favoured Greek education, culture and lifestyle, introducing Greek customs. Jason’s disgraceful attitude was not unique for other Jews, including those from priestly families, who did likewise both before and after the temple was cleansed and the sacrifices restored (2 Macc 4:7–22). Some authors believe that the Sadducees came from this group.53 This belief should include another aspect. The Jews’ reluctance to accept Hellenistic culture was not only religious, but also political and national. This was related to King Antiochus IV Epiphanes whom they recognised as “a sinful root,” a great persecutor of the Jews (1 Macc 1:10). Yet, the Syrian king was an Epicurean, won for the philosophy of The Garden by Philonides. Thanks to Philonides and his disciples, the Antiochian court of the king was also influenced by Epicureanism, as already mentioned. The extent of Epicurean influence on Judaism is unknown, but Epicureanism must have been known in Palestine, and traces of it have remained in some OT books, rabbinic traditions and the writings of Flavius Josephus. Furthermore, both groups, the Epicureans and the Sadducees, are generally mentioned together, so some scholars assume a significant degree of Hellenization of Palestinian Jews and formulate a thesis about a probable influence of Epicurean ideas on the Sadducees. This would also be a reason for the convergence between the Sadducean and Epicurean views.54

52 See Mansoor , “Sadducees,” 655: “lax and worldly-minded aristocrats, primarily interested in maintaining their own privileged position, and favoring Greco-Roman culture ... Historically the Sadducees came under the influence of Hellenism and later were in good standing with the Roman rulers.” 53 This is the perspective of Botha, “History and Point of View,” 255: “In the other words: the Sadducees rose to power and influence by accepting Hellenization. This was interrupted by the revolt, but then they returned to full control under John Hyrcanus as ruler; thereafter they remained in power until the war with Rome.” But according to Saldarini (Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 298–305), the literary sources provide no evidence that the Sadducees were in anyway Hellenized (see p. 302); also lately Goodman, “The Place of the Sadducees,” 130: “It is hard to see why anyone should ever have suggested that Sadducees were particularly imbued with Greek culture...” 54 These are only old opinions shared by some commentators. Cf. Levy, Das Buch Qoheleth, 51: “Sowohl Josephus als der Talmud stellen die Sadduzäer mit den Epikureern in eine Linie”; according to DeWitt (Epicurus and His Philosophy, 29), Epicurus’ philosophy in the second century BCE “had invaded Judaea.”

The Sadducees and the Resurrection of the Dead

Considering that there are no source texts written by the Sadducees, the reasons for the emergence of a new religious party can only be presumed based on the scant knowledge of their theological views and socio-political attitudes. Seemingly, these two factors, theological-religious and political-social, complemented each other, leading to the formation of a new religious group. Nevertheless, all attempts to describe the genesis of Sadducism are purely hypothetical, and consequently, the question of possible Epicurean influences on the religious views of the Sadducees’ party remains open.55 1.3.2 Denial of the Resurrection of the Dead

The Sadducees accepted the written Law of Moses and the other collections of the Hebrew Bible as binding, rejecting the interpretative tradition that grew over centuries thanks to the work of scribes and educated rabbis. This was clearly mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 13.297–98), and this situation seems to be assumed by Jesus when disputing with the Sadducees.56 Yet, did the Sadducees accept only the Pentateuch following the Samaritans? For a long time, scholars have attempted to reconsider this view, with some justification. The fact remains that the fundamental doctrinal differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees seem to stem from a different attitude of the Sadducees towards the Law and the Prophets and to the traditions of the elders (παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων). Apart from rejecting the Pharisaic legal, judicial and cultic tradition, the Sadducees denied the resurrection, afterlife and reward or punishment after death.57 Belief in the resurrection of the body, the afterlife and the day of judgment began to take shape in early Judaism, as early as Persian times, but did not fully crystallize until the Hellenistic period.58 In most of the older texts, the inspired authors speak

55 Stemberger (The Sadducees, 430–33), having analysed the probable beginnings of the Sadducees, states: “the origin of the Sadducees must be considered to be unknown” (p. 433). 56 Cf. Main, “Les Sadduceens,” 174–79. 57 The information about the Sadducees’ attitude towards the Law and their rejection of the tradition of the oral Torah was passed only by Flavius Josephus; for this topic, see Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, 2.407–411. A critical opinion concerning the thesis in question has been expressed by Botha, “History and Point of View,” 245, who thinks that rabbinic texts do not confirm that the Sadducees were to reject the fathers’ tradition (see also pp. 270–272); cf. Stemberger, “The Sadducees,” 435–40. The latest proposal of Newman seems right, Proximity to Power, 75, as he clarifies the view regarding the use of the term ‘oral Torah’: “Therefore, we should assume that Josephus himself meant that the Sadducees did not accept the Pharisee tradition, rather than that they rejected any interpretative tradition of the written Torah.” 58 A discussion of the Old Testament and apocalyptic texts as well as of Hellenist Judaism about the evolution of Jewish belief in the resurrection is given by Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage, 142–292; see also Chapter IV on this issue.

75

76

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

of the resurrection in an allusive and unclear manner (Isa 25:7–8; 26:19; Ps 16:9–11; 73:23–25; Job 19:25–27), mainly describing the stay of the dead in Sheol. This conviction was probably a temporary stage in the formation of the biblical faith in the resurrection and afterlife.59 The idea occurs only in Dan 12:1–3, although this passage does not speak directly about the general resurrection of the dead. However, this concept was known to the author of 2 Maccabees (cf. ἀνάστασις in 7:14; 12:43). Also, the author of the Book of Wisdom knew about the idea of immortality, and although he used Greek terms, they expressed the Hebrew thought. For him, the essence of immortality was man’s holiness and relationship with God in mortality and after death (Wis 2:17–24; 3:1–8; 4:7–15). Other inspired authors, who were active at that time, for example, the sceptical and pessimistic Qoheleth (Eccl 2:16; 3:19–22; 9:2–6), or Jesus, son of Sirach, writing that the father’s immortality is expressed in his sons (Sir 30:4–6) and his memory after his death (Sir 39:9–11), wrote nothing about eternal life. Belief in the resurrection of the body, the afterlife and the day of judgment only became common in intertestamental literature.60 The Sadducees did not share a belief in the resurrection, something confirmed in the NT (Mark 12:18–27; par.), in the writings of Josephus and in the later rabbinic document Avot of Rabbi Nathan. One can even speak of a stereotypical opinion attributed to the Sadducees. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask whether the Sadducees’ view of the resurrection and fate of man after death resulted from their attachment to the older biblical tradition and their religious conservatism. Was it rather the effect of the Sadducees opening up to the Hellenistic spirit or even the influence of Epicurean views? The enigmatic information suggests such a possibility. However, based on ancient literary testimony, no direct relationships can be found between the genesis of the Sadducean views on man’s fate after death and the views of the Epicureans on the same subject. The only help in resolving the problem is the available source texts, recorded in the NT, those by Josephus and the later rabbinic tradition. The exegetical analysis of Mark 12:18–27 confirms the view of the Sadducees’ conservatism and their attachment to the older biblical tradition. This conclusion can be drawn based on the biblical arguments that the Sadducees used that Jesus also used when responding to their question, though this argument

59 Isa 14:9–10; Job 7:9–11; Ps 6:5–6; 49:13–16; 115:17; Sir 17:27. 60 Cf. Sir 8:7; 17:30; 18:9–10; 40:1–11; 41:1–13. See Hengel, Juden, Christen und Barbaren, 173, who does not exclude Greek influences on the Jewish apocalypticism: “In Griechenland waren die Unsterblichkeitshoffnung, die Erwartung eines Totengerichts und die Vorstellung von Orten der Belohnung und der Strafe für die Toten sehr viel älter. Einflüsse von dieser Seite auf die frühe jüdische Apokalyptik sind daher nicht ausgeschlossen.”

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) vs. Epicureanism

is not conclusive.61 In fact, Epicurus’ philosophical views might have played an auxiliary role in the biblical-theological reasons for the Sadducees’ denial of the resurrection of the dead. Every answer is based on mere presumptions.62

2.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) vs. Epicureanism

The Epicurean question reappears in the Gospels in connection with the apostolic tradition and the sources of the canonical Gospels, primarily in the context of research into the Q source. A hypothesis of relations between the Sermon on the Mount and Greek philosophy, including Epicurus’ philosophy, has been presented and defended by Hans Dieter Betz, author of an extensive commentary on the Sermon on the Mount.63 The publication of the commentary was preceded by Betz’s profound studies of the Sermon on the Mount that successively resulted in publications of scientific papers, later collected in one volume and republished.64 One should note that Betz’s claims have not generally been fully accepted by scholars. Nevertheless, they have become an important part of Bible research since their publication. Betz’s hypotheses cannot be ignored when studying the Gospels.65

61 Botha, “History and Point of View,” 266–69, stresses the Sadducees’ faithfulness to the older biblical tradition and their materialism; also Simon opts for the Sadducees’ connection with the biblical tradition, “Epikureismus und Epikureertum,” 2034. 62 The dilemma was accurately formulated by Stemberger, Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, 69: “Antworten auf diese Fragen sind eng mit anderen Thesen verbunden, die die Sadduzäer entweder als konservative Anhänger des altbiblischen Glaubens oder als assimilierte Hellenisten sehen. Die erste Auffassung [= religious conservatism of the Sadducees] könnte mehr Informationen über die Sadduzäer integrieren und ist damit plausibler, jedoch nicht voll beweisbar. Die hellenistisch-epikureische These gehört hingegen rein in das Reich der Polemik.” 63 Hans D. Betz, The Sermon on the Mount. A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3 – 7:27 and Luke 6:20–49) (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995), esp. pp. 72–80 (19 editions were published between 1995 and 2008 in English!). 64 A German edition, quoted here, appeared at the same time: Hans D. Betz, Studien zur Bergpredigt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985) with the English edition: Hans D. Betz, Essays on the Sermon on Mount (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1985) (14 editions were published between 1984 and 2009 in English!). In these essays Betz devoted less attention to the Sermon on the Plain, which he analysed in detail in his later commentary (pp. 571–640). 65 See Robert H. Gundry, “The Sermon on the Mount according to H.D. Betz,” in Robert H. Gundry, ed., The Old is Better. New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations (WUNT 178; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 129–48. Gundry refutes Betz’s theses concerning the Sermon on the Mount, for example, that Matthew would accept, without any redaction, independently written sayings of Jesus; there are more objections voiced by Gundry. Other authors critically assessed Betz’s claims: Charles E. Carlston, “Betz on the Sermon on the Mount: A Critique,” CBQ 50 (1988): 47–57; Ernest W. Saunders, “A Response to H D Betz on the Sermon on the Mount,” BR 36 (1991): 81–87; Klyne Snodgrass, “A Response to Hans Dieter Betz on the Sermon on the Mount,” BR 36

77

78

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

2.1

The Proposals of Hans Dieter Betz

Hans D. Betz’s research on the Sermon on the Mount comprises literary analyses, theological messages and specific exegetical issues, of which the most important to us are the references he postulated to Greek philosophy as the historical and religious context of the Sermon on the Mount. Betz’s assertion that the Sermon on the Mount was originally an autonomous theological work, as is evidenced by, inter alia, its literary form, is completely original. From the literary perspective, the Sermon on the Mount is a philosophical, or rather theological, epitome, i. e., a summary of the essential elements of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. This document was created in the environment of Jerusalem’s Judeo-Christians.66 Although the subsequent statements postulated by Betz are theological, they are related to the above thesis. The Christology of the Sermon on the Mount is characterised by a low stage of development, since Jesus of Nazareth is neither proclaimed the Son of Man nor the Son of God, and the Sermon on the Mount does not contain any message of Jesus’ death on the cross and his resurrection. Therefore, Betz proves that the soteriology of the Sermon on the Mount has nothing to do with the Passover events, but is based on the good deeds of Jesus’ disciples and their justice, greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees. In the Sermon, there is no Christology and no soteriology. The soteriology of the Sermon on the Mount is nothing but the soteriology of the Jewish Torah.67 Jesus has a salvific function only in the broader sense as an interpreter of the Torah; consequently, his message of salvation must be based on other foundations, namely on the Torah that Jesus

(1991): 88–94; Benedict T. Viviano, “The Sermon on the Mount in Recent Study,” Bib 78 (1997): 255–65, esp. pp. 259–62; republished in Benedict T. Viviano, Matthew and His World. The Gospel of the Open Jewish Christians. Studies in Biblical Theology (NTOA 61; Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 51–63. In the meantime, the author defended his theses, see Hans D. Betz, “The Sermon on the Mount: In Defense of a Hypothesis,” BR 36 (1991): 74–80; later also in his commentary in which – despite the critiques – he upheld his hypotheses (A Commentary, 73 n. 479). Let us note as an example that the university library in Munich (LMU München, Universitätsbibliothek) quotes ca. 20 reviews of this commentary. 66 See Betz, A Commentary, 72–73, 80, 88. In his opinion, the Sermon on the Mount is an epitome of Jesus’ teaching for Christians coming from the Greek environment. One can suppose whether H. D. Betz was inspired by DeWitt’s thesis about the lost compilations of Jesus’ Gospels aimed at Christian education and upbringing: “upon Gospels, both those we possess and others that are lost, which must have been compiled for the express purpose of supplying the texts of instruction that were previously lacking” (see DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 53). 67 Betz, A Commentary, 145, 147–149; esp. pp. 554–556; cf. Hans D. Betz, “Matthäus 6, 22–23 und die antiken griechischen Sehtheorien,” in Studien zur Bergpredigt, 62–77, see p. 81: “Damit fehlt in der Bergpredigt nicht nur eine Christologie, sondern auch eine darauf sich gründende Soteriologie; die Soteriologie der Bergpredigt ist keine andere als die der jüdischen Tora.”

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) vs. Epicureanism

taught and interpreted.68 Simply understanding and assimilating the message of the Torah as interpreted by Jesus makes it possible, according to Betz’s evaluation of the Sermon on the Mount’s message, to obtain the righteousness needed in the final judgment (Matt 5:6, 10, 48; 6:1, 33) and receiving the reward (Matt 5:12, 46; 6:1, 2, 5, 16). Jesus’ disciples are to seek the kingdom of God and righteousness (Matt 6:33). Betz states that, according to Jesus’ teaching, fulfilling the requirements of the Torah was tantamount to fulfilling God’s reign on earth, the kingdom of heaven. In the Sermon on the Mount, this reign of God is expressed through the theology of creation, understood as creatio continua, its centre being this teaching characteristic of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 6:25–34). What was the Sitz im Leben of the Sermon on the Mount that had existed as an autonomous theological document? The community of the Sermon on the Mount was one of the sects within the Jewish community in conflict with its entire environment. This community opposed Pharisaism and traditional Judaism (“konventionelles Judentum”) as well as criticised Christians of pagan background. It also began a thorough crackdown on the Hellenistic-Roman world that, in the Sermon on the Mount, assumed the form of subtle polemics with Greek philosophy. However, the latter element can only be recognised with the utmost difficulty, since in the Sermon, it appears in a veiled and hard-to-grasp form.69 At least two aspects of Betz’s theory require elucidation and critical verification in the context of research into Epicureanism. The first question concerns the literary genre of the Sermon on the Mount as an epitome of Jesus’ teaching, and the second involves the presence of a hidden polemic with Greek philosophy in the Sermon, including Epicureanism. 2.2

The Literary Genre of the Sermon on the Mount

The unresolved questions about the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) include the problem of its literary genre, because, in Jewish and early Christian literature, there are no formal analogies to the text of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, H. D. Betz suggests that in looking for literary analogies to the Sermon on the Mount, we should not limit ourselves to Jewish and Christian writings, but extend our search to ancient pagan literature, especially to philosophical and rhetorical writings. Although this issue goes beyond the mainstream of the analyses undertaken here,

68 See Betz, “Matthäus 6, 22–23,” 83–84; cf. idem, “In Defense of a Hypothesis,” 76–77: “Jesus is an authoritative teacher of the Torah, nothing more.” 69 Betz, “Matthäus 6, 22–23,” 81–83; idem, “In Defense of a Hypothesis,” 78. Betz explains that he means a group that gathered around Peter, James and John in Jerusalem ca. 50 CE, a group that “tried to remain within the Jewish religion.”

79

80

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

as already signalled in the introduction, it is partly related to the question about the presence of anti-Epicurean polemics in the Gospel writings.70 2.2.1 Matt 5–7 the Epitome of Jesus’ Teaching

The starting point for Betz’s hypothesis is his claim that the Sermon on the Mount formed an independent literary and theological unit (corpus separatum), being neither the work of Jesus of Nazareth nor the editor of the Q source nor the Evangelist Matthew. The Sermon on the Mount is a Judeo-Christian writing that originated around 50 CE, a polemic with Jews who adhered to the Mosaic law. Thus, as to its literary form, the Sermon on the Mount would be an example of a philosophical epitome that, at the subsequent stage of tradition, was included, without revision, to the Q source and the Gospel.71 The guidelines needed to define the literary form of the Sermon on the Mount are provided by Matt 5–7, namely the motif of “two roads” in the final part of the Sermon, which traditionally has a figurative function in ethical and moral teaching. This function is indicated by two parallel formulations: one road leads to destruction and the other leads to life (cf. Matt 7:13–14). At the end of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:24–27), we learn that the narrow road is identical to the right answer to Jesus’ sayings (λόγοι); it is the answer to the teaching given in the Sermon on the Mount. It is the road leading to eternal life, while rejecting Jesus’ teaching leads to death.72 As stated by Betz, hearing (ἀκούειν) refers not only to the physical process but includes understanding and grasping what is heard, and then acting on Jesus’ words. As a matter of fact, the Sermon on the Mount teaches how to correctly understand and fulfil the Torah, whose full realisation is the goal of the Sermon on the Mount.73 How does this relate to the literary genre and function of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7)? The motif of “two roads” is certainly not a literary genre, but – as Betz proves – the ethical and moral elements of the Sermon point to a solution

70 Betz, A Commentary, discusses the history of redaction and the tradition of the text of the Sermon on pp. 24–44, its literary genre on pp. 70–80 and its literary function on pp. 80–88; cf. Hans D. Betz, “Die Bergpredigt. Ihre literarische Gattung und Funktion,” in Studien zur Bergpredigt, 1–16; also Hans D. Betz “The Sermon on the Mount. Its Literary Genre and Function,” JR 69 (1979): 285–97. 71 Betz, A Commentary, 43–44; Betz, “In Defense of a Hypothesis,” 78, in which he repeats his thesis of the inclusion of the Sermon on the Mount first to Q, and then to the Gospel of Matthew “intact and without revision.” 72 Betz, “Die Bergpredigt,” 3: “Die Bergpredigt selber ist in ihrer Gesamtheit als ‘der Weg zum ewigen Leben’ anzusehen, während ‘der Weg zum ewigen Verderben’ aus den Lehren und Taten besteht, die von der Bergpredigt explizit oder implizit verworfen werden.” 73 Ibid., 6: “weil die Bergpredigt letztlich Lehre über das Verstehen und die rechte Verwirklichung der Tora ist, muß ‘Tun’ das eigentliche Ziel der Bergpredigt sein.”

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) vs. Epicureanism

to this problem. They lead to Hellenist literature in which one can find the same components as in the Sermon on the Mount, but in a fuller and more systematic form.74 If the literary elements present in the Sermon on the Mount are expressed in terms appropriate to the principles of Hellenistic rhetoric and ethics, we find them in the framework of diatribic literature. Here, coherent concepts of sensory perception, namely cognition, reflection and meditation on the object cognised (μελετᾶν), functioned and led to a practical application of this cognition (πράττειν). Literary works of this type, exemplified by Epictetus’ diatribes, aimed to stimulate and maintain the dynamism of the reader’s intellectual life. They contained canons or rules that a philosopher could always practice and had at his disposal in order to get to know a philosophical system and follow it every day. These were like philosophical miniatures, of which the greatest and best-known example, and at the same time a kind of textbook prototype, was Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines (Κυρίαι Δόξαι) as an epitome, namely a summary of his philosophical thought. The epitome is a kind of condensation of a large piece, and its characteristic features are brevity and precision in selecting and formulating thoughts. Such a miniature was not just a collection of fragments. It aimed to summarise the entire philosophical work, to create a miniature of the whole and its systematised outline. As a work, Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines presents his philosophical system as a whole, but from the formal side, it is an epitome.75 Thanks to Epicurus, we also learn about the literary function of his epitomai. Such summaries were not written for those who were outside The Garden or for beginners of this school of philosophy, but for Epicurus’ advanced disciples who knew well the main tenets of his philosophical programme. The epitome helped the Epicureans remember their master’s most important views concerning particular topics, and they could use this form when needed. In the process of studying and getting to know a philosophical system, on the one hand, the epitome allowed its followers to maintain a comprehensive vision, and on the other hand, to remember ready-made and set phrases that captured the essence of the school’s philosophical views. The ultimate goal was to assimilate the entire system and its implementation in everyday life, since meditation and practice (μελετᾶν and πράττειν) go hand in hand.76 H. D. Betz concludes that, as for its literary form, the Sermon on the Mount resembles Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines.77 As an epitome, the Sermon on the Mount systematically presents Jesus’ theological teaching. It is a composition of Jesus’

74 Ibid., 7–9. 75 Ibid., 13: “Als Kompositionseinheit geben die Kyriai Doxai Epikurs philosophisches System in seiner Gesamtheit wieder.” 76 Betz, A Commentary, 79–80; Betz, “Die Bergpredigt,” 13–14. 77 Using Betz’s wording, “Die Bergpredigt,” 15: “die große Ähnlichkeit von Bergpredigt und Epikurs Kyriai Doxai, soweit es die Frage der literarischen Gattung und Funktion betrifft”; cf. his slightly

81

82

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

carefully worked-out words and sayings, collected and arranged in terms of theological topics considered most important. According to the goal and function of the Epicurean epitome, the Sermon on the Mount is an indispensable tool for Jesus’ disciples, who should be theologians hearing and acting on Jesus’ words. The disciples’ “hearing and acting” means their ability to creatively exercise theology according to the Teacher’s words. In terms of the slogan, as summarised by Betz, the Sermon on the Mount is not a “law” to be observed, but a theology intended to be known with the intellect and internally assimilated so that, in specific circumstances, the teachings of Jesus could creatively be developed and implemented.78 2.2.2 Verifying Betz’s Hypothesis

Hans D. Betz’s proposal to define the Sermon on the Mount as a literary epitome of Jesus’ sayings is original and extremely interesting, but highly improbable. Suffice it to say that, according to critics, the hypothesis cannot be considered probable mainly for historical reasons.79 Let us begin the verification of Betz’s hypothesis by pointing to its hidden aspects. The first point of criticism concerns the relationship between a philosophical work and its summary which should be the epitome. Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines is the epitome of his philosophical system that was presented in other numerous and extensive works (cf. Diog. Laert. 10.35). Although most of these works were lost, Epicurus’ most important work De natura is known to have thirty-seven volumes. Assuming that the epitome as a literary genre was known to a small group of Palestinian Judeo-Christians, one might ask: what written work of Jesus of Nazareth was summarised as the Sermon on the Mount?80 If, on the other hand,

modified position in his commentary although the essence of his conception has not changed (A Commentary, 79). 78 Betz, “Die Bergpredigt,” 15. 79 See Saunders, “A Response to H D Betz,” 81–83. Ulrich Luz referred to Betz’s claims in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 1. Teilband: Matt 1–7 (EKKNT 1.1; Zürich: Benziger [et al.], 3 1992), 185–87 n. 5, pointing to two facts that undermine the hypothesis: the compositional affiliation of the Sermon on the Mount to the closest preceding and following context (1); inability to find differences between the author/editor of the Sermon on the Mount and the editor of the Gospel of Matthew (2). Additionally, Luz voices an objection that Betz never justified his hypothesis in a more extensive way; see also W[illiam] D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Vol. 1: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I – VII (ICC 31.1; London [u. a.]: T&T Clark, 2004; reprint 2010), esp. pp. 410–28. 80 See Carlston, “Betz on the Sermon,” 51: “In both form and function, therefore, the Sermon on the Mount differs substantially from its purported Hellenistic parallels.” Saunders expresses a different tone of criticism, “A Response to H D Betz,” 81–83, stating that Epicurus never defined his Principal

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) vs. Epicureanism

the Sermon on the Mount is a collection and summary of oral traditions, how do we know that it systematically and comprehensively reflects the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth? How does the Sermon on the Mount relate to the other sayings of the first Gospel?81 The second set of questions relates to the problem of the connection between the words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth. Concerning Greek philosophers, we are dealing with formal schools of philosophy, usually based in large urban centres. This was also the case with Epicurus, who only exceptionally left his Garden in Athens. In contrast, all known literary sources about Jesus of Nazareth testify that he lived the life of a travelling teacher and preacher, performing miracles and signs, and was condemned to death on the cross in Jerusalem around 30 CE. Thus, the public activity of Jesus of Nazareth should be compared, if at all, with the life of the itinerant philosophers, preachers and sophists of the Roman Age.82 Moreover, we should not forget that Jesus’ disciples ascribed great importance to Jesus’ words and deeds. Jesus of Nazareth left not only his ethical and moral teaching (didache), but also his lifework (kerygma). Taken out of his context and Sitz im Leben, the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth takes on, in Betz’s hypothesis, a literary and theological function that leads directly to its deformation.83 Another objection is related to the place and status of the recent research on the Sermon on the Mount in the context of Betz’s proposal. Scholars’ views on the sources, origin and history of the formation of the Sermon on the Mount are fairly similar or at least convergent. It is considered certain that fragments of the

Doctrines as an epitome, and “we use the term ‘epitome’ with caution, realizing its imprecise character” (p. 82). 81 These objections have precisely been made by Snodgrass, “A Response to Hans Dieter Betz,” 88: “In my opinion the Sermon on the Mount is a partial summation of the ethical instruction of Jesus, some of which is unfolded in the rest of the Gospel.” Cf. also Marco Frenschkowski, “Welche biographischen Kenntnisse von Jesus setzt die Logienquelle voraus? Beobachtungen zur Gattung von Q im Kontext antiker Spruchsammlungen,” in Jon Ma. Asgeirsson, Kristin de Troyer and Marvin W. Meyer, eds., From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson (BETL 146; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 3–42. 82 For example, the Cynics acted in a similar way, but as it has been indicated in the introduction that looking for an analogy between Jesus (and the beginnings of Christianity) and Cynic philosophy is not justified (cf. F.G. Downing’s works). 83 In the Letter of James, the Christological element was also reduced to a minimum in favour of ethical instructions, but in the critical-literary aspect, this letter is an occasional letter, while the Sermon on the Mount is an epitome – a systematic summary of Jesus’ teaching. Betz’s presentation of the Christology of the Sermon on the Mount has decisively been criticised by: Carlston, “Betz on the Sermon,” 54–55; cf. Saunders, “A Response to H D Betz,” 85–86, who asks straightforwardly: “Did the compiler indeed know Jesus simply as a ‘nonchristological teacher of Torah’?” Moreover, he points to the fact that both the Evangelists and Paul knew Jesus’ teaching and the kerygma of Jesus Christ: they proclaimed his words and deeds.

83

84

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

Sermon came directly from the historical Jesus, that, as the authentic logia of the Lord, were collected in a document referred to as the Q source, later extended and supplemented with new texts through the apostolic tradition.84 Moreover, one cannot reject, as in the analysis proposed by Betz, the redactional activity of Matthew in composing the Sermon on the Mount. This is a fundamental flaw in Betz’s hypothesis.85 Consequently, the crux of the issue is to determine the literary genre of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7).86 Indeed, it is difficult to find an analogous literary form that will suit the present version of the Sermon on the Mount, i. e., a compilation of Jesus’ words spoken on various occasions. The texts of Matt 5–7 represent various forms and literary genres: macarism (5:3–11), legal discourse (5:18, 21–22; 7:12), antithesis (5:21–48), prophetic word (5:12; 7:13–14), metaphor (5:13a, 14a; 7:16, 18), parable (5:13b, 15; 6:22–23; 7:3–5, 24–27) and proverb (6:21, 24). Commentators emphasise various literary aspects of the Sermon on the Mount: legal, sapiential and apocalyptic. However, the most appropriate literary context of the Sermon on the Mount is the Old Testament that was not given its rightful place in Betz’s analyses.87 Many similar instructions and teachings can also be found in rabbinic literature, although some of them, e. g., blessing the poor, the prohibition

84 Naturally, opinions on the formation of the Sermon’s text are divergent on specific issues, which is not surprising. See the discussion: Marcel Dumais, Le sermon sur la montagne. État de la recherche. Interprétation. Bibliographie (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1995); on pp. 56–58 (the problem of the sources), pp. 59–60 (Matthew’s redactional contribution). Initially, Betz did not address the exegetes’ findings, and this obvious failure of his hypothesis was stressed by Carlston, “Betz on the Sermon,” 47–49. Betz reacted in 1991 (“In Defense of a Hypothesis,” 75–76) and presenting the history of research on the Q source, he concludes that both speeches (Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and Luke’s Sermon on the Plain) were added to Q at a later stage of its development as QMatt and QLuke , one to instruct converts from Judaism, the other to instruct those coming from a Greek background; cf. Betz, A Commentary, 87–88. 85 See Carlston, “Betz on the Sermon,” 55–57: “Betz is largely unconcerned about Matthean activity” (p. 53); cf. Snodgrass, “A Response to Hans Dieter Betz,” 88–89. For example, Joachim Gnilka presents a balanced position, Das Matthäusevangelium. I Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1 – 13,58 (HThKNT 1.1; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1986), 1.111, who, on the one hand, accepts the existence of Q common for Matthew and Luke, and on the other hand, he stresses the activity of the Evangelist Matthew in the redaction of the Sermon on the Mount. See Donald Alfred„ Matthew 1 – 13 (WBC 33A; Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1993), 82–84. Betz, “In Defense of a Hypothesis,” 77–78, attempts to defend this point of the hypothesis by pointing to the disagreement between commentators as to the actual redactional contribution of Matthew to the Sermon on the Mount; moreover, he highlights the work of Matthew as a historian and theologian. 86 Dumais, Le sermon sur la montagne, 93–96. 87 Viviano, “The Sermon on the Mount in Recent Study,” 263: “It is perhaps a disappointment to the learned, but the source to which Matt, the SM, and the rest of the NT make most frequent and public appeal is the OT (in its variety of text types, to be sure). One should start there.”

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) vs. Epicureanism

on divorce and the command to love enemies, are missing. Moreover, in rabbinic literature, the instructions are scattered and ascribed to various rabbis, while in the Sermon on the Mount, they form a collection of sayings whose author is exclusively Jesus of Nazareth – the Messiah and the Son of God.88 A close literary parallel to the Sermon on the Mount is the Qumran Community Rule (1 QS).89 Despite these similarities, especially to rabbinic teachings, the Sermon on the Mount is a Christian discourse on morality. Suffice it to recall the common belief that the Sermon on the Mount is a Christian didache addressed to Jesus’ disciples (cf. Matt 5:2; 7:28), although this description of a literary genre is undoubtedly very general. 2.3

Anti-Epicurean Elements in Matt 5–7

In addition to the problem of the literary form of the Sermon on the Mount, H. D. Betz’s publications contain detailed statements that also raise the problem of the encounter between Christianity and Epicureanism in the New Testament. According to Betz, there are smaller literary units of the Sermon on the Mount that have references to the Hellenistic-Roman world, usually polemical and critical, including a polemic with Epicurus’ views. First, the problem of the presence of anti-Epicurean elements in the Sermon on the Mount will be outlined, followed by a selected example.90 2.3.1 General Characteristics

On the periphery of the main considerations on the literary genre of the Sermon on the Mount, Betz adds that, despite the great differences in content, the Sermon on the Mount is not without references to Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines. He even writes about an extraordinary phenomenon, the surprising parallels of the Sermon on the Mount to Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines and other Epicurean writings, explaining that these references appear to be anti-Epicurean.91 At this point, we are juxtaposing the references suggested by Betz, only exceptionally adding comments: 88 See Martin Hengel, “Zur matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund,” TRev 52 (1987): 327–400, esp. pp. 370–95; Harold S. Songer, “The Sermon on the Mount and Its Jewish Foreground,” RevExp 89 (1992): 165–77. 89 Viviano, “The Sermon on the Mount in Recent Study,” 263: “So with regard to the genre of the SM, its peculiar fusion of law, wisdom and apocalyptic has its closest parallel in the Qumran rules, not the philosopher’s epitome. But even the Serek (IQS) is not an exact parallel or model (e. g., it has a poem and no parable).” 90 These claims appeared in Betz’s earlier publications. In his commentary, which has been referred to many times, Betz softened his stance and revised some theses (influenced by the critiques?). 91 See Betz, “Die Bergpredigt,” 15 n. 75: “Ein besonders Phänomen sind die überraschenden Parallelen zur Bergpredigt in Epikurs Kyriai Doxai, nicht zu reden von anderen Schriften der epikureischen

85

86

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) Matt 5:3 Matt 5:4 Matt 5:5–9 Matt 5:10–12 Matt 5:17–20 Matt 5:48; 7:24–27 Matt 6:25–33 Matt 7:12 Matt 7:24–27

Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines K.D. I K.D. II K.D. III K.D. IV K.D. XXXV–XXXVIII K.D. XX K.D. X; XV; XVIII; XXI; XXVI; XXIX; XXX K.D. XXXI; XXXII K.D. V; XVI; XVII; XXV

The first group of references concerns Matthew’s Beatitudes (Matt 5:3–12; cf. K.D. I–IV). Betz devoted much attention to this issue, although he did not systematically elucidate the original suggestion, and in his later commentary, he did not emphasize the parallels of content between the Beatitudes and Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines. Indeed, such parallels can be found, but they are also present in the texts of the Jewish apocalyptic writings as well as in various Greek religious and philosophical texts. However, they are not exclusive. Thus, their resemblance with Epicureanism, if any at all, is of a formal nature: the first Beatitude (Matt 5:3) and the first sentence of Epicurus (K.D. I) are a kind of prooemium – presenting the topic: the authors define the essence and core of the remaining “Beatitudes”: Matt 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

KD. I A blessed and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness.92

According to Betz, the first Beatitude is a kind of fundamental theological definition that includes all the conditions for salvation. The author of the Sermon on the

Schule. Dieses Phänomen scheint auf antiepikureische Tendenzen in der Bergpredigt hinzudeuten”; cf. Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2277. 92 Diog. Laert. 10.139 (Robert D. Hicks, LCL). This topic has been discussed in detail in Betz, “Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt (Matthäus 5,3–12). Beobachtungen zur literarischen Form und theologischen Bedeutung,” in Studien zur Bergpredigt, esp. pp. 24–31 (yet without direct references to Epicurus); cf. Betz, A Commentary, 97–105, esp. pp. 103–104.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) vs. Epicureanism

Mount intended to specify addressees of the first blessing not only as economically poor people, but in an anthropological sense as poor and regrettable creatures. By accepting the status of “the poor,” they are saved and enter Paradise, and the subsequent Beatitudes only extend and complete the first call. Something similar can be said about the first doctrine of Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines.93 Some of the quoted parallels are only loosely related to each other.94 However, the situation is different in the case of the other two parallels. The first text speaks of the eye as the lamp of the body (Matt 6:22–23) and is, as stated by Betz, evidence of a vivid polemic between Judaism and Hellenism (see the discussion below). The second text, an extensive statement about an excessive concern for life and temporal matters (Matt 6:25–34), contains elements common to Judaism, Christianity and Hellenism, and deals with the problem of God’s reign and providence understood as creatio continua.95 According to Betz, the Sermon on the Mount is also a reaction to a deep crisis of faith in divine providence characteristic of the entire ancient world. The text of Matt 6:25–34 would be a clear apology of faith in divine providence, and the uniqueness of the response to this crisis recorded in the Sermon on the Mount is that it points to God’s reign not as a monarch, but as a cosmic father who watches over everything and cares that people have food (cf. Matt 6:26–27).96 Apart from the quoted example, another text is worth noting: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them underfoot and turn and maul you” (Matt 7:6; cf. Gos. Thom. 93). Betz thinks that this logion, hard to interpret, may contain a hidden polemic directed against the Epicureans, who were called in another text “a hog from Epicurus’s herd” (Horace Ep. 1.4.15).97 Still, this is only one of the possible interpretations of the logion, 93 Cf. Betz, “Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt,” 31–33; cf. A Commentary, 104: “Epicurus’s sententia defines in a theoretical way what according to his philosophy constitutes ‘blessedness’, that is, ‘imperishability’ – things talked about in religion.” The next Beatitudes have only very loose relations with Epicurus’ sententia; cf. Betz’s commentary on the second Beatitude (A Commentary, 119–24, n. 233–34). 94 Matt 5:17–20; cf. Epicurus, K.D. XXXV–XXXVIII; Matt 5:48; 7:24–27; cf. K.D. XX. For this topic, see Hans D. Betz, “Die hermeneutischen Prinzipien in der Bergpredigt (Matt 5:17–20),” in Studien zur Bergpredigt, 34–48. 95 See Hans D. Betz, “Kosmogonie und Ethik in der Bergpredigt,” in Studien zur Bergpredigt, 78–110; cf. Betz, A Commentary, 459–86. 96 See Betz, “Kosmogonie und Ethik,” 105–107; esp. pp. 97–97, where he shows the closeness of Matt 6:26–27 to the views of Greek philosophers, especially Epicurus. However, apart from the purely external similarity of themes, it is difficult to see any significant convergence of thought here. It is enough to confront the interpretation proposed by Betz with Luz’s commentary, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1.363–75, who in Matt 6:25–34 perceives a call to strive for the kingdom of God and his righteousness. 97 See n. 56 in chapter one. Cf. Betz, “Die Bergpredigt,” 15 n. 75; Betz, A Commentary, 493–500, esp. p. 489; see also Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum, 1.340.

87

88

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

and not the most important one in the history of research on this text. This logion should be applied to the Jews or the Gentiles (Matt 10:5; 15:24), to opponents of the faith and apostates from it (Phil 3:2; 2 Pet 2:22), or generally to all those who rejected the Good News of Christ (Heb 10:29).98 As all the quoted parallels and convergences are accidental, one should talk about ordinary analogies or similarities that have little to do with dependence, especially any influence of Greek philosophical traditions on the redactor of the Sermon on the Mount.99 2.3.2 Exemplification (Matt 6:22–23)

For commentators and exegetes, the verse presenting the eye as the lamp of the body (Matt 6:22) is very problematic and a riddle to be solved. Yet, in Betz’s opinion, in interpreting this difficult logion, we should consider analogies and parallels from Greek philosophical texts, and that is what he did. Let us then briefly examine his view.100 Betz begins his argument by discussing the literary form and composition of Matt 6:22–23. According to him, the text consists of an introduction, i. e., a sentence, an aphorism or a proverb, that, in the present context, should be considered the definition of the eye, describing its function (v. 22a). The definition is followed by a critical explanation, consisting of two parts (vv. 22b–23b). The first part (vv. 22b–23a) has the form of antithetical parallelism and contains the physiological and parenetic explanation of the function of the eye: first, the conditions that determine correct vision (v. 22b) are discussed, then those that cause blurred vision (v. 23a). The second part gives the real meaning of the Gospel picture of the eye as a lamp giving the light in man (v. 23b). The final arrangement of the material in the analysed text is as follows:101

98 Matt 7:6 concerns apostates from the faith in Christ or the contemporary situation in Christian communities (cf. Matt 18:15–18). See Hagner, Matthew, 1.170–72; Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1.381–82; Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium, 1.258–59. The scornful epithet “dogs” is applied to representatives of Cynic philosophy (Diog. Laert. 6.60). 99 Müller, “Die religionsgeschichtliche Methode,” 191: “Ohne einen exakten Nachweis der geschichtlichen Vermittlung frühjüdischer oder fremdreligiöser Einwirkung auf die neutestamentliche Tradition ist es nicht möglich, über die Behauptung von bloßen Analogien hinaus begründet von “Abhängigkeit” oder “Übertragung” und “Übernahme” zu reden.” 100 See Betz, “Matthäus 6, 22–23,” 62–77; cf. Betz, A Commentary, 437–53, where he repeats his arguments and at the same time he replies to the critical voices. 101 Betz, “Matthäus 6, 22–23,” 63–65; cf. Betz, A Commentary, 435–42, again repeats his arguments, but also provides a comparative analysis of Matt 6:22–23 with Luke 11:34–36 and the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (Gos. Thom. 24), as well as parallels from the works of the Greek philosophers Theophrastus and Epictetus.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) vs. Epicureanism

v. 22a: v. 22b: v. 23a: v. 23b:

The eye is the lamp (ὁ λύχνος) of the body, So, if your eye is healthy (ἁπλοῦς), your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is unhealthy (πονηρός), your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

Considering the content of Matt 6:22–23, Betz believes that ancient theories of vision should be included in the analysis of the passage, especially those dealing with the eye and the process of seeing. Greek philosophers treated this topic extensively, viewing its various aspects: sensory perception, theories of light and colour as well as the physiology of the eye and its treatment. The first definitions of the eye came from Pythagoras and Heraclitus, while the dualistic approach to light and dark appeared in the works of Parmenides as a metaphor for truth and untruth, knowledge and ignorance, as well as existence and non-existence. The image of the eye as a lamp (ὁ λύχνος) first appeared in Empedocles’ works, although his concept is different from that of Matt 6:22.102 Later philosophers continued to create new theories of perception, including sensory perception, but the previous foundations were preserved and determined the directions of research. Based on the work of Theophrastus’ De sensibus, Betz indicates that there were two main concepts of sense perception in ancient philosophy. Parmenides, Empedocles, Plato and others were advocates of a theory that can be succinctly termed “similarity.” According to this theory, the source of perception is located within a living organism. Perception, especially sensation, consists in the aftereffect or emanation, ἀπόρροια, of particles from within a living being to the perceived object. The representatives of the second stance, e. g., Anaxagoras and Heraclitus, begin their theories of perception from the notion of “opposite,” assuming that opposites attract each other. The second concept is also supported by the materialist Democritus, who explained the emergence of sensory impressions (the so-called assumptions) as the contact of atoms flowing from the perceived objects and reaching the senses of the perceiving organism. Naturally, the air is the carrier of atoms. Democritus explained the process of seeing in a similar way. The separated streams of light atoms reach the eye and penetrate inside through the channels, moving similar atoms, and causing the formation of so-

102 See extensive arguments: Betz, “Matthäus 6, 22–23,” 65–68; followed by an excursus on this topic: Betz, A Commentary, 442–49, including the bibliography. In the excursus, Betz reflects on Jewish wisdom, apocalyptic and rabbinic literature, thus taking into account the critics’ objections. However, he upholds his opinion that Matt 6:22–23 is an example of a confrontation between Judaic thought and Hellenism (p. 442). In his opinion (p. 448), the Greek theories of sense perception, including eye perception, influenced the pre-New Testament Jewish theologians.

89

90

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

called impressions. In order for the process of seeing to remain undisturbed, the eye must be in good condition, while disturbances in vision are always physiological.103 Likewise, the process of seeing and visual disturbances was explained by Epicurus in his theory of “images” or “semblances” (εἴδωλα). Thus, “images” are produced by objects, and when objects are detached from images, they travel to the eye.104 As stated by H. D. Betz, the theory of Epicurus was known in New Testament times, having been proclaimed by the Epicureans, including Lucretius (Lucr. 4.311–52). Therefore, it must be assumed that the logion about the eye as the source of the body’s light (Matt 6:22) rejects, intentionally or unintentionally, the atomistic and Epicurean theory of perception, but adopts the Empedoclean and Platonic traditions.105 Next, Betz discusses Plato’s point of view, finally emphasising the ethical and parenetic postulates of Matthew’s logion about the eye as a lamp of the body: the author of the logion in question corrects the physiological point of view of Greek philosophers, pointing out that a purely physiological approach does not decide about correct or incorrect vision. Introducing the extraordinary pair of adjectives ἁπλοῦς / πονηρός, the author of the logion transfers the discussion to the level of ethics: it is not the eye that is the source of good and evil but the inner light (lux internum), if it has not become darkness.106 In Betz’s opinion, Matt 6:22–23 is part of the great confrontation between Judaism and the Hellenistic-Roman world that, in the Sermon on the Mount, in addition to polemics with traditional Judaism and intra-Christian polemics, also took the form of subtle debates with the statements of Greek philosophy in a broader sense.107 Betz’s argumentation is interesting because of its originality, yet it is as improbable as it is original. Referring to the ancient philosophical theories of the eye and the process of seeing in the context of Matt 6:22–23 is an extremely thought-provoking

103 Betz, “Matthäus 6, 22–23,” 68–69; cf. Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 1.157–58, 182–84. 104 Betz, “Matthäus 6, 22–23,” 69–70; cf. Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.179–84, 223–25; on p. 223 he writes: “Da tutte le cose emanano “immagini” o “simulacri” (εἴδωλα) che ne riproducono le fattezze e, penetrando in noi, producono non solo le sensazioni ma anche il pensiero.” 105 Betz, “Matthäus 6, 22–23,” 70: “Blickt man nun auf Matt 6:22f zurück, so wird man den Schluß ziehen müssen, daß der Abschnitt, sei es absichtlich oder unabsichtlich, die atomistische und epikureische Sehtheorie ablehnt, während gegenüber der empedokleischen und platonischen Tradition wenigstens in dem Punkte Zustimmung erfolgt, daß das Sehen durch das Licht geschieht, das aus dem Inneren des Körpers nach außen tritt”; cf. Betz, A Commentary, 445, where this statement was repeated; also on pp. 449–53. 106 See Betz, “Matthäus 6, 22–23,” 75–77. Betz interprets the logion, suggesting that in Matt 6:23b the Stoic-Platonic anthropology is corrected as well; in his commentary, he has repeated his arguments almost without any alternations (Betz, A Commentary, 452–53). 107 Betz, Kosmogonie und Ethik, 82: “Hierzu gehören subtile Auseinandersetzungen mit Lehren der griechischen Philosophie im weiterem Sinne.”

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) vs. Epicureanism

idea, although Betz’s parenetic conclusions are accessible regardless of this theoretical knowledge. On the other hand, presenting Matt 6:22–23 as a subtle, polemical confrontation of Judeo-Christian beliefs with the views of ancient philosophers will be an over-interpretation of the text, and reading in it information that the inspired author did not intend. At this point, it is sufficient to indicate basic reservations, primarily of a methodological nature.108 The interpretation presented raises objections chiefly because of the place where the logion about the lamp was put in Matt 6:22–23, namely, as part of the Sermon on the Mount, a collection of moral instructions and guidelines. In the immediately preceding context, the addressees of the Sermon are called to store up treasures in heaven (Matt 6:19–21) in the context of warning against serving two masters (Matt 6:24), worrying about life too much (Matt 6:25–34) and judging others (Matt 7:1–5). Therefore, we can ask whether these are deliberate subtle philosophical debates.109 The discussed part of the Sermon (Matt 6:19–7:11) focuses on Jesus’ disciples, who are primarily striving for “greater righteousness,” i. e., ethicalmoral guidelines, and this element should be considered while interpreting the text.110 The second problematic point concerns biblical and non-biblical traditions that constitute the foreground and primary context of Jesus’ / Matthew’s logion about the lamp (Matt 6:22–23). Both parties of the dispute, H. D. Betz and his critics, having at their disposal the same source texts quoted in the context of Matt 6:22–23, evaluate their meanings and mutual dependence in a completely different way.111 In the biblical tradition, the inspired authors did not discuss the physical process of seeing but actually adopted the metaphorical or pictorial sense of the eye (Ps 38:11; Prov 15:30; 29:13; Tob 10:5; 11:13; John 11:9–10).112 Moreover, eyes incidentally 108 Regardless of the voiced criticism, Betz’s stance concerning Matt 6:22–23 has not changed; see Dale C. Allison, “The Eye Is the Lamp of the Body (Matthew 6:22–23 = Luke 11:34–36),” NTS 33 (1987): 61–62; Hagner, Matthew, 1.159: “It seems highly improbable that the evangelist here deliberately opposes the Platonic–Stoic anthropology concerning the lumen internum (as Betz contends).” 109 If so, why do the theories about the eye and vision, esp. in the views of Lucretius and the Epicureans, need a special polemic? Were they so common in Judea and Jerusalem? What about Cicero’s views (Tusc. 1.46) on this question? Allison, “The Eye Is the Lamp,” 62–66, presents in detail the ancient theories of perception. There were not two, but four concepts, keeping in mind that the Platonic views were common in the ancient world and cannot be reserved only to the Greeks; cf. also Snodgrass, “A Response to Hans Dieter Betz,” 88, who questions the validity of the parallels quoted by Betz from the source texts. 110 Hagner, Matthew, 1.158, interprets Matt 6:22–23 together with the nearest context, as does Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1.355–63. Betz rejects such a connection, A Commentary, 439. 111 It is very instructive to compare Allison’s opinion, “The Eye Is the Lamp,” 66–71, with Betz’s commentaries, A Commentary, 449–50, n. 214, 220–21. 112 Instead, they mention “dim eyes” because of illness or old age (Gen 27:1; 48:10; Deut 34:7; 1 Sam 3:2; Job 17:7; Lam 5:17). The non-biblical texts that should be quoted can be found in intertestamental

91

92

The Palestinian Beginnings of the Epicurean Question

appear in the image of flaming torches (Dan 10:6: οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ λαμπάδες πυρός) and the image of seven lamps as representing God’s eyes raging through the whole earth (Zech 4:2,10). Are these quoted biblical parallels not sufficient?113 A significant aspect of this issue concerns the context of Matt 6:22–23. On the one hand, the logion has its pre-history, but on the other hand, it was included in the redacted book. The origin of the logion about the eye as the “lamp of the body” is unknown, but in Q, it was related to Jesus’ words about the lamp that no one “puts in a cellar, but on the lampstand” (Luke 11:33–36; cf. Matt 5:14–16; Luke 8:16).114 An analysis of Matthew’s redactional and theological work provides a lot of interesting information. Like other biblical authors, Matthew also resorts to the metaphorical or pictorial sense of the eye, in which he depends on his environment and sources (cf. Matt 5:29; 7:3–5; apart from the Sermon on the Mount, 13:15–16; 18:9; 20:15, etc.).115 In the text under discussion, the “eye” is closely related to other terms, “light” (φῶς) and “lamp” (λύχνος), as earlier in the Q source. The key term is “light” that, in Matthew’s redactional perspective, seems to have a special meaning: Jesus is the light in the darkness (Matt 4:12–17), Jesus’ disciples are the light of the world (Matt 5:14–16) and the eye is the lamp/light of Jesus’ disciples (Matt 6:22–23).116 One can speak of Matthew’s specific theology of light.117

113 114

115

116

117

literature (4 Bar 7:3; 1 En. 106:2, 11; LAE 21:3) and rabbinic writings (bB. Mes 59b; bMeg. 14a; bSabb. 33b); see Allison, “The Eye Is the Lamp,” 66–69. See the non-biblical texts: “… their faces like lamps that have been extinguished, and their eyes aflame” (2 En. 42:1); “their eyes are like torches of fire” (3 En. 35:2). The original wording of the logion remains a mystery. See Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1.356–7); Allison, “The Eye Is the Lamp,” 71–73, observes that Matt 6:22–23 belongs to the Q source and gives its hypothetical reconstruction (Aramaic retranslation on pp. 80–81), indicating that Jesus is the author of this logion. Cf. Hagner, Matthew, 1.158. The text of Matt 20:15 is interesting as it contains an identical expression like the disputable logion about the lamp in Matt 6:23 (cf. ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου πονηρός), thanks to which Matthew’s authorship of this expression is very probable. The noun ὀφθαλμός occurs 17 times in the first Gospel (also 17 times in the Gospel of John; in Mark – 6 times, while in Luke – 12 times, in total in the NT – 85 times); cf. Bauer 1212–13. See Wilhelm Michaelis, “λύχνος,” TWNT 4.327–28: “… es gilt, sich dem Lichte Jesu bzw des Evangeliums ganz zu erschließen.” This is the direction of the author of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas: “There is light within a man of light, and he lights up the whole world. If he does not shine, there is darkness” (Gos. Thom. 24; trans. Wim van den Dungen; Antwerp, 1997). The noun φῶς occurs 7 times in the first Gospel: twice in Matt 4:16 (indirect quotation from Isa 8:23; 9:1); twice in Matt 5:14–16 (redaction); Matt 6:23 (= Luke 11:35 + redaction); Matt 10:27 (cf. Luke 12:3); Matt 17:2 (redaction), thus Matthew’s redactional contribution is certain. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 227, writes: “In dieser Weise hat Matthäus im ganzen seiner Theologie die offenen und vielfältig benutzbaren Bilder vom Saltz und vom Licht eindeutig gemacht” (see more on pp. 168–74, 223–27). Cf. Stefan Szymik, “Matthew’s Theology of Light (Mt 4:15–16; 5:14–16; 6:22–23),” Roczniki Biblijne 1(56) (2009): 21–34.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) vs. Epicureanism

In the context of our research, these remarks are sufficient to show that there are other ways of interpreting Matt 6:22–23 than those proposed by Betz. Naturally, this is only my proposal, but contrary to Betz’s opinion, I assume the editorial and theological participation of Matthew the Evangelist in composing the Sermon on the Mount. However, it seems unlikely to suggest that the Sermon on the Mount contains some subtle debates with the claims of Greek philosophy, and certainly there is no polemic with Epicurus’ philosophical views, because there is insufficient evidence for it. Summing up, the presence of Greek philosophy in the Hellenistic cities around Palestine, and even its presence in Palestine itself, does not mean that from its very beginnings Christianity came into contact with this philosophy in general and with Epicurus’ doctrine in particular. The relevant Gospel texts have not allowed us to pose such a categorical statement, and the analyses carried out in this chapter would confirm this. The presence of the surprising similarities between Sadducism and Epicureanism in their views on man’s fate after death forces one to consider this possibility, but does not provide grounds for formulating final and binding conclusions, because the similarity of ideas does not always mean a cause-effect relationship. In the extensively discussed question about the historical sources of the Sadducees’ religious views as well as their denial of the resurrection of the dead, we can find the same problems encountered by scholars dealing with the Hellenization of Palestine, Judea and Jerusalem, i. e., a set of questions, suppositions and unanswered intuitions. The question of the possible impact of Greek philosophy, including Epicurean views, on the first Christian missionaries in Jerusalem and Judea as well as in Palestine is also debatable (cf. Hans D. Betz). There is no convincing evidence of such influences on the Gospels. Again, this issue is part of the wider problem of the Hellenization of Palestinian Jews. The early Christians, or precisely Judeo-Christians, did not differ in any way – it should be supposed – from their Jewish counterparts, obviously except for their professed faith in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God.

93

III.

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

It is Luke, a New Testament author, who explicitly mentions the Epicureans, describing their meeting with Paul and their reaction to the Christian message. In the city of philosophers, the Apostle debated with interlocutors, whom he accidentally met, including the Epicureans and Stoics, in the marketplace, the agora. Then, on the Areopagus, he gave a speech that met with a grudging response from his audience (Acts 17:16–34). Considering the research undertaken, Luke’s message requires special attention, since we are dealing with an undisputed testimony that there was an encounter between Christianity and Epicurus’ philosophy at the early stage of proclaiming the gospel to the pagan world.1 Commencing in the late 19th century, much attention was paid to the Areopagus speech in terms of its connections with the Old Testament and the convergence of its theological message with the philosophical ideas of the pagan world. Some of the earlier claims, as a result of radical literary criticism and comparative historicalreligious research, have not survived critical scrutiny.2 Nevertheless, the closeness between the theological message of Paul’s speech and the Stoic views is beyond doubt. As Max Pohlenz argued, the theological themes of his speech clearly refer to the philosophical theodicy of the Stoics, their critique of idolatry and their view about the true nature of God.3 Walther Eltester showed the mediating role

1 The literature on Paul’s visit to Athens and the Areopagus speech is very extensive. The older bibliography is given by Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte (vols. 1–2; HTKNT 5.1–2; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1982), 2.227–29; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 613–17. See more: Charles K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 2.822–55; Ben Witherington, III., The Acts of the Apostles. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 511–35; Craig S. Keener, Acts. An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 3: 15:1–23:35 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 2564–2683; Klaus Haacker, Die Apostelgeschichte (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019), 293–305; also Craig S. Keener, Acts (New Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), esp. pp. 427–49. 2 See Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1971 [Leipzig, 1913]), especially the first part (pp. 1–140); also Martin Dibelius, “Paulus auf dem Areopag,” in Martin Dibelius, Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte (FRLANT 42; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3 1957), 29–70, who interpreted the speech in Greek philosophical categories as a Hellenistic speech about the true cognition of God (p. 54). Since its publication (the first edition appeared in 1939) Dibelius’s analysis has become the main reference, but his one-sided “philosophical interpretation” has often been criticised. See also Wilhelm Schmid, “Die Rede des Apostels Paulus vor den Philosophen in Athen,” Philologus 95 (1943): 79–120. 3 Max Pohlenz, “Paul und die Stoa,” ZNW 42 (1949): 69–104. In Pohlenz’s opinion (pp. 97–98), Paul’s theological thought is different (cf. Rom 1–2), and hence the Areopagus speech should be attributed to

96

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

of the Synagogue and Hellenist Judaism in the adoption of Greek philosophical terminology and concepts by Christianity, an example of which would be the Areopagus speech.4 Opposing the postulated pagan elements, above all the Stoic ones, Bertil Gärtner proved the biblical and Judaic character of the Areopagus address.5 The historical and religious sources of the Areopagus speech seem to have been sufficiently examined. However, the interpretation of these materials depends on establishing what Paul actually said, what Luke added and what his redactional intention was. According to some scholars, Paul’s speech was his confrontation with Athenian philosophers in their philosophical field. Since his attempt was unsuccessful, Paul changed his strategy and returned to preaching the apostolic kerygma in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 2:1–5).6 As others claimed, the Areopagus speech had little to do with the historical Paul, since it is Luke’s composition intended to be a pattern of proclaiming Christ in the pagan world towards the end of the first century CE.7 Over time, extreme positions were abandoned in favour of more balanced ones. For example, Frederick Fyvie Bruce considered Acts 17:22–31 to be a kerygmatic speech, and, at the same time, he emphasized Paul’s missionary abilities which he was able to adapt to any situation.8 In John Kilgallen’s opinion, the Areopagus speech summarises the teaching that Paul gave in Athens and other

4

5 6

7 8

Luke. Schmid, “Die Rede des Apostels Paulus,” 94–95, additionally points to Hellenistic Judaism as an intermediate link between the pagan world and Christianity. Similarly, David L. Balch, “The Areopagus Speech. An Appeal to the Stoic Historian Posidonius against Later Stoics and the Epicureans,” in David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson and Wayne A. Meeks, eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (FS A. J. Malherbe; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 52–79; Balch analysed selected fragments of the Areopagus speech in terms of its compliance with the views of Posidonius of Apamea, a representative of Mediostoicism; among other things, he writes: “In this chapter I argue that Posidonian texts clarify four aspects of the Areopagus address because they are related to contemporary philosophical debates (p. 53).” Walther Eltester, “Gott und die Natur in der Areopagrede,” in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (ZNW 21; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954), 202–27, concludes: “Die Areopagrede steht als erstes Zeugnis am Anfang einer solchen Verbindung biblischen Schöpfungsglaubens und griechischer Weltfrömmigkeit im Bereich des Christentums. Daß sie ihm durch das hellenistische Diasporajudentum vermittelt worden ist, kann nach den beigebrachten Zeugnissen keine Frage mehr sein” (p. 226). Bertil Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 21; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1955), esp. 41–44, 146–58. Schmid most emphatically expressed this view, “Die Rede des Apostels,” 118–20; his thesis has been repeated by many commentators. Cf. Joseph Pathrapankal, “From Areopagus to Corinth (Acts 17:22–31; 1 Cor 2:1–5). A Study on the Transition from the Power of Knowledge to the Power of the Spirit,” Mission Studies 23/1 (2006): 61–80, esp. 74-76. So, e. g., Dibelius, “Paulus auf dem Areopag,” 65, 70. See Frederick F. Bruce, “Paul and the Athenians,” ExT 88 (1976–77): 8; he writes: “Paul of Acts does not cease to be fundamentally biblical in his approach to the Greeks” (p. 11); see also Frederick F. Bruce, The Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles (London: The Tyndale Press, 1942), esp. 14–19.

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

places in the ancient Greek world.9 The place, function and aim of the Areopagus speech are still being discussed. A separate issue, which is most interesting to us, is Luke’s mention of only two philosophical schools (Acts 17:18). Why did the author of Acts mention the Epicureans and the Stoics and not the other schools of philosophy? In what way was the information about the Epicureans important to him? According to the common opinion, Luke specified representatives of two philosophical directions, namely the Epicureans and the Stoics, since they were the dominant ones in those days.10 Mentioning the Stoics is not surprising, since the speech contains many references to Stoic views. But why the Epicureans? According to Charles Kingsley Barrett, the information about philosophical schools was introduced deliberately to prepare the reader for allusions to Stoic and Epicurean philosophical views present in the speech.11 Jerome H. Neyrey perceived the speech as a model of Christian theodicy for the Epicureans, who denied providence.12 In turn, N. Clayton Croy analysed the ambivalent reactions of the Epicureans and Stoics to Paul’s message of the res-

9 John Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31: An example of Interreligious Dialogue,” Studia Missionalia 43 (1994): 43–60. According to the author, Paul’s theistic views were acceptable to pagan philosophers, including atheistic Epicureans; cf. analysis presented from the standpoint of Christian philosophy: Marilyn M. Adams, “Philosophy and the Bible,” Faith and Philosophy 9 (1992): 143–45. 10 For example, Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech, 48; cf. Rudolf Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte (vols. 1–2; EKKNT 5.1–2; Zürich: Benziger, 1986), 2.134: “in der Keiserzeit beliebteste Philosophenschulen”; Josef Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte (RNT 5; Regensburg: Pustet 1994), 638: “die Vertreter der beiden ... wohl berühmtesten Schulen.” 11 Charles K. Barrett, “Paul’s Speech on the Areopagus,” in Mark E. Glasswell and Edward W. FasholéLuke, eds., New Testament Christianity for Africa and the World (London: SPCK, 1974), 73: “In view however of this relation between the Areopagus address and Stoicism it is not unreasonable to think that Luke mentioned the Stoics in v. 18 in order to prepare for the allusions, and to suggest that he mentioned the Epicureans for the same reason.” According to Barrett (pp. 72–75), Paul’s critique of idolatry and proclaiming the true nature of the “unknown God” were an attempt to refer to the Epicurean criticism of Greek folk religiosity guided by superstition and fallacy. Much earlier, Dibelius succinctly expressed the relation of v. 18 with the speech, “Paulus auf dem Areopag,” 62: “Wohl aber werden die Epikureer und Stoiker als Hörer des Apostels genannt – und mit dieser Erwähnung der Philosophen ist der wesentliche Inhalt der Rede ... in der Tat aufs glücklichste vorbereitet und charakterisiert.” Cf. Christopher K. Rowe, World Upside Down. Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 27. 12 Jerome H. Neyrey, “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy. A Study in Stereotypes,” in David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson and Wayne A. Meeks, eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (FS A. J. Malherbe; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 118–34. Neyrey writes: “It is the hypothesis of this chapter that Christian preaching about theodicy seems regularly to have come in conflict with denials of it – denials that are typically, and even specifically, characteristic of Epicureans” (p. 119).

97

98

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

urrection.13 These contributions exhaust the literature on the subject. It may be a coincidence, but apparently, no publication fully addresses the significance of the information about the Epicureans in Acts. I have not found a monographic study of this issue.14 Consequently, a new literary, exegetical and theological analysis of the Epicurean issues in Acts 17:16–34 certainly seems justified. First, it should concern Luke’s narrative about Paul’s stay in Athens (Acts 17:16–34) followed by an examination of the Areopagus speech in terms of its biblical and theological message (Acts 17:22–31). Based on this, it will be possible to determine the redactional intention of the author of the Acts of the Apostles related to his account of Paul’s stay in Athens and the Areopagus speech in order to assess the significance of the information about the Epicureans.

1.

Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16–34)

In light of the information recorded by Luke, Paul was alone in Athens on his second missionary journey, waiting for his companions (Acts 17:16–34). The apostle expected news from the Macedonian cities where he had previously preached the gospel. He used this time of waiting for discussions with the Jewish and pagan inhabitants of the city.15 Studying this Lukan narrative, one should consider the

13 N. Clayton Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32),” NovT 39 (1997): 21–39. 14 Renée Piettre perceived this lack, “Paul and the Athens Epicureans: Between Polytheisms, Atheisms and Monotheisms,” Diogenes 205 (2005): 47–60, who writes: “A kind of Christian prejudice seems to be the rule in this area” (p. 47). Cf. further Kenneth D. Litwak, “Israel’s Prophets Meet Athens’ Philosophers: Scriptural Echoes in Acts 17,22–31,” Bib 85/2 (2004): 199–216; Frederick E. Brenk, “Mixed Monotheism? The Areopagos Speech of Paul,” in Charles Guittard, Le monothéisme. Diversité, exclusivisme ou dialogue?, ed. Ernest Renan. Societé Française d’Histoire des Religiions, Association Européenne pour l’Etude des Religios (EASR). Congrès de Paris, 11–14 September 2002 (Paris: Non-lieu, 2010) 131-52; Christopher K. Rowe, “The Grammar of Life: The Areopagus Speech and Pagan Tradition,” NTS 57 (2010): 31–50; Michele Ciccarelli, “The God of Jesus in Paul’s Speech at Athens (Acts 17:22–31),” Bibbia e Oriente 54 (2014): 133–78; Janusz Kucicki, The Function of the Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles. A Key to Interpretation of Luke’s Use of Speeches in Acts (Biblical Interpretation Series 158; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 128–41; Rodrigo Nunes do Nascimento, “Paulo em Atenas: afinidades e estranhamentos entre o apóstolo dos gentios e os filósofos epicureus e estoicos,” Reflexus 14 (24) (2020): 697–715. 15 See Rainer Riesner, Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus. Studien zur Chronologie, Missionsstrategie und Theologie (WUNT 71; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 320–21; Joachim Gnilka, Paulus von Tarsus. Apostel und Zeuge (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1996), 86–7.

Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16–34)

theological perspective of the entire book and its immediate literary context in order to properly interpret the sense of the events depicted there.16 1.1

The Historical-Salvific Perspective of Acts

The Church’s missionary activity began in Jerusalem. Its external expression was, according to Luke, Jesus’ commandment: “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).17 From that moment on, the Acts of the Apostles illustrates the progressive, geographic and chronological development of the Christian mission, starting in Jerusalem. The successive stages of salvation history told by Luke have a specific time, place and cultural environment. They also have their heroes. From Luke’s viewpoint, this Christian mission was crowned when Paul began teaching freely in the capital of the Roman Empire (Acts 28:30–31). Paul’s stay in Athens is part of this sequence of historical-salvific events. This is the stage of preaching the good news to Jews, living in diasporas, and to the Gentiles. After leaving Jerusalem (Acts 1:1–8:4) and arriving in Antioch in Syria (8:5–15:35), Paul began proclaiming Christ to pagan inhabitants of the Empire (15:36–28:31).18 Paul’s visit to Athens took place around 50 CE, on his second missionary journey (15:36–19:22). Christian missionaries crossed the Bosphorus and reached Europe, teaching successively in the Macedonian cities of Philippi (16:11–40), Thessalonica and Beroea (17:1–15), as well as the Greek cities of Athens (17:16–34) and Corinth (18:1–17)19 before returning to Syrian Antioch (18:18–22). There is only one speech in the narrative of Paul’s second missionary journey that makes it especially significant – the Areopagus speech. Speeches are characteristic of Acts, not only as literary works but also as instruments of preaching the good news. Besides the sumaria, it is missionary-kerygmatic speeches that signal the historical and geographical progress of salvation history, from Jerusalem to Rome. Luke placed them at key points in his recorded history, thus imitating pagan historiographers. The significance of the speeches in Luke’s 16 See Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 45; Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 21; Adams, “Philosophy and the Bible,” 136–37. 17 Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1.37; Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 206–07. 18 The division of the Acts of the Apostles is not explicit and depends on the adapted criteria. If the main characters are Peter and Paul, then a two-part division is best (1–12; 13–28); if the criterion is the geographical progress, a three-part division is proper: Jerusalem (1–8), from Jerusalem to Antioch (9–15) and from Antioch to Rome (16–28). However, in the latest studies, multi-part divisions have been proposed as six, seven or eight parts. See the reviews given by Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1.65–68; by Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1.36–42; by Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 120–23. 19 See the detailed discussion of this missionary stage of Paul’s activity: Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 67–71.

99

100

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

historiography can be understood through the prism of several simple observations.20 Peter on Pentecost day delivered the first great speech (Acts 2:14–40). It contains the fundamental truths about Jesus of Nazareth, who was killed and raised to life, whom God made the Lord and Messiah. The content of his speech depended on the circumstances of its delivery, and in this way, the audience determined the choice of Christological titles and biblical arguments, namely, Jews awaiting messianic hopes (2 Sam 7:12; Ps 89:3; 110:1; Joel 2:28). In Peter’s next address, the message of the Crucified and Resurrected Jesus was deepened and enhanced with a call to repent (Acts 3:12–26). Similarly, Stephan’s speech (Acts 7:2–53) delivered in Jerusalem and directed to a Jewish audience, differs from Peter’s speeches. Referring to the OT, Stephen tries to prove the call and mission of the Upright One, a prophet like Moses (cf. Deut 18:15), and shows the threat that lay over the chosen people. Allowing past events to speak, Stephen sheds light on the historical-salvific “now” of the Jews in Jerusalem who reject the new Moses (Acts 7:37). Peter’s speech in the house of the centurion Cornelius (Acts 10:34–43) also ably demonstrates Luke’s work as a writer, historian and theologian. This is the first address to the Gentiles. Peter spoke at the house of the Roman centurion, and although Cornelius was a pagan, he was “a devout man who feared God” (cf. 10:1–2). The apostle did not use biblical and Jewish traditions but adapted the Christian kerygma to the new situation. Peter emphasised his role as an eyewitness to the events, and using a Christological exposition, he showed Jesus’ earthly life (10:37–39) and presented him as the Lord of all – the judge of the living and the dead (10:36, 42). He drew from the language of pagan moralists about a righteous life (v. 35) and judgment of this world (v. 42).21 The circumstances and the audience also determine the structure of the speech Paul gave in Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:16–41). As the apostle spoke to Jews who

20 Cf. Acts 2:14–40; 3:12–26; 4:8–12; 5:29–32, etc.; there are 26 of them and they make up almost one third of the book. See Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1.42–45; Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte, 16–17; Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 103–08. For more on this topic, see Ulrich Wilckens, Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte. Form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (WMANT 5; Neukirchen: Verl. des Erziehungsvereins, 3 1974); although he excluded the Areopagus speech from his research (p. 30), he referred to it many times (cf. pp. 87–88). See more Simon J. Kistemaker, “The Speeches in Acts,” Criswell Theological Review 5.1 (1990): 31–41; Kucicki, The Function of the Speeches, 302–345, esp. 317–318; Osvaldo Padilla, “The Speeches in Acts: Historicity, Theology, and Genre,” in Sean A. Adams and Michael Pahl, eds., Issues in Luke-Acts. Selected Essays (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2012), 171–93. 21 In particular, the theological themes of the Lord’s Day and the final judgment are the focus points (cf. Acts 13:20; 18:15; 24:10).

Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16–34)

lived there, he used extensive biblical arguments (2 Sam 7:12; Isa 11:1; Ps 2:7), proving that the promises made to their ancestors were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 13:23, 32). He did not accuse these Jews of handing Jesus over to death, but blamed the Jewish rulers and the people of Jerusalem for it (13:27–28).22 Adapting the Christian message to recipients and audiences can be seen in the remaining speeches recorded in Acts. They were skilfully incorporated into the stages of salvation history, each time fulfilling a specific function in the theological programme of this biblical book. Every speech is characterised by a specific terminology, style and theological message adapted to the circumstances.23 Likewise, in the speeches directed to pagan audiences, the content and vocabulary of the kerygma were adapted each time to the new circumstances. In light of the Lukan narrative, Christian missionaries often appeared before pagan audiences, and these were always different audiences. They included: Peter at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:34–43), Paul in Lystra (14:14–17), Paul in Athens (17:16–34), Paul before Governor Felix (24:11–21), and Paul before Festus and King Agrippa (26:2–23). Such a presentation of the pagan recipients of the gospel does not seem to be accidental, because we can observe some gradation: “a devout man who feared God,” the pagan inhabitants of the poleis, representatives of philosophical schools (and the city council?) as well as members of the highest Roman authorities. It can be concluded that Paul’s stay in Athens and his Areopagus speech have a special and exceptional place in Acts, resulting from Luke’s redactional work as a writer, historian and theologian. Like other speeches, the Areopagus speech is there in order to play a specific and concrete role in Acts. Its uniqueness stems from the place of its presentation and the elite audience to which it was addressed, its relative importance in the literary structure of the book and its small size.24 Note that Luke did not return to the events in Athens. Paul was also silent about them, except for one mention (1 Thess 3:1). Yet, the significance of the Areopagus speech should not be underestimated. However, it must not be given a meaning that the author of Acts did not intend. It can be argued whether Paul’s stay in Athens and his speech really occupy a central place in the history of the Christian mission written

22 See more Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 47–8. 23 Bruce, The Speeches in the Acts, 27; Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 48: “Such then in brief are the examples Acts shows to be formed, structured and expressed in categories and vocabulary most consonant with the mindsets of audience and speaker and with the goal of the speaker.” Cf. Padilla, “The Speeches in Acts,” 192: “This essay shows that the speeches in Acts are integral to the interpretation of Acts. Whether it be in its historical, theological, or generic dimension, the book cannot be properly grasped if the reader has not wrestled with the place of the speeches.” 24 The Areopagus speech has only 10 verses; in comparison, Peter’s first speech has 26 verses, Stephen’s speech has 53 verses, and Paul’s speech in Antioch in Pisidia has 25 verses.

101

102

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

by Luke. The divergent opinions of German authors commenting on the Acts of the Apostles show confusion about this issue.25 1.2

Literary Frameworks of the Areopagus Speech

As already indicated, there is a close relationship between the circumstances in which each of the speeches in Acts was delivered and their literary and theological forms. Similarly, in the case of the Areopagus speech, its literary framework must be considered. The framework is the circumstances that accompanied Paul’s address as depicted by Luke (vv. 16–21) and the hearers’ reactions (vv. 32–34). This is important in our research, since the Epicureans and Stoics appear in the scene preceding the Areopagus speech.26 1.2.1 Debates with the Epicureans and the Stoics (vv. 16–21)

Luke presented the circumstances preceding the Areopagus event (vv. 16–21). His description consists of three literary units with different themes. The first fragment shows Paul speaking in the synagogue and debating in the Athenian marketplace (vv. 16–17). In the next scene, Epicurean and Stoic philosophers wish to learn more about Paul’s teaching about Jesus and the resurrection (vv. 18–20). The introductory part closes with an author’s commentary (v. 21).27 Athens was the next place of the Apostle to the Nations’ missionary activity, who was surely aware of the importance of the city, although little was left of the

25 According to some scholars, it would be one of the most important points of Acts, and even of Luke’s both works, the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. See Gottfried Schille, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (ThHKNT 5; Berlin: Evang. Verl.-Anst., 3 1989), 360: “Die Erzählung über den Auftritt des Paulus in Athen gilt als einer der Höhepunkte des lukanischen Doppelwerkes”; Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.231: “Der Athen-Aufenthalt des Paulus mit der berühmten Areopagrede stellt einen Höhepunkt der Apostelgeschichte dar”; so Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte, 647; Gnilka, Paulus von Tarsus, 86. A different opinion has been expressed by Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte (KE KNT 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 442: “Damit ist zu Beginn gesagt, daß Athen weder ein Zentrum noch das Ziel der paulinischen Mission bedeutet” and pp. 452–53: “Die Rede bleibt ein Intermezzo. Lukas will nichts für die Kirche Typisches, sondern einen Einzelfall darstellen.” 26 Cf. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 601: “The introductory narrative (vv. 16–22a) is important and sets the tone for this unique speech of Paul in Acts”; Rowe, World Upside Down, 27–28: “To interpret Acts 17:22–31 in context is thus to observe the carefully placed and explicit narrative markers in 17:16–21 that shape the reader’s perception of Paul’s speech.” 27 This division of the introductory part is also suggested by the particle δέ, which introduces particular sections (cf. vv. 16. 18. 21). Considering the literary aspect, the first part is a narrative (vv. 16–17), the second – a dialogue (vv. 18–20) and the third – an author’s commentary (v. 21). See Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.133.

Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16–34)

city’s ancient splendour by the time he arrived there. However, this small city, with a population of around 5,000 citizens, remained a known centre of ancient culture, philosophical thought and spiritual life. The city was still famous, and many Romans studied there, or at least briefly visited it.28 Although Rome limited the city’s autonomy, it left its old institutions alone. Being a civitas foederata et libera, Athens was one of the privileged cities of the Empire and gradually continued to develop.29 The apostle, waiting for his companions, was indignant at the sight of the countless statues and images of the gods. This was not insignificant for the later interpretation of the speech: “he was deeply distressed to see that the city was full of idols” (Acts 17:16). Indeed, ancient Athens was known for its great religiosity, which was expressed by numerous statues in public places, and not only inside temples.30 Paul’s missionary strategy did not differ from his previous methods. Arriving at a new place, he first addressed Jews, proselytes and the Godfearing, usually during the Sabbath liturgy (Acts 13:14; 14:1; 16:13; 17:1–2; 18:4).31 He did exactly so in Athens. Paul debated with the Jews and “men who feared God” in the synagogue (διαλέγομαι).32 Yet, nothing is known about the results of his mission. On the other hand, the novelty in Paul’s activity was his debates in the Athenian Agora, where he met people by chance, pagans who were not familiar with the Mosaic religion.33

28 Winfried Elliger, Paulus in Grichenland. Philippi, Thessaloniki, Athen, Korinth (SBS 92–93; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978), 126–7. Following Cicero, Athens was visited by Horace, Virgil and Ovid. 29 The image of Athens as a destroyed, ravaged and fallen city, which was preserved in Roman literature by, for example, Ovid, Cicero, Strabo and later also Pausanias, should be considered a literary topos, a one-sided image that does not correspond to the historical realities as confirmed by archaeological and epigraphic witnesses. See Elliger, Paulus in Grichenland, 123–5. 30 Schmid, “Die Rede des Apostels,” 81: “man wird hier besonders auch an die Menge von Hermen und Spitzsäulen für Apollon Agyieus vor den Häusern zu denken haben.” Strabo, Pausanias and Livy, ancient authors, wrote about this Athenian piety. See Hans Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte (HNT 7; Tübingen: Mohr, 1972), 105; Ernst Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte (KE KNT 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 7 1977), 496; cf. David W. J. Gill, “Achaia,” in David W.J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (ActsFCS 2; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 443–45, who stresses the presence of the cult of the Emperor and his family in Athens; also Witherington, III, The Acts of the Apostles, 512–513; Rowe, World Upside Down, 28. 31 Bruce, “Paul and the Athenians,” 8. 32 The verb διαλέγομαι – “to debate, to speak” (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8–9; 20:7, 9; 24:12, 25), which is characteristic of Luke, points to Paul’s preaching, his missionary activity among the Jews and the Gentiles. It is debatable whether Luke used this verb to compare Paul with Socrates. 33 This is the only case of its kind in Acts because the Gentiles who were evangelised were proselytes or the godfearing. Paul directly addressed the Gentiles only once in Lystra (14:8–18), but they accidentally witnessed the miracle. It is not without reason to ask what the mission of the Apostle to the Nations to the Gentiles in Acts was about. See Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 443, n. 209.

103

104

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

There could be many reasons for Paul’s behaviour. First of all, it was his missionary zeal, since Luke did not mention any hostility from the Jews towards him. The apostle must have used the days between the Sabbaths. Paul’s interlocutors included representatives of Athenian philosophical schools, out of which Luke mentioned the Epicureans and Stoics (vv. 18–20). Was it because at that time they were the most famous and popular philosophical trends? The city’s prime had passed, but Athens remained the centre of science and philosophy. There is convincing evidence that Athenian philosophical schools were active in the second half of the first century CE. The activities of Stoics, Cynics, Epicureans and Platonists have been directly or indirectly attested to. Around 66 CE, Plutarch of Chaeronea, a Platonist and opponent of Epicurus’ philosophy, studied in Athens, later visiting Athens and becoming one of its citizens. Paul began debating with the representatives of two schools of philosophy (v. 18). At this point, we must note the change of subject. Earlier it was Paul who initiated debates with anyone whom he met in the marketplace. Now, representatives of philosophical schools took the initiative. Intrigued by the message about Jesus and the resurrection, they entered into a discussion with Paul (συνέβαλλον αὐτῷ) (v. 18a).34 Interestingly, Luke’s narrative shows that the debate was initiated by the Epicureans, whom he listed first.35 The Epicureans ridiculed and mocked Paul, assuming a hostile attitude from the very beginning. The Stoics, on the contrary, showed interest in this new knowledge. We are allowed to interpret the situation in this way by analysing v. 18 and its syntactic structure based on the opposition, typical for the author of Acts:36

34 This is indicated by the verb συμβάλλω τινί, which can mean a conversation or a council, but also a dispute or an argument; here it is a theological dispute (cf. Luke 14:31; Acts 4:15; 20:14); see Bauer 1551; LSJ 1674. We should note the grammatical forms of the verbs συνέβαλλον, ἔλεγον and εὐηγγελίζετο (indicativus imperfectum), which suggests an ongoing action and may even prove an exchange of arguments between Paul and the Epicureans and the Stoics. See BDR §§325–30, esp. §329. 35 One may wonder about the order in which Luke mentioned the two schools of philosophy. Was it just a coincidence, or did Luke, a historian and theologian, do it on purpose? 36 Luke eagerly contrasts two radically different reactions of the audience to the word of God (Acts 2:12–13; 14:4; 23:6–7; 28:24). See Neyrey, “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy,” 121, 127–28; Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 23–24; he writes: “At the literary level, I think it is probable that Luke intended the contrasting responses of derision and curiosity to refer to the Epicureans and Stoics respectively. The mention of the two schools in close juxtaposition with the correlative language in Acts 17:18 (καί τίνες ... οἱ δέ) favors this” (p. 38). The scene will be completed in the final presentation of the reaction of the Epicureans and the Stoics to the Areopagus speech delivered by Paul (cf. vv. 32–33); earlier Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 497, who mentions other adherents of this interpretation of the encounter.

Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16–34)

τινὲς δὲ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων καὶ Στοϊκῶν φιλοσόφων συνέβαλλον αὐτῷ, καί τινες ἔλεγον· τί ἂν θέλοι ὁ σπερμολόγος οὗτος λέγειν; οἱ δέ· ξένων δαιμονίων δοκεῖ καταγγελεὺς εἶναι, ὅτι τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν εὐηγγελίζετο.

Also some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with him. Some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities.” This was because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.

Luke depicts the ambivalent reactions of the Epicureans and Stoics to the message. Some (τίνες)37 show derision and mockery, calling him a “babbler” or “novelty seeker” (σπερμολόγος) (v. 18b). They used a pejorative word, commonly known from one of Demosthenes’ speeches.38 The structure of the scene makes us think of the Epicureans. From the beginning, Paul’s message was met with disapproval and aversion by the Epicureans. Their contempt, self-righteousness and sense of superiority agree with what we know about the Epicureans from The Olympic Discourse (ca. 105), in which Dio Chrysostom called them “wiser than all wisdom” (Or. 12.36). The Epicureans attacked other philosophical systems with no thought of constraint and without inhibition for polemic reasons in defending their beliefs.39 Others (οἱ δέ), i. e., the Stoics, reacted in a fundamentally different way, trying to understand Paul and his teaching, and they even showed some interest. They considered him to be a propagandist for some outlandish gods (v. 18c),40 he was attempting to bring to Athens (v. 20a). This same accusation was made against Socrates, who delivered similar speeches in the streets of Athens and brought in

37 The indefinite pronoun τίνες can indicate a concrete group of people in certain correlations. See Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 23; cf. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.134, although in his opinion, the views of both groups of philosophers go beyond Luke’s interests. 38 The literary meaning of the term: “picking up seeds (of birds),” in the figurative sense, “one who picks up and retails scraps of knowledge, an idle babbler, gossip,” which means a lazy and worthless collector of other people’s thoughts, which he later presents as his own. See James H. Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London, 1930; reprint Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 583; LSJ 1627; cf. Elliger, Paulus in Grichenland, 139; Schmid, “Die Rede des Apostels,” 82; Witherington, III, The Acts of the Apostles, 515 (“The term definitely has a derogatory sense”); Rowe, World Upside Down, 28 (numerous quotations of pagan authors). 39 See also Albini, “Introduzione,” 28. 40 In the NT, this word always means “evil spirits” in the narrow sense, but only in this verse it conveys a positive meaning “gods, friendly spirits.” See Werner Foerster, “δαιμόνιον κτλ,” TWNT 2.1–21, esp. 20: “Anspielung auf die Anklage, die gegen Sokrates erhoben wurde.”

105

106

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

“new gods” (καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρειν). Hence, some commentators claim that Luke composed the scene with Paul in Athens based on the model of Socrates’ life.41 The teaching about Jesus and the resurrection filled the audience with curiosity, as Luke adds in the subordinate clause. This short explanation shows that in the Athenian Agora, Paul did not appear as a philosopher or thinker joining philosophical discussions.42 He was an apostle proclaiming “the good news about Jesus and the resurrection,” which aroused the philosophers’ interest: ὅτι43 τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν εὐηγγελίζετο (v. 18d). The content and syntax of the subordinate clause allow us to think that in the Athenian marketplace, Paul described the person of Jesus of Nazareth and added the truth about his resurrection.44 We can find similar words and issues in several texts of Acts. The deacon Philip explained the good news about Jesus, and nothing else, to the officer of the court of the Ethiopian queen (εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτῷ τὸν Ἰησοῦν). In another text, we can read that the Hellenists, who had scattered because of the persecution in Jerusalem, addressed the Greeks, proclaiming the good news of the Lord Jesus (εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν). Here, the focus is on the title κύριος (Acts 11:20). In the following significant text, the good news that was preached was reduced to a minimum. Paul and Barnabas called the people of Lystra to believe in the living God, completely leaving out the Christological kerygma (Acts 14:15).45 We can rightly presume that the subject of Paul’s speech in Athens was the proclamation of Jesus of Nazareth, his earthly activity, death and, above all, his resurrection (cf. Acts 10:34–43).46

41 Bauer 1710; cf. Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 105; Elliger, Paulus in Grichenland, 139: “Am originellsten ist freilich die unüberhörbare Reminiszenz an Sokrates”; Rowe, World Upside Down, 31. 42 See Adams, “Philosophy and the Bible,” 146, who thinks that this was the reason why the Greek philosophers rejected Paul’s teachings. 43 Here ὅτι -causalis (BDR §456.2). 44 The question, initiated by John Chrysostom in his homilies on Acts (Hom. 38.1), that the listeners understood ἡ ἀνάστασις in the sense of the proper name of a consort, appearing with Jesus, and the whole statement in a polytheistic sense, remains open. This interpretation is possible on the narrative level of the text in Acts, but it is historically improbable. Most contemporary commentators cautiously welcome this sense of the verse. See Schille, Die Apostelgeschichte, 354–55; Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 105; Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 444: “Die alte und tiefsinnige Erklärung, die Zuhörer hätten Paulus so verstanden, daß er zwei Gottheiten hier verkündigt: Jesus und Anastasis, ist kaum stichhaltig”; but cf. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 605; Rowe, World Upside Down, 28 n. 90, also pp. 31–32; BDAG 560.3. 45 The verb εὐαγγελίζομαι, which is characteristic of Luke, appears 25 times in the Gospel of Luke and in Acts, 52 times in the NT, e. g., 21 times in the Pauline Letters. See Gerhard Friedrich, “εὐαγγελίζομαι,” TWNT 2.714–18. 46 In pagan environments, unfamiliar with biblical tradition, historical events and the views preached were of greater importance. This is the direction of Schmid’s interpretation, “Die Rede des Apostels Paulus,” 114.

Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16–34)

This course of events leads to Paul’s Areopagus speech. The apostle was compelled to present his views, or more likely, the interlocutors moved to a place for easier listening. The initiative again belonged to the Greek philosophers (v. 19).47 The difficulty is with the expression ἐπὶ τὸν Ἄρειον πάγον, which may indicate the city authorities, i. e., the council of the Areopagus that had authority over religious matters and piety (Seneca, Tranq. 5.1–2)), or the place where the Apostle delivered his speech. In the second sense, the Areopagus is the Hill of Ares located to the south of the Agora and beneath the Acropolis.48 It was the philosophers who seemed to be particularly interested in Paul’s teaching, as indicated by their curiosity and statements that justify the interlocutors’ transition to the Areopagus: δυνάμεθα γνῶναι (v. 19b) and βουλόμεθα οὖν γνῶναι (v. 20b). Later, it is evident that the circle of Paul’s hearers at the Areopagus was wider (cf. the invocation in v. 22: Ἀθηναῖοι).49 In his author’s commentary (v. 21), Luke pointed to the openness of the citizens of Athens to all novelties (καινότερος) as well as visitors. The said inquisitiveness of the Athenians was proverbial and well-known to the ancients, hence, the authors commenting on Luke’s words emphasise the remarkable accuracy of his description of the city and its inhabitants.50

47 The phrase ἐπιλαβόμενοί ... ἤγαγον can have a double meaning: the arrest of the Apostle (Acts 16:19; 18:17; 21:30, 33) or moving to a place that can be more convenient for debates (Acts 9:27; 23:13). The latter seems correct. There can be no question of formal imprisonment, since Paul was not accused of anything; he did not defend himself in front of the city authorities and left the meeting after his speech. One can only think of bringing Paul before the Athenian religious and political authorities so that he could present his teaching; cf. Rowe, World Upside Down, 29. 48 There has been a long discussion as to whether Luke meant the city council, i. e., the council of the Areopagus, or the place where Paul spoke, the Athenian hill; yet, each option is burdened with uncertainty. See Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech, 53; Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 605–6; Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.135; Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 24–25; Adams, “Philosophy and the Bible,” 137. Gill, “Achaia,” 447–8, proposes to interpret this alternative as one option and not separately: Paul spoke before the Areopagus on the Hill of Ares. Recently, Rowe, World Upside Down, 29, rightly writes: “But to focus upon the hill to the exclusion of the council is highly problematic” (see more on pp. 30–31). 49 It was Dibelius who spoke generally about “Athenians”; see Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.236 n. 48. 50 As testified by Demosthenes, Thucydides and Aristophanes. See Elliger, Paulus in Grichenland, 138–9; Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 445; cf. Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 25: “The final verse of the introduction (v. 21) is an aside by the author in which he portrays the ‘hearing’ underway as highly typical of Athenian life. Eduard Norden described this verse as ‘the most Attic thing in the New Testament’”; cf. also Witherington, III, The Acts of the Apostles, 515–17; Rowe, World Upside Down, 32: “The force of the comparative here should not be lost.”

107

108

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

1.2.2 Ambivalent Reaction of the Audience (vv. 32–34)

The description of the audience’s reaction to Paul’s speech is very laconic, reduced to a few essential elements: the audience had different opinions on Paul’s words (v. 32), the Apostle left those gathered (v. 33) and few Athenians believed his message (v. 34).51 The most interesting and important information was given at the beginning of the description; yet, its interpretation raises difficulties. Luke writes: Ἀκούσαντες δὲ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν οἱ μὲν ἐχλεύαζον, οἱ δὲ εἶπαν· ἀκουσόμεθά σου περὶ τούτου καὶ πάλιν.

When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed; but others said, “We will hear you again about this.”

The formula ἀκούσαντες δέ (v. 32) is typical of Acts and introduces the reaction of the audience to the message: of the unbelieving Jews (2:37; 22:22), the Sanhedrin (5:33; 7:54), pagan “men who feared God” (13:48), Jesus’ disciples and apostles and all Christians (8:14; 11:18; 14:14; 18:26). The reaction to the closing words was often very violent (10:44; 19:28; 22:22; 26:24; cf. 5:33; 7:54).52 The hearers’ reaction to the truth of the resurrection of the dead was very strong (v. 31), and this makes this verse resemble other texts of this kind in the NT.53 The truth of the resurrection was highly controversial and fostered the Sadducees’ resistance (Acts 4:2; cf. 23:6–8), and later the Gentiles’ opposition (cf. also Acts 26:23–24). The term ἀνάστασις was known in the pagan world and traditionally meant the 51 Contrary to the opinions of many commentators, it should be assumed that Paul’s speech was not interrupted; the apostle could finish it without any problems; see Daniel L. Smith, The Rhetoric of Interruption Speech-Making, Turn-Taking, and Rule-Breaking in Luke-Acts and Ancient Greek Narrative (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 193; Berlin; Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012) 231–32: “Over the last ninety years, many scholars have labeled 17:32 as an interruption. There is no clear claim of interruption, however, and we find no compelling evidence in support of classifying this divided reaction as an interruption. Verse 32 describes the reaction to a speech without any indication that Paul was still speaking or still intending to speak … We can conclude that 17:32 is not an interruption”; cf. Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 451: “Es sieht aus, als würde Paulus an diesem Punkt unterbrochen. Tatsächlich aber ist die Rede beendet, aber Lukas will zeigen, woran alles hängt, nämlich an der Auferstehung.” 52 As Dibelius notes rightly, “Paulus auf dem Areopag,” 54. 53 Acts 17:18, 32; 23:6; 24:21; 26:23; cf. Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 15:12, 13, 21, 42; Heb 6:2.

Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16–34)

erection of a pedestal, monument or other objects of worship. In Acts 17, the Athenians were confronted with a new meaning of the word: raising a man from the dead.54 However, the Greeks were not familiar with this meaning of ἀνάστασις (cf. Aeschylus, Eum. 647–49), hence their reaction seems obvious. During the period in question, ancient beliefs in the afterlife and human immortality were extremely vague, and this seems to be confirmed by the audience’s reaction.55 The behaviour of Paul’s hearers was twofold: οἱ μὲν ἐχλεύαζον, οἱ δὲ εἶπαν (v. 32). Their ambivalent reaction is characteristic of Acts and should be regarded as a literary motif.56 Who did Luke refer to? Most commentaries ignore this problem, but, in my opinion, the description concerns the ambivalent reaction of the gathered hearers. This scene can also be interpreted as a continuation of the events that occurred before the Areopagus speech. Like in the Athenian marketplace, the philosophers reacted in different ways. The correlation of the particles stresses opposite reactions to Paul’s words (οἱ μὲν … οἱ δέ).57 First, the Epicurean philosophers showed disrespect and mockery towards Paul, and then the same Epicureans scoffed and burst out laughing (ἐχλεύαζον), but they were not described as Epicureans (v. 32a).58 The imperfect tense used by Luke again shows the continuing nature of the action, and the verb illustrates the unfriendly attitude of the Epicureans towards Paul’s teachings about Jesus and the resurrection (cf. v. 18). The reaction of the Stoics, expressed by the verb (εἶπαν) in the aorist past, was different, since some of them decided to hear Paul talk at another time: “We will hear you again about this” (v. 32b).59 However, exegetes’ opinions differ quite significantly about the reaction of the Stoics. Are we dealing with polite and noncommittal consolation, and actually postponing the

54 The Christian meaning of the term was given by a non-Christian at the turn of the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, namely by a Jew and Epicurean living in Eumeneia in Phrygia (οι δη δειλαοι παντες εις αναστασιν βλεποντες); see MM 37–38; cf. BDAG 560. 55 Michele Ciccarelli, “The God of Jesus in Paul’s Speech at Athens (Acts 17:22–31),” Bibbia e Oriente 54 (2014): 159–63, 172–74; cf. Dag Ø. Endsjø, Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), esp. 21–104. 56 Acts 2:12–13; 14:4; 23:7–8; 28:24; see Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 27, also p. 38: “Contrasting reactions to the preaching of the Gospel, indeed, to the preaching of the resurrection, is clearly Lukan style.” 57 Indicated by the construction of the sentence: οἱ μὲν … οἱ δέ (cf. 14:4; 28:24). The articles as demonstrative pronouns refer to the groups of the mentioned philosophers (v. 18), while the conjunctions μὲν … δέ (adversativa) strongly contrast both groups: “some..., but (however) the other/others” (see BDR §250.1; §447.2a). 58 The group is so identified by Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 506: “Lukas wird an die Epikureer denken”; cf. Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.243 n. 115. The verb χλευάζω (here only in the NT) means “to mock, ridicule, scorn, deride”; cf. Acts 2:13 (διαχλευάζω). See Bauer 1760. 59 It can also be translated: “We would like to hear you again about this.” Here the future tense (indicativus medii instead activi) can be translated as volitional (Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.244).

109

110

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

matter ad calendas Graecas, i. e., a rejection of the message?60 It could have been an authentic desire to hear Paul talk again.61 The Areopagus scene ends with Luke’s laconic statement that “at that point Paul left them” (v. 33); Paul departed from among them.62 The author of Acts would say nothing else about Paul’s activities in Athens. The further development of events allows us to conclude that his activities in the city of philosophers and his appearance on the Areopagus were unsuccessful. Paul did not establish a church in Athens, and only a few Athenians believed in his message, “including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris” (v. 34). A full assessment of the information contained in this account will be made possible after the exegetical-theological analysis of the Areopagus speech, but at this point, it will be fully justified to draw up a few statements. The Areopagus speech is Paul’s only address incorporated by Luke into his second missionary journey that determines its place and meaning in Acts. Of the numerous Athenian philosophical schools, Luke mentioned only the Epicureans and Stoics and their reactions to “the new teaching.” The Epicureans seem to have taken an unfavourable and aggressive stance towards Christianity, while the Stoics were increasingly more interested, which is shown in the content and composition of the narrative. As for the Epicureans, attention is drawn to their reluctance and incomprehension, even their conceit and arrogance. The content of Paul’s debates with the Greek philosophers in the Athenian agora also remains unclear. In my opinion, the Apostle spoke about the historical Jesus of Nazareth, his public ministry as a man of God and the paschal events.

60 This is how most German exegetes comment on this verse: Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 506; Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 451; Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.140, and many others; see also Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 51: “Where they will part company is the contested resurrection from the dead; this is nonsense to both groups of philosophers.” 61 Croy’s arguments are correct, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 26–28; he concludes: “The contrast of vs. 32 should therefore be understood as open rejection versus sincere, if still somewhat hesitating, interest. The latter group is not pleading, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ But neither are they summarily rejecting the message. There is openness; a final judgment has not been made” (p. 28). The constructed of v. 32 supports this solution. See a similar opinion: Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 2.854; Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 612; Witherington, III, The Acts of the Apostles, 532; Keener, Acts, 448: “the sentence’s Greek construction (men . . . de) suggests that this second group responds significantly differently than the first.” 62 Noteworthy is the parallelism of the expression “standing in the midst” or perhaps better, “in the middle” (v. 22a) in the introductory part of the speech and the final statement “departed from among them” (v. 33).

Paul’s Areopagitica (Acts 17:22–31)

2.

Paul’s Areopagitica (Acts 17:22–31)

The Areopagus speech is a result of the curiosity shown towards “the new teaching” by the Athenian philosophers. Its recipients were certainly the Epicureans and Stoics, who were thus confronted with the Christian message. Was this the aim of Paul’s speech and Luke’s redactional intention? Was it a confrontation with Greek philosophy? What was Paul’s speech about? A philosophical polemic or proclamation of the Christian message? 2.1

Literary Issues of the Areopagus Speech

The literary structure of the Areopagus speech (Acts 17:22–31) has been thoroughly analysed, and its division into smaller units does not raise doubts.63 At the commencement of his speech, Paul praises the religiosity of the Athenians and gives the topic of his address (vv. 22–23). Next, he presents “the unknown God,” using biblical argumentation and philosophy, and even supporting his viewpoint by quoting Greek poets (vv. 24–29). He closes his speech with a message about God’s fixed judgement (vv. 30–31). At this point, I intend to follow the structural division of the speech into three literary units, proposed by Dean Zweck and many other scholars, as being completely sufficient and based on Greek rhetoric.64 The first part, the exordium (vv. 22–23), is key to the meaning of the speech. It includes an invocation to the hearers (v. 22b), a captatio benevolentiae (vv. 22c–23a) and a propositio presenting the topic of Paul’s speech (v. 23b). There are discussions about the phrase “I see how extremely religious you are in every way” (v. 22c), since not all commentators consider it praise of the Athenians’ religiosity, i. e., captatio benevolentiae – an attempt to capture the audience’s favour. They treat it as a hidden

63 Balch, “The Areopagus Speech,” 54: “Martin Dibelius and Walther Eltester have written illuminating articles on the Areopagus speech. Their outline of the speech is as follows. First is the introduction (Acts 17:22b-23). Next is the body, with three main themes: (1) God, Creator and Lord of the cosmos, needs no temples, for God does not need anything (vv. 24-25); (2) this Lord created humans to seek God (vv. 26-27); and (3) humans are the ‘offspring’ of God, which excludes all worship of images (vv. 28-29). Last is the conclusion: God commands repentance and has appointed a person to judge the world (vv. 30–31)”; cf. Dibelius, “Paulus auf dem Areopag,” 29–30, 38–39; a similar division has been given by Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte, 634–35. 64 See Dean Zweck, “The Exordium of the Areopagus Speech Acts 17. 22, 23,” NTS 35 (1989): 94–103. In his opinion, the introduction (exordium) and the whole speech make us know the “author’s broadly ranging rhetorical competence.” See also Keener, Acts, 440, who describes the speech as “Paul’s Philosophic Discourse.”

111

112

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

expression of irony and even Paul’s mockery of the Athenians.65 The propositio, third element of the exordium, is a formal presentation of the topic of the speech: “What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you” (v. 23b). On the one hand, the verse refers to the religiosity of the Athenians and the big number of objects of worship in the city (cf. v. 16), and on the other hand, it introduces the key theme and prepares the message concerning the times of human ignorance, which God overlooked, and which came to an end (vv. 30–31).66 The second part of the speech, the probatio with elements of a narratio (vv. 24–29), is also a cohesive whole. First, God is presented as the Creator of the world and the Lord of history (vv. 24–25), hence all mortals, in their diversity and multiplicity, should seek him as the true God (vv. 26–27b). Humans are God’s offspring, for “in him they live and move”; hence the deity cannot be like the work of their hands (vv. 27c–29).67 The definite noun ὁ θεός (v. 24) as the subject of the compound sentence, the predicates in the present tense (οὐ κατοικεῖ, οὐδὲ θεραπεύεται) and the separate issue (God versus works of human hands) allow us to specify the first unit (vv. 24–25). In the subsequent unit, the subject is still God, but the predicate has the form of past tense and describes God’s works in history, again in his relation to people, to whom he gave the earth as their dwelling and on whom he imposed the obligation to seek and find him because He is not far from them; people are of his lineage. The speaker refers to the words of a Greek poet (vv. 26–28).68 The third thematic unit changes the topic, and the speaker draws conclusions. Enjoying their divine dignity and kinship, people do not need to worship the product of human hands. Here, the present tense and the theme of idolatry reappear, this time in the form of a refutatio (v. 29).69 In the final part, the peroratio (vv. 30–31), ὁ θεός as the subject is formally repeated. As for the theme, the speaker shows God’s works in history, although the content of this unit is different. The ultimate goal of God’s action is to transform all people and prepare them for the day of judgment. The key figure will be a man who was authenticated by being raised from the dead (vv. 30–31). The occurrence

65 Cf. Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 106: “inhaltlich eine captatio benevolentiae”; a different opinion of Schille, Die Apostelgeschichte, 356: “für unterschwelligen Spott spricht auch die superlativische Form.” 66 We should note the characteristic vocabulary: ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ (v. 20), ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε (v. 20) and χρόνους τῆς ἀγνοίας (v. 30). 67 See Zweck, “The Exordium of the Areopagus Speech,” 97. 68 Despite the change of the subject, v. 28 belongs to the previous unit (vv. 26–27) as completing the arguments: ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν (v. 28a), which is confirmed by the particle γάρ as justifying, explaining and continuing the thought; see Bauer 304–5; BDR §452. 69 In such a case, we are dealing with an inclusion (v. 24 and v. 29); Zweck, “The Exordium of the Areopagus Speech,” 100; cf. John T. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts (SNTS MS 76; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 73–4.

Paul’s Areopagitica (Acts 17:22–31)

of the present tense παραγγέλλει and the adverbial of time νῦν, characteristic of the formal element of the missionary speeches in the Acts of the Apostles are noteworthy.70 Verses 22–23 are a rhetoric exordium that is typical of Hellenistic “deliberative speeches,” in other words, deliberative rhetoric (genus deliberativum), dealing with religious and theological topics. These types of speeches in Hellenistic rhetoric are characterised by religious issues. The Areopagus speech would also be a Hellenistic “deliberation” posing the topic of an “unknown God,” since it meets all requirements for a deliberative speech.71 Summing up, the Areopagus speech consists of three literary units, the first being an introduction, the exordium (vv. 22–23), the second an argumentative part, the probatio, including three fragments (vv. 24–25. 26–28. 29), and the third – a call to repent, the peroratio (vv. 30–31). Considering these remarks, the following structure of the material found in the Areopagus speech can be made:

vv. 22–23 vv. 24–25 vv. 26–28 v. 29 vv. 30–31

theological topic

rhetorical unit

message of the “unknown God” God the Creator of the cosmos God the Creator of mankind divine dignity of man repentance for the day of judgement

exordium – propositio probatio peroratio

The Areopagus speech is neither a defence speech before the council of the Areopagus nor a typical kerygmatic speech, since it lacks Christological topics. Although Luke’s vocabulary can make us believe it was a defence speech (v. 19), it was not.72 Paul was not questioned and charged, and there was no verdict; he left his hearers undisturbed. Paul was allowed to present his religious views systematically. Formally, the speech can be regarded as an example of a reflection on religious issues, 70 Cf. Acts 4:29; 7:52; 20:32, etc.; νῦν occurs 25 times in Acts. 71 Zweck, “The Exordium of the Areopagus Speech,” 100: “all the requirements for a deliberative speech are fulfilled”; see more on pp. 101–3. 72 Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 48. Note that Luke does not signal this fact, as it was the case of Paul’s defence speeches. In such cases we have the term ἀπολογία (Acts 22:1; 25:16), in other places the verbal form ἀπολογέομαι (Luke 12:11; 21:14; Acts 19:33; 24:10; 25:8; 26:1–2, 24); cf. Dibelius, “Paulus auf dem Areopag,” 62–3; Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 106; Schmid, “Die Rede des Apostels,” 83. Yet, experts continue to disagree; see Balch, “The Areopagus Speech,” 73: “One of Luke’s purposes is to show that several Roman courts had already declared Paul harmless …”; similarly Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 24, stating that the speech is not a defence but the scene in Athens – as intended by Luke – has features of an official hearing of Paul before the council of the Areopagus.

113

114

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

as already mentioned, “a deliberative speech” (act of persuasion) aiming to present the Christian message to the pagan world. 2.2

The Theology of the Areopagus Speech

The speech is introduced by a description of the circumstances of its delivery. Paul stood in the middle of the Areopagus, taking the position of the speaker (cf. Acts 2:14; 5:20; 13:16; 21:40; 27:21) or standing before the council of the Areopagus.73 2.2.1 The Message of “An Unknown God” (vv. 22–23)

The first unit contains an invocation, the captatio benevolentiae, and gives the topic of the address (vv. 22–23). The invocation “men of Athens” is a classic rhetorical phrase occurring in Greek and Hellenistic speeches known from the works of Thucydides and Demosthenes.74 Next, Paul praises the Athenians for their piety and religiosity – their godliness. His complement follows the rules of ancient rhetoric: first, capture the audience’s favour (captatio benevolentiae). Paul’s words corresponded to historical reality, as the belief of the ancients about the exceptional piety of the Athenians is confirmed in ancient Greek literature, including by Flavius Josephus (Ap. 2.11). The Athenians were “extremely religious” (v. 22b).75 Although the term can have a negative meaning, here it is probably used as a praise of the religiosity of the Athenians (cf. Acts 25:19). Nevertheless, a certain distance in the Apostle’s words cannot be ruled out, and his statement must be interpreted in the context of the whole speech.76 The exceptional religiosity of the Athenians was expressed in their numerous shrines and objects of worship (σεβάσματα), including altars. Walking around the

73 Assuming the opinions of those commentators who opted for the city council – the Areopagus; see Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.237; Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 106; Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 605–06. Others think that it was a place, the rocky hill of Ares; cf. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 500. 74 Zweck, “The Exordium of the Areopagus Speech,” 101; Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 51. 75 Δεισιδαιμονεστέρους – comparativus δεισιδαίμων instead of superlativus. The term δεισιδαιμονέστεροι, hapax legomenon in the NT, literary means a great, sometimes exaggerated, fear of demons. The term also designates religiosity, an attitude of worship and respect for the superhuman powers that the Greeks believed in, often fearing them. See Foerster, “δαιμόνιον,” 20–21; LSJ 375; cf. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 500. 76 The relative importance of this praise can be inferred from Paul’s use of the term δεισιδαίμων, which was used instead of the correct term εὐσεβής expressing respect for the true God (Acts 3:12; 10:2, 7); see Rowe, World Upside Down, 33–34: “… to discern the dramatic irony in the first sentence of Paul’s address is to become alert to the subtlety and richness of the multilevel discourse of the speech.”

Paul’s Areopagitica (Acts 17:22–31)

city, the Apostle had noticed an altar inscribed “To an unknown god” (v. 23a; cf. v. 16). Archaeological excavations have not attested to the existence of an altar with such an inscription in Athens. The orator might have used one of the numerous inscriptions of this type, modifying it to meet his needs.77 In the speech, the inscription has an auxiliary function as a commencement for the message about “an unknown god.” Paul proclaims an unknown God (ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες … τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω) (v. 23b) to the Athenians; also noteworthy is the occurrence of the neuter article (neutrum – ὃ and τοῦτο). In fact, he proclaimed something more: God is present in man’s life. Thus, his speech was not a theological and philosophical explanation about “an unknown god,” but an exposition of God’s mystery acting in history – an exposition of the history of salvation for the Gentiles.78 At the same time, it was a propositio of the speech: Paul presented its topic. The inscription of the altar allowed him to refer to the ignorance of the Athenians about the One who was watching over them. One should remember that particular altars were erected to deities as an expression of gratitude for their protective care and the benefits received. Paul refers to the “unknown God” from the Athenian altar, but the focus is on the second half of the sentence. The speaker gives the Athenians a message about a God they have not gotten to know yet.79 2.2.2 The Message about the True God (vv. 24–29)

The successive three units of the speech provide an exposition of Christian theodicy, one of the few in the New Testament. The orator shows the true God as the Creator of

77 Rich comparative materials have been collected by: Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 106–7; Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech, 242–7; first of all, Pieter W. van der Horst, “The Altar of the ‘Unknown God’ in Athens (Acts 17:23) and the Cult of ‘Unknown Gods’ in the Graeco-Roman World,” in Pieter W. van der Horst, ed., Hellenism – Judaism Christianity. Essays on Their Interaction (ConBET 8; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 165–202. As an example, let us quote Philostratus: καὶ ταῦτα Ἀθήνησιν, οὗ καὶ ἀγνώστων δαιμόνων βωμοὶ ἵδρυνται (Vit. Apol. 6.3); see Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana. Vol. 2: Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Books 5-8, ed. and trans. Christopher P. Jones (LCL 17; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 101–102. Note the plural form. In his commentary on Titus 1:12 (PL 26.607), Jerome claims that there was no such an altar in Athens. Van der Horst (idem, p. 196) thinks that there were altars to unknown gods with inscriptions in the plural but also in the singular. Additionally, a literary technique in which the speaker refers to an altar inscription as a starting point of his speech was known from other sources; see van der Horst, “The Altar of the ‘Unknown God’,” 197–200; cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 49–50. 78 The verb καταγγέλλω – “proclaim, announce, to make known in public” is Luke’s favourite term: used 11 times but only in Acts (3:24; 4:2; 13:5, 38; 15:36; 16:17, 21; 17:3, 13; 26:23). 79 Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 52, stresses that Paul commenced his speech with a topic that was not unfamiliar to the hearers, because Greek thinkers dealt with the knowledge of the true God and the cult of monuments; similarly, much earlier, Schmid, “Die Rede des Apostels,” 87–95, and esp. 94–95; cf. also Litwak, “Israel’s Prophets,” 203–4.

115

116

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

the cosmos and the Lord of history, who does not need human service, (vv. 24–25), and the Creator of mortals who are obliged to seek him (vv. 26–28); finally, he indicates God’s kin relationship with man and the resulting absurdity of idolatry (v. 29). The author of the speech skilfully combines the biblical message with the ideas of Greek philosophy. a) God the Creator of the Cosmos (vv. 24–25)

The religiosity of the Athenians is the starting point for proclaiming the one and true God. Paul describes the reality of God and his sovereignty over the world, first making two negative statements. As the Creator and Lord of all, “[t]he God ... does not live in shrines made by human hands” (v. 24), “nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything” (v. 25). The first element of his argumentation assumes that God is absolutely transcendent. As the Creator of the world (κόσμος) and all that exists in it, God cannot dwell in shrines made by human hands (v. 24). The thought of God the Creator is one of the basic truths revealed in the Bible. Apart from the evident message of the Book of Genesis (chapter 1), we should point to Isa 42:5, to which the author probably referred.80 The thought of God as Creator also appeared in Paul’s speech delivered in Lystra (Acts 14:15) and could be readily accepted by the Gentiles. In Lystra, it received a specific tone, because, in place of the biblical phrase “heaven and earth” to describe the universe, Paul used the philosophical term “cosmos,” which was more familiar to the Greeks (cf. Wis 9:9; 2 Macc 7:23; 4 Macc 5:25).81 This thought is enriched in the next part of the sentence. God is presented as the Lord ruling over heaven and earth (v. 24b). Greek philosophy knew the idea of a deity controlling the world, which was, inter alia, the basic theistic claim of the Stoics that God is the soul of the cosmos in a pantheistic sense. At the same time, Epicurus denied the truth about providence.82 However, the first main polemical accent can be found in the claim that God does not make his home in shrines made by human hands (v. 24c). In the prophetic tradition, “works of hands” (χειροποίητα) usually meant pagan deities (Isa 2:18; 80 The text of Isa 42:5 LXX is more in line with the Areopagus speech, and here it is worthwhile quoting it in full: οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ πήξας αὐτόν ὁ στερεώσας τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ διδοὺς πνοὴν τῷ λαῷ τῷ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς καὶ πνεῦμα τοῖς πατοῦσιν αὐτήν. The second part of the verse agrees with Paul’s further argumentation. Cf. however, Litwak, “Israel’s Prophets,” 204–5. 81 For instance, Epictetus, Diatr. 4.7.6. An extensive juxtaposition of biblical and Greek texts on God as the Creator of the world (with the characteristic use of the term κόσμος and the verb ποιέω) was presented by Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 207. Cf. also Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 608: “The terminology that Paul employs is common to both Greek philosophical speculation and the OT”; Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech, 171–74. 82 See Balch, “The Areopagus Speech,” 75–76.

Paul’s Areopagitica (Acts 17:22–31)

10:11; 16:12; 19:1; cf. Lev 26:1; Dan 5:4, 23; 6:28). In the Areopagus speech, we are dealing with a criticism of the temple institution as in Stephen’s earlier speech regarding the Jewish objects of worship – the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple of Solomon (Acts 7:48; cf. Mark 14:58; Heb 9:11, 24).83 Criticism of the temple institution appeared in pagan circles before New Testament times. Again, it was the Stoics who taught how to worship deities and gods who do not live in shrines.84 Paul’s thought is deepened in the next polemic concerning pagan cult and service in shrines as well as offerings made there: God is not served by man (passivum: θεραπεύεται), “as though he needed anything” (v. 25a).85 In such a form, this theme was unknown in the Old Testament, which rather contains the concept of the inadequacy of offerings given to God because everything is his (Ps 50:9–13). On the other hand, the topic of the self-sufficiency of the gods is common in Greek philosophy, appearing, for example, in the Stoics. According to the Stoics, a free and independent deity has no needs and does not expect to be served; the deity itself serves mankind.86 This is the direction of Paul’s argumentation, although its source is the Old Testament. Not needing anything, God himself (αὐτός) gives everything, life and breath to everyone (v. 25b).87 God is not only the Creator and Lord, but also sustains the cosmos in existence (creatio continua). Paul expresses a belief commonly found in the biblical community, giving it a form that is understandable in the pagan environment. Let us note that the existence of providence was obvious to the representatives of Stoic philosophy, while the Epicureans denied the concern

83 The thought was known in a slightly different form in the Old Testament (see 1 Kgs 8:27). According to Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 107, criticising pagan shrines and idolatrous cults Judaism took over pagan polemics along with the institution of temple; see also Litwak, “Israel’s Prophets,” 205–6. 84 Plutarch wrote about that quoting Zeno’s opinion: Ἔτι δόγμα Ζήνωνός ἐστιν ἱερὰ θεῶν μὴ οἰκοδομεῖν (Stoic. rep. 1034B), see Plutarch, Moralia. Vol. 13. Part 2: Stoic Essays, trans. Harold Cherniss (LCL 470; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), 422–23. Cf. Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech, 203–4; Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 52; Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 107. The Cynic Heraclitus gave a similar opinion; see Adams, “Philosophy and the Bible,” 138–9. 85 Only in this NT fragment, the verb θεραπεύω describes temple worship and the service of God (cf. Acts 4:14; 5:16; 8:7; 28:9). The situation is different in the writings of pagan and Hellenistic Jewish authors, where the verb often means worship and service of God. See Bauer 729; MM 289. 86 Let us quote the Stoic Seneca: “for God seeks no servants. Of course not; he himself does service to mankind, everywhere and to all he is at hand to help” (Ep. 95.47); see Seneca, Epistles. Vol. 3: Epistles 93-124, trans. Richard M. Gummere (LCL 77; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925) 88–89. Hellenistic Jewish authors accepted this Greek topos (2 Macc 14:35; 3 Macc 2:9; cf. Joseph. Ant. 8.111); see Dibelius, “Paulus auf dem Areopag,” 42–45; Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 107; Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 447; Rowe, World Upside Down, 34–36. 87 Cf. Isa 42:5; more Gen 2:7; Ps 104; Neh 9:6; 2 Macc 7:23. See Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech, 175–77; Adams, “Philosophy and the Bible,” 140–41; Litwak, “Israel’s Prophets,” 206.

117

118

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

of the gods for people. Nevertheless, the differences between the biblical and the philosophical (here Stoic) concepts of God and the world cannot be overlooked.88 In the first part of his presentation of the “unknown God,” Paul proclaims the fundamental truths about the Creator and Lord who made everything and who maintains everything. This God does not live in the works of human hands and does not need human service. This argument reflects the Christian critique of pagan cults and sacrifices. Paul remained faithful to the biblical tradition, although his references to Greek philosophical thought, and above all to the Stoics, cannot be ruled out. b) God the Creator of Mankind (vv. 26–28)

In the following part, the speaker presents the “unknown God” as the Creator of the whole human race, all nations and peoples, for whom he decreed the times and limits of their habitation (v. 26). The ultimate goal of God’s creation is, as stated by the author of the speech, that people might seek God and find him (v. 27). The biblical truth about the creative act of God reappears in the second part of the speech: “He also made (ἐποίησεν) the whole mankind from one so that they would live (κατοικεῖν) on the whole area of the earth..., so that they would seek (ζητεῖν) God...” (vv. 26–27). In order to interpret vv. 26–27 correctly, we should understand the grammatical structure of the compound sentence, which includes many verbs in the form of infinitives and participles. Out of several possibilities, it is best to assume that the verse has two infinitives of purpose (infinitivus finalis) dependent on the verb ἐποίησεν. In this case, we get the best meaning of the analysed text; moreover, such an interpretation is reinforced by the earlier meaning of the verb ποιέω, here meaning “to create” (v. 24).89 The “unknown God” created heaven and earth, and he also created the whole human race (πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων), but it is stressed that mankind’s origin is from one man, Adam, though his name is not mentioned (v. 26a).90 This refers

88 As emphasised by Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech, 176 n. 3; much earlier by John Chrysostom in his homily on Acts 17 (PG 60.270). 89 The point of contention is the grammatical structure of the sentence: ἐποίησεν ... κατοικεῖν... ζητεῖν. The verb in its definite form can be considered an auxiliary verb and the phrase can be translated as: “he made mankind ... live on the whole area of earth..., to seek God...” We can also assume the occurrence of two asyndetic verbs of purpose, and then the meaning of the sentence is as follows: “from one he made mankind so that they can live on the whole surface of the earth..., to seek God...” See Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 107–8; also Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech, 153: “epexegetic infinitives”; Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 502; Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte, 643–4; Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 609, quoting more adherents of the second solution. 90 We must not overlook the similarity to the theological thought of Paul, for whom the figure of the first man, including the typology Adam – Christ, is very significant (cf. Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:21–22, 45, 47).

Paul’s Areopagitica (Acts 17:22–31)

to the biblical history (Gen 1:27; 2:7, 22). Luke, writing to Christians of pagan background, accepted the topic that was earlier in Jesus’ genealogy (Luke 3:23–38; cf. Rom 5:12–19). However, the enigmatic “from one” (ἐξ ἑνός)91 allows the pagan recipients of the speech to recall their images of the beginnings of mankind. This time, the Stoics saw in Paul’s words a reflection of their views because, already in the classical period, there was a belief among the Greeks that mankind descended from one deity.92 The author meant this, as indicated by the wording “all nations” or “the whole human race.”93 God created mankind so that they could live (ἐποίησεν ... κατοικεῖν – infinitivus finalis) on the entire earth. This thought has biblical foundations (Gen 2:6; 7:23; 11:4, 8:9). People should inhabit the earth according to God’s will and decrees; he “allotted the times and boundaries of their habitation” (v. 26b). God’s creative activity does not cease, and in Paul’s speech, the theme of divine providence comes to the fore again. As God gives to all people life and breath and all things (v. 24), he also decrees “the times and boundaries of their habitation” (v. 26b). Interestingly, the subordinate clause ὁρίσας προστεταγμένους καιροὺς καὶ τὰς ὁροθεσίας τῆς κατοικίας αὐτῶν (v. 26b) is extremely difficult to explain and interpret. The phrase can be rendered in the popular-philosophical sense (philosophy of nature) or in the historical or historical-salvific sense; one can also combine both interpretations. Most exegetes opt for the philosophical sense in terms of the Greek philosophy of nature and propose to render the phrase as καιροί – “seasons” (cf. Acts 14:17), while understanding ὁροθεσία as “inhabited territories of the earth,” in contrast to the uninhabited ones. From a theological perspective, this would continue the topic of creation and provide indirect evidence for the existence of God (Deut 32:8–9; Ps 74:13–17; 104:7–9; Job 38:8–11; Prov 8:28–29; Jer 5:22).94 91 The critical reading of ἐξ ἑνός is not certain, since the Western text adds αἵματος after ἐξ ἑνός, supported by many contemporary witnesses (e. g., D, E, P, 049, 056, etc.), ancient translations (itar,d,e,gig , syrp,b , arm) and the Fathers of the Church (e. g., Irenaeus, Ephrem, John Chrysostom, Theodoret). Codex Ψ gives yet another reading, which completes στόματος. Because of the better attested shorter reading (p74 , ‫א‬, B, Alexandrian tradition), it should be considered original. See the discussion in Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 456; cf. Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2 2012). 92 See Dibelius, “Paulus auf dem Areopag,” 35–7; Balch, “The Areopagus Speech,” 57, 77. For example, Dio Chrysostom shows God as “their ancestor” (Or. 12.29) and also as “the first and immortal parent” (Or. 12.42). Although ἐξ ἑνός can be interpreted in the neuter sense and consequently, in the sense of the Stoic concept of the origin of mankind, but it is an unnecessary narrowing against which Kilgallen warns, Kilgallen “Acts 17, 22–31,” 53 n. 21. 93 See Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 108; Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 447. 94 See Dibelius, “Paulus auf dem Areopag,” 32–33; Eltester, “Gott und die Natur in der Areopagrede,” 205–9; Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 503; Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.137–8; recently Haacker, Die Apostelgeschichte, 300.

119

120

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

Considering the second idea, exegetes propose to understand προστετάγμενοι καιροί as epochs or historical times (“fixed, appointed times”), and so ὁροθεσία

means the boundaries of the habitation of all nations and peoples on the earth. This sense of the phrase indicates God’s providential presence in the history of all nations and peoples.95 There are several reasons for the second interpretation. The argument that has been voiced for a long time undermines the referral of the supporters of the first solution to Acts 14:17, where καιροί acquires its sense from the adjective specifying καρπόφοροι.96 In this verse, the meaning of καιρούς is determined by two participles: ὁρίσας and προστεταγμένους. The participle προστεταγμένους (participium perfecti passivi, here passivum theologicum) occurs in Acts 10:33, expressing God’s instructions and intentions. The verb ὁρίζω, which is characteristic of Luke, also appears in the context of God’s plans of salvation.97 The verb reappears in the final part of the address, speaking of a man appointed by God (ὥρισεν) (v. 31; cf. Acts 10:42). All these terms describe the implementation of God’s plan of salvation and indicate the correctness of the second interpretation. However, some scholars do not want to oppose the two interpretations, but to treat them complementarily.98 The primary responsibility of the whole human race is to seek God. The meaning and goal of calling man into existence are that man seeks God – his Creator (ἐποίησεν ... ζητεῖν – infinitivus finalis) (v. 27a). In biblical tradition, “seeking Yahweh” was an act of will and an obligation of a pious man so that he could serve and obey him and glorify his name (Deut 4:29; Amos 5:6; 8; Isa 55:6; 65:1; Ps 14:2; 24:6; cf. Rom 3:11).99 However, in the Greek tradition, “seeking God” was an act of man’s reason and cognitive abilities. Based on his systematic reflection or logical deduc95 The second interpretation has been opted by Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech, 147–52, who gives an exhaustive discussion of the first one showing its disadvantages; see also Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.240 n. 83; cf. Litwak, “Israel’s Prophets,” 207. 96 Note the occurrence of καιροὶ ἐθνῶν in the third Gospel (Luke 21:24), which has a historical-salvific sense; cf. also Acts 1:7 and 1 Thess 5:1, where the term has an eschatological tone, see Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 288–9; cf. Witherington, III, The Acts of the Apostles, 526-27. 97 See Luke 22:22 (passivum divinum); Acts 2:23; 10:42; 17:31; cf. Rom 1:4; Heb 4:7. See Karl L. Schmidt, “ὁρίζω,” TWNT 5.454: “überhaupt ist für die besprochenen 8 ὁρίζω–Stellen des NT dies bezeichnend, daß sie abgesehen von Apg 11, 29 alle betont theologisch – christologisch sind.” 98 Adams, “Philosophy and the Bible,” 141–2, who notes a positive aspect of the difficulty in question: “In fact, there is no reason not to have it both ways. The ambiguity of the line is a happy one, unifying a well–constructed speech: the creation–interpretation gives a backwards connection to the opening lines about creation (17:24–25), while the historical reading links it to the reference to a new dispensation of history in 17:30.” See also Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 109: “Überhaupt ist der Text mit der Alternative geschichtlich–philosophisch überfordert”; cf. Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.241; Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 448; Balch, “The Areopagus Speech,” 54–5. 99 See Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech, 152–58; cf. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.138; Haacker, Die Apostelgeschichte, 301; Litwak, “Israel’s Prophets,” 208.

Paul’s Areopagitica (Acts 17:22–31)

tion, man tries to get to know God, his attributes and ways of existence (Seneca Ep. 95.47; Cicero Nat. D. 2.153).100 According to Paul, it is possible to come to know God based on the created world. However, this is always an imperfect search and does not necessarily end with success, since it is a search in the dark, so to speak (v. 27a).101 Man’s possibility of finding God, according to the author of the speech, results from God’s closeness to man, “though indeed he is not far from each one of us” (v. 27b).102 This statement reveals a clearly Stoic trait; hence, commentators often argue that it was indirectly dependent on the Stoic Poseidonius of Apamea or Dio Chrysostom, since a similar thought can be found in The Olympic Discourse (Or. 12.27–28).103 The Stoics, however, understood the closeness between God and man in a pantheistic sense, mystical immanence, as expressed by Seneca: “prope est a te deus, tecum est, intus est” (Ep. 41.1).104 Therefore, one can only speak of the similarity of the exterior elements of the analysed phrase to Stoic philosophy. As Gärtner rightly argued, Paul’s concept was a biblical thought, and in the biblical sense, the motif of God’s proximity and remoteness primarily has a religious and moral sense. God is close to those who call on him, who seek him with a sincere heart, and he is close when he comes to help man (Ps 34:19; 139:5–10; 145:18; Jer 23:23–24).105 The orator explains the nature of the closeness between God and man: “In him we live and move and have our being” (v. 28a). Scholars have agreed that this sentence, having a pantheistic tone, has Stoic roots. For a long time, no source of its origin could be identified, apart from vague claims that the thought might have come from Plato. It was suspected that the half-legendary poet Epimenides of Crete from

100 Dibelius, “Paulus auf dem Areopag,” 33–6. See also Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 109; Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 609–10: “It is a form of natural theology.” For the topic of knowledge of God in the Greek tradition, see Schmid, “Die Rede des Apostels,” 87–9. 101 See Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech, 158–61. The imperfection of “seeking” is expressed by the optative mood and the meaning of the verb: εἰ ἄρα γε ψηλαφήσειαν αὐτόν (v. 27). The verb ψηλαφάω literary means “to feel, grope about, touch” (like a blind man), in the figurative meaning “to test, examine, attempt” (see Luke 24:39; Heb 12:18); see LSJ 2022. 102 The conjunction and enclitic particle καί γε, used at the beginning of the statement, emphasise the particle and strengthen the message (BDR §439). 103 See Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 109; cf. Balch, “The Areopagus Speech,” 77–78. Josephus was familiar with the idea (Ant. 8.108). 104 For the topic of the concept of God and what is divine in the writings of the Stoic philosophers: Seneca and Epictetus, see Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 78–87, 119–125. 105 See Gärtner’s arguments that are still convincing, Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech, 162–4; he denies the connection of v. 27b with the referred text of The Olympic Discourse by Dio Chrysostom; the author shows that “the times of ignorance” at the end of the verse confirms this line of thought (v. 30); cf. Litwak, “Israel’s Prophets,” 208-9.

121

122

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

the 6th century CE was the author of the verse (Diog. Laer. 1.109–115).106 Yet, this explanation has been questioned. In the Greek world, “[i]n him we live and move and have our being” (tricolon) was a well-known saying that Paul adapted to meet his needs. This verse should be understood in the biblical and monotheistic sense and translated as “thanks to him (ἐν αὐτῷ) we live, move and have our being” (v. 28a). Human existence has its beginning and roots in God, and man is dependent on God.107 As the poet Aratus of Cilicia, who was influenced by Stoic philosophy, said, “for we too are his offspring” (τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν) (v. 28b). Here, the orator referred to man’s divine origin. Thus, the author of the speech understood God’s proximity to man not in the sense of spatial interpenetration, i. e., in a pantheistic sense, but in the sense of man’s creative origin coming from God and his kinship with God – man’s divine dignity. The speech’s Christian audience associated this verse with the biblical truth about man as created in the “image and likeness of God” and Jewish speculations on this topic (Gen 1:26–27; cf. Ps 8; 139).108 The pagan hearers thought of the physical birth of mankind by Zeus as their father, for that was the original meaning of Aratus’ text.109 Paul, brought up in biblical tradition, did not mean the physical origin of mankind from God, but the theological truth about the origin of the human race coming from God the Creator. This is how Luke previously related the origin of “Adam, son of God,” to God, not in the physical, but in the creative sense (Luke 3:23–38). The following fragment presents the “unknown God” as the Creator of all nations and peoples. God gave the entire earth to humanity as its habitat and imposed on people the obligation to seek their Creator, “though indeed he is not far from each one of us.” From the perspective of Greek philosophy, these theses were not identical to the Stoic statements, but they were very similar. The view concerning God’s creative and providential role towards mankind (and his closeness to man) was completely different from the Epicurean claims about this issue.

106 See Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 504 n. 2: “es muß sich also um eine übernommene stoische Formulierung handeln”; cf. Adams, “Philosophy and the Bible,” 137; cf. Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, revised by William F. Albright and Christopher S. Mann (AB 31; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), 171. 107 The phrase ἐν αὐτῷ, present in the Greek text, should be recognised according to Luke’s intention as ἐν-instrumentalis (cf. v. 31: ἐν ἀνδρί) and translated in the biblical sense as “through him” or “thanks to him,” i. e., as the continuation of the thought about God’s creative function towards man (v. 25b), and not in the quasi pantheistic sense – “in him.” See Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.241 n. 96; likewise, Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte, 645; Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 610. 108 See Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech, 164–7. 109 Jewish authors also quoted Aratus’ text. See Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 449 n. 252; Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.242. According to Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 611, referring the quoted text to Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus is wrong: “the word quoted come from Aratus and from no one else.”

Paul’s Areopagitica (Acts 17:22–31)

c) Man’s Divine Dignity (v. 29)

The final part of Paul’s argumentation results from the theological theses on worship and human religiosity previously announced (v. 29). His main goal was not to reflect on man’s origin and kinship with God. His conclusion about man’s extraordinary dignity, as an element of argumentation, on the one hand, was subordinated to the search for God, and on the other, justifies the claim that idolatrous cults are inadequate and absurd (vv. 24–25). In the previous verses, Paul pointed to God’s absolute independence and transcendence, who does not live in shrines and does not need human service. Another polemic is based on the truth about man’s extraordinary dignity resulting from being a member of God’s family (γένος οὖν ὑπάρχοντες τοῦ θεοῦ) (v. 29a).110 The speaker here referred to the words of the poet Aratus. The special kin relationship between God and mankind causes, according to Paul, the erroneous recognition of the deity as similar to a product of gold, silver or stone, which is the work of human hands and thoughts (v. 29c). The author draws practical conclusions from what has been said before. Man’s descent from God and his relationship with God preclude any images of a deity (τὸ θεῖον) made of gold, silver or stone as deprecating and degrading (cf. Acts 19:26).111 A ban on making images of God and other material objects existed in the Old Testament.112 In the pagan world, the practice of making such images was fundamentally different. Nevertheless, for the educated hearers, Paul’s thesis was understandable and above all, it was in accordance with the traditional statements of the Stoics, such as Zeno and his successors, about the material images of the gods and the way God existed (although in the first century CE, the Stoics were not unanimous on this matter – see Seneca Ep. 31.11).113 A different stance was taken by the Epicureans, who did 110 The thought of the kin relationship between people and the gods was not alien to the Greeks. See Dibelius, “Paulus auf dem Areopag,” 50–52. 111 Only here, in the NT, we have the nominal use of τὸ θεῖον (neutrum) in the sense of “deity, divinity.” The term is known in classical and Hellenistic Greek. See Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.242, n. 99; Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 611; Haacker, Die Apostelgeschichte, 302. In the NT, the adjective θεῖος appears twice in 2 Pet 1:3–4 (and in Acts 17:27 in Codex D) and several times in the LXX as an adjective (see Exod 31:3; 35:31; Job 27:3; 33:4; Prov 2:17; Sir 6:35; 2 Macc 3:29; 4:17; 9:11); also often in the writings of the Hellenistic Jewish authors (e. g., in 4 Macc), later permeating the writings of Christian authors. See Bauer 718–19; LSJ 788. 112 “You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exod 20:4; cf. Deut 5:8; Isa 40:18; 44:9–20; Wis 13:10; 14:7–10; 15:7–17). 113 Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 110; Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 54. Stoic views on the material images of deities in the first century CE and the relations between these views and the Areopagus speech are analysed by Balch, “The Areopagus Speech,” 67–72, writing: “Against the defense of images by contemporary Stoics like Dion in the second part of this oration, Acts pictures Paul presenting the ancient, authentic, philosophical opinion ‘stressing Christianity’s continuity with ... the pagan philosophical tradition’” (p. 71); likewise, Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.242.

123

124

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

not believe in the providence of God and, for pragmatic reasons, made sacrifices to the gods in shrines and on altars (Plutarch, Stoic. rep. 1034B). In the final part of his presentation of the “unknown God” before the Athenian audience, Paul drew further conclusions. Man’s extraordinary dignity as descending from God should have practical consequences on people’s religiosity. There is no room for idolatry. The polemic with idolatry was a critique of views that were popular and widespread, but it was in line with the standpoints of the philosophers of Mediostoicism. 2.2.3 The Call to Repent (vv. 30–31)

The last part of the speech, formally a peroratio, is different from the previous argumentation, both in style and content. The orator preaches the Christian message, calling all people to change their minds and lives (v. 30) on the day of judgment by the man who was authorised by being raised from the dead (v. 31). It may seem that the third part of Paul’s speech on the Areopagus, being Christian in its content, is detached from its previous parts.114 Actually, it is a continuation and culmination of the previous arguments. The “unknown God,” who Paul spoke about in the argumentative part of his speech, fulfils God’s further salvific plans for mankind. God remains the spiritus movens of history. Regardless of the past times of ignorance, he calls all people to repent (v. 30). The conjunction μὲν οὖν, which is characteristic of Acts, points to the formal coherence of the speech: “While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance” (v. 30a).115 The author moves to a conclusion. In one concise term, he sums up the history of mankind as “the times of ignorance” (χρόνοι τῆς ἀγνοίας). The plural form shows that the speaker meant the ignorance of all times and peoples. The times of ignorance were those “appointed times,” when people sought the true God in the dark and did not find him (v. 26).116 One can hardly believe that the ignorance of the Gentiles was culpable, even if it was only Paul’s view (cf. Rom 1:21). In Luke’s redaction of the speech, the negative evaluation of the Gentiles is not emphasised, and the speaker does not develop this question, for “God has overlooked,” i. e., God forgives people’s past mistakes without punishing them.117

114 See Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 110: “Ohne gedankliche Überleitung folgt der letzte, spezifisch christliche Teil.” 115 The conjunction was used in the causal sense (οὖν-consecutivum) (BDR §451.1). 116 An interesting parallel is given in Paul’s words to the people of Lystra about God allowing nations to walk in their own ways in past generations (Acts 14:16). Ignorance was also shared by the chosen nation and its leaders (cf. Acts 3:17). 117 Against the stance of Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 450, but agreeing with Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 505. The author of Wisdom (14:30–31) and later Paul (Rom 1:19–25) speak directly

Paul’s Areopagitica (Acts 17:22–31)

This part of the speech (peroratio) clearly refers to the situation of the audience and the whole human race. Regardless of the times of ignorance, God calls all mankind to repent (v. 30b). Noteworthy is the presence of the adverbial of time “now” (τὰ νῦν) in the verse that defines the change of the historical-salvific seasons in the history of mankind.118 Contrary to the time of ignorance, a new age has arrived in the history of mankind, in which God calls us to repent. In this way, the history of the world and mankind can be divided into two historical-salvific periods, and the turning point is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the new period, God commands “all people everywhere to repent.”119 God’s call is directed to all people everywhere as evidenced by the alliteration: πάντας πανταχοῦ – “everyone everywhere” (cf. Isa 45:15–24). The same theme of universalism appeared in the previous parts of the speech (vv. 24–26).120 The verb μετανοεῖν is Luke’s favourite term121 and means a change of mindset and also a change of life in a moral sense. It appears in Greek philosophy and similarly in the later OT writings (cf. Wis 11:23; 12:19). The Athenians were also called to change their mindsets, to reflect upon themselves. They should leave their gods and turn to the true God. Note that the call to repent (μετανοεῖν) or to turn, to convert (ἐπιστρέφειν)122 was a fixed element of missionary speeches in Acts. It was related to receiving Jesus Christ, being baptised and changing one’s way of life. A

118

119

120 121

122

of the guilt of the Gentiles and the punishment for their culpable ignorance which results in a life of godlessness. However, there is not necessarily a contradiction between Paul’s view expressed in the Areopagus speech and his views in Rom 3: 25–26, written from a different perspective and after the Athenian failure. With an article also in Acts 4:29; 5:38; 18:6; 20:32; 27:22. In the NT, the adverb νῦν, occurring 25 times in Acts, besides its basic meaning defining time (“now, currently, exactly”) assumes a special historical-salvific sense in the third Gospel (Luke 1:41; 5:10; 12:52; 22:18) and in Acts (e. g., 7:52; 18:6), defining the time of salvation or a new period of sacred history (cf. Josh 24:14; Neh 9:32; 1 Macc 2:50, 63); see Gustav Stählin, “νῦν,” TWNT 4.1106–08. The meaning of the verb παραγγέλλω (with a dativus) oscillates between “to call, to encourage” and “to order, to command.” In Acts, the term expresses directions or commands, often with a tone of request, given by those with authority or power: Jesus (Acts 1:4; 10,42), apostles and disciples (Acts 15:5; 16,18), Jewish leaders (Acts 4:18; 5,28. 40; cf. 16,23); see Otto Schmitz, “παραγγέλλω,” in TWNT 5.761. Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 450; Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 111. See Luke 10:13; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 16:30; 17:3–4. The term more frequently occurs in Luke’s writings in the nominal form μετάνοια (Luke 5:32; 15:7; 24:47; Acts 5:31; 11:18; 20:21; 26:20). The call to repent is addressed to both Jews and Gentiles; it is a call to accept God, Jesus as the Messiah and Lord. Repentance brings with it the forgiveness of sins, a change of life and even life itself. John the Baptist also called people to break away from sins and turn to God (Luke 3:3. 8; Acts 13:24; 19:4); see LSJ 1115; Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 265. The term with biblical roots occurs in Acts in verbal and nominal forms (see Acts 3:19; 9:35; 11:21; 14:15; 15:3, 19; 26:20).

125

126

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

similar call appears in the Areopagus speech, although it lacks a formal command (imperativus), as in the speeches directed to the Jews (Acts 2:38; 3:19; cf. 26:20). The need for repentance was justified by the announcement of the approaching day of judgment, in which God, through a man authenticated by his resurrection from the dead, intends to judge the entire inhabited world in righteousness (v. 31). The theological content of the verse is remarkable, and its importance in preaching the gospel in a pagan environment cannot be overestimated. Like the times of ignorance, now the time of conversion is limited, and it will end with a day of judgment “because” (καθότι)123 God “has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness” (v. 31a). The idea of God’s just judgement of the world is rooted in the Old Testament (Ps 9:9; 95:13; 97:9 LXX).124 The speech is enriched with the theme of “a day” of judgment, which evokes the theologoumenon of the eschatological “the Lord’s Day,” i. e., the parousia, the last judgment and the coming of salvation. This was the teaching of Jesus, and later that of the apostles.125 The phrase μέλλει κρίνειν allows us to conclude that the judgment is sure, inevitable and just, exercised over the entire inhabited world “in righteousness.” The last mention is again a reference to the OT; the recipients of the speech knew this remark. Justice, the silence of the gods in the face of evil, and reward and punishment in one’s mortal life were frequent topics discussed by pagans who expected righteousness (cf. Acts 24:25). Everything that the speaker said so far had been the subject of philosophical debates and could interest the audience. However, the final statement was crucial and also the most controversial. God intends to judge the world “by a man whom he has appointed (ᾧ ὥρισεν),126 and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (v. 31b). Paul does not give the name and specify the function of the man; he only states that the judgement will be made by him and in his presence (ἐν ἀνδρί) (cf. Acts 10:42; Rom 2:16; 3:6; 5:9).127 He neither presents Jesus’

123 The conjunction, which only occurs in Luke’s writings, shows a cause, reason or motive (Luke 1:7; 19:9; Acts 2:24; cf. 2:45; 4:35). See BDR §456.4. 124 In these psalms, we can also find vocabulary that occurs in the analysed verse: ἔρχεται κρῖναι τὴν γῆν κρινεῖ τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ (Ps 95:13 LXX); see also Litwak, “Israel’s Prophets,” 209-10. 125 See 1 Thess 1:10; 5:2; Rom 2:5; 2 Pet 2:9; 3:7,10. In the Christian tradition, based on Jesus’ teaching, the parousia and day of judgement were connected with the second coming of the Son of man (Matt 24:43–44; Luke 12:39–40; Rev 3:3; 16:15); cf. Ciccarelli, “The God of Jesus,” 156–59. 126 Using the verb ὁρίζω, Luke describes God’s plan of salvation and that God rules over history (see above n. 97). 127 The expression ἐν ἀνδρί is usually translated as “through a man” (“durch einen Mann”), assuming that it is an ἐν-instrumentalis. However, it would be better to treat it as a specific, juridical use of the preposition ἐν and translate it as “vor, bei, in Gegenwart von,” as proposed by Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 111, who refers to Bauer 521 (I 3), also 525 (III 1b). Referring to Acts 10:42

Paul’s Areopagitica (Acts 17:22–31)

words and acts nor announces his death and resurrection (could he have done so in the Athenian marketplace?). The Christological kerygma has been reduced to a minimum.128 The only Christological element is the mention of rising from the dead, which was a commonly accepted truth (πίστιν παρασχὼν πᾶσιν).129 Paul presents God entering human history with his salvation expressed by raising a man from the dead (ἀναστήσας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν). For the pagan audience, the message of the resurrection must have sounded unbelievable. Earlier, the “new teaching” intrigued the Athenian philosophers (vv. 17–18), but later it provoked various reactions from the audience (vv. 32–33). Raising someone from the dead disrupted the traditional Greek dualistic view of man and was difficult for the Gentiles to accept (Acts 24:15, 21; 1 Cor 15:12).130 The mention of the resurrection is a reference to the opening scene in the Athenian agora and the culmination of the apostle’s speech. On the other hand, in the sphere of conjecture, there is a supposition that, when proclaiming the Risen One, Paul referred to the witnesses of the resurrection and described this event in detail. Yet, there is no evidence for this in the text.131

128

129 130

131

(Peter’s speech in the house of Cornelius), in which Jesus is depicted as the judge of the living and the dead, seems unnecessary. The future function of Jesus Christ as judge was known to the first generations of Christians. Luke consciously formulates the Christological kerygma in this way, which was conditioned by the circumstances of the presentation to the pagan audience. Neyrey, “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy,” 119–20: “Different, too, is the modest place Jesus plays in the Areopagus speech. No mention is made of his signs and wonders, which would signal his role as a prophet attested by God (Acts 2:22). In fact, scant mention is made of Jesus’ crucifixion and death, beyond the simple note about God’s raising him from the dead (17:31). Absent here is the pattern ‘you rejected/killed him, but God raised him,’ which functioned in other contexts to urge the hearers to ‘change their minds’ and correct their judgments about Jesus”; Thomas F. Torrance, “Phusikos kai Theologikos Logos. St Paul and Athenagoras at Athens,” SJT 41 (1988): 14: “He it is who has now raised Jesus from the dead. That was the disturbing content of the kaine didache that St Paul delivered to the men of Athens on the Areopagos”; cf. Ciccarelli, “The God of Jesus,” 139–40. Here the noun πίστις is used in its extremely rare meaning “authentication, guarantee, proof.” See Dibelius, “Paulus auf dem Areopag,” 54; Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 111. At this point, it is worth quoting the words of Apollo from Aeschylus’ drama Eumenides: “But when once a man has died, and the dust has sucked up his blood, there is no rising again (ἅπαξ θανόντος, οὔτις ἔστ᾿ ἀνάστασις). For that my Father has not created any healing charm...” (Eum. 647–649); see Aeschylus, Oresteia: Agamemnon. Libation-Bearers. Eumenides, ed. and trans. Alan H. Sommerstein (LCL 146; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 436–37. The phrase οὔτις ἔστ᾿ ἀνάστασις literary means “there is no rising [from the dead].” Cf. Bruce, “Paul and the Athenians,” 12. See Schmid, “Die Rede des Apostels Paulus,” 114: “Je weniger Paulus vor griechischen Hörern mit alttestamentlichen Zeugnissen wirken konnte, desto starker mußte er die Geschichtlichkeit der Auferstehung Christi betonen, und es ist nicht unwahrscheinlich, daß er auch in der Areopagrede,

127

128

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

At this point, our exegetical-theological commentary must come to a close. The Areopagus speech is the longest explanation of theodicy in the New Testament. The main teaching concerned the biblical, monotheistic understanding of God as the Creator and Lord of history, including the criticism of pagan piety and cult related to it. Without departing from the biblical revelation and drawing abundantly from the Greek philosophical tradition, Paul introduced the unknown God to the Athenians. Nevertheless, his main purpose was to call upon the pagan audience to repent in view of the coming day of judgment by the man raised from the dead.

3.

Luke’s Perspective: History and Paradigm

These observations have allowed us to formulate an answer to the question concerning the importance of the information about the Epicureans in Acts 17:18. It will be placed in the broader context of Luke’s narrative about Paul’s stay in Athens, considering the theological content of the speech on the Areopagus. Such a broad perspective will make it possible to see the editorial thought of the author of the Acts of the Apostles and determine his intention concerning the significance of mentioning the Epicureans. 3.1

The Historical Reliability of Acts 17:16–34

Paul’s visit to Athens is a historical fact, which was, independently of each other, testified by Luke (Acts 17) and Paul (1 Thess 3:1). During his second missionary journey, Paul crossed the Bosphorus and preached the good news in Macedonia and then in Achaia. In Macedonia, he faced strong opposition from Jews living in the provincial cities, who incited the local people against him and accused him before the Roman authorities. Thus, Paul was forced to leave the Macedonian cities of Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea. After leaving Macedonia, he must have gone by ship to Athens, where he stayed for a while (Acts 16:10–17:15).132 The historical credibility of the narrative is additionally confirmed by Luke’s characteristics of the Athenians as they agree with the information about them contained in ancient sources, especially concerning their curiosity and openness to religious novelties and readiness for all kinds of debate. Luke thoroughly depicted the atmosphere of the city.133

wie er im ersten Korintherbrief tut, Zeugen dafür namhaft gemacht und auch grundsätzlich her die Frage der Auferstehung von den Toten und gegen ihre epikureischen Gegner gesprochen hat.” 132 The second missionary journey must be dated to the late 40s CE; Paul was in Corinth ca. 50 CE. 133 See Elliger, Paulus in Grichenland, 142–3; Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 452 n. 264.

Luke’s Perspective: History and Paradigm

The authenticity of the Areopagus speech is a separate issue (Acts 17:22–31). Paul spoke in the Athenian marketplace, but the Areopagus speech in its present form is Luke’s composition; however, this does not exclude its historical value, since Luke was Paul’s companion for a long time and had many opportunities to gather the necessary information.134 As for its content, the Areopagus speech broadly refers to Stoic views. Likewise, one can assume Paul’s knowledge of Stoicism based on his letters. We also know that in Tarsus, Paul’s hometown, where he spent his youth and lived again after his conversion, there was a thriving Stoic school.135 Consequently, we can state that the speech was composed by Luke and based on the traditions originating from Paul.136 An interesting circumstance speaks for the historical value of the narrative. The First Letter to the Thessalonians was written at the time that the author of Acts talks about; this letter contains many thoughts that indirectly make Luke’s message very credible. Paul mentions the persecutions and insults that he suffered from the Jews (1 Thess 2:2, 16; 3:4), and how the Thessalonians broke with the worship of false gods to serve the living and true God (1 Thess 1:9). Also, Luke mentions numerous conversions of the pagans from Thessalonica (Acts 17:4). Next, the topic of the false gods and pagan cults appears in Luke’s account of Paul’s stay in Athens (Acts 17:16), and this testifies to the same missionary method of Paul and his 134 For the topic of the historical value of the speeches in Acts, see W. Ward Gasque, “The Speeches of Acts: Dibelius Reconsidered,” in Richard N. Longenecker and Merril C. Tenney, eds., New Dimensions in New Testament Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974), 246–8. One must remember that, based on the literary genre, it is impossible to unequivocally neither deny nor prove the authenticity or historicity of any event. See Fritzleo Lentzen-Deis, “Methodische Überlegungen zur Bestimmung literarischer Gattungen im Neuen Testament,” Bib 62 (1981) 18: “die Gattungsfrage allein die Historizität nicht entscheiden kann.” 135 Cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Paulus zwischen, 264: “Dagegen mag es Einflüsse der in Tarsus blühenden stoischen Philosophie und der Rhetorik auf die synagogale Predigt und damit auch auf Paulus selbst gegeben haben. Strabo preist den Bildungseifer der Einwohner in höchsten Tönen.” 136 As always, commentators’ opinions vary. See, for example, Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 38–39: “On the historical level, it is at least possible that Paul preached a sermon somewhat like this one to an Athenian audience. I do not maintain here that Luke’s composition is anything like a transcript. I do, however, regard the general scene and the tenor of the speech as conceivable”; also, Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte, 635; Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, XLIV–XLV; Bruce, “Paul and the Athenians,” 11. Completely different views of German exegetes who assume Luke’s authorship of the speech. See Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 453–6; Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 111–3. In turn, Schmid, “Die Rede des Apostels Paulus,” 106–7, 116–7, tried to reconstruct what Paul actually said on the Areopagus. In his opinion, Luke only compiled the remaining parts of the speech to which he had access: “Bei dieser Betrachtung und Deutung erscheint der Bericht der Apostelgeschichte über die Areopagrede als eine notdürftige Zusammenstellung der für den Verfasser in der ihm zugänglichen Tradition noch erreichbaren Trümmer einer groß angelegten Rede, in der Paulus sich nicht etwa der mittelstoischen Theologie anpaßte, vielmehr sich mit ihr in schonender Weise auseinandersetzte” (p. 114); completely differently, Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 111.

129

130

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

speeches delivered to the Gentiles, which contained similar contents. It is in this aspect that one can understand the motif of the origin of humankind from one man (Acts 17:26; cf. 1 Cor 15:45; Rom 5:14). The most interesting analogy is related to the theological interpretation of Christ’s resurrection shaped by the needs of the mission. According to Paul’s teaching, Jesus was raised from the dead to be the one who rescues us from the coming wrath (1 Thess 1:10; cf. 4:14). A similar idea appears in the Areopagus speech. God appointed the day of the world’s judgment through a man who was authenticated to all by being raised from the dead (Acts 17:31). The terminology is different, but the theological thought is similar, despite the time distance between the creation of these texts. The theme of God’s judgment day over the world is one of the Christian theologoumena in missions to the Gentiles, and which is independently confirmed by Paul and Luke.137 Finally, one must ask why Luke listed two Athenian philosophical schools, the Epicurean and the Stoic. There are literary, historical and theological reasons. The author of Acts often composes scenes based on contrast and contradiction, hence the presence of competing schools can be considered a purely literary technique. However, this argument is neither convincing nor sufficient. We must assume that the meeting of the Apostle Paul with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers actually took place, and that Luke recorded this event, since there is no reason to question Luke’s message. On the other hand, there were several other major philosophical schools. Why then were only the Epicureans and the Stoics mentioned? The reference to only two ancient philosophies, and above all, to Stoicism, is related to the theological message of the Areopagus speech and was therefore intended by the author of Acts. As a result, we can speak of historical and theological reasons which call for elucidation, especially the presence of the Epicureans. 3.2

The Christian Message in the Pagan World

Luke left an undisputed testimony that Christianity encountered Greek culture and philosophy at an early stage, and he recorded the course of the encounter. However, he not only documented this historical fact. Luke understood the ground-breaking significance of this event, hence, he gave it the value of a paradigm – a model of the encounter of separate cultures and two different religious systems: Christianity and the beliefs of the pagan world. Moreover, in writing Acts, he not only depicted the history of the beginnings, but also responded to the religious and theological questions and problems of his church (third Sitz im Leben). This statement also refers to his narrative of Paul’s stay in Athens.138 137 See Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 38–9. 138 As Seelig writes with some exaggeration, Gerald Seelig, “Einführung,” in Georg Strecker and Udo Schnelle, eds., Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus

Luke’s Perspective: History and Paradigm

3.2.1 A Missionary Speech to Pagan Audiences

The Acts of the Apostles shows two situations in which Christian missionaries speak to pagans who do not know Judaism and the synagogue, and they are neither “Godfearing” nor proselytes. They occurred in Lystra (Acts 14:8–18) and Athens (Acts 17:16–34). In the other cases, Paul addresses first the Jews and the “Godfearing”; he also did this in Rome (Acts 28:17–29). Paul’s speech in Lystra was occasional. His speech on the Areopagus, on the other hand, was programmatic and carefully prepared by Luke.139 Formally, the literary genre of the Areopagus speech (D. Zweck) corresponds to Hellenistic deliberative speeches and meets all the requirements for speeches of this type. After introducing the topic of the speech (vv. 22–23), there is an argumentative part (vv. 24–29), which in turn prepares the final admonition (vv. 30–31). The mutual relations of these parts are important for a proper evaluation and hierarchisation of the theological topics included in the speech. The first part provides a theological theme, while the argumentative part prepares the final call to repentance. Conversely, in light of the final call to repent, the earlier words assume their final sense.140 In Athens, Paul proclaimed the fundamental point of the Christian message, namely “Jesus and his resurrection,” evoking the Athenians’ curiosity (v. 18), as Luke testifies. The truth of the resurrection provokes ambivalent reactions among the hearers (v. 32). The same topic occurs at the beginning and end of the scene, as

(vol. 2.1–2; Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1996) XXIII: “Das in Apg 17,16–34 von Lukas gezeichnete Paulusbild entspricht sicher nicht der Wirklichkeit des Apostels, wohl aber spiegelt es ein Ideal der zweiten Generation wider.” 139 The authors’ opinions in this respect have remained unchanged: Martin Dibelius, “Die Reden der Apostelgeschichte und die Antike Geschichtsschreibung,” in Martin Dibelius, Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte (FRLANT 42; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 3 1957) 142: “So predigt man – so soll man predigen”; Squires, The Plan of God, 71: “a programmatic example of Paul’s universal preaching to the Gentiles”; Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 49 n. 4: “I subscribe to the opinion of J. Dupont (among others) that the Areopagus speech is ‘exemplaire’..., in the sense that, despite its particularity to Athens, it represents broadly what Paul would say to other pagan audiences and is, in a sense, a summary of lengthier, more particularized preachings. In short, this speech is meant to show how one approached the pagan world.” 140 See Schmid, “Die Rede des Apostels,” 112–3: “Mit der Rekapitulation v. 30 schließt in der Areopagrede der erste negativ polemische Teil…; er kann nur als Vorbereitung verstanden werden für einen positiven zweiten Teil...”; more precisely, Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 49: “With the introduction of this material, Paul subtlely moves from an explanatory mode to an exhortatory mode. It is in the light of these final verses of the speech that one sees better what purpose the earlier verses truly serve.”

131

132

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

a device framing the Areopagus speech. Everything that is in between should be interpreted from the perspective of the resurrection.141 The commencement of the Christian message to the Gentiles in Athens was the teaching about the true nature of God and his sovereignty over the world. The monotheistic biblical faith in the existence of one God conditioned this, which was contrasted with the audience’s polytheistic views and Stoic monism as well. This problem is discussed in the argumentative part, which is not a complete explanation of Christian theodicy but takes up some religious and theological topics. They include the true nature of God the Creator and Lord of history and the truth about his providential presence in the world. Speaking to the Greeks, who were not familiar with the biblical revelation, the Apostle to the Nations could use only the views and ideas that were known in their pagan environment, i. e., the great Greek culture and philosophical tradition. Note that the speaker presupposes a shared belief in God or the gods. Therefore, the central point of the argumentative part of his speech is the topic of the “unknown God,” since this could only be the level and basis of understanding by both parties. Indeed, God was at the root of Paul’s gospel and missionary activity among the Gentiles (cf. 1 Thess 1:4–10; 1 Cor 8:4–6; Rom 1:15–19), and therefore, it is not surprising that God is the main protagonist in the Areopagus speech (Acts 17:22–31).142 By presenting God as the Creator and Lord of the universe, Paul was able to prove the absurdity of idolatry and idolatrous cults. In the introductory scene, the author of Acts noted that Paul was agitated at the sight of numerous idols in the city (v. 16). Opening his speech, Paul refers to this, but also mentions an altar dedicated to “an unknown god” (vv. 21–22). Thus, from the very beginning, elements of polemics against pagan practices and cults appear in his speech. They are repeated in the Areopagus speech (w. 29). In light of the Apostle’s words, the creation of mankind and the setting of boundaries and times of habitation for all nations were connected with the possibility and duty of seeking the true God so that they would “perhaps grope for him and find him” (v. 27). While proving his view, this idea is an argument for the possibility of getting to know God in “the times of ignorance.” It is precisely “the times of ignorance” that Paul invoked at the end of his speech, urging his listeners to repent in light of the coming day of judgment: it is time for the Athenians to find the true God (vv. 30–31). Appealing to man’s cognitive abilities while seeking God has an auxiliary function in the speech. The topic of man’s great dignity and his being a son

141 See Elliger, Paulus in Grichenland, 137; Torrance, “Phusikos kai Theologikos Logos,” 13. 142 Frederick Brenk has made extremely interesting observations on this topic, Frederick Brenk, “Mixed Monotheism?”: “Though the Christians insisted on absolute monotheism, their God was not the unyielding and unforgiving Stoic God. They offered for many the best of monotheism without sacrificing the best in polytheism” (p. 21).

Luke’s Perspective: History and Paradigm

of God, which does not allow idolatry and idolatrous cults, should be interpreted in a similar way. Therefore, Paul did not show theological points that would be common to Christianity and pagan thought in general and Stoicism in particular. He prepared his audience for the final call to repent and convert. According to the speaker, the mission to the Gentiles focused on the sublime idea of God the Creator and Lord of history on the one hand, and the great dignity of man and his relationship with God on the other. Jesus of Nazareth, whom Paul proclaimed, could be received by pagans if they shared the Christian understanding of God and man. The Areopagus speech was not a systematic explication of Christian theodicy or a debate with the Athenian philosophers. The theological topics from the argumentative part should be interpreted from the perspective of the final call to repent in view of the day on which a resurrected man would judge the world. This proclamation was not a typical gospel about the rising from the dead of the tortured and killed Jesus Christ, the Son of God, namely the gospel known from the other speeches found in Acts as well as Saint Paul’s letters. On the Areopagus, the gospel preached to the Gentiles takes the form of a message about God’s appointed day of judgment for the entire inhabited world (v. 31; cf. 1 Thess 1:9–10). On the other hand, the mention of raising a man, namely Jesus, from the dead (v. 18), has a double argumentative value. It is a sign of a powerful and definitive act of God entering history and thus changing the history of the world and mankind. This act of God – raising a dead man – is proof that authenticates the speaker in the eyes of the pagans (and Christianity before paganism); it is also a call to repent and receive the true God. On the other hand, the resurrection of Jesus revealed the truth about the universal resurrection of all people and eternal life (vv. 18. 32; cf. Acts 10:42).143 We may even be tempted to say that the Areopagus speech has similar formal elements to Peter’s missionary speeches and Paul’s other speeches. It consists of two unequal parts. The first part (vv. 22–29), historical or historical-salvific, is an attempt to educate, convince and win over the audience. Because of the circumstances of the speech, biblical and Christological arguments were replaced by biblical tradition and 143 In Luke’s presentation of Paul’s speech in Athens, the truth of the resurrection appeared three times. First in the introductory part of the speech, in which the message of Jesus and the resurrection (ἡ ἀνάστασις) aroused the interest of the representatives of the philosophical schools (v. 18). The second occurrence is at the end of his speech when Paul speaks of raising a man from the dead (ἀναστήσας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν) (v. 31). Finally, in the last scene, the mention of the resurrection caused the audience to react (ἀκούσαντες δὲ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν) (v. 32). Here we can note a subtle change of emphasis. The first mention was general, and it only signalled the topic of rising from the dead. The second includes a minimised Christological kerygma that Jesus rose from the dead. The third concerns the resurrection of the dead (ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν). For Christian theologians, the resurrection of Christ involves the resurrection of all believers and all people (Acts 4:2; 24:15, 21; 26:23; Rom 6:5; 1 Cor 15:12–23); cf. Ciccarelli, “The God of Jesus,” 150–171.

133

134

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

pagan philosophical tradition (theologia naturalis). The shorter final part (vv. 30–31) of the Christian message refers to the situation of the audience; hence his use of the present tense (cf. νῦν) and the call to repent. This call is an integral element of missionary speeches found in Acts, including the Areopagus speech, although the call was not formulated as a command.144 Many commentators emphasise the absence of elements that characterise the Christian message: the speech includes neither the message of the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, nor a promise of salvific goods, nor a call to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus. Apart from a brief mention of some people who became believers and joined Paul (v. 33), it lacks information about the success of Paul’s mission and numerous conversions. Instead, we have a laconic call to repent, a call to turn from godliness and religiosity based on the worship of idols, and to believe in the true, hitherto unknown, God whom Paul proclaimed. Nevertheless, this call to transform one’s mindset and heart (μετανοεῖν) is the proper goal of delivering the speech, and the resurrection is its foundation. All other elements are dedicated to this goal. Ultimately, it is preaching the Christian message to the pagan world.145 The Areopagus speech is one of two talks addressed directly to pagan audiences. The exceptional situation in which the Apostle found himself prevented him from using the biblical argumentation characteristic of the other speeches in Acts. Paul could not refer to Abraham, Moses and the prophets. In the Athenian Agora, the Apostle to the Nations spoke in the Greek style, presenting arguments drawn from pagan authors, but he did not depart even for a moment from the biblical message about the one and only God. He looked for common elements and, based on them, proclaimed “a new teaching” to the Gentiles. Ultimately, it is not the religious and philosophical considerations on the possibility of truly knowing God and his nature or the critique of idolatry and idolatrous cults that constitute the actual purpose of Paul’s appearance on the Areopagus, but the call to repent directed to pagans. The Areopagus speech is indeed missionary and kerygmatic.146

144 See Adams, “Philosophy and the Bible,” 144–45; Wilckens, Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte, 87–8 proposes a division of the speech into two parts: apologetic (vv. 22–28) and kerygmatic (vv. 29–31). Stephen’s speech is formally constructed in a similar way (Acts 7:2–53). 145 This is the right theses put forward by Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 49: “This essay, however, offers a third understanding of the intent of the speech. While many elements of the speech support the impression that Paul is explaining (if not even defending) his teaching, the overall intent of the speech is conversion of the pagans.” A similar opinion has been expressed by Adams, “Philosophy and the Bible,” 143–5, regarding the Areopagus speech to be “missionary preaching,” and the elements of Greek philosophical tradition serving the gospel; cf. also Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, 171: “Once more the resurrection has been made the central point.” 146 At a literary level, this has been made evident by using the verbs εὐαγγελίζω (v. 18) and καταγγέλλω (v. 23); Paul’s debates in Athens aimed at evangelising the pagan world and not carrying out

Luke’s Perspective: History and Paradigm

3.2.2 A Programmatic Encounter of Cultures and Religions

All considerations about the authenticity of the narrative of Paul’s stay in Athens are and will remain highly hypothetical. Whether the theological content of Acts 17:16–34 is considered historical and originating from the Apostle to the Nations, or whether it is attributed to Luke’s editorial, literary, and theological work ultimately depends on the subjective judgment of the commentator. However, it is indisputable that, in the second half of the first century CE, when Christianity began to spread throughout the Empire, there was an encounter and confrontation of two such different cultures and religions as Christianity – deriving from the Bible and Judaism – and the pagan world, which was itself a conglomerate of cultures and religions. Luke recorded the first of these meetings in Acts, and importantly, his narrative (Acts 17:16–34) is a programmatic example.147 Let us first make some remarks about the recipients of the Areopagus speech. Paul’s hearers are mainly representatives of two philosophical schools: Epicureans and Stoics (v. 18). They lead Paul to the Areopagus as they want to get to know this new teaching better (vv. 19–20). This presentation of the circumstances of delivering the speech must have been significant for the author of Acts. However, Luke himself suggests that the group of addressees was actually wider and embraced the Athenians and visitors from different parts of the Empire. This is indicated by the author’s commentary (v. 21) and the invocation, in which the speaker addressed all Athenians, admiring their great piety and religiosity (vv. 22–23).148 Moreover, the book of Acts as a literary work is directed to pagan and Christian recipients contemporary to Luke; hence the Lucian narrative of Paul’s stay in Athens is of a universal and programmatic nature. Luke shows the beginning of the encounter and confrontation as well as the “religious dialogue” (J. Kilgallen) that yielded the fruit of – one could risk saying – the Christianisation of the ancient GreekRoman civilisation. Christians were interested in several theological topics, which the Areopagus speech gives evidence about to a certain extent. Idolatry was a contentious issue between Christianity and the pagan world. Turning away from the pagan gods and accepting the true God was the constant “topos” of the Christian mission to the Gentiles, i. e., the starting point for proclaiming the message of Christ Jesus (Acts 14:15; 19:24–27; 1 Thess 1:9–10; Gal 4:8–9).149

philosophical disputes. See Joshua J. Jipp, “Paul’s Areopagus Speech of Acts 17:16–34 as Both Critique and Propaganda,” JBL 131 (2012): 567–588; cf. Haacker, Die Apostelgeschichte, 304–05. 147 Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 509: “Lukas hätte jedoch das Bild dieses besonderen Vorgangs seinen Lesern nicht vorgelegt, wenn es nicht für ihn überindividuelle Bedeutung besaß.” 148 The circle of the addressees is wider if we assume that the Areopagus meant a city council. 149 An interesting witness comes from the pagans that noted this Christian demand: “… they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and

135

136

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

Visitors to ancient Greek and Roman cities are still impressed by the preserved pagan temples and other objects of cult. A city full of idols, like Athens, upset the Apostle to the Nations (v. 16), and he referred to the question of idolatry at the very commencement of his speech, first in the form of a captatio benevolentiae (vv. 22–23); yet, his goal was to show the absurdity of worshipping works of human hands. Presenting his arguments, on the one hand, Paul showed the true nature of God, who is the Creator of everything that exists and Lord of everything (vv. 24–25). On the other hand, he pointed to man’s unique dignity as coming from God, thereby showing that bowing to the works of human hands does not befit man (v. 29).150 Christian missionaries had their theological reasons for fighting idolatry. In their critique of idolatrous practices, they could not use the biblical arguments that were effective only for Judeo-Christians and proselytes but had to refer to ancient authors. This was important for the pagan recipients of the Christian message, especially to the educated circles who were familiar with the Greek philosophical tradition.151 Challenging erroneous views on idolatry and idolatrous practices, Paul pointed to man’s special dignity, who comes directly from God, and so we can talk about a kin relationship between man and God. The truth about man’s remarkable origin is an argument for the possibility of truly knowing the Creator, i. e., knowing the true God, who is distinct from the created work. There are several interesting aspects of this topic. In the Areopagus speech, the topic of knowing God was included in the argumentative part in order to prepare the polemical and admonishing parts concerning “the times of ignorance,” which were over at the moment allotted by God. Paradoxically, the topic fulfils the function of the captatio benevolentiae: man was created to seek God in the dark. The author wanted to win the minds and hearts of the audience with his arguments so that he could persuade them to repent, recognise the lie of idolatry, and get to know God. The knowledge of God from

by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws” (Lucian Peregr.13); see Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus. The Runaways. Toxaris or Friendship. The Dance. Lexiphanes. The Eunuch. Astrology. The Mistaken Critic. The Parliament of the Gods. The Tyrannicide. Disowned, trans. Austin M. Harmon (LCL 302; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936), 14–15. 150 This is how the goal of the Areopagus speech has been formulated by Adams, “Philosophy and the Bible,” 144: “In Luke’s text, the Athenian missionary sermon attempts to persuade its audience (i) to unite against the idolatry of popular Greek religion (17:16, 23, 29), and (ii) to turn to the true worship of God, who raised Christ Jesus from the dead and appointed Him eschatological judge of the earth (17:29–30).” 151 The first century of the Christian era witnessed disputes and philosophical polemics related to the question of the images of the gods (works of human hands) as well as idolatry and its practices. A literary witness of these polemics is also the writings of Plutarch of Chaeronea or Dion of Prusa. See Balch, “The Areopagus Speech,” 68–69, who writes: “Dio’s discourse shows that images of the gods were discussed at the time Acts was written, and precisely in this context, he attacks Epicureans (Dio Or. 12.36–38)” (p.74).

Luke’s Perspective: History and Paradigm

the created works as a theological topic appears in Paul’s epistles (cf. 1 Thess 1:9; 1 Cor 8:4–6; Rom 1:16–32) and should be regarded as an element for discussion with the pagan world (cf. Acts 14:15–17). The importance of this theological theme is perhaps related to the fact that in the first century of the Christian era, pagan philosophers also argued about the ways leading to knowledge about God. Thus, the question was again connected with idolatry, as in the Areopagus speech and Paul’s letters.152 Providence occupied a special place in ancient discussions. In the Areopagus speech, this issue was not addressed directly, but there were several elements characteristic of the doctrine of divine providence also found in Acts.153 God is the Creator of the world and everything that is in it (v. 24).154 He is also the Creator of humankind. As the Lord of history, he orders and maintains creation in a providential way (v. 26).155 God is the just judge of man (v. 31).156 The Hellenistic world understood the gods in different ways, but one of the theological categories was the overall idea of “providence,” in light of which the gods exist and are active, good, wise and just, dealing with people with merciful love.157 The activity of the gods was expressed through the act of creation, through ordering and keeping the world in existence and by exercising their judicial functions towards people. The manifestations of the gods’ providential functions towards the cosmos were varied. The gods knew the future, so they could reveal it to mortals, and they also controlled the course of things in the world. Concerning this point, the Areopagus speech was in line with the beliefs of the Hellenistic-Roman world. The arguments about God’s true nature, his providential role and the absurdity of idolatry were acceptable to an audience of Stoic philosophers. The Epicureans, who were accused of atheism, had a different view of the nature of the gods and their attitudes towards mortals.

152 See Schmid, “Die Rede des Apostels,” 87–89, 94–95; writing: “Man sieht aus diesen Dokumenten der früheren Kaiserzeit und aus den Darlegungen von B. v. Borries, daß das Problem des Bilderdienstes im Zusammenhang mit der Frage der richtigen Gotteserkenntnis zur Zeit der Apostel auch auf heidnischer Seite von den Philosophen noch immer, oder wieder aufs neue, erörtert wurde” (p. 89). 153 See Neyrey, “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy,” 122–4, stating: “Among the many theological elements in the Areopagus speech, the chief issues that Luke highlights are providence and theodicy” (p. 133); Squires, The Plan of God, 72: “although the motif of providence is never directly stated by Paul, it forms an important theme in his Areopagus speech”; this publication includes a thorough review of the topic of providence in Acts. 154 Acts 4:24; 14:15. 155 Cf. the presence of divine providence in the apostles’ lives: Acts 16:19–39; 17:1–9. 12–15; 18:5–11; 19:23; 20:1; 21:27–39; 22:22–29; 23:12–31; 27:9–44; 28:1–6. 156 Cf. Acts 5:1–6; 12:23 and the judgment given by Jesus in Acts 10:42; 24:25. 157 It would be sufficient to present titles of numerous works written in this period. Providence was discussed, for example, by Posidonius, Cicero, Philo of Alexandria and Plutarch.

137

138

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

All these theological themes of the speech were related to the doctrine of the “unknown God.” Pagan religious souls could be won for the Christian message based on the sublime, monotheistic idea of God. Christianity came from the biblical belief in God as good and just – the Creator who sustains creation in existence. The pagan environment did not have a unified form of religious beliefs, and the HellenisticRoman religion meant polytheism and religious syncretism. In this context, the use of Stoic concepts and views, which were close to the biblical concept of the revealed God, has a key meaning in the speech.158 However, some topics could not be based on known conceptual and ideological backgrounds. They included the resurrection of the dead, future judgment, reward and punishment as well as eternal life. Greeks and Romans often had many opposing views on human fate after death. The most popular ancient idea referred to the Homeric vision of the afterlife (Odyssey 11) and placed all the dead in the underground kingdom of Hades. The idea of the immortality of the soul, for which the body is only a temporary prison, seems to be equally old. Plato provided its philosophical foundation.159 In turn, Aristotle considered the rational part of the human soul to be immortal. However, little is known about the impact and knowledge of Orphic conceptions. As part of the Eleusinian mysteries, disciples were promised happy eternal lives, probably understood as a continuation of the mystery rites in the underworld.160 In the times preceding the NT, the idea of the soul’s immortality was expressed by Cicero.161

158 Ciccarelli, “The God of Jesus,” 143–49; however, see Rowe’s opinion, Rowe “The Grammar of Life,” 31–50. It is worth noting that an important intermediate stage preceding the Christian polemic with the Greek philosophical concept of deity was the theological work of Philo of Alexandria. For this topic, see Wolfson, Philo. Foundations of Religious Philosophy, 1.27–34, 164–204; cf. 2.94-164; also Roberto Radice, “Philo’s Theology and Theory of Creation,” in Adam Kamesar, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Philo (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 124–45; Marian Hillar, “The Logos in Judaism,” in Marian Hillar, From Logos to Trinity: The Evolution of Religious Beliefs from Pythagoras to Tertullian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 36–70, esp. 49. 159 Let us quote a fragment of his thought: “But we ought always truly to believe the ancient and holy doctrines which declare to us that the soul is immortal and that it has judges and pays the greatest penalties, whensoever a man is released from his body; wherefore also one should account it a lesser evil to suffer than to perform the great iniquities and injustices” (Plato Ep. 7.335A); see Plato, Timaeus. Critias. Cleitophon. Menexenus. Epistles, trans. R. G. Bury (LCL 234; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929), 510–11. 160 Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 2.223–244, 466–481; for the later period, see Meeks, The First Urban Christian, 181–2: “Other evidence, notably the philosophic and rhetorical literature on consolation, seems to assume widely held beliefs in personal immortality. Nevertheless, it is apparent that beliefs and hopes varied considerably.” 161 Cicero speaks about the immortality of the human soul: “But just as it is by natural instinct that we believe in the existence of gods, and by the exercise of reason that we learn to know their nature, so

Luke’s Perspective: History and Paradigm

Despite this diversity of views, no pagan concept was similar or even partially consistent with the Christian teaching about the resurrection of Christ and all people (ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν).162 Therefore, it is not surprising that the reaction of Paul’s audience was negative, since the truth about the resurrection was hardly recognised in the pagan world, as testified by the NT texts (Acts 26:22–29; 1 Cor 15:12) and later by pagan writings: The poor wretches have convinced themselves, first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody, most of them.163

At the same time, the Christian teaching about the resurrection of the dead and the further life of an individual was especially attractive to the pagan world.164 Therefore, in the Areopagus speech, there are elements of Christian doctrine known to the pagan world. The Apostle to the Nations pointed out that the new teaching preached in the streets of Athens had much in common with the traditional orthodox views of the gods of the city’s enlightened citizens. On the other hand, an objection could have been raised due to his call to repent for the day of judgment, authenticated by raising a man from the dead. Even in this case, however, the audience’s reaction was not totally negative. Some reacted with marked disapproval, while another group expressed their readiness to listen to Paul again (v. 32). 3.2.3 The Function of Philosophical Schools

At the formative stage of Christianity, there were many philosophical schools, but – as already stated – the author of Acts mentioned only the Epicureans and Stoics. Moreover, he treated these two philosophical schools differently. Why?165

162 163 164

165

it is that resting upon the agreement of all races of mankind we think that souls have an abiding life, and it is by reason we must learn their place of abode and their nature” (Tusc. 1.36); Cicero. Tusculan Disputations, trans. John Edward King (LCL 141; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927) 42–43. The idea of immortality was important and valuable for Cicero (Tusc. 1.39–40, 49). Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 29. It is another testimony of Lucian (Peregr.13 [trans. A. M. Harmon, LCL]). Meeks, The First Urban Christian, 181: “For good reason many modern historians have suggested that this promise of individuals’ resurrection was a major factor in the emotional appeal of Christianity in the pagan world.” Hans-Josef Klauck rightly defines the problem: “Gab es zur Zeit des Paulus nur diese beiden philosophischen Schulen? Wenn nicht, warum wählt Lukas gerade sie aus, und warum bewertet sie nicht völlig gleich?” – see Klauck, Die religiöse Umwelt des Urchristentums, 2.75.

139

140

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

On the Areopagus, two philosophical schools, and consequently, different philosophical systems and views on the gods, the world and man, were opposed to Christianity. The mentioned schools of philosophy, Epicurean and Stoic, were among the most famous and popular during the Imperial Age. Therefore, Luke could have noted their interest in Paul’s teaching and presence on the Areopagus only for historical reasons. However, such an answer would be extremely minimalistic and would certainly not reflect the true meaning of the biblical text. Paul spoke, as is supposed, to a diverse audience. Therefore, it is correct to say that the ambivalent reaction of the audience to the apostle’s words is a general and emblematic illustration of the reactions of all pagans to the Christian message – ranging from denial, through benevolent interest, to conversion and acceptance of the message. Using the unique presentation of the place, Athens, as the centre of Greek thought and culture, and the audience, who are representatives of popular philosophical schools, the author of Acts shows an encounter between Christianity and the elites of Greco-Roman culture and thought. However, the real intention of the author of Acts was deeper and more purposeful. Luke would have been aware of the ambivalent reception of the Stoics and Epicureans by the pagan world, as expressed in Acts. Considering the fact that the minds of ancient people were full of stereotypes and common opinions about the aforementioned philosophical schools, the behaviour of their representatives was predictable. Mentioning both schools, Luke drew the reader’s attention to both the compatibility and the inconsistency of the theological argumentation present in the Areopagus speech (and in the Christian message) with the religious and philosophical views of these philosophical schools.166 Obviously, the Stoic views on God, the cosmos and man showed greater consistency and connection with the biblical teaching than the Epicurean views. Therefore, it is understandable that the mentioned philosophical groups reacted differently to the Christian message, as it depended on their philosophies. From the Christian viewpoint, Paul (or Luke) resorted to religious and philosophical views, naturally choosing the Stoic ones that had many similarities to his Christian teaching. In the Hellenistic period and later in the Imperial Age, Stoicism varied greatly. Nevertheless, the content of the Areopagus speech reveals that the author had a good knowledge of Stoicism, and certainly of some aspects of this philosophy.

166 See Neyrey, “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy,” 121–122; cf. p. 133: “Luke is not ignorant of stereotypical perception of Epicureans and Stoics and he has told the story in Acts 17:16-34 in such a way that these two parties react in contrasting fashion to Paul, both at the beginning of the speech and at its and”; Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 38; also Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 50: “One can expect, then, that Paul will construct and develop his argument principally with their teachings in mind.”

Luke’s Perspective: History and Paradigm

The closeness to the views of Posidonius of Apamea is particularly striking. This issue has been studied many times, and there is no need to repeat the results. It is only worth recalling the general outline of the convergence. The author not only quotes the Stoic poet, Aratus of Cilicia. His speech reflects somewhat Stoic views about God, i. e., the idea of divine providence in its creative sense when the cosmos was made, as well as in the attentive dimension, namely God’s presence in history and his concern for people.167 Similarly, the orator presents a Stoic perspective on idolatry when he criticises the images of the gods as works of human hands and then disapproves of this cult and idolatrous practices.168 The Stoics’ views on the fate of the human soul after death were diversified. Successive generations of Stoic philosophers not only modified the positions of their predecessors but also rejected them, often advocating the opposite. The Stoics believed in some form of existence of the soul after death, although they did not consider the soul immortal; they thought that the soul is corporeal and continues to live after death but is not indestructible. The end of the soul’s existence was usually considered to be its periodic and common “conflagration” (ἐκπύρωσις), i. e., the destruction and renewal of the cosmos.169 An example of the ambiguity of Stoic views on death can be that of Seneca; he spoke about it pessimistically and rejected the immortality of the soul, writing: “mors est non esse; hoc erit post me, quod ante me fuit.”170 However, a more balanced assessment of his statements allows us to state that Seneca also believed in the immortality of the soul, although limited by time (cf. Ep. 102.26).171 Stoicism was a more appropriate partner in the dialogue with Christianity than Epicureanism. Paul’s speech on the Areopagus only includes topics related to the knowledge of God, but in the NT, one can find more parallels, not necessarily borrowings, between Christianity and Stoicism. We can state that Luke was aware of the changes taking place in early Christian theology after its encounter with the pagan world.

167 See Balch, “The Areopagus Speech,” 66–67. 168 Ibid., pp. 71–72; cf. Adams, “Philosophy and the Bible,” 138–139. It is also worth emphasizing the convergence of the Areopagus speech with Seneca’s views: “This moulding will not be done in gold or silver; an image that is to be in the likeness of God cannot be fashioned of such materials” (cf. Ep.  31.10–11 [trans. Richard M. Gummere, LCL]). 169 Diog. Laer. 7.156–157 (cf. chapter V of my work). 170 “Death is non-existence, and I know already what that means. What was before me will happen again after me” (Ep. 54.4 [trans. Richard M. Gummere, LCL]). 171 See Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 32–36. The author presents Stoic views on death and afterlife; cf. Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 4.85–7.

141

142

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

3.3

Christianity vs. Epicureanism

In light of Luke’s narrative, the Epicureans also confronted the Christian message, since he mentioned them together with the Stoic philosophers. However, the meaning of the Epicureans’ story is completely different. The reaction of Epicurus’ disciples to the Christian missionary was unequivocally antagonistic and hostile.172 Why then did Luke mention them? This was the intention of the author of Acts, and we will now try to highlight it. The Epicureans had an obviously limited and not special place in Luke’s history of salvation. First, he indirectly showed their philosophical and religious views, which were inconsistent with the Christian faith, and then he pointed to their hostile and arrogant reaction. 3.3.1 The Areopagus Speech vs. the Philosophy of Epicurus

There are not many common points between the content of the Areopagus speech and the Epicurean views. My comparative analysis of the two systems is limited to the biblical data included in the Areopagus speech (Acts 17:16–32). Let us begin by recalling that the citizens of the Roman Empire knew the Epicureans and stereotypically classified them as atheists, which resulted from the fact that Epicurus denied the existence of providence. In fact, the Epicureans acknowledged the existence of the gods and accepted the possibility of knowing them by reason and making judgments about them. The Epicureans even performed religious worship, although they regarded these practices as unusual. The scene depicting Paul’s stay in Athens includes only a few practical aspects of religious life, apart from the laconic mention of the Athenians’ religiosity and piety. Nevertheless, right at the beginning of his speech, Paul emphasised the religiosity of the Athenians (δεισιδαιμονία) (v. 22), which was his lukewarm praise of the Athenian hearers. Could these words have intrigued the Epicureans? The praise of Athenian religiosity could sound ambiguous because of the Epicurean understanding of popular piety and their attitude towards civic duties. In the philosophical writings, δεισιδαιμονία meant superstitions and irrational beliefs; it also had negative connotations.173 Following the will of the founder of The Garden, the Epicureans made offerings and participated in religious life, but their practices were external and superficial. Plutarch gave an extremely interesting, although exaggerated (for polemical reasons), assessment of this unique attitude of the Epicureans

172 At the literary level, Luke expressed it by making a composition between the scene of the meeting (v. 18) and its ending (v. 32), which is also revealed by the vocabulary used (σπερμολόγος, ἐχλεύαζον). 173 See Hermann Usener, Glossarium epicureum (LIEur 14; Roma: Ed. dell’Ateneo & Bizzarri, 1977), 168; cf. Kilgallen, “Acts 17, 22–31,” 52.

Luke’s Perspective: History and Paradigm

towards their religious offerings (Adv. Col. 1102A–B).174 A remarkable juxtaposition of atheism and δεισιδαιμονία can be found in another work of Plutarch, in which he labelled Epicurus’ religious and philosophical views as atheistic, whilst describing the attitude of those citizens who made offerings an example of godliness (De superst. 165B).175 At the time, in the eyes of the Athenians, the pragmatic attitude of the Epicureans was perceived critically. The Epicureans, being part of Paul’s audience, might have taken his words about the godliness of the Athenians as hidden irony, but they might also have been interested in hearing further arguments. Epicureanism also had a thoroughly developed doctrine about the gods and their nature, mode of existence and living, as well as man’s relationship to them and the importance of religious practices. By comparing the theological content of the Areopagus speech with the teaching of Epicurus, it is easy to point to the great differences between the monotheistic Christian religion, deriving from the Bible, and Epicurus’ philosophy, based on materialism. Chapter I presented a general outline of Epicurus’ doctrine about the gods. Referring to this discussion, the fundamental differences between these two systems was clearly shown. In his compendium of philosophical views, Epicurus formulated his first main thesis: “A blessed and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness” (K.D. I).176 According to Epicurus, there are as many gods as humans (the principle of isonomy), but they inhabit the interworlds and are entirely unconcerned with human affairs. Epicurus did not believe in God the Creator – the Demiurge. The cosmos was created as a consequence of the movement of atoms subjected to a blind accident, 174 Plutarch was convinced that the deity, as the recipient of the offering, was present when it was being made, accepting the gifts with kindness and benevolence. Otherwise, the act of sacrifice would be devoid of religious sense and divine character as well as the enthusiasm and joy of the sacrificer. According to Plutarch, for someone who does not believe, it must be painful to make sacrifices against his will and utter words that are contrary to his philosophical views. Such a man, standing next to the priest offering the sacrifice, stands by him as if by the chef, and after making the offering, he leaves quoting Menander’s verse: “ho sacrificato a dei che me non si curano per nulla.” See Plutarco, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum, introd. and comm. Francesca Albini (Genova: D. AR. FI. CL. ET. “F. Della Corte,” 1993), 140–41. 175 See more De superst. 164E–171F. Cf. Cicero’s opinion from the period preceding the NT: “I personally am acquainted with Epicureans who worship every paltry image, albeit I am aware that according to some people’s view Epicurus really abolished the gods, but nominally retained them in order not to offend the people of Athens” (Nat. D. 1.85); Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods. Academics, trans. H. Rackham (LCL 268; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933), 82–83. 176 Diog. Laer. 10.139 (trans. Robert D. Hicks, LCL); cf. Usener, Epicurea, 71. The gods’ nature and mode of existence as well as their attitudes towards mankind were first of all described by Epicurus in his Letter to Menoeceus (Diog. Laer. 10.123–124, 133–134; cf. Usener, Epicurea, 59–60, 65).

143

144

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

not being the work of rational beings; it is irrational both as a whole and also in its individual manifestations.177 These few remarks well illustrate the enormous differences between the Christian teaching about God, the Creator of the cosmos and the Lord of history, preached on the Areopagus, and the materialistic views of Epicurus. Thus, the Christian point of view was completely different from the Epicurean view on the relationship between God, the cosmos and humankind. The place of the caring and attentive God of Christians, referred to in the speech as the “unknown God,” who allotted the boundaries within which all nations would live and the times of their existence on the earth, is taken in Epicurean philosophy by immortal and inactive gods, blissfully calm, who do not deal with human affairs since they are neither angry nor irritated, and do not succumb to any emotions. Inactive, indifferent beings could not deal with the world and man, as they would lose their blissful state of happiness and self-satisfaction. From the period preceding the NT, it suffices to quote two statements by the Epicurean Velleius: Also, why should god take a fancy to decorate the firmament with figures and illuminations, like an aedile? If it was to embellish his own abode, then it seems that he had previously been dwelling for an infinite time in a dark and gloomy hovel! ... Or were these beauties designed for the sake of men, as your school usually maintains? For the sake of wise men? If so, all this vast effort of construction took place on account of a handful of people. For the sake of fools then?178 God is entirely inactive and free from all ties of occupation; he toils not neither does he labour, but he takes delight in his own wisdom and virtue, and knows with absolute certainty that he will always enjoy pleasures at once consummate and everlasting. This is the god whom we should call happy in the proper sense of the term; your Stoic god seems to us to be grievously overworked.179

Epicurus’ disciples taught and popularised these ideas by before New Testament times, as evidenced by Lucretius: For the very nature of divinity must necessarily enjoy immortal life in the deepest peace, far removed and separated from our affairs; for without any pain, without danger, itself

177 The creation and functioning of the cosmos as well as celestial phenomena are extensively discussed by Epicurus in his Letter to Pythocles (Diog. Laer. 10.84–116); cf. DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 155–70. 178 Cicero Nat. D. 1.22–23 (trans. H. Rackham, LCL). 179 Nat. D. 1.51–52 (trans. H. Rackham, LCL).

Luke’s Perspective: History and Paradigm

mighty by its own resources, needing us not at all, it is neither propitiated with services nor touched by wrath.180

Similar witnesses come from a later period, from second-century Christian inscriptions, which were the work of the Epicurean Diogenes of Oinoanda. He discusses, inter alia, the problem of divine providence, repeating the unchanging teaching of Epicurus. According to Diogenes, the gods created the world neither for themselves, because that would be absurd, nor for humans, which would be even more irrational. One is struck by the similarity of this argument with the quoted words of Velleius, which testifies to a constant set of Epicurean arguments against providence.181 The fragment of the quoted inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda is interesting because it is directed against the Stoic views on providence. Earlier, Cicero perpetuated the testimony of such a polemic, who in his De natura deorum confronts philosophical ideas of providence, including the polemics between the Stoic school and the followers of Epicurus, namely the Epicurean Velleius of Lanuvium (Nat. D. 1.54–56) and the Stoic philosopher Balbus (Nat. D. 2.73–75). The memory of the disputes between the Epicureans and the Stoics about the providence of the gods survives in the work of Quintilian (Inst. 5.7.35).182 In the ancient world, the Epicureans were considered the main opponents of the thesis of divine providence, and therefore, they were constantly attacked, mostly by the Stoics, in whose philosophical system providence played a key role. Attacks also came from Jewish authors, including Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus (Ant. 10.280; 17.354), who also defended the thesis of divine providence but for completely different

180 Lucr. 2.646–651 (trans. William H. D. Rouse, LCL); see more 2.1090–1104; 5.156–194. 181 See Martin F. Smith, “More New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda,” in Jean Bollack and André Laks, eds., Etudes sur l’Epicureisme antique (CahPh 1; Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille, 1976), 286; cf. Inwood and Gerson, The Epicurus Reader, 97, who recall an interesting testimony of Eusebius: “An Epicurean speaks: Both share this error, because they portrayed god as being concerned for human affairs and as making the cosmos for the sake of man. For a blessed and indestructible animal, overflowing with good things and free of any share of what is bad, is completely preoccupied with the continuance of his own happiness and indestructibility and so is not concerned with human affairs. For he would be wretched, like a workman or builder, if he undertook burdens and felt concern for the creation of the cosmos” (Praep. ev. 15.5.9; cf. Usener, Epicurea, 241 frag. 361). 182 Squires, The Plan of God, 49–51 “Quintilian relates the interpretations of omens to ‘the endless disputes between the adherents of the Stoics and the Epicureans, as to whether the world is governed by providence’.” There are more testimonies of the polemics on providence with the Epicureans, e. g., in the writings of Plutarch of Chaeronea: πρόνοιαν ὑπάρχειν θεῶν μὴ φάσκοντες (Adv. Col. 1123A), and slightly further πρόνοια δὲ θεῶν μὴ νομίζηται (Adv. Col. 1124E); see Plutarch, Moralia. Vol. 14: That Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible. Reply to Colotes in Defence of the Other Philosophers. Is “Live Unknown” a Wise Precept? On Music, trans. Benedict Einarson and Phillip H. De Lacy (LCL 428; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 284–85, 294–95.

145

146

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

reasons.183 The presence of these two schools of philosophy in the circle of Paul’s hearers, schools which fought each other for a long time, is meaningful and should not remain without influence on the interpretation of the Areopagus speech (and Paul’s stay in Athens).184 Paul’s thesis on human dignity was equally unfamiliar to the followers of Epicurus. It is extremely difficult to compare two completely separate anthropologies, on the one hand, biblical and Christian, and on the other, Epicurus’ views on the origin of man as well as the meaning and purpose of human life. In the Areopagus speech, the Christian doctrine of man was presented in several important aspects. Apart from all races and nations originating from God and the obligation to seek God, which was enforced on man, “and perhaps grope for him and find him,” the Christian speaker points to the kin relationship between God and man. In God “we live and move and have our being” as his offspring according to the words of Aratus (v. 28). This view referred to the Stoic philosophy, but actually presented the Christian idea of human dignity. The Epicurean view of man and his relationships with the gods was quite different. However, let us first note a notable paradox. According to Epicurus, the goal of all the wise man’s endeavours should be to get to know the true nature of the gods and become like them (imitatio dei) so that he would live on earth like the gods who live in the interworlds, i. e., in peace and freedom from all worries.185 This is where the superficial similarity ends. The Epicurean wise man was the centre of Epicurean anthropology and ethics, not the gods who Epicurus placed in the interworlds. There is no causal link between the gods and the world. According to Epicurus, man should free himself from any fear of matters of the greatest importance in life, and from phenomena occurring in nature, “[h]ence without the study of nature there was no enjoyment of unmixed pleasures.”186 His disciples repeated such views. Velleius claimed:

183 We analysed this in Chapter I. See more David Rokeah, Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict (StPB 33; Leiden: Brill, 1982), 134–149, reviewing the ancient views on divine providence, including the view of Philo (pp. 135–139), Flavius Josephus (pp. 139–140) and selected Christian authors; cf. Squires, The Plan of God, 49. 184 The topic of providence present in the Areopagus speech has been emphasised many times by Neyrey, “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy,” 121, 123, 133. 185 Epicurus writes in his Letter to Menoeceus: “Exercise thyself in these and kindred precepts day and night, both by thyself and with him who is like unto thee; then never, either in waking or in dream, wilt thou be disturbed, but wilt live as a god among men (ζήσεις δὲ ὡς θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις). For man loses all semblance of mortality by living in the midst of immortal blessings” (Diog. Laer. 10.135; cf. Usener, Epicurea, 66). The inscription in the stone found in Oinoanda testifies to the vitality of this conviction; see Chilton, Diogenis Oenoandensis Fragmenta, 80–81. 186 K.D. XII–XIII (Diog. Laer. 10.143).

Luke’s Perspective: History and Paradigm

But Epicurus has set us free from superstitious terrors and delivered us out of captivity, so that we have no fear of beings who, we know, create no trouble for themselves and seek to cause none to others, while we worship with pious reverence the transcendent majesty of nature.187

Freed from the gods and fear of them, as well as from the fear of death, the Epicurean wise man tried to cope with life’s challenges, relying only on his strength. Created by the accidental collision of atoms, renouncing the protection of the gods, the lonely Epicurean wise man, being on his way to an annihilating death, enjoyed a pleasant life and friendship of like-minded companions. He lived as he believed – like the gods in the interworlds. This had nothing to do with the doctrine of man created by God, enjoying his grace, presence and love.188 The Areopagus speech shows the topic of God and providence, which, being widely discussed by theologians, philosophers and Greek thinkers at the time of the formation of the NT writings, could also have aroused the interest of Epicureans, who usually felt obliged to defend their views. On the other hand, they could not accept the message of Jesus’ resurrection (and resurrection of the dead), the last judgement and reward after death, since these contradicted the foundations of their system.189 Epicurus’ teaching was unequivocal: “Death is nothing to us (ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς); for the body, when it has been resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us” (K.D. II).190 Epicurus expressed similar views in his Letter to Menoeceus.191 In Epicurus’ opinion, the body and the soul disintegrate at death, and none of these elements continues to exist in any form. This resulted from Epicurean physics. The soul and body made of atoms dissipate at death. Death is the end of everything, and along with it comes a person’s annihilation.192 Epicurus’ view of death as the definitive end of everything was also

187 Cicero Nat. D. 1.56. 188 Plutarch’s words spoken in a similar context are extremely interesting: “Of this a man gets nothing if he has given up faith in providence (ταύτης οὐδὲν ἀνδρὶ μέτεστιν ἀπεγνωκότι τῆς προνοίας). For it is not the abundance of wine or the roast meats that cheer the heart at festivals, but good hope and the belief in the benign presence of the god and his gracious acceptance of what is done” (Adv. Col. 1102A [trans. B. Einarson and Ph. H. De Lacy, LCL]). 189 See Schmid, “Die Rede des Apostels Paulus,” 114; for this topic, see more Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 27–32. 190 Diog. Laer. 10.139 (trans. Robert D. Hicks, LCL). 191 Diog. Laer. 10.124–25. Epicurus’ views about death is discussed by Klauck, Die religiöse Umwelt, 2.119–20. 192 Cf. Diog. Laer. 10.63–67; Cicero Tusc. 5.88; cf. Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 31: “Long and Sedley, after a careful analysis of ‘the soul’ in Epicurus and Lucretius, conclude that the foundational principle is ‘that the soul cannot survive the body’s death’. Soul and body are so interdependent that they are dissolved together at the point of death. Death is complete extinction.”

147

148

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

shared by his disciples. Many traces of this idea can be found in the writings of numerous authors already quoted in this study. Here, let us again quote Lucretius: “Therefore death is nothing to us, it matters not one jot, since the nature of the mind is understood to be mortal” (Lucr. 3.831–832).193 Epicurean texts on death, equally unequivocal in their meaning, have survived for centuries, for example, in the text carved in stone by Diogenes of Oinoanda.194 Being the end of all, death put an end to any retribution from the gods for human acts. Therefore, the Epicureans consistently rejected the idea of post-mortem retribution. The gods, uninterested in the fate of man, do not judge him in this life, much less after his death. The silence of the gods in the face of evil and iniquities committed by humans was an important argument for Epicurus supporting his view of providence (Plutarch, De sera 548A–568A).195 If we remember that in this background, in the streets of Athens and on the Areopagus, Paul proclaimed the resurrection of the dead and announced the appointed day of the world’s judgement, it is no wonder that he faced disrespectful treatment, mockery and contempt.196 Modern readers cannot experience the atmosphere of an ancient city, its pursuit of philosophical disputes nor the everyday life of a pagan community. They cannot come across the intellectual, cultural and religious trends of those times. On the other hand, Christians did encounter the pagan environment and its views opposing their teaching. While Paul preached a doctrine completely different from that of Epicurus in Athens, the pagan world’s Christians also preached a message that was inconsistent with the philosophy of The Garden. As there were insurmountable differences between Christianity and Epicureanism, their mutual attitudes must have been critical and polemical. 3.3.2 The Epicureans’ Attitude towards the Christian Message

It is important to present the fundamental contradictions between the Christian message and the philosophy of Epicurus. This allows us to better understand both the biblical text and Luke and the reasons why he included the information about the Epicureans in Acts. His narrative of Paul’s stay in Athens should be interpreted historically and theologically.

193 See also Lucr. 3.445–842, mainly 3.624–633. 194 Chilton, Diogenis Oenoandensis, 27; Diogenes also quotes Epicurus’ main idea concerning death (K.D. II); ibid., 42 (frag. 25 margo inferior). 195 This point of the Christian theodicy is again stressed by Neyrey, “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy,” 126. 196 See Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies,” 32: “There was no possibility whatsoever of accepting such an idea; it would have been incredible to them. This is precisely the reaction of the τινες in Acts 17:18 and οί μέν in 17:32.”

Luke’s Perspective: History and Paradigm

The historical perspective testifies to an encounter between Christianity and Epicureanism at the early stage of preaching the gospel. Paul came across the Epicureans in Athens on his second missionary journey. They showed reluctance and hostility towards his teaching, with no objective reasons to deny it. From an editorial and theological perspective, the individual event depicted by Luke became an archetype. Luke, perfectly familiar with the pagan world, was aware of the importance of Stoic philosophy for the early Christian mission. Presumably, he was also aware of the presence of Epicureanism in the circles where Christianity spread, the powerful influence of Epicurean views and, at the same time, their inconsistency with the Christian message. As a historian and theologian, Luke pointed to the difficulties related to Epicureans and Epicureanism, and especially their doctrinal differences. According to Luke, the confrontation between Christianity and Epicureanism was theoretical and concerned their religious views. This is an extremely interesting aspect of the Epicurean issue in the New Testament. Nevertheless, Luke said nothing about the moral attitudes of the Epicureans or Epicurean psychagogy. In summary, if we interpret Paul’s stay in Athens and the Areopagus speech as a paradigm of the Christian mission to the pagan world, as most commentators do, we must also recognise that the Epicurean problem was part of the Christian mission to the pagan world. Showing Paul arguing with the Epicureans in Athens and their reluctant response to the gospel, Luke, as it were, also described all such situations that took place in the cities of the Roman Empire. He not only witnessed this problem himself but also, as must be assumed, knew it from Paul’s stories and accounts. Luke left us a priceless legacy: a testimony of the encounter between the early Christians and the disciples of Epicurus. It took place in Athens, where Paul addressed the Gentiles with his Christian message. His interlocutors and then hearers included the Epicureans (Acts 17:16–34). The author of Acts did not make this inclusion by accident or by doing what he desired to ennoble Christianity in the eyes of the pagans. This is contradicted by the literary-theological composition of the scene in which Luke showed the ambivalent reactions of the representatives of two philosophical schools. Some listeners responded to Paul and the Christian message with reluctance and misunderstanding, while others showed openness and interest to the new teaching. Only the encounter with Epicureanism took the form of a direct confrontation and negation. Why did Luke compose the scene in this way? Simply for historical reasons? The Epicureans and Stoics were known in the pagan world, and Luke was aware of this fact. He introduced both the information about the philosophical schools and the ambivalent reactions of the Epicureans and Stoics towards the Christian message on purpose.

149

150

Confronting the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens

So far, due to the theological content of the Areopagus speech, scholars have mainly dealt with the Stoics and Stoicism, devoting little attention to the Epicureans. However, in the historical-salvific and theological perspective of the author of Acts, the Epicureans also played a certain role. Luke not only made believers aware of the inconsistency of Epicurean philosophical views with Christian teaching, but also explained the reluctant and hostile reaction of the Epicureans towards the message of the resurrection. We can only guess about the reasons for this behaviour of the author of Acts. Christians could not avoid meeting the Epicureans in the pagan world where they lived. Besides, the early Christians’ experiences with Epicureanism were not good; Luke expressed this fact through his intention to instruct and warn his fellow believers. This is true regardless of whether the Acts of the Apostles was written in Greece or Rome. Let us add that the confrontation between Christianity and the philosophy of Epicurus in Athens initiated debates and polemics that continued for the next four centuries, the first debaters being Paul and Luke.

IV.

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

Unlike the clear picture of the encounter between Christians and Epicurus’ disciples presented in Acts, the situation in the Corpus Paulinum is more complex. Paul does not mention Epicurus and his philosophy in any of his letters that are believed to be authentic, and neither does he refer to any other school of philosophy. His epistles lack obvious traces of Epicureanism, and the same should be said of the Deutero-Pauline texts (cf. Col 2:8).1

1.

Corpus Paulinum vs. Epicurus’ Philosophy

The Apostle to the Nations was regarded as the first Christian critic of Epicurus and his materialist philosophy. Such a position was taken by Clement of Alexandria, who thought that in 1 Corinthians, Paul criticised Epicurus’ atheism and hedonism, including his idea of love and pleasure, because they are focused only on himself (1 Cor 2:6).2 Similarly, in warning against philosophy and empty deceit (Col 2:8), Paul did not accuse all Greek philosophy, but opposed Epicurean atheism and hedonism.3 Although this view by Clement of Alexandria was rejected, the problem of the presence of Epicurus’ philosophy in the Corpus Paulinum has caused numerous heated discussions among contemporary scholars.4

1 Leaving aside detailed arguments, we, just like other exegetes, consider the following letters of Paul as authentic: Rom, 1–2 Cor, Gal, 1 Thess, Phil and Phlm. They are the basis for statistical calculations of Paul’s vocabulary. On the other hand, the Deutero-Pauline letters include: 2 Thess, Eph, 1–2 Tim and Titus – only the authorship of Col is hard to determined. See Joachim Gnilka, Der Kolosserbrief (HTKNT 10.1; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1980), 19–26; also Gnilka, Paulus von Tarsus, 17–20. It should be remembered that opinions about Paul being the author of the letters contained in the Corpus Paulinum vary, e. g., 2 Thess is often regarded as his authentic letter. 2 Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.8 (67.2–68.1). 3 Referring to Paul and Col 2:8, Clement of Alexandria wrote: “branding not all philosophy, but the Epicurean, which Paul mentions in the Acts of the Apostles, which abolishes providence and deifies pleasure” (Strom. 1.11 [50.6]). See Philip Schaff et al., ed., Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2017), 311. 4 Naturally, Clement of Alexandria did not consider the specificity of the term “philosophy” in the Letter to the Colossians. See Simon, “Epikureismus und Epikureertum,” 2030; Gnilka, Der Kolosserbrief, 121–27; and primarily Eduard Schweizer, Der Brief an die Kolosser (EKKNT 12; Zürich: Benziger, 1976), 100–107.

152

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

1.1

Norman W. DeWitt’s Pan-Epicureanism

According to Norman W. DeWitt, Paul’s letters were imbued with Epicurean thinking and terminology. However, a detailed presentation of this scholar’s views would be pointless due to their vague, though visionary, nature. Likewise, it would be futile to criticise his arguments in depth. At this point, we will limit ourselves to indicating the essential ideas present in DeWitt’s book entitled St. Paulus and Epicurus.5 In his opinion, the most important and famous fragments of Paul’s letters show clear Epicurean influences (Phil, 1–2 Thess, Gal, Col, Eph, 1 Cor). In the case of Philippians, Epicureans were, according to DeWitt, the enemies of the cross, mentioned by Paul, and “their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame” (Phil 3:18–19). In this letter, Paul exhibits his knowledge of Epicurean philosophy, referring to its self-sufficiency (αὐτάρκης) (Phil 4:11).6 We are also dealing with Epicurean influences in 1 Thess, where the expression “peace and security” (5:3) is – as stated by DeWitt – a characteristic Epicurean slogan. This thesis is supported by the image of the Epicureans as those “who have no hope” (1 Thess 4:13 and in other fragments of 1 Thess; cf. 1 Thess 2:1–8).7 The scholar wrote that Colossians also included ideas characterising Epicurean philosophy (cf. Col 2:18–20; 3:2).8 While some of the references to Epicureanism are marginally plausible, it is unacceptable to regard Galatian Christians as adherents of Epicurean materialism (Gal 4:3, 8–10) whom Christ set free for freedom (5:1, 13). Neither can we accept the statement that “the ruler of the power of the air,” mentioned in Eph 2:1–3, is none other than the founder of The Garden, whom Paul masterfully ridiculed.9 The next texts DeWitt recognised as Epicurean would be the key chapters in 1 Cor, including the hymn to love (1 Cor 13) – where the Epicurean friendship (φιλία) and the Pauline love

5 Norman W. DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1954); idem, Epicurus and His Philosophy (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1954), 338–39; the latter publication has more references to Paul’s epistles. 6 Further Epicurean terminology: ἐπιεικής (4:5) and προσφιλής (4:8). See DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 21–37, 172; cf. Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2276. 7 Cf. Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2275, assume that some members of the community in Thessalonica were former Epicureans. In 2 Thess, the Epicurean element was “the lawless one” (cf. 2 Thess 2:1–10), who DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 38–57 (esp. 53–54), identified with Antioch IV Epiphanes, Syrian king converted to Epicureanism by Philonides. 8 Also, Col 2:4–8, 10, 23; 3:10–12. DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 73–87, stresses the fact that Colossae lay in the homeland of Epicureanism, near Oinoanda – the centre of Epicureanism (pp. 75–76); cf. Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2275–76. 9 DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 88–105. Critics signal the fact that DeWitt assume Paul’s authorship of Ephesians, which was already considered anachronistic in the 1950s and the 1960s.

Corpus Paulinum vs. Epicurus’ Philosophy

(ἀγάπη) would be essentially the same – including the apology of the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15), in which Paul would utilize the rich Epicurean terminology.10 Epicureanism was a magic key that DeWitt used to interpret the theological thought of the Apostle to the Nations. In his opinion, Paul had an Epicurean education and knew Epicurus’ philosophical system well enough to use its language and philosophical concepts to formulate his theological ideas and at the same time articulate a total critique of Epicurean doctrine.11 Paul could attack Epicurus’ materialist philosophy thanks to all that he learned as an Epicurean. However, he never really managed to break free from Epicureanism. Based on Paul’s letters – concludes DeWitt – it is possible to prove his knowledge of Epicureanism, since he was an (ex)Epicurean, as well as to assess the degree of knowledge of Epicureanism shown by the recipients of his letters.12 Therefore, DeWitt took a position concerning the collection of Paul’s epistles that should be called “Pan-Epicureanism.” He based his views on the conviction that Epicureanism was common throughout the vast territories of the Empire, having numerous followers in the cities where Christian communities were established, namely in Antioch in Syria and the cities of Galatia,13 Macedonian Philippi,14 and Thessalonica and Corinth, which were strongholds of Epicureanism.15 Shortly after its publication, DeWitt’s work was widely criticized. The reviewers claimed that DeWitt had believed in the existence of more parallels between Paul’s texts and Epicureanism than actually existed. First of all, DeWitt forgot about the biblical and Jewish roots of Paul’s theology, which led him to produce statements that sometimes had a hint of absurdity (e. g., in his commentary on Ephesians). Blinded by enthusiasm for Epicurus and his philosophy of a pleasant life, DeWitt saw nothing but Epicureanism in Paul’s letters. Yet, Paul was a Jew, rooted through his upbringing and education in Jewish sacred writings and the religious traditions

10 DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 113–23 (1 Cor 15) and 124–43, 144–66 (1 Cor 13). DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 339, referred to 1 Cor 13 earlier, calling it “the famous anti-Epicurean document.” 11 See his summary, DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 167–84: “This phraseology is foreign to the New Testament except in his Epistles. In spite of himself he shares the Epicurean slant of the public mind of the time” (p. 171) and further: “Thus we observe an attitude, a complex of ideas, and even a terminology that is common to Paul with Epicurus” (p. 173). 12 DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 168: “He was a Jew by birth, by early education an Epicurean, and by conversion a Christian.” 13 Ibid., 59–63. 14 DeWitt lists Paul’s opponents in Philippi (St. Paulus and Epicurus, 21) as Epicureans, but does not give any concrete reasons for his supposition: “The second party consisted of the ubiquitous and numerous disciples of Epicurus.” 15 Cf. DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 338: “Both Thessalonica and Corinth must have been strongholds of Epicureanism. We must learn to read between lines”; cf. DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 38–57.

153

154

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

of the Jewish nation.16 Finally, let us remember that DeWitt’s Pan-Epicureanism contributed to holding back research on the presence of epicurea not only in the Pauline Letters but also throughout the New Testament. 1.2

Contemporary Research Lines

Abraham J. Malherbe, whom I have mentioned many times in this work, has made considerable contributions to research on Epicureanism in the Corpus Paulinum. This American scholar asserted DeWitt’s theses as ambiguous. He praised the originality of his view and criticised him for overstating Paul’s dependence on Epicurus and diminishing the mediating role of the Hellenistic world in popularising philosophical ideas. For his part, Malherbe points to the presence of Epicurean terminology and anti-Epicurean polemics in Paul’s texts, especially in letters written to the Churches in Asia Minor and Greece. An example of this is 1 Thessalonians, to which Malherbe has devoted numerous publications. He claims that there are clear traces of anti-Epicurean rhetoric and terminology as well as Greek therapeutic techniques (cf. psychagoge) in 1 Thessalonians. Paul was especially concerned about the members of the Thessalonica community who faced the threat of Epicurean influences.17 John Ferguson and Jackson Hershbell’s evaluation of DeWitt’s theses on Epicurean infiltrations in Paul’s communities is partly positive. Although these authors refuted DeWitt’s thesis that Paul could be an (ex)Epicurean and many other

16 This is one of the main objections raised against DeWitt’s theses by the reviewers of his works. See Floyd V. Filson, (rev.), “N. DeWitt, St Paul and Epicurus,” JBR 23 (1955): 145: “Where in this picture can we find place for the diligent Pharisaic training and life of Paul? Where is the influence of the Old Testament, whose role in Paul’s ideas of flesh and Spirit is said to be small change on the collection plate?” In Filson’s opinion, DeWitt’s theses are improbable and impossible to defend. Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, (rev.), “St Paul and Epicurus. By Norman W. DeWitt,” CQR 157 (1956): 208–9, who writes: “It would be tedious to enumerate the absurdities into which the author is led by his refusal to reckon with St Paul’s Hebraic and biblical background” (p. 209). We must objectively admit that DeWitt mentioned Paul’s Jewish roots (cf. Epicurus and His Philosophy, 15). 17 An overall assessment of Malherbe’s achievements has been made difficult by the fact that the author published his views in numerous articles dealing with the wider issue of the influence of the pagan world on the New Testament. See Abraham J. Malherbe, “Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians,” in Stefan Maser and Egbert Schlarb, eds., Text und Geschichte (Marburg: Elwert, 1999), 136–42. See selected publications: Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1983); Abraham J. Malherbe, “Not in a Corner. Early Christian Apologetic in Acts 26:26,” Second Century 5 (1985–86): 193–210; Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006); see also Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000). These selected articles and studies can now be found in the volumes published recently: Abraham J. Malherbe, Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity. Collected Essays, 1959–2012, ed. Carl R. Holladay et al. (vols. 1–2; SupNT 150.1–2; Leiden: Brill, 2014).

Corpus Paulinum vs. Epicurus’ Philosophy

of DeWitt’s statements,18 they have accepted his ideas about the similarity between social forms practised by Christians and Epicureans, i. e., classless communities, withdrawing from public life, rejecting prejudices and cultivating friendship. This made it easier for the disciples of Epicurus to accept the Christian message and join Christian communities.19 Ferguson and Hershbell’s positive attitudes towards DeWitt’s theses have been confirmed by a revival of research concerning the Pauline corpus, which is evident in publications in recent decades. First, we should note Benjamin Fiore’s article on the origin and nature of the sexual immorality that arose in the Corinthian Church and provoked Paul’s opposition (1 Cor 5–6). According to the author, Christian freedom in Christ turned into pseudo-Christian libertinism and hedonism, perhaps as a result of Epicurean infiltration.20 The same collective work included a contribution by Stanley Stowers on the place and meaning of “reason” in Paul’s teaching (in the sense of reasoning, logical thinking), as well as on the limits and functions of reason – these are different in the teaching of Paul and the Stoic and Epicurean systems.21 In turn, Frederick Brenk’s article shows how Paul drew on the achievements of Greek philosophical tradition and the concepts it developed, including Epicurean terminology, giving philosophical terms new Christian content.22

18 Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2277: “ DeWitt, like many scholars with fresh and original insights, overstates his case. He assumes that any word common to Epicurus and Paul is derived by Paul from Epicurus. He underestimates the extent to which words and concepts were part of the common currency of the Hellenistic World. Further, his suggestion that Paul was brought up an Epicurean is exceedingly unlikely (though Tarsus was an Epicurean centre).” 19 Ibid., “DeWitt was right to see these parallels as specifically Epicurean, and not just part of the everyday exchanges of the Graeco-Roman world.” 20 Benjamin Fiore, “Passion in Paul and Plutarch. 1 Corinthians 5-6 and the Polemic against Epicureans,” in David L. Blach et al., eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 135–43. Concluding, he writes: “Perhaps Paul, writing to the fledgling community at Corinth and finding many of the same problems of attitude and practice against which Plutarch writes, has also found it necessary to confront Epicurean influence. This influence could well have turned his teachings on freedom into the self-centered hedonism in some segments of the Corinthian community” (p. 142). 21 Stanley K. Stowers, “Paul on the Use and Abuse of Reason,” in David L. Blach et al., eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 253–86. The author defines the aim of his study: “I have tried to show that Paul opposes a view of reason’s function in 2 Corinthians 10, 1 Corinthians 8, and Rom 14:1 that is best understood along the lines of the therapeutic metaphor in Hellenistic philosophy, especially Stoicism and Epicureanism” (p. 284). 22 Frederick E. Brenk, “Old wineskins recycled: «Autarkeia» in 1 Timothy 6. 5-10,” Filología Neotestamentaria 3 (1990): 39–52. The author analyses αὐτάρκεια and εὐσέβεια (cf. 1 Tim 6:5; Phil 4:11–12; 2 Cor 9:8), which in Greek tradition had a philosophical connotation, but taken over by Paul, they assumed new meanings. One of these terms is typical of Epicurean ethics: “Epikouros champions it more elegantly and fervently in his Letter to Menoikeus (Diog. Laer. 10. 130), thus antedating Paul in making autarkeia a topos of epistolary faith...” (p. 47). Concluding, Brenk states that Paul “continued

155

156

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

The publication mentioned next directly deals with the subject of interest to us. According to Graham Tomlin, we can assume the presence of Epicureans and the influence of their thought and behaviour on the members of the Christian community in the Corinthian Church. This was expressed, inter alia, in their dissolute, libertine lives (1 Cor 6) and in the denial of the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15).23 In his latest publication, Troy W. Martin has examined the social sense and meaning of the antitheses about the hidden life of Christians who “will be revealed with him [Jesus] in glory” on the day of his coming (Col 3:3–4). The author juxtaposed this text with the antitheses used by Plutarch, describing and criticising Epicurean communities for their “living unnoticed” (λάθε βιώσας). He emphasised the similarities and significant differences between these two socio-religious groups.24 In recent studies concerning the Epicurean issue, one can observe another aspect of the question about the presence of Epicurean elements in the Corpus Paulinum, namely the phenomenon of psychagogy. This kind of “soul guidance,” understood as the upbringing, formation and spiritual development of members of philosophical schools, was widely known in antiquity.25

to speak the idiom of the Hellenistic world, but as elsewhere, employed it to depict a newer, higher, and more spiritual reality” (p. 50). The same line of research is evident in Abraham J. Malherbe, “Paul’s Self-Sufficiency (Philippians 4:11),” in Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm, eds., Texts and Contexts. Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in honor of Lars Hartman (Oslo et al.: Scandinavian University Press, 1995), 823, who examined Paul’s use of the adjective αὐτάρκης (Phil 4:11), reaching a similar conclusion as Frederick E. Brenk: “As he does elsewhere, then, Paul uses the moral philosophical language of his day, but places it within a larger framework quite foreign to the philosophical tradition he uses.” 23 Graham Tomlin, “Christians and Epicureans in 1 Corinthians,” JSNT 68 (1997): 51–72, writes: “In what follows, I will argue that the kind of ideas current in Epicurean thought provide a notable background for, and plausible origin of, some of the practices and beliefs that had grown in the Corinthian church since Paul’s departure” (p. 53), to conclude: “There are good grounds for believing that some Christians in Corinth were influenced by the ideas and practice of trends in Graeco-Roman Corinth most strongly represented by Epicureanism” (p. 70). 24 Troy W. Martin, “Live Unnoticed: An Epicurean Maxim and the Social Dimension of Col 3:3-4,” in Adela Y. Collins et al., eds., Antiquity and Humanity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 227–44. He concludes: “In addition to the theological dimensions of the antitheses in Col 3, 3-4, the recognition of the social dimension is necessary to illuminate adequately the plenitude of these verses” (p. 244). 25 However, this aspect of this research goes beyond our scope, which has already been indicated in the Introduction. See, for example, Clarence E. Glad, Paul and Philodemus. Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy (NovTSub 81; Leiden: Brill, 1995); see also Clarence E. Glad, “The Significance of Hellenistic Psychagogy for Our Understanding of Paul,” in Gunnlaugur A. Jonsson et al., eds., The New Testament in Its Hellenistic Context (Studia Theologica Islandica 10; Reykjavík: Guđfraedistofnun – Skálholtsútgáfan 1996) 57–93; cf. also Paul A. Holloway, “‘Bona cogitare’. An Epicurean Consolation in Phil 4:8-9,” HTR 91 (1998): 89–96; earlier on this subject, Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 81, 85–87.

First Thessalonians vs. Epicurean Rhetoric

We can rightly presume that a new stage of research into the presence of Epicureanism in the Corpus Paulinum has begun. Although scholars are cautious about Epicurean elements in the corpus of Paulinian epistles, probably as a result of remembering the bad impressions left by DeWitt’s theorems, nevertheless – interestingly – almost all new research is inspired by his theses. Some regard the presence of Epicurean elements in the Corpus Paulinum as certain, although the scale of their probable Epicurean influences is limited. Two main lines of research have appeared on the Pauline corpus: the presence of Epicurean terminology and rhetoric (anti-Epicurean polemic) and the presence of Greek therapeutic methods (Epicurean psychagogy) in Paul’s apostolic activities. Hence, it will be extremely interesting to recognize and critically verify the arguments that speak in favour of these assertions. Since the aim of this study is to examine the occurrence of anti-Epicurean polemics in New Testament writings, only some of the publications cited will be considered. A re-examination of the letters written to Christians in Thessalonica and Corinth will be sufficient to illustrate the difficulty and complexity of studying Epicurean elements in the Corpus Paulinum.

2.

First Thessalonians vs. Epicurean Rhetoric

The thesis postulating the use of Epicurean terminology and rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians has a long history. According to its supporters, Paul utilized the terminology typical of Epicurus’ philosophy.26 2.1

The Concern of the Thessalonians about the Fate of the Dead

The messages in Acts and 1 Thessalonians provide knowledge of the believers’ anxiety that arose in Thessalonica about the fate of the dead. The community in Thessalonica was founded by the Apostle during his short stay in the city on his second missionary journey that probably lasted for several weeks (or months as

26 The Epicurean character of the letter was stressed by DeWitt (St. Paulus and Epicurus, 38–57), noting the Epicurean influences in the keywords: παρρησιάζομαι (1 Thess 2:2) and εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια (1 Thess 5:3), indicating those “which have no hope” as Epicureans (1 Thess 4:13); also DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 189, 338. Cf. a critical evaluation by Lampe, “St Paul and Epicurus,” 209: “Thus the words «peace and safety» in St Paul’s eschatological teaching to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 5. 3) are an echo of the insistence of Epicurus at various points in his writings upon peace and personal security. This might conceivably be true, though it is most improbable.” Regardless of the critique of this idea, it has also been taken up by Malherbe, “Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians,” 136–42, assuming the presence of anti-Epicurean rhetoric in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11; the author followed DeWitt (see p. 136 n. 4); see also Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 95–107.

157

158

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

some claim) (Acts 17:1–10).27 Paul’s custom was to go to the local synagogue on the sabbath day and interpret the scriptures, proclaiming that the crucified and resurrected Jesus of Nazareth was the foretold Messiah (Acts 17:3; cf. 1 Thess 4:14). Only a few members of the synagogue in Thessalonica believed his apostolic message. Paul was more successful among the Godfearing, as Luke writes: “a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women” (Acts 17:4) were persuaded and joined the Apostle. Paul also mentions that the converted Thessalonians were mainly pagans (1 Thess 1:9). Jealous Jews interrupted the Apostle’s mission, who felt that their businesses were being threatened. Paul’s success among those who were close to the Mosaic religion, the Godfearing, made them especially anxious (Acts 17:5; cf. 1 Thess 2:14–16).28 Proclaiming the message of salvation in Christ, Paul predicted Christ’s parousia to happen in the near future, because he expected it.29 This awaited eschatological event, which Paul announced, was the return of Christ and also the day of God’s wrath from which believers in Christ will be delivered (1 Thess 1:10; 5:9), while Jews who reject the apostolic message (1 Thess 2:6) and “all children of the night or of darkness” (cf. 1 Thess 5:5–9) will be subject to it.30 The sudden termination of Paul’s activity in Thessalonica either did not allow him to fully present the Christian message (Acts 17:10), or there was no need to do so. In any case, Paul did not say anything about the fate of the dead. Meanwhile, some Thessalonians died before Christ’s return, which prompted Church members to ask questions about their fate after death. They directed their inquiry to Paul through Timothy (cf. 1 Thess 3:6). His letter to the community allows us to reconstruct the key elements of his reply (1 Thess 4:13–5:11).31 Paul and members of the community expected 27 See Michael E. Peach, Paul and the Apocalyptic Triumph. An Investigation of the Usage of Jewish and Greco-Roman Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 (Apocalypticism 1; New York et al.: Peter Lang, 2016), 85–86. 1 Thessalonians is the oldest NT writing, written ca. 47/48 in Corinth (Gnilka, Paulus von Tarsus, 313). 28 Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 55–62; Gnilka, Paulus von Tarsus, 82–85 (Paul’s activities in Thessalonica); cf. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.120–27. 29 1 Thess 1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:2, 23; cf. Acts 17:3. See James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 302: “Paul had given prominence to the theme of Christ’s parousia during his preaching in Thessalonica”; Gnilka, Paulus von Tarsus, 313. 30 Preaching about the day of judgement (cf. Acts 17:31) or the day of God’s wrath (1 Thess 1:10; 5:9; cf. Rom 2:5) to pagans was an essential part of the apostolic kerygma, also directed to Jews. The message could yield fruit as the idea of the wrath of God (or the gods) was popular with Greeks and Romans, taught in philosophical schools and practised during pagan religious celebrations. See Hermann Kleinknecht and Gustav Stählin, “ὀργή κτλ,” TWNT 5.383–92 (Kleinknecht), 5.424–33 (Stählin). The theme of God’s wrath reappears in Rom 1:18; 2:5; 5:9. 31 See Peach, Paul and the Apocalyptic Triumph, 87–88; Traugott Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessaloniker (EKKNT 13; Zürich: Benziger, 1986), 182–208; Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 260, defining 1 Thess 4:13 – 5:11 as “eschatological exhortation.”

First Thessalonians vs. Epicurean Rhetoric

to see and experience Christ’s coming during their lifetimes (1 Thess 4:15, 17). On the other hand, the Apostle used Jewish apocalyptic language and images as well as the teaching of Jesus Christ, namely speaking metaphorically about his coming and using the picture of a thief coming unexpectedly in the night (1 Thess 5:2), to present the awaited event.32 Addressing the Thessalonians’ question about the fate of deceased Church members directly, Paul pointed to Christ’s resurrection as the source and guarantee of the resurrection of the dead. Therefore, the Thessalonians should not be afraid since their dead will also rise and obtain salvation, not being destined for the wrath of God (1 Thess 5:9; cf. 1:10). 2.2

Anti-Epicurean Terminology and Rhetoric (1 Thess)

The historical and theological problems of 1 Thessalonians outlined above are sufficient to present the Epicurean issue in their background. Addressing the question of the concerned Thessalonians, Paul resorted to Jewish apocalyptic traditions. He also used terminology that was unknown in the OT and Jewish apocalyptic writings and had a perceptible Epicurean overtone. Several elements of anti-Epicurean rhetoric can be indicated in the eschatological passages of 1 Thessalonians. In 1 Thess 5:3, Paul refers to the words of unknown “they” (cf. ὅταν λέγωσιν), who announce “peace and security” (εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια) to the Thessalonians. The Apostle recalls the false belief of the preachers of peace and security, while the Thessalonians know that it is not true, and the day of the Lord will come unexpectedly like a thief (1 Thess 5:1–2; cf. Mark 13:4; par.; Acts 1:7).33 The formula cited above does not allow us to identify Paul’s adversaries, but the Thessalonians must have known them through their slogan “peace and security.” It is not enough to refer to the OT false prophets prophesying “peace” to Israel (Jer 6:14; 8:11; cf. 14:13; Mic 3:5) to understand this biblical text.34 In the New Testament, there are no terminological parallels to this text, and Paul could not have been actually thinking of the political pax et securitas of the Roman Empire.35 Although he predominantly uses Jewish apocalyptic language, there are no references to the phrase in question

32 See Matt 24:43–44; Luke 12:39–40. Jesus spoke of the coming of the Son of Man, while Paul of the coming of the day of the Lord. See also Peach, Paul and the Apocalyptic Triumph, esp. 7–8, 105–109, concluding: “Throughout this monograph we have demonstrated that Paul blends the Jewish and Greco-Roman imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18” (105). 33 See Malherbe, “Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians,” 137; Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 291–292, 303–305. 34 Holtz, Der erste Brief, 215 n. 364, regards ἀσφάλεια as “eine Variation von εἰρήνη / ‫שאלם‬.” 35 Cf. Malherbe, “Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians,” 138–39. Unknown in the LXX, the term ἀσφάλεια appears three times in the NT: Luke 1:4; Acts 5:23 in a different meaning, and in 1 Thess 5:3. For the meaning of the term, see Bauer 238.

159

160

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

in the apocalyptic tradition. A correct supposition can be made that the Apostle shows the position of his opponents using Greek rhetoric, especially Epicurean, because Epicurus spoke about such security (ἀσφάλεια) many times (K.D. VII, XIII, XIV).36 Rejecting the fear of the gods and mythological stories of punishment and reward as well as withdrawing from public life, the Epicureans sought peace and security in the friendships they cherished in their communities.37 “Peace and security” would have been invented by the Apostle to show the viewpoint of the false prophets; however, this claim has not been directly justified.38 In the immediate context, there is another element conveying an Epicurean connotation. Challenging the community to live in friendship and brotherly love (1 Thess 4:9–12), Paul encourages the Thessalonians “to aspire (φιλοτιμεῖσθαι) to live quietly (ἡσυχάζειν), to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we directed you” (1 Thess 4:11).39 Both of these terms, characteristic of Epicurean philosophy, and the encouragement to live a quiet and remote life bring Paul closer to the Epicurean views. The Epicureans deliberately moved away from public life and affairs, lived in peace (ἡσυχία) and sought peace and security (cf. K.D. XIV). Their selfish and anti-social attitude was the subject of ruthless criticism from their contemporaries, who believed that political and social activities expressed legitimate ambitions (φιλοτιμία).40 Instructing the Christians of Thessalonica on how to live and act in their pagan environment, Paul resorted to the terms with which the Epicureans depicted the ideal of a life lived in security, peace and friendship.41

36 Epicurus: “When tolerable security (ἀσφάλεια) against our fellow-men is attained, then on a basis of power sufficient to afford support and of material prosperity arises in most genuine form the security (ἀσφάλεια) of a quiet private life (ἡσυχία) withdrawn from the multitude” (K.D. XIV; Diog. Laert. 10.143 [trans. Robert D. Hicks, LCL]); see Usener, Glossarium epicureum, 74. 37 K.D. XXVIII: “nothing enhances our security (ἀσφάλεια) so much as friendship” (Diog. Laert. 10.148); cf. Cicero, Fin. 1.68; Plutarch, Adv. Col. 1124D; more examples, Usener, Glossarium epicureum, 121. Cf. Malherbe, “Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians,” 139. 38 The use of anti-Epicurean rhetoric by the Apostle was – according to Malherbe – consistent with ancient techniques that depicted religious opponents with an insulting exclamation “Epicurean” (Schimpfwort). Malherbe supports his thesis with the opinion of Jungkuntz, “Fathers, Heretics and Epicureans,” 3–10, discussing the patristic period from Irenaeus to Jerome and Augustine. The Fathers of the Church applied the slogan of “Epicureans” to all heresies and heretics, and so did Paul. 39 Cf. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 246–49. There is another possibility of translating the verse, closer to classical Greek: “Honour a quiet life, go about your own affairs.” Yet, the verb φιλοτιμέομαι, in this meaning, does not occur in the NT (Rom 15:20; 2 Cor 5:9); cf. Holtz, Der erste Brief, 176 n. 173. 40 This was attested many times by Plutarch, Tranq. (465F–466); Suav. viv. (1099D, 1107C); cf. Seneca’s letter dedicated to this question (Ep. 68.1–5, 10) and again by Plutarch, Stoic. rep. (1033C). For other texts and a review of these problems in Plutarch’s works, see Martin, “Live Unnoticed,” 233–34; cf. Usener, Epicurea, 709; see also LSJ 1941. 41 See Malherbe, “Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians,” 140.

First Thessalonians vs. Epicurean Rhetoric

However, Malherbe himself is correct in noting that the Apostle’s appeal was not inspired by the example of the Epicureans, since the social context and meaning of both messages were different. “Live unnoticed” was – according to Epicurus – a condition of the Epicurean peace and quietism (ἀταραξία), i. e., the realization of the Epicurean ideal of the wise man,42 while the Apostle was reacting to a concrete situation in the community.43 Parenthetically, it should be noted that there are more differences between both groups. Initially, the situation of Christians in the pagan world was different from the situation of Epicureans. For example, Christians did not take part in pagan cults, while the Epicureans participated in pagan religious ceremonies, despite criticizing traditional Greek religiosity and piety.44 In 1 Thess 5:6, we can note yet another expression with an Epicurean connotation, namely “let us keep awake and be sober” (γρηγορῶμεν καὶ νήφωμεν). As claimed by Malherbe, Paul combined the Jewish eschatological call to keep awake (cf. γρηγορεῖτε) (Mark 13:35–37; parr.) with an appeal for the sober mind, which was typical of Greek moral philosophers (νήφειν) (cf. 1 Thess 5:8).45 In philosophical writings, appeals for sobriety usually referred to the condition of the mind that allows for logical discourse and philosophizing.46 The concept of sober reasoning was extremely significant for Epicurus and his philosophy of a pleasant life: “It is not an unbroken succession of drinking-bouts and of revelry ... which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning (νήφων λογισμός), searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance.”47 The term reappears in the context of polemics with the Epicureans (Plutarch, Adv. Col. 1123F), although the verb νήφειν was utilised in Epicurus’ writings and anti-Epicurean polemics.48 The anti-Epicurean character

42 This attitude was chiefly expressed by the popular Epicurean sentence λάθε βιώσας (“live unnoticed”); cf. Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 115, 228 n. 60. 43 The enigmatic nature of the text does not allow us to establish to what situation Paul responded with his call to deal with one’s affairs and work with one’s hands. According to Malherbe, “Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians,” 141, some members of the Church in Thessalonica stopped working and imposed on others’ generosity; cf. Holtz, Der erste Brief, 176–78. 44 See also Martin, “Live Unnoticed,” 235–41. 45 Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 291–92, 305–6. The statistical data seem to support this view. In its simple form, the verb νήφειν is absent in the LXX (cf. ἐκνήφω), but occurs frequently in Philo’s works. Cf. Otto Bauernfeind, “νήφω,” TWNT 4.935–39. Apart from 1 Thess 5:6, 8, the verb νήφειν appears in the Corpus Paulinum only once in 2 Tim 4:5; in 1 Pet 1:13; 4:7 and 1 Pet 5:8 in the call: “Discipline yourselves, keep alert” (νήψατε, γρηγορήσατε).” 46 Cf. Seneca, Ep. 53.8. 47 Ep. Men. 132 – Diog. Laert. 10.132 (trans. Robert D. Hicks, LCL). 48 A similar expression can be found, for example, in Philo (Post. 175: νήφοντος μὲν γὰρ ἔργον λογισμοῦ); see Bauernfeind, “νήφω,” 937.

161

162

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

of the analysed text was also confirmed by Paul’s related term ἐκνήψατε, again in a polemical verse with an Epicurean overtone (1 Cor 15:34).49 Let us add that the above does not include all the elements expressing possible Epicurean connotations. According to DeWitt, the formula “who have no hope” (4:13) describes an Epicurean attitude resulting from the adversaries’ philosophical views.50 In turn, two other formulas could also have conveyed Epicurean overtones for the Thessalonians (see 4:5 and 4:13); as for v. 13, Malherbe continues his predecessor’s thought.51 Based on 1 Thess, it is difficult to pinpoint the historical and religious background of the anxiety, or probable Epicurean influences, in the Church in Thessalonica. Nevertheless, we can justifiably draw the following conclusions. The concern of the Thessalonians manifests no features of a theological dispute. The few realities about the establishment of the community and its current situation only allow us to conclude that this generally concerns pagans converted to Christianity. The Thessalonians “turned to God from idols (ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων), to serve a living and true God” (1 Thess 1:9), therefore, they should strive for holiness that is their calling and the will of God (1 Thess 4:1–5). The vocabulary used here – turning from idols (εἴδωλα) (1 Thess 1:9), identifying those outside as pagans (ἔθνη)52 and the accusation of abiding in lustful passion (ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας) (cf. 1 Thess 4:1–5) – can hardly refer to a concrete social group, including the Epicureans.53 The allegations of adultery and sins related to sexuality were part of the stereotypical

49 See Malherbe, “Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians,” 141–42; Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 306. The trace of anti-Epicurean polemic and stereotypic accusations of the Epicureans is still the slogan “let us eat and drink” (cf. his commentary on 1 Cor 15:32–34). 50 DeWitt supports this thesis (Epicurus and His Philosophy, 338–39) by referring to Seneca’s treatise (De Beneficiis), but Holtz rightly notes, Der erste Brief, 188–89 n. 232, that Paul depicts the actual situation of the pagans from the Christian perspective, without referring to pagan religious views: Christians are men of hope (cf. 1 Thess 1:3; 5:8), while non-believers have no hope (1 Thess 4:13; cf. Eph 2:12). 51 Malherbe, “Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians,” 142. He presented his conclusions in detail in the commentary, Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 229–30, 263–65, 281–83, stating: “‘The rest who have no hope’ sounds like a reference to Epicureans (DeWitt 1954b: 315) and would have been understood as such by persons like Plutarch and his readers, and the Thessalonians. That does not mean that Paul attributes Epicurean views to the Thessalonians; he rather describes their grieving as like that of the Epicureans. He uses the anti-Epicurean description as a foil for the positive exhortation that he gives.” 52 The Bible was familiar with the motif of pagans’ ignorance of God and consequences of this fact (cf. Jer 10:25; Ps 78:6 LXX; Job 18:21), so Paul utilizes the biblical tradition (2 Thess 1:8; Gal 4:8). 53 Being subject to “passions [born from] lust” (1 Thess 4:5); ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας should be understood in the causal sense (cf. Rom 1:24; Col 3:5). See the arguments provided by Holtz, Der erste Brief, 150–61; Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 229–30, who stresses the Stoic character of the expression.

Were the Sources of the Corinthians’ Licentiousness Epicurean?

accusations made by Jews and Christians against the pagan world. Paul warned Christians against these sins in 1 Thess 4:1–5.54 From the perspective of biblical methodology, many of Malherbe’s statements about the convergence between the terminology used in 1 Thess and Epicureanism (e. g., the expression “peace and security”) are plausible, and certainly the correspondences he suggested are not overinterpretations of the biblical text.55 The accumulation of numerous terminological and thematic correspondences in short texts must be puzzling (1 Thess 5:1–11; cf. 4:9–12). This anti-Epicurean rhetoric seems to be confirmed by not only terminological similarities but also the religious and social context of the polemic. In Thessalonica, Paul also preached about the approaching day of God’s judgement and wrath (cf. 1 Thess 1:9–10; 2:6; 5:8–10). The ancient Greeks and Romans naturally expected the wrath of the gods and were waiting for it. Thus, the adversaries’ conviction about “peace and security” as their reaction to the announcement of the day of wrath (cf. 1 Thess 5:3) corresponds better to the Epicurean views on the nature of the gods. It was Epicurus who freed his disciples from the fear of the gods who punished mortals.56 Paul must have utilised the language of anti-Epicurean polemic in 1 Thess. Yet, it is difficult to recognize whether these terms entered the Apostle’s vocabulary as a result of the direct influence of the pagan (Epicurean) milieu (cf. ὅταν λέγωσιν in 1 Thess 5:3) or if this was the effect of Paul’s theological work; he used the developed pagan terminology and rhetoric and also resorted to anti-Epicurean rhetoric. Such a correlation is not certain but cannot be ruled out.57

3.

Were the Sources of the Corinthians’ Licentiousness Epicurean?

Publications on the Epicurean influence on the Corpus Paulinum point to the Christian community in Corinth as the place of probable Epicurean infiltrations. However, the images of the Corinthian Church and its life as well as the moral and doctrinal errors of its members, as shown in 1–2 Corinthians, are fragmentary and

54 A similar accusation occurs in 2 Pet, also in the context of anti-Epicurean rhetoric, although the term also has Stoic connotations (cf. ἐπιθυμία in 2 Pet 1:4; 2:10, 18; 3:3) (see Chapter V). 55 The emphatical and final conclusion by Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 306: “The Epicurean elements in the letter are clear enough.” 56 Cf. Kleinknecht, “ὀργή κτλ,” TWNT 5.386–87. 57 As allusively concluded by Malherbe, “Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians,” 142: “Paul is not as overt, but he uses anti-Epicurean rhetoric subtly and ironically to guide his readers in their newfound life”; see also Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 306: “It is unlikely that the Thessalonians thought of themselves in Epicurean terms. It is probably Paul who, aware of the general disapproval of the Epicureans, used their language to state matters as sharply as possible.”

163

164

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

incomplete, and this makes it difficult to interpret the problems described. Paul discusses specific dilemmas of the community, trying to solve them, but he hardly ever identifies the causes of its numerous conflicts and disputes. 3.1

The Corinthian Community and its Problems

Paul founded a Christian community in Corinth in the autumn of 50 CE in the city after he arrived alone from Athens, where his mission had failed (Acts 18:1–18).58 During the year and a half of his activity, he first lived with Priscilla and Aquila and then on his own, making tents to earn his living (1 Cor 4:12; 1 Thess 2:9; cf. Acts 18:3). He taught in the synagogue in Corinth, whose members included “Godfearing” pagans. He argued that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah (Acts 18:4–6; 1 Cor 15:3–4; 2 Cor 1:19). His mission was rather successful, because “Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household” (Acts 18:8). Because of the reluctance and hostility of the Jews, Paul soon turned to the Gentiles, probably mostly to the “Godfearing,” to whom he had successfully preached the good news about Christ. In the meantime, the Jews accused him before the Roman proconsul Gallio of persuading people to worship God in ways that are contrary to the law (Acts 18:12–16). Gallio took the office of proconsul in July 51 CE, so the event must have happened slightly later. After 18 months Paul left Corinth (Acts 18:18). Soon afterwards, other Christian missionaries, including Apollos, arrived in the city (Acts 19:1; 1 Cor 3:6). From that time on, the Corinthian community became a source of worry and trouble for the Apostle, and it seems that he was never able to resolve them. The traces of the discussions and disputes conducted can be found in two canonical letters (1–2 Cor), which are among the four or five writings, sent by Paul to the Corinthian Christians.59 The issue of Epicurean infiltrations in the Corinthian Church and anti-Epicurean polemics is part of the extensive research on the sources of conflicts, divisions and doctrinal-moral problems that took place in the Corinthian community after the

58 We assume the traditional chronology of Paul’s life and the datation of his letters. See Gnilka, Paulus von Tarsus, 309–13; differently Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 619–23. The everyday life in Corinth during Paul’s stay there is presented by Elliger, Paulus in Griechenland, 205–46; cf. Donald Engels, Roman Corinth. An Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1990); Gill, “Achaia,” 448–53; see also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 32; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), e-book, 21–29. 59 For more on Paul’s stay in Corinth, see Gnilka, Paulus von Tarsus, 88–93; Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 5–9; cf. William Baird, “‘One Against the Other’. Intra-Church Conflict in 1 Corinthians,” in Robert T. Fortna and Beverly R. Gaventa, eds., The Conversation Continues, Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1990), 116–36.

Were the Sources of the Corinthians’ Licentiousness Epicurean?

Apostle had left the city.60 The traditional thesis about the Gnostic background of the conflicts in the Corinthian Church (or Gnosis in statu nascendi) has recently been challenged many times, although until recently it was universally held. It fitted wide research on the writings of the New Testament for which the omnipresence of Gnostic thought or references to the so-called pre-Gnosis were postulated. Similarly, the presence of Gnostics in the Corinthian community was presumed, making them responsible for conflicts and divisions among its members as well as for their doctrinal and moral errors. It is sufficient to mention that W. Schmithals was a supporter of this thesis. He saw Gnostic influences not only in the community in Corinth, but also in all theology taught by Paul who would have remained under the influence of Gnostic terminology and ideas. According to Schmithals (and many other commentators), Paul was dealing with a united front of opponents maintaining Gnostic attitudes.61 Interestingly, the scholar had to acknowledge a strong criticism and rejection of his claims, and the emergence of a new type of approach to the question of Paul’s opponents. His thesis about pre-Gnostic opponents of the resurrection is imprecise and has no support in the source texts. Not only is assuming the existence of Pan-Gnosticism in the New Testament highly unlikely, but even some form of pre-Gnosticism raises more questions than answers. The earlier, greatly simplified, classification of Paul’s opponents as Christian Gnostics and Judaizing Christians has been refuted in favour of the presence of many different factions in the communities that independently of one another opposed the Apostle.62

60 The four-volume commentary of Wolfgang Schrage (series EKKNT) is still helpful; the author presents extensive literature dedicated to 1 Cor (the history of the impact of each text is extensively discussed: Auslegungsgeschichte and Wirkungsgeschichte). See Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (vols. 1–4; EKKNT 7.1–4; Zürich: Benziger 1991–2001). 61 See Walter Schmithals, Neues Testament und Gnosis (ErF 208; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984), 33: “Die vorstehende Übersicht ergibt: Die polemischen und apologetischen Stellen der Korintherbriefe lassen sich einheitlich aus antignostischer Frontstellung erklären”; further: “Stark von gnostischer Begriffs- und Vorstellungswelt beeinflußt zeigen sich demgegenüber die Grundschicht der pln. Theologie” (p. 154); more in Walter Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth. Eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3 1969); cf. Schrage, Der erste Brief, 1.51–53. 62 See Walter Schmithals, “The Corpus Paulinum and Gnosis,” in Alastair H. B. Logan and Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, eds., The New Testament and Gnosis (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983), 110: “Scholars today see things rather differently. They reject the alternatives of defining Paul’s opponents as either all Judaizers or all Gnostics (pneumatics, enthusiasts). They unite in dismissing as an unsatisfactory compromise the view of a corresponding twofold opposition. Instead a mass of different, more or less heretical groups, appears independently of one another in the various Pauline churches; for the opponents of Paul who are mentioned in his letters cannot be assigned to one and the same movement.”

165

166

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

The second characteristic trend in research is related to the first phenomenon noted above. A definite departure from the thesis about a uniform front of Paul’s Corinthian opponents has led to pluralistic research results. Considering the nature of the metropolitan centre of Graeco-Roman Corinth, exegetes point to the multiplicity of sects and heretical groups in the Corinthian Church that the Apostle must have had to face. The source of conflicts could have been ideological disputes between Christians, differences in the social status of Corinthian Christians as well as conventions and customs binding the city’s citizens.63 There could have been social sources of the conflicts64 or the economic-social background of the disputes in the Church in Corinth.65 Some scholars suggest the presence of other Greek thinkers, such as Sophists,66 in the community. The authors of these publications share a similar hermeneutical position. They look for the causes of conflicts, divisions and problems in the historical and cultural environment in which the Corinthian Church existed and operated. According to them, examining 1–2 Cor, greater importance should be given to the pagan environment as the most obvious and real source of threats to the lives, faith and customs of the Corinthian Christians Their city, Corinth, was factually Greek, but mostly Roman.67

63 Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth. Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians (WUNT 23; Tübingen: Mohr, 1987), classifies Paul’s opponents as supporters of Hellenistic-Roman cultural and moral conventions, which the Apostle ignored because of the Gospel. 64 Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth. A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6 (AGJU 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 107: “The Corinthian Christians were using in the church principles of leadership which were taken directly from surrounding secular society”; see on pp. 129–31. 65 Ben III Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: MI, Eerdmans, 1995). The author shows significant social, religious and ethnic differences as the general background of the conflicts in the Church in Corinth (p. 20–35, esp. 28–29). Another cause of the conflicts was Paul’s social status and his job as a tent maker, and indirectly the rejection of the protectorate of wealthy Corinthian believers, which resulted in their resentment and disregard for the Apostle (p. 20–21). 66 Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul Among the Sophists (SNTS MS 96; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). In the time of Philo and Dio Chrysostom, the Sophistic movement flourished in Alexandria and Corinth, which Plutarch confirms. It could have influenced the newly established Christian community in Corinth. In turn, Paul’s appearance and speech at Corinth did not have such characteristics, and therefore, the Apostle was rejected. Winter writes: “W. Schmithals’ thesis of the Gnostic background as the key which illuminates the Corinthian texts has not secured a general consensus among recent major commentators. Furthermore, it has been argued that first-century evidence of Gnosticism which is coterminous with, or prior to NT letters, is absent. The weight of opinion has moved away from a Gnostic thesis” (p. 235). 67 See Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 30–35; cf. Stowers, “Paul on the Use,” 276: “One of the challenges for Pauline scholarship has been to identify the historical context for the Corinthian ideology and

Were the Sources of the Corinthians’ Licentiousness Epicurean?

3.2

Moral Disorder in the Corinthian Church

Among the many problems of the Corinthian community that Paul faced was sexual immorality, which was not so much the question of dissolute lifestyles, although cases of sexual misconduct must have occurred in the metropolitan centre of Corinth. The sources of the Corinthian Christians’ immorality were certainly deeper and resulted from their false religious beliefs.68 3.2.1 Libertinism and Sexual Immorality (1 Cor 5–6)

Paul divided his response to the cases of fornication as well as married and virginal life into two parts: the negative, where he discussed the moral disorder in the community (1 Cor 5–6), and the positive, where he presented the Christian teaching on marriage and virginity (1 Cor 7:1–40). His teaching was triggered by messages given to him by Chloe’s people (1 Cor 1:11) or Stephanas’s group (1 Cor 16:17).69 At first, the Apostle referred to a special case of sexual immorality, namely that a man is living with his father’s wife, probably his stepmother. The Corinthians tolerated such a situation, but Paul strongly condemned it (1 Cor 5:1–8). This particular case became the basis for him to give the community general instruction about the believers’ attitudes towards their sinful brethren, with whom they should not associate (μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι) (cf. 1 Cor 5:9–13).70 The list of the Corinthian sinners includes a sexually immoral man (πόρνος), a greedy man (πλεονέκτης), an idolater (εἰδωλολάτρης), a reviler (λοίδορος), a drunkard (μέθυσος) and a robber (ἅρπαξ) (1 Cor 5:11). Paul meant members of the Church because “God will judge those outside” (1 Cor 5:13). This thought leads to exposing another case of ungodly behaviour among the Corinthians: lawsuits among believers in pagan courts (1 Cor 6:1–8). Paul condemns not only this bad practice but also the fact that there are “lawsuits at all with one another,” while teaching that the Corinthian believers should endure injustice. Again, an individual case is used to formulate a general moral instruction (1 Cor 6:9–11). The Apostle states that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God and quotes a list of sinners, expanding the previous one (1 Cor 5:9–10), with cases of sexual sins: fornicators (μοιχοί), adulterers (μαλακοί) and sodomites

practice. Unfortunately, more obvious and commonplace Greco-Roman scenarios frequently have been overlooked for wildly unlikely ones – for example, a Gnostic party at Corinth.” 68 See a review: Schrage, Der erste Brief, 2.11–16. 69 Schrage, Der erste Brief, 1.68–70. 70 The verb συναναμίγνυμι appears only three times in the NT (1 Cor 5:9, 11; 2 Thess 3:14) meaning “to have contacts, sexual intercourses; to live with” (“mit jemandem zusammenschlafen, bei jemandem liegen”); see Bauer 1565.

167

168

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

(ἀρσενοκοῖται). Some of the Corinthian believers used to be such sinners, but they were sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 6:11). Paul’s general moral guidelines again led to show another specific problem with which he was confronted in the Corinthian Church: the use of prostitutes’ services of (1 Cor 6:12–20).71 3.2.2 Fornication (1 Cor 6:12–20)

The new fragment begins with a general statement: “‘All things are lawful for me’, but not all things are beneficial” (1 Cor 6:12). It can be rightly regarded as a commentary on all the cases of moral sins in Corinth (1 Cor 5–6), and even a positive direction for marriage life and virgins (1 Cor 7).72 However, the third fragment of the polemic deals with a concrete case of sexual immorality: going to a prostitute and becoming “one body with her.” Taking this example, Paul indicates the limits of Christian freedom and instructs about the sanctity of human body being in the body of Christ (1 Cor 6:12–20). In this fragment, he uses the style of a diatribe and builds based on literary figures, primarily using numerous repetitions and various types of parallelisms. The passage can be divided into several units, each showing a unique style, theme and theological arguments (vv. 12–20).73 Cases of sexual immorality cause the Apostle’s firm reaction, this time becoming one body with a prostitute (τῇ πόρνῃ) (v. 16). He opposes such practices because of Christian dignity. Moreover, his speech in defence of the purity of the body and the preservation of the sanctity of life seems to reveal the essence of the Corinthian Christians’ immoral behaviour. The key is their religious motivation for their licentious practice, which they justified by their freedom (vv. 12–14). In response to their promiscuity, the Apostle indicates the limits of Christian freedom:

71 The polemical part of his teaching is dominated by the characteristic terminology: πορνεία (5:1; 6:13, 18), πόρνος (5:9, 10, 11; 6:9), πόρνη (6:15, 16) and πορνεύω (6:18 cf. 10:8); in 1 Cor 7:2, Paul introduces the positive part of his teaching: “But because of cases of sexual immorality (διὰ δὲ τὰς πορνείας) …”; also 1 Cor 10:8. For the meaning of the term, see Bauer 1389–90. 72 For 1 Cor 6:12–20, see Schrage, Der erste Brief, 2.7–48; Ernest-Bernard Allo, Saint Paul. Première épitre aux Corinthiens (Études Bibliques 8; Paris: Gabalda, 2 1956), 141–51; Charles K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Black’s New Testament Commentaries 7; London: Black, 1971), 143–53; also, Hans Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2 1981), 137–44; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Corinthian Slogans in 1 Corinthians 6:12–20,” in Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians. Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009), 20–31. 73 The beginning of the verse shows a synthetic parallelism by which Paul pronounces a general judgment (v. 12). Then he refers to the eschatological argument (vv. 13-14), which is followed by Christological and biblical-anthropological arguments (vv. 15-17) as well as the pneumatologicalsoteriological argument (vv. 18–20).

Were the Sources of the Corinthians’ Licentiousness Epicurean?

v. 12:

“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything.

v. 12:

πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει· πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐγὼ ἐξουσιασθήσομαι ὑπό τινος.

Paul must have recalled the common maxim of the Corinthian Christians (πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν) (v. 12ac), describing unbounded freedom.74 He then corrected this false understanding of freedom twice. Stating that Christian freedom is unconditional and unrestrained (1 Cor 3:21–23), he imposes limits to it as a result of the Christians’ behaviour. All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial (v. 12b), and Christians cannot be dominated by anything (v. 12d). The Apostle resorted to a term with a philosophical connotation (συμφέρω), which has a similar meaning in Sir 37:28. In our text, the verb was used in its absolute and general sense to describe spiritual benefits for all Christians and the Church as an entire community of believers. Something is beneficial if it builds up the community of the Church (1 Cor 10:23).75 The second part of his statement suggests the theme of becoming one body with a prostitute. Although Christians are free to do all things, they should not be dominated by anything (v. 12d).76 The use of this verb allows us to conclude that the Apostle meant yielding to licentiousness and becoming a slave of a prostitute if someone does not control his passions (cf. 1 Cor 7:4. 37).77

74 As claimed by commentators, and considering that the maxim is again quoted in 1 Cor 10:23. See Barrett, The First Epistle, 145; Allo, Saint Paul, 141–51; Conzelmann, Der erste Brief, 138; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 2.10–11, 17–18. Yet, Paul’s favourite term for freedom is ἐλευθερία; see Heinrich Schlier, “ἐλεύθερος κτλ,” TWNT 2.492–95 (freedom from sin), pp. 495–97 (freedom in Christ). Note that the maxim in v. 12a (“‘All things are lawful for me’, but not all things are beneficial”) is so general that it can be interpreted as Gnostic, Stoic, Cynic and Epicurean (Schrage, Der erste Brief, 1.50 no. 121). 75 In the verbal form (συμφέρει) in the same idiomatic phrase in 1 Cor 10:23 (cf. 2 Cor 8:10; 12:1); in 1 Cor 7:35 in the context of marital life; in 12:7 when speaking of the gifts of the Spirit for the good and benefit of the believers. In non-biblical literature, it is worth noting 4 Macc 5:11 and numerous examples from pagan texts: Dio Chrysostom (Or. 14.16), Epictetus (Diatr. 1.22.14; 28.5) or Diogenes Laertius (7.98). Interestingly, exegetes emphasise the Cynic-Stoic nature of the term, while ignoring numerous Epicurean texts; cf. Konrad Weiß, “συμφέρω κτλ,” TWNT 9.71–80; Conzelmann, Der erste Brief, 138–39; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 2.18 n. 282. 76 The indefinite article τὶς, τὶ (here, the genetivus singularis τινός) can mean a person (e. g., a female prostitute) or a thing – neutrum (e. g., fornication, body). Commentators’ opinions on this topic are divided. Allo, Saint Paul, 141, combines both possibilities. 77 The verb ἐξουσιάζω reappears in the context of spouses’ rights: neither the husband nor the wife has authority over their own bodies (1 Cor 7:4). Here, Paul resorted to the passive form of the verb (ἐξουσιασθήσομαι ὑπό τινος) (indicativus futuri passivi). For the meaning of ἐξουσιάζω, see Bauer 564.

169

170

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

The theme of fornication comes to the fore in the following verses (vv. 13–14), wonderfully built as a double parallelism structured as a b – a’ b’: a b a’ b’

“Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,” and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power.

Paul describes the source and nature of further cases of immorality among the Corinthians. In line a, he confirms Christian freedom, expressed specifically by the right to freely eat all food as morally neutral. Food and stomach are transient; in the eschatological perspective, they are even useless, hence they have no meaning for Christians and do not limit their freedom (cf. 1 Cor 10:23–28). The role of the body (σῶμα) is different in Christians’ lives. The body is not meant for formication (πορνεία). In the next verses, fornication is presented as going to a prostitute and becoming one body with her (κολλώμενος) (v. 16).78 The Apostle opposes this behaviour because of the role of the body in the salvific order. Unlike eating food, sexual intercourse is not a morally neutral activity for any of the parties. Paul gives a Christological argument: the body belongs to Christ the Lord and Christ the Lord is for the body (a’; cf. v. 17). Here we are dealing with a specifically Paulinian understanding of the term σῶμα. Paul defines the body as a place for man’s existence on earth; a man lives as a body and is a body. In Paul’s anthropology, the body is not merely a part of man, it is a man.79 This understanding of the body is confirmed using the personal pronoun in the culmination of the parallelism: “God will also raise us” (b’). The reasoning is illustrated by the terms of the antithetical parallelism: food and stomach are transient; but the body, like Christ the Lord, will be resurrected.80 In the following verses, the Apostle’s theological argumentation is expanded. Apart from the eschatological argument (vv. 13–14), there are also Christological and biblicalanthropological arguments (vv. 15–17; Gen 2:24) as well as a pneumatologicalsoteriological (vv. 18–20) argument. Paul argues for the dignity of the human body and marriage, but his arguments are less relevant to the question of the origins of the Corinthians’ libertinism.

78 The participium praesentis passivi of κολλάω; also, it means: “everyone [now] united with a prostitute is one body with her” (v. 17; cf. Rom 12:9). 79 According to Paul, man lives and exists as a body and he cannot get rid of his body. See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 2.22–23; cf. Barrett, The First Epistle, 146; see Eduard Schweizer, “σῶμα,” TWNT 7.1057–64; Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 71–73. 80 See Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 253–54.

Were the Sources of the Corinthians’ Licentiousness Epicurean?

Concerning the issue of the sources of this immorality, the most essential information is found in verses 13–14. They show the religious motives that guided some Corinthians to justify their dissolute behaviours (cf. v. 11). Their moral libertinism was not just a remnant of their old pagan customs, although it cannot be ruled out that the generally favourable attitude of the ancients to πορνεία played some role in the case of the Corinthian converts. We should also consider that in Corinth, a great port city and the capital of a Roman province, fornication was commonplace.81 It can be concluded from the parallel units (βρώματα – κοιλία / σῶμα – πορνεία) that the libertinism of the Corinthian Christians resulted from their religiously motivated depreciation and disregard for the body. According to them, sexual intercourse with prostitutes would be morally neutral, just like eating food is neutral. These Christians believed that the body did not mean anything, and neither did sexual acts. The sexual act had only a physical dimension and, therefore, would have no moral or religious significance.82 3.3

Religious Sources of the Immorality in the Corinthian Church

The most popular line of research on 1 Corinthians pointed to the Gnostic or quasi-Gnostic religious views of Corinthian Christians as the basis of their falsely understood freedom, and hence immorality and libertinism. Freedom in the Spirit, liberation from worldly bonds and the conviction that salvation is already present (realized eschatology) (cf. 1 Cor 4:8) meant that, for the Corinthian Christians, the body and temporal life ceased to matter because they were transient and destined for annihilation. Likewise, the works of the flesh would be irrelevant. More recent commentaries describe this type of religiosity in an altered form as pneumatism or religious enthusiasm.83 Publications devoted to this issue assert that, to understand the sources of the Corinthian Christians’ sexual immorality and libertinism, it is worth referring to

81 Prostitution was common in Corinth during the classical period, and the licentiousness of its citizens was proverbial. The same situation should be assumed for the Roman period, although not everyone shares this view. See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 1.28–29 and 2.11–12; first of all, Friedrich Hauck and Siegfried Schulz, “πόρνη κτλ,” TWNT 6.579–583; a balanced opinion has been formulated by Barnett, The Second Epistle, 3–4. 82 Cf. Schrage, Der erste Brief, 2.11–16; see also Barrett, The First Epistle, 147; Fee, The First Epistle, 254; Murphy-O’Connor, “Corinthian Slogans,” 22-26. 83 See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 2.11: “eine Ausdruckform des gnostisierenden Libertinismus” and n. 257: “Konsequenzen des gnostisierenden Enthusiasmus” (pp. 13-15). Cf. Schrage, Der erste Brief, 1.55 n. 147; cf. also Barrett, The First Epistle, 145–46; Schmithals, Neues Testament und Gnosis, 28–33, esp. 32.

171

172

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

the views of Epicurus and the anti-Epicurean polemics of that period. We now intend to summarise these opinions and briefly comment on them.84 According to Benjamin Fiore, the text 1 Cor 5–6 contains many parenetic elements that resulted from the difficult situation of the community.85 Giving moral instructions to the community, Paul resorted to eschatological arguments (1 Cor 5:5, 12–13; 6:2–3, 9, 13–14) and showed the consequences of the Corinthian believers’ being united with the spirit of God and the spirit of Christ (1 Cor 5:7; 6:11, 15–17, 19–20).86 Next, Fiore points to the harmony that exists between Paul’s views on the Christians’ belonging to Christ and the Platonic Plutarch’s arguments about the divine origin of love. In his work Amatorius (748E–771D), Plutarch criticises Hedonism and the idealization of human love. He first discusses sexual intercourse without love, referring to the metaphor of hunger and thirst: you “can be sated, but never achieve a noble end” (Amat. 756E).87 Paul confirmed the uselessness of such acts (1 Cor 6:12–13), and the association of the concepts of “food-stomach” and “fornication” corresponds to the pagan (Epicurean) view of physical pleasure. Both moralists, Plutarch and Paul, argue against unbridled passions. The former builds his reply on a philosophical basis in terms of rationally controlled emotions, while the latter points to the eschatological dimension of the body united with the resurrection of Christ. The answer is different, but the ideas are similar. Moreover, according to Plutarch, deities are important to human love because, without divine help, no lasting unity can arise between partners, and this is an essential attribute of friendship, the main goal of love. Pleasure (Aphrodite) can be bought but is transient, while real fruit is only born out of love (Eros). Human love is sharing and participating in a power that has a divine nature and origin (Amat. 762D–E).88 Developing his thought, Plutarch opposes perfect marital unity (according to Plato’s teaching) with the Epicurean idea of the temporary agglomeration of atoms that accidentally collide with one another

84 Witherington, Conflict and Community, 168, suggests an Epicurean background of the moral problems in the Church in Corinth. 85 Fiore, “Passion in Paul and Plutarch,” 136, 138–41. 86 Ibid., 136–37. 87 “For intercourse without Eros is like hunger and thirst (καθάπερ πεῖνα καὶ δίψα πλησμονὴν ἔχουσα), which can be sated, but never achieve a noble end” (Amat. 756E); see Plutarch, Moralia, Vol. 9: TableTalk, Books 7-9. Dialogue on Love, trans. Edwin L. Minar and F. H. Sandbach and W. C. Helmbold (LCL 425; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961), 350–351. 88 Plutarch’s arguments are more profound. He describes the depth of a legitimate marriage relationship, which is not limited to physical acts but covers a rich realm of affections and loyalty. Plutarch praises the woman; he also argues that momentary pleasures, such as those of accidental love, as well as intercourses between men and pederasty are not true love. Cf. Fiore, “Passion in Paul and Plutarch,” 140–41.

Were the Sources of the Corinthians’ Licentiousness Epicurean?

(Amat. 769F),89 which is an element with a clear anti-Epicurean connotation as Fiore shows.90 In his other treatises, Plutarch drew a repulsive picture of Epicureans devoted to pleasures, feasts and bodily delights, being aware of the popularity and power of the destructive influence of Epicureanism. Based on this, Fiore speculates that Paul could also have opposed the Epicurean infiltration in Corinth, which transformed his teaching about freedom in Christ into unrestrained hedonism.91 In turn, Graham Tomlin focused on the antinomy between the sexual freedom of the Corinthians (1 Cor 5:1–2; 6:1–17) and ascetic tendencies in the Church (1 Cor 7:1–7).92 Likewise, in Epicurean writings, there are conflicting views on sexual activity. Tomlin recalls the statements of Epicurus, Metrodorus of Lampsacus and, above all, Lucretius, in light of which the sexual act had only a physiological dimension (and no moral value). The Epicureans, on the other hand, spoke cautiously about sexual activity, as Epicurus had advised them, since sexual intercourse did not remove bodily pain. Hence, it should be limited so as not to do any harm.93 Tomlin concluded that in Epicurean writings, we can find an ambivalent attitude towards sexual activity. On the one hand, sexual life is a source of pleasure and delight for the followers of The Garden, as ancient authors confirmed. On the other hand, we can indicate ascetic recommendations in the Epicurean system regarding sexual intercourse and conjugal love. The ambivalent attitude of the Corinthian Christians would mirror the Epicurean views on sex, love and marriage.94

89 “But the union of those who merely live together (τῶν ἄλλως συμβιούντων) is like the contacts and interlacing of Epicurus atoms, which collide and rebound” (Amat. 769F [trans. Edwin L. Minar et al., LCL]). 90 The author unexpectedly resorts to Plutarch’s polemic in his Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum (1086C–1107C) to summarise the main points of anti-Epicurean polemic. See Fiore, “Passion in Paul and Plutarch,” 141–42. Nevertheless, Epicurus factually rejected the influences of the gods on human love: “according to them love does not come by divine inspiration” (Diog. Laert. 10.118 [trans. Robert D. Hicks, LCL]). 91 Fiore, “Passion in Paul and Plutarch,” 142–43: “Paul’s counterarguments ... provide a Christian counterpart to Plutarch’s idealistic treatment of the same problems raised by Epicurean atomistic materialism” (see also n. 20). He adds that Paul – even if there were no Epicurean influences in Corinth – stressed the doctrinal differences in Christian teaching and Epicurean thought to warn Christians against the despised Epicurean movement and prevent apostasy (as well as any misunderstanding by the pagans). 92 Tomlin, “Christians and Epicureans,” 62–64. Many commentators have noted this antinomy. See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 2.13 n. 256. 93 Suffice it to quote Diogenes Laertius: “The Epicureans do not suffer the wise man to fall in love; … No one was ever the better for sexual indulgence, and it is well if he be not the worse” (Diog. Laert. 10.118 [trans. Robert D. Hicks, LCL]). 94 Tomlin, “Christians and Epicureans,” 64: “The Epicurean view of sex therefore provides a framework that would encompass both attitudes to sex among these Corinthian Christians. On the one hand, sex with a prostitute or with a close relation is justified as being as morally neutral as eating, yet on

173

174

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

The arguments of both authors leave one unsatisfied. Fiore’s points only enrich our knowledge of the philosophical-religious, particularly Platonic, context of Paul’s arguments in favour of sanctity and unity of marriage, leaving Epicureanism aside.95 On the other hand, Tomlin’s opinions should be deepened and critically confronted with the biblical message. In the case of the Corinthian converts, we are undoubtedly dealing with an ambivalent approach to sexual activity. In the Corinthian Church, both sexual promiscuity (1 Cor 5:1–2; 6:12–20) and ascetic attitudes (1 Cor 7:1–7, 32–34) existed. These extremes can be summarized as “libertinism” and “asceticism.” However, is the duality of the Corinthians’ attitudes, justified by the Christologicaleschatological message, comparable with Epicurean ethical hedonism? The libertinism of the Corinthian Christians and their question about sexual continence seem to be different manifestations of the life of the community torn by many contradictions and problems.96 Yet, the Epicurean wise man is deliberately a “libertine and ascetic” at the same time, making clever hedonistic choices. Can he be considered an adequate model for the amoral and ascetic behaviour of the Corinthian Christians? This is doubtful, because the postulated analogies and similarities are only superficial and distant. These authors’ terminologies also differ. Indeed, the source and justification of the manifestations of the Corinthian Christians’ behaviour lie in their religious views,97 but both attitudes have different sources.98 Paul’s apostolic pragmatism, in its functional aspect, can possibly be

95

96

97

98

the other, some are inclined to withdraw from sexual activity altogether. This ambivalence towards sex is clearly paralleled in Epicurean attitudes.” In this sense, the article is a valuable supplement to the previous comparative studies of this text, esp. with Stoicism (Epictetus, Seneca). See Fiore, “Passion in Paul and Plutarch,” 136; cf. Conzelmann, Der erste Brief, 137–44. Note that Paul first evaluated individual instances of fornication by responding to word of mouth (1 Cor 5–6). The problem of the fornication and debauchery of the Corinthians reappears in Paul’s epistles, including in the first lost one (cf. 1 Cor 5:9), and was never fully resolved (2 Cor 12:21). On the other hand, Paul answers only once to the Corinthians’ written question about continence in marriage and does not return to the topic; cf. Paul’s use of περὶ δέ in 1 Cor 7:1; 7, 25; 8, 1; 12, 1; 16, 1. 12, which signals a new theme. See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 1.90–91. Cf. pneumatism and enthusiasm of Gnostic provenance, which was commonly indicated in the past. See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 2.55: “Vielmehr folgt beides als verschiedene Konsequenz aus derselben Grundeinstellung”; also, Schrage, Der erste Brief, 1.54–55, who, however, notes difficulties in combining libertinism and religiously justified asceticism. One may ask whether the ascetic attitude is a consequence of the pneumatic and enthusiastic religiosity of the Corinthians, understood as a depreciation of the body and carnality. There is no such thought in Paul’s answer, while “ascetic attitudes” are motivated by the example of his life (v. 7 and v. 26), by the transience of the world (vv. 29–31) and being “anxious about the affairs of the Lord” (vv. 32–35). These elements better explain “ascetic attitudes” than the Epicurean depreciation of the body. Therefore, we opt for intra-ecclesial, eschatological and Christological arguments (cf. Matt 19:10–12). Moreover, the reference of the term “asceticism” to the adherents of The Garden

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

compared with Epicurus’ philosophical utilitarianism. Yet, Paul’s term “freedom anxieties” (ἀμερίμνους εἶναι) (1 Cor 7:32) only apparently resembles the Epicurean “peace and serenity” (ἀταραξία). The sources and methods of implementation, and above all, the final goals of both attitudes were completely different. Yet, another element of Epicurean thought should be considered in further research into the sources of Corinthian licentiousness. The immorality and moral promiscuity (πορνεία) of the Corinthian Christians resulted from the libertine satisfaction of desires of the flesh as natural needs (1 Cor 6:12–14). This was expressed in the conviction that intercourse with women is as morally indifferent as eating food. Such an approach to the body is comparable to Epicurus’ philosophical position, who valued eating and sexual pleasure in the same way and assigned a limited role to love and marriage.99 In antiquity, this led to a stereotypical, simplified image of the Epicurean as a licentious and immoral man, devoted to gluttony and carnal pleasures. However, did the libertinism of the Corinthian Christians have an Epicurean provenance? Considering the above vague accusations, one can only make assumptions.

4.

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

The fact that some Corinthians denied the resurrection of the dead triggered the question of Epicurean infiltrations in the Corinthian Church. Earlier, the Thessalonians had shown anxiety about the fate of the dead (1 Thess 4:13); similar problems arose in Corinth (1 Cor 15:1–58). However, the problems recorded in 1 Cor 15 were, for several reasons, presented differently than the ones shown in Thessalonica. The Thessalonians asked about the fate of the dead on the day of Christ’s return, while members of the Church in Corinth in general denied the resurrection of the dead. Their denial of the resurrection led Paul to take up this topic as well.100

does not seem very appropriate, except in a specific sense. See Robert D. Brown, Lucretius on Love and Sex. A Commentary on De rerum natura IV, 1030–1287 with Prolegomena, Text, and Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 104: “Note that Epicurus is an ascetic, who values anethesia and scorns the normal pleasures of the senses”; similarly: “Neither he [Lucretius] nor Epicurus can be interpreted as preaching sexual abstinence” (p. 109). 99 See also Tomlin, “Christians and Epicureans,” 63–64; cf. Brown, Lucretius on Love, 108–111. The Epicurean point of view was later maintained by Porphyry comparing eating meat to sexual intercourse and drinking someone else’s wine, which, in his opinion, was an unnecessary beautification of life (Abst. 1.51; see Usener, Epicurea, 299 frag. 464). 100 See Riesner, Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus, 343–49. In his opinion, the theological problems in 1 Thess 4:13–18 and 1 Cor 15 are similar.

175

176

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

4.1

Leading Opinions on the Corinthian Deniers of the Resurrection

The history of research on 1 Cor 15 shows various proposals for the historicalreligious assignment of the views of the Corinthian opponents of the resurrection, the most important of which are outlined below.101 According to one opinion, which was popular until recently, in the case of 1 Cor 15 we are dealing with supporters of realized eschatology or an eschatology in the Gnostic sense (the earlier opinion), or with the so-called Corinthian dreamers, enthusiasts or pneumatics (which is a newer approach). The Corinthian Christians already achieved perfection and fullness in their lives since their resurrection had taken place at the time of their baptism or receiving the Spirit, and so there would be no future bodily resurrection from the dead. This was usually expressed as the spiritualization of the resurrection in the sense of 2 Tim 2:18 (ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι). Until recently, this solution had many supporters.102 Let us note in parenthisis that the Gnostic thesis seemed to be indisputable in the past as well. Gnosis presupposes an extreme anthropological dualism, and the Gnostics considered themselves already saved and in the divine realm, which makes them resemble the religious group of enthusiasts and pneumatics. In fact, the Gnostic hypothesis mainly reminds one of the fleeting nature of many opinions that dominated and seemed obvious and now belong to the history of exegesis.103 101 The history of the interpretation of 1 Cor 15 till 2000 has extensively been presented by Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.111–19, with notes 512–22; see Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 2000), 1172–75; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 559–60, 565–67; Dieter Zeller, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2010), 456–59. In turn, more recent discussions of the literature on the Corinthian opponents of the resurrection are quoted by K. R. Harriman, “A Synthetic Proposal about the Corinthian Resurrection Deniers,” NovT 62 (2020): 180–200, esp. 180 n. 1. His “synthetic proposal” can neither be supported by 1 Cor 15 nor is a convincing solution of this problem; in fact, it is a proposal to give up any search concerning this issue. 102 See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.113–19, 137–39, together with the notes. Cf. Schrage, Der erste Brief, 1.48–49 n. 113. This solution was opted for by W. Schrage and others: Barrett, The First Epistle, 109, 347–48; Fee, The First Epistle, 10–15, 715; cf. Jack H. Wilson, “The Corinthians Who Say There is No Resurrection of the Dead,” ZNW 59 (1968): 93–95, who described the solutions as “the most acceptable”; cf. Darrell J. Doughty, “The Presence and Future of Salvation in Corinth,” ZNW 66 (1975): 74–76, n. 55–56; Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, “The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians XV,” NovT 23 (1981): 231 n. 9 (with further literature); see also Jarl H. Ulrichsen, “Die Auferstehungsleugner in Korinth: Was meinten sie eigentlich?” in Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm, eds., Texts and Contexts. Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in honor of Lars Hartman (Oslo et al.: Scandinavian University Press, 1995), 782 n. 3 and 791–93; the last author decisively refutes the concept of “realized eschatology.” 103 Its representative was Walter Schmithals (see n. 61–62), whose view was shared by many exegetes. See more, Luise Schottroff, Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt. Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium (WMANT 37; Neukirchen-

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

Many authors assume the Greek anthropological dualism as the reason for the denial of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15. The Corinthian Christians denied the resurrection of the body but believed in the immortality of the soul. Thus, this anthropological dualism would be of Judaic-Hellenistic104 or mainly of Greek provenance.105 Few authors argue, and this is the third direction for solving the problem, that the view of the Corinthian resurrection deniers resulted from their negation of anything after death. The earlier thesis about the Sadducean influence on the members of the Church in Corinth is improbable,106 but the philosophical, including Epicurean (materialistic), basis of the denial of the resurrection continues to be considered.107

104

105

106

107

Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970); cf. Elaine H. Pagels, “‘The Mystery of the Resurrection’. A Gnostic Reading of 1 Corinthians 15,” JBL 93 (1974): 276–88; this proposal has been recently taken up by Stephen Hultgren, “The Origin of Paul’s Doctrine of the Two Adams in 1 Corinthians 15:45-49,” JSNT 25 (2003): 343–70. See Wedderburn, “The Problem of the Denial,” 230–31 n. 7; but chiefly, Gerhard Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten. Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung von 1 Cor 15 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), esp. 30–35, 65–69, 290–294. The Corinthians proclaimed “eine dualistische Anthropologie mit Abwertung des Leibes zugunsten der pneumatisch inspirierten Seele” (p. 35). According to Sellin, the Corinthian opponents of Paul did not deny the possibility of an afterlife, which was guaranteed by the possession of πνεῦμα, but denied the bodily resurrection of the dead. Their arguments were based on a dualistic anthropology of Judeo-Hellenic provenance, not related to Gnosis. The Corinthians were influenced by the wisdom tradition of the Alexandrian Jews, especially the thought of Philo of Alexandria, whose views reached Corinth thanks to Apollos. See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.112 n. 516; cf. Wilson, “The Corinthians,” 103: “In all probability, they denied a Hebraic, monistic resurrection of the body in favor of a Hellenistic, dualistic concept of after-life current among the sacramentally-oriented popular cults”; see esp. Ulrichsen, “Die Auferstehungsleugner in Korinth,” 782 n. 5 and 793–97, who decisively defends the thesis of the Greek dualistic background of the denial of the resurrection indicating that Paul did not understand the stance of his adversaries, and hence his arguments in 1 Cor 15 are irrelevant (p. 794); the deniers of the resurrection believed in the immortality of the soul (p. 797); see also Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995), 108–123, 129; Joël Delobel, “The Corinthians’ (Un-)belief in the Resurrection,” in Reimund Bieringer, Veronica Koperski, Bianca Lataire, eds., Resurrection in the New Testament. Festschrift J. Lambrecht (BETL 165; Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2002), esp. 343–44. The Fathers of the Church chiefly postulated a Sadducean influence on the Corinthian community (e. g., Tertullian and Origen), but the concept was definitely abandoned. See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.111 n. 513, ibid., p. 137 n. 617, 618; also Wedderburn, “The Problem of the Denial,” 230 n. 4. However, this idea has recently been taken up by Luise Schottroff, Der erste Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth (ThKNT 7; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013), 287–88. See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.111 n. 514 and 4.138 n. 625; also Wedderburn, “The Problem of the Denial,” 230 n. 3; Zeller, Der erste Brief, 458–9, who negates the influence of philosophical arguments, including those of Epicurus: “Die korinthischen Zweifler wären also nicht von hochphilosophischen Vorurteilen motiviert gewesen, sondern von der heidnischen Durchschnittsmentalitit.”

177

178

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

However, the history of the research on 1 Cor 15:12 shows that the Epicurean background of the Corinthian denial of the resurrection of the dead has rarely been considered, and the presence of anti-Epicurean rhetoric in Paul’s argument was only rarely suggested. An Epicurean influence in 1 Cor 15 was postulated by William de Wette,108 and later by Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer109 as well as Ernest-Bernard Allo (1935).110 Obviously, the Epicurean background of the controversy in 1 Cor 15 was taken for granted by Normann DeWitt.111 Recently, Graham Tomlin has again opted for this solution. Not only has he returned to the thesis about the Epicurean background of conflicts in the Corinthian Church, but he has also treated his study both as a reaction to the dominant rhetorical and sociological research on 1 Cor 15 and returned to the question of ideological controversies in the Corinthian Church. Tomlin strongly criticizes the thesis that the resurrection deniers believed in realized eschatology and did not expect any future resurrection.112 Johan S. Vos113 and I114 have recently returned – not without reason – to the Epicurean thesis. Finally, the Epicurean thesis was often criticised in the past by other authors.115 None of the mentioned solutions has gained universal acceptance, not even the most popular one describing the Corinthian opponents of the resurrection as enthusiasts and pneumatics. Nevertheless, this solution is still supported by a vast 108 Wilhelm M. L. de Wette, Kurze Erklärung der Briefe an die Korinther (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1845), 129, 139. 109 Archibald T. Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: Scribner’s Sons 1911; reprint 1986), 346, 362–63. 110 Allo, Saint Paul, 411, 417. 111 DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 113–23; cf. DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 338–39. 112 Tomlin, “Christians and Epicureans,” 57–58; he concludes: “There are good grounds for believing that some Christians in Corinth were influenced by the ideas and practice of trends in GraecoRoman Corinth most strongly represented by Epicureanism” (70). Cf. Abraham J. Malherbe, “The Beasts at Ephesus,” JBL 87 (1968): 71–80. 113 Johan S. Vos, “Argumentation und Situation in 1 Kor. 15,” NovT 41 (1999): 313–33. He has described the aim of his research: “Im folgenden hoffe ich, in Auseinandersetzung mit einigen Vertretern von Position 2 [realized eschatology] und 3 [dualism] zu zeigen, dass, wenn man die Argumentation des Apostels in I Kor. 15 zum Ausgangspunkt nimmt und sich auf die Frage beschränkt, welches Bild der Apostel von den Leugnern der Auferstehung hat, Position I [death ends all things] viel mehr Beachtung verdient, als ihr in der heutigen Forschung zukommt” (314). 114 Stefan Szymik, “The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection in 1 Cor 15:12. The Epicurean Hypothesis Reconsidered,” The Biblical Annals 10 (2020): 437–56. I fully agree with the opinion of Johan S. Vos. 115 Wilson (“The Corinthians Who Say,” 91–92) rejects influences of all schools of philosophy, including Epicurean philosophy, on the Corinthians; also Ulrichsen, “Die Auferstehungsleugner in Korinth,” 782, 788–90; recently also Harriman, “A Synthetic Proposal,” 185 n. 10, 186–87. See, however, Wedderburn, “The Problem of the Denial”: “he may indeed be using conventional arguments originating in polemic against Epicureans, but now used more widely and inappropriately” (241).

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

majority of commentators. The concept of “Corinthian dreamers” – enthusiasts or pneumatics – is nothing other than a modified form of the hypothesis of the Gnostic background of the problems in the Corinthian Church, including their denial of the resurrection of the dead.116 As an aside, let us consider a few isolated publications that bring a completely new impetus to the discussion of 1 Cor 15:12.117 In the opinion of Jeffrey Asher, the Apostle Paul did not speak to the opponents of the resurrection, but to a group of Corinthian “disciples” who needed a fuller instruction on the resurrection because they did not understand how a physical and destructible body could exist in a heavenly realm that is spiritual and indestructible.118 Moreover, a new hypothesis has been put forward by Paul Brown, who defined it as “a fourth position for the problem of the deniers of the resurrection at Corinth.” In his opinion, “it was only the heroes, the ones who were worshiped and sometimes immortalized bodily, who attained a special destiny and thus, the Corinthians could deny their own future resurrection while still embracing the resurrection and worship of Jesus, the Messiah, as one with hero status.”119 In turn, K. R. Harriman considers all the solutions inadequate, presenting instead his own, better, “synthetic proposal.” He identifies the Corinthian opponents of the resurrection, following, among others,

116 Apart from W. Schrage, let us recall the commentaries of Barrett, The First Epistle, 347–48 and of Fee, The First Epistle, 15. 117 For the sake of scientific validity, we should mention Sebastian Schneider’s dissertation (Habilitationsschrift), although its main thesis seems unbelievable and has no support in 1 Cor 15. See Sebastian Schneider, Auferstehen. Eine neue Deutung von 1 Kor 15 (Forschung zur Bibel 105; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2005), esp. 21–22 “Könnte es nicht sein, so meine Vermutung, daß das, was heute von der Mehrheit der Ausleger den Gegnern des Paulus zugeschrieben wird [realized eschatology], eigentlich das ist, was Paulus den Korinthern in 1 Kor 15 nahebringen möchte. … Die Absicht des Paulus in I Kor 15 wäre dementsprechend, ihnen die gegenwärtige Auferstehung nahezubringen.” Cf. Casimir Bernas, (rev.), “Auferstehen. Eine neue Deutung von 1 Kor 15. By Sebastian Schneider. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2005,” Religious Studies Review 32/1 (2006): 46. 118 Jeffrey R. Asher, Polarity and Change in 1 Corinthians 15. A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection (HUT 42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 48: “In a manner of speaking what we find are not opponents or enemies of Paul, but misinformed ‘students’ who need more detailed instruction on the resurrection of the dead. The search for the identity of the opponents and their alternative doctrine to the resurrection of the dead is ultimately a mistaken approach because there ‘are no opponents’.” He reviews the proposals aiming at identifying the Corinthian opponents of the resurrection (pp. 32–35). 119 This concept must certainly be discussed in detail. See Paul J. Brown, Bodily Resurrection and Ethics in 1 Cor 15. Connecting Faith and Morality in the Context of Greco-Roman Mythology (WUNT II 360; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), esp. p. 102: “This popular religion allowed for a belief in the resurrection of Jesus, but neither assured them of their own resurrection nor was connected to their present behavior”; see more on pp. 66–102. Cf. Pheme Perkins, First Corinthians (Paideia; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 177: “It would be easy enough for his converts in these romanized cities to imagine the risen Christ as a divinized human comparable to the emperor.”

179

180

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

Paul Brown, “as a cross-section of members from upper and lower classes, with varying levels of education, whose denial of the general resurrection emerges from a variety of sources in philosophy and the myths of popular religion.”120 This discussion of the leading views on the historical-religious background of the denial of the resurrection by some Corinthian converts does not reflect all the realities of recent scholarship. Not only is there a lack of consensus, but also one can hardly speak about any convergence of views in this field. The proposals for solving the problem of the Corinthian opponents of the Resurrection, including the Epicurean infiltrations, can only be verified based on literary and exegetical analyses of 1 Cor 15. The aim is to identify and describe the views of the Corinthian deniers as accurately as possible as well as to provide their historical and religious classification.121 4.2

Literary Issues in 1 Cor 15

Paul devoted particular attention to defending the truth about the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. Moreover, the positioning of his arguments at the end of 1 Corinthians is important for the interpretation of the entire letter. The present analyses, however, must be limited to the question concerning the sources of the Corinthians’ denial of the resurrection.122 Formally, the text of 1 Cor 15 is a separate literary unit and differs significantly from the preceding and following contexts. The new unit is introduced by the solemn Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί (1 Cor 15:1; cf. Gal 1:11) and closed by a parenesis that characterises Paul’s argumentation (1 Cor 15:58). Exegetes are unanimous that

120 See Harriman, “A Synthetic Proposal,” esp. 180, 199–200. Since Harriman based his claims on two studies (Paul Brown and Dag Øistein Endsjø), it is worth reading the review by Á. Pereira Delgado, (rev.), “Paul J. Brown, Bodily Resurrection and Ethics in 1 Cor 15 (WUNT /II 360). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014,” Bib 97 (2016): 148–51. 121 The role of 1 Cor 15 in Paul’s theology, especially its importance for understanding his eschatology, is of less importance to us. For this topic, see Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 294–316. According to Riesner, Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus, 349, 1 Cor 15 is the fullest presentation of Paul’s eschatological problems. See also Udo Schnelle, Wandlungen im paulinischen Denken (SBS 137; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989), esp. 37–48, emphasising the evolution of Paul’s eschatological thought. 122 Disputes over a better placement of 1 Cor 15 within the structure of the letter should be considered of little significance, as claimed by Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of I Corinthians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 284 n. 549; cf. Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.9, 26–27. The problem is associated with Paul’s non-typical introduction of γνωρίζω δέ (1 Cor 15:1) instead of περὶ δέ (1 Cor 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12). Many scholars (W. Schmithals, W. Schenk, G. Sellin i in.) regard it as an inconsistency and disturbance in the swirl of Paul’s thought in the letter.

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

1 Cor 15 is a transparent and logically structured whole, whose individual elements have designated places and functions.123 However, there are divergent opinions on the specific literary questions of 1 Cor 15. As part of the rhetorical research on the Corpus Paulinum, there have been various ideas about the type of argumentation found in 1 Cor 15, and commentators are divided in their opinions. Some consider 1 Cor 15 to be an example of a rhetorical, deliberative style (genus deliberativum),124 while others see it as an example of a rhetorical demonstrative or praise style (genus demonstrativum).125 Solving the difficulties is not made easier by the fact that the same figures and means of rhetorical persuasion functioned in particular rhetorical types.126 Analysing the rhetorical composition of 1 Cor 15 does not bring satisfactory results, either. In general, we know the principles of the rhetorical composition of ancient texts, but referring these rules to 1 Cor 15 results only in a multitude of proposals concerning the rhetorical disposition of the text, with no apparent possibility of agreement between them;127 this inclines us to assume a different approach towards 1 Cor 15. The aim of Paul’s argumentation, and also his desire, was to convince the Corinthian Christians of the truth about the resurrection of the dead and to strengthen them in their faith (cf. 1 Cor 15:1–2, 58), but not only – which must be stressed – it was a direct reply to the accusations of the deniers of the resurrection.128 Presumably, striving to achieve his goal, the Apostle applied

123 Despite its great theological importance, the textual and critical aspect of 1 Cor 15 was faithfully conveyed. Only exceptionally, there are doubts as to the wording of the text, and usually it is about the omission or the order of words and the grammatical form of the possessive pronoun (vv. 10, 14, 31, 54, 55). In one case (v. 49) the change is theologically significant. 124 See also Witherington, Conflict and Community, 292: “Ch. 15 provides an example of Paul at his argumentative best, ably using the tools of deliberative rhetoric”; likewise Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 286: “It is therefore appropriately deliberative, not forensic argumentation” (see pp. 20–64 and 184–91). The author regards 1 Cor as an example of deliberative rhetoric. Similarly, Schrage opts for the genus deliberativum, Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.10, but adds that in 1 Cor 15 one can also find elements of forensic argumentation (genus iudiciale). 125 Berger, Formgeschichte, 101, 101, interprets 1 Cor 15:12–58 as an example of epideictic rhetoric (demonstrative). Cf. the discussion of various proposals in Witherington, Conflict and Community, 291–92 n. 2–4; Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 286 n. 562. 126 See Berger, Formgeschichte, 102–3. 127 Witherington (Conflict and Community, 292) recognised 1 Cor 15 as a rhetorical composition in miniature: the exordium (vv. 1–2), the narratio (vv. 3–11), the propositio (vv. 12–19), the probatio or refutatio (vv. 21–50) and a peroratio (vv. 51–58). A comprehensive discussion of this question by Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.17, 110–11, 154, 274, 362 (each with extensive notes); see also Thiselton, The First Epistle, 1176-78. 128 Cf. Schottroff, Der erste Brief, 287: “In Kapitel 15 geschieht dieses Verkündigen der befreienden Botschaft. Paulus traut ihr die Kraft zu, die Korrumpierten wiederzugewinnen und die Gemeinde, die vom Druck von außen dauernd bedroht ist, zu stärken und zu ermutigen. Diese Zielbestim-

181

182

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

his method, and in proving his arguments, he used not only rhetorical means of expression129 but also rabbinical ways of argumentation.130 He utilised biblical and non-biblical traditions as well as the apostolic tradition. He also quoted pagan sources. Any description of the structure of Paul’s argumentation must be based on the literary specificity of 1 Cor 15, including its vocabulary, grammatical forms, literary and rhetorical figures as well as its changing theological themes.131 For the most part, the text of 1 Cor 15 consists of declaratives, but there are also rhetorical questions (vv. 12, 29 and 30) and imperatives (vv. 33–34 and 58).132 An important literary criterion can be verba dicendi, which appears in the key sections of 1 Cor 15 and signals a new stage of reasoning, a change of the theme or a summary of the author’s thought. We have Paul who speaks (v. 1: γνωρίζω; v. 34: λαλῶ; v. 50: φημί; v. 51: λέγω) or his putative interlocutors (v. 12: λέγουσιν τινές; v. 35: ἐρεῖ τις). Another literary criterion is the invocation “Brothers” (vv. 1 and 50) and its solemn form “Beloved brothers” (v. 58).133 Relating these formal elements to 1 Cor 15 and taking into account further subdivisions, the following structure of the Pauline apology of the resurrection can be determined:

129

130 131

132 133

mung unterscheidet Sich von einer Deutung, die Kapitel 15 als Widerlegung von Leugnern der Auferstehung versteht.” Paul must have known them from his youth. See Hengel and Schwemer, Paulus zwischen, 264: “Grundlage für alle Wissenschaften war die gründliche rhetorische Ausbildung. An Rhetorik und Philosophie, und d. h. gleichzeitig an der Ethik, waren zumindest in den größeren Städten auch die führenden Synagogengemeinden interessiert.” Cf. Rodolphe Morissette, “La condition de ressuscité. 1 Cor 15,35–49: structure littéraire de la péricope,” Bib 53 (1972): 216–27. This overall structure of 1 Cor 15 has generally been accepted (vv. 1–11, 12–34, 35–49, 50–58). See Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung, 73–77, 210–11, 230–31; Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 286 n. 562. The imperatives μὴ πλανᾶσθε (v. 33), ἐκνήψατε and μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε (v. 34) and γίνεσθε (v. 58). In the critical edition, ἀδελφοί also appears in v. 31, attested to by many external witnesses (including the codices: ‫א‬, A and B), but this phrase is missing in P46 dated to the second century, in the Codex Claromontanus (6th century) and other uncial codes. It is difficult to understand the omission of the word by the copyist; therefore, it should be recognised that it was rather an addition of the copyist. See Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 568; Fee, The First Epistle, 761.

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

Part I. A.

B.

C.

Part II.

The kerygma of the resurrection of the dead (vv. 1–50) The Risen Christ (vv. 1–11) vv. 1–2 solemn introduction vv. 3–4 apostolic kerygma vv. 5–8 eyewitnesses of the Christophany vv. 9–10 testimony of the Apostle’s humility Conclusion: the faith of the Corinthians (v. 11) The resurrection of the dead (vv. 12–34) Argument: implications arising from the rejection of the kerygma (vv. 12–19) v. 12 denial of the resurrection of the dead vv. 13–15 false witnesses of God vv. 16–19 futility of their faith in Christ Declaration: the general resurrection of the dead (vv. 20–28) v. 20 Christ is the first fruits vv. 21–22 Christ is the basis of the resurrection of the dead vv. 23–24 order of events on the day of the parousia vv. 25–28 the reign of Christ and God Argument: a testimony of the Christian faith (vv. 29–34) v. 29 baptism on behalf of the dead vv. 30–32 Paul’s testimony in danger Conclusion: call to repent (vv. 33–34) The resurrection of the body (vv. 35–50) v. 35 question about the resurrected body Argument: observation of the created world (vv. 36–41) vv. 36–37 picture of the dying seed: through death to life v. 38 richness of God’s creative power vv. 39–41 variety of heavenly and earthly bodies Argument: transposition of the picture (vv. 42–49) vv. 42–43 application: through perishable to imperishable vv. 44 a physical body and a spiritual body Argument from scripture: Adam and Christ (vv. 45–49) vv. 45–46 the physical – the spiritual vv. 47–49 the man of dust and the man of heaven Conclusion: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (v. 50)

Revealing the mystery of the last day (vv. 51–58) vv. 51–52 transformation and resurrection vv. 53–54 clothes of immortality as victory over death vv. 55–57 Christ is the source of the victory over death Final conclusion: call to be steadfast (v. 58).

183

184

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

Leaving aside a more detailed discussion of the literary structure of the text, attention should be paid to the main stages of the Apostle’s argumentation: A vv. 1–11: In the first part of his argumentation, Paul announces to his brothers the gospel that they heard and received. The good news is the resurrection of Christ attested by the apostles and by Paul. His goal is to conclude (v. 11) that the Corinthians believed in the resurrection.134 B vv. 12–34: Based on the kerygma of the Resurrected Christ, Paul reflects on the first question raised by members of the community, those who claim that there is no resurrection of the dead (λέγουσιν ἐν ὑμῖν τινες). His argumentation consists of three thematically and terminologically related parts.135 1. vv. 12–19: Negative argument – Paul shows the consequences resulting from unbelief in Christ’s resurrection. The denial of the resurrection makes the Christian faith senseless and futile and results in the apostle being accused of giving false testimony (argumentatio ad personam).136 2. vv. 20–28: Statement – Paul introduces a new stage of his argumentation in a characteristic way (νυνὶ δέ)137 : he points to the veracity of Christ’s resurrection as the beginning and source of the general resurrection of the dead, and then he presents the order of events on the day of the parousia, when God will reign forever. 3. vv. 29–32: Positive argument – Paul refers to the Christian experience of faith: based on it, the Corinthians receive baptism on behalf of the dead, and at the same time, Paul endured persecutions and sufferings in Ephesus (argumentatio ad personam).138 – vv. 33–34: Conclusion – Paul resorts to the argumentatio ad personam (μὴ πλανᾶσθε – ὑμῖν λαλῶ): he accuses members of the community of being led astray and sinning, and that some of them do not know of God (τινες) (cf. v. 12).139

134 See the vocabulary used: εὐαγγέλιον – εὐηγγελισάμην – ἐπιστεύσατε (vv. 1–2), cf. inclusive ending κηρύσσομεν – ἐπιστεύσατε (v. 11). In this unit, there are many terms that are typical of the apostolic kerygma. 135 See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.109 n. 501. 136 The accumulation of negative elements is striking: the negative particle οὐ (vv. 12–17), terms with negative connotations κενός (v. 14), ψευδομάρτυρες and κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 15), μάταιος (v. 17) and ἐλεεινότεροι (v. 19). 137 It is a typical δέ-adversativum; cf. Rom 3:21; 6:22; 7:6; 1 Cor 5:11; 12:18; 13:13, etc. 138 In this part, there appear interrogatives, also as imperatives, which, however, concern being raised from the dead (εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται) (vv. 29. 32); cf. Fee, The First Epistle, 772. 139 It is an inclusive ending of the first stage of Paul’s argumentation (vv. 12–34). Using the rules of Greek rhetoric, we can treat the discussed unit as the first argumentatio with three parts: the refutatio (vv. 12–19), the confirmatio (vv. 20–28) and the probatio (vv. 29–34); cf. Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.154 (the author discusses various views on the rhetorical disposition of this text).

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

C The Apostle raises a new issue: the manner of the resurrection (πῶς), and most significant, the nature of the resurrected body (ποίῳ δὲ σώματι) (v. 35). His argument, based on analogy and the Bible, consists of three units: the picture, its application (vv. 36–41, 42–44) and arguments from the Scriptures (vv. 45–49).140 1. vv. 36–41: Picture – Paul refers to the images of seed, sowing and the variety of bodies that come to life (vv. 36–38) as well as many different earthly and heavenly bodies (vv. 39–41); all these bodies exist thanks to God’s creative power.141 2. vv. 42–44: Application of the picture (οὕτως καί) – Paul relates the multitude of bodies to the resurrection of the dead: the images of sowing and growing show the transformation of the physical body into a spiritual body, through the perishable to the imperishable.142 3. vv. 45–49: Argument from scripture (οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται) – the Apostle resorts to the typology Adam – Christ: as man has his origin in Adam (Gen 2:7), so he also has his beginning in Christ; if there is the man of dust, there will also be the man of heaven.143 – v. 50: Conclusion144 – summary of the arguments concerning the resurrection of the dead: Paul states that the man of dust will not inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.145 140 Conzelmann, Der erste Brief, 343, is quite right speaking about the free diatribic style of the unit. For this topic, see Fee, The First Epistle, 779; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.270–71; cf. Malherbe, “The Beasts at Ephesus,” 72–73; Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung, 72. Diatribe was a literary form common in Greek philosophical literature and rabbinical writings; see Morissette, “La condition de ressuscité,” 210–11, 227–28; cf. Hezser, “Interfaces Between Rabbinic Literature,” 168. 141 The vocabulary oscillates around the terms σπέρμα – σάρξ – σῶμα – δόξα; there are also numerous constructions based on opposition. In turn, vv. 39–41 form, as rightly noted by Fee (The First Epistle, 782–83), “a nearly perfect chiasm.” 142 Moreover, this part has characteristic words and numerous parallelisms and antitheses: we are struck by the use of the pair of verbs σπείρεται – ἐγείρεται (vv. 42b, 43a, 43b, 44a). Morissette, “La condition de ressuscité,” 224, 228, speaks about the hymnal nature of this unit. 143 The phrases σῶμα ψυχικόν – σῶμα πνευματικόν (vv. 44, 46) connect the new unit with the preceding one. 144 For several reasons, verse 50 should be considered as the conclusion closing the first part of the argument. The accumulation of formal elements is noteworthy: the verbum dicendi φημί, the invocation ἀδελφοί and ὅτι-recitativum. The presence of the formula τοῦτο δέ φημι, ἀδελφοί (cf. 1 Cor 7:29) does not necessarily imply the introduction of a new thought because the next episode is introduced by an equally emphatic formula (ἰδοὺ μυστήριον ὑμῖν λέγω) (v. 51); therefore, v. 50 is to be a literary and thematic unit that sums up the argument and prepares the final part. Most commentators wrongly link v. 50 to the following unit: see Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.361–62 n. 1799–1802; Barrett, The First Epistle, 379: “Paul begins to sum up”; Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung, 74–75; Conzelmann, Der erste Brief, 357–58 n. 10; cf. also Zeller, Der erste Brief, 519. 145 Verse 50 contains the new expression σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα, meaning “earthly man, mortal,” thematically related to the preceding lines. The theological topos βασιλεία θεοῦ (cf. vv. 24 and 28) and the

185

186

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

D vv. 51–58: In contrast to the argumentative part (vv. 1–50), the last part of his reasoning contains the solemn proclamation of the universal mystery (πάντες) of the participation of the living and the dead in immortality (ἀθανασία). Thanks to Christ, Christians gain victory over death, sin and the Law, and hence Paul makes his final call to be steadfast (v. 58). Paul’s argumentation in 1 Cor 15 is extremely precise. Each episode of his argumentation is an element of a chain, with its function and evidential power. The above observation first concerns the general literary composition of Paul’s apology, which is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead (A, B and C), while the second shows the mystery of the last day (D). The structure of the individual elements of his argumentation is similarly exact; each section ends with a conclusion. The first part has three arguments: the gospel of the Risen Christ (vv. 1–11), a defence of the resurrection of the dead (vv. 12–34) and the question about the nature of the resurrected body (vv. 35–50). Worth noting is the variety of ways of reasoning in 1 Cor 15: argument from scripture, typology, deductio ad absurdum, argumentatio ad personam, syllogism and analogy, to mention just a few.146 4.3

The Apology of the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Cor 15

The structure of 1 Cor 15 is the basis for our exegetical analysis. Nevertheless, we will extensively examine only those elements of Paul’s apology that help us recognise the historical and religious sources of the Corinthians’ denial of the resurrection of the dead. 4.3.1 The Risen Christ (vv. 1–11)

In the introductory part (vv. 1–11), the Apostle solemnly proclaims the gospel of the Risen Christ that was earlier preached in Corinth (γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν).147 The reason antithesis φθορά – ἀφθαρσία (cf. v. 42) formally relate to the preceding verses and also anticipate the following ones (vv. 52–54). 146 See also Rinaldo Fabris, Prima Lettera ai Corinzi. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (I libri biblici 7; Milano: Paoline, 1999), 192–93; Zeller, Der erste Brief, 455; see also John P. Heil, The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians (SBL; Leiden: Brill, 2005), esp. 3–10, 13–14 and 205–60; nevertheless, his proposal of a chiastic structure of Paul’s apology of the resurrection (1 Cor 15) is not convincing. 147 The sense of the verb γνωρίζω: “bekanntmachen, zu erkennen geben, offenbaren” (1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 8:1; Gal 1:11); see Bauer 326, who comments “1Kor 15 1, wo es sich um schon Bekanntes zu handeln scheint, ist γ. am Platze wegen der, offenbar als etwas Neues sich einführenden, theoret. Belehrung.” The term introduces a new theological theme and strongly emphasises the significance

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

why he preaches the message of the Risen Christ is given later (v. 12). However, the truth about Christ’s resurrection forms the basis of all his argumentation. Therefore, Paul must first show that its Christological foundation is beyond any doubt. He states that the Corinthians received the good news about the resurrection of Christ, in which they stand,148 thus, they belong to those who are saved (vv. 1–2).149 Next, he indicates that the kerygma of Christ’s resurrection is part of the apostolic tradition that he received and passed on to the Corinthians (vv. 3b–4; cf. 1 Cor 11:23). Proclaiming Christ’s death for our sins, his burial and his being raised from the dead (ἐγήγερται),150 the Apostle points to the fulfilment of the scriptures in these events (vv. 3–4). Most certainly, this is not only about the realisation of some concrete prophetic announcements (cf. Isa 53:1–12; Hos 6:1–3), but generally about the scriptures as a subject of theological interpretation and their evidential power.151 Authenticating his message of the resurrection, Paul lists the eyewitnesses to the Christophanies: Peter, the twelve, more than five hundred brothers, most of whom are still alive, then James, all the apostles, and finally, he says that Christ appeared also to him (vv. 5–8). This long list of eyewitnesses to the appearances of Christ is intended to authenticate the apostolic tradition: Christ has indeed risen from the dead. Lastly, the Apostle states that, no matter who the preachers of the gospel were, the Corinthians heard the message of Christ’s resurrection and believed it (cf. vv. 1–2, 10). Although the faith of the Corinthians and its practice – in light of the entire letter of 1 Cor – leaves much to be desired, Paul did not question the faith of the Corinthians in the resurrection of Christ in this pericope. The opposite must be said: the Corinthians have received and still believe in the gospel of the Risen Christ.152

148 149

150

151 152

of his statement. Paul, forced by the circumstances, again had to proclaim the Corinthians the fundamental truth about the Risen Christ that they had heard and received (v. 1), reminding them that it was one of the fundamental truths of the faith (v. 3); see Thiselton, The First Epistle, 1183. The grammatical form of the verb ἑστήκατε (indicativus perfecti activi of the verb ἵστημι) shows that the effects of the action begun in the past still influence the present. See BDR §318.4. The literary meaning of σῴζεσθε is “are being saved” (indicativus praesentis passivi) (cf. 1 Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 2:15), although it can be understood in the future sense (“you will be saved” – “salvation is here and will still be realised”); cf. Rom 5:9–10; 10:9; the aoristum in Rom 8:24. See Barrett, The First Epistle, 336. Note the unusual grammatical form ἐγήγερται (indicativus perfecti passivi of the verb ἐγείρω), here a passivum theologicum, indicating that the rising of the buried Christ is God’s work (see 1 Cor 15:12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20; cf. v. 15), and its effects extend to the present. It is more important considering that Paul usually uses the indicativus aoristi (Rom 4:24; 6:4, 9; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 2 Cor 4:14; 5:15; Gal 1:1). See Albrecht Oepke, “ἐγείρω κτλ,” TWNT 2.334; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.37–38. See Witherington, Conflict and Community, 299; Thiselton, The First Epistle, 1189-90. Wilson, “The Corinthians,” 103: “Paul is presupposing that they believe in the resurrection of Christ,” see also Fee, The First Epistle, 718–21; Vos, “Argumentation und Situation,” 315-17; different views

187

188

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

4.3.2 The Resurrection of the Dead (vv. 12–34)

Having created an irrefutable base for his argumentation, the Apostle takes up the problem that was the immediate reason for his speech. It is a fact that some members of the Corinthian community say that there is no resurrection of the dead. The Apostle’s extensive reasoning covers three parts, differing in form and content (vv. 12–19, 20–28 and 29–34). He highlights the cause-and-effect relationships between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead.153 First, Paul quotes the words of the supposed opponents of the resurrection: “Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” (v. 12). At least three elements of this verse are worth noting, since they shed a lot of light on the whole section (vv. 12–19). The first observation concerns Paul’s referral to the resurrection of Christ, “Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead …” (v. 12) given as evidence for the general resurrection of the dead. He builds upon the previous foundation (vv. 1–11) to defend the truth of the resurrection. The verse can be understood as meaning that Christ’s resurrection is convincing proof of the possibility and truth of the resurrection of the dead because such an event has already taken place (the rule of modus tollens). This unique syllogism reappears in the following verses as a hypothetical negative assumption in the conditional (vv. 13, 14, 16, 17). Therefore, it cannot be ignored, although the purpose of the Apostle’s argumentation is certainly not to provide logical evidence for the resurrection of the dead.154 Another comment relates to the unknown Corinthian opponents of the resurrection. They certainly belonged to the community (“some of you / among you”) (ἐν ὑμῖν τινες), but their view was evidently not the belief of the entire community. Analysing Paul’s use of the indefinite pronoun τινές (pluralis) allows us to conclude that he describes a small group of people that cannot be identified with the community as a whole.155 We know neither who the opponents of the resurrection were

in Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.27–31, and Barrett, The First Epistle, 336–37, who stress the weakness and limitations of the faith of the Corinthian Christians. 153 Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung, 255–89, describes the content of the first section of Paul’s reasoning: Christological consequences of the denial of the resurrection (vv. 12–19), the cosmic meaning of the resurrection (vv. 20–28) and the existential effects of the denial of the resurrection (vv. 29–34). He titles this section “Die theologische Notwendigkeit der Totenauferstehung.” 154 See the discussion: Fee, The First Epistle, 738–40 n. 5, and Vos, “Argumentation und Situation,” 317-20; cf. Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.126–27 n. 566 i 569. The section (vv. 12–19) shows conclusively that Paul was familiar with logical constructions, and they must be noticed in his apology; see also Fee, The First Epistle, 742–43; especially Barrett, The First Epistle, 348. 155 It is a descriptive phrase using the preposition ἐν in place of the genetivus partitivus τινες ὑμῶν (BDR §164.1c); cf. Rom 3:8; 1 Cor 4:18; Gal 1:7; cf. Rom 3:3; 1 Cor 6:11; 8:7; 15:6; 2 Cor 3:1; Phil 1:15. See Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 562; Zeller, Der erste Brief, 477: “eine Minderheit.”

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

nor what positions they held in the community. However, they might have been prominent and influential members of the Corinthian Church, indicated by the seriousness with which the Apostle argues against their views. Paul saw them as a great threat to the faith of the Corinthian Church. However, in his apology, Paul does not allow them to speak any more, nor does he address them directly, but instead addresses the entire community, being concerned about all its members. One should keep this in mind, since the Apostle’s argument is not a direct polemic with the views of the deniers of the resurrection, but a full theological explication addressed to the entire Church in Corinth.156 Paul was equally enigmatic about the erroneous view advocated by his opponents. They argue that there is no resurrection of the dead and that such a thing does not exist (ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν). This claim is general but it must have come from pagan or Gentile Christian circles. Jews, except the Sadducees, and Christians generally believed in the resurrection (see Dan 12:2; 2 Macc 7:9, 14; 12:43–44; 1 En. 51:5; 102:8).157 It would also be useful to mention that pagans believed in an afterlife, although these beliefs assumed different forms.158 In the next verses, the Apostle utilises other expressions: ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν (vv. 12, 13) and νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται (vv. 16, 20, 29, 32) in the negative wording, and also ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν (vv. 21, 42) and ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί (vv. 35, 42, 52) in the positive. Paul invents different phrases to describe the same situation. The above is about the physical resurrection of a dead person, his re-existence in the

156 See Fee, The First Epistle, 740. Although the Apostle seems to quote some interlocutor again (ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις) (v. 35), it is a rhetorical device dependent on the diatribic form of the fragment; cf. Fabris, Prima Lettera ai Corinzi, 207; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 587: “The ‘someone’ might be one of the ‘some’ of v. 12b.” Yet, there is no evidence to recognise that “some” in 1 Cor 15:12 are the same adversaries as those in 1 Cor 4:18. 157 This has been discussed in the previous chapters; see Robertson and Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 346; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.122–23; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 560–63; Zeller, Der erste Brief, 480-4; cf. John G. Cook, “Resurrection in Paganism and the Question of an Empty Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15,” NTS 63 (2017): 60–74; writing: “From the second century BCE onward clear traces of resurrection can be found in some Jewish texts” (p. 60). See also Endsjø, Greek Resurrection Beliefs, 121–40; Joseph S. Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions: With Special Reference to Pauline Literature (WUNT 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). 158 See Meeks, The First Urban Christian, 181–82, stating: “Other evidence, notably the philosophic and rhetorical literature on consolation, seems to assume widely held beliefs in personal immortality”; see also Endsjø, Greek Resurrection Beliefs, chapters two (pp. 21–45) and three (pp. 47–104), where the author reviews the Greek beliefs in afterlife. Cf. John G. Cook, “The Greek Vocabulary for Resurrection in Paganism,” in Israel M. Gallarte and Jesús Peláez, eds., In mari via tua. Philological Studies in Honour of Antonio Piñero (EFN 11; Córdoba: Ediciones El Almendro, 2016), 197-216, esp. 216: “The concept of resurrection (temporary or permanent) would have been intelligible to pagans familiar with these stories, and the words used to describe the pagan resurrections are (with the exception of ἀναβιόω) the same as those used by the NT authors.”

189

190

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

body or, negatively rephrasing this, which the deniers of the resurrection do, about rejecting such a possibility. The truth of the resurrection of the dead was denied, but Paul gave neither arguments nor reasons for this denial.159 Paul defends the general truth about the resurrection of the dead in Christ in order to defend the Christian apostolic message preached in Corinth. His main intention is to show the dramatic consequences of denying Christ’s resurrection. The logic of his argument is remarkable. Assuming the truth of the Corinthians’ statements, Paul points out that the message proclaimed by the apostles in Corinth and the faith of the Corinthians are unjustified and worthless because they are fruitless (κενός).160 The proclaimers of Christ’s resurrection turned out to be false witnesses and liars before God (vv. 12–15). Supposing once again the truth of the opponents’ claim, Paul goes on to say that the faith of the Corinthians is fruitless and futile, even in vain (μάταιος).161 “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised” and then those who believe in Christ are still in their sins, while the deceased Christians are actually lost (ἀπώλοντο). The Apostle shows the catastrophic effects – soteriological and eschatological – of denying Christ’s resurrection and the resurrection of the dead (cf. vv. 16–18).162 In the last line of the fragment, the climactic and dramatic emphasis is on the pitiful condition of Christians if there is indeed no resurrection. The Apostle writes: “If for this life only (εἰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ ταύτῃ … μόνον) we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied” (v. 19).163 His words are very meaningful, since they show the Corinthian dispute about the resurrection from a different perspective. Paul points out the ultimate consequences of the denial of the resurrection for Christians; he also mentions that the Corinthian denial of the resurrection factually was a negation of everything that exceeds “this life only” and reaches beyond the

159 It is extremely instructive to read the results of the research on the semantic field of the verbs ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω in the ancient Jewish and pagan texts published by Cook, for example, “Resurrection,” 59: “Both verbs imply a physical motion upward from the state of sleep, lying down or death – in contexts where individuals are sleeping, lying down or dead” and “Physical motion upward (usually ‘standing up’) is implied in all these texts.” For further interesting examples from Greek literature, see Dag Ø. Endsjø, “Immortal Bodies before Christ: Bodily Continuity in Ancient Greece and 1 Corinthians,” JSNT 30 (2008): 419–31. 160 Here the adjective κενός means “fruitless, empty, vain”; see LSJ 938; Bauer 870. 161 See LSJ 1084; Bauer 1004. 162 For the topic of complete destruction, see 1 Cor 1:18; 8:11; 2 Cor 2:15; 4:3, 9; cf. Rom 9:22; Phil 1:28; 3:19. See Albrecht Oepke, “ἀπόλλυμι, ἀπώλεια,” TWNT 1.394–96. 163 All commentaries show an interesting syntactic problem: which word should the adverb μόνον refer to? Is it τῇ ζωῇ ταύτῃ (“if only in this life”) or ἐν Χριστῷ ἠλπικότες ἐσμὲν (“if only we have hope in Christ”)? See Barrett, The First Epistle, 350; Fee, The First Epistle, 744–45, who is right opting for the first possibility; also Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.134 n. 60, and most authors. Cf. an isolated view of Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung, 259–60.

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

present form of this world (cf. 1 Cor 7:30–31). Denying the resurrection of the dead means that death is the end of everything. If there is no resurrection, Christians live and die only in this world and should expect nothing more (cf. vv. 30–32).164 The next section (vv. 20–28) brings a change of rhetoric and a new theological theme. In opposition to the hypothetical denial of the resurrection, Paul forcefully (νυνὶ δέ) proclaims the kerygma of Christ being raised from the dead (v. 20) and portrays his resurrection as the beginning of a new aeon and the universal reign of God. At this point, the aim of Paul’s reasoning is not an apology for the kerygma of Christ’s resurrection but to proclaim the cosmic significance of the resurrection for all people and the entire world. Although this eschatological description resembles a scenario of the parousia (2 Thess 2:1–12; cf. 1 Thess 4:15–17; 1 Cor 15:51–52), the Apostle’s intention was different. The ultimate goal of the events initiated by the resurrection is the final victory of Christ and God over all powers, and above all, victory over death, so that God’s reign would come and God would be “all in all” (vv. 25–28), not in a mystical sense (union with God) or pantheistic (mutual interpenetration), but as a sign of God’s lordship and omnipotence (1 Cor 8:6; Rom 9:5; 11:36). Paul does not present an existential and individual but ontic and universal dimension of Christ’s resurrection that includes the entire cosmos.165 Having shown God’s final victory over the powers of evil and death, the Apostle uses the ad hominem argument to explain the practical consequences of the claim that there is no resurrection of the dead and that the dead are not raised. This concludes the arguments for the resurrection (vv. 29–34).166 Paul poses a series of rhetorical questions, which are characteristic of the literary diatribe he uses here. First, he refers to the Corinthian custom of receiving baptism on behalf of the dead

164 See Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 564–65. An interesting parallel to 1 Cor 15:19 can be found in the Syriac Baruch: “For if only this life exists which everyone possesses here, nothing could be more bitter than this” (2 Bar. 21:13; cf. also Philo, Mos. 1.193). In Jewish apocalypticism, there was a scheme of two eons, “in this transitory world” and “in that world, to which there is no end” (cf. 2 Bar. 48:50). This apocalyptic scheme appears in Paul’s theology, including the verse under discussion (cf. Rom 8:18; 1 Cor 13:10; 2 Cor 4:17; also Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 3:22). 165 Heil, The Rhetorical Role of Scripture, 212-19, esp. p. 219. Some commentators state this and emphasise the reality of death and its future destruction (vv. 21–22, 26; cf. vv. 54–57); Paul resorted to the most important argument against the erroneous views of the Corinthian enthusiasts and pneumatics who denied the resurrection. They relativized or even neutralised death and its cosmic power, and perhaps even considered themselves immortal, at least co-reigning and belonging to the kingdom of Christ, as having a share in heavenly salvation. See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.336–37; Zeller, Der erste Brief, 493-4. 166 Incidentally, let us note the isolated opinion of W.O. Walker, who recognised vv. 29–34 as a non-Pauline interpolation: William O. Walker JR, “1 Corinthians 15:29–34 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation,” CBQ 69 (2007): 84: “The purpose of this study is to argue that 1 Cor 15:29–34 is an interpolation, neither composed by Paul nor included by him in his Corinthian letter.”

191

192

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

(v. 29), then speaks of his life as an apostle and missionary (vv. 30–32) and finally, he draws parenetic conclusions (vv. 33–34). The controversial reference to the Corinthians receiving baptism on behalf of the dead, most likely vicarious baptism (v. 29),167 is relevant here for one reason. In Paul’s reasoning, baptism on behalf of the dead is an argument for the resurrection since “if the dead are not raised at all (ὅλως),” the Corinthians who received baptism for the dead would be contradicting themselves and acting senselessly. Yet, they awaited future salvific events, and such a baptism was a substitutive cleansing of the deceased from their sins, including the dead in the death and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 1:12–17; 10:2; 12:13; Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27). Paul reminded the Corinthians of the practice to defend the truth about the resurrection of the dead.168 Moreover, his use of the adverb ὅλως (“completely, in general, at all”)169 reveals that the Corinthian dispute was about the denial of any form of afterlife. Paul again polemises with the idea that death is the ultimate closing and end of existence. The question of the identity of the Corinthians baptized on behalf of the dead remains open

167 The most correct sense of the phrase is “receive baptism on behalf.” See Barrett, The First Epistle, 362: “Baptized, without further explanation, can hardly have any other than its Pauline meaning.” Cf. Albrecht Oepke, “βάπτω βαπτίζω κτλ,” TWNT 1.538, 540–42; Fee, The First Epistle, 764–67; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.237–40, 251–53; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 578–80, who is discussing “most commonly proposed explanations.” See also Richard E. DeMaris, “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology,” JBL 114 (1995): 661–82; Joel R. White, “‘Baptized on Account of the Dead.’ The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in Its Context,” JBL 116 (1997): 488–92. Another line of interpretation of baptism for the dead is proposed by Michael F. Hull, Baptism on Account of the Dead (1 Cor 15:29). An Act of Faith in the Resurrection (SBL. Academia Biblica 22; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 7–49; similarly, see Schottroff, Der erste Brief, 308: “Menschen aus den Völkern haben Sich wegen (hyper) der Toten und des Gottes, der sie aufweckt, taufen lassen.” 168 See Hull, Baptism on Account, 224: “Whatever ‘baptism on account of the dead’ is, it is an affirmation of the resurrection, and that affirmation is directed to those who need to hear it”; see also p. 226: “What is abundantly clear is that the βαπτιζόμενοι and Paul are both in the process of some practical activity that is affirmative of the resurrection”; and esp. 236: “As uncomplicated as our reading of 15:29 is, its full import becomes clear only when we realize the gravity of the crisis of faith in the resurrection of the dead.” See also Witherington, Conflict and Community, 305 n. 58; Vos, “Argumentation und Situation,” 324-35. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor does not agree with this opinion; see Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “‘Baptized for the Dead’ (1 Cor 15:29): A Corinthian Slogan?” in Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthian, 242–56, esp. 255: “The fact of baptism proves nothing about resurrection.” 169 Here in an emphatic use (cf. 1 Cor 5:1; 6:7). Cf. Fee, The First Epistle, 763 n. 13; cf. LSJ 1218; Bauer 1145–46.

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

(cf. 1 Pet 4:6).170 Undoubtedly, they were part of a separate, smaller group within the Corinthian Church – οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι (note the article).171 In the following verses, Paul, referring to the example of his life, rhetorically asks the Corinthians about the meaning of his apostolic mission if the dead are not raised (vv. 30–32). Using hyperbolic phrases, he describes his life: “why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour?” (v. 30; cf. 2 Cor 11:23–29), “I die every day!” (v. 31a) and “I fought with wild animals at Ephesus” (v. 32a; cf. 2 Tim 4:17).172 He contrasts this pitiful fate of an apostle and missionary with the Epicurean attitude of carpe diem for “tomorrow we die” (v. 32b). The essence of his argument is in the chiastically constructed reasoning. If his struggles and fights were merely human (κατὰ ἄνθρωπον) (cf. 1 Cor 3:3), what would be their sense – Paul asks – and what would he have gained by it? The supposed answer is “none” (cf. v. 19).173 Next, Paul recalls the words of the prophet Isaiah: “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’” (φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνῄσκομεν) (Isa 22:13). The Apostle considers his struggles and hardships for the gospel useless and worthless if there is no resurrection. This statement does not exhaust the significance of the text as the quotation from Isaiah evoked in the minds of the recipients, not so much its Old Testament meaning, but as a common slogan of anti-Epicurean polemic. The formula “let us eat and drink” was a synonym for a dissolute and revolting life, primarily associated with the Epicureans.174 Although 170 It is wrong to identify those who are baptized for the dead (v. 29) with the opponents of the resurrection (v. 12) because in this verse, there is nothing to favour of such identification. On the contrary, Paul’s unusual use of the plural (tertia pluralis instead of the secunda pluralis) indicates a specific group of Corinthians. See Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung, 281–82; however, cf. Doughty, “The Presence and Future,” 76 n. 63: “those who practised vicarious baptism were not the same as those who denied the resurrection”; likewise, firmly Zeller, Der erste Brief, 499; Vos, “Argumentation und Situation,” 324. 171 See Raymond Collins, First Corinthians (Sacra Pagina 7; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 557: “Paul’s unusual use of the third person plural in a rhetorical question suggests that the practice may not have been widespread among the Corinthian Christians. Only a few of them may have practiced vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead”; Barrett, The First Epistle, 362: “a particular group, not all Christians.” See also Szymik, “The Corinthian Opponents,” 445–46. 172 The issue of Paul’s fighting with “wild animals” has been discussed widely. We can understand the verb ἐθηριομάχησα (v. 32) in the literal sense as Paul’s fight with animals in the arena at Ephesus (very unlikely) or metaphorically, preferred by exegetes, as fighting with people, most likely his adversaries (1 Cor 16:9; 2 Cor 1:8–11; 4:10; 11:23; Rom 8:36; 16:17–18). See Malherbe, “The Beasts at Ephesus,” 71–80; cf. Conzelmann, Der erste Brief, 339–40; Fee, The First Epistle, 700–71; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.242–44 n. 1176–86; ibid., 255–56. 173 See Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 582: “why should he as a human being have faced such danger, if there were not the motivation that the resurrection of the dead promises?” The phrase κατὰ ἄνθρωπον occurs six times in Paul’s letters (1 Cor 3:3; 9:8; 15:32; cf. Rom 3:5; Gal 1:11; 3:15). 174 Numerous, though not always accurate, quotations are given by Neuer Wettstein, 2.1.396–400; cf. also Walter Ameling, “FAGWMEN KAI PIWMEN. Griechische Parallelen zu zwei Stellen aus dem

193

194

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

the formula did not correspond to Epicurus’ authentic views on a pleasant life, it was a stereotypic opinion, common and popular with the ancients.175 Having recalled examples from the Christian life, Paul addresses the Corinthians with an exhortation and a call to repent (vv. 33–34). By quoting the known proverb of the author of comedies Menander (or Euripides): “Bad company (ὁμιλίαι κακαί) ruins good morals” (v. 33),176 the Apostle generally warns of bad company and/or bad conversation. Being in bad company is usually accompanied by harmful conversations, and this in turn had a negative impact on the community. For further analysis, the mention of the bad company that Corinthian Christians entered into, which had a destructive influence on the daily life of the Church, is important here. Apparently, the Corinthians continued to maintain contacts with their pagan environment. Therefore, Paul calls them to come to a sober and right mind (ἐκνήψατε δικαίως)177 and leave sin alone (μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε) (v. 34a).178 Accusing “some” of having no knowledge of God closes the parenetic part (v. 34b). This part is not only the theoretical ignorance of God and his nature (ἄγνοια) (cf. Acts 17:30), but also the reprehensible behaviour and way of life resulting from a misunderstanding of God’s matters (ἀγνωσία). The Corinthians do not understand God’s power and the universal meaning of Christ’s resurrection (vv. 20–28). Paul must have had in mind some members of the community, most likely the opponents of the resurrection, as shown by the context (τίνες) (vv. 12 and 34). It is usually assumed that the metaphorically understood appeal for sobriety and reflection is a call to

175

176

177

178

Neuen Testament,” ZPE 60 (1985): 35–43, with further comparative material, mainly sepulchral inscriptions. The idea that here we are dealing with Epicurean thought was formulated earlier by Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum, 2.169: “epicureorum vox.” Cf. Malherbe, “The Beasts at Ephesus,” 77: “His quotation from Isa 22 13 ... in this context would be reminiscent of the slogan attributed to the Epicureans and reflects the contemporary anti-Epicurean bias”; Fee, The First Epistle, 772; cf. Heil, The Rhetorical Role, 221–29: “Paul’s audience is to recognize the quotation in 1 Cor 15:32b as a popular slogan, which is incidentally very aptly expressed in Isa 22:13b, that characterizes a lifestyle practiced and promoted by many at the time of Paul – one that has no hope in a resurrection of the dead” (p. 228); see also Allo, Saint Paul, 411, commenting on vv. 29–34: “Il semble que l’Apôtre assimile bien ici le scepticisme qu’il combat à un certain épicuréisme gros de conséquences immorales” (p. 417). See Fabris, Prima Lettera ai Corinzi, 207. The phrase ὁμιλίαι κακαί can be rendered as “bad, wrong company” and as “bad conversations” (Latin: conloquia mala, Vulgate). For the meaning of this phrase, see LSJ 1222; Bauer 1146. Here metaphorically; the literal sense of ἐκνήφω (hapax legomenon in the NT): “wake up” (Hab 2:7, 19; cf. 1 Thess 5:6) and “awake from one’s stupor, to sober up after drinking wine” (Gen 9:24; 1 Sam 25:37; Joel 1:5). See Bauernfeind, “νήφω,” 940; Bauer 1090. Note the forms of the verbs: ἐκνήψατε (imperativus aoristi) means a rigid single call to sober up; μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε (imperativus praesentis) is a call to assume the attitude of leaving sin alone. See BDR §335; §337.3.

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

abandon their state of pneumatic elation and spiritual enthusiasm and return to a sober mind, capable of grasping the reality of the resurrection of the dead.179 4.3.3 The Resurrection of the Body (vv. 35–50)

In the two earlier sections of Paul’s argumentation, the focus was on the resurrection of Christ (vv. 1–11) as the pledge and first fruits of the general resurrection (vv. 12–34). In the third part, the Apostle deals with the way the dead resurrect (vv. 35–50) and its content, i. e., the resurrected body (v. 35). Paul formulates arguments from observing the created world and the Scriptures. From a formal point of view, the argumentation first uses reasoning by analogy: a picture (vv. 36–41) and its application (vv. 42–44); the final, new point of his argument is the conclusion that “[i]f there is a physical body (ψυχικόν), there is also a spiritual body (πνευματικόν)” (v. 44). This statement is supported by an argument from the Scriptures (vv. 45–49). The generalizing, final conclusion (v. 50) is separate from the arguments that precede and follow it, but its content is closely related to them. The introductory question reveals the fundamental problem raised by the Apostle in this section. It is about the nature of the resurrected body: “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” (v. 35). The first problem associated with this uncertainty is: does the question reflect the views of the opponents of the resurrection or is the Apostle personally reflecting on the nature of the resurrected body without any relation to his opponents’ claims? The second possibility is unlikely.180 One can hardly imagine, simply considering the complexity of the statement, that it would be unrelated to the allegations of the opponents, as some commentators would claim. Paul undertook a specific problem that was actually put forward by his opponents.181 The very formulation of the problem (“How are the

179 This is how Schrage interprets the text, Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.249–50: “Laßt den Enthusiasmus und Illusionismus dahinten”; cf. Fee, The First Epistle, 774; Conzelmann, Der erste Brief, 341–42. The proposed interpretation assumes that the denial of the resurrection of the dead was a manifestation of the Corinthians’ religious enthusiasm (“realized eschatology”). Thus, the text is interpreted from the perspective of the whole letter of 1 Cor, but not everyone shares this view. See Malherbe, “The Beasts at Ephesus,” esp. 76–79; also Tomlin, “Christians and Epicureans,” 56–58; Zeller, Der erste Brief, 504. 180 This is the sense of the verse as commented by Conzelmann, Der erste Brief, 343 n. 8. Other authors think that Paul did not know the real views of the Corinthian opponents of the resurrection, and thus his argumentation is misplaced. See Ulrichsen, “Die Auferstehungsleugner in Korinth,” 790 n. 27 (the author lists numerous followers of this opinion). 181 Many exegetes assume the obvious connection between the question and the dispute on the resurrection. From among the quoted works: Allo, Saint Paul, 421: “Paul arrive au coeur du problème”; Fee, The First Epistle, 775–8: “it responses to the real issue that led to their denial of the resurrection”; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.271 n. 1332: “die Fragen etwas mit der korinthischen Sicht

195

196

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”)182 would not necessarily have come from the deniers of the resurrection, but might have reflected the difficulty that caused some Corinthians to disbelieve in the resurrection of the dead. In the first part of his answer (vv. 36–41), the Apostle refers to images taken from the created world, which he then applies by analogy to the mystery of the resurrection of the dead (vv. 42–44). The first picture, also known in biblical tradition, shows a sown wheat grain that must first die in order to come back to life in the form intended by God (vv. 36–38; cf. John 12:24). This picture includes two key elements: the relationship between dying and life and the difference between the seed sown and its subsequent form. In order to shed light on the mystery of death and resurrection, Paul resorts to the image of the dying seed, which was known and widespread in the ancient world. Similar images appeared in Jewish writings as well as in Greek literature and religiosity.183 Paul makes the recipients of his letter aware of the natural course of things: death is the seed of a new life, the new form that is different from the dying seed. The variety of the resulting bodies depends on the creative will of God (v. 38). To illustrate God’s creative power, the Apostle further points to the variety of creatures existing in the cosmos, each of which has its own type of body (vv. 39–41). The aim of recalling these two realities, namely the sown grain of wheat (vv. 36–38) and the multiplicity of earthly bodies and heavenly bodies (vv. 39–41) is to relate these images to the truth about the resurrection of the dead (vv. 42–44). Paul’s answer has four antitheses, but his final statement is the most important: “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body” (v. 44b).184 This verse is the

der Dinge zu tun haben”; also others: Witherington, Conflict and Community, 306; Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 289; Zeller, Der erste Brief, 506–7: “Die Fragen, die V. 35 gestellt werden, sind so wohl nicht nur die der τινές von V. 12, sondern auch die der korinthischen Mehrheit, die in Gefahr ist, Sich von ihren Slogans anstecken zu lassen (vgl. zu V. 50).” 182 Literally: ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔρχονται; the verb ἔρχομαι suggests that Paul or the questioners mean the dead “coming out” from the tomb as Christ did (v. 4); see Barrett, The First Epistle, 370. The word δέ functions as an explanatory particle (δέ-explicativum) (BDR §447.1c). 183 Of special interest are the rabbinic texts (bSanh. 90b; bKetub. 111b), whose authors use the qalwahomer rule to defend the resurrection and at the same time, to illustrate it. See Morissette, “La condition de ressuscité,” 211–16; examples from pagan literature are quoted by Conzelmann, Der erste Brief, 344. 184 Paul uses Greek terms, but their contents show the viewpoint of biblical anthropology. See Heil, The Rhetorical Role of Scripture, 231–45. Commenting on 1 Cor 15:44, DeWitt (St. Paulus and Epicurus, 115) writes: “What Paul was saying is this: ‘If there is a body animated by a mortal soul, there is also a body animated by an immortal spirit’.” See also Conzelmann, Der erste Brief, 346–47; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.294–97; Fee, The First Epistle, 784–86: “they describe the one body in the terms of its essential characteristics as earthly, on the one hand, and therefore belonging to the life of the present age, and as heavenly, on the other, and therefore belonging to the life of the Spirit in the age to come. It is «spiritual», not in the sense of «immaterial» but of «supernatural» ...” (p. 786);

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

culmination of the Apostle’s argument in defence of the bodily resurrection of the dead.185 The scriptural argument introduced here goes back to the Adam – Christ typology. It aims to document and explain the earlier statement that, if there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body (v. 44b). The Apostle twice refers to Gen 2:7 LXX to comment on the text, using a kind of exegetical midrash: first the physical, then the supernatural and the spiritual (vv. 45–46). In the second part, Paul explains that the first man is earthly, since he was made of earth, while the other man is heavenly (v. 47). This antithesis not only emphasises the fundamental difference that exists between the ancestors of mankind, Adam and Christ, but also generalises the picture, embracing all mankind in the two representatives: “as was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven” (v. 48). The parenetic punch line concludes the Apostle’s arguments (v. 49).186 cf. Eduard Schweizer, “πνεῦμα,” TWNT 6.418, defining: “der neue Leib besteht nicht aus πνεῦμα, sondern ist durch das πνεῦμα bestimmt.” 185 See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.297–302; Barrett, The First Epistle, 373: “He gives here his answer to the question of verse 35”; see also Morissette, “La condition de ressuscité,” 222: “le verset 44b contient l‘énoncé central.” 186 1 Cor 15:49 contains an interesting critical-textual problem. We read: καὶ καθὼς ἐφορέσαμεν τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, φορέσομεν καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου. The reading φορέσομεν (indicativus futuri activi) is attested to by a few external witnesses, out of which the most important ones are codex B (4th c.) and codex I (5th c.), minuscules dated to later periods (38, 206, 218, 630, etc., all from the 12th to the 14th cc.). In place of φορέσομεν the main textual witnesses have φορέσωμεν (coniunctivus praesentis activi) as encouragement or call, like papyrus p46 (ca. 2nd c.), codices ‫א‬, A, C, D, F, G and most other witnesses (e. g., minuscule 33, 81, 104, etc. from the 9th to the 11th cc.). Despite the unequivocal meaning of the external witnesses, the overwhelming majority of exegetes support the less attested to reading φορέσομεν (Latin portabimus – “we will bear”), first of all for theological reasons in the context of 1 Cor 15 (didactic and not parenetic). See Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 569; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.312 no. 1533. Not everyone agrees with this opinion, believing that external witnesses take precedence over exegetical and theological argumentation. See esp. Fee, The First Epistle, 787 no. 5, and pp. 794–95, where the author critically refers to ignoring external witnesses and asks (exactly because of the context) how it was possible that the more difficult reading φορέσωμεν (“let us bear the heavenly image”) was created, cf. the early work of Allo, Saint Paul, 429–30. In the context of the discussion about the Epicurean elements in 1 Cor 15, it is significant to support one opinion or the other. Accepting the more difficult reading means that Paul is granting the Corinthians, as well as all the baptized and all believers in Christ, a new status and mode of existence: “as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us [now] also bear the image of the man of heaven.” Thus, the theses about the pneumatic, enthusiastic sources of the denial of the resurrection become problematic; therefore, Paul gives an argument that is factually a presumed source of the denial of the resurrection (the Corinthians are already reigning, have already been raised from the dead). See Stefan Szymik, “Textkritische und exegetisch-theologische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 15,49,” Roczniki Teologiczne 52.1 (2005): 117–33; cf. Thiselton, The First Epistle, 1188–89; Zeller, Der erste Brief, 505 n. 306.

197

198

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

Summing up the analysis of vv. 35–49, just as Christ’s resurrection is the basis of the resurrection of the dead (vv. 20–28), so Christ’s resurrection in a glorified body foreshadows the bodily resurrection of the dead, which will be the work of God’s power (vv. 45–49). Ultimately, all living beings have part in the first Adam, and likewise, all have part in the eschatic Adam. The concluding statement has a dual function (v. 50). On the one hand, it crowns and closes the argument for the resurrection, and on the other hand, it prepares the final part of the apology. The first part of the verse, “flesh and blood (σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα) cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (v. 50a), has clear biblical connotations.187 The other part is abstractive and philosophical but again it gives the same theological truth: “nor does the perishable (φθορά) inherit the imperishable (ἀφθαρσία)” (v. 50b). Both terms belonged to Epicurus’ vocabulary.188 4.3.4 The Mystery of the Last Day (vv. 51–58)

The last part of Paul’s apology, which has an eschatological overtone (vv. 51–58), contains three main theological themes. First of all, the mystery of the last day is revealed, when the living will be changed and the dead will rise from the dead. The Apostle focuses neither on the resurrected body nor on the manner of the resurrection. Instead, he broadens his perspective to present eschatic salvific events in which all the living and the dead are involved: they will instantly put on imperishability and immortality (vv. 51–53; cf. 1 Thess 4:15–17). The fulfilment of this announcement will be a sign of the final victory over death, whose sting – a typical idea of Paul – is sin, and the power of sin comes from the Law. Paul does not emphasise the victory of Christ as he did before (vv. 25–28), but highlights the definitive and irrevocable defeat of death. Death has almost human (and/or animal) characteristics and a cosmic range (vv. 54–56; cf. Hos 13:14). Paul’s solemn thanks to God for including all believers in the victory over death through “our Lord Jesus Christ” ends with a song of victory and the revelation of the mystery of the last day (v. 57; cf. Rom 5:1, 11; 1 Thess 5:9). The parenesis that closes the apology summarises all his arguments defending the truth of the resurrection (v. 58). It includes guidelines for the community: “Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labor is not in vain” (v. 58). The Apostle’s encouragement is strengthened by an important statement: the Corinthians know that, in the Lord, none of their labour

187 This rare OT expression, σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα (Sir 14:18; 17:31; Wis 12:5; cf. 1 En. 15:4), reappears in Paul’s letters (Gal 1:16; cf. Matt 16:17; Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14), and also the phrase βασιλεία θεοῦ (1 Cor 6:9–10; Gal 5:21; cf. Matt 25:34). See Eduard Schweizer, “σάρξ,” TWNT 7.128; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.363. 188 See Usener, Glossarium epicureum, 135, 706; cf. LSJ 289; MM 96.

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

is wasted. Paul is here not only referring to thoughts that previously appeared in his apology (cf. vv. 10 and 14), but is also providing a hermeneutical premise. The views of the small group opposing the resurrection should not be extended to include the entire Corinthian Church, characterised by living faith and piety.189 The Pauline apology of the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15) is, in fact, a proclamation of the mystery of the resurrection, an apostolic message about the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of all believers in Christ. Its starting point and basis are the gospel of the resurrection of Christ (vv. 1–11), into which the general resurrection of believers is inscribed (vv. 12–34). The gospel is followed by the mystery of the bodily resurrection (vv. 35–50). Paul ends his apology by giving a prophetic vision of the last day, when the final transformation of the living and the dead will take place, and death will be definitively defeated (vv. 51–58). 4.4

The Corinthian denial of the resurrection

The foregoing analyses are the basis for a more detailed understanding of the views of the Corinthian opponents of the resurrection. Our approach will be supported only by the data contained in 1 Cor 15. This is justified by the fact that many commentators interpret Paul’s apology for the resurrection in relation to the message of the entire letter and the problems of the Corinthian community (1–2 Cor and the remaining Pauline epistles). As a consequence, they insert into 1 Cor 15 data that are absent in the apology of the resurrection.190

189 In his commentary, Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.384, is surprised that in spite of the divergences (“trotz aller Divergenzen”) between Paul and the community, there is a bond of love between them; he is also surprised that v. 58 closes the apology. Fee, The First Epistle, 807, is astonished that Paul’s final call (“the surprising feature of this exhortation”) has no ethical dimension as was the case in vv. 33–34, but Paul speaks of the Corinthians’ labours for the gospel. Consequently, he continues to comment accurately: “Probably, therefore, it is to be understood as word to the congregation as a whole vis-a-vis those who are leading them astray by denying the «resurrection of the dead» (v. 12).” Yet, in this case, the whole of 1 Cor 15 should be understood in this sense (cf. 1 Cor 11:33; 14:39–40)! 190 This hermeneutic problem has been observed by an increasing number of scholars. See Wilson, “The Corinthians,” 98–100; Ulrichsen, “Die Auferstehungsleugner in Korinth,” 783–84: “Die Auslegungsgeschichte zeigt leider, daß man nicht immer scharf genug zwischen primärem und sekundärem Stoff unterscheidet”; completely differently, Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.111: “Hauptkriterium muß die Zuordnung zu anderen Zügen der korinthischen Position bleiben.”

199

200

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

4.4.1 Systematising the Data of 1 Cor 15

What problems did the Apostle actually have to confront? At least two issues call for a fuller explication. First, we must ask about the parties involved in the conflict, and then about the topic of the Corinthian dispute. Contrary to the prevailing opinions of commentators who accept the two disputing parties in Corinth, 1 Cor 15 provides the basis for a more diversified view. More people are appearing in Paul’s apology for the resurrection. Certainly, one party is Paul and the other is the Corinthians. Does this claim, however, exhaust the scriptural data? We might first ask why Paul used here more specific words to describe the opponents of the resurrection – “some of you” (v. 12b). If it were only a literary technique, what would be the author’s motive?191 In the next verses, Paul accuses “some” Corinthians of not knowing God, and by implication, these are the deniers of the resurrection (v. 34b). In the immediate context, he warns the community that “bad company ruins good morals,” by which we should understand that Paul is disciplining the Corinthian Christians. Members of the community should avoid conversations that introduce disorder and danger, whether in communication between themselves or with those outside the community (vv. 33–34). Therefore, we can assume the presence of people who had a disastrous influence on the Corinthian community. The distinction between the entire community in Corinth and those members who have gone astray can be justified in another way. Analysing Paul’s argument, we can see that the Corinthians not only received the gospel of Christ’s resurrection, but also took their stand on it (vv. 1–2). The Apostle assumes the faith of the Corinthians in the course of his reasoning (vv. 13–19). Likewise, receiving baptism on behalf of the dead by an undefined group of Corinthians indicates the presence of living faith in the community (v. 29). Also, the unexpected form of the final parenesis (v. 58) allows us to think that the line of dispute over the resurrection ran not between Paul and the entire Corinthian Church, but between Paul and a smaller group. Therefore, the supposition that the entire community erred and denied the resurrection of the dead is unjustified. The dispute over the

191 In 1–2 Cor, Paul clearly distinguishes between the community with which he is in dispute and individual members or groups that are doctrinally or morally erroneous (e. g., 1 Cor 1:10–15; 3:4; 4:18–19; 5:1–3, 9–11; cf. 1 Cor 8 and 11). In the history of research on 1 Cor 15, issues related to τινές (v. 12) have been examined only exceptionally. John Chrysostom and Augustin believed that Paul singled out opponents of the resurrection on purpose so as not to accuse all the Corinthians. See Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.137 n. 621; cf. Hull, Baptism on Account of the Dead, 224: “the rampant factionalism within the community is a major concern of Paul’s throughout 1 Corinthians”; see more on pp. 168-228, where the author in detail discusses Corinthian Christianity and its early crises.

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

resurrection was sparked by some Corinthians, who were possibly leaders of the community (cf. also σχίσματα in 1 Cor 1:10; 11:18).192 Considering the data found in 1 Cor 15, we can assume that, in Paul’s argumentation, there appear at least four parties involved in the dispute: Paul, the Church in Corinth as the addressee of his letter, unknown opponents of the resurrection (τινές) and those who receive baptism on behalf of the dead. We are speaking of four parties, but the fifth, antagonists of the resurrection apology, could have been a group defined as “bad company” (v. 33), and if they were people outside the community, they might have been pagans (cf. 1 Cor 7:12–14).193 Quite rightly, we can ask whether the views of some members reflected the views of the entire Corinthian community. The overwhelming majority of scholars oppose separating the opponents of the resurrection from the rest of the Corinthian Christians, living their lives and religiosity as illustrated in 1 Corinthians. The consequences of such a distinction would be significant in identifying the opponents of the resurrection.194 The question of the topic of the dispute in 1 Cor 15 concerning the resurrection remains another unresolved problem. Against what theological error and threat to the Christian faith did the Apostle argue? The doctrinal error is given in a brief statement: “there is no resurrection of the dead” (v. 12). This statement is general and leads to the right question about its meaning. Following its literal wording, 192 See for example, Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung, 15, which makes a vast simplification: “Bevor man daraus jedoch folgert, Paulus habe es in Korinth mit mehreren unterschiedlichen theologischen Fronten zu tun, ist zu bedenken, daß er wie im ganzen 1 Cor so auch in Kap. 15 durchgehend die Gesamtgemeinde anredet. Nirgends wird dabei erkennbar, daß er sich mit einer Mehrheit einig weiß gegen eine Minderheit von Falschlehrern. Mindestens muß man in den τινες die theologischen Wortführer der Gesamtgemeinde sehen.” We can only agree with the last statement that τινές are prominent people in the Corinthian Church. Being aware of this difficulty, Fee, The First Epistle, 8, writes: “Initiated by a few, this sentiment is infecting nearly the whole.” See also David W. J. Gill, “In Search of the Social Elite in the Corinthian Church,” Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 323–37, concluding: “It is at Corinth that the élite can be found to have played an important role in the ekklesia”; cf. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership, 41–57. 193 Cf. the opinion of Fabris, Prima Lettera ai Corinzi, 27: “Quelli che frequentano senza scrupoli di coscienza i banchetti sacri presso i templi sono i cristiani che intrattengono buoni rapporti con l’ambiente pagano per ragioni professionali o per il loro ruolo sociale (1Cor 8,1-13).” See also Andrew D. Clarke, “Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth,” TynBul 43.2 (1992): 398: “It may be felt, therefore, that any historical study of the Corinthian church which does not take on board the possible impact of its surrounding society is liable to produce limited results.” 194 An accurate formulation of the problem by Wedderburn, “The Problem of the Denial,” 233: “Now if the deniers of the resurrection are an isolated group whose views are otherwise unrepresented in the rest of the letter and who did not perhaps even approve of the baptism for the dead there is perhaps little else that we can say; we would have to grant that their views ran counter to the hopes and beliefs of the majority of their contemporaries, perhaps even that they shared the materialistic views of the Epicureans, though quite how they reconciled other Epicurean doctrines with their Christian faith is a mystery.”

201

202

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

the deceased cannot come back to life, because there is no resurrection; such a thing does not exist. According to the Corinthian opponents, death is the end of all things. It is this meaning that the Apostle presumes when he emphasizes the pitiable situation of Christians whose hope is limited to their earthly lives (vv. 18–19). This meaning is also supposed when the Apostle asks about the sense of baptism on behalf of the dead if the dead are not raised at all (v. 29), and similarly, when he calls believers to enjoy their lives as the only alternative, for “tomorrow we die” (v. 32). In his apology, Paul refutes the statement that death ends all things.195 Based on the second part of the argument (vv. 35–50), an attempt is made to specify the nature of the difficulties that resulted in the denial of the resurrection of the dead. This issue reveals the correct reason for asking: “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” (v. 35). The denial of the resurrection was related to the body of the deceased. Some believe that the opponents of the resurrection falsely envisioned the resurrection as being brought to life, hence the difficulties. What does Paul want to prove? Using images and analogies, he presents the mystery of death and new life to explain the mystery of a bodily resurrection by giving examples of the existence of various bodies (vv. 36–41). Next, he explains the nature of the resurrected body (vv. 42–44), summing up as follows: “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body” (v. 44b). He justifies this truth with an argument from the Scriptures, showing the origin of both bodies as well as the ontological and temporal priority of the earthly body over the spiritual body (vv. 45–49). The future “spiritual” body of the resurrected will not be their earthly body brought to life, but a body transformed by the Spirit, like the transformed body of Christ.196 Thus, in 1 Cor 15, there is no trace of anthropological dualism limiting salvation to the πνεῦμα of man, but there is an anthropological monism of a biblical background. Paul’s argumentation does not include any argument against Greek dualistic anthropology; this is confirmed by the first part of the apology (vv. 1–34), in light of which – according to the opponents of the resurrection – death is the end of everything. Similarly, the second part of Paul’s reasoning (vv. 35–49) can hardly 195 Szymik, “The Corinthian Opponents,” 449: “The analysed texts unambiguously show that the opponents of the resurrection of the dead denied the existence of any afterlife as death meant the end of everything.” See ibid., p. 449 n. 46, further documentation of this thesis. Also, earlier, Vos, “Argumentation und Situation,” 326: “Die drei Hauptargumente (V. 29, 30-32a und 32b) sind ganz folgerichtig, wenn Paulus die korinthische Auffassung als eine Leugnung jeglicher Hoffnung auf ein zuküftiges Heil versteht”; cf. also Zeller, Der erste Brief, 459 n. 26. 196 See Brown, Bodily Resurrection, 104: “By these means, he seeks to convince them firstly of their future resurrection and then of the nature of the future transformed body”; cf. James D. G. Dunn, “How are the Dead Raised? With What Body Do They Come? Reflections on 1 Corinthians 15,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 45 (2002): 8 “the deniers could not conceive of the mode of existence of the raised dead; they could not conceive of it as a bodily existence.”

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

be understood as an opposition to and polemic with anthropological dualism. In such a case, it is usually assumed that Paul did not understand the essence of the problem. Paul neither knew nor understood the position of his adversaries.197 It should be remembered that, as a Jew brought up in a Hellenistic diaspora, with its big centre of Hellenistic culture, Tarsus, Paul must have been familiar with the basic elements of Greek thought on the last things. In any case, it is difficult to believe, despite the great diversity and inconsistency of the beliefs of the Greeks and Romans regarding the afterlife, that the Apostle to the Nations had no knowledge of such a major topic as the Greek and Platonic doctrine of the immortality of the soul as distinct from the mortality of the body (cf. 1 Thess 5:23).198 Hence, according to most commentators, the reason for denying the resurrection of the dead was the religious attitude of the Corinthians, their pneumatism and religious enthusiasm (previously, gnosis or pre-gnosis). As these scholars claim, the Corinthians narrowed salvation to the sphere of the spirit, considering themselves to be already participating in the life of the saved, while deprecating man’s physicality and considering earthly life meaningless.199 However, the information contained in 1 Corinthians does not support this assumption. The Corinthians have reached their fullness, but at the same time, they are awaiting its fulfilment (1 Cor 1:5–7). Salvation belongs to them, and they live it out (1 Cor 3:21–23; 6:11), but at the same time, it is a future and expected event (1 Cor 4:5; 9:24–25). The Corinthians are people of the “spirit” (1 Cor 5:4–6; 14:1, 37) though they are sinful and live by their natural inclinations (1 Cor 3:1–3). Paul also regards himself as a spiritual man (πνευματικός) (cf. 1 Cor 2:12–15). Would the Apostle say statements of this kind if

197 See Ulrichsen, “Die Auferstehungsleugner in Korinth,” 794: “Paulus seine Gegener mißversteht und deshalb gegen die Position argumentiert, die er ihnen zuschreibt”; cf. Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung, 30. 198 The presence of anthropological dualism in 1 Cor 15 is also excluded by the verbs ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω and their semantic fields, which describe only bringing to life of the body, never of the soul or the spirit (the appearance of gnosis is much later); see Cook, “Resurrection,” 74–75; further vast argumentation, Vos, “Argumentation und Situation,” 330-34. 199 Suffice it to refer selected authors: Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.115, 118 (and in many other places); also Conzelmann, Der erste Brief, 115: “Die Korinther sind also überzeugt, den Anteil an Gottes Herrschaft ... schon zu besitzen”; Fee, The First Epistle, 744: “Most likely in their view the believing dead have simple shed their bodies (cf. 6:13) so as to have entered into the final spiritual (heavenly) existence”; “The Corinthians are convinced that by the gift of the Spirit, and especially the manifestation of tongues, they have already entered into the spiritual, «heavenly» existence that is to be” (p. 778); “The problem is that Corinthians believed that they had already assumed the heavenly existence” (p. 795). Cf. Anthony C. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” NTS 24 (1977-78): 510–26 (an extensive review of this thesis).

203

204

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

he knew of the fundamental theological error of the Corinthians, who claimed to be already saved?200 Focusing on the content of 1 Cor 15, Paul proclaims the resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection of believers, and indirectly, he polemises with the views of those who denied any resurrection and afterlife. The difficulty that some Corinthians had in accepting the resurrection of the dead was not that this only concerned man’s πνεῦμα or that it had already happened, but that there is no resurrection of the dead.201 4.4.2 Elements of Anti-Epicurean Polemic

The thesis about the Epicurean background of the Corinthian disputes over the resurrection has rarely been taken into account, and elements of Epicurean rhetoric are even occasionally postulated for some fragments of 1 Cor 15. Yet, many elements of the Apostle’s reasoning are better understood if we have in mind the Epicurean views on human life and death. Without resolving the question about the sources of the denial of the resurrection, it is worth systematising the anti-Epicurean polemical elements. The key element is the claim that man’s death is the real and definitive end of his existence and that there is no afterlife. Regardless of the directions of the interpretation of 1 Cor 15:12, this is unquestionably the sense of Paul’s argument. Thus, we are allowed to recall Epicurus’ views, well known to the ancients, on man’s post-mortem fate. Following the materialistic view of Democritus, Epicurus proclaimed the end of the soul and the body at death. There is no expectation that the deceased have any further existence, because death is the end of everything, and death leads to the decay of man’s body and soul (K.D. II):

200 The error of the Corinthian Christians was not their belief in realized salvation and the fact of having gifts of salvation, but their misusing the gifts of the Spirit, their bad conduct and their amoral behaviour. In 1 Cor, Paul fights various sins against the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12–14). See Tomlin, “Christians and Epicureans,” 57–58; Doughty, “The Presence and Future,” 63, 90, and chiefly, Harriman, “A Synthetic Proposal,” 184–91. 201 Cf. the accurate conclusion of Doughty, “The Presence and Future,” 75: “There is no indication anywhere, however, that they actually grounded this claim with the assertion that the resurrection of believers had already taken place, or that they even looked forward to the possibility of future life! On the contrary, it seems more probable that the Corinthian enthusiasts denied the possibility of future life, or at least were not (or no longer?) concerned about such a possibility. Death is the end of everything” (cf. more on p. 82). The same by Schrage, Der erste Brief, 4.115, despite a completely different exegetical option: “τινές nach V 12 die Auferstehung der Toten leugnen”; “mit V 12 die Vorstellung der Auferstehung überhaupt verworfen ist”; see also Wedderburn, “The Problem of the Denial,” 230–31; Ulrichsen, “Die Auferstehungsleugner in Korinth,” 792.

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

Death is nothing to us; for the body, when it has been resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us. ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· τὸ γὰρ διαλυθὲν ἀναισθητεῖ· τὸ δ’ ἀναισθητοῦν οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς;202

The first term ([ὁ] θάνατος) occurs three times in the Pauline apology of the resurrection (vv. 21, 26 and 54), of which two have the article as in Epicurus’ sentence. The Founder of The Garden meant physical death, while Paul speaks about death as if it were a personal being and a cosmic dimension.203 Another observation seems to be even more interesting. In Epicurus’ epitome and similarly, in Paul’s vast apology, both texts contain a general twofold structure based on the antitheses: ὁ θάνατος – νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται (vv. 12–34) and τὸ διαλυθέν – ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν (vv. 35–50). The similarity might only be coincidental, but it is, in fact, interesting. Epicurus explains in the second part of his statement that the body, when it has dissolved into its elements, is nothing to the Epicureans and means nothing to them. On the contrary, Paul specifies in the second part of his apology (vv. 35–50) that a bodily resurrection from the dead is possible and even a necessary condition for future salvation (cf. vv. 51–58). Epicurus’ view that death is a definitive end of everything was always shared by his disciples.204 Lucretius stressed the immortality of the soul as well as the decay and definitive end of the soul at the moment of death (Lucr. 3.445–446). He referred many times to the idea that the soul consists of grains or seeds (semina), and also depicted the final decay of the body after death (Lucr. 3.445–842). The human body and soul are composed of tiny particles whose present system decomposes at the time of death, and the released atoms can create new beings. To express it in the words of the Roman poet: “you may easily come to believe that these same 202 Diog. Laert. 10.139; cf. Usener, Epicurea, 71; see also Ep. Men. 124: “Accustom thyself to believe that death is nothing to us, for good and evil imply sentience, and death is the privation of all sentience; therefore a right understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not by adding to life an illimitable time, but by taking away the yearning after immortality. For life has no terrors for him who has thoroughly apprehended that there are no terrors for him in ceasing to live” (Diog. Laert. 10.124–125 [trans. Robert D. Hicks, LCL]); cf. yet another of Epicurus’ statements concerning death: “Democritus and Epicurus [said that the soul] is mortal and perishes (φθαρτήν) with the body” (Usener, Epicurea, 226 frag. 336). Cf. The Epicurus Reader, 96. 203 Of the verbs διαλύω and ἀναισθητέω, only the first one (hapax legomenon) occurs in the New Testament, but with a completely different meaning (Acts 5:36; cf. 1 Clem. 24.5). 204 See the source texts: Long and Sedley, Die hellenistischen Philosophen, 76–83 (about the soul), 174–79 (about death).

205

206

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

seeds (semina) of which now we consist have been often before placed in the same arrangement they now are in.”205 The same idea can be found in another interesting text since it resembles the argument utilised by Paul in 1 Cor 15:36–39, although the materialist Lucretius draws other conclusions:206 Sic igitur mundi naturam totius aetas mutat, et ex alio terram status excipit alter, quod tulit ut nequeat, possit quod non tulit ante. So therefore time changes the nature of the whole world, and one state of the earth gives place to another, so that what she bore she cannot, but can bear what she did not bear before.

In the Epicurean approach to the cosmos (and death), the lack of any continuity or continuation is striking, while in Paul’s reflection on the body of the deceased (“what you sow”) and on rising from the dead (“what is raised”), the continuity in discontinuity guaranteed by the Spirit is striking: the body is raised but transformed, and its archetype and beginning was the resurrection of Christ. It is doubtful whether the question of Paul’s hypothetical interlocutor about the manner of the resurrection, namely how the dead would be raised (“with what kind of body do they come”) (v. 35) is a classic Epicurean question.207 Nevertheless, the analogies are striking, and Lucretius’ poem illustrates this. Yet, another observation is significant. According to the Corinthian opponents of the resurrection, man’s death was the end of everything, while in ancient times it was common to believe that man [the soul] would continue to exist after death. Seneca’s thoughts on death, which refer to the views of Epicurus, are meaningful (Ep. 24.18–19, 22–23),208 and so are Plutarch’s polemics with Epicureanism on the same topic (cf. Suav. viv. 1103C–1105F). It is worth quoting a fragment of his polemic, which is extremely interesting because of its vocabulary: “Hence in abolishing belief in immortality they also abolish the pleasantest and greatest hopes of ordinary men (διὸ τῇ δόξῃ τῆς ἀθανασίας συναναιροῦσι τὰς ἡδίστας ἐλπίδας καὶ μεγίστας τῶν πολλῶν)” (Suav. viv. 1105B). In 1 Cor 15, there are three terms with a similar meaning or use: ἐλπίς, δόξα and

205 Lucr. 3.857–858 (trans. William H. D. Rouse, LCL). Lucretius claims straight: “it will be impossible rightly to consider the spirit immortal” (Lucr. 3.715), moreover, he relishes the image of the decaying human body (Lucr. 3.719–724) and shows the reality of human bodies torn apart after death by vultures or devoured by animals (Lucr. 3.779–893). See also Barbara P. Wallach, Lucretius and the Diatribe Against the Fear of Death. De Rerum Natura III 830-1094 (Mnemosyne. Supplements 40; Leiden: Brill, 1976), esp. pp. 11–23. 206 Lucr. 5.834–836 (trans. William H.D. Rouse, LCL). 207 Cf. also Tomlin, “Christians and Epicureans,” 61. 208 Seneca’s view of the last things is discussed by Klauck, Die religiöse Umwelt des Urchristentums, 2.93–95.

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

ἀθανασία (see 1 Cor 15:19, 40–43 and 53–54). This similarity proves the vitality of

the problem of death at the threshold of the Christian era.209 Traces of anti-Epicurean polemic can be seen not only in the discussion about death and resurrection. The conviction that there is no life other than this one, and that man ceases to exist at the moment of death, led to the conclusion that one should enjoy this life and use it (Epicurean carpe diem). This view is strikingly similar to that found in 1 Cor 15:29–34. If the dead are not raised, and death is the end of human life, the Apostle asks: what is the benefit of fighting “with wild beasts?” He adds that “if the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink.” In Malherbe’s opinion, Paul’s metaphorical referral to fighting with wild animals contains elements of polemic against hedonism.210 One of the characteristics of anti-Epicurean polemic included accusations that Epicurus’ disciples lead hedonistic lives and that they ate and drank too much (1 Cor 15:32). Commenting on the text, it is not enough to point to Isa 22:13 as the source of the quotation; one must also ask why Paul used this text and what associations it evoked in his listeners. The same objection appeared in the previous verses of the letter, in the context of discussions about immorality and idolatry. Paul also described Israel’s reprehensible attitude as φαγεῖν, πεῖν and παίζειν (1 Cor 10:7) based on the Bible (Exod 32:6). In pagan literature, the formula ἐσθίειν καὶ πιεῖν described a libertinistic, hedonistic and riotous lifestyle. A symbolic figure who was led astray by extreme hedonism was the Assyrian king Sardanapalus – Ashurbanipal, the legendary founder of Tarsus in Cilicia. On the king’s tomb in Anchialus, which was also in Cilicia, there is an inscription in which the deceased monarch advises strangers to enjoy life as it quickly passes.211 The phrase “let us eat and drink” evokes the accusation in the propaganda raised against the Epicureans as an element of antiEpicurean rhetoric.212 In Plutarch’s writings against the Epicureans, the formula “let us eat and drink” repeatedly describes their hedonistic lifestyle based on sensory experiences. Plutarch portrayed the Epicureans as disregarding Greek society and

209 Plutarch, Moralia. Vol. 14: That Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible. Reply to Colotes in Defence of the Other Philosophers. Is “Live Unknown” a Wise Precept? On Music, trans. Benedict Einarson and Phillip H. De Lacy (LCL 428; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 138–139. 210 Malherbe, “The Beasts at Ephesus,” 76–77: “In Hellenistic literature the libertinistic life popularly, if unjustly, associated with the philosophy of Epicurus is frequently summarized as ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν” (p. 76); Tomlin, “Christians and Epicureans,” 58–59. 211 Ancient witnesses show several versions of this inscription – let us not one: “Sardanapalus, son of Anakyndaraxes, built Anchialus and Tarsus in a single day; stranger, eat, drink and make love!” (cf. 1 Cor 10:7). See Ameling, “FAGWMEN KAI PIWMEN,” 37–38; also Neuer Wettstein, 2.1.397–98, more on pp. 396–400, examples from ancient literature, including some 1st century authors, Seneca and Petronius, but not Plutarch. 212 Rehn, “Vomunt ut edant,” 397; cf. Kimmich, Epikureische Aufklärungen, 11–16, 36–50.

207

208

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

civilization as well as Greek wisdom, while preferring feasting, eating and drinking wine. He compared their behaviour with those of slaves during the celebration of feasts in honour of Dionysus (Non posse, 1098B–C) or with the behaviour of wild animals. The literary synkrisis “Epicurean – unwise animal” often appears in Plutarch’s works (Suav. viv. 1091C–1092D; Adv. Col. 1124D–1125A).213 The Epicureans’ hedonistic attitude led to the stereotype that the Epicureans simply wanted to eat, drink and have fun. In any case, there were numerous followers of Epicurus whose lives and actions confirmed Horace’s slogan carpe diem.214 Also, the call of the Corinthians to come to their senses (vv. 33–34) can be interpreted in the spirit of anti-Epicurean rhetoric, although this interpretation is a distant coincidence. The Corinthian Christians live in bad company that does not know God and exerts negative effects on the Christian community through their conversations and discussions. The close relationships with such people destroy the believers’ customs and morale, and this is why the Apostle calls the community to repent and leave their sin of joining the bad company (cf. 1 Thess 5:6, 8).215 Writing from Corinth, Paul issues a similar warning to the Christians in Rome. He warns them against those who sow dissensions and offenses, and who teach contrary to what the Roman Christians have learned. Not serving Christ but “their own appetites,” these people deceive simple-minded people by smooth talk and flattery (see Rom 16:17–18).216 Finally, let us take note of terminological similarities (in the contrast) between 1 Cor 15 and the Epicurean vocabulary: φθαρτός – ἄφθαρτος κτλ, θνητός – ἀθάνατος κτλ217 at the end of Paul’s arguments (vv. 35–50 and 51–57), although their importance cannot be overestimated. If the recipients of 1 Cor 15 had been familiar with the Epicurean teaching of the structure of the cosmos and the nature of man and the gods as immortal beings then Paul’s argument would have had indescribable expressiveness and dynamics. These are inaccessible to the modern reader, and Norman DeWitt confirms this saying: “In the fifteenth, a grand finale, he expounds

213 See also 2 Pet 2:12, where the synkrisis “man – animal” reoccurs in the context of anti-Epicurean rhetoric. 214 Seneca’s significant testimony (Vita B. 13.1–2). A little later, Athenagoras of Athens (Res. mort. 19) also combined Paul’s sentence from 1 Cor 15:32 with the Epicureans. See Usener, Glossarium epicureum, 55. 215 Malherbe, “The Beasts at Ephesus,” 77; Tomlin, “Christians and Epicureans,” 59. See notes 45–49 in this chapter: discussion about the anti-Epicurean overtone of Paul’s call to be sober. 216 Here we are dealing with a similar situation of anxiety and unbelief caused by a small group of people, like the one described in 1 Cor 15. The indication that these people serve “their own belly” (τῇ ἑαυτῶν κοιλίᾳ) has an anti-Epicurean overtone (see Neuer Wettstein, 2.1.1230). 217 See Usener, Glossarium epicureum, respectively 17, 135, 326, 335, 705; DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 117; also on pp. 113–23; DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, 34, 339. Cf. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 605.

The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

his doctrine of the soul and immortality, employing Epicurean terminology and reasonings in order to reason Epicurus out of court.”218 The foregoing comparative analysis has allowed us to present the numerous common elements between 1 Cor 15 and anti-Epicurean terminology and rhetoric. Why, then, should we arbitrarily deny the influence of Epicurean philosophy on the Corinthian Christians, a philosophy that was popular and debated in the streets and squares of ancient cities, and to accept solutions that are hypothetical constructions of exegetes and only partially supported by biblical texts? The Corinthian community was dominated by Gentile Christians who were open to Paul’s apostolic message. The pagan origin of the Corinthian Christians had an overwhelming influence on the daily life of this Church, which apparently did not create a closed ghetto, but maintained numerous contacts with the pagan milieu. First Corinthians contains numerous traces of Christian-pagan co-existence and the problems connected with it (cf. 5:11; 6:6; 7:15; 8:7, 10). Despite Paul’s words that not many of the Corinthian Christians were wise by human standards and not many influential (1 Cor 1:26), we cannot deny that there were also people who were familiar with the wisdom of this world (cf. 1 Cor 3:18–19). Likewise, we can assume their knowledge of Epicurus’ philosophy simply by considering its popularity among the ancients. Why should we not assume that the source of the Corinthian denial of the resurrection of the dead was not the false religiosity of the Corinthian pneumatics or enthusiasts but human wisdom coming from philosophical tradition? The obstacle to accepting these conclusions is not the inability to reconcile Epicurean materialism with Christian views, as some commentators claim.219 They erroneously assume that the influence of one element of a religious (philosophical) system necessarily means taking over its entire system of ideas, and even its acceptance, but this is a simplification which cannot be allowed.220 In the case of the hypothesis of Epicurean influence, the real difficulty lies in the results of biblical research, and it is primarily a hermeneutic problem. The history of the interpretation of 1 Cor 15 shows that the question about the opponents of the resurrection

218 DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 106. 219 Cf. Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung, 21: “Kann es aber solche «Epikuräer» unter Christen gegeben haben? Kann Paulus das überhaupt angenommen haben?”; Wedderburn, “The Problem of the Denial,” 233: “they shared the materialistic views of the Epicureans, though quite how they reconciled other Epicurean doctrines with their Christian faith is a mystery”; Barrett, The First Epistle, 347: “could sceptics of this sort have been Christians (among you) at all?” 220 This methodological error has been noted by Müller, “Die religionsgeschichtliche Methode,” 190: “Die Folge sind wirre Simplifikationen und Identifikationen auf der Seite der zeitgenössischen Umweltreligionen, die etwa den «Korinthern» zumuten, «sie hätten ungefähr alles geglaubt, was zwei Jahrtausende Religionsgeschichte der Mittelmeervölker hervorgebracht haben».” See also Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2 1993), 303–4, 356–9.

209

210

Epicurean Infiltrations in the Pauline Communities

has been dominated by one solution (pneumatism and religious enthusiasm) or at most by a second solution (anthropological dualism). One can observe that special exegetical opinions, such as pre-gnosis, religious enthusiasm (pneumatism) or anthropological dualism have developed and consolidated around 1 Cor 15. This is usually a desirable phenomenon, but in this particular case, it has hampered the development of research. The history of the interpretation of 1 Cor 15 also shows that the problem of the Corinthian opponents of the resurrection has been solved concerning the entire epistle, recognising the denial of the resurrection as a manifestation of one and the same “Corinthian theology.” With this methodological assumption, various ethical, moral and doctrinal errors of the Corinthians have been interpreted as the result of their coherent religious attitude. The Epicurean hypothesis has not received any attention from commentators.221 The results of our literary and exegetical analyses speak against this methodological assumption, since they have revealed the multiplicity of attitudes, practices and views of the Corinthian Christians. The question of the Corinthian opponents of the resurrection is not only an exegetical issue, but, above all, a hermeneutic problem.222 DeWitt’s opinion about the omnipresence of Epicurean elements in the Corpus Paulinum and the ubiquitous presence of Christians converted from Epicureanism in the Pauline communities cannot be taken into account. The foregoing analyses of the texts, although sparse and quite cursory, incline us to adopt a realistic position. In the collection of Paul’s letters, there are neither tangible traces of the presence of Epicureanism or Epicurean views nor any direct references to Greek philosophy. This is understandable, because the purpose of the letters written by the Apostle was not to address philosophical controversies and certainly not to carry out disputes with the philosophy of The Garden. However, in Paul’s letters, one can find traces of popular Greek philosophy and rhetoric, including anti-Epicurean rhetoric. The texts we have selected seem to confirm and extend the message of Luke recorded in Acts 17:16–34. The texts of 1 Thess, 1 Cor 5–6 and 1 Cor 15 contain similarities in terminology and content with Epicureanism, mainly based on opposition and indirect anti-Epicurean polemic. Hence, we may presume that there were some limited influences of Epicurean views and the Epicurean way of life on the Christian communities in Thessalonica and Corinth.

221 For the sake of completeness, let us note other authors who have emphasised Epicurean elements in 1 Cor 15: G. Estius (1613), H. Grotius (1645), Wettstein (1751), de Wette (1845), Robertson and Plummer (1911), Allo (1934), DeWitt (1956), Malherbe (1968), Tomlin (1997), Vos (1999), although this is not an exhaustive list. 222 Although Fee has seen this problem, Fee, The First Epistle, 779, he has not drawn any firm conclusions: “There still remains the philosophical objection that must have lain behind their denial of the resurrection in the first place.”

V.

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

In the period of the formation of the latest NT writings, it is more difficult to trace the influence of the pagan environment on the local Churches, as the source material is fairly limited. Although there are non-canonical writings of Christian authors who were influenced by the pagan environment (1–2 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, etc.), they are outside the scope of our interests. The so-called DeuteroPauline epistles, including Ephesians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus and the Catholic epistles, focus on the daily life of Christian communities, but they too are not free from theological problems.1 Anti-Epicurean polemic is assumed to occur in Second Peter. Again, it was Norman W. DeWitt who pointed to the Epicurean overtone of the debate over the parousia in 2 Pet 3:1–13.2 Jerome H. Neyrey studied this issue more extensively and gradually made the results of his research available to a wider audience.3 His results were referred to by Klaus Berger, who accepted Neyrey’s position and also tried to modify it.4 The opinions expressed by Neyrey and Berger were differently, although not necessarily negatively, met by commentators of 2 Peter, and this gives the basis for literary-exegetical analyses of 2 Peter in terms of the presence of anti-Epicurean polemic in this letter.5

1 As mentioned several times, we are cautious about the proposal of Norman W. DeWitt, e. g., concerning Eph 2:1–3 ( DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954, 90–93); among other things, DeWitt suggested the Epicurean character of 1 John 4:18 (ibid., 140), however, these are distant and only external similarities. 2 See DeWitt, St. Paulus and Epicurus, 53: “The teasers were the Epicureans. A well-reasoned caution against their activities may be found in Second Peter 3” (see also pp. 53–57, 108). 3 Jerome H. Neyrey, Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter (PhD dissertation) (Yale University, 1977); see the summary of his results: Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter,” JBL 99 (1980): 407–31. In his commentary published later, Neyrey took a balanced but unambiguous position; see Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 122: “It is the hypothesis of this commentary that the opponents were either Epicureans, who rejected traditional theodicy, or “scoffers” (Apikoros) who espoused a similar deviant theology.” Neyrey’s commentary seems to include discussions evoked by his earlier publications, primarily K. Berger’s opinion. 4 Klaus Berger, “Streit um Gottes Vorsehung: Zur Position der Gegner im 2 Petrusbrief,” in Jan W. van Henten et al., eds., Tradition and Re-interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (StPB 36; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 121–35. 5 See Johannes Kahmann, “The Second Letter of Peter and the Letter of Jude. Their Mutual Relationship,” in Jean-Marie Sevrin, ed., The New Testament in Early Christianity (BETL 86; Leuven: Leuven Univer-

212

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

1.

The Christian Community in a Time of Trial

Second Peter is a potent source of knowledge about the life of Christian communities at the end of the first century CE. The Church had second-generation Christians, people who did not know Jesus of Nazareth directly and had not been eyewitnesses to the salvific events. Jesus’ apostles and disciples had already died or were martyred, and the awaited parousia had not taken place. This was not without consequences for Christian communities. Second Peter testifies to these changes. 1.1

Literary Problems of 2 Peter

The Second Letter of Peter describes the problems of the local Church that we can also read about in other NT writings. Identifying these problems is additionally made more difficult by the specificity of this short letter written in the late first century of the new era. The issue of the types of threats the Christian communities were exposed to posed numerous difficulties, such as identifying the so-called false teachers. The author, the place of writing and the addressees of the letter remain unknown; the churches of Asia Minor or the Church of Rome are indicated as probable recipients, and the date is around the year 90. However, it turns out that answering these questions has a direct impact on the issue related to the presence of an anti-Epicurean polemic in 2 Peter.6 Apart from doubtful issues, there are specific problems that most of the commentators of the letter agree on. There is a widespread consensus on the pseudoepigraph-

sity Press, 1989), 118–121, concluding: “As for 2 Pet, the background of an anti-Epicurean polemic and a specific Pharisaic position by the writer do not appear to be conclusively proven”; however, cf. Hubert Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief (NEchtB 18–20; Würzburg: Echter, 1987), 77–78; Anton Vögtle, Der Judasbrief. Der zweite Petrusbrief (EKKNT 22; Zurich: Benziger, 1994), 113; a more critical view by Henning Paulsen, Der zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief (KEK 12.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 143–44, 156–57, 169. 6 See Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco TX: Word Books, 1983), 149–50, 157–62; cf. Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 127–29; also Duane F. Watson and Terrance Callan, First and Second Peter (Paideia. Commentaries on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 135–37; the author of the commentary on 2 Peter is Terrance Callan. The arguments of those authors (as discussed by Bauckham and Callan), who date the letter around 90 CE, against the traditional dating in the first half of the 2nd century CE (ca. 125), or even ca. 150, seem convincing. Thus 2 Peter is not the latest NT letter. It is not possible to locate this community and the place where the letter was written. The older thesis that it was in some Churches in Asia Minor gives way to the belief that the author wrote it in Rome because one cannot overlook the obvious references to the tradition of Peter and Paul and the compatibility with the early writings of the Fathers of the Roman Church; see Robert E. Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,” JSNT 33 (1988): 57–83, 74–77; cf. also Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (AB 37; New York: Doubleday, 1964), 144–45; Paulsen, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 94–95, opts for Alexandria.

The Christian Community in a Time of Trial

ical character of 2 Peter.7 The author lets himself be known as an educated person, perfectly familiar with Christian teaching, Jewish traditions and the HellenisticRoman world; this can be asserted based on the content and the varied vocabulary of the letter.8 None of the other NT writings contains so many religious and philosophical concepts, expressions and ideas derived from Hellenism as 2 Peter. Many terms also come from popular Greek philosophy. One can see the author’s concern for stylistic diligence and even perceive elements of Greek rhetoric. The author of 2 Peter must have had a Hellenistic education and addressed his letter to educated people, most likely converted pagans.9 Besides a good knowledge of the Hellenist and Roman worlds, the author of 2 Peter is familiar with Jewish traditions, including Jewish apocalyptic literature, although it is not his dominant theme. Naturally, he knows Christian teaching thoroughly, but being dependent on the situation of his community, he does not give a systematic explication of Christian theology.10 The incompleteness of this theology was determined by the circumstances and the pragmatic goal, namely polemic with false teachers and concern for brothers facing the threat of doctrinal and moral errors. Formally, 2 Peter combines two ancient literary genres: a letter and a farewell speech. Second Peter has many formal features of an ancient letter; in fact, the author uses the term “letter” to describe his writing (3:1). It begins with the form of the letter prescript containing the sender and addressee as well as a salutation formula (1:1–2).11 The vagueness of the addressee does not mean that the letter was addressed to all Christians. Its recipients were a strictly defined group of Christians, one or more Churches, to which 1 Peter and Paul’s letters were also directed

7 The author refers to 1 Pet (cf. 2 Pet 3:1) and presents himself as an eyewitness of the transfiguration of Jesus (2 Pet 1:16–18); he also refers to the prediction of Peter’s death (1:14; cf. John 21:18–19). Further, he shows himself as the dear brother of Paul (3:15–16). All these elements should be considered literary fiction, and the writing as a pseudoepigraph, regarding the language and style of 1 Pet and 2 Pet that are fundamentally different. The letters have different authors. See Frankemölle, 2. Petrusbrief, 80–84; Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 122–25. 8 In statistical terms, the short letter of 2 Peter contains 23 NT hapax legomena, and for the entire Bible as many as 33. See Karl H. Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe. Der Judasbrief (HTKNT 13.2; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1964), 180, 230–34; Frankemölle, 2. Petrusbrief, 73–74. 9 See Frankemölle, 2. Petrusbrief, 74: “All dies zeigt, daß Verf. an gebildete Hellenen schreibt”; slightly differently, Tord Fornberg, An Early Church in Pluralistic Society. A Study of II Peter (Lund: Gleerup, 1977), 130–39, who, however, stresses the background of converted pagans as the addresses of the letter. 10 One should suppose that the author had a broad knowledge of the truths of the Christian faith: historical knowledge (1:16–18; 3:1–2, 14–16) and theological knowledge (1:1–4; 2:4–9; 3:17–18). Cf. Frankemölle, 2. Petrusbrief, 76, 80. 11 Actually, the literary form of the introductory part is more complex: see Fornberg, An Early Church, 86; Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 132–35.

213

214

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

(see 3:1, 15).12 The prescript is followed by an introduction showing the main themes (1:3–12) and reasons for writing this letter, i. e., the approaching death of the author (1:13–15). The elaborated and well-constructed main part, having an apologetic character, develops the key theme, including the inevitability of the parousia and calling the community to be vigilant and faithful to the instructions it received (1:16–3:13). Although there are no concluding greetings in 2 Peter, its final parenesis has the form of a solemn call to vigilance and a doxology related to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour (3:14–18). Undoubtedly, 2 Peter is formally an ancient letter.13 Nevertheless, one cannot overlook that the author of 2 Peter, using formal techniques, constructed the letter as a testament, i. e., a farewell speech. Among other things, the letter contains terminology typical of farewell speeches, a compendium of religious and ethical teaching (1:3–11), and the awareness of the author’s approaching death (1:13–15); finally, it is also prophetic (2:1–3; 3:1–4). These elements characterise the aforementioned literary genre commonly known in antiquity, as documented by apocryphal literature.14 Therefore, 2 Peter can be regarded as a well-thought-out and well-composed letter in terms of form and content: an ancient letter and a farewell speech. By referring to the tradition of Saint Peter, the author gave his statement unique importance; his words show the dignity and authority of the Prince of the Apostles.15 1.2

The Problem of the False Teachers

The question that causes commentators many difficulties is identifying opponents whom the author of the letter calls “false teachers” (2 Pet 2:1). These teachers raised the issue of God’s unfulfilled promises, especially the delayed parousia (3:3–4). Moreover, the author of 2 Peter accuses them of libertinism and immoral lives. In

12 Against Schelkle’s opinion, Die Petrusbriefe, 177–78: “ein allgemeines Lehrschreiben.” 13 See Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 119–21; Neyrey, 2 Peter, 111–113; also D. Edmond Hiebert, Second Peter and Jude. An Expositional Commentary (An Expositional Commentary; Greenville, SC: BJU Press, 1989), 26–30; Andrew Chester and Ralph P. Martin, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 136–37. According to these authors, the entire letter and its fragments have a well-thought-out composition with many structural elements. Regardless of the structure of 2 Pet, Neyrey analyses its rhetorical disposition, Neyrey, 2 Peter, 113: exordium (1:3–15), argumentatio (1:16–3:13), peroratio (3:14–18). 14 Cf. Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 122; Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, 146; Watson and Callan, First and Second Peter, 131–32. Considering the content, we can distinguish two types of testaments: religious and ethical admonitions, often accompanied by sanctions (1), and the apocalyptic vision of future events concerning offspring or the whole nation (2). 15 Frankemölle, 2. Petrusbrief, 76: “2 Petr beinhaltet weit mehr als Ermahnungen. 2 Petr ist in seiner Gesamtanlage ein außerordentlich wohldurchkomponierter und in sich formal und thematisch stimmiger theologischer Brief.”

The Christian Community in a Time of Trial

the opinion of commentators, the author of 2 Peter did not present his opponents’ arguments, which makes it difficult to reconstruct their views. Also, there are exaggerations in the description of the opponents resulting from the apologetic and polemical nature of the writing. The author depreciated the authority of his opponents and disqualified them morally. Scholars either refrained from specifying exactly who these false teachers were, or, as in the case of 1 Cor 15, they usually pointed to the Gnostic background of the errors described in the letter. In the past, the stereotypical thesis about the Gnostic nature of erroneous teachings that threatened the Christian community seemed to be a scientific certainty. Thus, 2 Peter contained elements that were typical of Christian gnosis in the second century. These included the Gnostic concept of myth (1:16), the Gnostic interpretation of the OT prophecies (1:20), the libertine attitudes of the false teachers calling for freedom (2:19), and above all, the rejection of the parousia, the final judgment and punishment for sins (2:10, 18; 3:3–4; cf. 3:5–10). In Second Peter, we are dealing with “realised eschatology” and not a future one. This way of thinking, known from the history of research on the Corpus Paulinum, is ably illustrated in German biblical publications on the subject, for instance, Ernst Käsemann’s study,16 Karl H. Schelkle’s commentary17 or Walter Schmithals’s monograph, the latter being a strong supporter of the thesis on the Gnostic background of the conflicts in 2 Peter.18 However, the NT Pan-Gnosticism eventually lost its supporters in favour of new solutions. An example was the new study on 2 Peter written by Tord Fronberg.19 New significant theses have been brought by Jerome H. Neyrey, who believed that Käsemenn’s view of the opponents of the author of 2 Peter and the Gnostic character of their speech was erroneous.20 A new analysis of the data in 2 Peter

16 Ernst Käsemann, “Eine Apologie der urchristlichen Eschatologie,” in Ernst Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (vols. 1–2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6 1970), 1.135–57. 17 Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe, 230–34: “die Irrlehrer sind mit der gnostischen Bewegung verbunden”; “die Briefe wehren die Gnosis ab”; “es gab in der Tat gnostische Libertiner, die erklärten, den Geist berühre die Sünde, die im Fleische geschieht, nicht. Also ist alles erlaubt”; “in den Briefen beginnt der Kampf der Kirche gegen die Gnosis.” 18 Schmithals, Neues Testament und Gnosis, 147–49: “Die einheitliche Deutung von 2Petr als antignostische Schrift ist heute nach dem Vorgang älterer Forscher ... die Regel”; see also Chester and Martin, The Theology of the Letters, 140–46, 152. 19 Fornberg, An Early Church, 31, 139–142, stresses the new stage of the development of Christianity in the post-apostolic period, which was its encounter with the pagan world. Cf. Kahmann, “The Second Letter of Peter,” 121: “It seems that provisionally the position of Fornberg must stand as far as 2 Pet is concerned: it has to do with a crisis in the Gentile-Christian community under pressure from the pagan environment; a crisis in which doctrinal and ethical elements are on a par.” 20 Neyrey, “The Form and Background,” 407: “It is my contention that many of Kasemann’s criticisms are misplaced because his analysis did not attempt to understand 2 Peter in its proper historical

215

216

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

has allowed Neyrey to place the false teachers in their historical background and reconstruct their views. In his opinion, the position of the opponents of the parousia in 2 Peter was the same as the opponents of Plutarch in De sera numinis vindicata (Moralia 548A–568A), who were Epicureans denying providence.21 A similar polemic survived in Jewish tradition, in the targum to Gen 4:8, presenting Cain as an Epicurean,22 and in the writings of Josephus. The arguments of the author of 2 Peter resemble those of Hellenistic authors confronted with questions about the providence of God, the fate of man after death and a just post-mortem retribution for sins. According to Neyrey, the lack of an extensive and in-depth Christology in 2 Peter was not conditioned by the early development of Christianity but by the historical situation of the community whose faith was undermined and threatened, and this was not faith in Christ (Christology) but the teaching about God and his providence. The author of 2 Peter defended the theological truths about the parousia, God’s judgment and punishment for sins, because it was this Christian teaching that was threatened. By fending off the attack and polemicizing, the author of 2 Peter used, inter alia, known anti-Epicurean polemics that certainly constitute a valuable literary context for understanding the arguments contained in 2 Peter.23 On the one hand, K. Berger decisively criticised the Gnostic thesis,24 but on the other hand, he developed Neyrey’s proposals. First, the German exegete analysed the situation of Christians living in the late first century. Continuing Neyrey’s thesis, he pointed to their specific life experiences that were the roots of their errors depicted in the letter. Berger examined the factors that caused the false teachers to take an unorthodox theological position. In his opinion, the Christian Church, facing various threats, had to deal with the scepticism of a Jewish provenance related to the delayed parousia, which led to doubts about God’s promises. This kind of scepticism had already existed in Judaic theology and was intensified after the experiences of the Jewish war in 70 CE, the destruction of the Temple and the lost hope for

21 22 23

24

context. By presenting fresh comparative materials, I hope to provide a new basis for a reassessment of the argument of 2 Peter”; see also pp. 430–31. Johann J. Wettstein was the first to show it; see Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum, 2.711. See Chapter I, notes 161–62. For example, for 2 Pet 3:3–4; see Neyrey, “The Form and Background,” 420: “Epicurean polemics against providence provide a useful context for understanding the argument in 3:3-4.” Neyrey repeated his main theses in his commentary on 2 Pet; cf. Kahmann, “The Second Letter of Peter,” 118–19, containing a comprehensive summary and critique of Neyrey’s views, but he also stated that one could speak about a possible presence of anti-Epicurean polemic in 2 Pet; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 294. Berger, “Streit um Gottes Vorsehung,” 121, writes: “Die Schnelle, mit der hier auf die fast schon üblichen ‘gnostischen Gegner’ geschlossen wird, wenn man Genaueres nicht weiß, erscheint verdächtig, wenn man bedenkt, daß es sich um ein Forschungs-Stereotyp handelt, und wenn man um die Wackeligkeit der These vorchristlicher Gnosis überhaupt weiß.”

The Christian Community in a Time of Trial

Israel’s rebirth. Yet, the disappointment of the addressees revealed in 2 Peter was set in broader historical and theological contexts and resulted from doubting the existence of God and his actions in history.25 The vague and imprecise description of the situation of the community in 2 Peter indicates the weakness of Berger’s hypothesis. Following his reasoning, we can show that, regardless of the specific existential situation, in the history of mankind, sceptical attitudes, doubting God and his providence, have existed and will always exist.26 Similarly, critical remarks must be applied to the thesis about the Jewish, Pharisaic background of the dispute perpetuated in 2 Peter. According to Berger, for the author of 2 Peter, God’s presence in history was revealed, among other things, in regulations and legal provisions related to the apostolic decree (Aposteldecret) and intermediary factors – the Jewish law or angelic powers (“Doxai und Kyriotetes”). Preaching false freedom (2:19) and rejecting Jewish purity, the teachers fell back into paganism and uncleanness, and are thus subject to judgment and punishment. According to Berger, in 2 Peter we are dealing with a Jewish concept of God, the world and man, and also with an attitude that had a Pharisaic tone and universalist characteristics. However, his claim is not convincing, as Berger commented on the moral attitude of the false teachers laconically, interpreting it in terms of ritual impurity.27 Let us add that Berger did not challenge Neyrey’s claims about the anti-Epicurean nature of the arguments in 2 Peter. On the contrary, in his opinion, the author of the letter also utilised alien traditions derived from pagan philosophy, including the anti-Epicurean tradition.28 The new solution to the problem of false teachers, which Neyrey outlined, gained many supporters, as evidenced by later commentaries on 2 Peter. This was the line of thought taken H. Frankemölle, who abandoned the traditional thesis about the 25 Ibid., 131; see also 134–35. From the perspective of the history of early Christian theology, the false teachers should be associated with Paul’s opponents in Corinth, i. e., the attitude of “the strong” in 1 Cor 8; see also a review of Berger’s position in Kahmann, “The Second Letter of Peter,” 119–121. 26 Also seen by Berger, “Streit um Gottes Vorsehung,” 132: “Die Ablehnung der Gegner betrifft mithin alles, was ein aufgeklärter Skeptizismus zu allen Zeiten als ‘mythologisch’ oder ‘ritualistisch’ verworfen hat oder zu umgehen suchte, oder anders formuliert: was sich als unphilosophischer Rest konkreter jüdischer Religiosität erhalten hatte.” 27 The simplification of the issue is evident and also confirmed by the fact that the term ἐπιθυμία (1:4; 2:10, 18; 3:3), which is key for 2 Peter, was not even analysed and regarded as traditionally pagan: “auf Affinität zu dem, was traditionell als heidnisch gilt, weist die Rede von ‘Begierden’” (p. 123); see more, Berger, “Streit um Gottes Vorsehung,” 131–32; stating: “Die pharisäische Reinheitskonzeption wird ins Universale ausgeweitet” (p. 134); cf. decisive criticism: Kahmann, “The Second Letter of Peter,” 121: “In my opinion, Berger’s interpretation of 2 Pet 2,10ff as a demand for respect of the ‘glorious ones’ by cultic purity, depending on the Pharisaic aspiration to a cultic unity with the angels, finds no support in the text.” 28 Berger, “Streit um Gottes Vorsehung,” 132: “mit Hilfe von Vorstellungen, die sich aus der antiepikureischen Tradition anboten.”

217

218

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

libertine-gnostic character of the doctrinal errors in 2 Peter and claimed that the author’s opponents were Judeo-Christian scoffers with traditional views, coming from the libertine-Hellenistic circles. The disputes in the community were internal.29 A similar thesis can be found in Anton Vögtle’s commentary. He attributed to the opponents of 2 Peter some quasi-gnostic features emphasising their sense of superiority towards their environment because they believed in having full salvation, but he strongly rejected the gnostic nature of the false teachers’ views.30 A new, interesting and important impetus for the discussion about the false teachers and their identification was introduced in the publication by Edward Adams, who believes that the currently dominating quasi-Epicurean interpretation of the eschatological errors of 2 Pet 3:4 is incorrect.31 In the author’s opinion, the subject of these scoffers’ criticism was not the parousia of Jesus, but the underlying OT promise of God’s final, eschatological coming to the world. Their scepticism was not caused by the fact that Jesus did not return in glory or by a delay in God’s intervention, but it resulted from a failure to fulfil the promises of the OT prophets. At the same time, the author of 2 Peter opposed the false teachers’ views that the cosmos was understood as constant and unchanging, and in his polemic, he used Stoic thought concerning the future collapse of the cosmos.32 Adams’ original proposal of solving the old problem of these false teachers certainly deserves further discussion, but its major drawback is the narrowing of his analyses to a few selected verses without taking into account the essential content of the entire letter (a new, in-depth NT Christology and the immorality of the false teachers). There are more

29 Frankemölle, 2. Petrusbrief, 73: “Die Frage, welches Thema der Verf. in diesem Brief behandelt und gegen wen er sich richtet – beide Aspekte hängen eng zusammen – wird in der Regel unter Hinweis auf gnostische Libertinisten beantwortet. Dieser Kommentar vertritt eine andere Lösung.” The content and argumentation in the letter “legen es nahe, als Gegner von 2 Petr libertinischhellenistische, judenchristliche Spötter anzunehmen und nicht – wie üblicherweise – griechische, libertinistische Gnostiker” (p. 78). 30 Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 117–119, 271–72: “Die gängige Meinung, der 2Petr richte sich «gegen eine Bewegung, die wesentliche Merkmale der Gnosis des 2. Jh. Trägt», dürfte somit über das Ziel des Belegbaren hinausschießen”; see 266–73, where the author poses a number of critical questions to the adherents of the Gnostic thesis; cf. Paulsen, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 95–97. 31 Edward Adams, “‘Where is the promise of his coming?’ The Complaint of the Scoffers in 2 Peter 3:4,” NTS 51 (2005): 106–22, esp. 107 n. 6. Here the author critically refers to the Epicurean thesis many times. 32 It is worth quoting the author himself: “In summary, the object of the scoffers’ ridicule in 3.4, I suggest, is not belief in Jesus’ return as such but the underlying OT ‘promise’ of an eschatological advent. They scoff at this expectation because of the immensely long period of time that has passed since it was first articulated. The divine advent has been promised for many centuries, they mock, and nothing has happened. The adversaries also disparage the notion of a world-ending catastrophe which, in their view, the expectation of God’s coming involved” (p. 121).

The Christian Community in a Time of Trial

such objections, including questions about the Sitz im Leben of the Church in which these false teachers appeared, or questions about their identity. Numerous exegetes have ultimately opted to reject the old widespread opinion that the author of 2 Peter directed his speech against the Gnosticising group of Christians.33 Based on the elements of the erroneous teaching preserved in 2 Peter, one cannot prove the presence of cosmological dualism in this letter, which was so typical of Gnosis. Likewise, the confidence of the false teachers that they have full salvation has not been demonstrated. In addition, the key view of the false teachers about the delayed parousia, such an important theme in 2 Peter, is not representative of Gnosticism. The Gnostics were so convinced of possessing knowledge of salvation (“realisierte Eschatologie”) that they did not wait for the coming of Christ, the Judgement and future salvation. One should reconsider and critically analyse the latest solutions (those of J. H. Neyrey and E. Adams). 1.3

Christian Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy

The Second Letter of Peter responded to the needs of the moment, a time when the community faced doctrinal errors. It was written for the sake of orthodoxy due to moral threats, libertinism and falsely understood Christian freedom preached by pseudo-teachers; therefore, the author was also concerned about orthopraxy. The first and fundamental reason for writing the letter – more important than doctrinal issues, although inherently related to doctrinal errors – might have been a belief in the necessity of realising the ethical dimension of Christian existence. This close relationship between these two aspects of Christian religiosity can be perceived in the first verses of 2 Peter. The author directly combines faith in God’s power and knowledge of Jesus Christ with Christian life and devotion (1:1–4), followed by a significant emphasis on Christian piety and virtues (1:5–7), thus confirming his strong interest in ethical and moral issues.34 The debate with the members of the community indicates a developed stage of the Christian mission. The letter lacks numerous elements of New Testament Christology, including the message of Jesus’ death on the cross and his resurrection. However, the author presumes the work of salvation was accomplished in Christ, although he does not mention it directly (however, cf. 2 Pet 2:1: “They will even

33 See Kahmann, “The Second Letter of Peter,” 121: “The opponents in Jude and 2 Peter are not the same. The opinion that both letters are addressed against the representatives of an early gnosticism is beginning to lose ground in light of the latest studies”; cf. also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 134–35, 158–62, 194, 203, 294, etc. 34 This is the direction of Frankemölle’s interpretation, Frankemölle, 2. Petrusbrief, 75: “Die Spannung vom Indikativ des bereits erlangten Heils und der Aufforderung, es zu verwirklichen, ist eigentliches Thema des Briefes.”

219

220

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

deny the Master who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves”). This is the only mention of Christ’s death, and the author used the idea of salvation in terms of buying out a slave, the price being the death of the Saviour (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; Rev 5:9; 14:3–4). Yet, we must note the numerous Christological titles referring to Jesus that reveal an advanced stage of development of Christology; we should also note that these titles are ambiguous. In 2 Peter, the nouns θεός and κύριος (2 Pet 1:1–2) have double meanings, and this terminological ambiguity occurs in other verses (1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18).35 Jesus shares the power of God that will be revealed at his second coming (2 Pet 1:16; cf. Rom 1:4).36 Besides the Christological titles, the figure of the Saviour appears in several scenes in the letter, each performing an argumentative function. This is the function of the Transfiguration (1:16–18), which was signalled by a mention of Jesus’ glory (δόξα) (see 1:3, 17). In this scene, Jesus is called “my Son, my Beloved” (1:17; cf. Mark 9:7). Also, the mention of the salvific act of Jesus, namely the Master,37 who “bought” the false teachers, who are now apostates from the faith (2:1), has a polemical and argumentative function. Jesus Christ left them the “commandment” (3:2), i. e., his whole ethical teaching that the apostles received and passed on to the community, and from which the wicked departed (2:21). On the other hand, Christ is mentioned only once in the eschatological context, in the fragment speaking about Christians entering the eternal kingdom of “our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (1:11). In the other sections, also in the eschatological texts, the only Master of events is God. He formed and maintains the heavens and the earth through his word (3:5, 7). He acts in history, having power over the angels and people (2:4–5), punishes the wicked for their sins and saves the upright from destruction – God rescued Noah and Lot (2:5–8; 3:6). God is the Father of Jesus Christ, and the latter is his Son (1:17). Through the Holy Spirit, God enables his chosen ones to speak for God (1:21). As the sovereign Lord, he will decide about the fate of people and the cosmos on the day of judgement, punishing the wicked and rescuing the godly (2:9; 3:5–13).38 The author’s orthodoxy is thus expressed in the conviction that God’s reign and power extend from the beginning of creation until the day of the final judgment. 35 Chester and Martin, The Theology of the Letters, 158–60; Watson and Callan, First and Second Peter, 212: “The use of ‘Lord’ as a title for both God and Jesus, and the frequent ambiguity about which is the referent, both in this passage and elsewhere in 2 Peter – all this is another reflection of 2 Peter’s presentation of Jesus as divine.” 36 Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 133; further arguments in Fornberg, An Early Church, 142–44, who concludes: “Christ possessed the power of God. He was not merely one mighty σωτήρ among others” (p. 144). The reference of the term θεός to Jesus appears in other NT passages (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8–9; 1 John 5:20; cf. Rom 9:5). 37 Only here and in Jude 4, δεσπότης refers to Christ; also two references to God (Luke 2:29; 4:24); in the other NT verses, the word means someone who owns slaves, a house, etc. 38 Fornberg, An Early Church, 145: “2 Pet 3:5–13 does not deal with Christ.”

The Apology of the Parousia and the Day of Judgement (2 Pet 3:1–13)

God is the independent Lord of the world and human life. Finally, the author of the letter develops Christian theodicy, and this view has generally been shared by the commentators.39 The other important purpose of 2 Peter was to challenge the addressees to be faithful to their calling and to practise their faith in Jesus Christ in their everyday lives (orthopraxy). Christian conduct should be praiseworthy, and responsibility for their deeds and walking the path of righteousness are to prepare Christians for the imminent day of God’s judgment. The author’s ethical postulates are already expressed in the introductory part of the letter. After recalling the great salvific promises by which Christians became partakers of God’s nature (1:3–4), the author calls them to be transformed and practise virtues as external signs of the Christian faith (1:5–7). This is the condition for entering into the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:8–11), confirmed at the end of the letter by the recurring call to be constant and to abide in grace (3:14–18).40 Indeed, the author of 2 Peter was concerned with the unity of the faith and living one’s faith as well as with fulfilling the requirements of Christian piety in everyday life. His challenge was a direct result of the threat of doctrinal and moral errors that some unknown local Church faced.

2.

The Apology of the Parousia and the Day of Judgement (2 Pet 3:1–13)

The main theological problem raised by “the false teachers” concerned the promise of the delayed, in their opinion, the parousia of Christ. We do not know the exact content of the accusation that the author of 2 Peter had to fight. On the other hand, the witnesses of and participants in the polemic knew the main arguments of the opponents well, hence the author referred to both of them only in the form of an allusion, placing the main emphasis on the defence of Christian teaching, and predominantly the coming of Christ. Nevertheless, a careful reading of 2 Pet 3:1–13 allows us to grasp the key ideas of the conflict, although its essence is to be presumed. 2.1

The Structure of the Apologetic Section (3:1–13)

In the main part, which is polemic and apologetic (1:16–3:13), the author of 2 Peter presented the most important theological and moral issues. He aims at polemising with the false teachers and confirming the veracity of the promises given to his addressees (2 Pet 3:1–13). The uniqueness of this fragment is determined by

39 Frankemölle, 2. Petrusbrief, 77. 40 For an outline of 2 Peter, see Watson and Callan, First and Second Peter, 145–46.

221

222

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

its solemn introduction. The author refers to the first letter written by Peter (cf. 2 Pet 3:1–2) and calls the members of the community ἀγαπητοί, a solemn term expressing his special relationship with them.41 The significance of the fragment is confirmed by its reference to the teaching of the Lord and Saviour as well as to the apostolic tradition. The hearers should remember all the instructions they had been given (2 Pet 3:2; cf. 1:12–13). After the initial call, the author proceeded to deal with the false teachers and their misconceptions about the delayed promise of Jesus’ parousia. As a starting thesis, he presented the adversaries’ erroneous view on the parousia. He recalled not only their doubts, but also their main argument: since the death of the apostles, everything has remained unchanged (vv. 3–4). This leads to his arguments. The scoffers are wrong (v. 5) because they forgot the creative power of the word of God and the sovereignty of the Creator, who keeps the heavens and the earth till the day of judgement and destruction (vv. 5–7). This error should not be committed by the addressees of the letter who are again called “beloved” (v. 8). The new beginning and new argument followed the rule of ancient parallelism (v. 5: λανθάνει γὰρ αὐτούς; v. 8: μὴ λανθανέτω ὑμᾶς). The addressees should not commit the error of their adversaries. The author points to the difference between the way God measures time and the way people do, and interprets the delay of the Lord’s day as deliberate, because it is motivated by God’s goodness and graciousness; God wants sinners to be converted. Nevertheless, the day of the Lord will surely come, and then the heavens and the earth will be destroyed (vv. 8–10). Future events should inspire Christians to lead lives of holiness and act in godliness so that they not only wait for but also hasten the coming of the day of God by their saintly lives, when, according to the promise, there will be “new heavens and a new earth” (vv. 11–13). This development of thought in the polemic and apologetic part of the letter has additionally been reinforced formally. In the opening section (2 Pet 1:2–4), the author introduced his main theological themes. After greeting the recipients (1:1–2) and describing their current situation (1:3), he reminded them of the precious and great promises made to them as still valid (1:4: ἐπαγγέλματα δεδώρηται) (participium perfecti). They guarantee the believers’ share God’s nature. What are these promises? The noun ἐπάγγελμα, unknown in the LXX, occurring in the NT only in 2 Peter, reappears here and defines the promise of new heavens and new earth (3:13) after “the coming of the day of God” (3:12). The letter speaks of the promise twice, but this time, in chapter 4, the author used the synonymous term ἐπαγγελία. In the first case, he quoted the accusation of the opponents who doubted the promise of the coming of the Lord (3:4). Next, he retorted that the Lord of the

41 Four times in 2 Peter (vv. 8. 14. 15. 17); in the NT – 30 times, often with an invocation (cf. Paul’s similar strategy in 1 Cor 15); Watson and Callan, First and Second Peter, 204.

The Apology of the Parousia and the Day of Judgement (2 Pet 3:1–13)

promise was not slow in carrying out his promise, since the delay was purposeful and aimed at the repentance of sinners (3:9). One cannot state that by mentioning τὰ ἐπαγγέλματα (1:4), the author of 2 Peter meant only the promise of the parousia, namely the coming of the day of the Lord and the coming of new heavens and a new earth. Yet, he undoubtedly summarized the theological problems of the letter: the eschatological salvific goods. The structure of the apology in 2 Pet 3:1–13 is clear and can be presented as follows: invocation: vv. 1–2 opponents’ thesis vv. 3–4 first answer second answer

vv. 5–7 vv. 8–10

unfulfilled promise of the parousia ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίας (v. 4) sovereignty of God the Creator inevitability of the day of the Lord οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας (v. 9)

author’s statement vv. 11–13

new heavens and a new earth κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα (v. 13)

The main motif of this structure of the polemic part (2 Pet 3:1–13) is the promise of the day of the Lord, around which other theological themes are developed.42 2.2

Exegetical Commentary

All commentators claim that the author of 2 Peter does not present the adversaries’ position straightforwardly, and this makes the reconstruction of their views hypothetical. Moreover, the arguments in 2 Peter have clearly been exaggerated and overstated, especially regarding the moral attitudes of the false teachers. 2.2.1 The Unfulfilled Promise (vv. 3–4)

The main problem of the Christian community in a time of trial was the delay of the parousia and consequently, their disappointed expectations. The Christians of the first generation had died out, and the delay of Christ’s coming undermined the credibility of the apostolic teaching and rendered further hopes illusory. The importance of the problem is evidenced by the fact that the objection of the adversaries (here called “scoffers” – ἐμπαῖκται), together with their arguments (v. 3a43

42 Noteworthy, Adams, “‘Where is the promise’,” 107. 43 See Jud 18; Isa 3:4 LXX; in wisdom literature, this term means those who despise piety and morality (Ps 1:1; Prov 1:22; 9:7–8; 13:1 etc.); it is characteristic of the Jewish Diaspora and ususally appears in the context of persecutions of the righteous. See Georg Bertram, “παίζω,” TWNT 5.625–35.

223

224

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

and 4), is quoted directly. The author also questions their moral authority, accusing them of acting according to their passions (w. 3b). What were the scoffers’ expectations and objections? What is the overtone of their vague charge: “Where is the promise of his coming?” (v. 4). Was it the unfulfilled prophecy, the coming of someone or something else or the expected end of the cosmos? In the LXX, a question beginning with ποῦ ἐστιν often signalises that God’s works or promises were not implemented.44 Thus, the scoffers’ question should be understood in this sense: it is a question about the absence of God and his works on earth. The opponents were not interested in the unfulfilled OT prophetic oracles (cf. Ezek 12:21–25; Sir 16:17–23; bSanh 97b) but in the unrealised predictions of Jesus concerning his coming (Matt 24:1–51; cf. Luke 17:20–37).45 Here, the keyword is παρουσία, which appears three times in the letter. Its first occurrence is in the context of the polemic with the adversaries, where the parousia means a future, expected event foretold by the apostles. The objection raised by the false teachers was their reaction to the unfulfilled apostolic message concerning the powerful coming of Jesus Christ (δύναμιν καὶ παρουσίαν) (1:16).46 The promise of his coming reappears as “the coming of the day of God” (παρουσίαν τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμέρας) (3:12). Here, the author meant an eschatological event involving the whole cosmos, which would be annihilated and replaced by new heavens and a new earth.47 In the New Testament, the technical sense of the term παρουσία designates the coming of the glorified Christ.48 The first generation of Christians expected the coming of the risen and glorified Messiah during the lifetime of the apostles, a fact which is confirmed many times in the NT (Mark 9:1 par.; 13:30 par.; Luke 21:32; John 21:22–23). Certainly, Paul cherished this expectation, something which he expressed in his letters.49 This eschatological hope also influenced Paul’s theology,

44 See Judg 6:13; 2 Kgs 18:34; Job 35:10; Ps 42:3, 11; 79:10; 113:10; Isa 36:19; 63:11, 15; Jer 17:15; Joel 2:17; Mal 2:17 (LXX); Watson and Callan, First and Second Peter, 202, 204. 45 Otherwise Adams, “‘Where is the promise’,” 114. 46 In the Greek text: ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν τὴν ... δύναμιν καὶ παρουσίαν, but it is more correctly to explain this connection of two nouns, which is typical of 2 Peter, as a hendiadys and render it as “powerful coming, coming [presence] in power”; see Fornberg, An Early Church, 79. As the plural form of the verb (ἐγνωρίσαμεν) shows, Jesus’ promise was proclaimed by the apostles (1:16; cf. 1:1; 3:2). Differently, Adams, “‘Where is the promise’,” 109–110: “In 2 Pet 3.4, therefore, the object of ridicule is not the parousia of Jesus directly, but the OT promises relating to it.” 47 See 1 Cor 15:24, 28; cf. 2 Thess 1:7-8; 1 Pet 1:7, 13; 4:13. 48 Oepke, “παρουσία,” 856–69, esp. 863–67. 49 1 Thess 1:10; 5:2, 4; 2 Thess 1:7–10; 1 Cor 1:7–8; 4:4–5; 11:26; 15:23–24; 2 Cor 4:3–4; Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16; 3:20–21; Rom 8:31–39; Col 3:3–4. This expectation was also expressed by the early Christian call “Maranatha” (1 Cor 16:22; cf. Rev 22:17, 20).

The Apology of the Parousia and the Day of Judgement (2 Pet 3:1–13)

although in his later epistles, the theme of parousia appears only occasionally.50 Over time, the delay of the parousia posed problems (Heb 10:36–38; Jas 5:7–8), and according to 2 Peter, the unfulfilled promise made the false teachers talk about it, causing anxiety and confusion in the community. The key argument of the adversaries was the delay of the parousia (3:4a), but it was not their only motif. They did not regard this world as transient and destructible; on the contrary, they maintained that, since the deaths of the fathers, all things continued to be as they were from the very beginning of creation (3:4b), and thus, Christ’s coming is impossible. It is not known exactly who the fathers were. Traditionally, in Judaist and early Christian writings, οἱ πατέρες or wider “your fathers/our fathers” referred to Israel’s patriarchs and prophets, and it is adequately understood in this sense in 2 Peter.51 Yet, everything indicates that this text is about the first generation of Christians (cf. 1 Clem. 23.3; 2 Clem.11.2; 19.4), and primarily about the apostles,52 who died; the promised parousia did not happen, and everything has gone on (3:4b).53 The thesis that all things have remained unchanged is reinforced by the additional argument that all things continue as they were from the moment of creation (3:4b). Does this statement contain a mechanistic vision of the world and a conviction that it is unchangeable? Although it cannot be said with certainty, the emphasis on the period from the creation of the world was an important element of the controversy, as the author argues with it in the first place (vv. 5–7). The opponents started by questioning providence, i. e., God’s intervention in the history of the world.54

50 See Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 312: “It can be claimed with confidence that the coming again of Christ was a firm part of Paul’s theology, maintained consistently from first to last in our written sources. Paul’s conviction that the parousia was imminent and becoming ever closer also seems to have remained remarkably untroubled by the progress of events and passing of time.” According to Dunn (see 293–313), the theme of the approaching parousia of Christ awaited by the first generation of Christians was neglected in biblical research; cf. Meeks, The First Urban Christian, 174–75. 51 Cf. Sir 44:1; John 7:22; Acts 3:13; 7:2, 11; 13:32, etc. See Gottlob Schrenk and Gottfried Quell, “πατήρ,” TWNT 5.975–77, 1006–07. This line of thought was also taken by Adams, “‘Where is the promise’,” 112–14, discussing other solutions. 52 In the NT, the apostles were never called “fathers,” but many NT writings indicate the obvious fatherchild relationship between the apostles and Christian communities, e. g., in the Pauline epistles or in 1 John; cf. 1 Pet 5:13. 53 This problem was comprehensively discussed by Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 294: “Thus the critical point for the nonfulfillment of the promise of the Parousia came at the time when it could be said that the generation of the apostles had died.” Yet another solution was proposed by Watson and Callan, First and Second Peter, 205: “An interpretation that minimizes, but does not eliminate, this problem is to see the fathers as the ancestors of the human race in general.” 54 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 295: “The scoffers assumed that God does not intervene in the world.” This false conviction of the opponents must have inclined the author of 2 Peter to present the power of God’s sovereignty in controlling the fate of the world (cf. 2 Pet 2:3–10).

225

226

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

This line of reasoning can lead to further assumptions. While there is no explicit statement in the letter that the false teachers denied the afterlife and retribution, it is assumed in v. 4 that the present world has no end and that everything will continue as before; therefore, there will be no other world. The opponents seem to believe in the existence of this world only, and so the message about the parousia, judgment and retribution after death cannot be true. Consequently, there would be an unmistakable correspondence with the teachings of Epicurus, but 2 Peter itself does not contain obvious traces of the mentioned theological themes, and they can only be presumed.55 2.2.2 The Sovereignty of God (vv. 5–7)

In the following verses, the author refutes his opponents’ arguments, starting with the first premise that, since the beginning of creation, the cosmos has remained unchanged (vv. 5–7). The author arranged his reasoning into two parallel statements; the first refers to the past, based on the biblical narrative (vv. 5–6), while the second to the present (v. 7). They are connected by expressions and theological themes: “heavens and earth,” “the word of God” and “perished – destruction”: w. 5:

by the word of God (τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγῳ) heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed ... w. 6: through which the world (κόσμος) of that time was deluged with water and perished (ἀπώλετο) w. 7a: But by the same word (τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ) the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, w. 7b: being kept until the day of judgment and destruction (ἀπωλείας) of the godless. In his brief introduction, the author pointed to his adversaries’ incompetence and ignorance since, in his opinion, their misleading the community was not deliberate.56 Next, he put forward his argument: the biblical narrative that the cosmos had already been deluged with water (vv. 5–6; cf. Gen 6–9). This idea was unique since, according to the Bible, all living things on earth perished (Gen 7:21–22), while the author of 2 Peter presented the flood as a destruction of the cosmos, i. e., the whole world at that time (see 2 Pet 2:5). This change must have been influenced by

55 This conclusion was drawn by Neyrey, “The Form and Background,” 421: “Implied, then, in 3:3-4 disbelief in any other world than this one – no afterlife, no other world.” 56 In the Greek text: λανθάνει γὰρ αὐτούς … (literally, “it escapes the attention of those who”), where the rare NT verb λανθάνω means “to be hidden, unnoticed” (Mark 7:24; Luke 8:47; Acts 26:26; Heb 13:2). See Bauer 947.

The Apology of the Parousia and the Day of Judgement (2 Pet 3:1–13)

the theological problem of the period, namely, the inevitable end of the world and future destruction of the cosmos. Referring to the biblical story, the author made readers aware of the truth about the destruction of the cosmos that had already occurred, and at the same time pointed to the cause of the event, the power of the word of God.57 It is the power of the word of God that also causes the present heavens and earth, i. e., the whole world, to “have been reserved for fire … until the day of judgment and destruction” (v. 7). This short phrase contains a few essential details that illustrate the author’s intention well. The focus is on “the day of judgement,” a term that the author uses many times and treats as a key theological theme. It is not without reason that this theme is supported by an interesting terminology: ἡμέρα κρίσεως (2:9); ἡμέρα κρίσεως καὶ ἀπωλείας (3:7); ἡμέρα κυρίου (3:10); ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμέρα (3:12; cf. also 1:19; 3:3, 18). In light of the analysed text, the Day of the Lord is the day of both judgement and destruction (v. 7), and this should be understood in the historical context of the threat of doctrinal errors in the community. It is a day of punishment for all who mislead others and for the godless.58 This fragment shows the same theological conviction that the author formulated extensively in the second chapter (2:2–9). Based on biblical history, he expounded God’s power and sovereignty, who sent destruction to the godless (angels, the sinful world before the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah), whilst saving the righteous (Noah and Lot) at the same time.59 The statement that the cosmos will be destroyed by fire was a new and unusual idea, though the motif of judgment and punishment by fire was widely known in the biblical world.60 The destruction of the cosmos by fire was an uncommon 57 Unless the author understands “cosmos” in John’s sense as a bad and sinful world, rejecting God (cf. 2 Pet 2:5: κόσμος ἀσεβῶν). Let us add that vv. 5–7 contain a lot of detailed information that is unclear but interesting because of the interpretation of the text; yet, there is no need to analyse it here. See Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe, 90–92; Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 224–28; cf. Hiebert, Second Peter, 146–51; Adams, “‘Where is the promise’,” 115 n. 41. 58 The term ἀπώλεια, which is characteristic of 2 Peter, occurs five times in the letter; in some other verses, it depicts the destruction of the false prophets who preach disruptive views (2:1, 3). They are uneducated and distort Paul’s letters to their own destruction (3:16). 59 The dualistic picture of the old world is emphasised by terms used contrastively in 2 Pet 2:2–9: impiety and debauchery (v. 2. 5. 7), sin (v. 4), judgment (v. 4. 9), verdict (v. 3), punishment (v. 6. 9), condemnation (v. 3), destruction (v. 3), and extinction (v. 6); on the other hand: the way of truth (v. 2) justice (v. 5), righteous (v. 7. 8), pious (v. 9), save (v. 5), and rescue (v. 7). It is worth noting that the author of the letter refers to the same Old Testament images as Jesus in his apocalyptic speeches (Matt 24:1–51; Luke 17:20–37). 60 Many biblical references can be shown (Isa 51:6; 65:17; 66:15–16; Joel 2:3; Zech 12:6; Mal 3:2, 19; Matt 3:10; 1 Cor 3:13–14; 2 Thess 1:8), also non-biblical ones (1QH 11:29–34; 14:18–19; 1 En. 10:6, 13; 91:9; 2 Bar. 48:43; Sib. Or. 3:80–92; 6:171–92). See Friedrich Lang, “πῦρ,” TWNT 6.935–36, 942–46. The ancient idea of the destruction of the cosmos by fire was extensively discussed by Pieter

227

228

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

concept. In the New Testament, it was used only in 2 Peter (cf. Heb 6:8), and equally scarcely in the Old Testament (Zeph 1:18; 3:8). The immediate context of 2 Peter is the Jewish apocalyptic. The author of the letter speaks of the day of judgment and the destruction of the godless not only in the analysed verses (1:9; 2:1, 3:5–6, 12, etc.), which makes the reference of these verses to the apocalyptic idea of judgment of the godless by fire more probable.61 If the author assumed that the recipients of his letter came from pagan circles, he might have been more familiar with the Stoic concept of the periodic destruction and renewal of the cosmos by fire, according to which everything returned to the basic elements in order to be recreated; this was the so-called conflagration of the universe (ἐκπύρωσις) and eternal return. In this case, the author could have supported his religious viewpoint with the doctrine of one of the powerful Hellenistic schools of philosophy, namely Stoicism.62 Let us add that the idea of the destruction of the cosmos by fire quickly found a wide resonance in the writings of Christian authors.63 Let us focus on the following statement, which is essential. As the author of 2 Peter argues, the heavens and earth sustained by the word of God will perish again since they have already been destroyed once. Biblical history contradicts the opponents’ claims that the world has remained unchanged since the beginning of creation. 2.2.3 The Inevitability of the Day of the Lord (vv. 8–10)

Having dealt with the opponents’ claim that the world remains unchanged, the author addresses the recipients of the letter, explaining the reasons for the delayed parousia (vv. 8–10). His argument is based on three theological premises that make up an internally coherent message: the concept of time in God’s dimension (v. 8),

W. van der Horst, “‘The Elements Will Be Dissolved with Fire’. The Idea of Cosmic Conflagration in Hellenism, Ancient Judaism, and Early Christianity,” in Hellenism – Judaism – Christianity. Essays on Their Interaction (CBET 8; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 227–51; see also Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, 174–77 (he stresses the Stoic elements); Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 296–300, concludes: “In OT texts the function of this fire is to consume the wicked, not to destroy the world” (p. 300); cf. Neyrey, Form und Background, 294–97, in detail analysing the Greek background; Watson and Callan, First and Second Peter, 206–208. 61 An interesting parallel was given by Josephus: “Adam having predicted a destruction of the universe, at one time by a violent fire and at another by a mighty deluge of water...” (Ant. 1.70 [Thackeray, LCL]); also Philo, Mos. 2.263 cf.; LAE 49:3. 62 See Diog. Laer. 7.134; Cicero, Nat. D. 2.118; Seneca, Ep. 9.16; Plutarch, Def. orac. 11 (415F) ; Stoic. rep. 41 (1053B); see Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.381–383; cf. also Adams, “‘Where is the promise’,” 116–121. 63 1 Clem 16.3. See van der Horst, “‘The Elements Will Be Dissolved with Fire’,” 243–51; he discusses 2 Pet 3:5–13 on pp. 245–48.

The Apology of the Parousia and the Day of Judgement (2 Pet 3:1–13)

the immediate cause of the delayed parousia (v. 9) and the assurance that the day of the Lord is coming (v. 10). None of these truths should have gone unnoticed by the addressees.64 The first premise shows the theological truth that time goes beyond the human understanding of time, because with the Lord, “one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day” (v. 8b). Most commentators refer this verse to Ps 90:4 (89:4 LXX): “For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past, or like a watch in the night.” It can also refer to biblical (Sir 18:9–11) and apocalyptic (2 Bar. 48:12–13) traditions65 as well as to Pseudo-Philo (LAB 19.13a), texts that more or less allude to Ps 90:4 (cf. 1 Cor 7:29–31). These texts deal with God’s eternity, and at the same time, the finiteness and transience of human life, but outside the eschatological context of the last days.66 However, for the author of 2 Peter, this became an element of his eschatological explanation (cf. vv. 9–10), having no analogy in the earlier texts. Thus, it is assumed that this thought is a personal contribution of the author of 2 Peter to the development of theology.67 Note the interesting correspondence with Plutarch in the context of his arguments on the forbearance of inflicting punishment upon the wicked. According to Plutarch, De sera 9 (Mor. 554D), for the Gods, “every distance and distinction of human life is nothing” and hence there is a delay of punishment for evil, as punishment will inevitably come. The content of this statement corresponds to the argument of v. 8b, but above all, the eschatological context of both texts, i. e., the delay of God’s final intervention is similar.68 In the next verse, which is of primary importance in the polemic with the opponents, the author gives a reason for the delay of the parousia – God is waiting for the conversion of those who err. Since it is so important, let us quote the whole verse (v. 9):

64 One should first note the emphatic introduction to vv. 8–10: “But do not ignore this one fact…” (ἓν δὲ τοῦτο …), highlighting the importance of his argument. The truths of faith that he presents should by no means have escaped the attention of the community. 65 “For we are born in a short time, and in a short time we return. With you, however, the hours are like times, and the days like generations” (trans. A. F.J. Klijn). 66 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 308–309; Fornberg, An Early Church, 68–70; Neyrey, “The Form and Background,” 429–30. 67 Cf. early Christian literature that did not depend on 2 Peter: Barn.15.4; Justin, Dial. 81.8; Irenaeus, Haer. 5.23.2, 28.3; see Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 230. 68 Neyrey, “The Form and Background,” 426–27, claiming that the OT and Jewish parallels to 2 Pet 3:8 do not refer to the last judgement: although the tone of 2 Pet 3:8 is biblical and Jewish, the sense and purpose of the verse depend on the anti-Epicurean tradition.

229

230

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται, ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι.

The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

Using κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, the author refers to the false teachers’ accusation concerning the unfulfilled promise of Christ’s coming (v. 4). The enigmatic κύριος (without an article) allows us to think of Christ as the subject of the sentence, but in biblical tradition, the promise of the day of the Lord was related to God, and this is what the author proclaims (see 2:9, 11; 3:8, 10, 15).69 In his objection, the author states that the Lord is quick to fulfil his promise, as some believe. Thus, he deals with the complaint of the opponents and also presents a new approach when he refers to the conviction of some members of the community (ὥς τινες … ἡγοῦνται) affected by the influence of the teachers who have erred (3:12).70 The delay of the parousia of Christ is defined by the unique verb in the New Testament βραδύνω (“to delay, to procrastinate, to be late”), which has a negative connotation.71 The crucial content of the verse in question lies in the assertion that the delayed parousia was intended by God, because he was long-suffering for the sake of the members of the Christian community (μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς) and waiting for those who would come to repentance (πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι). 69 See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 311; Hiebert, Second Peter, 154. The ambiguity of the subject of the promise has been signalled by many commentators, which should not be surprising, because the coming of Christ was understood as a coming of God himself into human history; it also results from a deepened Christological reflection. See Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 295. Writing in a general and imprecise way, Adams does not give a detailed bibliography, “‘Where is the promise’,” 107: “Scholars unvaryingly accept that ‘the promise of his coming’ is a straightforward reference to Jesus’ return. The great majority of commentators think that the opponents’ temporal objection relates to Jesus’ failure to come back within a generation, as he had apparently ‘promised’ to do in sayings such as Mark 13.30 + par.” Neyrey states it more precisely; Neyrey, “The Form and Background,” 430: “the criticism is misplaced since the polemic confronting 2 Peter was a specific attack on theodicy, not Christology: the issue was divine judgment in general, not Christ’s in particular.” 70 This is further confirmed by the meaning of the phrase “not wanting any to perish” (μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι) in the same verse. God does not wish to destroy “some,” i. e., members of the community who went astray. See Neyrey, “The Form and Background,” 414–415; Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 230–31; Hiebert, Second Peter, 155; differently in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 311 (using τινες, the author directly meant his opponents). The verb ἡγέομαι is also used in other verses meaning “to think, to consider, to regard” (1:13; 2:13; 3:9, 15). See Bauer 696. 71 Having a specific meaning of “delayed parousia,” the verb βραδύνω appears only in this NT verse; in 1 Tim 3:15, it has the meaning “zögern, säumen.” See Bauer 293.

The Apology of the Parousia and the Day of Judgement (2 Pet 3:1–13)

In Jewish tradition, the coming of the day of the Lord was a known OT (Isa 13:9–22; 51:14; Sir 35:19) and Judaic (2 Bar. 20:6; 21:20; 48:39; bSanh 97b) theologumenon; the idea included the delay of his coming (Hab 2:3–4; cf. 1QpHab 7:5–14). According to some commentators, this tradition was the original background of 2 Peter.72 Indeed, there are external similarities, but fundamental differences should also be noted. These texts confirm God’s imminent intervention and the coming of irrevocable punishment upon sinners, but they are silent about God’s patience and goodness as well as the time given for repentance.73 On the other hand, the author of 2 Peter presented God’s delay as a time given for repentance and a sign of God’s goodness. The author repeated this thought, saying that the members of the community should consider God’s patience as leading to salvation (3:14–15a).74 The texts describing God’s patience and kindness arouse great interest. Patience is listed among the many attributes of God in Exod 34:6–8, and there are more such texts in the Old Testament.75 The author of the Book of Wisdom also raises these arguments. He presents the delay in judging and punishing (κρίνων δὲ κατὰ βραχύ) as God’s waiting for the sinner to repent (ἐδίδους τόπον μετανοίας) (Wis 12:10; cf. 11:23; 12:20; Joel 2:11–13). Also, according to Philo, God is slow to punish, as he gives sinners a chance to repent (Leg. 3.106). These texts are rooted in the wisdom tradition and respond to the historical-salvific experiences of men who encountered wickedness and sin. They lack the idea of the day of Yahweh or the thought of future judgment. Paul referred to the same tradition when writing about the richness of God’s goodness, tolerance and patience in bringing man to repentance (Rom 2:4; cf. 9:22; 1 Pet 3:20). However, the texts that illustrate God’s patience with sinners do not include the idea of the eschatological day of the Lord or the resulting delay of the day of judgment.76

72 Cf. Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 232–33; similarly, Paulsen, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 165. 73 “If it seems to tarry, wait for it; it will surely come, it will not delay. Look at the proud! Their spirit is not right in them, but the righteous live by their faith” (Hab 2:3–4). 74 The terminology used in 2 Pet 3:15 (καὶ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε) is close to v. 3:9b; the new element is σωτηρία. 75 In the Hebrew text of Exod 34:6, God is “slow to anger.” The Greek translator of the LXX used the adjective “long-suffering” (Exod 34:6: μακρόθυμος). It is the standard rendering in the LXX (Num 14:18; Neh 9:17; Ps 85:15; 102:8; 144:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nah 1:3; Prov 14:29; 16:32; cf. Wis 15:1). 76 Neyrey, “The Form and Background,” 423–27; Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 231–32; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 311. Rom 2:4 seems to be the closest parallel in terms of content to 2 Pet 3:9, assuming that the author of 2 Peter was familiar with Paul’s epistles (cf. 2 Pet 3:15).

231

232

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

Summing up, the particular theological motifs confirmed in v. 9 are dispersed in biblical and non-biblical traditions, but never occur together.77 That is why Neyrey correctly quoted pagan literature. The motif of the delay of punishment, imposed by God’s long-suffering and goodness, occurs in Plutarch’s De sera numinis vindicata (Moralia, 548A–568A), in which the author polemicizes with the Epicurean view of providence. The most disturbing and difficult-to-refute argument against providence put forward by the Epicureans was the delay of punishment for man’s evil deeds, i. e., the delay of divine judgment. Plutarch responded to the objection by pointing out, among other things, that the delay speaks in favour of God, who is slow to anger and thus gives man time for repentance and retribution. Because of the characteristic terminology (μακροθυμία, μετάνοια, ἀπολέσθαι), verse 9 should be understood as the author’s reply to the objection of the false teachers. They doubted the apostolic promises, including the judgement of the world, which is the final sense, according to Neyrey, of the delayed parousia.78 Their doubt is also highlighted by the theological message of 2 Peter, in which the day of the Lord, as a day of judgment and retribution, plays a leading role. The wicked will be judged after death and are therefore reserved for the day of judgment (2:3–9; 3:7), while the righteous will receive their reward in the eternal kingdom (1:10–11; 3:13), and thus death is not the ultimate end of human life. Although the author of 2 Peter did not present the views of his opponents, it is not without reason to suppose that the delay of the parousia, understood as the coming of Christ, the day of judgment and retribution, was the subject of the dispute. The non-fulfilment of the promise of the parousia led to a crisis in the Church. This is the only NT testimony concerning this topic, because Paul and the Churches he founded did not experience crises caused by the delay of Christ’s return.79 The last section of the argumentation concerning the inevitability of the coming of the Lord fully confirms our remarks. The author of 2 Peter categorically upheld the teaching of the parousia (v. 10) preached by the apostles. The vocabulary and content of the verse were taken from Jewish apocalyptic and Gospel tradition, thus well fitting into the background to the debate, which has been outlined theologically. His key argument was based on a tradition directly derived from Jesus Christ, who himself presented the coming of the Son of man metaphorically in a parable, as the unexpected coming of a thief at night. Next, the author referred the above comparison to the day of the Lord: ἥξει δὲ ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης (v. 10a), like

77 Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, 179: “But the twofold answer given to this question in Second Peter is original and intriguing.” 78 Neyrey, “The Form and Background,” 415 n. 30: “Thus 3:9a should be understood as a rejection of the traditional doctrine of the coming judgment at the parousia.” 79 See Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 313: “More to the immediate point, there is no real hint in Paul’s letters of any crisis caused by ‘the delay of the parousia’.”

The Apology of the Parousia and the Day of Judgement (2 Pet 3:1–13)

Paul had done earlier (1 Thess 5:2).80 The change of the acting subject fit perfectly with the theological programme of 2 Peter, its focus being the coming of the day of the Lord and the events related to it. The author offered a form of theodicy, asking about God’s presence and his works in the world, but did not deal with Christology, and this is supported by the content of the verse, namely the destruction of the cosmos by fire. In the roar of destructive fire, the heavens will pass away (v. 10b), and the elements of the cosmos (στοιχεῖα) (v. 10c) (or “bodies” in the sky, angelic heavenly “powers”) will be dissolved. Here, we have the same apocalyptic vision of the cosmos perishing in a fire as before (v. 7b) and a little later (v. 12), but still being controlled by the power of God.81 Commentators face unusual problems with the last fragment of the verse, “and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed” (10d). They are related, inter alia, to the corruption of the Greek text, as ancient commentators also perceived. This conclusion has been drawn based on the great number of contradictory variants of this verse, which confirm theological struggles with the text and its interpretation.82 The verse explains the consequences of the eschatological annihilation of the cosmos. It does not show a description of the final stage of the destruction of the material cosmos, as it might seem to do and as some critics assume, but presents a biblical image of the last judgement as other exegetes have correctly indicated. The passive form of the verb εὑρεθήσεται (passivum divinum) defines God’s action. As for the content, the popular and frequently occurring biblical verb εὑρίσκω expresses, among other things, ethical and religious judgements, both positive (Isa 53:9; Ps 16:3; Neh 9:8) and negative (Gen 44:16), e. g., referring to a person breaking the law (“he was found,” i. e., “exposed, disclosed, caught in lawlessness”).83 Thus, the meaning of the fragment would be as follows: when the firmament of the heavens as a wall separating God from the earth perishes in fire

80 Cf. Matt 24:43–44; Luke 12:39–40; also Rev 3:3; 16:15 (“I will come”). The emphatic placing of the verb at the beginning of the sentence indicates the certainty of the coming of the day of the Lord, additionally underlined by δέ-adversativum. See Fornberg, An Early Church, 25; slightly different by Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 306. 81 For more on the topic of the author’s eschatological images and terminology, see Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 233–34; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 316–18; Watson and Callan, First and Second Peter, 209–210; as well as van der Horst, “‘The Elements Will Be Dissolved with Fire’,” 247, who thinks that it is about “heavenly bodies.” The author of the letter follows biblical and apocalyptic tradition (Isa 34:4 LXX; Rev 6:14; 21:1; 1 En. 91:16), but the influence of Stoic ideas cannot be excluded. 82 Following other authors, one should assume the reading εὑρεθήσεται as a lectio difficilior and better attested to by external witnesses (‫א‬, B, K, P, 0156, some minuscules, syrph , arm, Origen). See the discussion in Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 234–35; Fornberg, An Early Church, 75–77; esp. Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 705–706. 83 Usually the Hebrew ‫( ִיָמֵּצא‬Niphal from the root ‫)מצא‬. See Herbert Preisker, “εὑρίσκω,” TWNT 2.767–68.

233

234

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

and passes away, from God’s point of view, “the earth and everything done on it will be found out” (NAB), i. e., disclosed and subjected to judgement, and man’s deeds will be revealed.84 The entire cosmos will be destroyed, but the godless and their works will be brought under God’s scrutiny, judgment and verdict. The inevitability of the events to come should make the false teachers aware of their desperate plight and future fate.85 The above part of the line of reasoning (vv. 8–10) from the perspective of the Christian doctrine of the last things is most significant and far-reaching. For his part, the author of the letter cites the most crucial arguments against the allegations of his opponents, pointing to the errors in their reasoning, and, starting from their claims, refutes them and presents his point of view. While searching for the possible historical, religious and cultural contexts of these verses, what again comes to mind is the thought of the anti-Epicurean overtone of the author’s polemic. Epicurus’ disciples programmatically rejected the thesis that there was anything after death, such as eternal life and retribution, and their belief was uncommon in the Hellenistic-Roman era.86 2.2.4 New Heavens and a New Earth (vv. 11–13)

Since the last part of the argumentation is of less importance to the question about the Epicurean background of the polemic present in 2 Peter, it can be dealt with sketchily. The author of the letter again pointed to the inevitability of the destruction of the cosmos and the certainty of the promise, which is formulated this time as a promise of new heavens and a new earth (vv. 11–13). Having dealt with his opponents’ arguments, the author of 2 Peter addressed the recipients of the letter directly, referring to ad personam arguments. He had in mind the specific situation of the members of the Church and at the same time his addressees, who should not only live holy and devoutly in order to avoid punishment on the day of destruction, but can also hasten the coming of the day of God by their behaviour (vv. 11–12a). The author returns to the thought of the delay 84 In 2 Peter, again in 3:14, where the verb εὑρίσκω has a similar meaning as in the analysed verse. Here we are dealing with good works of the members of the community who “will be found” by God (cf. the personal pronoun αὐτῷ), i. e., God should find them “at peace, without spot or blemish.” This interpretation of the verse is supported by 2 Clem. 16.3; see Picirilli, Allusions to 2 Peter, 63–65; also Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 237–38. 85 The supposition that it is about the ungodly comes from the connection between v. 10 and v. 7, the latter speaking of the day of judgment and the destruction of the godless. See Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 235–37; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 318–19; van der Horst, “‘The Elements Will Be Dissolved with Fire’,” 247–48. This has been opposed by Fornberg, An Early Church, 74–78, who regards this verse as the final stage of the destruction of the cosmos by fire. 86 See more Neyrey, Form und Background, 54–55.

The Apology of the Parousia and the Day of Judgement (2 Pet 3:1–13)

of the parousia, suggesting that the delay is indirectly the fault of sinners whose repentance is awaited by God (v. 9). Through the holy behaviour and godly lives of its members (v. 11), the community can hasten the parousia, which here is referred to as “the day of God” (v. 12: ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμέρα). We are dealing with praise of the addressees by the writer, who wants to win over his recipients and also encourage them to continue their lives of holiness. This fragment allows us to see the unique expression – “the coming of the day of God” (τὴν παρουσίαν τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμέρας) (v. 12a). Traditionally, the Christian teaching meant the day of the Lord, as in other NT verses and also in 2 Peter (3:10; cf. 1:16; 3:4). However, did the author mean the coming of Christ or God himself? The article does not resolve the difficulty, and there appears another difficulty, identical to the one previously signalled, in identifying the acting subject, which is presented interchangeably as κύριος (3:10) and ὁ θεός (3:12).87 As the general meaning of 2 Peter suggests, it should be assumed that the acting subject is God, while the day of the parousia and judgement is the coming of “the day of God” (v. 12a). However, there must have been special reasons for which the author used this uncommon expression (cf. Rev 16:14). The essence of the message concerns the inevitability of events that will cause the world to be destroyed by a devastating fire. The motif of the destruction of the world and the motif of fire as an instrument occurred several times earlier (cf. 3:7, 9–10), but they are here to lead to the author’s final statement. The last verse (v. 13) closes the apology of the parousia of the day of the Lord and is a logical culmination of the previous arguments. The author deals with the fulfilment of the promises expected by the community (cf. 1:4) and extends the apostolic message by pointing to the importance of eschatological events. The verse begins with the expectation of “new heavens and a new earth.” Thus, the destruction of the cosmos is not a definite end of God’s action, but a transitional stage leading to a new creation (cf. 3:5, 7, 10).88 Note the plural form of the verb “we wait for” (προσδοκῶμεν).89 As a witness and guarantor, the author of 2 Peter, along with the other members of the community, waits for the promise to be fulfilled (v. 13;

87 Cf. the initial greetings (1:1–2). The lack of clarity in identifying the acting subject was not a theological problem for Christians who believed that God was acting in Christ. See Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 294: “And as the assertion of Christ’s pre-existence was a way of saying that God in Christ was also God in creation, so the assertion Christ’s coming again is a way of saying that God in Christ is also God in final judgement.” 88 The “new heavens and a new earth” foretold by Trito-Isaiah (Isa 65:17; 66:22; cf. Rev 21:1); similarly, the motif of new creation appears in Jewish apocalyptic (Jub. 1:29; 1 En. 45:4–5; 72:1; 91:16) and in the NT (Matt 19:28; Rom 8:19–23). 89 The first person in the plural (“we”) appears several times in the letter, not only as a rhetorical technique, but also as a testimony of the apostolic faith of great importance (1:13–15; 3:1–2). The verb προσδοκάω, used thrice in 2 Peter 3:12–14 and 15 times in the NT, usually occurs in the context of eschatological hope (Matt 11:3; Luke 7:19; Jude 21; cf. 2 Macc 7:14; 12:44).

235

236

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

cf. 1:4). The last segment of the verse is very meaningful, since the writer states that righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) will dwell in the new, God-created reality. The author again shows his interest in Christian life and morality, and consequently, his coherent concept of God, the world and man.90 The author of 2 Peter was engaged in polemic concerning the theses about the parousia and the day of the Lord proclaimed by the false teachers. The analysis of the apology in 2 Pet 3:3–13 allows us to discover the content of the opponents’ objections, namely the delay of the parousia preached by the apostles, which was the fundamental problem of Christianity in the late first century. The author of the letter upheld and confirmed the certainty of the promise of Christ’s return, which was presented as the day of judgment and retribution as well as the coming of “new heavens and a new earth.” The author’s apology, based on ideas from the OT, Judaic theology and pagan writings, provides an answer to the most important question posed by Christians at the turn of the first and second centuries CE.91 This anxiety also existed in other Churches as evidenced by the second ending of John’s Gospel (21:20–23), which signals the same problem related to the death of the apostle John. However, the author of 2 Peter is the only one in the NT who addressed this theologically significant problem and provided an answer. He dealt with the arguments of his opponents, but most of all, he instructed members of the Church and Christians of all ages that the delay of the parousia does not mean that it will not happen. The delay is a decision of the sovereign and merciful God, who gives mankind time to repent and is the only one who knows the time of the appointed day of judgment. 2.3

Anti-Epicurean Elements of the Apology of the Parousia

In the apology of the promise of the parousia (3:1–13), one can find many ideas that significantly bring the author of 2 Peter closer to the polemical, anti-Epicurean rhetoric of his time, which is known mainly from Plutarch’s writings. At this point, these ideas should be collected and profoundly analysed, theologically and comparatively, with pagan authors’ works. Undefined opponents denied God’s providence. They first stressed the continuance and unchangeability of this world because, according to the false teachers, from the fathers’ deaths, all things continued as they were from the beginning of creation (3:3–4). Here, a specific concept of the existence of the cosmos is assumed, according to which the opponents believe that only this present world exists. Epicu-

90 This idea is known in biblical tradition (Isa 9:7; 11:4–5; Rom 14:17) and non-biblical tradition (1 En. 5:8–9; 10:16, 20–21; 2 En. 65:7; 4 Ezra 7:114; Pss. Sol. 17:40). 91 Frankemölle, 2. Petrusbrief, 78; Watson and Callan, First and Second Peter, 211–212.

The Apology of the Parousia and the Day of Judgement (2 Pet 3:1–13)

rus argued likewise (Ep. Hdt. 10.39): “Moreover, the sum total of things was always such as it is now, and such it will ever remain. For there is nothing into which it can change.”92 As a consequence, they denied the parousia, judgement and retribution after death. Therefore, God’s providence as outlined in the apostolic message could not be true.93 Also, the Epicurean argued against providence, referring, for example, to unfulfilled predictions and prophecies. That is why Epicurus rejected magic and fortune-telling (cf. Diog. Laer. 10.135; Cicero, Nat. D. 2.162). Another interesting parallel can be found in 2 Pet 3:9. The theme of God’s delay of retribution, dictated by his patience, appears in Plutarch’s De sera numinis vindicata (Moralia, 548C–551E). Plutarch polemicizes with the Epicurean view of providence that the gods were not concerned about human beings, did not judge them and did not condemn them, and that there was no retribution after death. The most disturbing and irresistible argument against providence raised by the Epicureans was the delay of divine judgment, and thus also the punishment for people’s evil acts. Plutarch responded to this objection with five arguments. Pointing to delayed punishment, he argues that, thanks to it, God has time to soothe his passion, and so he does not act out of anger (De sera 550D–551C), but gives man time to reform and turn away from evil (De sera 551C–552D), and even permits subsequent good to appear (De sera 552D–553D). Thanks to this delay, God can set up the most appropriate punishment (De sera 553D–F). Finally, Plutarch perversely states, referring to the teaching of Epicurus himself, that there was no delay, since the culprit lives with guilt and fear of punishment anyway (see K.D. XXXV – Diog. Laer. 10.151). In his arguments, Plutarch shows that a delay speaks for the benevolence of God who is tardy, allowing time and making it possible for human beings to reform and escape retribution for their crimes after death. It is this argument that interests us the most.94 First, Plutarch quotes the most important Epicurean charge against providence: “The delay and procrastination of the Deity in punishing the wicked appears to me the most telling argument by far” (ἡ περὶ τὰς τιμωρίας … τῶν πονηρῶν βραδυτὴς τοῦ δαιμονίου καὶ μέλλησις …) (De sera 548C) and that God is careless and indifferent towards the wicked (cf. De sera 548D), which leads to the

92 Diog. Laer. 10.39: καὶ μὴν καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἀεὶ τοιοῦτον ἦν οἷον νῦν ἐστι, καὶ ἀεὶ τοιοῦτον ἔσται (Usener, Epicurea, 6); cf. Hiebert, Second Peter, 146–47 (in opposition to that, the author of 2 Peter stressed the creative power of the word of God). 93 Cf. Neyrey, The Form and Background, 39–40: “The second point, which we shall discuss more fully when we come to examine Epicurean theology, is that in the origin and operation of the world nothing is owned to divine agency. In the Letter to Herodotus Epicurus prefaces his brief treatment of celestial phenomena with a warning against the belief in a divine being who ‘controls and ordains’ the motions of the heavenly bodies, and he assails the notion that these bodies are themselves divine.” 94 See Neyrey, “The Form and Background,” 410, 425 (here we have summarised his arguments).

237

238

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

next assertion that “his slowness destroys belief in providence” (τὴν πίστιν ἡ βραδυτὴς ἀφαιρεῖ τῆς προνοίας) (De sera 549B). Responding to the Epicurean charges, Plutarch argues that the delay is purposeful, because it results from “the gentleness and magnanimity displayed by God” (τὴν πραότητα καὶ τὴν μεγαλοψυχίαν ἣν ὁ θεὸς ἐνδείκνυται) (cf. De sera 551C–F). Thanks to this divine virtue, “it profits and admonishes many by the delay” (τῷ δὲ βραδέως πολλοὺς ὠφελοῦσαν καὶ νουθετοῦσαν) (De sera 551C), and “his justice will in any way yield and make room for repentance” (πρὸς μετάνοιαν ἐνδίδωσι καὶ χρόνον) (De sera 551D–E). Juxtaposing these texts with 2 Pet 3:9 allows us to discover an astonishing convergence of their language, structure and content. In 2 Pet 3:9, the adversaries raise the objection that God is slow about his coming, to which the author responds that God is not slow as some think (οὐ βραδύνει κύριος ... ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται). The delay is intentional, since it results from God’s long-suffering (μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς) and goodness, and it aims at granting those who have erred time for repentance (πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι). In both cases, the vocabulary is very close or similar, while terminological differences appear mainly where the author of 2 Peter uses characteristic biblical language (κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, μακροθυμεῖ, ἀπολέσθαι).95 Another amazing thing is the structural consistency of the apologies, in which their authors first exclude the negative meaning of God’s delay, and then show the positive reason for the delay which results from God’s virtues and his waiting for the reformation of human beings. In formal terms, the internal structure of the apology developed in defence of orthodox eschatology is the same as in Plutarch’s De sera: apologists interpret the formulation about delayed punishment (1) resulting from the erroneous reasoning of the opponents in a positive sense (2), showing that it is a gift of time for reformation (3), while the basis is God’s goodness (4). In this sense, 2 Pet 3:9 belongs to typical apologies as part of traditional (orthodox) eschatology functioning in the Hellenistic-Roman world.96

3.

The Apology of Christian Morality

Second Peter was created out of the need of the moment, a time when doctrinal errors appeared in the community. However, the actual reason for writing the

95 Cf. Bauer 990; Johannes Horst, “μακροθυμία κτλ,” TWNT 4.389–90. 96 See Neyrey, “The Form and Background,” 427: “Plutarch’s De sera and Philo’s De Providentia provide important analogies precisely because of their formal similarities with the argument in 2 Peter 3:9b; and the context of their remarks on delayed punishment are clearly an apologetic response to eschatological heterodoxy”; cf. Berger, “Streit um Gottes Vorsehung,” 126–28; Rokeah, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 134–39.

The Apology of Christian Morality

letter was to defend the local Church against the moral threats posed by the false teachers. Not only did they proclaim doctrinal errors, but they also drew practical conclusions about everyday life and Christian attitudes (orthopraxia) from their beliefs. On the one hand, the author argues with their erroneous views, and on the other, he attacks moral nihilism, urging members of the community to live according to the teachings of Christ the Lord. In the context of the question about possible traces of Epicureanism in 2 Peter, one cannot ignore the ethical and moral issues. The elements of ethical and moral teaching contained in the letter may shed light on the false teachers and the genesis of their errors. 3.1

Called to Communion with God

The significance of ethical and moral issues was emphasized in the introductory part of 2 Peter, in which the author not only reminded his recipients of the great promises made to them, but also pointed to “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” as the source of the Christian faith and participation in God’s nature (2 Pet 1:1–4).97 In his introduction, the author took up a theme that will reappear many times later. In stating that “His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness” (v. 3), he reveals his ethical interests. Christians whom God called in Christ have received and still have everything (δεδωρημένης)98 needed for “life and godliness.”99 In the Hellenistic environment, godliness (εὐσέβεια) usually meant a religious attitude expressed by respect and reverence for God; in 2 Peter, it additionally expressed reverence for God’s will and respecting it, as well as moral conduct and life resulting from the faith received.100 Hence, the recipients of the letter are

97 See Scott Hafemann, “‘Divine Nature’ in 2 Pet 1,4 within its Eschatological Context,” Bib 94 (2013): 80–99; he writes: “The point of 2 Pet 1,4 is not ontological. What God promises in 1,4 is that his people may become fellow participants (with one another) in God’s character as expressed in his eschatological acts of deliverance on their behalf at the end of history” (p. 96). The connection between doctrinal teaching (orthodoxy) and Christian life (orthopraxy) is also emphasised by Fornberg, An Early Church, 94–101. 98 The participium perfecti passivi of the verb δωρέομαι (“to give, grant”), as in the following verse. 99 The phrase τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν (literary, “for life and godliness”) should better be rendered as “for a godly life” since it is another hendiadys in the letter. See Fornberg, An Early Church, 90. 100 It appears very rarely in the LXX (Isa 33:6; Wis 10:12; Prov 1:7; 4 Macc 5:18; 13:26; 15:1); only once in Luke’s writing (Acts 3:12), and as many as ten times in the pastoral epistles (1 Tim 2:2; 3:16; 4:7–8; 6:3, 5–6, 11; 2 Tim 3:5; Titus 1:1) and four times in our letter (2 Pet 1:3, 6, 7; 3:11; cf. 2:9: εὐσεβής). The term also occurs in the writings of Philo and Josephus; it is mainly characteristic of the Hellenistic environment; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 175–76; Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 139.

239

240

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

called to observe the Christian virtues, of which faith was listed first, and love last, and the catalogue also includes the virtue of piety (cf. 1:5–7). The theme reappears in the final section of the letter in which the author calls the addressees to lead lives of holiness and godliness (3:11). Thus, the encouragement and call to abide in godliness and grace occur both at the beginning (1:3–4, 5–7) and at the end of the letter in the form of a parenesis, a consequence of the eschatological explication about the coming day of judgement and retribution (3:14–18).101 3.2

The Immoral Attitude of the False Teachers

The topic of piety and Christian living appears in 2 Peter primarily in a negative way, as a presentation of the opponents’ godlessness, and at the same time, as a defence of the community against moral libertinism and lawlessness. This negative aspect of the author’s statement comes to the fore in the uncompromising criticism he directs against the false teachers in his numerous scattered and brief messages in 2 Pet. The second chapter of his letter draws special attention, since it contains the fullest picture of his opponents’ moral decline. Having recalled the apostolic teaching and assured the reader about its correctness (1:12–21), the author proceeded to deal with his opponents, whom he called “false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions” (2:1). On the one hand, he emphasised their destructive influence on the local Church, many of whose members believed in their words, and on the other hand, he repeatedly spoke of their inevitable destruction and condemnation, since, having denied the Lord, they are subject to judgment and annihilation (2:1–3). The author referred to biblical arguments showing the might and power of God in order to prove the correctness of his statements (cf. 2:4–9). His references to biblical narratives aimed to present the tragic situation of the unrighteous and the certainty of the salvation of the godly: “then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment” (2:9). These included first of all the pseudo-teachers slandering the glorious ones; the pseudo-teachers, like irrational animals, born to be killed, are also doomed. Ironizing, the author reverses his statement: those who do not believe in the parousia will be judged and put to death; like the unrighteous, they will certainly face destruction (2:10–12). The next section describes the moral attitude of the false teachers (2:13–22), partly in traditional images and biblical metaphors and partly in ancient rhetorical 101 The parenetic part formally completes the dogmatic part of the letter, like in the remaining NT epistolary literature NT (Rom 12:1–15:13; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:1–6:20; Phil 4:1–9; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Pet 5:1–10); it also characterises the testament as a literary genre (1 En. 91:3–19; 94:1–5; Jub. 36:3–11; 2 Bar. 84–85).

The Apology of Christian Morality

figures. We also have detailed descriptions of the false teachers, allowing us to get to know the nature of their moral iniquity. 3.2.1 The Libertinism of the False Teachers

For polemical reasons, the author of 2 Peter depreciates the teaching authority of his opponents and disqualifies them morally, and this has played a minor role in the research on the letter. Yet, it is also important to examine the negative influence of the opponents on the ethical and moral life of the community and their doctrinal errors. Likewise, little attention has been paid to the teaching function of the adversaries who gained many followers described by the unique NT term – “false teachers” (2 Pet 2:1).102 The author of 2 Peter used specific terminology from the fields of ethics and morality as well as apocalyptic images of the day of judgment and the destruction of the unrighteous. His vocabulary is extremely rich. The unrighteous will face eternal destruction (ἀπώλεια).103 They are subject to condemnation and annihilation (φθορά) like irrational animals that are to be slaughtered (2:12). The disintegration and destruction of the cosmos are, according to 2 Peter, a result of God’s judgment

102 Likewise, Adams is very reserved about this issue, Adams, “‘Where is the promise’,” 108, leaving it almost completely silent: “To be sure, we ought to be sceptical about the historical accuracy of much of the polemical portrait of the opponents in chapter 2, with its accusations of immorality, underhand tactics and impure motives, but when the writer gives explicit information about the content of their teaching in 3.4, I think we can treat his account with some confidence.” However, in such a case, the question arises as to the credibility of the argumentation of the author of the letter and about the reaction of the addressees, who not only knew the situation of the Church threatened with immorality, but also accepted the teachings of the false teachers. The accusations of immorality are similarly valuable in the argumentation of the author of the letter (and in our argumentation) as the information about their erroneous teaching. 103 The author’s favourite term ἀπώλεια describes the fate of sinners on the day of the final judgement (cf. also 3:6, 9: ἀπόλλυμι); a similar meaning in other NT verses (Matt 7:13; John 17:12; Rom 9:22; Phil 1:28; 3:19; 2 Thess 2:3; Heb 10:39; Rev 17:8, 11). See Albrecht Oepke, “ἀπόλλυμι,” TWNT 1.395–96; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 241.

241

242

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

and a consequence of sin according to biblical tradition (Wis 1:16; 2:24; Rom 5:12), and not a result of the transience of the world as the Greeks believed.104 The author’s accusations against his opponents are described in the most general way using the term ἐπιθυμία – desire, longing, lust (1:4; 2:10, 18; 3:3), assuming various nuances of meaning depending on the context and objects in the sentences. In a religious-ethical sense, the term means the evil and morally reprehensible desires of the lawless. In Greek philosophy, the concept had an ethical, not a religious, meaning.105 The Old Testament and Judaism knew the concept of natural desires, but ἐπιθυμία had primarily a religious sense and defined sins against God, who demands man’s absolute obedience. Hellenistic Judaism also understood ἐπιθυμία as godless desires or sins.106 Consequently, the Bible condemns not only evil deeds but also evil desires, craving and lust; this particular aspect of God’s will can be framed in the commandment “You shall not covet...” (cf. Rom 7:7; 13:9). In the New Testament, including 2 Peter, the term has a similar meaning.107 It first appears in the introduction to the letter, generally designating a fleshly, sinful lust or craving that is present in the world and that causes the entire world to fall apart and be destroyed. The same desire (ἐπιθυμία), on the other hand, prevents Christians from becoming participants of the divine nature (1:4). This idea has two close parallels in the NT (Eph 4:22; 1 John 2:17). The term reappears in the context of the day of

104 This extremely interesting term, φθορά (2 Pet 1:4; 2:12, 19), generally expressed the idea of passing away, destruction and decay, and in the ethical sense – corruption and depravity (as some exegetes interpret this term in 2 Peter). Harder is right to translate φθορά in its basis meaning as “Zerstörung, Vernichtung” in the ideal dimension as personified power (Destructibility, Deadliness) and at the same time, a sign of God’s judgement of sinners (cf. Rom 8:21; Gal 6:8; 1 Cor 15:42, 50; Col 2:22). The most interesting text can be found in 2 Pet 2:12, where we read ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν καὶ φθαρήσονται, which can be rendered: moral corruption will bring upon the sinner corruption and physical decay. The term φθορά and its correlate have an important place in Greek philosophy, especially in the Hellenistic era. See Günther Harder, “φθορά,” TWNT 9.103–105. 105 The term ἐπιθυμία appears in the pre-classical Greek period, describing human desires very generally, sometimes more specifically. From the time of Plato, who distinguished between good and evil desires, and above all, from the Stoics, the term acquired a special meaning: ἐπιθυμία, excluded by Aristotle from ethics, was classified by the Stoics as one of the four main passions in opposition to reason and common sense (λογισμός); ἐπιθυμία received a similarly important place in the ethics of Epicurus (cf. K.D. XXIX; Ep. Men. 127; Diog. Laer. 10.127, 149); cf. Reale, Storia della filosofia antica, 3.423–28. 106 Cf. Num 11:4, 34; Deut 9:22; Ps 105:14; Prov 6:25. 107 In the NT, the term, in its nominal and verbal forms, appears only exceptionally in the Gospels, but much more often in epistolary literature, describing natural desires (Matt 13:17; Luke 15:16; 16:21; 17:22; 22:15). It often has a religious meaning, and when pointing to evil desires; ἐπιθυμία is morally and religiously reprehensible not because of irrationality (ἀλογισμός), as it was for the Greeks, but as disobedience to God’s commandments (Matt 5:28; Rom 7:7–8; Jas 4:2). See Friedrich Büchsel, “τυμός κτλ,” TWNT 3.168–72; cf. 4 Macc 1:22; 3:1–2.

The Apology of Christian Morality

judgement and punishment of the unrighteous, defining this sin as “in depraved lust” (ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ). Indulging their flesh in depraved lust, sinners crave for sins – immorality (2:10). It is them, the most wicked of the unrighteous, who will be reserved by God for the day of judgement (2:9–10). The third text of 2 Peter, thanks to its complementary terms, fully concretises the meaning of ἐπιθυμία. Not only do sinners follow the lust of the flesh themselves, but “with licentious desires of the flesh,” they entice those who have just escaped from the circle of the false teachers (2:18). The term that completes ἀσέλγεια, which means “licentiousness, debauchery, riotous life,” appears in the letter several times and has primarily sexual connotations, describing sexual abuse and depravity (2:2, 7).108 The author accuses his adversaries of several other sins: moral injustice (2:13, 15), greed (2:3, 14), licentiousness and dissipation (2:2, 7, 18), playfulness, debauchery and revels (2:13), deception and delusion (2:13), and adultery (2:14). He also accuses the false prophets of turning away from the holy law (ἁγία ἐντολή), namely the apostolic message and teaching as a whole (2:21; cf. 3:2), and also of failing to obey God’s laws (ἄθεσμος).109 The charges are summarized as their departure from the way of truth and its desecration by their licentious lives (2:2), as their leaving the straight road (2:15) and the way of righteousness (2:21). Righteousness means the righteousness of Jesus Christ as the basis and model of the Christian faith (2 Pet 1:1). This righteousness is not Christ’s salvific work in the sense given by Paul, i. e., justification of man,110 but defines Christ’s behaviour as righteous and proper in the ethical and moral dimension. This sense of the term is shown in the following passages of 2 Peter: Noah was a herald of righteousness (2:5), and the false teachers have known the way of righteousness and turned back from it (2:21). Righteousness will also dwell in the new heavens and new earth (3:13).111 The attitude of the false teachers results from their rejection of the doctrine of the day of judgment and retribution after death; convinced that they are right, they try to win over members of the community to their views.112

108 This word appears in Jesus’ teaching (Mark 7:22), describes a sinful and iniquitous pagan world (Eph 4:19) and has a special, negative meaning in Paul’s epistles, again in terms of sexual sins (Gal 5:19; Rom 13:13; 2 Cor 12:21). Otto Bauernfeind, “ἀσέλγεια, TWNT 1.488. 109 In the NT ἄθεσμος appears only twice in 2 Pet 2:7; 3:17. 110 For this topic, see Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 334–89. 111 As rightly noted by Berger, “Streit um Gottes Vorsehung,” 134: “Der göttlichen Natur als Qualität wird die Gerechtigkeit als Ordnung entsprechen (1:4 und 3:13).” The adjectival form δίκαιος (2 Pet 1:13; 2:7–8) also has an ethical and moral meaning; see Gottfried Quell and Gottlob Schrenk, “δίκη κτλ,” TWNT 2.188, 201. 112 Fornberg, An Early Church, 97: “An eschatological and an ethical slackness would therefore go hand in hand.”

243

244

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

3.2.2 Meanders of a Pleasant Life

The fullest description of the moral attitude of the pseudo-teachers poses considerable problems not only because of the specific and rare terminology used in this passage,113 but also due to the construction of the compound sentence (vv.13b–15), which contains only one definite verb serving as a predicate, two predicatives and eight subordinate participles: v.13b

v. 14

v. 15

They count it a pleasure (ἡδονὴν) to revel (τρυφήν) in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes (σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι), reveling (ἐντρυφῶντες) in their dissipation (ἀπάταις) while they feast with you. They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! (κατάρας τέκνα) They have left the straight road and have gone astray (ἐπλανήθησαν), following the road of Balaam son of Bosor …

A part of the description has a stereotypical, polemical terminology (e. g., “accursed children,” “left the straight road” or “following the road of Balaam”), which adds little to the knowledge of the true nature of the moral sins criticised by the author of 2 Peter. Of particular significance are the initial statements in which the author presents the daily behaviour of the false teachers, listing specific sins, although in this case elements of rhetoric and polemic cannot be excluded. In verse 13, the opponents are presented as hedonists who revel without moderation and feast in the daytime, counting it a “pleasure” (ἡδονή), a term which inevitably recalls Epicurean reminiscences.114 Indulging the senses, gluttony and drunkenness, and especially unbridled feasting and revelling (τρυφή) in the daytime, were considered to be expressions of exceptional moral depravity (Isa 5:11; Qoh 10:16; cf. As. Mos. 7:4). This was the charge Plutarch made against the Epicure-

113 In this short text, there are three NT hapax legomena (μῶμος, ἐντρυφάω, ἀκατάπαυστος) and four terms appearing only twice in the whole NT (τρυφή, σπίλος, ἀστήρικτος, συνευωχέομαι). 114 In the NT, the term has a negative meaning, describing the Christian life before transformation (Luke 8:14; Titus 3:3; cf. Jas 4:1, 3). See Gustav Stählin, “ἡδονή,” TWNT 2.920–28, esp. 928; commenting on 2 Pet 2:13, he writes: “durchaus im Sinn der Kyrenaiker und Epikureer.”

The Apology of Christian Morality

ans (Non posse 1089A).115 The opponents were described as “blots and blemishes” (σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι). The author meant the moral flaw and threat they posed to the life and sanctity of the community, whose members should be “without spot or blemish” (ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι) (3:14) for the coming of the Lord. Both motifs, revelling and threat, occur in the following verses. The false teachers enjoy their pleasures, leading others astray.116 The complementary term (ἀπάτη) has a few meanings and can generally describe “pleasure, delight,” which is also sinful and aimed at experiencing pleasure, but it can also mean “deception, misleading, cheating,” which is its basic meaning.117 Because of the context, the latter understanding should be supposed here: “feasts of love” of the false teachers are factually “feasts of delusion,” cheating oneself and others.118 Departing from sound doctrine, the opponents fell into sin and immorality, approved of, and even took a liking to, their way of life, negatively affecting members of the Church (v. 13e). Verse 14 introduces new elements to the description of the opponents’ moral attitude. The author clearly presents them as men who constantly seek women: “They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin” (v. 14a). This charge made against the false teachers becomes more important considering that in the parallel text of Jude 11–12, which the author often follows, there is no theme of sexual sins. The attitude of the adversaries seems to indicate not only that they again took over the tolerant and liberal principles of the life of a pagan community, but also that they intensified the iniquities they committed “without ceasing to sin” (v. 14b).119 Polemic and rhetorical tones cannot be ruled out. However, the author brought the accusation earlier and will return to it later in the letter, again accusing the opponents of debauchery and licentiousness. He also charges them of deceiving

115 Hiebert, Second Peter, 116: “Even Roman society of that time, with all its depraved features, esteemed such daylight lewdness as a mark of shameless profligacy”; cf. Neyrey, 2 Peter, 212–215, who discusses Philo’s writings and Greek sources. 116 Here the phrase ἐντρυφάω ἐν τινί does not necessarily have a negative connotation (cf. Isa 55:2 LXX). See Bauer 545. 117 The reading ἀγάπαις present in some textual witnesses (Ac B, some minuscules) is integrated into Jude 12, while the reading ἀπάταις is original, since it has been attested better (p72 a; A* C K P and others) and gives a better meaning (cf. Matt 13:22; Mark 4:19; Eph 4:22; Col 2:8; 2 Thess 2:10; Heb 3:13). For the meaning, cf. Hiebert, Second Peter, 117. 118 See Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 203. Numerous commentators indicate the ironical tone of ντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις caused by the alliteration and pun ἀπάταις / ἀγάπαις, which the author must have intended. 119 We are dealing with a rhetorical cliché: shameless and promiscuous men did not look for a κόραι (“virgin, maiden”), but πόρναι (“whores”); see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 266; Vögtle, Der zweite Petrusbrief, 204.

245

246

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

members of the community, who are inexperienced and unprepared (cf. also 2:2),120 and whose souls, not grounded in their faith and its ethical consequences, are complete opposites of the hearts of the false teachers, who are trained in greed. What is meant is the acquired, similarly to sports exercises, rhetorical ability to argue and convince, and the author assessed this ability negatively in this situation.121 Further components of the description take the form of general accusations that evaluate the ethical and moral attitudes of the false teachers. As “accursed children” (v. 14c), they are subject to God himself and will definitively be rejected on the day of judgment (v. 15a). Their fault was that they had allowed themselves to be deceived and led astray (ἐπλανήθησαν – indicativus aoristi passivi), having left the straight road to follow the road of Balaam, deceiving members of the community (cf. Gen 22:5).122 3.3

Elements of Anti-Epicurean Polemic

Apart from the remarks of the anti-Epicurean overtones used to describe the teachers’ immoral attitude, we should complete the picture by providing other elements that again recall the anti-Epicurean polemic. The first text has less argumentative value, since it is in accord with the similar Letter of Jude. The author of 2 Peter (2:12) characterised his opponents as “irrational animals, mere creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed” (ἄλογα ζῷα γεγεννημένα φυσικὰ εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν). He took the expression ἄλογα ζῷα from Jude 10, but added new elements to the comparison. The common element is comparing these false teachers to irrational animals. Such a juxtaposition is known from the OT and Jewish writings as well as the debates of ancient philosophers and thinkers. The biblical texts show various uses of this image (cf. Ps 49:13; 73:17–22; Qoh 3:19–21). In the most typical comparison, rational men are contrasted with irrational animals (Wis 11:15; 4 Macc 14:14, 18; cf. Joseph. Ant. 10.262; C.Ap. 2.213). The theme often appears in pagan literature, e. g., in polemics with the Epicureans,

120 Their attitude is expressed by the verb δελεάζω (“to lure, to seduce”) with a moral connotation, which occurs twice in 2 Peter: in v. 14 and v. 18, in the same meaning; and then only once in Jas 1:14. See Neyrey, 2 Peter, 215. 121 Members and supporters of philosophical schools or other exclusive groups supported them financially, contributing to their maintenance (the so-called patronage, which, for example, Paul did not accept in Corinth). At this point, it is worth noting the inclusion framework of vv. 13–15 – the phrase μισθὸν ἀδικίας (“the penalty for doing wrong”), which even more strongly stresses the morally evil situation of the false teachers; cf. also the commentary of Vögtle to 2 Pet 2:3 (Der zweite Petrusbrief, 185). 122 See Neyrey, 2 Peter, 215; Hiebert, Second Peter, 199; Watson and Callan, First and Second Peter, 190–94.

The Apology of Christian Morality

again developed by Plutarch (Suav. viv. 1091CA–1092D; Adv. Col. 1124E, 1125A).123 The new theme is the emphasis on the fact that the false teachers will be destroyed (φθορά) for the blasphemies they proclaim. It is a prediction of the judgement of God over them and the irrevocable retribution for their going astray. A partial testimony of this tradition was given by Athenagoras of Athens (Res. mort. 19). Another similarity to the anti-Epicurean polemic is the notion of freedom promised by the false teachers to the Church that faced threats: “They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption” (2:19). The opponents promise freedom, but from what? The theme of freedom appears directly after the description of the immoral and licentious attitude of the false teachers (cf. vv. 2, 10, 13–14, 18). Therefore, it must be assumed that their promises concern sexual freedom, drunkenness, gluttony and sensual offences in general. However, it is not known whether it was only about freedom from moral principles, or also – which is not excluded – about freedom from judgment and punishment. Both possibilities are very probable. The false teachers regarded the present world as everlasting; thus, they expected neither judgment nor punishment (cf. 2:1; 3:9).124 Their freedom is freedom from all threats and the acceptance of this world as the only one that exists, so it is also freedom from the parousia and the coming day of judgment. On the one hand, the false teachers’ views are similar to those of the Sadducees (or unknown Jewish epikurosim) and the Epicureans on the other hand, although this may only be an external resemblance. For the author of 2 Peter, their attitude was not an expression of freedom, but of enslavement and immorality leading to destruction.125 Finally, the author of 2 Peter also referred to a saying that was known to Jews and Greeks: “‘The dog turns back to its own vomit,’ and, ‘The sow is washed only to wallow in the mud’” (2:22). One can hardly find polemical elements here, but this saying is significant because it perfectly illustrates the historical situation of the false teachers. Accepting the apostolic message, they renounced their former lives; now, as apostates from the faith, they returned to their old ways to an even greater extent (cf. Prov 26:11; Matt 7:6). Summing up, the discussed texts and elements of anti-Epicurean polemic signalled in them do not definitely determine the nature and sources of the threat that arose in the unknown Church. However, the parallels and references are puzzling.

123 Of special interest is the last polemic with the Epicureans (Adv. Col. 1125A) as it contains many accusations that the author of 2 Peter voiced against the false teachers (promiscuity and pleasure, syncrisis – the comparative juxtaposition of the teachers and animals, denying divine providence); see also Albini, “Introduzione,” 21–22. 124 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 275–76; see also Hiebert, Second Peter, 126–28; also Neyrey, “The Form and Background,” 421. 125 Ibid., 418–420.

247

248

The Context of the Debate over the Parousia in 2 Peter

In the section that discusses the conflicts in the Corinthian community, I have indicated the moral attitude of the Epicureans, which differed from their theoretical ideal. Despite their sublime teachings, the Epicureans were rightly considered hedonists, i. e., pleasure-seekers in everything. Plutarch gave an important testimony, most certainly exaggerated for the sake of polemic. In his polemics with the Epicureans, he often focused on the motifs of indulging the senses and bodily pleasures, a riotous life and feasting during the day or the proverbial sexual promiscuity.126 We have noted similar remarks in 2 Peter, whose author recorded the deplorable morality of the false teachers.127 The author of 2 Peter was confronted with the doctrinal and moral errors of unknown false teachers (2 Pet 2:1). They interpreted the delay of the parousia as the absence and non-existence of divine providence in the world, the absence of God and the lack of judgment over humans, and thus the lack of punishment and retribution. The arguments supporting these interpretations were the delayed parousia and the world’s immutability. In fact, the opponents attacked Christian theodicy. However, their doctrinal errors led to their moral errors, as the author of 2 Peter broadly illustrated. The doctrinal conflict, outlined by the author of 2 Peter, and his apology are understood better if we assume that the context of the letter was the anti-Epicurean tradition and Greek apologetic polemics. We can indicate many terminological and factual parallels with anti-Epicurean polemics.128 Naturally, this does not resolve the question of whether the doctrinal and moral errors of the members of some unknown Church resulted from the influence of Epicureanism on them, or whether unknown false teachers represented this trend of pagan philosophical and religious thought. The answer in both cases should be “no.” On the other hand, in 2 Peter we can attest to the presence of theological and religious issues and rhetoric, which we

126 Cf. Albini, “Introduzione,” 28–30. 127 The essence of Christian anthropology in 2 Peter has been well described by Hafemann, “‘Divine Nature’ in 2 Pet 1,4,” 99: “This article offers a new reading of what it means in 2 Pet 1,4 to participate in the ‘divine nature’. The divine φύσις (“nature”) in 2 Pet 1,4 refers not to an abstract, divine ‘essence’ or ‘being’, but to God’s dynamic ‘character expressed in action’ in accordance with his promises. Being a fellow participant (κοινωνός) of this ‘nature’ thus refers to taking part in the eschatological realization of the ‘new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, (cf. τὰ ἐπαγγέλματα in 2 Pet 1,4 with ἐπάγγελμα in 2 Pet 3,13)”; see more pp. 97–99. 128 Adams, “‘Where is the promise’,” 116 n. 43: “This is not to rule out possible Epicurean influence on other aspects of the opponents’ teaching, insofar as other elements of their teaching can be identified with confidence.”

The Apology of Christian Morality

also know from the anti-Epicurean polemics conducted in the Hellenistic-Roman world in the first century CE.129

129 The position of Neyrey, 2 Peter, 122–28, is characteristic here; he emphasizes the closeness of the author’s polemics with Epicurean theodicy, but at the same time, he stipulates that similar polemics are present in the Greco-Roman world and beyond. The Jewish “Apikoros” is also the target of such polemics. However, the Gnostic character of these polemics must certainly be ruled out.

249

VI.

The Motif of the Anti-Epicurean Polemic in the New Testament

The final stage of research is a systematic assessment of the results of the exegetical and comparative-theological analyses carried out in the previous chapters. This will allow us to describe and interpret the phenomenon of anti-Epicurean polemic in the writings of the New Testament and draw appropriate conclusions.

1.

The General Characteristics of Anti-Epicurean Polemics

The term φιλοσοφία is only used once in the New Testament and has a negative connotation (Col 2:8). Likewise, Greek philosophers and representatives of the Hellenistic schools of philosophy – Epicureans and Stoics – are mentioned only once (Acts 17:18). These poor statistical data should come as no surprise, since the NT authors did not write philosophical treatises or perpetuate philosophical discussions. The hagiographers were committed to preaching and proclaiming Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, the Son of God and their Saviour. This general truth should be kept in mind when asking questions about the presence of Greek philosophy, including Epicureanism, in the NT books. The encounter between Christianity and the Hellenistic-Roman philosophical tradition was inevitable and did indeed take place, as recorded by Luke (Acts 17:18). Moreover, it can rightly be assumed that the missionary activities of the Church in the Hellenistic cities of the Roman Empire forced Christian missionaries to consider the contemporary religious and philosophical trends and be engaged, at least indirectly, in polemics with the views of the pagan environment. Indeed, one can hardly imagine the development of Christianity in the pagan world without such polemics. If they were previously carried on by Jesus and the apostles with the leading bodies of the Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Galilee, and later in the diaspora, they must certainly have been developed in order to engage with the Hellenistic-Roman world. The opponents of the Christian communities must also have been philosophical schools, and the subjects of their polemics – philosophical and religious views. Certainly, the discussions conducted in the period under analysis were not theoretical either. The Hellenistic-Roman world chiefly exerted an indirect influence on Christians, both through the circles of the

252

The Motif of the Anti-Epicurean Polemic in the New Testament

Jewish diaspora, living in the same environment, Christians’ personal contacts and their missionary activities.1 Keeping in mind the mentioned reservations, we can examine the presence of Epicurus’ views and anti-Epicurean polemics in the NT writings. Are we dealing with such a phenomenon at all? It is not without reason that the Epicurean question was ignored in the past. In the New Testament, there is only one occurrence of the word Ἐπικούρειοι – Epicureans (Acts 17:18) and no single passage which explicitly characterises the philosophical views of The Garden. This situation dictates caution, but it should not come as a surprise, since direct quotations from pagan authors in the NT are equally few (Acts 17:28; 1 Cor 15:33; Titus 1:12). This only proves the dominance of Jewish biblical elements in the NT. Nevertheless, the revival of research on the presence of Epicureanism in particular and Greek philosophy in general in the writings of the New Testament is an indisputable fact. As ancient sources show conclusively, Epicureanism was an important phenomenon in the Hellenistic-Roman world for many centuries. It was also very popular during the Early Roman Empire. At the time of the formation of the New Testament books, the Epicurean doctrine was known and discussed in Rome, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt. From the perspective of research on the NT writings, the stagnation or even regression of Epicurean philosophy in the first century of the new era, signalled by historians of ancient philosophy (e. g., G. Reale), is irrelevant. The presence and vitality of Epicureanism in the Roman Empire in the first century CE, especially in its eastern territories, are increasingly more important for biblical research. To put it bluntly, the essential issue is the question of the popularity and knowledge of The Garden’s philosophy in the broad circles of the Hellenistic-Roman community. The preserved literary and archaeological witnesses suggest that it was Epicureanism, next to Stoicism and, to a lesser extent, the Academy and other philosophical trends, that was dominant (cf. Chapter I).2 Therefore, what conclusions does our analysis of the biblical texts lead us to? We must first state that all scholars dealing with Epicureanism in the New Testament are still being motivated by Norman W. DeWitt’s proposals. This study, in some ways necessarily, has become part of the sequence of comparative analyses and scientific discussions based on his suggestions. The results I have obtained are highly hypothetical, but probable, and sometimes more than plausible. However, as

1 Seelig, “Einführung,” XXII: “Es ist schwer vorstellbar, daß die frühen Christen sich so sehr von ihrer Umwelt isolierten, daß sie von Tempeln, Opferfeiern, Prozessionen, häuslichen Zeremonien und Parolen ihrer andersgläubigen Mitmenschen nichts wahrnahmen. Im Gegenteil: …” (then the author lists the possible ways pagan elements could have penetrated Christianity). 2 See Aune, “The World of Roman Hellenism,” 15–37, esp. 28–35.

The General Characteristics of Anti-Epicurean Polemics

there is no undisputed evidence of Epicurean infiltration into the NT writings, we must remain in the sphere of hypotheses supported by analyses of biblical texts.3 The literary, exegetical and comparative-theological analyses of the NT texts (Chapters II–V) form the basis for a systematic presentation of our results. All these texts are characterised by one motif: denial of the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees denied the resurrection (ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι) (Mark 12:18) and so did the unknown opponents of Paul in Corinth (ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν) (1 Cor 15:12).4 Also, the Epicureans (ἀκούσαντες δὲ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν) in Athens reacted negatively to the issue of the resurrection (Acts 17:32). The problem of the believers’ death and the fate of the dead appeared in Thessalonica in the context of Paul’s instruction directed at the local Church (1 Thess 4:14, 16). The presence of the subjects of death and the resurrection should be inferred in the community of the author of 2 Peter. However, the main source of controversy in this Church was the delay of the parousia (2 Pet 3:4). As the awaited coming of Christ did not happen, there would be no resurrection (1 Thess 4:14–17; cf. 1 Cor 15). Next, we should note terminological similarities between the New Testament and Epicurean vocabulary as well as between anti-Epicurean rhetoric and polemic. Although we have not observed such terminological similarities in the case of the Sadducees, there are many similar ideas. In turn, the Athenian Epicureans reacted with reluctance and misunderstood the Christian message (Acts 17:18), and then they even ridiculed Paul (ἐχλεύαζον) (Acts 17:32). This fragment does not contain any Epicurean philosophical terminology, but what attracts notice is the dismissive attitude of the Epicureans and their sense of superiority, which is also known from some pagan sources (Dio Chrys. Or. 12.36). We should also note the term δεισιδαίμων, which describes the godliness of the Athenians in Paul’s Areopagus speech (Acts 17:22) and the superstition of the pagans in Epicurean doctrine. Many terms with an undertone of Epicureanism can be found in 1 Thess and 1 Cor 15. “Peace and security” (εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια) proclaimed in Thessalonica (1 Thess 5:3) recalls the security (ἀσφάλεια) that Epicurus spoke about. Moreover, the Thessalonians should aspire to live quietly (ἡσυχάζειν) (1 Thess 4:11). The Epicureans also wanted to live in quietness (ἡσυχία) and away from public affairs. The call to stay awake and be sober (γρηγορῶμεν καὶ νήφωμεν) (cf. 1 Thess 5:6, 8) can be interpreted as an appeal to keep a sober mind (νήφειν), which was typical

3 Cf. Hengel, “Problems of a History,” 142: “Of course our attempts at an historical integration of the different source materials are often hypothetical, but are not the same true with our exegetical results and linguistic and literary analysis? A history of the Earliest Church must always work with heuristic hypothesis, with probabilities and plausibilities, just as in all other area of ancient history.” 4 There was an alternative way of expressing this truth: νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται (cf. Mark 12:26; 1 Cor 15:16, 20, 29, 32, 35, 42).

253

254

The Motif of the Anti-Epicurean Polemic in the New Testament

of Greek philosophers and Epicurus. Terminological similarities between Paul’s statements and the Epicurean vocabulary have also been observed in 1 Cor 15, especially in some fragments of the apology of the resurrection (vv. 35–50, 51–57) (e. g., φθαρτός – ἄφθαρτος, θνητός – ἀθάνατος). However, we should not overinterpret this fact. Greater significance should be given to the formula “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν) (1 Cor 15:32; cf. Isa 22:13). This formula defined the libertine and hedonist attitudes usually associated with the Epicureans and justified by life’s shortness and death’s inevitability, i. e., the end of everything. For his part, the Apostle Paul exhorted the Corinthians to “come to a sober and right mind” (ἐκνήψατε δικαίως) (1 Cor 15:34), and this resembles a similar exhortation directed at the Thessalonians (1 Thess 5:6, 8). We can also indicate terms with a polemical and anti-Epicurean overtone in 2 Peter. There is a great similarity of ideas and vocabulary, especially in the apology of the promise of the parousia (2 Pet 3:1–13), in which the delay was interpreted as intended by God (βραδύνει) because he wanted to give men time to reform (μετάνοια), showing his long-suffering (μακροθυμεῖ εἰς) (2 Pet 3:9). Moreover, in this verse, we can see a few scattered ideas and terms with an anti-Epicurean overtone. These terms form a particular literary syncrisis describing the immoral life of the false teachers: they are like irrational animals (ἄλογα ζῷα) to be killed (φθορά) (2 Pet 2:12); they find pleasure (ἡδονή) in revelling in the daytime (2 Pet 2:13) and preaching freedom (ἐλευθερία) from moral principles, fear of God, judgement and retribution (2 Pet 2:19). We can rightly assume the anti-Epicurean background of these polemics, despite opposing opinions. These terminological correspondences are diverse and have a relatively small evidential value as shown by the nature of the analysed biblical texts, scattered in time and consolidating the daily life of the Christian Churches in a pagan environment. Some of them seem to come straight from Epicurus’ vocabulary, others reflect anti-Epicurean rhetoric, while still others presumably belonged to the Empire’s everyday vocabulary of the pagan society. This proves the occasional and merely accidental character of Christian-Epicurean contacts in the first century CE. Our next remarks concern the historical development of anti-Epicurean polemic. We can distinguish three stages in which this polemic seems to have some significance in the life of early Christianity. Proceeding with great caution, we first need to point to the origins of the Church in Palestine, then to the missionary activities of Paul and his co-workers in Greek cities (ca. 50–55 CE) and finally to the last decade of the first century CE. The biblical sources under analysis attest to the existence of these stages. The first stage of the development of anti-Epicurean polemic was evidenced by the Gospels and, to a certain extent, in the Acts of the Apostles; it concerns the dispute between the Sadducees and Jesus on the resurrection of the dead (Mark 12:18–27; par.) and the negative role of the Sadducees in the lives of Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 4:1; 5:17; cf. 23:6–8). This issue is closely related to

The General Characteristics of Anti-Epicurean Polemics

the presence (or absence) of Epicureanism in Palestine in general and in the Jewish circles of Palestine in particular in the first century CE. The assessment of Paul’s missionary activity in the cities of Macedonia and Achaia is slightly different. We have several literary sources and thus also at least two different biblical traditions that give credibility to the NT message (Paul – Luke). The events described in these sources took place in Hellenistic-Roman cities (Thessalonica, Athens and Corinth), in which the presence of Epicureans is not questioned. Epicurean infiltrations in the Churches of Thessalonica and Corinth can be assumed with high probability; therefore, the reaction of Christians in the form of anti-Epicurean polemics should be presumed. Luke left an undeniable testimony of the confrontation between Christianity and Greek philosophy in Athens. Among the philosophical schools, he mentioned only the Epicurean and the Stoic (Acts 17:16–34). The extraordinary value of the testimonies of Paul and Luke lies in the fact that they indicate Epicurean-Christian contacts in one geographical area, experienced by the same person (the Apostle to the Nations) during a period of a few months only, or at most several years. These facts cannot be neglected. The testimony of 2 Peter takes us to the end of the first century of the Christian era. The time and place of the conflict under analysis, including the protagonists, are unknown. Nevertheless, the polemical and anti-Epicurean overtone of the controversy over the delayed parousia seems obvious. Apart from 2 Peter, what is extremely interesting is that one can again refer to the witness of Acts, considering the so-called third Sitz im Leben and Luke’s theological intention. Another noteworthy aspect of the texts I have discussed is the fact that they concerned doctrinal errors, while the ethical and moral elements were marginal (except for 2 Peter). The immorality of the erring opponents was usually a consequence of their theological errors. The theological issues covered only a few recurring themes: the resurrection of the dead, God and divine providence, as well as the day of judgment. Yet, they did not concern Christological debates or the question about the role of the Mosaic law in Christian life. The focus of all the controversies was the resurrection of the dead. This dispute arose between the Sadducees and Jesus (Mark 12:18–27; par.). Proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus and the dead caused the ambivalent reactions of Paul’s hearers on the Areopagus (Acts 17:18, 31). The same question emerged in the Pauline Churches, again in a polemical context. The Thessalonians were concerned about the fate of the dead (1 Thess 4:14), and some Corinthians denied the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:12). Only in 2 Peter did the resurrection of the dead give way to the unfulfilled promise of the parousia. It cannot go unnoticed that practically all the analysed texts contain the motif of the final day, namely the parousia of Christ or the day of judgment over the world. In the dispute between the Sadducees and Jesus, this motif can be presumed in the question about the fate of the wife of the seven brothers and in Jesus’ answer relating to the future life in God (Mark 12:23–27). Contrary to the slogans promising peace

255

256

The Motif of the Anti-Epicurean Polemic in the New Testament

and security, Paul assured the Thessalonians of the imminent day of judgment and wrath as well as Christ’s parousia (1 Thess 1:9–10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:9, 23). Likewise, he assured the Corinthians of the coming of Christ and God’s reign (1 Cor 15:22–24, 51–57). Paul also announced the coming day of judgment over the entire inhabited world, and his message divided the Athenian audience (Acts 17:31). The parousia as the awaited coming of the Lord and the day of judgment were the main topics of disputes between the author of 2 Peter and his opponents (1:16; 2:4, 9; 3:4, 7, 10). It should also be noted that the above-mentioned theological disputes were based on the Christian belief in the providential presence of God in the world. Responding to the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, Jesus showed God acting in the history of Israel, the God whose power they did not know (Mark 12:26–27). Preaching the “unknown God” to the Athenians, Paul proclaimed God’s great works in salvation history, where the most important work was the day of just judgment over the world in the presence of a man who was raised from the dead (cf. Acts 17:22–31). Furthermore, in his letters, Paul spoke of God as the guarantor of the resurrection of Christ and the dead (1 Thess 4:14; 5:9) as well as the Creator of the world and humanity (cf. 1 Cor 15). The author of 2 Peter argued similarly: for him, God, the Lord of the world and human history, was the basis of his argumentation (cf. 2 Pet 2:4–9; 3:3–13). Here we are dealing with a historical phenomenon overlaid with a theological peculiarity. The texts, the subject of our analysis, concern different periods of the history of early Christianity and depict a variety of protagonists in various events, places and circumstances.5 Nevertheless, they manifest many common features. Their essential characteristic is that they refer to a doctrinal dispute, namely the confrontation between the Christian teaching (Jesus’ teaching, Christian message, apostolic tradition) and the views of non-believers (the Sadducees, the Epicureans, the unknown opponents of Paul and the author 2 Peter). The extremely confrontational feature of the controversy is shown in its formal element, i. e., referring to the adversaries’ opinions each time: those of the Sadducees (Mark 12:18: οἵτινες λέγουσιν), the Epicureans (Acts 17:18: καί τινες ἔλεγον), the unknown “they” in Thessalonica (1 Thess 5:3: ὅταν λέγωσιν) and Corinth (1 Cor 15:12: λέγουσιν τινες), and the false teachers (2 Pet 3:3–4: ἐλεύσονται ... λέγοντες). It was, therefore, about disputes and polemics, in which the orthodox party highlighted the basic religious truths about the resurrection, God and providence, as well as the coming day of judgment. Not only are the theological issues similar, but the structure of the theological arguments is also comparable. The controversial point, and at the same time the starting point for debates, was the denial of the resurrection of the

5 The events took place ca. 30 CE, shortly before Jesus’ death, then ca. 50–55 CE on Paul’s missionary journeys and ca. 95 CE in the community of the author of 2 Peter.

A Historical Outline of the NT Anti-Epicurean Polemic

dead, though this is missing in 2 Pet. Responding to the objections raised by the opponents, Jesus, Paul or the author of 2 Peter referred to the biblical image of God as the mighty Creator and Lord of mankind and announced the coming judgment day and the fulfilment of the promises. Surprisingly, the juxtaposition of the texts was determined by the terminological, conceptual and ideological convergences with the Epicurean doctrine, usually present in the NT texts by way of controversy – opposition and objection. Here we are dealing with doctrinal disputes, but are they anti-Epicurean? The former interpretations of these biblical texts made only regarding the intra-biblical, Jewish, Judeo-Hellenistic or early Christian traditions, remain unsatisfactory. Therefore, it is completely justified to revise some of the results of historical-religious research, especially in the view of the overriding place of gnosis (earlier) and other proposed hypotheses, and to take into account the Epicurean element to a greater extent. Without overestimating the significance of the above similarities, they cannot be ignored.

2.

A Historical Outline of the NT Anti-Epicurean Polemic

Based on the observations made, we wish to present a short history of ChristianEpicurean polemics in light of the NT writings. Our description concerns the history of early Christianity in its references to the pagan world, and first of all, to Epicurus’ philosophy. Specifying the periods of this history is not difficult in the context of our observations: they are Jesus and the Palestinian origin of Christianity, Paul and the transition of the Gospel from Jews to gentiles, and the establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire. 2.1

The Biblical and Jewish Beginnings of Christianity

Theoretically, the first encounter between the Christian religion and the philosophy of The Garden might have taken place very early on, namely during the life of Jesus Christ in Palestine. Although purely theoretical, is this speculation legitimate? Ideas of this kind will keep popping up until there is a definitive answer to the question of the degree of the Hellenization of the Jews in Palestine in the time of Jesus Christ. The main difficulty is related to the interpretation of the available literary and archaeological sources. Jews were hostile towards Epicurus’ philosophy, but until now, one cannot unequivocally prove or deny the presence of epicurea in biblical and nonbiblical Jewish traditions. Scholars have not succeeded in going beyond hypotheses and assumptions. The attitudes of the Sadducees towards Epicureanism and their religious views, which were close to those of the Epicureans, are just exemplary. Discussing the question about the historical sources of the Sadducees’ religious

257

258

The Motif of the Anti-Epicurean Polemic in the New Testament

beliefs, including their denial of the resurrection of the dead, we encounter the same problems as in the case of the Hellenization of Palestine in the first century CE. The presence of surprising similarities between Sadducism and Epicureanism makes us reflect on them, but it does not warrant any binding answers. Equally ambiguous is the fact that Epicureanism was present on the peripheries of Palestine, namely in the cities of the Decapolis and the coast of the Mediterranean Sea as well as in nearby Syria. The presence of philosophers in the Hellenistic cities around Palestine, and even in Palestine, does not mean that, from its beginnings, Christianity dealt with Greek philosophy in general and Epicureanism in particular.6 The answer to the question about the presence of epicurea in the life of Jesus of Nazareth should be negative. Jesus was born and raised in a Jewish family, and his disciples and first followers were also Jewish. They shared the views and expectations of their contemporaries, awaiting the messianic promises, as the Gospels confirm. At this point, we are not talking about the later evolution of their attitudes and views or the subsequent course of events, but about the biblical and Palestinian roots of Christianity. The Jewish community under Roman rule longed for the realisation of God’s reign on earth. Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed this imminent kingdom of God (Mark 1:14–15). Did Jesus conduct any philosophical debates? No, but he carried on religious debates. Jesus of Nazareth disputed with the Pharisees and once with the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection of the dead; the course and content of this dispute were described in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 12:18–27; par.). We do not know why the Sadducees decided to join the dispute with Jesus. The emergence of the question about the resurrection of the dead raises many doubts and a great many questions. The interest of Christ’s disciples in the subjects of death and resurrection was understandable, especially when considering the post-paschal perspective (and Mark’s redactional perspective). Yet, what was the sceptical Sadducees’ motivation when they presented Jesus with the case of a woman married to seven husbands? What were their reasons for seeking ways to ridicule the truth about the resurrection? The answer may be provided by Josephus: “they reckon it a virtue, to dispute with the teachers of the path of wisdom that they pursue” (Ant. 18.16).7 Thus, the Sadducees disputed not only with Jesus, but it was their custom to do so, and this explains the sophistic and speculative nature of the arguments in the

6 A good illustration of this direction was the recognition of Cynic philosophy as a constitutive element of nascent Christianity. See John S. Kloppenborg [Verbin], “A Dog among the Pigeons. The ‘Cynic Hypothesis’ as a Theological Problem,” in Jón Ma. Asgeirsson, Kristin de Troyer and Marvin W. Meyer, eds., From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson (BEThL 146; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 73–117; cf. a critical response: Maurice Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (SNTS MS 122; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 1–50, esp. 22–32. 7 Trans. Louis H. Feldman, LCL 433.

A Historical Outline of the NT Anti-Epicurean Polemic

dispute over the resurrection. If we had known better the content of the theological and religious disputes, which the Sadducees probably held in the porticoes of the Jerusalem Temple, we could have said more about the sources of their religious views. The Sadducees’ denial of the resurrection and afterlife resembles Epicurean views on human fate after death, and this is all that can be said about this problem. However, could the apostles and the later bearers of the gospel tradition have come across Epicureanism? The answer is more difficult. Theoretically, there could have been Christian-Epicurean contacts, first in the period of about 30 years separating Jesus’ death from the formation of the first literary testimonies about his teaching and activity, and later, more probably, in the period of redacting the Gospel writings. In those times, Christianity was open to the pagan world. Hans D. Betz’s hypothesis, discussed in Chapter II, illustrates these processes appropriately. His attempt to prove the Epicurean influence at the stage of the apostolic tradition was not convincing; this does not mean, however, that at this early stage of the transmission of tradition (the second Sitz im Leben) it was not possible. The issue is again part of the wider problem concerning the Hellenization of Jews in Palestine. Some occasional influence of elements of Epicurus’ philosophy on the redactors of the Gospels (the third Sitz im Leben) as well as the influence of the Hellenistic-Roman milieu were more than likely, especially outside of Palestine. The Gospel of Luke seems to be an appropriate text for this kind of comparative analysis (cf. Luke 7:25 – Matt 11:8; Luke 12:11–12 par.; 21:14–15 par.). In summary, the testimonies of the Synoptic Gospels about Jesus and his disciples fit well with the nature of the relations that existed between Palestinian Judaism and the Hellenistic-Roman world. At a very early stage of Christianity, the attitudes of Jews and Judeo-Christians towards Epicureanism were, in light of the NT writings, the same or very similar. Like the Jewish community before, the Judeo-Christian community was not interested in Epicureanism and its representatives, i. e., a philosophical school whose image was shaped by the negative cliché of anti-Epicurean polemics (cf. Philo, Flavius Josephus). In this sense, our research has not changed the current state of knowledge about the beginnings of Christianity to a great extent. Its roots were biblical and Jewish. Furthermore, a considerable part of the Christian theology of the New Testament was finally shaped in the biblical environment. 2.2

Encountering the Hellenistic-Roman World

The Palestinian period of preaching the Good News was a brief episode for Christ’s disciples. In light of Acts and the Pauline letters as the main sources of knowledge about nascent Christianity, we know that the disciples of Jesus left Jerusalem and addressed their message to the Gentiles. This happened after the persecutions that resulted from Stephen’s speech and death as a martyr (Acts 8:1–4). This event

259

260

The Motif of the Anti-Epicurean Polemic in the New Testament

marked the beginning of their missionary activities among Jews of the Diaspora and “God-fearing” Jews, and then in the pagan world. Our focus is on the Christian-Epicurean dimension of the encounter with the Hellenistic-Roman world. We have the testimonies of two authors who, despite their historical connections, should be regarded as witnesses of two independent traditions. On the one hand, we have Paul’s epistles, and on the other, the Acts of the Apostles by Luke. First, we should interpret the historical data included in the letters of the Apostle to the Nations. In light of the latest biblical literature and our work on Epicurean issues, which have been analysed to a modest extent, there has been a clear revival of comparative research on the epistolary literature of the New Testament and the pagan world. To some degree, this reminds us of the situation at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Apostle to the Nations has always antagonised exegetes and theologians. He was a Jew of the Diaspora and received a Jewish education (Paulus iudaicus – cf. 2 Cor 11:22; Gal 1:14; Phil 3:4–5; Acts 21:39; 22:3, 31). Paul was also a citizen of the Roman Empire (Acts 16:37; 22:25). Thus, he combined his Jewish origin and education with the culture of the Hellenistic-Roman world (Paulus hellenisticus). The main problem is that scholars differ in their evaluation of the Apostle to the Nations and do not factually know what place he should be given in the history of the Christian religion.8 The closest to the truth will be to state that Paul had Jewish roots and was open to the Hellenistic-Roman world. Hence, he took over elements of the spiritual cultures of both circles to proclaim Jesus of Nazareth as Christ and the Son of God to Jews and gentiles. Paul the Apostle was a preacher of the Good News (Paulus christianus). The Hellenistic-Roman element was not the most important one to him, but secondary and superficial.9 This direction of solving the above problem has been confirmed by our analyses, which make us cautious about attempts to revive the spirit of panhellenism in biblical research. The collection of Paul’s letters contains no clear traces of Epicureanism, but one can find philosophical terminology and knowledge of popular Greek rhetoric, used by and adapted to the needs of Christianity. The same is true about Epicurean rhetoric. Hence, we are puzzled over the accumulation of numerous terminological correspondences in brief literary units (1 Thess; 1 Cor 15). In several

8 See Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 3, 8–9, esp. 67–77 (author gives the alternative: “Paul – Hellenistic Philosopher or Christian Pastor”); cf. Meeks, The First Urban Christian, 84. 9 Paul’s letters are imbued with biblical thought and differ from the philosophical and rhetorical texts of Philo of Alexandria or the historiographic works of Flavius Josephus. Paul did not argue following the examples of teachers and students from various philosophical schools. Hengel and Schwemer, Paulus zwischen, 260–67, write: “es ist ja das Auffällige bei Paulus und dem ganzen Urchristentum, daß wir eine tiefergehende, schulmäßige philosophisch-rhetorische Bildung und einen entsprechenden Stil, wie wir sie bei Philo, Justus von Tiberias oder Josephus antreffen, kaum finden” (p. 267).

A Historical Outline of the NT Anti-Epicurean Polemic

cases, the Apostle used the language of the popular anti-Epicurean polemic of that time. We also should reflect on the topics of these controversies. They were held within the Churches and might have been inspired by pagan doctrines (1 Thess 5:3; cf. 1 Cor 15:33: ὁμιλίαι κακαί). Alien religious and philosophical traditions infiltrated Christian communities, and the mediating link was unknown members of the local Church. The disputes taking place in Thessalonica and Corinth were not about rejecting strange ideas or religious views, but about opposing views already adopted by Christians. The apostle was dealing with a specific situation that probably included some Epicurean infiltration, which he tried to remedy.10 This corresponds to the general situation of Christian missions among the Gentiles. Christians were not isolated from the outside world, but thanks to their missionary activities, they were in constant contact with the pagan environment. This is the only way to understand the extraordinary missionary success that Christianity achieved in the first century CE. Yet, despite their concern to preserve their identity, Christians faced an obvious threat when adapting pagan beliefs, images and ideas, including philosophical opinions, as Luke’s narrative about Paul’s stay in Athens, recorded in Acts, also shows. Paul’s debates with philosophers on the Athenian marketplace and his speech on the Areopagus were not philosophical; he preached Christ. Luke’s information (Acts 17:16–34) supports the enigmatic data of the Corpus Paulinum from two angles. We may wonder whether, from the redactional perspective, the author of Acts did not record the problems caused by the Epicureans that Paul saw in the communities of Macedonia and Achaia. During his missionary activities, the Apostle plainly came across the disciples of Epicurus. If this had been the case in Athens, where Paul worked without any apparent success, it could also have concerned the communities where Christianity took root and faced hostile reactions, not only from Jews but also from pagans (cf. the conflicts in Corinth). Moreover, Luke’s account is a paradigm. The Epicureans’ reaction in Athens showed that the author of Acts found the Epicureans to be a group whose attitude towards Christians was antagonistic and who disregarded the Christian message. If Luke’s narrative reflects the historical state of affairs, it corresponds to the results of our exegetical analyses of 1 Thess and 1 Cor. The denial of the resurrection had its source in theological and philosophical discussions. The Apostle’s ironic exhortation to enjoy one’s life had a similarly ethical undertone, but at the same time, it was a conclusion that resulted from the doctrinal premises (see 1 Cor 15:32: “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’”). His call to repent and stop 10 Postulating the Epicurean hypothesis is mainly burdened with the results of biblical research. Let us recall that, according to the overwhelming opinion of commentators, the false religiosity of the Corinthian pneumatics or the Greek anthropological dualism lay at the root of the Corinthian rejection of the resurrection of the dead; the “Epicurean” thesis has usually been refuted.

261

262

The Motif of the Anti-Epicurean Polemic in the New Testament

sinning should not be understood as giving up evil works, because the Apostle did not call on people to do so in 1 Cor 15, but called them to correct their theological thinking and acknowledge God and his power (1 Cor 15:34). The meaning of his statement that bad company “ruins good morals” (1 Cor 15:33) corresponds to this interpretation. The picture captured by Luke in Acts and the results of our exegetical analyses of 1 Thess and 1 Cor are surprisingly consistent. Therefore, summarising them, we dare to pose a hypothesis that is in opposition to the hitherto dominant results of biblical analyses. In our opinion, during the period of his intense apostolic activities in Europe, the Apostle Paul encountered problems whose sources and causes can justifiably be found in Epicurean views, not necessarily as a result of a direct Christian-Epicurean confrontation, but due to the indirect influence of Epicurean ideas on Christians in Thessalonica, Athens or Corinth. This thesis is based on three arguments: the findings of critical exegesis, which we should refer to with caution; the witnesses of 1 Thess and 1 Cor 15, to which we attach greater importance; and finally, the message of Acts 17 transmitted by Luke, a close coworker and companion of the Apostle to the Nations, which we consider most important. 2.3

First Christian Apologists

The confrontation between Christianity and the philosophy of Epicurus in Athens began disputes and polemics that continued over the next four centuries. Their first debaters were Paul and Luke. Yet, it is Luke, the author of the Acts of the Apostles, who was a link between the beginnings of Christian missions in Europe and the period when Christianity developed in the Roman Empire. The traces of these ongoing processes are the disputes over the parousia that arose in an unknown local Church. In 2 Peter, the presence of anti-Epicurean polemics seems very likely. There must have been numerous disputes, conflicts and problems in the nascent Church. Christianity was a religion with biblical and Jewish roots, but the process of inculturation and adaptation to the pagan environment began to take on new dimensions. The author of 2 Peter was an expert not only on biblical-Jewish traditions, but also Hellenistic-Roman culture. He was also familiar with the Greek philosophical tradition, such as Stoicism. It may be rightly assumed that he also became familiar with anti-Epicurean rhetoric. Obvious changes in the Christians’ attitude towards Greek philosophy, including the philosophy of Epicurus, can be noticed in the writings of Christian apologists in the second century CE. It was they who initiated a new theological tradition

The Theological Dimension of the NT Anti-Epicurean Polemic

detached from biblical roots and based on Greek philosophy.11 An expression of those changes was, for example, the presentation of the Christian religion as a philosophical school.12 It was Luke who used the term αἵρεσις to define not only the Sadducees (Acts 5:17) and the Pharisees (Acts 15:5, etc.) but also Christians (Acts 24:5, 14; 28:22). At the time, Josephus was doing the same. In his historical writings, political and religious parties were portrayed as schools of philosophy. A similar process could be observed in Christianity.13 The writings of early Christian apologists included numerous references to the philosophy of Epicurus. However, the attitudes of Christian theologians towards Epicurean philosophy were overwhelmingly unfavourable and even hostile towards it. Over time, for Christian apologists, the word “Epicurean” became a negative, offensive term (Schimpfwort) used to define godlessness and all kinds of heresy.14

3.

The Theological Dimension of the NT Anti-Epicurean Polemic

Another aspect of the anti-Epicurean polemic in the NT writings is its theological dimension. An obvious thing to remember is that Christianity could take very little from the Epicurean philosophical doctrine, which our analyses of the biblical texts have fully confirmed. We can observe constant elements of confrontation, conflict, doctrinal dispute and sometimes, defence against moral threats as well, instead

11 See Ragjtak Holte, “Logos Spermatikos. Christianity and Ancient Philosophy according to St Justin’s Apologies,” StTh 12 (1958): 109; Hengel, “Problems of a History,” 137; cf. Aldo Magris, “Filosofizzazione del cristianesimo,” Verbum Vitae 39 (2021): 915–40. 12 Robert L. Wilken, “The Christians as the Romans (and Greeks) Saw Them,” in Ed P. Sanders and Ben F. Meyer, eds., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Vol. 1: The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries (Philadelphia, Pa: Fortress, 1980), 1.100–25 13 Wilken, “The Christians as the Romans,” 123–24: “Presentation of Christianity as a philosophical school is a self-conscious attempt on the part of Christian apologists to revise the image of the Christian movement”; see more Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003). 14 Richard P. Jungkuntz, “Fathers, Heretics and Epicureans,” JEH 17 (1966): 3–10; however, see Richard P. Jungkuntz, “Christian Approval of Epicureanism,” Church History 31 (1962): 279–93, he writes: “In view of the rancor and vehemence which characterize much of the patristic condemnation of Epicureanism, it seems remarkably incongruous that there should be in the Fathers any expressions of approval at all for the philosophy of the Garden. Nevertheless, such expressions do occur and with reference to all three divisions of Epicurus’s system, canonic, physics, and ethics” (p. 279). Cf. also Christoph J. Markschies, “Epikureismus bei Origenes und in der origenistischen Tradition,” in Christoph J. Markschies, Origenes und sein Erbe. Gesammelte Studien (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 160; Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2007), 127–53; Aleksandar Fatić and Dimitrios Dentsoras, “Pleasure in Epicurean and Christian Orthodox Conceptions of Happiness,” South African Journal of Philosophy 33 (2014): 523–36.

263

264

The Motif of the Anti-Epicurean Polemic in the New Testament

of taking over or adapting alien traditions. In the theological dimension, we are mainly dealing with anti-Epicurean polemics in the NT writings. Moreover, these texts contain only a few strictly theological questions. Luke masterfully defined the theological problems in his narrative concerning Paul’s stay in Athens, which is the only biblical scene of the encounter between Christianity and the philosophy of Epicurus. The doctrine of God and his providential presence in man’s life, the doctrine of the day of judgment, reward and retribution were all unacceptable to the Epicureans, and the Christian message of the resurrection of the dead particularly so (Acts 17:22–31). These theological themes also constitute the essence of antiEpicurean polemics in the NT and characterised the attitude of Christianity towards Epicurus’ philosophy for the next four centuries, although they certainly did not cover all the topics of later philosophical and theological debates.15 Without embarking on a detailed theological discussion, we will present the above-mentioned key issues that caused conflicts within the Christian communities. The picture of the theological controversies, which we have outlined, is based on our analysis of the anti-Epicurean polemics, but we must take into account that it may be a sign of the presence of unorthodox groups within the Church in the first century CE. In this case, we would be dealing with “Epicureanism” in its figurative sense, which can be found in Jewish literature and in the writings of the Church Fathers. 3.1

The Resurrection of the Dead

The topic of the resurrection has appeared in almost all the NT texts we have discussed in this work. Their content can be made more understandable if one assumes the Epicurean background of criticism against the resurrection raised directly by the Sadducees and Paul’s opponents in Corinth and indirectly by the Epicureans in Athens. The theological problem recurring in the debates was not the reality of Christ’s resurrection. Christians did not deny Christ’s resurrection because it was supported by the apostles. All of them, including Paul, testified to the Christophanies. In Athens, the Epicureans reacted with aversion, not so much to the resurrection of Christ as to the idea of the resurrection of the dead (ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν), as it was inconsistent with their teaching. What was the cause of the controversy over the resurrection? The biblical authors did not show their opponents’ motives, and hence

15 See Howard Jones, The Epicurean Tradition (London: Routledge, 1989), 94–116. The anti-Epicurean reactions of the Church Fathers were largely influenced by pagan anti-Epicurean polemics and was, therefore, equally biased. The cliché of the Epicurean atheist and sybarite, known from the writings of Cicero and Plutarch, penetrated into Christian literature.

The Theological Dimension of the NT Anti-Epicurean Polemic

we must try to explain them either by interpreting the biblical verses or simply speculating. First, let us devote a few words to the Sadducees, keeping in mind the difficulties in pointing out the origin of their views on the resurrection. The opinion of the Sadducees was unequivocally reported by the Synoptics: ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι (Mark 12:18; par.); and λέγουσιν μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν (Acts 23:8). The term “resurrection” occurs without an article, indicating that the Sadducees contradicted the generally understood but vague idea of an afterlife. What is more, we can notice the understanding of resurrection as being raised to life, understood as earthly life. Jesus’ answer introduces new elements. First, we can see his biblical and monistic understanding of the human person and second, the presence of biblical arguments evident both in the Sadducees’ reaction and in Jesus’ answer. This is the most serious argument against identifying the Sadducees with the Epicurean tradition (Chapter II); however, we have not ruled out a possible auxiliary function of the Epicurean philosophical views in shaping Sadducean doctrine. The reason for invoking these Sadducees’ views relates mainly to Jesus’ response to their provocation. Jesus referred to Exod 3:6 and added his exegetical commentary: “He is God not of the dead, but of the living” (Mark 12:27). Luke’s redactional change, which completes this idea with “for to him all are alive” should be considered extraordinary (Luke 20:38: πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν). The Sadducees’ main error was that they did not understand the power of God or the meaning of the Scriptures (Mark 12:19–27), and so either deceived themselves or were deceived by others (πολὺ πλανᾶσθε) (Mark 12:24, 27). In 1 Thessalonians, the topic of resurrection did not appear directly but as an expression of concern for the fate of deceased members of the Church. In response, Paul assured the Thessalonians of the reality of the day of judgment and resurrection (1 Thess 4:13–5:11). He illustrated the events they had waited for by using the images of Jewish apocalyptic beliefs and the teachings of Jesus Christ (1 Thess 4:14), indicating that, thanks to Jesus, “God will bring with him those who have died.” The key NT text discussing the resurrection is obviously 1 Cor 15. There is no need to return to our analyses (Chapter IV) and the numerous difficulties in establishing the historical and religious background of the controversies in Corinth related to the resurrection of the dead. Examining the terminology of the passage, we have focused on the importance of its statistical data and terminological diversity: ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν (15:12, 21, 42), νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται (15:16, 20, 29, 32, 35, 42) and πῶς ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί (15:35, 42). The Corinthian dispute concerned the denial of the resurrection of the dead. There was also the Epicurean element of denying the existence of anything after death; they maintained that death is the end of life. The dominant problem was the fleshiness of the resurrection of the dead: “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” (15:35;

265

266

The Motif of the Anti-Epicurean Polemic in the New Testament

cf. John 11:44). At this point, we are dealing with an analogy to the problems of the Thessalonians (cf. 1 Thess 4:13–5:11). We know the comprehensive apology of the resurrection (1 Cor 15), but let us note its two important details. Warning the Church, Paul instructed the Corinthians not to allow themselves to be deceived (μὴ πλανᾶσθε) by choosing “bad company” (1 Cor 15:33). Evidently, a theological error appeared in the community after debates (religious, theological, philosophical?). There is yet another interesting detail in 1 Cor 15. Paul’s resurrection apology was rooted in his deep biblical faith in God who created man and all bodies, each according to its species, who also raised Jesus from the dead and has the power to raise the dead so that “God may be all in all” (15:28). The union between believers and God is the ultimate destiny in the history of salvation (1 Cor 15:51–57). In light of the most important passage in Acts 17:16–34, this was a key theme in Paul’s speeches delivered in Athens. In the streets of the city, Paul proclaimed Jesus and the resurrection (Acts 17:18). Then, closing his Areopagus speech, he proclaimed the resurrection of a man (17:31); this caused the hearers’ ambivalent reactions and left them divided (17:32). It can be concluded that, in Athens, Paul preached the resurrection of Jesus Christ (here the word “resurrection” is used with an article; cf. 1 Cor 15:42; 2 Tim 2:18). The negative reaction of the Epicureans, however, was provoked not so much by the description of the individual event of the rising from the dead (Acts 17:18–19), but by the idea of the universal resurrection of the dead, as it was contrary to the philosophical and religious views of the school (Acts 17:32: ἀκούσαντες δὲ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν). Pagans might have had doubts about Christ’s resurrection, but at the same time, they must have acknowledged the apostles’ deep faith and the testimony of their lives (cf. Acts 26:8–28). The Areopagus speech contains more topics that contradicted the Epicurean doctrine, and we will consider another one of them. Showing his audience the providential presence of God in history, Paul also pointed to their obligation to seek God, since he is not far from them, and even that “[i]n him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Second Peter, the last text that has been analysed in our work, does not contain the message of the resurrection of the dead, but the issue of the resurrection may be supported. Christ’s parousia announced by the apostles had not taken place, thus the promises of the resurrection of the dead and the transfiguration of the living had not been fulfilled (cf. 1 Cor 15:51–57). This resulted in doubts and a crisis of faith within the community, caused mainly by false teachers. A certain peripheral aspect of the discussed theological problems relating to the resurrection should be highlighted. It is the presence of the verb πλανάω in the key texts that emphasise the motif of going astray or deception. The verb was used in addressing the Sadducees (Mark 12:24, 27), who were wrong (πολὺ πλανᾶσθε). Likewise, Paul warned the Corinthians (1 Cor 15:33) not to deceive themselves

The Theological Dimension of the NT Anti-Epicurean Polemic

and not to allow themselves to be deceived (μὴ πλανᾶσθε). The same verb is found in 2 Pet 2:15. Showing the tragic moral state of his theological adversaries, the author of 2 Peter reminded them that they had first allowed themselves to be deceived (ἐπλανήθησαν), and then they had followed the way of Balaam, i. e., they began deceiving others (2 Pet 2:15; cf. 3:16). This convergence is – perhaps – only a coincidence, but it fits well with the nature of the polemics recorded in the writings of the New Testament. Christians were receptive to the influence of the pagan environment. From the point of view of the history of early Christian theology, we are dealing with an interesting phenomenon. The truth about Christ’s resurrection was not questioned in the NT (cf. Matt 28:11–15) because, for early Christians, it was the foundation of their faith based on the testimonies of Jesus’ apostles and disciples (1 Cor 15:1–11). Objections came from those outside the Christian community, from heterodox groups or those who were receptive to alien influences, such as Paul’s Christian opponents and those of the author of 2 Peter. They found it difficult to accept the idea of the body rising from the dead and the belief that death was the end of everything. Are we really dealing with the influence of Epicureanism? In the biblical texts in question, the denial of the resurrection was connected with the argument that death was the end of everything, i. e., an Epicurean idea. Moreover, in the immediate contexts of these texts, there are evident terminological and content-related components of anti-Epicurean polemic. Finally, it is worth noting that the topic of the resurrection of the dead was discussed at length during the patristic period. The Church Fathers tried to prove this truth in various ways, often departing from biblical arguments (and anthropological monism) and resorting to rational evidence based on Greek philosophy (and the immortality of the soul). Many apologists, for example, Athenagoras of Athens (Res. 9) and later Tertullian (Res. 2.1), argued primarily with Epicurus’ erroneous views on this topic as exemplified. Origen also regarded the denial of the resurrection of the soul to be an Epicurean idea. For Christian authors, Epicurus’ belief in the mortality of the soul and its decay, including the decay of the body at death, was the most decisive argument for rejecting the views of The Garden. Consequently, anti-Epicurean polemics could not have been avoided.16

16 This question has widely been discussed by Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 98–101. An interesting aspect of the whole thing is that Tertullian and Lactantius argued about the human soul with Lucretius (Lucr. 3). See also Henry Chadwick, “Origen, Celsus, and the Resurrection of the Body,” HTR 41 (1948): 84–86, 89; Jungkuntz, “Fathers, Heretics and Epicureans,” 5–6; cf. Markschies, “Epikureismus bei Origenes,” 135–36.

267

268

The Motif of the Anti-Epicurean Polemic in the New Testament

3.2

God and His Providence

All of the texts we have analysed focused on God, the Creator of the world and the Lord of history. God is the basis of the history of salvation and the guarantor of the Christian kerygmatic proclamation. His greatest work was raising Jesus from the dead (cf. Acts 17:22–31; 1 Thess 4:14; 1 Cor 15:1–11). Incidentally, the issues of the power of God (Mark 12:24: δύναμις τοῦ θεου) and of the word of God (2 Pet 3:5, 7: ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος) also appeared in the texts we have examined. The supreme place of God was related to the necessity of referring to the foundation of understanding that was common to all participants in the dispute. In debates with the Sadducees and Greek philosophers, and also in conflicts within the Churches, such a foundation was only God or sometimes the Scriptures (Mark 12:24–27; 1 Cor 15:45–48; 2 Pet 2:4–8, 15). However, it is worth emphasizing that the eyewitness testimonies of the participants of the historical-salvific events were much more frequently applied and valued (Acts 17:18, 31; 1 Cor 15:1–11; 2 Pet 1:16–18). The sublime idea of God as the only Creator of the universe and Lord of history appears in all the analysed texts, but in Paul’s speech on the Areopagus, it was exemplary. The apostle pointed to the true nature of God, who is the Creator of all that exists and who controls all things as the sovereign Lord of the world (Acts 17:22–29). Paul did not express this truth directly, but all his theological arguments show his conviction of God’s providential presence in the world, meaning that God governs and watches over everyone and everything. Without giving up the biblical message about God, Paul referred to those philosophical traditions that were close to biblical views. God the Creator was at the heart of Paul’s missionary activities among the Gentiles (cf. 1 Thess 1:4–10; 1 Cor 8:4–6; Rom 1:15–19). In the texts under analysis, the truth about God’s unceasing, providential role in people’s lives was constantly present. This truth was fully expressed in showing that God was the goal of man’s life in this world. Communion with God, made evident already in one’s earthly life, and above all, being united with him after the resurrection from the dead, were part of the polemics with the opponents of the resurrection. Jesus, Paul, Luke and the author of 2 Peter pointed to God as the goal of human life, i. e., communion with God. Let us illustrate this truth by giving some examples. Jesus, defending the resurrection of the dead, spoke to the Sadducees: “He is God not of the dead, but of the living (θεὸς ζώντων)” (Mark 12:27). Thus, he pointed to Abraham and the patriarchs, as well as all martyrs for the cause of God, who are now with God. Of extreme interest is the redactional change in Luke 20:38, where we read about the dead that “for to him all of them are alive” (or “in God” – πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν). In Athens, Paul also mentioned the obligation to seek God “though indeed he is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27), and even “[i]n him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Paul wrote to the Church in Corinth about the goal

The Theological Dimension of the NT Anti-Epicurean Polemic

of Christian hope, indicating that the end of all eschatological events is “that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28; cf. 15:51–57). A similar thought was expressed in 2 Peter. Its author first lists numerous gifts of God, thanks to which Christians “may become participants of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). In all the texts cited, there is a profound theological and religious thought. Man’s most important goal is both union with God in this world and abiding in God in eternity. The imitatio dei of the Epicurean wise man had nothing to do with this. Proclaiming “the unknown” but only true God as Creator and providential Lord of history and as the just Judge was the basic element of the Christian message to the Gentiles (Acts 14:15; 17:22–31; 19:24–27; 1 Thess 1:9–10; Gal 4:8–9). The teaching about God was the starting point for preaching the message of Jesus Christ that would otherwise be incomprehensible to pagans who practised idolatry.17 In this context, it will sound banal to say that only the Epicureans had another idea of the gods, namely, that their gods enjoyed peace in the interworlds and did not care about man or the course of earthly matters. Taking this into account, the firm and utterly negative reaction of the Epicureans to Paul’s speech in Athens is even better understood (Acts 17:32). Christianity and Epicureanism had such fundamental differences that they cannot be resolved. The NT books contain the first testimony of Christian polemics with Epicurean theology. These polemics continued in the centuries following the NT times. The Church Fathers rejected Epicurean theology almost entirely, particularly the Epicurean denial of divine providence, which triggered their implacable protests.18 3.3

The Parousia and Judgement over the World

Yet, another theological theme, namely the Christian message about the coming day of judgment over the world, is directly related to the issue of God and his providential presence in the world. The coming of the Son of Man and the future judgment over the world were included in the good news preached by Christ. A similar eschatological theme has been observed in the texts analysed in this work. Luke’s information (Acts 17:31) remains crucial and resonates perfectly with Paul’s statements about the same topic. Indeed, one of the main theological themes of the

17 See Torrance, “Phusikos kai Theologikos Logos,” 15: “Fundamental attention must thus be given to the Christian doctrines of creation, providence and judgment, since it is through them that the saving message of the Gospel can be brought to bear effectively on the Gentile world of thought.” 18 Cf. Theophilus (Autol. 2.4; 3.2–3), Athanasius (Inc. 2.1); Tertullian (Marc. 1.2.2; 2.5.1–2; 5.19.7); see Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 96–98; Ferguson and Hershbell, “Epicureanism,” 2302–11; Markschies, “Epikureismus bei Origenes,” 1-37.

269

270

The Motif of the Anti-Epicurean Polemic in the New Testament

message to the Gentiles was the proclamation of the coming day of the parousia and judgment over the world (Acts 17; 1 Thess; 1 Cor; 2 Pet).19 In a dispute Jesus had with the Sadducees, we can only presume that the mentioned theological motif appeared on the topic of begetting offspring for a childless brother (Deut 25:5–10). The question was also considered by Jesus when speaking about the world to come and pointing to the life of the righteous in God (Mark 12:18–27). Jesus frequently referred to the eschatological day of the Son of man and the judgment over the world (Matt 24:43–44; Luke 12:39–40; cf. Rev 3:3; 16:15). On the other hand, awaiting the day of the parousia was an essential part of the faith of Christ’s first disciples. Above all, the theological reinterpretation of the message directed to the Gentiles is interesting. Jesus foretold the coming of the Son of Man at an unexpected hour (Luke 12:39–40; 17:23–24), while Paul spoke of the unexpected coming of “the day of the Lord” (1 Thess 5:2, 23; cf. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15).20 Our reinterpretation of this theological topos has been twofold. On the one hand, Paul did not develop the topic of the Son of Man, which would have been incomprehensible to the Gentiles, but focused on the coming of the “day of the Lord.” In some texts, the leading figure is God himself: the day of the Lord became “the wrath of God” and “the day of God.”21 Proclaiming the day of God’s wrath (as in Thessalonica), the day of judgment (as in Athens), the day of victory and God’s reign (as in Corinth) and the fulfilment of the promise of the parousia (in an unknown Church, see 2 Peter) was part of the kerygma addressed to the pagan world. This Christian message fell on fertile ground, since the idea of the wrath of the gods was common among the Greeks and Romans as well as in the teaching of philosophical schools. This idea was constantly present in pagan piety as well. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Gentiles trying to avoid the wrath of God welcomed Christ and awaited his parousia: note the attitude of the Thessalonians concerned for the fate of the dead (1 Thess 4:13, 14–17), that of the Corinthians receiving baptism on behalf of the dead (1 Cor 15:29), the anxiety of an unknown local Church about the parousia (2 Pet) and finally, the attitude of all Christians praying “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev 22:20). In this context, we can understand the attitude of some Athenians, including the Stoics, who did not categorically reject Paul’s message, but showed some interest in it. In the end, although not many Athenians believed, numerous citizens of the Empire did accept Christ, many of them dying for their faith in him.

19 See Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 297–300. 20 Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 302: “Paul had given prominence to the theme of Christ’s parousia during his preaching in Thessalonica.” 21 See Acts 17:31; 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; 2 Pet 2:9; 3:7, 10.

The Theological Dimension of the NT Anti-Epicurean Polemic

In passing, it is worth noting an interesting detail. In the Areopagus speech, Paul not only indicates that God forgives people their past errors without imposing punishment, but also calls for repentance in view of the coming day on which God intends to judge the entire inhabited world righteously. His judgement will be sure, inevitable and righteous (Acts 17:31: ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ). We can find a similar idea in 2 Peter. At the end of the apology of the parousia, the author of 2 Peter states that all believers “wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) is at home” (2 Pet 3:13). In Paul’s theological terminology, “righteousness” assumed a specific meaning, but he was also familiar with the idea of a righteous judgment. He consistently mentioned “the wrath of God” and “God’s righteous judgment” (Rom 2:5: δικαιοκρισία; see also Rom 1:18; 5:9; 9:22; cf. 1 Thess 1:10; 2:16; 5:9). The idea of God’s righteous judgment was rooted in the Old Testament (Ps 96:13; 98:9; cf. Isa 9:7; 11:4–5), but the Gentiles also longed and waited for God’s righteousness; we have evidence of this from Plutarch, whose texts have been quoted many times (De sera 550A–B) here. However, for Epicurus, the lack of God’s righteousness was one of the pieces of evidence that there was no providence and that the gods were indifferent to human matters, doing their own things.22 In the ancient world, it was primarily the enlightened Epicureans who fought against such “superstitions” as the afterlife, the wrath of the gods as well as reward and retribution after death. Both the idea of the resurrection and the ideas of righteous judgment, reward and retribution (Acts 17:31) undermined the foundations of Epicurus’ theodicy. This is another insurmountable barrier between Christianity, proclaiming the resurrection of the dead, Christ’s parousia and God’s judgment, and Epicureanism, which believed in man’s nothingness. The theological themes presented here show the huge breach that existed between Christianity and Epicureanism. Further disputes with Epicureanism in the period of nascent Christianity are a matter of speculation. However, none of the inspired authors in the New Testament entered into direct discussions with the Epicureans except Paul, who spoke in Athens. The hagiographers addressed the community of believers in a time of trial, defending the Christian faith, and only indirectly responded to the doctrinal errors of the community. The subsequent development of Christian theology confirms the situation outlined in the New Testament. The Christian authors may have adapted some elements of Plato’s and Aristotle’s metaphysics or the ethical thoughts of the Stoics. On the other hand, Epicureanism, representing a materialistic and mechanical view of the universe, created without any divine participation and devoid of the providential role of the

22 The reading of the quoted Plutarch’s On the Delays of Divine Vengeance is extremely instructive (De sera 548A–568A). Plutarch takes up the subject of providence, reward and eternal punishment, being also an expression of God’s justice (discussed in Chapter V).

271

272

The Motif of the Anti-Epicurean Polemic in the New Testament

gods, was inconsistent with the basic principles of the Christian doctrine. Thus, the rejection of Epicurean theology by the Church Fathers was obvious and natural. The beginnings of this anti-Epicurean theological tradition can be found in the New Testament writings.23

23 Cf. Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 96–97. According to Jones (pp. 111–12), Christian authors, including Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactantius, Jerome and Augustine, studied Epicurean philosophy, seeking support for their arguments or seeking help in refuting the views of other philosophical schools.

Conclusion

The encounter between Christianity and the Hellenistic-Roman world also led to encounters between Christians and the disciples of Epicurus, as recorded by Luke (Acts 17:18). Have other traces of such meetings and confrontation of the Christian message with Epicureanism survived in the New Testament? To what extent and in what way did Epicurus and his philosophical thought influence the first Christian churches? What were their reactions? The present study has aimed to provide a comprehensive answer to the question about the presence of anti-Epicurean rhetoric and polemics in the NT writings. Chapter I introduced the problem of Epicureanism. It dealt with the most important aspects of Epicurus’ philosophy in general and the presence and influence of Epicureanism in the Roman Empire in the first century AD, particularly putting a strong emphasis on the biblical and Jewish circles. Epicureanism was an important component of the Hellenistic-Roman world during the formation of the NT writings. The Epicurean doctrine was known and discussed in Rome, Greece and the East – Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt. Many ancient authors were familiar with Epicureanism and tried to present a balanced evaluation of this philosophy. At the same time, Epicureanism was the most often attacked philosophy, mainly by opposing schools of philosophy as well as Sophists and rhetoricians. Epicureanism was attacked for preaching hedonism, withdrawing from public life and its teaching about the gods and providence. Thus, it was usually presented in a vulgarized form in polemics. Over time, the Epicurean became a stereotypical cliché of a godless and immoral man. The attitude of the conservative Jewish community was also hostile toward Epicurus’ philosophy. The general view of the Epicureanism of the first-century Christian era was concretized in detailed analyses of the New Testament texts in terms of the presence of Epicurean thought (Chapters II–V). Chapter II was dedicated to the presence of the epicurea in the Palestinian environment and the first Palestinian Christian communities. Exegetes were mainly interested in the sources of the Sadducees’ views on the resurrection of the dead, considering their closeness to Epicurean anthropology, which recognizes death to be the end of human life. However, the popularity of Greek philosophy in Hellenistic cities on the outskirts of Palestine and even the possible presence of this philosophy in Palestine itself does not mean that, from the beginning, the Jewish community encountered Greek philosophy, in particular Epicureanism. The existence of surprising similarities between Sadducism and Epicureanism in their views on God, providence and man’s fate after death requires reflection, but does not provide grounds for formulating binding

274

Conclusion

conclusions. The question about the historical sources of the religious views of the Sadducees remains unanswered. Hans D. Betz’s hypothesis about the influence of Greek philosophy, including Epicureanism, on the first Christian missionaries in Jerusalem and Judea, is debatable as well. There are no convincing traces of the existence of such potential philosophical polemics in the texts of the canonical gospels, just as there are no traces of anti-Epicurean rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount. In Chapter III, we analysed Luke’s narrative of Paul’s activities in Athens and his Areopagus speech (Acts 17:16–34). The interlocutors of the Apostle to the Nations included Epicureans and, as Luke recorded, so did his audience. This is not just an accidental mention by the author of Acts; Luke documented two different reactions of representatives of philosophical schools to the Christian message – those of the Epicureans and the Stoics. Considering the literary-theological composition of Acts 17:16–34, it can be argued that Luke deliberately showed two opposing reactions of representatives of philosophical schools. The Epicureans responded to Paul and the Christian message with an attitude of incomprehension and mockery, while the Stoics showed openness and some interest. Therefore, reporting on Paul’s speech in Athens, the author of Acts pointed to the inconsistency of Epicurus’ philosophical views with the Christian message about God and highlighted the Epicureans’ unfavourable reaction to the truth about the resurrection. Luke’s mention of the Epicureans serves as a paradigm, illustrating the negative experiences of the next generations of Christians in their encounters with Epicureanism and Epicureans. The confrontation between Christianity and the philosophy of Epicurus in Athens gave rise to disputes and polemics that continued over the next four centuries. Chapter IV discussed selected Pauline texts (1 Thess, 1 Cor). Unlike the precise image of the encounter between Christians and Epicurus’ disciples given in Acts, the situation in the Corpus Paulinum is more complex. Although none of Paul’s letters mentions Epicurus and his philosophy, Clement of Alexandria recognised Paul as the first Christian critic of Epicurus and his hedonistic philosophy. In turn, in modern times, Norman W. DeWitt has regarded Paul’s letters as saturated with Epicurean thought and terminology, making the Apostle himself an ex-Epicurean. Analyses of the selected texts have made the author take a realistic stance, which confirms the opinions expressed by other commentators. Paul’s epistles lack obvious traces of Epicureanism and Epicurean views. This is understandable because the content of the Apostle’s letters was not philosophical controversies and certainly not disputes with the philosophy of The Garden. However, 1 Thess, 1 Cor 5–6 and above all 1 Cor 15 contain similarities in terminology and content with Epicurus’ philosophy, mainly based on opposition and indirect anti-Epicurean polemic. Undoubtedly, according to the Corinthian opponents of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:12), death is the ultimate closure and end of existence. This element of Paul’s apology on the resurrection can be better understood if we remember the views of the ancients

Conclusion

on man’s life and death and Epicurus’ separate view on the same topic. Hence, we may presume with high probability that Epicurean views and the Epicurean way of life indirectly influenced the Christian communities in Thessalonica and Corinth. Chapter V focused on the historical and religious sources of the dispute about the parousia (2 Pet 3:1–13), while the issue that commentators found most difficult was identifying the opponents called “false teachers” (2 Pet 2:1). Those teachers interpreted the delay of the parousia as God’s silence and his absence in the world, and thus a lack of punishment over people. The doctrinal conflict and argumentation, outlined by the author of 2 Peter, are certainly understood better if we assume anti-Epicurean polemics and rhetoric. We can show many terminological and factual parallels with anti-Epicurean polemics known from the writings of Greek authors. This does not resolve the question of whether the doctrinal and moral errors resulted from the influence of Epicureanism on the members of some unknown Church in Asia Minor. Moreover, we cannot conclude that the unknown “false teachers” represented this trend in pagan thought. Yet, in 2 Peter, we can attest with high probability to the presence of theological as well as religious issues and terminology, which we also know about from the anti-Epicurean polemics conducted in the Hellenistic-Roman world in the first century CE. Finally, Chapter VI contained a systematic assessment of the results of the exegetical and comparative-theological analyses carried out in the previous chapters. It also attempted to analytically describe the presence of anti-Epicurean polemics in the New Testament writings and interpret this phenomenon. The question about the presence of anti-Epicurean polemics in the New Testament is part of all the processes that developed in the first century of the new era, during which Christianity confronted the pagan world. In the NT writings, the Epicurean element was neither dominant nor even significant. Apart from the obvious message of Luke, there is no convincing evidence of anti-Epicurean polemics. Nevertheless, we can assume the presence of loose contacts between Christians and Epicureans in the first century CE, which resulted in anti-Epicurean polemics. As a rule, it was a reaction to the threat posed by the presence of Christians in the HellenisticRoman pagan environment. The NT books reflect that situation, which previously existed within Judaism and the Jewish Diaspora, while anti-Epicurean polemics in the New Testament developed analogously to anti-Epicurean Jewish polemics (Orthodox Judaism, Philo of Alexandria, Josephus and Jewish rabbis). However, an evident change occurred in the later period. The anti-Epicurean polemics in the New Testament, followed by debates and discussions in the patristic period, were a result of Christianity’s great openness to the Hellenistic-Roman world. Our modest results and their hypothetical nature should not come as a surprise, since they result from the nature of the preserved literary sources. The writings of the New Testament are not an integral, or even partial, record of the history

275

276

Conclusion

and theology of early Christianity. Nevertheless, our conviction of Epicurean influences on young Christian Churches and Christianity’s reaction in the form of anti-Epicurean polemics is based on the assessment of these sources. In the New Testament, we can admittedly observe few, but remarkable, analogies and similarities to the Epicurean views represented by heterodox Christian groups. Indeed, even finding such parallels or similarities is valuable in biblical exegesis. However, we advocate proposing something more than these analogies. Epicureanism was a phenomenon too close to Christianity and too popular in the contemporary world to avoid bilateral contact between them. Their traces in the form of anti-Epicurean polemics survived in the New Testament.

Abbreviations

Greek and Latin Writings Abst.

De abstinentia ab esu animalium (Porphyry, On the Abstinence of Eating Animals)

Adv. Col. Alex. Amat. Ann. Ben. Constant. De sera De superst. Def. orac. Diatr. Diog. Laer. Ep. Ep. Hdt. Ep. Men. Ep. Pyth. Epig. Eum. Fin. Inst. K.D. Lucr. Nat. D. Or. Peregr. Quaest. conv. Sat. Stoic. rep. Suav. viv.

Adversus Colotem (Plutrach, Against Colotes) Alexander (Lucian, Alexander the False Prophet) Amatorius (Plutarch, Dialogue on Love) Annales (Tacitus, The Annals) De Beneficiis (Seneca, On Benefits) De Constantia Sapientis (Seneca, On the Firmness of the Wise) De sera numinis vindicta (Plutrach, On the Delays of Divine Vengeance) De superstitione (Plutarch, On Superstition) De defectu oraculorum (Plutarch, On the Obsolescence of Oracles) Diatribai (Epictetus, Dissertationes) Vitae philosophorum (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers) Epistula / Epistulae (letters of various authors whose names are given) Epistula ad Herodotum (Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus) Epistula ad Menoeceum (Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus) Epistula ad Pythoclem (Epicurus, Letters to Pythocles) Epigramma (An Epigram) Eumenides (Aeschylus, The Eumenides/Kindly Ones) De finibus bonorum et malorum (Cicero, On the Ends of Good and Evil) Institutio oratoria (Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory) Κυρίαι Δόξαι (Epicurus, Principal Doctrines) De rerum natura (Lucretius, On the Nature of Things) De natura deorum (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods) Orationes (Dio Chrysostom, Discourses) De morte Peregrini (Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus) Quaestiones convivales (Plutarch, Table Talk) Satyricon libri (Petronius, The Satyrica) De Stoicorum repugnantiis (Plutarch, On Stoic Self-Contradictions) Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum (Plutrach, It is Impossible to Live Pleasantly in the Manner of Epicurus)

Tranq. Tusc.

De Tranquilitate Animi (Seneca, On the Tranquility of the Mind) Tusculanae disputationes (Cicero, Tusculan Disputations)

278

Abbreviations

Vat. Sent.

Sententiae Vaticanae = Gnomologium Vaticanum (Epicurus, Vatican Sayings)

Vit. Apol. Vita B.

Vita Apollonii (Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana) De Vita Beata (Seneca, On the Happy Life)

Jewish Writings 1 En. 1QH 1QpHab 2 Bar. 2 En. 3 En. 4 Bar. 4 Ezra 4 Macc 4QMMT Ant. As. Mos. Avot B. Mes. Bel. Ber. BerR C.Ap. CD Conf. Git. Hag. Jub. Ketub. LAB LAE Leg. Meg. Mos. 1-2 Opif. Pea Pesah.

1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse) Hodajot (Qumran, Thanksgiving Hymns) Pesher on Habakkuk (Qumran, Pesher Habakkuk) 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse) 2 Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse) 3 Enoch (Hebrew Apocalypse) 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) 4 Ezra 4 Maccabees Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah (Qumran, Some Precepts of the Law) Antiquitates Judaicae (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews) Assumption of Moses Avot de-Rabbi Natan Bava Metzi’a Bellum Judaicum (Josephus, The Jewish War) Berakhot Bereshit Rabbah Contra Apionem (Josephus, Against Apion) Cairo Damascus Document De confusione linguarum (Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues) Gittin Hagigah Jubilees Ketubbot Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo) Life of Adam and Eve Legum allegoriae I, II, III (Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 1, 2, 3) Megillah De vita Mosis I, II (Philo, On the Life of Moses 1, 2) De opificio mundi (Philo, On the Creation) Pea Pesahim

Journals and Series

Post. Prov. 1-2 Pss. Sol. Sabb. Sanh. Sib. Or. T. Ter. Vita

De posteritate Caini (Philo, On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile) De providentia I, II (Philo, On Providence I, II) Psalms of Solomon Shabbat Sanhedrin Oracula Sibyllina I-XIV (Sibylline Oracles I-XIV) Isaac Testament of Isaac Terumot Josephus, Vita (The Life)

Christian Writings 1–2 Clem. Autol. Barn. Dial. Gos. Thom. Haer. Hom. Inc. Marc. Praep. ev. Res. Res. mort. Strom.

1–2 Clement (Clement of Rom, 1–2 Epistle) Ad Autolycum (Theophilus, To Autolycus) Barnabas (Epistle of Barnabas) Dialogus cum Tryphone (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho) Gospel of Thomas (Nag Hammadi Library) Adversus haereses (Irenaeus, Against Heresies) Homiliae (John Chrysostom, Homilies) Oratio de Incarnatione Verbi (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word) Adversus Marcionem (Tertullian, Against Marcion) Praeparatio evangelica (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel) De resurrectione carnis (Tertullian, The Resurrection of the Flesh) De resurrectione mortuorum (Athenagoras, The Resurrection of the Dead) Stromateis (Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies)

Journals and Series AB AJP AGJU BAFCS BBB BETL Bib BR BRLA BZ

Anchor Bible American Journal of Philology Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting Bonner Biblische Beiträge Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblica Biblical Research Brill Reference Library of Judaism Biblische Zeitschrift

279

280

Abbreviations

CahPh CBQ CBET ClQ CQR EFN EKKNT ErF FRLANT HNT HThKNT HTR HUT ICC JBL JBR JEH JR JSNT JSOT KEK KohlST LCL LIEur NEchtB NICNT NTOA NovT NovTSub NTD NTS RB RevExp RNT SBL SBS SJT SNTS MS StPB StTh

Cahiers de Philologie Catholic Biblical Quarterly Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Classical Quarterly Church Quarterly Review Estudios de filología neotestamentaria Evangelisch-katolischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Erträge der Forschung Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie International Critical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Bible and Religion Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie Loeb Classical Liberary Lessico intelletuale europeo Neue Echter Bibel New International Commentary on the New Testament Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum. Supplements Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Studies Revue biblique Review and Expositor Regensburger Neues Testament Society for Biblical Literature Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies. Monograph Series Studia Post-biblica Studia Theologica – Nordic Journal of Theology

Others

ThHKNT TRev TynBul WBC WMANT WUNT ZAWBeih ZPE ZNW

Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Revue Tyndale Bulletin Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Beihefte Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Others ANRW

Temporini, Hildegard, and Wolfgang Haase, eds. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–).

Bauer

Bauer, Walter, and Kurt Aland. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testament und der frühchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 6 1988).

BDAG

Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

BDR

Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner and Friedrich Rehkopf. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 16 1984).

EncJud

Encyclopedia Judaica. Edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum, 2nd ed., 22 vols (Detroit: Macmillan Reference, USA, 2007).

LSJ

Liddell, Henry G., Robert Scott and Henry S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with a Revised Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996).

MM

Moulton, James H., and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London, 1930; reprint Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997).

RAC

Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Edited by Theodor Klauser et al. (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1950–).

TRE

Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by Gerhard Krause and Gerhard Müller (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977–).

TWNT

Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (vols. 1-10; Stuttgart, 1932–1979).

281

Bibliography

Bible Editions Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 5 1997). The Greek New Testament, Barbara Aland et al., eds. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 4 1998). New Revised Standard Version Bible (National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, 1989). Novum Testamentum Graece, Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, eds. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 27 1993). Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart, eds. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2 2006). The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, Lancelot C. L. Brenton, ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 5 1995).

Greek and Latin Sources Aeschylus, Oresteia: Agamemnon. Libation-Bearers. Eumenides, ed. and trans. Alan H. Sommerstein (LCL 146; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). Cicero, On Ends, trans. Harris Rackham (LCL 40; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914). Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods. Academics, trans. H. Rackham (LCL 268; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933). Cicero. Tusculan Disputations, trans. John Edward King (LCL 141; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927). Dio Chrysostom: Orations VII, XII and XXXVI, ed. David A. Russel (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Imperial Library; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1992). Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 2: Books 6–10, trans. Robert D. Hicks (LCL 185; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972; first published 1925). Greek Anthology, trans. William Roger Paton (LCL 67; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916). Lucian, Anacharsis or Athletics. Menippus or The Descent into Hades. On Funerals. A Professor of Public Speaking. Alexander the False Prophet. Essays in Portraiture. Essays in Portraiture Defended. The Goddesse of Surrye, trans. Austin Morris Harmon (LCL 162; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925).

284

Bibliography

Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus. The Runaways. Toxaris or Friendship. The Dance. Lexiphanes. The Eunuch. Astrology. The Mistaken Critic. The Parliament of the Gods. The Tyrannicide. Disowned, trans. Austin M. Harmon (LCL 302; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936). Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, trans. William H. D. Rouse, rev. Martin Ferguson (LCL 181; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924). Philostratos. Das Leben des Apollonios von Tyana, griechisch-deutsch, ed. Vroni Mumprecht (Sammlung Tusculum; München: Artemis, 1983). Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana. Vol. 1: Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Books 1–4, ed. and trans. Christopher P. Jones (LCL 16. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005). Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana. Vol. 2: Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Books 5-8, ed. and trans. Christopher P. Jones (LCL 17; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005). Plato, Timaeus. Critias. Cleitophon. Menexenus. Epistles, trans. R. G. Bury (LCL 234; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929). Plutarch, Moralia, Vol. 9: Table-Talk, Books 7-9. Dialogue on Love, trans. Edwin L. Minar and F. H. Sandbach and W. C. Helmbold (LCL 425; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961). Plutarch, Moralia. Vol. 13. Part 2: Stoic Essays, trans. Harold Cherniss (LCL 470; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976). Plutarch, Moralia. Vol. 14: That Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible. Reply to Colotes in Defence of the Other Philosophers. Is “Live Unknown” a Wise Precept? On Music, trans. Benedict Einarson and Phillip H. De Lacy (LCL 428; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967). Plutarco, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum, introd. and comm. Francesca Albini (Genova: D. AR. FI. CL. ET. “F. Della Corte,” 1993). Seneca, Epistles. Vol. 1: Epistles 1-65, trans. Richard M. Gummere (LCL 75; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917). Seneca, Epistles. Vol. 2: Epistles 66-92, trans. Richard M. Gummere (LCL 76; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920). Seneca, Epistles. Vol. 3: Epistles 93-124, trans. Richard M. Gummere (LCL 77; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925). Seneca, Moral Essays. Vol. 1: De Providentia. De Constantia. De Ira. De Clementia, trans. John W. Basore (LBL 214; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928). Seneca. Moral Essays. Vol. 2: De Consolatione ad Marciam. De Vita Beata. De Otio. De Tranquillitate Animi. De Brevitate Vitae. De Consolatione ad Polybium. De Consolatione ad Helviam, trans. John W. Basore (LCL 254; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932).

Other Works Cited

Jewish Sources Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Vol. 4: Books 9–11, trans. Ralph Marcus (LCL 326; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937). Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Vol. 5: Books 12-13, trans. Ralph Marcus (LCL 365; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1943). Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Vol. 8: Books 18–19, trans. Louis H. Feldman (LCL 433; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965). Josephus, The Jewish War. Vol. 1: Books 1-2, trans. Henry St. J. Thackeray (LCL 203; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927). Josephus, The Life. Against Apion, trans. Henry St. J. Thackeray (LCL 186; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926). Die Mischna. IV Seder. Neziqin. 4 u. 5 Traktat. Sanhedrin – Makkot. Text, Übersetzung und Erklärung von Samuel Krauß (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1933). Die Mischna. IV Seder. Neziqin. 9 Traktat. Abot (Väter). Text, Übersetzung und Erklärung von Karl Marti und Georg Beer (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1927). The Mishnah. A New Translation, trans. Jacob Neusner (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988). Philo, On the Creation. Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3, trans. Francis Henry Colson and George Herbert Whitaker (LCL 226; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929). Philon d’Alexandrie, De providentia I et II. Introduction, traduction et notes par Mireille Hadas-Lebel (Les Oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 35; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1973).

Other Works Cited Adams, Edward. “‘Where is the promise of his coming?’ The Complaint of the Scoffers in 2 Peter 3:4,” NTS 51 (2005): 106–22. Adams, Marilyn M. “Philosophy and the Bible,” Faith and Philosophy 9 (1992): 135–49. Albini, Francesca. “Introduzione,” in Plutarco, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum. Introduzione, traduzione, commento di Francesca Albini (Genova: D. AR. FI. CL. ET. “F. Della Corte”, 1993), 9–79. Alfred, Donald. Matthew 1 – 13 (WBC 33A; Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1993). Allison, Dale C. “The Eye Is the Lamp of the Body (Matthew 6:22–23 = Luke 11:34–36),” NTS 33 (1987): 61–83. Allo, Ernest-Bernard. Saint Paul. Première épitre aux Corinthiens (Études Bibliques 8; Paris: Gabalda, 2 1956). Ameling, Walter. “FAGWMEN KAI PIWMEN. Griechische Parallelen zu zwei Stellen aus dem Neuen Testament,” ZPE 60 (1985): 35–43.

285

286

Bibliography

Angeli, Anna, and Livia Marrone. “Papiri ed edizioni,” in Epicuro e l’Epicureismo nei Papiri Ercolanesi (Napoli: Università di Napoli, 1993), 175–86. Arrighetti, Graziano, ed. Epicuro: Opere (Turin: Einaudi, 2 1973). Arrighetti, Graziano. La cultura letteraria in Grecia da Omero a Apollonio Rodio (Il mondo degli antichi 8.1; Roma; Bari: Laterza, 1989). Asher, Jeffrey R. Polarity and Change in 1 Corinthians 15. A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection (HUT 42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Asmis, Elizabeth. “Philodemus’ Epicureanism,” ANRW 36.4:2369–2406. Part 2, Principat, 36.4: Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (New York: de Gruyter, 1990). Attridge, Harold W. “The Philosophical Critique of Religion under the Early Empire,” ANRW 16.1:45–78. Part 2, Principat, 16.1: Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (New York: de Gruyter, 1978). Aune, David E. “The World of Roman Hellenism,” in David E. Aune, ed., The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament (Malden, MA; Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 15–37. Baird, William. “‘One Against the Other’. Intra-Church Conflict in 1 Corinthians,” in Robert T. Fortna and Beverly R. Gaventa, eds., The Conversation Continues, Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1990), 116–36. Balch, David L. “The Areopagus Speech. An Appeal to the Stoic Historian Posidonius against Later Stoics and the Epicureans,” in David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson and Wayne A. Meeks, eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (FS A. J. Malherbe; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 52–79. Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997). Barrett, Charles K. “Paul’s Speech on the Areopagus,” in Mark E. Glasswell and Edward W. Fasholé-Luke, eds., New Testament Christianity for Africa and the World (London: SPCK, 1974), 69–77. Barrett, Charles K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (1-2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998). Barrett, Charles K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Black’s New Testament Commentaries 7; London: Black, 1971). Barrett, Charles K., ed. The New Testament Background. Writings from Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire that Illuminate Christian Origins (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1996). Bartling, Heinz-Michael. Epikur. Theorie der Lebenskunst (Hochschulschriften Philosophie 16; Cuxhaven: Junghans, 1994). Bauckham, Richard. Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983). Bauer, Walter, and Kurt Aland. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testament und der frühchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 6 1988). Bauernfeind, Otto. “ἀσέλγεια, TWNT 1.488. Bauernfeind, Otto. “νήφω,” TWNT 4.935–40.

Other Works Cited

Becker, Hans-Joachim. “‘Epikureer’ im Talmud Yerushalmi,” in Peter Schäfer, ed., The Talmud Yerushalmi und Graeco-Roman Culture I (TStAJ 71; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 397–421. Beretta, Marco, Francesco Citti and Alessandro Iannucci, eds. Il culto di Epicuro. Testi iconografia e paesaggio (Centro Studi. La permanenza del Classico 31; Firenze: Olschki, 2014). Berger, Klaus. “Streit um Gottes Vorsehung: Zur Position der Gegner im 2 Petrusbrief,” in Jan W. van Henten et al., eds., Tradition and Re-interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (StPB 36; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 121–35. Berger, Klaus. Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg; Quelle & Meyer, 1984). Bernas, Casimir, (rev.) “Auferstehen. Eine neue Deutung von 1 Kor 15. By Sebastian Schneider. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2005,” Religious Studies Review 32/1 (2006): 46. Bertram, Georg. “παίζω,” TWNT 5.625–35. Betz, Hans D. “Die Bergpredigt. Ihre literarische Gattung und Funktion,” in Hans D. Betz, Studien zur Bergpredigt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 1–16. Betz, Hans D. “Die hermeneutischen Prinzipien in der Bergpredigt (Matt 5:17–20),” in Hans D. Betz, Studien zur Bergpredigt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 34–48. Betz, Hans D. “Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt (Matthäus 5,3–12). Beobachtungen zur literarischen Form und theologischen Bedeutung,” in Hans D. Betz, Studien zur Bergpredigt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 17–33. Betz, Hans D. “Hellenismus,” TRE 15:19-35; Heinz Heinen, Geschichte des Hellenismus. Von Alexander bis Kleopatra (München: Beck, 2003). Betz, Hans D. “Kosmogonie und Ethik in der Bergpredigt,” in Hans D. Betz, Studien zur Bergpredigt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 78–110. Betz, Hans D. “Matthäus 6, 22–23 und die antiken griechischen Sehtheorien,” in Hans D. Betz, Studien zur Bergpredigt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 62–77. Betz, Hans D. “The Sermon on the Mount. Its Literary Genre and Function,” JR 69 (1979): 285–97. Betz, Hans D. “The Sermon on the Mount: In Defense of a Hypothesis,” BR 36 (1991): 74–80. Betz, Hans D. Essays on the Sermon on Mount (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1985). Betz, Hans D. Studien zur Bergpredigt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985). Betz, Hans D. The Sermon on the Mount. A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3 – 7:27 and Luke 6:20–49) (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995). Bichler, Reinhold. Hellenismus. Geschichte und Problematik eines Epochenbegriffs (Impulse der Forschung 41; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983). Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner and Friedrich Rehkopf. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 16 1984). Bolt, Peter G. “What Were the Sadducees Reading? An Enquiry into the Literary Background of Mark 12:18–23,” TynBul 45 (1994): 369–94. Botha, Pieter J. “History and Point of View. Understanding the Sadducees,” Neotestamentica 30 (1996): 235–80.

287

288

Bibliography

Brenk, Frederick E. “Mixed Monotheism? The Areopagos Speech of Paul,” in Charles Guittard, ed., Le monothéisme. Diversité, exclusivisme ou dialogue?, Société Ernest Renan. Societé Française d’Histoire des Religiions, Association Européenne pour l’Etude des Religios (EASR). Congrès de Paris, 11–14 September 2002 (Paris: Non-lieu, 2010), 131–52. Brenk, Frederick E. “Old wineskins recycled: «Autarkeia» in 1 Timothy 6. 5-10,” Filología Neotestamentaria 3 (1990): 39–52. Brown, Paul J. Bodily Resurrection and Ethics in 1 Cor 15. Connecting Faith and Morality in the Context of Greco-Roman Mythology (WUNT II 360; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). Brown, Robert D. Lucretius on Love and Sex. A Commentary on De rerum natura IV, 1030–1287 with Prolegomena, Text, and Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1987). Bruce, Frederick F. “Paul and the Athenians,” ExT 88 (1976–77): 8 –12. Bruce, Frederick F. The Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles (London: The Tyndale Press, 1942). Büchsel, Friedrich. “τυμός κτλ,” TWNT 3.167–72. Bugh, Glenn R., ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Carlston, Charles E. “Betz on the Sermon on the Mount: A Critique,” CBQ 50 (1988): 47–57. Casey, Maurice. An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (SNTS MS 122; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Castner, Catherine J. Prosopography of Roman Epicureans Between the Second Century B.C. and the Second Century A.D. (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 34; Frankfurt am Main et al.: Lang, 1991). Chadwick, Henry. “Origen, Celsus, and the Resurrection of the Body,” HTR 41 (1948): 83–102. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (vols. 1–2; New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985). Chester, Andrew, and Ralph P. Martin. The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Chilton, Cecil W. Diogenis Oenoandensis Fragmenta (Leipzig: Teubner, 1967). Ciccarelli, Michele. “The God of Jesus in Paul’s Speech at Athens (Acts 17:22–31),” Bibbia e Oriente 54 (2014): 133–78. Clarke, Andrew D. “Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth,” TynBul 43.2 (1992): 395–98. Clarke, Andrew D. Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth. A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6 (AGJU 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993). Clay, Diskin. “The Philosophical Inscription of Diogenes of Oenoanda: New Discoveries,” ANRW 36.4:2446–2559. Part 2, Principat, 36.4: Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (New York: de Gruyter, 1990). Collins, Raymond. First Corinthians (Sacra Pagina 7; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999). Conzelmann, Hans. Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2 1981).

Other Works Cited

Conzelmann, Hans. Die Apostelgeschichte (HNT 7; Tübingen: Mohr, 1972). Cook, John G. “Resurrection in Paganism and the Question of an Empty Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15,” NTS 63 (2017): 56–75. Cook, John G. “The Greek Vocabulary for Resurrection in Paganism,” in Israel M. Gallarte and Jesús Peláez, eds., In mari via tua. Philological Studies in Honour of Antonio Piñero (EFN 11; Córdoba: Ediciones El Almendro, 2016), 197-216. Crönert, Wilhelm. “Der Epikureer Philonides,” in Sitzungsberichte der königlich preusischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag [etc.] 1900), 942–59, 999–1001. Crönert, Wilhelm. “Die Epikureer in Syrien,” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 10 (1907): 145–52. Croy, N. Clayton. “Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32),” NovT 39 (1997): 21–39. Damiani, Vincenzo. La Kompendienliteratur nella scuola di Epicuro. Forme, funzioni, contesto (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 396; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021). Davies, W[illiam] D., and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Vol. 1: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I – VII (ICC 31.1; London [u. a.]: T&T Clark, 2004; reprint 2010). Delgado, Á. Pereira, (rev.) “Paul J. Brown, Bodily Resurrection and Ethics in 1 Cor 15 (WUNT /II 360). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014,” Bib 97 (2016): 148–51. Delobel, Joël. “The Corinthians’ (Un-)belief in the Resurrection,” in Reimund Bieringer, Veronica Koperski, Bianca Lataire, eds., Resurrection in the New Testament. Festschrift J. Lambrecht (BETL 165; Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2002), 343–55. DeMaris, Richard E. “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology,” JBL 114 (1995): 661–82. DeWitt, Norman W. Epicurus and His Philosophy (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1954). DeWitt, Norman W. St. Paulus and Epicurus (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1954). Dibelius, Martin. “Die Reden der Apostelgeschichte und die Antike Geschichtsschreibung,” in Martin Dibelius, Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte (FRLANT 42; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3 1957), 120–162. Dibelius, Martin. “Paulus auf dem Areopag,” in Martin Dibelius, Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte (FRLANT 42; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3 1957), 29–70. Dominici, Caterina. Epicureismo e stoicismo nella Roma antica. Lucrezio, Virgilio, Orazio (odi civili), Seneca (Padova: Abano Terme, 1985). Dorandi, Tiziano. “Filodemo. Gli orienamenti della ricerca attuale,” ANRW 36.4:2328–68. Part 2, Principat, 36.4: Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (New York: de Gruyter, 1990). Doughty, Darrell J. “The Presence and Future of Salvation in Corinth,” ZNW 66 (1975): 61–90.

289

290

Bibliography

Dreyfus, François. “L’argument scripturaire de Jésus en faveur de la résurrection des mortes (Marc XII 26–27),” RB 66 (1959): 213–225. Dumais, Marcel. Le sermon sur la montagne. État de la recherche. Interprétation. Bibliographie (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1995). Dunn, James D. G. “How are the Dead Raised? With What Body Do They Come? Reflections on 1 Corinthians 15,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 45 (2002): 4–18. Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh: Eerdmans, 1998). Eckstein, Peter. Gemeinde, Brief und Heilbotschaft. Ein phänomelogischer Vergleich zwischen Paulus und Epikur (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004). Egger, Wilhelm, and Peter Wick. Methodenlehre zum Neuen Testament: Biblische Texte selbständig auslegen (6., völlig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2011). Elliger, Winfried. Paulus in Grichenland. Philippi, Thessaloniki, Athen, Korinth (SBS 92–93; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978). Eltester, Walther. “Gott und die Natur in der Areopagrede,” in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (ZNW 21; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954), 202–27. Endsjø, Dag Ø. “Immortal Bodies before Christ: Bodily Continuity in Ancient Greece and 1 Corinthians,” JSNT 30 (2008): 417–36. Endsjø, Dag Ø. Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). Engels, Donald. Roman Corinth. An Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1990). Erbì, Margherita. “La retorica nell’Epicureismo: una riflessione,” Cronache Ercolanesi 41 (2011): 189–206. Erler, Michael. “Epicureanism in the Roman Empire,” in James Warren, ed., Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 46–64. Erler, Michael. “Epikur – die Schule Epikurs – Lukrez,” in Grundriß der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike. 4.2: Die hellenistische Philosophie, völlig neu bearb. Ausg., ed. Hellmut Flashar (Basel: Schwabe, 1994), 29–490. Erler, Michael. “La sacralizzazione di Socrate e di Epicuro,” in Marco Beretta, Francesco Citti and Alessandro Iannucci, eds., Il culto di Epicuro. Testi iconografia e paesaggio (Centro Studi. La permanenza del Classico 31; Firenze: Olschki, 2014), 1–14. Essler, Holger. “Cicero’s Use and Abuse of Epicurean Theology,” in Jeffrey Fish and Kirk Sanders, eds., Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 129–51. Fabris, Rinaldo. Prima Lettera ai Corinzi. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (I libri biblici 7; Milano: Paoline, 1999). Fatić, Aleksandar, and Dimitrios Dentsoras. “Pleasure in Epicurean and Christian Orthodox Conceptions of Happiness,” South African Journal of Philosophy 33 (2014): 523–36.

Other Works Cited

Fauth, Wolfgang. “Divus Epicurus. Zur Problemgeschichte philosophischer Religiosität bei Lukrez,” ANRW 1.4: 205–225. Part 1, Von den Anfängen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik, 4: Edited by Hildegard Temporini (New York: de Gruyter, 1973). Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987). Feldman, Louis H. “Hellenism and the Jews,” EncJud 8.786–790. Feldman, Louis H. “Hengel’s Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect,” JBL 96 (1977): 371–82. Feldman, Louis H. Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1998). Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2 1993). Ferguson, John, and Jackson P. Hershbell. “Epicureanism under the Roman Empire,” ANRW 36.4:2257–327. Part 2, Principat, 36.4: Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (New York: de Gruyter, 1990). Festugiére, André-Jean. Epicure et ses dieux (Mythes et religions 19; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1946). Filson, Floyd V., (rev.) “N. deWitt, St Paul and Epicurus,” JBR 23 (1955): 145. Fiore, Benjamin. “Passion in Paul and Plutarch. 1 Corinthians 5-6 and the Polemic against Epicureans,” in David L. Blach et al., eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 135–43. Fischel, Henry A. “Epicureanism,” EncJud 6.463. Fischel, Henry A. Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philosophy. A Study of Epicurea and Rhetorica in Early Midrashic Writings (StPB 21; Leiden: Brill, 1973; reprint 1997). Fitzgerald, John T. “Gadara: Philodemus’ Native City,” in John T. Fitzgerald et al., eds., Philodemus and the New Testament World (NovTSub 111; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 343–97. Fitzgerald, John, Dirk Obbink and Glenn Holland, eds. Philodemus and the New Testament World (NovTSub 111; Leiden: Brill, 2004). Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 32; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), e-book. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998). Flacelière, Robert. “Plutarque et l’epicurisme,” in Epicurea in memoriam Hectoris Bignone: Miscellanea Philologica (Genowa: Istituto di Filologia Classica, 1959), 197–215. Foerster, Werner. “δαιμόνιον κτλ,” TWNT 2.1–21. Fornberg, Tord. An Early Church in Pluralistic Society. A Study of II Peter (Lund: Gleerup, 1977). Frankemölle, Hubert. 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief (NEchtB 18–20; Würzburg: Echter, 1987). Freedman, Harry, and Stephen G. Wald. “Akiva,” EncJud 1.562–63. Frenschkowski, Marco. “Welche biographischen Kenntnisse von Jesus setzt die Logienquelle voraus? Beobachtungen zur Gattung von Q im Kontext antiker Spruchsammlungen,”

291

292

Bibliography

in Jon Ma. Asgeirsson, Kristin de Troyer and Marvin W. Meyer, eds., From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson (BETL 146; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 3–42. Fridrichsen, Anton. “Epikureisches im Neuen Testament?,” in Anton Fridrichsen, Exegetical Writings. A Selection, trans. and ed. Chrys C. Caragounis and Tord Fornberg (WUNT 76; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 217–20. Friedrich, Gerhard. “εὐαγγελίζομαι,” TWNT 2.705–735. Gallo, Italo. “Vita di Filonide epicureo (PHerc. 1044),” in Italo Gallo, Studi di papirologia ercolanese (Napoli: M.D’Auri, 2002), 59–205. Gärtner, Bertil. The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 21; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1955). Gasque, W. Ward. “The Speeches of Acts: Dibelius Reconsidered,” in Richard N. Longenecker and Merril C. Tenney, eds., New Dimensions in New Testament Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974), 232–50. Gehring, René. Die antiken jüdischen Religionsparteien. Essener, Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Zeloten und Therapeuten (Schriften der Forschung. Historische Theologie 2; Bogenhausen: St. Peter am Hart, 2012). Gemelli, Benedino. “Il primo Epicureismo romano ed il problema della sua diffusione,” in ZYZHTHSIZ. Studi sull’Epicureismo greco e romano offerti a Marcella Gigante (Biblioteca della Parola del Passato 16; Napoli: Macchiaroli, 1983), 281–90. Gera, Dov. “Philonides the Epicurean at Court: Early Connections,” ZPE 125 (1999): 77-83. Gigante, Marcello. La bibliothèque de Philodème et l’épicurisme romain (Collection d’études anciennes 56; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1987). Gigante, Marcello. Philodemus in Italy: The Books from Herculaneum (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2002). Gill, David W. J. “Achaia,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (ActsFCS 2; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 433–53. Gill, David W. J. “In Search of the Social Elite in the Corinthian Church,” Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 323–37. Glad, Clarence E. “The Significance of Hellenistic Psychagogy for Our Understanding of Paul,” in Gunnlaugur A. Jonsson et al., eds., The New Testament in Its Hellenistic Context (Studia Theologica Islandica 10; Reykjavík: Guđfraedistofnun – Skálholtsútgáfan 1996), 57–93. Glad, Clarence E. Paul and Philodemus. Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy (NovTSub 81; Leiden: Brill, 1995). Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2. Teilband (Mk 8,27–16,20) (EKKNT 2.2; Zürich: Benziger [et al.], 4 1994). Gnilka, Joachim. Das Matthäusevangelium. I Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1 – 13,58 (HThKNT 1.1; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1986). Gnilka, Joachim. Der Kolosserbrief (HTKNT 10.1; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1980). Gnilka, Joachim. Paulus von Tarsus. Apostel und Zeuge (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1996).

Other Works Cited

Goodman, Martin. “The Place of the Sadducees in First-Century Judaism,” in Martin Goodman, Judaism in the Roman World. Collected Essays (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 66; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 123–35. Goodman, Martin. A History of Judaism (London: Penguin Books, 2017). Grotius, Hugo. Annotationes in Novum Testamentum (vols. 1–3; Parisiis, 1641–1650). Gruen, Erich S. “Jews and Greeks as Philosophers: A Challenge to Otherness, in Erich S. Gruen, ed., The Construct of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism. Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 29; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 133–52. Guillemette, Pierre, and Mireille Brisebois. Introduction aux méthodes historico-critiques (Héritage et projet 35; Montréal: La Corporation des Editions Fides, 1987). Gundry, Robert H. “The Sermon on the Mount according to H.D. Betz,” in Robert H. Gundry, ed., The Old is Better. New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations (WUNT 178; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 129–48. Haacker, Klaus. Die Apostelgeschichte (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019). Hadas-Lebel, Mireille. Philo of Alexandria. A Thinker in the Jewish Diaspora (Studies in Philo of Alexandria 7; Leiden: Brill, 2012). Haenchen, Ernst. Die Apostelgeschichte (KE KNT 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 7 1977). Hafemann, Scott. “‘Divine Nature’ in 2 Pet 1,4 within its Eschatological Context,” Bib 94 (2013): 80–99. Hammerstaedt, Jürgen, Pierre-Marie Morel and Refik Güremen, eds. Diogenes of Oinoanda. Epicurism and Philosophical Debates / Diogène d’OEnoanda. Épicurisme et controverses (Ancient and Medieval Philosophy 1.55; Louvain: Leuven University Press, 2017). Hammerstaedt, Jürgen. “Der Kyniker Oenomaus von Gadara,” ANRW 36.4:2834–65. Part 2, Principat, 36.4: Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (New York: de Gruyter, 1990). Harder, Günther. “φθορά,” TWNT 9.94–107. Harriman, K. R. “A Synthetic Proposal about the Corinthian Resurrection Deniers,” NovT 62 (2020): 180–200. Hauck, Friedrich, and Siegfried Schulz. “πόρνη κτλ,” TWNT 6.579–95. Heil, John P. The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians (SBL; Leiden: Brill, 2005). Hengel, Martin, and Anna M. Schwemer. Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien. Die unbekannten Jahre des Apostels (WUNT 108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). Hengel, Martin. “Problems of a History of Earliest Christianity,” Bib 78 (1997): 131–144. Hengel, Martin. “Zur matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund,” TRev 52 (1987): 327–400. Hengel, Martin. Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften (WUNT 90; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). Hengel, Martin. Juden, Christen und Barbaren. Aspekte der Hellenisierung des Judentums in vorchristlicher Zeit (SBS 76; Stuttgart: KBW, 1976).

293

294

Bibliography

Hengel, Martin. Judentum und Hellenismus (WUNT 10; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2 1973). Hengel, Martin. The ‘Hellenization’ of Judea in the First Century after Christ (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003). Hengel, Martin. The “Hellenization” of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), Hezser, Catherine. “Interfaces Between Rabbinic Literature and Graeco-Roman Philosophy,” in Peter Schäfer and Catherine Hezser, eds., The Talmud Yerushalmi und Graeco-Roman Culture II (TStAJ 79; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 161–187. Hiebert, D. Edmond. Second Peter and Jude. An Expositional Commentary (An Expositional Commentary; Greenville, SC: BJU Press, 1989). Hillar, Marian. “The Logos in Judaism,” in Marian Hillar, From Logos to Trinity: The Evolution of Religious Beliefs from Pythagoras to Tertullian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 36–70. Holloway, Paul A. “‘Bona cogitare’. An Epicurean Consolation in Phil 4:8-9,” HTR 91 (1998): 89–96. Holte, Ragjtak. “Logos Spermatikos. Christianity and Ancient Philosophy according to St Justin’s Apologies,” StTh 12 (1958): 109–68. Holtz, Traugott. Der erste Brief an die Thessaloniker (EKKNT 13; Zürich: Benziger, 1986). Horst, Johannes. “μακροθυμία κτλ,” TWNT 4.377–90. Hull Michael F. Baptism on Account of the Dead (1 Cor 15:29). An Act of Faith in the Resurrection (SBL. Academia Biblica 22; Leiden: Brill, 2005). Hultgren, Stephen. “The Origin of Paul’s Doctrine of the Two Adams in 1 Corinthians 15:45-49,” JSNT 25 (2003): 343–70. Hyman, Arthur. “Philosophy, Jewish,” EncJud 16.67–79. Insardi-Parente, Margherita. “Diogeniano, gli epicurei e la τύχη,” ANRW 36.4:2424–45. Part 2, Principat, 36.4: Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (New York: de Gruyter, 1990). Inwood, Brad, and Lloyd P. Gerson, eds. The Epicurus Reader. Selected Writings and Testimonia (Hackett Classics Series; Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1994). Isenberg, Sheldon. “An anti-Sadducee Polemic in the Palestinian Targum Tradition,” HTR 63 (1970): 433–44. Jervell, Jacob. Die Apostelgeschichte (KE KNT 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). Jipp, Joshua J. “Paul’s Areopagus Speech of Acts 17:16–34 as Both Critique and Propaganda,” JBL 131 (2012): 567–588. Jones, Howard. The Epicurean Tradition (London: Routledge, 1989). Jungkuntz, Richard P. “Christian Approval of Epicureanism,” Church History 31 (1962): 279–93. Jungkuntz, Richard P. “Fathers, Heretics and Epicureans,” JEH 17 (1966): 3–10. Jürss, Fritz. Die epikureische Erkenntnistheorie (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike 33; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991).

Other Works Cited

Kahmann, Johannes. “The Second Letter of Peter and the Letter of Jude. Their Mutual Relationship,” in Jean-Marie Sevrin, ed., The New Testament in Early Christianity (BETL 86; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 105–21. Kaplan, Zvi. “Ben Azzai, Simeon,” EncJud 3.322–23. Kaplan, Zvi. “Ben Zoma, Simeon,” EncJud 3.393. Käsemann, Ernst. “Eine Apologie der urchristlichen Eschatologie,” in Ernst Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (vols. 1–2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6 1970), 1.135–57. Kechagia-Ovseiko, Eleni. “Plutarch and Epicureanism,” in Mark Beck, ed., A Companion to Plutarch (Oxford: Blackwell, 2014), 104–20. Keener, Craig S. Acts (New Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020). Keener, Craig S. Acts. An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 3: 15:1–23:35 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014). Kilgallen, John. “Acts 17, 22–31: An example of Interreligious Dialogue,” Studia Missionalia 43 (1994): 43–60. Kimmich, Dorothee. Epikureische Aufklärungen. Philosophische und poetische Konzepte der Selbstsorge (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993). Kistemaker, Simon J. “The Speeches in Acts,” Criswell Theological Review 5.1 (1990): 31–41. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Die religiöse Umwelt des Urchristentums. 2. Herrscher- und Kaiserkult, Philosophie, Gnosis (1–2 vol.; KohlST 9.2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1996). Klauck, Hans-Josef. Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions, trans. Brian McNeil (London – New York: Clark, 2000). Kleinknecht, Hermann, and Gustav Stählin. “ὀργή κτλ,” TWNT 5.382–448. Kloppenborg [Verbin], John S. “A Dog among the Pigeons. The ‘Cynic Hypothesis’ as a Theological Problem,” in Jón Ma. Asgeirsson, Kristin de Troyer and Marvin W. Meyer, eds., From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson (BEThL 146; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 73–117. Konstan, David. “Epicurean Happiness: A Pig’s Life?,” Journal of Ancient Philosophy 6.1 (2012): 1–22. Konstan, David. “Epicurus on the Gods,” in Jeffrey Fish and Kirk Sanders, eds., Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 53–71. Konstan, David. “Friendship, Frankness and Flattery,” in John T. Fitzgerald, ed., Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech. Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (NovTSup 82; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 5–19. Kucicki, Janusz. The Function of the Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles. A Key to Interpretation of Luke’s Use of Speeches in Acts (Biblical Interpretation Series 158; Leiden: Brill, 2017). Kümmel, Werner G. Das Neue Testament. Geschichte der Erforschung seiner Probleme (München: Alber, 2 1970).

295

296

Bibliography

Laks, André. “Édition critique et commentée de la Vie d‘Épicure dans Diogène Laërce (X 1–34),” in Jean Bollack and André Laks, eds., Etudes sur l’Epicureisme antique (CahPh 1; Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille, 1976), 1–118. Lampe, Geoffrey W. H., (rev.) “St Paul and Epicurus. By Norman W. deWitt,” CQR 157 (1956): 208–9. Lang, Friedrich. “πῦρ,” TWNT 6.927–53. Leipoldt, Johannes, and Walter Grundmann, eds. Umwelt des Urchristentums. 1: Darstellung des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 7 1985). Lentzen-Deis, Fritzleo. “Methodische Überlegungen zur Bestimmung literarischer Gattungen im Neuen Testament,” Bib 62 (1981): 1–20. Lévy, Carlos. “Philon d’Alexandrie et l’epicurisme,” in Michael Erler and Robert Bees, eds., Epikureismus in der späten Republik und der Kaiserzeit (Philosophie der Antike 11; Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 2000), 122–36. Levy, Ludwig. Das Buch Qoheleth. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Sadduzäismus (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912). Lieberman, Saul. “How Much Greek in Palestine?” in Alexander Altmann, ed., Biblical and Other Studies (Studies and Texts 1; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 123–41. Litwak, Kenneth D. “Israel’s Prophets Meet Athens’ Philosophers: Scriptural Echoes in Acts 17,22–31,” Bib 85/2 (2004): 199–216. Lohse, Eduard. Umwelt des Neuen Testament (NTD. Ergänzungsreihe 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9 1994). Long, Ashley A. “Pleasure and Social Utility – The Virtues of Being Epicurean,” in Hellmut Flashar, ed., Aspects de la philosophie hellénistique (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 32; Genéve: Fondation Hardt 1986), 283–316. Long, Ashley A. and David N. Sedley. Die hellenistischen Philosophen. Texte und Kommentare (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2000). Longo Auricchio, Francesca. “Il culto di Epicuro. Testi e studi: qualche aggiornamento,” in Marco Beretta, Francesco Citti and Alessandro Iannucci, eds., Il culto di Epicuro. Testi iconografia e paesaggio (Centro Studi. La permanenza del Classico 31; Firenze: Olschki, 2014), 39–64. Longo Auricchio, Francesca. “I papiri ercolanesi”, in Epicuro e l’Epicureismo nei Papiri Ercolanesi (Napoli: Ist. Ital. per gli Studi Filosofici, 1993), 23–44. Luz, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 1. Teilband: Matt 1–7 (EKKNT 1.1; Zürich: Benziger [et al.], 3 1992). MacGillivray, Erlend D. “Epitomizing Philosophy and the Critique of Epicurean Popularizers,” Journal of Ancient History 3.1 (2015): 1–33. Magris, Aldo. “Filosofizzazione del cristianesimo,” Verbum Vitae 39 (2021): 915–40. Maier, Johann. Zwischen den Testamenten. Geschichte und Religion in der Zeit des zweiten Tempels (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1990). Main, Emmanuelle. “Les Sadduceens vus par Flavius Josephe,” RB 97 (1990): 161–206.

Other Works Cited

Malherbe, Abraham J. “Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians,” in Stefan Maser and Egbert Schlarb, eds., Text und Geschichte (Marburg: Elwert, 1999), 136–42. Malherbe, Abraham J. “Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament,” ANRW 26.1:267–333. Part 2, Principat, 26.1: Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (New York: de Gruyter, 1992). Malherbe, Abraham J. “Not in a Corner. Early Christian Apologetic in Acts 26:26,” Second Century 5 (1985–86): 193–210. Malherbe, Abraham J. “Paul’s Self-Sufficiency (Philippians 4:11),” in Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm, eds., Texts and Contexts. Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in honor of Lars Hartman (Oslo et al.: Scandinavian University Press, 1995), 813–26. Malherbe, Abraham J. “Self-Definition Among Epicureans and Cynics,” in Ben F. Meyer and Ed Parish Sanders, eds., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Vol. 3: Self-Definition in the Greco-Roman World (London: SCM Press, 1982), 46–59. Malherbe, Abraham J. “The Beasts at Ephesus,” JBL 87 (1968): 71–80. Malherbe, Abraham J. Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity. Collected Essays, 1959–2012, ed. Carl R. Holladay et al. (vols. 1–2; SupNT 150.1–2; Leiden: Brill, 2014). Malherbe, Abraham J. Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006). Malherbe, Abraham J. Paul and the Thessalonians. The Philosophical Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988). Malherbe, Abraham J. Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1983). Malherbe, Abraham J. The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000). Mann, Christopher S. Mark. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 1986). Mansoor, Menahem. “Sadducees,” EncJud 17.654–55. Markschies, Christoph J. “Epikureismus bei Origenes und in der origenistischen Tradition,” in Christoph J. Markschies, Origenes und sein Erbe. Gesammelte Studien (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 160; Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2007), 127–53. Marshall, Peter. Enmity in Corinth. Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians (WUNT 23; Tübingen: Mohr, 1987). Martin, Dale. The Corinthian Body (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995). Martin, Troy W. “Live Unnoticed: An Epicurean Maxim and the Social Dimension of Col 3:3–4,” in Adela Y. Collins et al., eds., Antiquity and Humanity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 227–44. Mecci, Stefano. “The Ethical Implications of Epicurus Theology,” Philosophia 48 (2018): 195–204. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christian. The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983).

297

298

Bibliography

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Soc., 3 1975). Meyer, Rudolf. “σαδδουκαῖος,” TWNT 7.35–54. Michaelis, Wilhelm. “λύχνος,” TWNT 4.327–28. Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of I Corinthians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991). Mitsis, Phillip. Epicurus’ Ethical Theory. The Pleasures of Invulnerability (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 48; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988). Morel, Pierre-Marie. “Epicurean Atomism,” in James Warren, ed., Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 65–83. Morello, Ruth, and A. D. Morrison, eds. Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Morgan, Lewelyn, and Barnaby Taylor. “Memmius the Epicurean,” ClQ 67.2 (2017): 528–541. Morissette, Rodolphe. “La condition de ressuscité. 1 Cor 15,35–49: structure littéraire de la péricope,” Bib 53 (1972): 208–28. Müller, Karlheinz. “Die religionsgeschichtliche Methode. Erwägungen zu ihrem Verständnis und zur Praxis ihrer Vollzüge an neutestamentlichen Texten,” BZ 29 (1985): 161–92. Müller, Reimar. Die epikureische Ethik (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike 32; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991). Mumprecht, Vroni, ed. Philostratos: Das Leben des Apollonios von Tyana, griechisch-deutsch (Sammlung Tusculum; München: Artemis, 1983). Munck, Johannes. The Acts of the Apostles, revised by William F. Albright and Christopher S. Mann (AB 31; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967). Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “‘Baptized for the Dead’ (1 Cor 15:29): A Corinthian Slogan?” in Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians. Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009), 242–56. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Corinthian Slogans in 1 Corinthians 6:12–20,” in Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians. Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009), 20–31. Newman, Hillel. Proximity to Power and Jewish Sectarian Groups of the Ancient Period. A Review of Lifestyle, Values, and Halakhah in the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Qumran (BRLA 25; Leiden: Brill, 2006). Neyrey, Jerome H. “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy. A Study in Stereotypes,” in David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson and Wayne A. Meeks, eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (FS A. J. Malherbe; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 118–34. Neyrey, Jerome H. “The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter,” JBL 99 (1980): 407–31. Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993).

Other Works Cited

Neyrey, Jerome H. Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter (PhD dissertation) (Yale University, 1977). Norden, Eduard. Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1971 [Leipzig, 1913]). Nunes do Nascimento, Rodrigo. “Paulo em Atenas: afinidades e estranhamentos entre o apóstolo dos gentios e os filósofos epicureus e estoicos,” Reflexus 14 (24) (2020): 697–715. Oepke, Albrecht. “ἀπόλλυμι” TWNT 1.393–96. Oepke, Albrecht. “βάπτω βαπτίζω κτλ,” TWNT 1.527–44. Oepke, Albrecht. “ἐγείρω κτλ,” TWNT 2.332–37. Oepke, Albrecht. “παρουσία,” TWNT 5.856–69. Omanson, Roger L. A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2 2012). Padilla, Osvaldo. “The Speeches in Acts: Historicity, Theology, and Genre,” in Sean A. Adams and Michael Pahl, eds., Issues in Luke-Acts. Selected Essays (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2012), 171–93. Pagels, Elaine H. “‘The Mystery of the Resurrection’. A Gnostic Reading of 1 Corinthians 15,” JBL 93 (1974): 276–88. Paratore, Ettore. “La problematica sull’Epicureismo a Roma,” ANRW 1.4:116–204. Part 1, Von den Anfängen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik, 4: Edited by Hildegard Temporini (New York: de Gruyter, 1973). Park, Joseph S. Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions: With Special Reference to Pauline Literature (WUNT 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Pathrapankal, Joseph. “From Areopagus to Corinth (Acts 17:22–31; 1 Cor 2:1–5). A Study on the Transition from the Power of Knowledge to the Power of the Spirit,” Mission Studies 23/1 (2006): 61–80. Paulsen, Henning. Der zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief (KEK 12.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992). Peach Michael E. Paul and the Apocalyptic Triumph. An Investigation of the Usage of Jewish and Greco-Roman Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 (Apocalypticism 1; New York et al.: Peter Lang, 2016). Perkins, Pheme. First Corinthians (Paideia; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012). Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. II. Teil. Kommentar zu Kap. 8, 27–16, 20 (HThKNT 2.2; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1977). Pesch, Rudolf. Die Apostelgeschichte (vols. 1–2; EKKNT 5.1–2; Zürich: Benziger, 1986). Picirilli, Robert E. “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,” JSNT 33 (1988): 57–83. Piettre, Renée. “Paul and the Athens Epicureans: Between Polytheisms, Atheisms and Monotheisms,” Diogenes 205 (2005): 47–60. Pizzorni, Reginaldo M. Giustizia e carità (2nd ed.; Roma: Pontificia Università Lateranense, 1980). Pohlenz, Max. “Paul und die Stoa,” ZNW 42 (1949): 69–104.

299

300

Bibliography

Preisker, Herbert. “εὑρίσκω,” TWNT 2.767–68. Quell, Gottfried, and Gottlob Schrenk. “δίκη κτλ,” TWNT 2.176–229. Radice, Roberto. “Philo’s Theology and Theory of Creation,” in Adam Kamesar, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Philo (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 124–45. Rainer Hirsch-Luipold, ed., Plutarch and the New Testament in Their Religio-Philosophical Contexts (Brill’s Plutarch Studies 9; Leiden: Brill, 2022). Rajak, Tesa. “Judaism and hellenism revisited,” in Tesa Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome. Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1-10. Rajak, Tessa. “The Location of Cultures in Second Temple Palestine: the Evidence of Josephus,” in Richard Bauckham, ed., The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting (BAFCS 4; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns, 1995), 1–14. Reale, Giovanni. Storia della filosofia antica. 3. I sistemi dell’Età ellenistica (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1989). Reale, Giovanni. Storia della filosofia antica. 4. Le scuole dell’Età imperiale (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 5 1987). Rehn, Arnd. “Vomunt ut edant, edunt ut vomant. Beobachtungen zur Epikurpolemik in der römischen Literatur,” in Reinhard Feldmeier and Ulrich Heckel, eds., Die Heiden. Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden (WUNT 70; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 381–99. Reicke, Bo. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (AB 37; New York: Doubleday, 1964). Riesner, Rainer. Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus. Studien zur Chronologie, Missionsstrategie und Theologie (WUNT 71; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994). Rivkin, Ellis. “H.A. Fischel, Rabbinic Literature and Greco–Roman Philosophy,” JBL 96 (1977): 135–36. Robertson, Archibald T., and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: Scribner’s Sons 1911; reprint 1986). Rokeah, David. Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict (StPB 33; Leiden: Brill, 1982). Roskam, Geert. Live Unnoticed (λάθε βιώσας). On the Vicissitudes of an Epicurean Doctrine (Philosophia antiqua 111; Leiden: Brill, 2007). Rowe, Christopher K. “The Grammar of Life: The Areopagus Speech and Pagan Tradition,” NTS 57 (2010): 31–50. Rowe, Christopher K. World Upside Down. Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). Russel, David A., ed. Dio Chrysostom: Orations VII, XII and XXXVI (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Imperial Library; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1992). Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). Sampley, J. Paul. “Paul’s Frank Speech with the Galatians and the Corinthians,” in John T. Fitzgerald et al., eds., Philodemus and the New Testament World (NovTSup 111; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 295–321.

Other Works Cited

Saunders, Ernest W. “A Response to H D Betz on the Sermon on the Mount,” BR 36 (1991): 81–87. Schaff, Philip, ed. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2017). Schelkle, Karl H. Die Petrusbriefe. Der Judasbrief (HTKNT 13.2; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1964). Schille, Gottfried. Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (ThHKNT 5; Berlin: Evang. Verl.-Anst., 3 1989). Schlier, Heinrich. “ἐλεύθερος κτλ,” TWNT 2.484–500. Schmid, Wilhelm. “Die Rede des Apostels Paulus vor den Philosophen in Athen,” Philologus 95 (1943): 79–120. Schmid, Wolfgang. “Epikur,” RAC 5:681–819. Schmidt, Karl L. “ὁρίζω,” TWNT 5.453–54. Schmithals, Walter. “The Corpus Paulinum and Gnosis,” in Alastair H. B. Logan and Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, eds., The New Testament and Gnosis (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983), 107–24. Schmithals, Walter. Die Gnosis in Korinth. Eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3 1969). Schmithals, Walter. Neues Testament und Gnosis (ErF 208; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984). Schmitt, Armin. Das Buch der Weisheit. Ein Kommentar (Würzburg: Echter, 1986). Schmitz, Otto. “παραγγέλλω,” in TWNT 5.759-63. Schneider, Gerhard. Die Apostelgeschichte (vols. 1–2; HTKNT 5.1–2; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1982). Schneider, Jean-Pierre. “La philosophie épicurienne sur pierre,” Revue de théologie et de philosophie 130 (1998): 75–82. Schneider, Sebastian. Auferstehen. Eine neue Deutung von 1 Kor 15 (Forschung zur Bibel 105; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2005). Schnelle, Udo. Wandlungen im paulinischen Denken (SBS 137; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989). Schottroff, Luise. Der erste Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth (ThKNT 7; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013). Schottroff, Luise. Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt. Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium (WMANT 37; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970). Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther (vols. 1–4; EKKNT 7.1–4; Zürich: Benziger 1991–2001). Schrenk, Gottlob, and Gottfried Quell. “πατήρ,” TWNT 5.946–1024. Schürer, Emil. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (vol. 1–3; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2 1995).

301

302

Bibliography

Schwankl, Otto. Die Sadduzäerfrage (Mk 12, 18–27 parr). Eine exegetisch–theologische Studie zur Auferstehungserwartung (BBB 66; Bonn: Athenäum, 1987). Schweizer, Eduard. “πνεῦμα,” TWNT 6.330–453. Schweizer, Eduard. “σάρξ,” TWNT 7.98–151. Schweizer, Eduard. “σῶμα,” TWNT 7.1024–91. Schweizer, Eduard. Der Brief an die Kolosser (EKKNT 12; Zürich: Benziger, 1976). Sedley, David, ed. “Epicurus, On Nature Book XXVIII,” Cronache Erconalesi 3 (1973): 4–83. Sedley, David. “Epicurus and his professional Rivals,” in Jean Bollack and André Laks, eds., Etudes sur l’Epicureisme antique (CahPh 1; Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille, 1976), 119–59. Seelig, Gerald. “Einführung,” in Georg Strecker and Udo Schnelle, eds., Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus (vol. 2.1–2; Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1996), IX–XXIII. Seelig, Gerald. Religionsgeschichtliche Methode in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Studien zur Geschichte und Methode des religionsgeschichtlichen Vergleichs in der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 7; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001). Sellin, Gerhard. Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten. Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung von 1 Cor 15 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). Sharples, Robert W. Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics. An Introduction to Hellenistic Philosophy (London; New York: Routledge, 2003). Simon, Marie. “Epikureismus und Epikureertum. Das Fortleben philosophischer Ideen,” in Elisabeth Ch. Welskopf, ed., Hellenische Poleis. Krise, Wandlung, Wirkung (1–4 vol.; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1974), 4.2017–88. Smith, Daniel L. The Rhetoric of Interruption Speech-Making, Turn-Taking, and Rule-Breaking in Luke-Acts and Ancient Greek Narrative (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 193; Berlin; Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012). Smith, James A. Marks of an Apostle. Context, Deconstruction, (Re)citation and Proclamation in Philippians (PhD dissertation) (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2000). Smith, Martin F. “An Epicurean Priest from Apamea in Syria,” ZPE 112 (1996): 120–130. Smith, Martin F. “More New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda,” in Jean Bollack and André Laks, eds., Etudes sur l’Epicureisme antique (CahPh 1; Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille, 1976), 279–318. Smith, Martin F. Supplement to Diogenes of Oinoanda: The Epicurean Inscription (La Scuola di Epicuro. Supplement 3; Napoli: Bibliopolis, 2003). Smith, Martin F. The Epicurean inscription: Diogenes of Oinoanda (La Scuola di Epicuro. Supplement 1; Napoli: Bibliopolis, 1993). Snodgrass, Klyne. “A Response to Hans Dieter Betz on the Sermon on the Mount,” BR 36 (1991): 88–94. Söding, Thomas. Wege der Schriftauslegung. Methodenbuch zum Neuen Testament, Unter Mitarbeit von C. Münch (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1998).

Other Works Cited

Songer, Harold S. “The Sermon on the Mount and Its Jewish Foreground,” RevExp 89 (1992): 165–77. Squires, John T. The Plan of God in Luke-Acts (SNTS MS 76; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Stählin, Gustav. “νῦν,” TWNT 4.1099–117. Stählin, Gustav. ἡδονή,” TWNT 2.911–28. Stanton, Greg R. “Sophists and Philosophers: Problems of Classification,” AJP 94 (1973): 351–54. Stead, Christopher. Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Stemberger, Günter. “The Sadducees – Their History and Doctrines,” in William Horbury, W[illiam] D[avid] Davies and John Sturdy, eds., Cambridge History of Judaism (vols. 1–3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 3.428–43, 1129–31. Stemberger, Günter. Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (Beck-Studium; München: Beck, 8 1992). Stemberger, Günter. Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Essener (SBS 144; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991). Stemberger, Günter. Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Essener. Fragen, Fakten, Hintergründe (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013). Stowers, Stanley K. “Paul on the Use and Abuse of Reason,” in David L. Blach et al., eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 253–86. Strack, Hermann L. Einleitung in Talmud und Midraš (München: Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 5 1930). Strecker, Georg, and Udo Schnelle, eds. Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus. Bd 2.1: Texte zur Briefliteratur und zur Johannesapokalypse (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996). Szymik, Stefan. “Matthew’s Theology of Light (Mt 4:15–16; 5:14–16; 6:22–23),” Roczniki Biblijne 1(56) (2009): 21–34. Szymik, Stefan. “Textkritische und exegetisch-theologische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 15,49,” Roczniki Teologiczne 52.1 (2005): 117–33. Szymik, Stefan. “The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection in 1 Cor 15:12. The Epicurean Hypothesis Reconsidered,” The Biblical Annals 10 (2020): 437–56. Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 2 1966). The Epicurus Reader. Selected Writings and Testimonia. Translated and edited, with Notes, by Brad Inwood and Lloyd P. Gerson (Hackett Classics Series; Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1994). Thiselton, Anthony C. “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” NTS 24 (1977-78): 510–26. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 2000). Tomlin, Graham. “Christians and Epicureans in 1 Corinthians,” JSNT 68 (1997): 51–72.

303

304

Bibliography

Torrance, Thomas F. “Phusikos kai Theologikos Logos. St Paul and Athenagoras at Athens,” SJT 41 (1988): 11–26. Tsakiropoulou-Summers, Anastasia. “Horace, Philodemus and the Epicureans at Herculaneum,” Mnemosyne 51 (1998): 20–29. Tsouna, Voula. “Epicurean Therapeutic Strategies,” in James Warren, ed., Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 249–65. Ulrichsen, Jarl H. “Die Auferstehungsleugner in Korinth: Was meinten sie eigentlich?,” in Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm, eds., Texts and Contexts. Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in honor of Lars Hartman (Oslo et al.: Scandinavian University Press, 1995), 781–826. Unnik, Cornelis W. van. “An Attack on the Epicureans by Flavius Josephus,” in Willem den Boer, ed., Romanitas et Christianitas. Studia Iano Henrico Waszink (Amsterdam: Noerh-Holland Publishing Company, 1973), 341–55. Usener, Hermann, ed. Epicurea (Studia Philologica 3; Leipzig: Teubner, 1887; reprint Roma, 1963). Usener, Hermann. Glossarium epicureum (LIEur 14; Roma: Ed. dell’Ateneo & Bizzarri, 1977). Van der Horst, Pieter W. “‘The Elements Will Be Dissolved with Fire’. The Idea of Cosmic Conflagration in Hellenism, Ancient Judaism, and Early Christianity,” in Hellenism – Judaism – Christianity. Essays on Their Interaction (CBET 8; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 227–51. Van der Horst, Pieter W. “The Altar of the ‘Unknown God’ in Athens (Acts 17:23) and the Cult of «Unknown Gods» in the Graeco-Roman World,” in Pieter W. van der Horst, ed., Hellenism – Judaism Christianity. Essays on Their Interaction (ConBET 8; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 165–202. Van der Meer, Michaël N. “The Greek Translators of the Pentateuch and the Epicureans,” in Klaas Spronk and Hans Barstad, eds., Torah and Tradition (Old Testament Studies 70; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 176–200. VanderKam, James C. “Foreword,” in Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), XI-XXV. Viviano, Benedict T. “The Sermon on the Mount in Recent Study,” Bib 78 (1997): 255–65. Viviano, Benedict T. “The Sermon on the Mount in Recent Study,” in Benedict T. Viviano, Matthew and His World. The Gospel of the Open Jewish Christians. Studies in Biblical Theology (NTOA 61; Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 51–63. Vogliano, Achilles, ed. Epicuri et Epicureorum scripta in herculanensibus papyris servata (Berlin: Weidmann, 1928). Vögtle, Anton. Der Judasbrief. Der zweite Petrusbrief (EKKNT 22; Zurich: Benziger, 1994). Vorster, Willem S. “H.A. Fischel, Rabbinic Literature and Greco–Roman Philosophy,” JSJ 5 (1974): 211–13; Vos, Johan S. “Argumentation und Situation in 1 Kor. 15,” NovT 41 (1999): 313–33. Wald, Stephen G. “Elisha Ben Avuyah,” EncJud 6.352–54.

Other Works Cited

Walker JR, William O. “1 Corinthians 15:29–34 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation,” CBQ 69 (2007): 84–103. Wallach, Barbara P. Lucretius and the Diatribe Against the Fear of Death. De Rerum Natura III 830-1094 (Mnemosyne. Supplements 40; Leiden: Brill, 1976). Warren, James, ed. Epicurus and Democritean Ethics. An Archaeology of Ataraxia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Warren, James. Facing Death. Epicurus and his Critics (Oxford et al.: Clarendon Press, 2004). Watson, Duane F., and Terrance Callan. First and Second Peter (Paideia. Commentaries on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012). Wedderburn, Alexander J. M. “The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians XV,” NovT 23 (1981): 229–41. Weiß, Konrad. “συμφέρω κτλ,” TWNT 9.71–80. Wette, Wilhelm M. L. de. Kurze Erklärung der Briefe an die Korinther (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1845). Wettstein, Johann J. Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. Novum Testamentum Graecum (vol. 1–2; Amstelaedami: Ex officina Dommeriana, 1751–1752; reprint Graz: akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, 1962). White, Joel R. “‘Baptized on Account of the Dead.’ The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in Its Context,” JBL 116 (1997): 487–99. Whitley, Charles F. Koheleth. His Language and Thought (ZAWBeih 148; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979). Wilckens, Ulrich. Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte. Form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (WMANT 5; Neukirchen: Verl. des Erziehungsvereins, 3 1974). Wilken, Robert L. “The Christians as the Romans (and Greeks) Saw Them,” in Ed P. Sanders and Ben F. Meyer, eds., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Vol. 1: The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1980), 100–25 Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003). Wilson, Jack H. “The Corinthians Who Say There is No Resurrection of the Dead,” ZNW 59 (1968): 90–107. Winter, Bruce W. Philo and Paul Among the Sophists (SNTS MS 96; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Witherington, Ben III. Conflict and Community in Corinth. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: MI, Eerdmans, 1995). Witherington, Ben III. The Acts of the Apostles. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998). Wolfson, Harry A. Philo. Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (vol. 1-2; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 4 1968). Woolf, Raphael. “Pleasure and Desire,” in James Warren, ed., Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 158–78.

305

306

Bibliography

Zeller, Dieter. Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2010). Zimmermann, Heinrich. Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre. Darstellung der historischkritischen Methode (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 6 1978). Zmijewski, Josef. Die Apostelgeschichte (RNT 5; Regensburg: Pustet 1994). Zweck, Dean. “The Exordium of the Areopagus Speech Acts 17. 22, 23,” NTS 35 (1989): 94–103.

Indices

Bible Old Testament Gen – 1:2 54 – 1:26–27 122 – 1:27 119 – 2:6 119 – 2:7 117, 119, 185, 197 – 2:22 119 – 2:24 170 – 4:8 216 – 6–9 226 – 7:21–22 226 – 7:23 119 – 8:9 119 – 9:24 194 – 11:4 119 – 22:5 246 – 27:1 91 – 38:8 65 – 44:16 233 – 48:10 91 Exod – 3:6 64, 66, 67, 265 – 20:4 123 – 31:3 123 – 32:6 207 – 34:6–8 231 – 34:6 231 – 35:31 123 Lev – 26:1 117 Num – 11:4 242

– 11:34 242 – 14:18 231 Deut – 4:29 120 – 5:8 123 – 9:22 242 – 18:15 100 – 25:5–10 64, 65, 270 – 32:8–9 119 – 34:7 91 Josh – 24:14 125 Judg – 6:13 224 1 Sam – 3:2 91 – 25:37 194 2 Sam – 7:12 100, 101 1 Kgs – 8:27 117 2 Kgs – 4:31 66 – 18:34 224 Neh – 9:6 117 – 9:8 233 – 9:17 231 – 9:32 125 Tob – 10:5 91 – 11:13 91 1 Macc – 1:10 74

308

Indices

– 1:11 47 – 1:11–15 47 – 1:34 47 – 2:44 47 – 2:50 125 – 2:63 125 – 3:5–6 47 – 7:5 47 – 7:12–16 47 – 7:58 47 – 7:69 47 – 9:23 47 – 10:61 47 – 11:21 47 – 11:25 47 – 14:14 47 – 14:41–43 47 2 Macc – 3:29 123 – 4:7–22 74 – 4:11 47 – 4:14 47 – 4:17 123 – 4:32–38 73 – 6:21 47 – 7:1ff 65 – 7:9 189 – 7:14 76, 189, 235 – 7:23 116, 117 – 8:4 47 – 9:11 123 – 12:43 76 – 12:43–44 189 – 12:44 235 – 13:7 47 – 14:35 117 Job – 7:9–11 76 – 17:7 91 – 18:21 162 – 19:25–27 76

– – – –

19:27:3 123 33:4 123 35:10 224 38:8–11 119

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

1:1 223 2:7 101 6:5–6 76 8 122 9:9 126 14:2 120 16:3 233 16:8–11 67 16:9–11 76 24:6 120 34:19 121 38:11 91 42:3 224 42:11 224 49:13 246 49:13–16 76 49:14–16 67 50:9–13 117 73:17–22 246 73:23–24 67 73:23–25 76 74:13–17 119 78:6 162 79:10 224 85:15 231 89:3 100 89:4 229 90:4 229 95:13 126 96:13 271 97:9 126 98:9 271 102:8 231 104 117 104:7–9 119 105:14 242

Ps

Bible

– – – – – – – Prov – – – – – – – – – – – – Eccl – – – – – Wis – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

110:1 100 113:10 224 115:17 76 115:139 122 115:5–10 121 144:8 231 145:18 121 1:7 239 1:22 223 2:17 123 6:25 242 8:28–29 119 9:7–8 223 13:1 223 14:29 231 15:30 91 16:32 231 26:11 247 29:13 91 2:16 76 3:16 244 3:19–21 246 3:19–22 76 9:2–6 76 1:16 242 2:1–9 49 2:17–24 76 2:24 242 3:1–8 76 4:7–15 76 9:9 116 10:12 239 11:15 246 11:23 125, 231 12:5 198 12:10 231 12:19 125 12:20 231

– – – – – Sir – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Isa – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

13:10 123 14:7–10 123 14:30–31 124 15:1 231 15:7–17 123 6:35 123 8:7 76 14:18 198 16:17–23 47, 224 17:27 76 17:30 76 17:31 198 18:9–10 76 18:9–11 229 30:4–6 76 35:19 231 37:28 169 39:9–11 76 40:1–11 76 41:1–13 76 44:1 225 2:18 116 3:4 223 5:11 244 8:23 92 9:1 92 9:7 236, 271 10:11 117 11:1 101 11:4–5 236, 271 13:9–22 231 14:9–10 76 16:12 117 19:1 117 22:13 193, 207, 254 25:7–8 76 26:19 66, 76 33:6 239 34:4 233

309

310

Indices

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

36:19 224 40:18 123 42:5 116, 117 44:9–20 123 45:15–24 125 51:6 227 51:14 231 53:1–12 187 53:9 233 55:2 245 55:6 120 63:11 224 63:15 224 65:1 120 65:17 227, 235 66:15–16 227 66:22 235

Jer – 5:22 119 – 6:14 159 – 8:11 159 – 10:25 162 – 14:13 159 – 17:15 224 – 23–24 121 Lam – 5:17 91 Ezek – 12:21–25 224 Dan – 5:4 117 – 5:23 117 – 6:28 117 – 10:6 92 – 12:1–3 76 – 12:2 189 Hos – 6:1–3 187 – 13:14 198 Joel – 1:5 194

– 2:3 227 – 2:11–13 231 – 2:13 231 – 2:17 224 – 2:28 100 Amos – 5:6 120 – 5:8 120 Jonah – 4:2 231 Mic – 3:5 159 Nah – 1:3 231 Hab – 2:3–4 231 – 2:7 194 Zeph – 1:18 228 – 3:8 228 Zech – 4:2 92 – 4:10 92 – 12:6 227 Mal – 2:17 224 – 3:2 227 – 3:19 227 New Testament Matt – 3:7 61 – 3:10 227 – 4:12–17 92 – 4:16 92 – 5:2 85 – 5:3 86 – 5:3–11 84 – 5:3–12 86 – 5:4 86 – 5:5–7 15, 79, 80, 84, 86

Bible

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

5:5–9 86 5:6 79 5:10 79 5:10–12 86 5:12 79, 84 5:13 84 5:14 84 5:14–16 92 5:15 84 5:17–20 87 5:18 84 5:21–22 84 5:21–48 84 5:28 242 5:29 92 5:46 79 5:48 79, 86, 87 6:1 79 6:2 79 6:5 79 6:16 79 6:19–7:11 91 6:19–21 91 6:21 84 6:22 88–90 6:22–23 23, 84, 87–93 6:23 88–90, 92 6:24 84, 91 6:25–33 86 6:25–34 79, 87, 91 6:26–27 87 6:33 79 7:1–5 91 7:3–5 84, 92 7:6 87, 88. 247 7:12 84, 86 7:13 241 7:13–14 80, 84 7:16 84 7:18 84 7:24–27 80, 84, 86, 87

– 7:28 85 – 8:11 67 – 10:5 88 – 10:27 92 – 11:3 235 – 11:5 66 – 11:8 259 – 13:15–16 92 – 13:17 242 – 13:22 245 – 15:24 88 – 16:1 61 – 16:6 61 – 16:11 61 – 16:12 61 – 16:17 198 – 17:2 92 – 18:9 92 – 18:15–18 88 – 19:10–12 174 – 19:28 235 – 20:15 92 – 22:23 64 – 22:23–33 60, 61 – 22:34 61 – 24:1–51 224, 227 – 24:43–44 126, 159, 233, 270 – 25:34 198 – 28:11–15 267 Mark – 1:1 11 – 1:14–15 258 – 4:19 245 – 5:1 41 – 6:14 66 – 7:22 243 – 7:24 226 – 9:1 224 – 9:7 220 – 12:13 65 – 12:13–17 61

311

312

Indices

– – – – – – – –

12:13–34 61 12:13–37 61 12:14 65 12:17 65 12:18 62–64, 253, 256, 265 12:18–23 62 12:18–25 64 12:18–27 15, 60, 61, 63, 67, 76, 255, 258, 270 12:19 63, 65 12:19–22 62, 64 12:19–27 265 12:23 62, 63 12:23–27 255 12:24 61–63, 65, 265, 266, 268 12:24–25 62 12:24–27 62, 268 12:25 62, 63, 65 12:26 63, 66, 253 12:26–27 62, 64, 66, 67, 256 12:27 62, 63, 67, 265, 266, 268 12:28–34 61 12:32 65 12:35–37 61 12:37 65 13:1 65 13:4 159 13:5–6 62 13:30 224, 230 13:35–37 161 14:58 117

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Luke – 1:4 159 – 1:7 126 – 1:41 125 – 2:29 220 – 3:3 125 – 3:8 125 – 3:23–38 119, 122 – 4:24 220 – 5:10 125

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

5:32 125 7:19 235 7:22 66 7:25 259 8:14 244 8:16 92 8:47 226 10:13 125 11:33–36 92 11:34–36 88 11:35 92 12:3 92 12:11 113 12:11–12 259 12:39–40 126, 159, 233, 270 12:52 125 13:3 125 13:5 125 13:28–29 67 14:31 104 15:7 125 15:10 125 15:16 242 16:19–31 67 16:21 242 16:30 125 17:3–4 125 17:20–37 224, 227 17:22 242 17:23–24 270 19:9 126 20:27 61, 64 20:27–40 60 20:38 67, 265, 268 20:34 61 20:36 66 20:37 66 20:38 61 21:14 113 21:14–15 259 21:24 120

Bible

– – – – – – John – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Acts – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

21:32 22:15 22:18 22:22 24:47 24:39

224 242 125 120 125 121

1:1 220 4:13 270 4:13–5:11 266 4:14–17 270 7:22 225 11:9–10 91 11:12 66 11:44 266 12:24 196 17:12 241 20:28 220 21:18–19 213 21:20–23 236 21:22–23 224 1:1–8 99 1:1–8:4 99 1:1–12 99 1:4 125 1:7 120, 159 1:8 99 2:1–36 11 2:5 48 2:12–13 104, 109 2:14 114 2:14–40 100 2:23 120 2:24 126 2:37 108 2:38 126 2:45 126 3:12 114, 239 3:12–26 100 3:13 225

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

3:17 124 3:19 125, 126 3:24 115 4:1 61 4:1–2 67 4:2 109, 115, 133 4:8–12 100 4:14 117 4:15 104 4:18 125 4:24 137 4:29 113, 125 4:35 126 5:1–6 137 5:16 117 5:17 61, 263 5:17–18 67 5:20 114 5:23 159 5:28 125 5:29–32 100 5:31 125 5:33 108 5:34–39 67 5:36 205 5:38 125 5:40 125 6:9 48 7:2 225 7:2–53 100, 134 7:11 225 7:37 100 7:48 117 7:52 113, 125 7:54 108 8:1–4 259 8:5–15:35 99 8:7 117 8:14 108 9–15 99 9:27 107

313

314

Indices

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

9:35 125 10:1–2 100 10:2 114 10:7 114 10:33 120 10:34–43 100, 101, 107 10:35 100 10:36 100 10:37–39 100 10:42 100, 120, 125, 126, 133, 137 10:44 108 11:18 108, 125 11:20 106 11:21 125 12:23 137 13:5 115 13:13–28 99 13:14 103 13:16 114 13:16–41 100 13:20 100 13:23 101 13:24 125 13:27–28 101 13:32 101, 225 13:38 115 13:48 108 14:1 103 14:4 104, 109 14:8–18 103, 131 14:14 108 14:14–17 101 14:15 106, 116, 125, 135, 269 14:15–17 137 14:16 124 14:17 119, 120 15:3 125 15:5 68, 263 15:19 125 15:36 115 15:36–19:22 99

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – –

15:36–28:31 99 16:10–17:15 128 16:11–40 99 16:13 103 16:16–28 99 16:17 115 16:18 125 16:19 107 16:19–39 137 16:21 115 16:23 125 16:37 260 17 109, 118, 128, 262, 270 17:1–2 103 17:1–9 137 17:1–10 158 17:1–15 99 17:2 103 17:3 115, 158 17:4 129, 158 17:5 158 17:10 158 17:12–15 137 17:13 115 17:16 102, 103, 112, 115, 129, 132, 136 17:16–17 102 17:16–21 102 17:16–32 142 17:16–34 15, 95, 98, 99, 101, 131, 135, 149, 210, 255, 261, 266, 274 17:17 103 17:17–18 127 17:18 12, 14, 37, 97, 102, 108, 109, 128, 131, 133–135, 142 251–253, 255, 256, 266, 268, 273 17:18–19 266 17:18–20 102 17:19 113 17:19–20 135 17:20 112

Bible

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

17:21 102, 135 17:21–22 132 17:22 110, 111, 142, 253 17:22–23 111, 113, 114, 131, 135, 136 17:22–28 134 17:22–29 133, 268 17:22–31 96, 98, 111, 129, 132, 256, 264, 268, 269 17:23 111, 112, 115, 134 17:24 112, 116, 118, 119, 137 17:24–25 112, 113, 116, 123, 136 17:24–26 125 17:24–29 111, 112, 131 17:25 116, 117, 122 17:26 118, 119, 124, 130, 137 17:26–27 112, 118 17:26–28 112, 113, 116 17:27 118, 120, 121, 123, 132, 268 17:27–29 112 17:28 112, 121, 122, 146, 252, 266, 268 17:29 112, 113, 116, 123, 132, 136 17:30 112, 121, 124, 125, 194 17:30–31 111–113, 131, 132, 134 17:31 120, 122, 124, 126, 130, 133, 137, 158, 255, 256, 266, 268, 269–271 17:32 108, 110, 131, 133, 139, 142, 253, 266, 269 17:32–33 127 17:32–34 102 17:33 110, 134 18:1–17 99 18:1–18 164 18:3 164 18:4 103 18:4–6 164 18:5–11 137 18:6 125 18:8 164 18:12–16 164

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

18:15 100 18:17 107 18:18 104–106, 109, 164 18:18–20 104 18:18–22 99 18:19 103, 107 18:20 105, 107 18:21 107 18:22 107 18:26 108 18:31 108 18:32 108–110 18:33 108, 110 18:34 108, 110 19:1 164 19:4 125 19:8–9 103 19:23 137 19:24–27 135, 269 19:26 123 19:28 108 19:33 113 20:1 137 20:7 103 20:9 103 20:14 104 20:21 125 20:32 113, 125 21:27–39 137 21:30 107 21:33 107 21:39 260 21:40 114 22:1 113 22:3 260 22:22 108 22:22–29 137 22:25 260 22:31 260 23:6–7 104 23:6–8 61, 67

315

316

Indices

– 23:7–8 109 – 23:8 64, 265 – 23:12–31 137 – 23:6 108 – 23:6–8 109 – 23:8 66 – 23:13 107 – 24:5 68, 263 – 24:10 100, 113 – 24:11–21 101 – 24:12 103 – 24:14 68, 263 – 24:15 127, 133 – 24:21 108, 127, 133 – 24:25 103, 126, 137 – 25:8 113 – 25:16 113 – 25:19 114 – 26:1–2 113 – 26:2–23 101 – 26:5 68 – 26:5–10 67 – 26:8–28 266 – 26:20 125, 126 – 26:22–29 139 – 26:23 108, 115, 133 – 26:23–24 109 – 26:24 108, 113 – 26:26 226 – 27:9–44 137 – 27:21 114 – 27:22 125 – 28:1–6 137 – 28:9 117 – 28:17–29 131 – 28:22 263 – 28:24 104, 109 – 28:30–31 99 – 28:22 68 Rom – 1:1–2 95

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

1:4 108, 120, 220 1:15–19 132, 268 1:16–32 137 1:18 158, 271 1:21 124 1:19–25 124 1:24 162 2:4 231 2:5 126, 158, 271 2:16 126 3:3 188 3:5 193 3:6 126 3:8 188 3:11 120 3:21 184 3:25–26 125 4:24 187 5:1 198 5:9 126, 158, 271 5:9–10 187 5:11 198 5:12 242 5:12–19 119 5:14 118, 130 6:3 192 6:4 187 6:5 133 6:9 187 6:22 184 7:4 187 7:6 184 7:7 242 7:7–8 242 8:11 187 8:18 191 8:19–23 235 8:21 242 8:24 187 8:31–39 224 8:34 187

Bible

– 8:36 193 – 8:38 191 – 9:5 191, 220 – 9:22 190, 231, 241, 271 – 10:9 187 – 11:36 191 – 12:1–15 240 – 12:9 170 – 13 240 – 13:9 242 – 13:13 243 – 14:17 236 – 15:20 160 – 16:17–18 193, 208 1 Cor – 1:5–7 203 – 1:7–8 224 – 1:10 201 – 1:10–15 200 – 1:11 167 – 1:12–17 192 – 1:18 187, 190 – 1:26 209 – 2:1–5 96 – 2:12–15 203 – 3:1–3 203 – 3:3 193 – 3:4 200 – 3:6 164 – 3:13–14 227 – 3:18–19 209 – 3:21–23 169, 203 – 3:22 191 – 4:4–5 224 – 4:5 203 – 4:8 171 – 4:12 164 – 4:18 188, 189 – 4:18–19 200 – 5:1 168, 192 – 5:1–2 173, 174

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

5:1–3 200 5:1–8 167 5:4–6 203 5:5 172 5:5–6 15, 155, 167, 168, 172, 174, 210 5:7 172 5:9 167, 168, 174 5:9–10 167 5:9–11 200 5:9–13 167 5:10 168 5:11 167, 168, 184, 209 5:12–13 172 5:13 167 6:1–8 167 6:1–17 173 6:2–3 172 6:6 156, 209 6:7 192 6:9 172, 192 6:9–10 198 6:9–11 167 6:11 168, 171, 172, 188, 203 6:12 168, 169 6:12–13 172 6:12–14 168, 175 6:12–20 168, 174 6:13 168 6:13–14 168, 170–172 6:14 187 6:15–17 168, 170, 172 6:15 168 6:16 168, 170 6:17 170 6:18 168 6:18–20 168, 170 6:19–20 172 6:20 220 7 168 7:1 174, 180

317

318

Indices

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

7:1–7 173, 174 7:1–40 167 7:2 168 7:4 169 7:7 174 7:12–14 201 7:15 209 7:23 220 7:25 174, 180 7:26 174 7:29 185 7:29–31 174, 229 7:30–31 191 7:32 175 7:32–34 174 7:32–35 174 7:35 169 7:37 169 8 200, 217 8:1 174, 180 8:4–6 132, 137, 268 8:6 191 8:7 188, 209 8:10 209 8:11 190 9:8 193 9:24–25 203 10:2 192 10:7 207 10:8 168 10:17 170 10:23 169 10:23–28 170 11 200 11:8 201 11:23 187 11:26 224 11:33 199 12:1 174, 180 12:3 186 12:7 169

– – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – –

12:12–14 204 12:13 192 12:18 184 13 152, 153 13:10 191 13:13 184 13:14 170 14:1 203 14:37 203 14:39–40 199 15 15, 153, 156, 175–182, 186, 197, 199–206, 208–210, 215, 222, 253, 254, 256, 260, 262, 265, 266, 274 15:1 180, 182, 187 15:1–2 181, 184, 187, 200 15:1–11 182, 184, 186, 188, 195, 199, 267, 268 15:1–34 202 15:1–50 186 15:1–58 175 15:3 187 15:3–4 164, 187 15:3–11 181 15:4 196 15:5–8 187 15:6 188 15:10 181, 187, 199 15:11 184 15:12 65, 108, 127, 139, 178, 179, 182, 184, 187–189, 193, 194, 200, 201, 204, 253, 255, 256, 265, 274 15:12–15 190 15:12–17 184 15:12–19 181, 184, 188 15:12–23 133 15:12–34 182, 184, 186, 195, 199, 205 15:12–58 181 15:13 108, 187–189 15:13–19 200 15:14 181, 184, 187, 188, 199

Bible

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

15:15 66, 184, 187 15:16 187–189, 253, 265 15:16–18 190 15:17 184, 187, 188 15:18–19 202 15:19 184, 190, 191, 193, 207 15:20 187, 189, 191, 253, 265 15:20–28 184, 188, 191, 194, 198 15:21 108, 189, 205, 265 15:21–22 118, 191 15:21–50 181 15:22–24 256 15:23–24 224 15:24 185, 224 15:25–28 191, 198 15:26 191, 205 15:28 185, 224, 266, 269 15:29 66, 182, 184, 189, 192, 193, 200, 202, 253, 265, 270 15:29–32 184 15:29–34 184, 188, 191, 194, 207 15:30 182, 193 15:30–32 191–193 15:31 181, 182, 193 15:32 66, 184, 189, 193, 202, 207, 208, 253, 254, 261, 265 15:32–34 162 15:33 182, 194, 201, 252, 261, 262, 266 15:33–34 182, 184, 192, 194, 199, 200, 208 15:34 162, 182, 194, 200, 254, 262 15:35 66, 182, 185, 189, 195, 202, 206, 253, 265 15:35–49 182, 198, 202 15:35–50 186, 195, 199, 202, 205, 208, 254 15:36–38 185, 196 15:36–39 206 15:36–41 185, 195, 196, 202 15:38 196

– 15:39–41 185, 196 – 15:40–43 207 – 15:42 108, 185, 186, 189, 242, 253, 265, 266 – 15:42–44 185, 195, 196, 202 – 15:43 185 – 15:44 185, 195–197, 202 – 15:45 118, 130 – 15:45–46 197 – 15:45–48 268 – 15:45–49 185, 195, 198, 202 – 15:46 185 – 15:47 118, 197 – 15:48 197 – 15:49 181, 197 – 15:50 182, 185, 195, 198, 242 – 15:50–58 182 – 15:51 182, 185 – 15:51–52 191 – 15:51–53 198 – 15:51–57 208, 254, 256, 266, 269 – 15:51–58 181, 186, 198, 199, 205 – 15:52 66, 189 – 15:52–54 186 – 15:53–54 207 – 15:54 181, 205 – 15:54–56 198 – 15:54–57 191 – 15:55 181 – 15:57 198 – 15:58 180–182, 186, 198–200 – 16:1 174, 180 – 16:9 193 – 16:12 174, 180 – 16:17 167 – 16:22 224 2 Cor – 1:8–11 193 – 1:19 164 – 2:15 187, 190 – 3:1 188

319

320

Indices

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Gal – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Eph – – – – –

4:3 190 4:3–4 224 4:9 190 4:10 193 4:14 187 4:17 191 5:9 160 5:15 187 8:1 186 8:10 169 9:8 155 11:22 260 11:23 193 11:23–29 193 12:1 169 12:21 174 12:21 243 1:1 187 1:7 188 1:11 180, 186, 193 1:14 260 1:16 198 3:15 193 3:27 192 4:3 152 4:8 162 4:8–9 135, 269 4:8–10 152 5:1 152 5:13 152 5:13–6:10 240 5:19 243 5:21 198 6:8 242 2:1–3 152, 211 2:12 162 4:1–6:20 240 4:19 243 4:22 242, 245

– 5:6 270 – 6:12 198 Phil – 1:6 224 – 1:10 224 – 1:15 188 – 1:28 190, 241 – 2:16 224 – 3:2 88 – 3:4–5 260 – 3:18–19 152 – 3:19 190, 241 – 3:20–21 224 – 4:1–9 240 – 4:5 152 – 4:8 152 – 4:11 152, 156 – 4:11–12 155 – 5:3 152 Col – 2:4–8 152 – 2:6 151 – 2:8 151, 245, 251 – 2:10 152 – 2:18–20 152 – 2:23 152 – 2:22 242 – 3:1–4:6 240 – 3:2 152 – 3:3–4 156, 224 – 3:5 162 – 3:6 270 – 3:10–12 152 1 Thess – 1:3 162 – 1:4–10 132, 268 – 1:9 129, 137, 158, 162 – 1:9–10 133, 135, 163, 256, 269 – 1:10 126, 130, 158, 159, 224, 270, 271 – 2:1–8 152

Bible

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2:2 129, 157 2:6 158, 163 2:9 164 2:14–16 158 2:16 129, 271 2:19 158, 256, 270 3:1 101, 128 3:4 129 3:6 158 3:13 158, 256, 270 4:1–5 162, 163 4:5 162 4:9–12 160, 163 4:11 160, 253 4:13 152, 157, 162, 175 4:13–5:11 157, 158, 265 4:13–18 175 4:14 130, 158, 253, 255, 256, 265, 268 – 4:14–17 253 – 4:15 158, 159, 256, 270 – 4:15–17 191, 198 – 4:16 253 – 4:17 159 – 5:1 120 – 5:1–2 159 – 5:1–11 163 – 5:2 126, 158, 159, 224, 233, 270 – 5:3 157, 159, 163, 253, 256, 261 – 5:4 224 – 5:5–9 158 – 5:6 161, 194, 208, 253, 254 – 5:8 161, 162, 208, 253, 254 – 5:8–10 163 – 5:9 158, 159, 198, 256, 270, 271 – 5:23 158, 203, 256, 270 2 Thess – 1:7–8 224 – 1:7–10 224 – 1:8 162, 227 – 2:1–10 152

– 2:1–12 191 – 2:3 241 – 2:10 245 – 3:14 167 1 Tim – 2:2 239 – 3:15 230 – 3:16 239 – 4:7–8 239 – 6:3 239 – 6:5 155 – 6:5–6 239 – 6:11 239 2 Tim – 2:18 176, 266 – 3:5 239 – 4:5 161 – 4:17 193 Titus – 1:1 239 – 1:12 115, 252 – 2:13 220 – 3:3 244 Heb – 1:8–9 220 – 2:14 198 – 3:13 245 – 4:7 120 – 6:2 108 – 6:8 228 – 9:11 117 – 9:24 117 – 10:29 88 – 10:36–38 225 – 10:39 241 – 12:18 121 – 13:2 226 Jas – 1:14 246 – 4:1 244 – 4:2 242

321

322

Indices

– 4:3 244 – 5:7–8 225 1 Pet – 1: 7 13, 224 – 1:13 161 – 3:20 231 – 4:6 193 – 4:7 161 – 4:13 224 – 5:1–10 240 – 5:8 161 – 5:13 225 2 Pet – 1:1 224, 243 – 1:1–2 213, 220, 222, 235 – 1:1–4 213, 219, 239 – 1:2–4 222 – 1:3 220, 222, 239 – 1:3–4 123, 221, 240 – 1:3–11 214 – 1:3–12 214 – 1:3–15 214 – 1:4 163, 217, 222, 223, 235, 236, 242, 269 – 1:5–7 219, 221, 240 – 1:6 239 – 1:7 239 – 1:8–11 221 – 1:9 228 – 1:10–11 232 – 1:11 220 – 1:12–13 222 – 1:12–21 240 – 1:13 230, 243 – 1:13–15 214, 235 – 1:14 213 – 1:16 215, 220, 224, 235, 256 – 1:16–3:13 214, 221 – 1:16–18 213, 220, 268 – 1:17 220 – 1:19 227

– 1:20 215 – 1:21 220 – 2:1 214, 219, 220, 227, 228, 240, 241, 247, 248, 275 – 2:1–3 214, 240 – 2:2 227, 243, 246, 247 – 2:2–9 227 – 2:3 227, 243 – 2:3–9 232 – 2:3–10 225 – 2:4 227, 256 – 2:4–5 220 – 2:4–8 268 – 2:4–9 213, 240, 256 – 2:5 226, 227, 243 – 2:5–7 227 – 2:5–8 220 – 2:6 227 – 2:7 227, 243 – 2:7–8 243 – 2:8 227 – 2:9 126, 220, 227, 230, 239, 240, 256, 270 – 2:9–10 243 – 2:10 163, 215, 217, 242, 243, 247 – 2:10–13 240 – 2:11 230 – 2:12 208, 241, 242, 246, 254 – 2:13 230, 243, 244, 254 – 2:13–14 247 – 2:13–15 246 – 2:13–22 240 – 2:14 243, 246 – 2:15 243, 267, 268 – 2:18 163, 215, 217, 242, 243, 246, 247 – 2:19 215, 217, 242, 247, 254 – 2:20 220 – 2:21 220, 243 – 2:22 88, 247 – 3:1 213, 214

Bible

– 3:1–2 213, 222, 223, 235 – 3:1–4 214 – 3:1–13 15, 211, 221, 223, 236, 254, 275 – 3:2 220, 222, 224, 243 – 3:3 163, 217, 223, 224, 227, 239, 242 – 3:3–4 214–216, 222, 223, 236, 256 – 3:3–13 236, 256 – 3:4 218, 222–226, 230, 235, 253, 256 – 3:5 220, 222, 226, 235, 268 – 3:5–6 226, 228 – 3:5–7 222, 223, 225, 226 – 3:5–10 215 – 3:5–13 220, 228 – 3:6 220 – 3:7 126, 220, 226, 227, 232–235, 241, 256, 268, 270 – 3:8 222, 228–230 – 3:8–10 222, 223, 228, 229, 234 – 3:9 223, 229–232, 235, 237, 238, 241, 247, 254 – 3:9–10 229, 235 – 3:10 126, 227, 229, 230, 232–235, 256, 270 – 3:11 235, 239, 240 – 3:11–12 234 – 3:11–13 222, 223, 234 – 3:12 222, 224, 227, 228, 230, 233, 235 – 3:12–14 235 – 3:13 222, 223, 232, 235, 243–245, 271 – 3:13–15 244

– 3:14 222, 234, 244, 245, 246 – 3:14–15 231 – 3:14–16 213 – 3:14–18 214, 221, 240 – 3:15 214, 222, 230, 231, 244, 246 – 3:15–16 213 – 3:16 227, 267 – 3:17 222, 243 – 3:17–18 213 – 3:18 220, 227 1 John – 2:17 242 – 4:18 211 – 5:20 220 Jude – 4 220 – 10 246 – 11–12 245 – 12 245 – 18 223 – 21 235 Rev – 3:3 126, 233, 270 – 5:9 220 – 6:14 233 – 14:3–4 220 – 16:14 235 – 16:15 126, 233, 270 – 17:8 241 – 17:11 241 – 21:1 233, 235 – 22:17 224 – 22:20 224, 270

323

324

Indices

Ancient Writings Greek and Latin A Aeschylus – Eum. – 647–49 109 – 647–649 127 C Cicero – Fin. – 1.25 45 – 1.29–72 32 – 1.68 160 – 2.1–119 32 – Nat. D. – 1.22–23 144 – 1.43–56 32 – 1.51–52 144 – 1.54–56 145 – 1.56 147 – 1.57–124 32 – 1.85 143 – 2.45–46 33 – 2.73–74 33 – 2.73–75 145 – 2.118 228 – 2.153 121 – 2.162 237 – Tusc. – 1.36 139 – 1.39–40 139 – 1.46 91 – 1.49 139 – 1.55 32 – 2.15 32 – 3.32–51 32 – 5.88 32, 147

D Dio Chrysostom – Or. – 12.27–28 121 – 12.29 119 – 12.36 39, 105, 253 – 12.36–38 136 – 12.37 39 – 12.42 119 – 14.16 169 Diogenes Laertius – Diog. Laer. – 1.109–115 122 – 6.60 88 – 7.98 169 – 7.134 228 – 7.156–157 141 – 10.3–8 28 – 10.4 38 – 10.9 45 – 10.11 21 – 10.16–22 21 – 10.18 20 – 10.22–26 21 – 10.25 41 – 10.26 38 – 10.31–34 23 – 10.35 82 – 10.35–36 21 – 10.39 237 – 10.63–67 147 – 10.84–116 144 – 10.118 173 – 10.123–124 143 – 10.124 24 – 10.124–25 147 – 10.124–125 205

Ancient Writings

– – – – – – – – – – –

10.127 242 10.128 26 10.130 155 10.132 161 10.133–134 143 10.135 146, 237 10.139 24, 27, 86, 143, 147, 205 10.143 146, 160 10.148 160 10.149 242 10.151 237

E Epictetus – Diatr. – 1.22.14 169 – 4.7.6 116 – 28.5 169 Epicurus – Ep. Hdt. – 10.39 237 – Ep. Men. – 123 25 – 124 24, 205 – 127 242 – 132 27, 28, 161 – K.D. – I 86 – II 24, 86, 204 – III 27, 86 – I–IV 86 – IV 86 – V 27, 86 – VII 160 – X 86 – XIII 160 – XIV 160 – XV 86 – XVI 86 – XVII 86 – XVIII 86

– XX 86, 87 – XXI 86 – XXIX 86, 242 – XXV 86 – XXVI 86 – XXVIII 160 – XXX 86 – XXXI 86 – XXXII 86 – XXXV 237 – XXXV–XXXVIII 86, 87 – Vat. Sent. 19 H Horace – Ep. – 1.4.15

87

L Lucian – Alex. – 17 45 – 25 45 – 38 45 – 47 45 – Ep. – 31.10–11 141 – Peregr. – 13 136, 139 Lucretius – Lucr. – 1.62–79 20 – 2.646–651 145 – 3 267 – 3.1-13 31 – 3.1–30 20 – 3.445–446 205 – 3.445–842 148, 205 – 3.624–633 148 – 3.715 206 – 3.719–724 206

325

326

Indices

– – – – – – – – –

3.779–893 206 3.831–832 148 3.857–858 206 4.311–52 90 5.1–12 31 5.8 20, 31 5.52 20 5.195–234 25 5.834–836 206

P Petronius – Sat. – 23.4–5 35 Philodemus of Gadara – Epig. – 5.112 31 Philostratus – Vit. Apol. – 1.7.2 39 Plato – Ep. – 7.335A 138 Plutarch – Adv. Col. – 1102A 147 – 1102A–B 143 – 1107D–1127E 38 – 1123F 161 – 1124D 160 – 1124D–1125A 208 – 1124E 145, 247 – 1125A 247 – Amat. – 748E–771D 172 – 756E 172 – 762D–E 172 – 769F 173 – An recte dictum sit latenter esse vivendum – 1128A–1130D 38

– De sera – 548A–568A 38, 148, 216, 232, 271 – 548C 237 – 548C–551E 237 – 548D 237 – 549B 238 – 550A–B 271 – 550D–551C 237 – 551C 238 – 551C–552D 237 – 551C–F 238 – 551D–E 238 – 552D–553D 237 – 553D–F 237 – 554D 229 – De superst. – 164E–171F 143 – 165B 143 – Def. orac. – 415F 228 – Stoic. rep. – 1033C 160 – 1034B 117, 124 – 1053B 228 – Suav. viv. – 1086C–1107C 38, 173 – 1089A 245 – 1091CA–1092D 247 – 1091C–1092D 208 – 1098B–C 208 – 1099D 160 – 1103C–1105F 206 – 1105B 206 – 1107C 160 Porphyry – Abst. – 1.51 175

Ancient Writings

Q Quintilian – Inst. – 5.7.35

145

S Seneca – Ben. – IV 2.1–4 34 – IV 19.1–4 34 – Constant. – 15.4 34, 35 – Ep. – 8.7 34 – 8.8 34 – 9.16 228 – 12.11 34 – 13.16–17 34 – 16.7 34 – 17.11 34 – 20.9 34 – 21.9 34 – 23.9 35 – 24.18–19 206 – 24.22–23 206 – 26.8–10 34 – 28.9 34 – 30.14 35

– 30.14–15 34 – 31.11 123 – 41.1 121 – 53.8 161 – 54.4 141 – 66.45–47 34 – 66.47 34 – 68.1–5 160 – 68.10 160 – 79.15 45 – 92.25–26 34 – 95.47 117, 121 – 97.13 34 – 102.26 141 – Tranq. – 5.1–2 107 – 465F–466 160 – Vita B. – 12.4 34 – 13.1–2 208 – 13.2 34 – 19.1 35 T Tacitus – Ann. – 5.8 35 – 16.18 35

327

328

Indices

Jewish J Josephus – Ant. – 1.27–37 68 – 1.70 228 – 8.108 121 – 8.111 117 – 10.262 246 – 10.278 51 – 10.280 51, 145 – 13.62–73 73 – 13.163–180 68 – 13.171–173 68 – 13.173 69, 71 – 13.293 72 – 13.297–98 75 – 13.297–298 72 – 15.371 71 – 17.354 145 – 18.11 68 – 18.11–25 68 – 18.16 258 – 18.16–17 69 – 19.32–33 35 – 19.329 48 – 20.198–201 72 – Bel. – 2.119 68 – 2.120–161 68 – 2.162–166 68 – 2.164–65 71 – 2.165 69 – 2.166 72 – C.Ap. – 2.11 114 – 2.180 51 – 2.213 246

– Vita – 3 51 – 12 71 O OT Pseudepigrapha – 1 En. – 58–9 236 – 10:6 227 – 10:13 227 – 10:16 236 – 10:20–21 236 – 15:4 198 – 15:7 66 – 39:4–8 66 – 45:4–5 235 – 51:4 66 – 51:5 189 – 72:1 235 – 91:3–19 240 – 91:9 227 – 91:16 233, 235 – 94:1–5 240 – 102:8 189 – 104:4 66 – 104:4–6 66 – 104:6 66 – 106:2 92 – 2 Bar. – 20:6 231 – 21:13 191 – 21:20 231 – 48:12–13 229 – 48:39 231 – 48:43 227 – 48:50 191 – 51:10 66 – 84–85 240

Ancient Writings

– 2 En. – 42:1 92 – 65:7 236 – 3 En. – 35:2 92 – 3 Macc – 2:9 117 – 4 Bar – 7:3 92 – 4 Ezra – 7:114 236 – 4 Macc – 1:22 242 – 3:1–2 242 – 5:11 169 – 5:18 239 – 5:25 116 – 7:19 67 – 9:8 67 – 10:15 67 – 13:17 67 – 13:26 239 – 14:14 246 – 14:18 246 – 15:1 239 – 16:25 67 – 17:4 67 – As. Mos. – 74 244 – Jub. – 1:29 235 – 36:3–11 240 – LAE – 21:3 92 – 49:3 228 – Pss. Sol. – 17:40 236 – Sib. Or. – 3:80–92 227 – 6:171–92 227

– T. Isaac – 8:5–6

67

P Philo – Conf. – 114–115 50 – Leg. – 3.106 231 – Mos. – 1.193 191 – 2.263 228 – Opif. – 170–172 50 – Post. – 1–11 50 – 175 161 – Prov. – 1.50 50 Pseudo-Philo – LAB – 4.11 67 – 19.13a 229 Q Qumran – 1QH – 11:29–34 227 – 14:18–19 227 – 1QpHab – 7:5–14 231 – 4QMMT 73 – CD – 4:2b–4 73 R Rabbinic – bB. Mes. – 59b 92 – bBer. – 58a 55

329

330

Indices

– BerR – 2.4 54 – 68.20 52 – bHag. – 14b 54 – 15a 54 – bJeb – 63b 54 – bKetub. – 111b 196 – bMeg. – 14a 92 – bPesah. – 49b 54 – bSabb. – 33b 92 – bSanh. – 90b 64, 196 – 97b 224, 231

– mAvot – 1.3 52, 73 – 2.14 52 – mSanh – 10.1 52, 53 – Targum Neofiti on Gen. – 4:8 55 – yGit. – 48b 52 – 48c 52 – yHag. – 77ab 54 – yPea – 16b 52 – yTer. – 40a 52

Ancient Writings

Christian A Athanasius – Inc. – 2.1 269 Athenagoras – Res. mort. – 9 267 – 19 208, 247 C Clement of Alexandria – Strom. – 1.11 151 – 6.8 151 Clement of Rome – 1 Clem. – 16.3 228 – 23.3 225 – 24.5 205 – 2 Clem. – 11.2 225 – 16:3 234 – 19.4 225 E Epistle of Barnabas – Barn. – 15.4 229 Eusebius – Praep. ev. – 15.5.9 145

I Irenaeus – Haer. – 5.23.2 – 5.28.3

229 229

J John Chrysostom – Hom. – 38.1 106 Justin – Dial. – 81.8 229 N Nag Hammadi – Gos. Thom. – 24 88, 92 – 93 87 T Tertullian – Marc. – 1.2.2 269 – 2.5.1–2 269 – 5.19.7 269 – Res. – 2.1 267 Theophilus – Autol. – 2.4 269 – 3.2–3 269

331

332

Indices

Modern Authors A Adams E. 218, 219, 223–225, 227, 228, 230, 241, 248 Adams M.M. 97, 99 Adams S.A. 100, 106, 107, 117, 120, 122, 134, 136, 141 Aland K. 62 Albini F. 37, 38, 105, 143, 247, 248 Albright W.F. 122 Alfred D. 84 Allison D.C. 82, 91, 92 Allo E.-B. 168, 169, 178, 194, 195, 197, 210 Altmann A. 52 Ameling W. 193, 207 Angeli A. 36 Arrighetti G. 18, 19, 28 Asgeirsson J.Ma. 83, 258 Asher J.R. 179 Asmis E. 30 Attridge H.W. 25, 38, 43 Aune D.E. 13, 252 B Baird W. 164 Balch D.L. 96, 97, 111, 113, 116, 119–121, 123, 136, 141 Barnett P. 164, 171, 176, 179, 185, 187, 188, 190, 192, 193, 196, 197, 209 Barrett Ch.K. 50, 95, 97, 110, 168–170 Barstad H. 47 Bartling H.-M. 24–28 Basore J.W. 34 Bauckham R. 42, 212, 216, 219, 225, 228–231, 233, 234, 239, 241, 245, 247 Bauer W. 62, 66, 92, 104, 106, 109, 112, 117, 123, 126, 159, 167–169, 186, 190, 192, 194, 226, 230, 238, 245 Bauernfeind O. 161, 194, 243 Beck M. 38

Becker H.-J. 52–54, 70 Beer G. 52 Bees R. 50 Beretta M. 20 Berger K. 63, 67, 181, 211, 216, 217, 238, 243 Bernas C. 179 Bertram G. 223 Betz H.D. 11, 14, 77–91, 93, 259, 274 Bichler R. 11 Bieringer R. 177 Blach D.L. 155 Blass F. 65 Boer W. den 50 Bollack J. 18, 22, 43, 145 Bolt P.G. 65 Botha P.J. 60, 68, 70, 73–75, 77 Brenk F.E. 98, 132, 155, 156 Brisebois M. 14, 15 Brown P.J. 179, 180, 202 Brown R.D. 175 Bruce F.F. 96, 101, 103, 127, 129 Büchsel F. 242 Bugh G.R. 11 Bultmann R. 64 Bury R.G. 138 C Callan T. 212, 214, 220–222, 224, 225, 228, 233, 236, 246 Caragounis Ch.C. 12 Carlston Ch.E. 77, 82–84 Casey M. 258 Castner C.J. 30 Chadwick H. 267 Charlesworth J.H. 66 Cherniss H. 117 Chester A. 214, 215, 220 Chilton C.W. 43, 44, 146, 148

Modern Authors

Ciccarelli M. 98, 109, 126, 127, 133, 138 Citti F. 20 Clarke A.D. 166, 201 Clay D. 43 Collins A.Y. 14, 156 Collins R. 193 Colson F.H. 50 Conzelmann H. 103, 106, 112–117, 119–121, 123–127, 129, 168, 169, 174, 185, 193, 195, 196, 203 Cook J.G. 189, 190, 203 Crönert W. 40 Croy N.C. 97–99, 104, 105, 107, 109, 110, 113, 129, 130, 139–141, 147, 148 D Damiani V. 14, 19, 22, 30, 43 Davies W.D. 59, 82 De Lacy Ph.H. 145, 147, 207 Debrunner A. 65 Delgado Á.P. 180 Delobel J. 177 DeMaris R.E. 192 Dentsoras D. 263 DeWitt N.W. 12–14, 21, 39–41, 45, 47, 53, 57, 59, 60, 74, 78, 144, 152–155, 157, 162, 178, 196, 208–211, 252, 274 Dibelius M. 95–97, 107, 108, 111, 113, 117, 119, 121, 123, 127, 131 Dominici C. 30, 31 Dorandi T. 30 Doughty D.J. 176, 193, 204 Downing F.G. 83 Dreyfus F. 67 Dumais M. 84 Dungen W. van den 92 Dunn J.D.G. 158, 170, 180, 202, 225, 230, 232, 235, 243, 270

E Eckstein P. 14 Egger W. 15 Einarson B. 145, 147, 207 Elliger W. 103, 105–107, 128, 132, 164 Eltester W. 95, 96, 119 Endsjø D.Ø. 109, 180, 189, 190 Engels D. 164 Erbì M. 29 Erler M. 17–20, 22, 29, 30, 33, 43, 50 Essler H. 32 Estius G. 210 F Fabris R. 186, 189, 194, 201 Fasholé-Luke E.W. 97 Fatić A. 263 Fauth W. 28, 31 Fee G.D. 170, 171, 176, 179, 182, 184, 185, 187–190, 192–197, 199, 201, 203, 210 Feldman L.H. 40, 42, 46–48, 50, 52, 68, 258 Feldmeier R. 32 Ferguson E. 96, 97, 152, 155, 209, 269 Ferguson J. 13, 30–37, 39, 40, 44, 45, 49, 59, 86, 154, 155 Ferguson M. 31 Festugiére A.-J. 18, 20, 21, 25 Filson F.V. 154 Fiore B. 155, 172–174 Fischel H.A. 52–56, 71 Fish J. 26, 32 Fitzgerald J.T. 13, 14, 30, 41 Fitzmyer J.A. 95, 99, 100, 102, 106, 107, 110, 114, 116, 118, 121–123, 125, 164, 166, 176, 188, 189, 191–193, 208 Flacelière R. 37, 38 Flashar H. 17, 27 Foerster W. 105, 114 Fornberg T. 12, 156, 176, 213, 215, 220, 224, 229, 233, 234, 239, 243

333

334

Indices

Fortna R.T. 164 Frankemölle H. 212–214, 217–219, 221, 236 Freedman H. 54 Frenschkowski M. 83 Fridrichsen A. 12 Friedrich G. 106 Fronberg T. 215 G Gallarte I.M. 189 Gallo I. 40 Gärtner B. 96, 97, 107, 115–118, 120–122 Gasque W.W. 129 Gaventa B.R. 164 Gehring R. 59, 68 Gemelli B. 30 Gempf C. 103 Gera D. 40 Gerson L.P. 19, 32, 145 Gigante M. 30, 36 Gill D.W.J. 103, 107, 164, 201 Glad C.E. 13, 156 Glasswell M.E. 97 Gnilka J. 61, 62, 64, 67, 84, 88, 98, 102, 151, 158, 164 Goodman M. 59, 60, 71–74 Grotius H. 12, 210 Gruen E.S. 42 Grundmann W. 20 Guillemette P. 14, 15 Guittard Ch. 98 Gummere R.M. 34, 45, 117, 141 Gundry R.H. 77 Güremen R. 43 H Haacker K. 95, 119, 120, 123, 135 Hadas-Lebel M. 49, 50 Haenchen E. 103, 104, 109, 110, 114, 118, 119, 122, 124, 135

Hafemann S. 239, 248 Hagner M. 88, 91, 92 Hammerstaedt J. 43, 52 Harder G. 242 Harmon A.M. 45, 136 Harriman K.R. 176, 178–180, 204 Hauck F. 171 Heckel U. 32 Heil J.P. 186, 191, 194, 196 Heinen H. 11 Hellholm D. 156, 176 Helmbold W.C. 172 Hengel M. 14, 40–42, 46–49, 76, 85, 129, 182, 253, 260, 263 Henten W. van 211 Hershbell J.P. 13, 30–37, 39, 40, 44, 45, 49, 59, 86, 152, 154, 155, 269 Hezser C. 41, 42, 52, 56, 63, 185 Hicks R.D. 19, 45, 86, 143, 147, 160, 161, 173, 205 Hiebert D.E. 214, 227, 230, 237, 245–247 Hillar M. 138 Hirsch-Luipold R. 37 Holladay C.R. 154 Holloway P.A. 13, 156 Holte R. 263 Holtz T. 158–162 Horbury W. 59 Horst J. 238 Horst P.W. van der 115, 228, 233, 234 Hull M.F. 192, 200 Hultgren S. 177 Hyman A. 52 I Iannucci A. 20 Insardi-Parente M. 44, 45 Inwood B. 19, 32, 145 Isenberg S. 55, 73

Modern Authors

J Jervell J. 102, 103, 106–108, 110, 117–120, 122, 124, 125, 128, 129 Jipp J.J. 135 Jones Ch.P. 39, 43, 115, 161 Jones H.S. 12, 18, 20, 22–27, 62, 264, 267, 269, 272 Jonsson G.A. 156 Jungkuntz R.P. 45, 160, 263, 267 Jürss F. 23 K Kahmann J. 211, 215–217, 219 Kamesar A. 138 Kaplan Z. 54 Käsemann E. 215 Kechagia-Ovseiko E. 38 Keener C.S. 95, 110, 111 Kilgallen J. 96, 97, 99, 101, 110, 113–115, 117, 119, 123, 131, 134, 135, 140, 142 Kimmich D. 22, 35, 207 King J.E. 139 Kistemaker S.J. 100 Klauck H.-J. 23, 32, 139, 147, 206 Kleinknecht H. 158, 163 Klijn A.F.J. 229 Kloppenborg J.S. 258 Konstan D. 13, 26 Koperski V. 177 Kucicki J. 98, 100 Kümmel W.G. 12 L Laks A. 18, 22, 43, 145 Lampe G.W.H. 154, 157 Lang F. 227 Lataire B. 177 Leipoldt J. 20 Lentzen-Deis F. 129 Lévy C. 50 Levy L. 60, 74

Liddell H.G. 20, 62 Lieberman S. 52, 56 Litwak K.D. 98, 115–117, 120, 121, 126 Logan A.H.B. 165 Lohse E. 18, 25 Long A.A. 17, 22, 23, 25, 27, 205 Longenecker R.N. 129 Longo Auricchio F. 19, 20, 26, 36 Luz U. 82, 87, 88, 91, 92 M MacGillivray E.D. 14 Magris A. 263 Maier J. 47, 49, 70, 71, 73 Main E. 68, 70, 75 Malherbe A.J. 12–14, 21, 29, 99, 120, 154, 156–163, 178, 185, 193–195, 207, 208, 210, 260 Mann Ch.S. 61, 64, 122 Mansoor M. 60, 74 Marcus R. 51, 69 Markschies Ch.J. 263, 267, 269 Marrone L. 36 Marshall P. 166 Marti K. 52 Martin D. 177 Martin R.P. 214, 215, 220 Martin T.W. 14, 156, 160, 161 Maser S. 154 McNeil B. 23 Mecci S. 28 Meeks W.A. 13, 96, 97, 138, 139, 189, 225, 260 Meer M.N. van der 47 Metzger B.M. 62, 119, 182, 197, 233 Meyer B.F. 21, 263 Meyer M.W. 83, 258 Meyer R. 60, 70 Michaelis W. 92 Milligan G. 105 Minar E.L. 172, 173

335

336

Indices

Mitchell M.M. 180–182, 196 Mitsis Ph. 26 Morel P.-M. 23, 43 Morello R. 14 Morgan L. 31 Morissette R. 182, 185, 196, 197 Morrison A.D. 14 Moulton J.H. 105 Müller K. 15, 88, 209 Müller R. 26 Mumprecht V. 39 Munck J. 122, 129, 134 Murphy-O’Connor J. 168, 171, 192 N Nascimento R.N. do 98 Neusner J. 52 Newman H. 59, 68, 70, 72, 73, 75 Neyrey J.H. 97, 104, 127, 137, 140, 146, 148, 211, 214–217, 219, 226, 228–232, 234, 237, 238, 245–247, 249 Norden E. 95, 107, 115 O Oepke A. 187, 190, 192, 241 Omanson R.L. 119 P Padilla O. 100, 101 Pagels E.H. 177 Pahl M. 100 Paratore E. 30 Park J.S. 189 Pathrapankal J. 96 Paton W.R. 31 Paulsen H. 212, 218, 231 Peach M.E. 158, 159 Peláez J. 189 Perkins Ph. 179 Pesch R. 63, 65–67, 97, 99, 100, 102, 105, 107, 110, 119, 120, 158

Picirilli R.E. 212, 234 Piettre R. 98 Pizzorni R.M. 21 Plummer A. 178, 189, 210 Pohlenz M. 95 Preisker H. 233 Q Quell G.

225, 243

R Rackham H. 45, 143, 144 Radice R. 138 Rajak T. 42, 46, 48 Reale G. 17, 20–26, 28, 29, 31, 40, 43–45, 49, 90, 121, 138, 141, 228, 242, 252 Rehkopf F. 65 Rehn A. 32–34, 38, 207 Reicke B. 212, 214, 228, 232 Renan E. 98 Riesner R. 98, 175, 180 Rivkin E. 56 Robertson A.T. 178, 189, 210 Rokeah D. 146, 238 Roskam G. 19 Rouse W.H.D. 31, 145, 206 Rowe Ch.K. 97, 98, 102, 103, 105–107, 114, 117, 138 Russel D.A. 39 S Saldarini A.J. 59–61, 68, 74 Sampley J.P. 14 Sandbach F.H. 172 Sanders E.P. 21, 263 Sanders K. 26, 32 Saunders E.W. 77, 82, 83 Schäfer P. 41, 52 Schaff Ph. 151 Schelkle K.H. 213–215, 227 Schenk W. 180

Modern Authors

Schille G. 102, 106, 112 Schlarb E. 154 Schlier H. 169 Schmid W. 13, 95, 96, 103, 105, 106, 113, 115 Schmidt K.L. 120, 121, 127, 129, 131, 137, 147 Schmithals W. 165, 171, 176, 180, 215 Schmitt A. 49 Schmitz O. 125 Schneider G. 95, 99, 102, 107, 109, 114, 120, 122, 123 Schneider J.-P. 43 Schneider S. 179 Schnelle U. 30, 130, 180 Schottroff L. 176, 177, 181, 192 Schrage W. 165, 167–171, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179–181, 184, 185, 187–193, 195–200, 203, 204 Schrenk G. 225, 243 Schulz S. 171 Schürer E. 40, 41, 48, 49, 60, 70, 71, 73, 75 Schwankl O. 60, 61, 63–67, 70, 75 Schweizer E. 151, 170, 197, 198 Schwemer A.M. 40, 48, 129, 182, 260 Scott R. 20, 62 Sedley D.N. 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 37, 205 Seelig G. 15, 130, 252 Sellin G. 177, 180, 182, 185, 188, 190, 193, 201, 203, 209 Sevrin J.-M. 211 Sharples R.W. 17 Simon M. 25, 46–50, 52, 53, 71, 77, 151 Smith D.L. 108 Smith J.A. 13 Smith M.F. 40, 43, 44, 145 Snodgrass K. 77, 83, 84, 91 Söding Th. 15 Sommerstein A.H. 127 Songer H.S. 85 Spronk K. 47

Squires J.T. 112, 131, 137, 145, 146 Stählin G. 125, 158, 244 Stanton G.R. 39 Stead Ch. 43 Stemberger G. 51, 59, 60, 68, 70, 73, 75 Stowers S.K. 155, 166 Strack H.L. 51 Strecker G. 30, 130 Sturdy J. 59 Szymik S. 92, 178, 193, 197, 202 T Taylor B. 31 Taylor V. 62, 64, 65, 67 Tenney M.C. 129 Thackeray H.S.J. 51, 69, 228 Thiselton A.C. 176, 181, 187, 197, 203 Tomlin G. 156, 173–175, 178, 195, 204, 206–208, 210 Torrance Th.F. 127, 132, 269 Troyer K. de 83, 258 Tsakiropoulou-Summers A. 31 Tsouna V. 14 U Ulrichsen J.H. 176–178, 195, 199, 203, 204 Unnik W.C. van 50, 51 Usener H. 19, 26, 50, 142, 143, 145, 146, 160, 175, 198, 205, 208, 237 V VanderKam J.C. 60 Viviano B.T. 78, 84, 85 Vogliano A. 36 Vögtle A. 212–214, 218, 220, 227, 229–231, 233, 234, 239, 245, 246 Vorster W.S. 56 Vos J.S. 178, 187, 188, 192, 193, 202, 203, 210

337

338

Indices

W Wald S.G. 54 Walker W.O. JR 191 Wallach B.P. 206 Warren J. 14, 23, 24, 27, 33 Watson D.F. 212, 214, 220–222, 224, 225, 228, 233, 236, 246 Wedderburn A.J.M. 165, 176–178, 201, 204, 209 Weiß K. 169 Welskopf E.Ch. 25 Wette W.M.L. de 178, 210 Wettstein J.J. 12, 216 Whitaker G.H. 50 White J.R. 192 Whitley Ch.F. 47 Wick P. 15

Wilckens U. 100, 134 Wilken R.L. 263 Wilson J.H. 176–178, 187, 199 Winter B.W. 166 Witherington B. III 95, 103, 105, 107, 110, 120, 166, 172, 181, 187, 192, 196 Wolfson H.A. 49, 50, 52, 138 Woolf R. 27, 28 Z Zeller D. 176, 177, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191, 193, 195–197, 202 Zimmermann H. 61 Zmijewski J. 97, 100, 102, 111, 118, 122, 129 Zweck D. 111–114, 131